Spineless FF Backbenchers

RATM

I really cant believe the gall of this lot. Despite overwhelming evidence that a 50mg limit will save lives and prevent hundreds of injuries they managed to get their way with Dempsey and Cowen at the parlimentary meeting the other night. The latest spiel is 'we are waiting 18 months for Northern Ireland so we can implement it together'. What a load of crap, are we not a Republic? Since when do we have to wait on NI to implement laws so we can do so ourselves?
This was a massive climdown by Dempsey and even he's too spineless to admit it.

And the backbenchers- they should be ashamed of themselves. This motley crew clearly feel indebted to their publican friends who supply them with free rooms for their clinics. In the last year we have seen a government abolish the cervical cancer vaccine, introduce NAMA and bail out the banks and developers. But not once did these backbenchers have any bottle to vote against the government on issues of national importance. Not once did they rise up in disgust at taking away a vital vaccine for young women. But when it comes to drink-driving and saving peoples lives then they go sabre-rattling and get their own way.

This country really is doomed if our politicans priorities are ensuring people can still drink and drive. There are thousands of people all around the country who have had their lives torn apart by accidents caused by those too irresponsible to be behind a wheel. But our backbenchers dont care about this (and the costs to the taxpayer). All they care about is making sure their publican friends can make a few bob. Thats the same publicans who are virtually the only industry in Ireland not to reduce prices during the recession and continue their long held tradition of ripping us off.

Spineless Cnuts.

Borneo Fnctn

What are those politicians playing at?

PirateShampoo

What overwhelming evidence? Please show me.

This isn't going to stop drink driving, its just going to punish the regular law abiding Joe, who will now be to scared to get into his car after the smallest amount of drink.

Real drink drivers are creatures of habits, they don't care if the law is 0 or 80mg, they are going to get into there car pissed either way. And will keep doing so until they are caught. And even if they are that wont stop them from doing it again because theres little chance of getting stopped a second time.

Ive been driving for 5 years now and only ever been Breathalyzed once.

This country needs another up-rising.

I.S.T.

RATM wrote: »

Despite overwhelming evidence that a 50mg limit will save lives and prevent hundreds of injuries

Can you link to the evidence please? I've heard people mention this a lot but have not seen anything concrete yet.

AnonoBoy

Looks like those clowns in Congress have done it again.

What a bunch of clowns.

I.S.T.

This report from the Traffic Injury Research Foundation in Canada concludes 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.

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

I believe this debate is just another trick to distract people from more serious issues such as the economy.

super_furry

It's sickening that the only this these pathetic politicians can bring themselves to care about is helping the publicans. There's a silence over expenses, hospital closures, wage-cuts, job losses but as soon as you threaten the publicans, there's an outcry from them.

AckwelFoley

Nothing spineless there im afraid. Representing the people.

People that cause fatal road accidents are always well over the limit, multiples of what the current limit is.

Ive known people killed and people n accidents they caused, they were all fluthered drunk..

I.S.T.

super_furry wrote: »

There's a silence over expenses, hospital closures, wage-cuts, job losses...

Exactly, this stupid arguement over drink drive limits is all to distract you from these very real issues

Aidric

It should be zero. There you go, end of, no ambiguity.

Dankoozy

they should change the limit to -1mg/l so everyone would have to take a few mg of antimatter alcohol before driving the car just to be sure

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

hi_im_fil

Aidric wrote: »

It should be zero. There you go, end of, no ambiguity.

What happens then when you get breathtested after using mouthwash which contains alcohol?!

Dankoozy

hi_im_fil wrote: »

What happens then when you get breathtested after using mouthwash which contains alcohol?!

yer ****ed. should have washed it down with some more anti-alcohol

Long Onion

I am glad that the climbed down on this. Not because I am a FF supporter and not because I am a fan of publicans either. I live in a rural area and whilst I am a non-drinker myself (too many wilds days of youth:o) I am ver conscious of the forgotten generation of Ireland.

During the doldrums of the 60's 70's and 80's, our country was built on the back of farmers, many of whom were guilt-tripped into remaining at home to run the family farm and look after their parents. They were usually discouraged from marrying (lest it would lead to mammy and daddy not being cared for, or the loss of the farm) by the time the parents passed away, they were too old to find a partner.

The only social outlet for these men is in the loacl pub to have a pit or two and shoot the breeze with neighbours. The can't have a fag now and their last social outlet is being taken too.

I do not condone drink driving and am in favour of lowering the limit in general but not at any price. Let there be a workable rural transport scheme introduced to let these people have some kind of social interaction and then change the law, I would happily see my tax money go towards this.

To all of you who are now screming about the government backing down on this, spare a thought to those who kept the country ticking over at great personal cost to themselves first.

hi_im_fil

Where do I get this anti-alcohol? It would be fierce handy after a night out

Aidric

hi_im_fil wrote: »

What happens then when you get breathtested after using mouthwash which contains alcohol?!

You show them your receipt from Dunnes.

PirateShampoo

I'm not a drinker myself, but i do enjoy going for a meal with wifey. We usually have to drive because we live in 1 of the many satellite towns the government encouraged us to buy. Now i love my fancy food and will have a glass of wine or 2 with it and thats it.

Now does that make me a danger to be on the road, even though I'm perfectly fine?

netwhizkid

To lower the Blood Alochol rate will kill rural society, We need to have social lives too and don't have trams, buses or taxis under our fingers. The Blood alcohol rate should be left as it is and instead of a ban there should just be a large fine. Drink driving is common in the United States and drunks are not responsible for all deaths, speed and the fact our roads are from the 19th century are responsible.

There is a big difference between driving with one or two and driving with 9 or ten drinks. Most people I know who drinkdrive over the limit are barely over it and drive slower and pay more attention so as to not have anything happen, big difference between that and weaving all over the place with 8 or 9 drinks.

FF backbenchers are right on this one I will back them. With blood levels like this even weekend drinking will be a no no as a heavy session on Saturday night early sunday morning will still leave remnants into Monday and that is if you stop when you leave the bar or club at 4am.

Padraig Mor

PirateShampoo wrote: »

What overwhelming evidence? Please show me.

This isn't going to stop drink driving, its just going to punish the regular law abiding Joe, who will now be to scared to get into his car after the smallest amount of drink.

Real drink drivers are creatures of habits, they don't care if the law is 0 or 80mg, they are going to get into there car pissed either way. And will keep doing so until they are caught. And even if they are that wont stop them from doing it again because theres little chance of getting stopped a second time.

Ive been driving for 5 years now and only ever been Breathalyzed once.

This country needs another up-rising.

+1.

The problem isn't people between 50 and 80. It's the people 200+. And that's according to an Irish coroner. Actually enforcing the current 80 limit would save far more lives. This is just a pathetic attempt by the govt to look like they're 'doing something'. And do you really think the Gardai will be out in force at 3am enforcing this? My hole - a huge increase in 'morning after' random checkpoints is what'll happen.

ANXIOUS

I would still like to see the "overwhelming evidence that a 50mg limit will save lives and prevent hundreds of injuries"

Does anyone know if they keep a record of the drivers blood alcohol level that are involved in fatal crashes? I've tried looking for it from any country but can't seem to find it. I would be inclined to think that the majority would be well in excess of 200mg.

Boomtastic

Padraig Mor wrote: »

And do you really think the Gardai will be out in force at 3am enforcing this? My hole - a huge increase in 'morning after' random checkpoints is what'll happen.

Got randomly checked outside St James Gate last Saturday morning. Had had a few pints of Guinness the night before but got through ok. But if I failed would I have ever laughed at the irony of the whole thing! :rolleyes:

I'll get my coat......

Mark200

Aidric wrote: »

You show them your receipt from Dunnes.

I don't know about you put I don't carry around, or keep, the receipt of my damn mouth wash that I last bought. And even if I did, it'd still be no excuse. Over the limit is over the limit, it doesn't matter why.

On a more realistic note, does anyone know how much 'alcohol' would be in your system after using mouth wash? I've recently started using non-alcoholic mouth wash because I've heard of stories of people being done for it. Not sure if it's true or not.

Nozebleed

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Can you link to the evidence please? I've heard people mention this a lot but have not seen anything concrete yet.

anyone who asks this question is a retard.

PirateShampoo

Nozebleed wrote: »

anyone who asks this question is a retard.

No taking something has Gospel without ever seeing the evidence is retarded.

Long Onion

In sweden they are testing the alcolock for cars. Saab are piloting the scheme. Your key fob has a built in breathyliser and you need to blow into it before the immobiliser will turn off. If the fob detects alcohol the car wont start. Because there is a temperature and moisture sensor it is vary hard to fool, you would have to get a sober person to do it for you.

Very sensible those Swedes.

Long Onion

PirateShampoo wrote: »

No taking something has Gospel without ever seeing the evidence is retarded.

Yup, ask the catholics.

PirateShampoo

Or any other religion.

Aidric

Mark200 wrote: »

I don't know about you put I don't carry around, or keep, the receipt of my damn mouth wash that I last bought. And even if I did, it'd still be no excuse. Over the limit is over the limit, it doesn't matter why.

Oh dear. Are you drunk now?

ANXIOUS

Nozebleed wrote: »

anyone who asks this question is a retard.

Oh god, i can't believe someone actually wanted to read medical proof.

PirateShampoo

Aidric wrote: »

Oh dear. Are you drunk now?

Well i keep the receipt until i get out side the shop of purchase then it goes in the bin.

I got stopped and wrongly accused of shop lifting in the past so now i always keep the receipt.

Dankoozy

Long Onion wrote: »

Yup, ask the catholics.

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Or any other religion.

ah, those ****ers again...

sunnyside

Long Onion wrote: »

Let there be a workable rural transport scheme introduced to let these people have some kind of social interaction and then change the law, I would happily see my tax money go towards this.

.

Why can't the publicans organise this themselves if they are so desperate to keep their customers? The farmers and other country locals you speak of don't live that far from the pubs anyway. It's probably a 5-6 mile radius. The publicans should organise something. It's not much different to the retail stores having to reduce prices to retain customers.

Surely it's not that complicated a job. Couldn't it work like pizza delivery. Some local guy who knows the area could be paid to sit in the bar for the evening, not drinking obviously. Any customer who wants to come to the pub could ring and the guy would drive out to collect them and bring them to the pub and also drop people home later. The publican would probably have to pay but I'm not sure why the customers couldn't pay themselves. Surely a nominal charge of €5 wouldn't cause too much hardship.

nerophis

The problem with drink driving IMO is enforcement. In places such as Australia or New Zealand they have dramatically reduced the number of fatalities. This isn't a rant towards TDs so may be off topic but when I was in NZ in 2003 they implemented rigorous enforcement. For example, in Picton on the south island I got a taxi into town from just outside and there was a check point. Not seeing these often in Ireland I questioned the taxi driver. He said that every single driver is breathalised when they come to the check point and that it was the fifth time that night that he had been breathalised! Now if a similar approach was taken by the Gardai, as I think they are allowed to do under legislation, it would be the end of drink driving because people would know it was not possible to take the chance. Repeat that over a year regularly (not just on bank holidays) and the culture changes.

The reduction in alcohol limits is a bogus argument IMO. It doesn't draw conclusions from evidence. It takes no account of the many other factors including speeding, recklessness, fatigue, bad roads etc that probably have a significant impact. Further to that saying that reducing the limit reduces accidents doesn't account for the scale of the risk. If the chance of having a fatal accident is reduced from 5 in 10000 to 1 in 10000 (not based on any figures circulated by proponents since I don't recall them doing that)- the risk is still very small. If the risk of other factors is not considered then the actual reduction may not even be measureable.

The logic for introduction of legislation often appears to be perceptive rather than actual. Reducing the alcohol limit is a prime case. Without enforcement it is meaningless. Enforcement costs money but changing the law costs nothing and gives the appearance of doing something. If the Government were serious about reducing motoring fatalities they would enforce the law as it stands. One way to change the economics of the situation would be to introduce a mandatory fine (very penuative, perhaps €1000) for anyone caught over the current limit rather than or including being banned from driving. Then there is an incentive for the Gardai to enforce because they can recoup money rather than the current situation where the cost is incurred by the state.

godtabh

PirateShampoo wrote: »

This isn't going to stop drink driving, its just going to punish the regular law abiding Joe, who will now be to scared to get into his car after the smallest amount of drink.

If you are over the limit you are over the limit. Its that simple. If you dont want to risk it dont drink. If you do want a drink and take the risk then deal with the consequences.

Its fairly simple.

It doesn’t stop you from socialising

It doesn’t stop you from going out

You won’t put people’s lives at risk

You won’t put your life at risk

It won’t put your job at risk.

There should be zero tolerance on this. There should be no limit. If you get caught you should be banned for life.

Having seen the consequence of drink driving any measures that can save lives should be introduced regardless.

tech77

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Looks like those clowns in Congress have done it again.

What a bunch of clowns.

[laughs] How do you keep up with the news like that, Anonoboy?

sunnyside

The publicans managed to get round the smoking ban with beer gardens and outdoor heaters. Surely they can organise a basic transportation system for their customers.

iregk

I'm really baffled about all the comotion over this I really am. Has nobody ever heard of non alcoholic drinks? I think its says so much about our culture that we are having such a big discussion and argument about this. Are we that sad as a nation that we absolutely need alcohol to enjoy ourselves?

meditraitor

Originally Posted by IrishSpeedTraps
Can you link to the evidence please? I've heard people mention this a lot but have not seen anything concrete yet.

I was thinking the same, no proof whatsoever that this is the case

Nozebleed wrote: »

anyone who asks this question is a retard.

A question within a question;)

120_Minutes

iregk wrote: »

I'm really baffled about all the comotion over this I really am. Has nobody ever heard of non alcoholic drinks? I think its says so much about our culture that we are having such a big discussion and argument about this. Are we that sad as a nation that we absolutely need alcohol to enjoy ourselves?

sadly, yes we are. we are the teenagers of the planet. it'll take about 2 generations before we cop ourselves on.

orourkeda

sunnyside wrote: »

The publicans managed to get round the smoking ban with beer gardens and outdoor heaters. Surely they can organise a basic transportation system for their customers.

That would mean giving something back to their customers. Surely Not

Dudess

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Looks like those clowns in Congress have done it again.

What a bunch of clowns.

You sir have just fantastically summed up these relentless tedious "whingeing about the government" AH threads.

Bravo!

biko

hi_im_fil wrote: »

What happens then when you get breathtested after using mouthwash which contains alcohol?!

Nothing - I assume they bring you in for a blood test which will be clear.

PirateShampoo

kearnsr wrote: »

If you are over the limit you are over the limit. Its that simple. If you dont want to risk it dont drink. If you do want a drink and take the risk then deal with the consequences.

Its fairly simple.

It doesn’t stop you from socialising

It doesn’t stop you from going out

You won’t put people’s lives at risk

You won’t put your life at risk

It won’t put your job at risk.

There should be zero tolerance on this. There should be no limit. If you get caught you should be banned for life.

Having seen the consequence of drink driving any measures that can save lives should be introduced regardless.

So you go out for a meal and have a single glass of wine with your dinner and get into your car to drive you're self and the wife home and get stopped, you honestly think that a life time ban from driving is a just response?

I think you need to live in the real world and not in the land of Lolly pops and rainbows where you appear to live.

And once again people are talking about this evidence that hasn't actually been produced.

PirateShampoo

Magnus wrote: »

Nothing - I assume they bring you in for a blood test which will be clear.

So you're on the way to work one morning, its a big day. You have a important meeting and you're about to hit the big time.

You get stopped at a check point and breathized. You haven't been drinking but used a alcohol based mouth wash.

You plead you're case but arrested for drink driving, and you're ass is hauled down the station for blood test which in a few hours comes back negitive.

You've missed you're meeting, and you're not gonna hot the big time because of this.

Do you still think its a good idea?:D

Nozebleed

This thread really highlights fcukin stupid the irish are regarding alcohol and responsibility in general. not only are you calling for drink driving to legalised:rolleyes:..if the government dont accomodate you're wish you want them to provide a bus to drive a bunch of fcuk-wits from their houses to the local boozer to get locked...anyone who calls for evidence that alcohol effects your ability to drive is shocking...it should be blatantly obvious to everyone that alcohol affects you ability to drive..


any politician who call for drink driving to be legalised should be sacked.

PirateShampoo

Nozebleed wrote: »

This thread really highlights fcukin stupid the irish are regarding alcohol and responsibility in general. not only are you calling for drink driving to legalised:rolleyes:..if the government dont accomodate you're wish you want them to provide a bus to drive a bunch of fcuk-wits from their houses to the local boozer to get locked...anyone who calls for evidence that alcohol effects your ability to drive is shocking...it should be blatantly obvious to everyone that alcohol affects you ability to drive..


any politician who call for drink driving to be legalized should be sacked.

Think you need to re-read the whole thread, cant see one post for it to be legalized in here, only thing people want is the law to be kept the same.

And drink driving is legal, up to 80mg

Trankton

The point (and a fair one) that I took from the OP was that the back-benchers kick up such a fuss over this and actually make something happen yet when it comes to the real issue they just sit meekly back and let the country fall to pieces around them!!!!

godtabh

PirateShampoo wrote: »

So you go out for a meal and have a single glass of wine with your dinner and get into your car to drive you're self and the wife home and get stopped, you honestly think that a life time ban from driving is a just response?

One drink impairs you on the road.

If you want a drink leave the car at home. If you want the car dont drink. Its very simple

Not many people would take the risk if this was the consequence

PirateShampoo

No it doesnt, theres alot worse legal things you can do on the road than having a glass of wine with your dinner.

mandysmithers

Ok, so all the aul lads living in rural areas go to the pub for one pint and then drive home? I don't think so...they're bound to have more than one (or whatever the legal limit currently is)

Say they do stay within the limit, and keep to the one pint...would it really hurt that much if they went to the pub and had some sort of non-alcoholic drink instead? If they're not actually going out to get drunk, why bother with a pint? I know older men probably wouldn't like to be seen drinking diet coke or its equivalent, but that's what they'll have to do.