New drink-drive limit in doubt

D'Peoples Voice

Looks like some of the 40 publicans within FF are making their voice heard

Transport Minister Noel Dempsey's plan to reduce drink-driving limits appears to be in doubt this morning following a stormy meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party last night.

However, up to 25 Fianna Fáil backbenchers reportedly spoke out against the move at last night's meeting in Leinster House.

They claimed the reduction would have a devastating impact on rural pubs and communities.

this is a throwback to Flan Garvey
Councillor wants 'special understanding' for rural drink-drivers

05/01/2006 - 17:18:50
A Co Clare councillor has said rural dwellers should be excused from drink-driving.

Fianna Fáil Councillor Flan Garvey said people who visit pubs as their only social outlet are familiar with local roads and drive more carefully and slowly, especially when they have had a few drinks.

southie

its such a load of rubbish, im from a rural area the pubs are already empty, the reason for it is the lack of alternative transport to and from pubs, people dont want to drink and drive we are not morons we know the dangers, the issue shouldn't be the amount of alchol your allowed, who goes to the pub for one or two drinks anyways. When you go out your our for the night.

What they should be focusing on is getting a better rural transport service. or should that be "a rural transport service" alot of these whinging ff back benchers own pubs, wouldn't it be more in their line to fork out a few quid for a minbus service for their customers to make sure they get home safe, not fighting so that their customers can have a few innocent beers and drive home.

Cookie_Monster

Typical reaction from the multiple vested interests in the government. haven't heard anything from the drinks companies complaining bout it yet cos they know its sensible.

Should have been brought in long ago and enforced too. May not make a huge impact on the number of fatalities but i'd imagine the cost of damage and injuries sustained would make it worth it. And these are never even reported in the news for the most part

ednwireland

enforce the existing law, stop changing laws to show you've done something and then not enforce it

Zoney

Don't you just love Fianna Fail politicians.

NAMA - oh well we have to vote as we're told.

Stopping people from driving when under the influence of alcohol (however little) - time to vote against the party.

People up and down the country need to get it into their heads that no matter how good they think their local FF politician is, any integrity he may have (bear with me) is entirely negated by their participation in a party that does not have it. This nonsense of FF politicians pretending to be the opposition needs to stop. If they genuinely find the party policies objectionable - then what does it say about them that they remain in the party?

daymobrew

southie wrote: »

its such a load of rubbish, im from a rural area the pubs are already empty, the reason for it is the lack of alternative transport to and from pubs, people dont want to drink and drive we are not morons we know the dangers, the issue shouldn't be the amount of alchol your allowed, who goes to the pub for one or two drinks anyways. When you go out your our for the night.

Are people in rural areas unable to drive to a pub and not drink?

In the absence of a rural transport network, have you thought about carpooling to the pub? You could rotate the designated driver. My mates and I have managed to do this in suburbia.

robbie_998

IMO the limit should be

0

seamus

There's actual important things going on and all the FFer's are worried about is whether some old boy can go down the pub and have a drink every night. That sums up Irish politics.

I love the way they all seem to ignore the fact that you neither have to go to the pub nor drink to be "social".

P_1

TBH how much difference will dropping the limit from 80 to 50 actually cause?

The only argument I've heard is that you won't be able to drive the morning after if you've had about 2 scoops the night before.

shaymousse

You wont be able to drive the morning after if you have been out the night before. It takes one hour for each unit to leave your body after you have stopped drinking so if you have a late night your screwed. However it should be lowered, the number of lives it will save should be enough to get the FFers to vote for it. But FF been FF this wont happen. Fair play to Dempsey for trying to do the right thing.

corktina

pithater1 wrote: »

TBH how much difference will dropping the limit from 80 to 50 actually cause?

The only argument I've heard is that you won't be able to drive the morning after if you've had about 2 scoops the night before.

proven to lower the death rate in other countries and Ireland are amongst the last few NOT to make this move. NOONE should drive after two pints.

DarkJager

robbie_998 wrote: »

IMO the limit should be

0

That's all well and good until some poor bastard who simply enjoys 1 or 2 glasses of wine in his own house one night will get bagged the next morning. People need to think logically when it comes to this issue, its too easy to come out waving the finger and calling for zero limits.

L1011

...actually, if anything, the proposal of a fine and mega-points for the first offence is probably going to lead to MORE drink driving I'd think. Dempsey's approaching this wrong.

Reginald P. DuM

I can't honestly think of a single compelling reason not to cut the limit from 80 down to zero. Why stop at 50, what is the point like. Surley if the statistics prove that reducing it by 30ml/g will reduce road fatalities by a certain amount, then eliminating it altogether would have an even further reduction. Win win non?

Rural TD's getting their knickers in a twist about rural pubs who are already crippled is laughable after all the nonsense they have ignored within the FF party. Sometimes I am genuinely an embarrassed to be Irish.

We need a leader like that Italian dude!!

P_1

corktina wrote: »

proven to lower the death rate in other countries and Ireland are amongst the last few NOT to make this move. NOONE should drive after two pints.

What I meant was somebody having 2 pints at 8pm and then being over the limit at 8am THE MORNING AFTER. Not having 2 pints then driving home.

I'd imagine the limit won't be lowered to 0 due to alcohol being found in certain medicines.

vinylrules

Reginald P. DuM wrote: »

I can't honestly think of a single compelling reason not to cut the limit from 80 down to zero. Why stop at 50, what is the point like. Surley if the statistics prove that reducing it by 30ml/g will reduce road fatalities by a certain amount, then eliminating it altogether would have an even further reduction. Win win non?

I can think of lots of reasons why we shouldn't tie up scarce Garda resources arresting and processing people who might have had a drink or two but who otherwise are driving perfectly. There is plenty of scientific evidence that dramatically lowering speed limits would save lives - but that wouldn't be acceptible either would it? Also, hands-free phones are just as dangerous for drivers as hand-held but they weren't banned. Virtually, all rules of the road are about compromise. The drink drive limit is just one of many.

jimmycrackcorm

vinylrules wrote: »

I can think of lots of reasons why we shouldn't tie up scarce Garda resources arresting and processing people who might have had a drink or two but who otherwise are driving perfectly. There is plenty of scientific evidence that dramatically lowering speed limits would save lives - but that wouldn't be acceptible either would it? Also, hands-free phones are just as dangerous for drivers as hand-held but they weren't banned. Virtually, all rules of the road are about compromise. The drink drive limit is just one of many.

Excellent points there especially on the reduction in speed limits. As for moving to a zero then you'd might as well ban mouthwash and sherry trifle also.

vinylrules

By the way, the Canadians have done the most comprehensive study on lowering limits from 80mg to 50mg. It should be required reading for anyone who expresses an opinion on this matter A few quotes below
Link here:

http://www.aim-digest.com/gateway/pages/drive/articles/BAClower.htm


Great hopes and expectations have been placed on the potential of lower BAC limits. The fact that research has failed to demonstrate a strong, consistent effect raises the question, "Why?"

...The report then studies the effect of lowering BAC levels from 80mg to 50mg, as has been adopted by many EU members; Regarding the EU the report states that "it is perplexing that the push for harmonisation of BAC limits has focussed exclusively on the limit and not the sanctions associated with it. Pressure to adopt the same limit in so many countries where the penalty structure is profoundly different seems curious indeed from a traffic safety perspective." The report states that other actions with a similar risk as driving with a BAC of 50mg such as travelling at 65 km per hour in a 60km limit would not be subject to criminal prosecution or sanctions. (40 mph in a 37mile limit)

Steviemak

robbie_998 wrote: »

IMO the limit should be

0

That makes no sense what so ever. Are you prepared to get banned after eating a bit of christmas cake or driving into work the morning after having a glass of wine with your dinner? Cause I'm not.

Its the morning after that I worry about. Just tonight I had 3 bottles of Miller watching the football. If I got stopped in morning I would be over the limit of zero.

By the way does anyone know how long you would need to stay off the road after 6 pints on a Friday night if the limit was reduced to .5?

Like the huge majority of people I never drink and drive - not even one - bit I do drive the following day.

vinylrules

corktina wrote: »

proven to lower the death rate in other countries and Ireland are amongst the last few NOT to make this move. NOONE should drive after two pints.

Fact: There is no relationship between actual drink drive limits and road fatalities within Europe. None whatsoever, whatever way you look at it.

Fact: Ireland is now the 6th safest country out of the 27 in the EU while Britain is no 3 after Sweden and the Netherlands.

Fact: Both Ireland and the UK have the 80mg limit while some countries with 50 and even 20 have appalling death rates, much worse than ours. Also, the UK, Canada, US, and New Zealand among others have the 80mg limit and all have resisted lowering the limits thus far, despite huge pressure to do so.

(Sorry, I'm too lazy to search for, and paste the links proving above facts but if anyone insists I'll do it!)

jhegarty

Reginald P. DuM wrote: »

I can't honestly think of a single compelling reason not to cut the limit from 80 down to zero.

Mouthwash ?
Driving 12 hours after 1 pint ?
Sherry trifle ?

steph1

Listen people moaning about not being able to go out to the pub as they have no way of getting home. There are plenty of taxis and hackneys in rural areas. There are also plenty of drivers with minibuses who could easily set up something with the local pub and have a couple of runs and drop offs on the way home. And its up to people to go and get the number of a taxi driver and have him or her bring them home. The publicans should also do their bit and get a list of all the taxis and hackneys in their areas and put their numbers on display in the bar and let the punter ring the one they want.
Now some rural taxi drivers prefer to operate in the bigger towns especially at the weekends as they will get quite a lot of fares over a short period of time and that is their decision.
I have to agree that when I have a few cans myself I am also worried about driving the next day but as I work for myself I dont have to go out early in the morning so that is ok for me.
Someone said earlier can people not go out and not drink. Now while not everyone does drink alcohol for some people that is the one and only reason why they go to a pub. Have to be honest I dont bother going to pubs unless I am having a drink. The only other time would be at lunchtime to have some food and I would not be drinking then anyway.
People just need to organise themselves. I know a lot will say that taxis are too dear but if you become a regular punter of a local driver you never know they might give ya a couple of euros off the fare.
I am noticing a trend here in the west where people both old and young seem to be buying loads of drink in the likes of lidl and aldi and special offers in tesco etc and it does seem that more people are staying at home drinking. Some of these people may very well live on their own and then have no interaction with their neighbours or friends or just simply to meet new people especially in the summer months when people do tend to go out more.

BrianD

jhegarty wrote: »

Mouthwash ?
Driving 12 hours after 1 pint ?
Sherry trifle ?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to suggest that consuming mouthwash would put you over the limit? It doesn't. You would heard about it if it did.

vinylrules wrote:

Fact: There is no relationship between actual drink drive limits and road fatalities within Europe. None whatsoever, whatever way you look at it.

I am gobsmacked by how you could make a statement like this. Please do go get the facts and figures to back this up. Even so, what's your point?

How alcohol impairs human reactions is well documented, Therefore there is a direct relationship between the alcohol limit and road fatalities and injuries. There are umpteen scientific studies out there to back this up.

Hopefully, we'll see this new limit pushed through ASAP for the betterment of the community and road safety. Oddly, we are seeing FF back benchers uniting to "fight" against this new limit. Highly unusual as they dont seem to have the balls to unite and do much else for the community. Hopefully, people will remember not to vote for these self serving idiots next time round.

jhegarty

BrianD wrote: »

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to suggest that consuming mouthwash would put you over the limit? It doesn't. You would heard about it if it did.

Mouthwash that contains alcohol will put your over a Zero limit.

BrianD

pithater1 wrote: »

TBH how much difference will dropping the limit from 80 to 50 actually cause?

The only argument I've heard is that you won't be able to drive the morning after if you've had about 2 scoops the night before.

Not strictly true. If you use the unit measurement system. Two pints of strong lager would be 6 units. This would require 6 hours to go through your system. Assuming that you left the pub at 11.30 you would be OK to drive at 8am the next morning. There are other factors that may affect this so it is a generalisation.

One of the things that we are very poor on - and the pubs and dribks industry should be doing this - is educating people on how to manage and understand their drinking. In NZ they have some very good info in pubs and elsewhere explaining how you can manage your alcohol intake and be able (or unable) to drive. There are still people in this country that believe that having a stong cup of coffee will sober you up. Obviously not.

BrianD

jhegarty wrote: »

Mouthwash that contains alcohol will put your over a Zero limit.

Of course it would if the Gardai breathlysed you at your bathroom door.

The fact of the matter that this is just an urban myth that people are nabbed for drink driving after using mouthwash. Research has shown that after taking the dosage on the mouthwash label that you would be 0.43 immediately (lethal proportions), below the legal limit within 5 min and undetectable after 18 min (in a person that had a zero level in the first place). Even if you happened to be nabbed after a quick gargle and failed a roadside breath test, a blood or urine test would demonstrate that you were not above the limit.

The roadside breath test is only an assessment. It is not what a conviction is based on.

While a zero level would be desirable, it would make sense to have a 0.01 to 0.03 to allow for the Listerine fans.

heyjude

Steviemak wrote: »

That makes no sense what so ever. Are you prepared to get banned after eating a bit of christmas cake or driving into work the morning after having a glass of wine with your dinner? Cause I'm not.

I assume you eat your Christmas cake raw(unbaked) then, if you are worried about this ? As alcohol(ethanol) has a boiling point of 78.5° C and almost any type of cake would be baked at a much higher temperature than this, so the alcohol would have evaporated off. As for a glass of wine with your dinner putting you over the limit the following morning, well unless your dinner and leaving for work are literally just a couple of hours apart, I don't see how a glass of wine at 7pm would put you over the limit at 8am the following morning.

corktina

Zero alcohol is about people taking responsibilitty for their own actions. Its stated on the bottle on medications "do not use machinery after taking this" or whatever.... so dont drive if you have taken anything such as this or a pint (or sherry trifle,xmas cake or mouthwash if you want to make that argeuement)

tschh simples.

vinylrules

BrianD wrote: »

.
I am gobsmacked by how you could make a statement like this. Please do go get the facts and figures to back this up. Even so, what's your point?

How alcohol impairs human reactions is well documented, Therefore there is a direct relationship between the alcohol limit and road fatalities and injuries. There are umpteen scientific studies out there to back this up.
.

You're not reading carefully. Let me explain. I said there is no relationship between the various different drink drive limits within Europe and actual road fatalities per thousand. This is simply a fact.
Let me explain further: There are countries with much lower and even zero limits with much higher fatalities than ours; and there are countries like the UK which is the third best performing country when it comes to road deaths. We're the sixth best performing country out of 27 EU countries. Again, the actual limits which pertain to each country have little bearing on the deaths per thousand. Enforcement of the limits, whatever they may be, appears to be a much stronger determinant.

You might expect all of the countries with much lower limits to be the best performers - but they're not, while two out of three countires with the higher (80mg) limit - i.e. Ireland and the UK, are in the top six. For that reason, enforcing the current limits may be much more effective than bringing in a lower limit which might be unenforceable due to lack of resources etc. Road deaths are down almost 50 on this time last year - which is an incredible achievement. Against that huge success story, (which is clearly being played down in the current debate) a headline stating that "10 lives will be lost in the next year" if the lower limit is not implemented seems almost redundant. .

seamus

BrianD wrote: »

Of course it would if the Gardai breathlysed you at your bathroom door.

The fact of the matter that this is just an urban myth that people are nabbed for drink driving after using mouthwash. Research has shown that after taking the dosage on the mouthwash label that you would be 0.43 immediately (lethal proportions), below the legal limit within 5 min and undetectable after 18 min (in a person that had a zero level in the first place). Even if you happened to be nabbed after a quick gargle and failed a roadside breath test, a blood or urine test would demonstrate that you were not above the limit.

Mythbusters tested this. Gargle with mouthwash, immediately try breathalyser and it came up at some ridiculous level like 12.30 (i.e. you'd be dead).
After 5 or so minutes, the results are as you state. In the massively unlikely event that you tested positive at the roadside after mouthwash, any Garda would be more than happy to wait 20 minutes for you to try again rather than drag you down the station and have a whole pile of time wasted.

While a zero level would be desirable, it would make sense to have a 0.01 to 0.03 to allow for the Listerine fans.

Not necessarily for that, but for a variety of other reasons such as calibration of the machine, small doses of alcohol in other foodstuffs - such as Xmas pudding, etc etc.

I.S.T.

corktina wrote: »

proven to lower the death rate in other countries and Ireland are amongst the last few NOT to make this move. NOONE should drive after two pints.

But two pints already puts you over the limit.

I.S.T.

vinylrules wrote: »

By the way, the Canadians have done the most comprehensive study on lowering limits from 80mg to 50mg. It should be required reading for anyone who expresses an opinion on this matter A few quotes below
Link here:

http://www.aim-digest.com/gateway/pages/drive/articles/BAClower.htm


Great hopes and expectations have been placed on the potential of lower BAC limits. The fact that research has failed to demonstrate a strong, consistent effect raises the question, "Why?"

...The report then studies the effect of lowering BAC levels from 80mg to 50mg, as has been adopted by many EU members; Regarding the EU the report states that "it is perplexing that the push for harmonisation of BAC limits has focussed exclusively on the limit and not the sanctions associated with it. Pressure to adopt the same limit in so many countries where the penalty structure is profoundly different seems curious indeed from a traffic safety perspective." The report states that other actions with a similar risk as driving with a BAC of 50mg such as travelling at 65 km per hour in a 60km limit would not be subject to criminal prosecution or sanctions. (40 mph in a 37mile limit)

The conclusion of this study says:

Our critical review of the research failed to provide strong, consistent and unqualified support for lowering the BAC limit for drivers in Canada. Therefore, it is our opinion that lowering the BAC limit from 80 mg/dL to 50 mg/dL would have little, if any, impact on the magnitude of the alcohol-crash problem in Canada.

Sponge Bob

Ireland dropped its road deaths a lot and all the while the limit was pegged at 80 . 50 will not get us anywhere on its own and 0 is crazy , mouthwash will put you off the road

More enforcement of existing laws is how .

More of same like confiscating L Drivers cars if they are found driving alone or without the L plates on will make a difference . An R plate or 90 limit will also make a difference .

Forcing pre 1979 drivers many of whom who never had to pass a test to go back into the system if they hit 8 points and complete the test within 3 months or they are off the road , what goodness .

These are all practical and easy to enforce and will all make a difference .

Stark

Zero limit is ridiculous. Evidence would suggest that 0.02 is ideal as it leaves room for trace amounts of alcohol (Christmas pudding, over-ripe fruit and the like) but doesn't carry a measurable increase in risk over having no alcohol in one's system.

jhegarty

What we need is better enforence for the rules.

It's been 3 years since last passed a random checkpoint. That's not good enough.

Cookie_Monster

To all those idiots people who think you can get done for eating trifle/christmas cake/ Bailey's cheescake. The alcohol is burned off when cooking it FFS so this WILL NEVER BE AN ISSUE

:rolleyes:

BrianD

Sponge Bob wrote: »

... and 0 is crazy , mouthwash will put you off the road

Sorry, I need to correct you there. This is wrong. It would not put you off the road. Can we stop trotting out this inaccuracy?

More enforcement of existing laws is how .
.

I fully agree with you on this.

jhegarty

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

To all those idiots people who think you can get done for eating trifle/christmas cake/ Bailey's cheescake. The alcohol is burned off when cooking it FFS so this WILL NEVER BE AN ISSUE

:rolleyes:

I am guessing you don't know how to make a trifle.

Mucco

vinylrules wrote: »

Fact: There is no relationship between actual drink drive limits and road fatalities within Europe. None whatsoever, whatever way you look at it.

(Sorry, I'm too lazy to search for, and paste the links proving above facts but if anyone insists I'll do it!)

Can you paste the links, would make interesting reading.

M

I.S.T.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

To all those idiots people who think you can get done for eating trifle/christmas cake/ Bailey's cheescake. The alcohol is burned off when cooking it FFS so this WILL NEVER BE AN ISSUE

:rolleyes:

According to these two links the "idiots" might be right to have a concern:

http://www.ochef.com/165.htm

http://homecooking.about.com/library/archive/blalcohol12.htm

seamus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

To all those idiots people who think you can get done for eating trifle/christmas cake/ Bailey's cheescake. The alcohol is burned off when cooking it FFS so this WILL NEVER BE AN ISSUE

:rolleyes:

Christmas pud involves cooking the pudding and then liberally soaking a tipple of choice into it, a number of times over a period of months. Make no mistake that a good christmas pud can be rocket fuel.

Cookie_Monster

jhegarty wrote: »

I am guessing you don't know how to make a trifle.

No I don't, cos their manky and I'd never darken my house with them

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

According to these two links the "idiots" might be right to have a concern:

http://www.ochef.com/165.htm

http://homecooking.about.com/library/archive/blalcohol12.htm

Fine, use science to prove me wrong:D
I'm off to get hammered on some cheesecake

steph1

jhegarty wrote: »

What we need is better enforence for the rules.

It's been 3 years since last passed a random checkpoint. That's not good enough.

God where do you live?:D The gardai are very noticeable by the presence in the west of Ireland. They are out when people are going to work and I have seen people just being pulled in at random on the side of the roads at various times of the day and night.

vinylrules

Mucco wrote: »

Can you paste the links, would make interesting reading.

M

Sorry didn't see this until now. OK, here is a chart showing road deaths per million in various OECD countries.

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1004936

Now look at a chart showing the various drink drive limits around the Europe

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drink-driving_limits_in_Europe.png


See? No real relationship between the drink drive limits and fatality rates. Just to take one example, the UK (with 80mg limit) has 62 deaths per million, while Switzerland with a lower drink drive limit (50mg) has 82 deaths per million. Lower drink drive limits but higher death rates. Gives the lie that low limits are a panacea for reducing deaths. (The UK, by the way is regarded as a best-practice country regarding road deaths - even with the higher drink drive limit.)

BrianD

vinylrules wrote: »

Sorry didn't see this until now. OK, here is a chart showing road deaths per million in various OECD countries.

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1004936

Now look at a chart showing the various drink drive limits around the Europe

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drink-driving_limits_in_Europe.png


See? No real relationship between the drink drive limits and fatality rates. Just to take one example, the UK (with 80mg limit) has 62 deaths per million, while Switzerland with a lower drink drive limit (50mg) has 82 deaths per million. Lower drink drive limits but higher death rates. Gives the lie that low limits are a panacea for reducing deaths. (The UK, by the way is regarded as a best-practice country regarding road deaths - even with the higher drink drive limit.)

I'm sorry but this does not proove your point whatsoever. All you are showing drink driving limits in countries and road deaths in different countries (irrespective how the death was caused). As we know, alcohol is not the only reason for road deaths but one of the reasons. Even is speed was the primary reason for road deaths in Ireland there is absolutely no reason why the BAC should not be reduced as it will reduce fatalities/injuries even if alcohol is not the main safety issue in that country.

IrishSpeedTraps - you are really on a hiding to nowhere with your cookery arguement. I would have thought that you would know how a person is prosecuted for being over the limit. Having said that, if you are aware that food you are presented with has a high alcohol content then the smart person would avoid it if driving.

I'm watching Primetime as I type and some muppet has been saying that everybody is fine after 2 pints for driving (and if they aren't they shouldn't be drinking in the first place). That's grand. I'm sure he wouldn't mind if the two pinter drove his kids home from school. Perhaps if he was going on holiday that if the bus driver had a pint or two or maybe even the pilot of his aircraft?

Mucco

vinylrules wrote: »

Fact: There is no relationship between actual drink drive limits and road fatalities within Europe. None whatsoever, whatever way you look at it.)

vinylrules wrote: »

Sorry didn't see this until now. OK, here is a chart showing road deaths per million in various OECD countries.

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1004936

Now look at a chart showing the various drink drive limits around the Europe

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drink-driving_limits_in_Europe.png


See? No real relationship between the drink drive limits and fatality rates. Just to take one example, the UK (with 80mg limit) has 62 deaths per million, while Switzerland with a lower drink drive limit (50mg) has 82 deaths per million. Lower drink drive limits but higher death rates. Gives the lie that low limits are a panacea for reducing deaths. (The UK, by the way is regarded as a best-practice country regarding road deaths - even with the higher drink drive limit.)

I was hoping that such a strong initial statement would be backed up by a few properly researched references. A quick google scholar search has found various peer reviewed papers that disagree with you.

L1011

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

But two pints already puts you over the limit.

Not if you're 17 stone and 6'5" it doesn't. Just. If you knocked the two of them it might (for a while), but drinking them over a normal amount of time means the first one has started to metabolise also.

Sponge Bob

I have selected some points . Please note the death toll per annum was a lot higher than now and the last full years figures were 2006

http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/upload/File/822_RSA_Strategy_ENG.pdf

Primary Causes
The primary causes of road collisions, deaths and injuries are:

• Speed inappropriate for, or inconsistent with, the prevailing circumstances or driving conditions
• Impaired driving through alcohol, drugs (prescription or non-prescription), or fatigue
• Failure to use or properly use seatbelts and child safety restraints
• Unsafe behaviour towards / by vulnerable road users (pedestrians, motorcyclists, cyclists, young children
• and older people).

Nothing is being done about drugs at all and of course building lots of motorway service areas will deal with fatigue, especially if you drive between Dublin and Cork .

Fatalities per annum were about 400 when that was written ( 2006 stats)

HOWEVER road deaths dropped to 338 in 2007 and to 276 in 2008 . That is a massive drop , especially as it was 400-450 per annum from 1984 to 2006 ...and was 600 in the early 1970s .

The number has not been near 338 since the 1960s and probably not near 276 since the 1950s ( see chart page 8 of 100 in RSA report) which does not show those statistics.

However we have another problem in Ireland , one that predates cars .

http://www.nosp.ie/mortality_statistics.pdf ( see page 2)

Suicide. Suicide has risen drastically in recent years. I believe the taboo on reporting was gone by 1990 and that suicide is accurately reported nowadays .

We have about 500 suicides a year nowadays , nearly TWICE as many as road deaths overall .

It is also safe to say that suicide nowadays can be done as suicide by car , the abnormal number of single car crashes in rural areas like Donegal is likely related to suicide as well as ****e roads.

As nothing can be done about suicide by car and as nothing is being done about drugs and driving I see the drink driving limit as a soft target .

I do not believe that the social disruption that will occur if the limit is dropped to 50mg in rural areas is worth it, urban areas are now rotten with taxis which has changed the dynamic there but not so rural areas .

For every life saved by lowering the limit to 50mg there will be henceforth be a corresponding increase in mortality caused by suicide and depression and that primarily caused by isolation in rural areas .

You will win 50 lives and you wil lose 50 lives as those who feel trapped and isolated kill themselves .

Modern technology is well capable of enforcing better behaviour in the cohort who speed , let's go there instead .

daymobrew

steph1 wrote: »

I am noticing a trend here in the west where people both old and young seem to be buying loads of drink in the likes of lidl and aldi and special offers in tesco etc and it does seem that more people are staying at home drinking. Some of these people may very well live on their own and then have no interaction with their neighbours or friends or just simply to meet new people especially in the summer months when people do tend to go out more.

These people must need alcohol more than the socialisation that a pub visit provides.

Sponge Bob

Look at it another way. 10 years ago they would not get absolutely sloshed in case they got barred from the pub, now they get absolutely sloshed and show up in the chipper at closing time causing trouble .

Problem drinkers and pubs are decoupled. Once they were somewhat related but not any more and certainly not if they are under 30.

Hockney

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I
We have about 500 suicides a year nowadays, nearly TWICE as many as road deaths overall .

I do not believe that the social disruption that will occur if the limit is dropped to 50mg in rural areas is worth it, urban areas are now rotten with taxis which has changed the dynamic there but not so rural areas .

For every life saved by lowering the limit to 50mg there will be henceforth be a corresponding increase in mortality caused by suicide and depression and that primarily caused by isolation in rural areas.

Excellent point Spongebob, and one which is often overlooked.

TDs hailing from rural areas are often portrayed as mad in the head for being against lowering of limits, by people (like Irish Independent headline writers: "10 PEOPLE WILL DIE IN NEXT xx MONTHS") suggesting that the Government are killing people by not lowering limits.

These social isolation issues are very real.

It's difficult to quantify how many more lives would supposedly be lost with the limit at 80mg (which the Canadian study seems to refute), versus increased suicides as a result of a lack of social outlet, and no longer having the option of a pint with the lads and driving back home down the boreen, with the limit at 50mg.

Something TDs should be pushing for is mandatory breath testing at collision scenes which would help with quantifying these figures.

These TDs were indeed way off the mark never opening their mouths and happily towing the party line for issues such as NAMA, cervical cancer vaccine etc. But I believe they have a valid argument for not reducing the alcohol limit.

And I sure as hell don't want to lose my licence for having 4 pints on Tuesday night, doing all the right things by organising a lift/taxi home, only to be nabbed the next morning on the way to work. An automatic driving ban in this case is, imo, far too harsh a punishment.