One drink helps some drivers

GalwayKiefer

One drink helps some drivers: TD
FF backbencher sparks derision with claim road death figures are 'false'

"I know people for whom drink is a relaxant and they might be more nervous without it," said Fianna Fail TD Mattie McGrath.

By Senan Molony, Deputy Political Editor
Tuesday October 27 2009
ROAD safety campaigner Gay Byrne said yesterday he was "guffawing down the phone" after a Fianna Fail backbencher said alcohol could relax nervous or "jumpy" drivers.

Fianna Fail TD Mattie McGrath said he was putting the point out there that a very limited amount of drink could be beneficial for some drivers.

"I know people for whom drink is a relaxant and they might be more nervous without it," the Tipperary South TD said in a radio interview.

Mr McGrath declared on the Eamon Keane lunchtime show on Newstalk 106: "People say that after one drink it lessens your concentration -- you're not as good a driver, or you're not able to drive. I don't accept that.

"That can be argued the other way as well. Some people, if drink is such a sedative, it can make people who are jumpy on the road, or nervous, be more relaxed. All these arguments can be argued both ways."

He went on to claim that road death figures involving alcohol were misleading.

Mr Byrne,chairman of the Road Safety Authority, laughed when told of the remarks. "It is just funny -- congratulations to him for that," he said. "He is trying his best."

"Every single piece of evidence, every last vestige, is pointing the other way. The whole of continental Europe is on the lower limit. There is no further debate on the matter because the results are in. I just find it laughable -- funny. You can say that I am guffawing down the phone at this one."

Mr McGrath, who is leading the charge on maintaining current drink-drive levels, said he had strongly-held views and wanted fair play. "I'm not representing the vintners -- I want proper scientific evidence and medical evidence. People between 50 and 80 (milligrams) aren't causing these accidents."

He added: "I'm not condoning drunk driving in any way, shape or form. I know people for whom drink is a relaxant, and they might be more nervous without it."

Asked if they would drive better with drink, Mr McGrath replied: "I'm not saying that now! Don't make a headline. I know people who enjoy a drink to relax and it can make them relaxed. You can have all the evidence you like and you can twist and turn it any way you like. The figures they're giving us at the moment are false because they include pedestrians who are knocked down or passengers in cars where the driver mightn't even have a drink taken.

Tackled on his views about 'jumpy' drivers becoming more relaxed, Mr McGrath said: "Fair enough, I'm not a medical person so I'm not going to argue. I just put my point out there.

"I've consulted widely over the weekend on this issue ... this is coming on top of several other regulations. I'm not saying it's going to close down rural Ireland but it's going to have an adverse impact.

"Why not examine the two-tier idea, that we have one system for the towns and the cities, and we have one system with the present limit, which I'm accepting totally, for the rural areas?" he asked.

- Senan Molony, Deputy Political Editor

Irish Independent

Source: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/one-drink-helps-some-drivers-td-1924931.html

---

What planet is this guy living on!?

dudara

/facepalm.

The ignorance of TDs (who are spectactularly unqualified to make decisions on anything relating to law, economics etc) continues to astound.

Drummerboy08

Mattie McGrath would want to go back to South Tipperary and his wayward electorate.

Remember, this is the same constituency that re-elected a convicted fraudster a few years ago (Mr Lowry, for those who dont remember).

What a fcuking stupid thing to say. If a driver needs a drink to improve his/her driving skills, they have no place whatsoever on these roads. Or even to hold a driving licence.

Clowns, the whole lot of em. :mad:

Seth Brundle

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Remember, this is the same constituency that re-elected a convicted fraudster a few years ago (Mr Lowry, for those who dont remember).

I don't think that Mr. Lowry was convicted of anything.

Anyhow, Mattie McGrath is obviously playing parish pump politics and is not looking at the greater national picture!

Drummerboy08

kbannon wrote: »

I don't think that Mr. Lowry was convicted of anything.

Anyhow, Mattie McGrath is obviously playing parish pump politics and is not looking at the greater national picture!

Sorry. Post edited. But you know what I mean....;)

I heard on the news yesterday evening the results of a national poll carried out by the AA. It was something like 70% or more of drivers are in favour of the new lower drink driving limit. If I find the actual link I'll stick it up here.

As I said before, If you need a drink to boost your confidence behind the wheel, you have no right to be there in the first place.
Maybe Mattie should look at improving driver training from a young age to help takle this problem, as opposed to allowing people a brandy to calm themselves before they drive anywhere.

bazz26

Complete and utter muppet.



The sooner this shower are removed from power the better.

Aard

GalKiefer wrote: »

"Why not examine the two-tier idea, that we have one system for the towns and the cities, and we have one system with the present limit, which I'm accepting totally, for the rural areas?" he asked.

It is both hilarious and scary that he suggests that.

Seth Brundle

The two tier system could be brought in with Mary White's daft idea for a two tier licencing system!

rebel.ranter

kbannon wrote: »

The two tier system could be brought in with Mary White's daft idea for a two tier licencing system!

The sooner Lisbon kicks in & Europe takes over the better. These local yokels are a liability to the country!

Here's another one for you Mattie: bald tyres are better in the dry, ask any F1 driver, does that mean we should legalise slicks for road use????

Or, I only drive my car in the daytime, does that mean I can remove my headlights? The car would drive better without them!!!!!:eek:

The missus finds it relaxing to wear an eye/sleeping mask can we ammend the law so she wear that driving?

Ah come on Mattie, fight for us!!!

bazzachazza

Yeah heard him say this on todayfm last week. I just couldn't believe he actually said this.

One rule for us in the country and another for people in Dublin. Apparently the only place that people living in the country get to have a social life is down the pub and the only way people can be social to one another is after 3-4 pints.

I can't believe they are considering reducing the fine to 6 penalty points to appease these prats.

R.O.R

I think we should embrace the 2 tier drink drive system, but only in conjunction with a new ruling that the country folk aren't allowed anywhere near the big scary cities. Might keep a few of the idiots out of the Dail?

pburns

The word 'foot' and 'shoot' comes to mind:rolleyes:

Other boardsies may be aghast but I actually agree the reduction of the 80mg limit is a load of nanny-state bo110cks but this gombeen man totally undermines any logical debate on the issue. It doesn't matter to me personally, I don't risk one drink at the current limit anyway but 50mg means even one unit of alcohol is untenable. Like the UK, we are rapidly becoming a PC nanny state...

Aard

Nanny state? I disagree. It's either zero-tolerance or not; a reduction 30mg shouldn't be a problem. All it will do is stop people risking that one drink.


In regard to the two-tier system - it's in place already. I was down in Waterville, Co Kerry over the weekend, and the guy who owned the house we were staying in told us that it'd be OK to have a couple drinks in the local - the guards would turn a blind eye to it.

bugler

There should be a mandatory IQ test for entering the Daíl. You don't clear it, you can't take your seat. Set the bar at maybe 120.

I know this means the political parties would have to launch a massive search for new members and candidates (and some parties would have a more diFFicult job than others), and that there would be a massive turnover of the current TDs, but really, something needs to be done. I might start a petition.

Drummerboy08

bugler wrote: »

There should be a mandatory IQ test for entering the Daíl. You don't clear it, you can't take your seat. Set the bar at maybe 120.

I know this means the political parties would have to launch a massive search for new members and candidates (and some parties would have a more diFFicult job than others), and that there would be a massive turnover of the current TDs, but really, something needs to be done. I might start a petition.

I see what you've done there.

Snowie

/Bangs head of desk repeatdly

the_syco

GalKiefer wrote: »

"Why not examine the two-tier idea, that we have one system for the towns and the cities, and we have one system with the present limit, which I'm accepting totally, for the rural areas?" he asked.

I suppose it's one way to ensure people use the backroads that the Gardai don't seem to police: would look great on paper, a sudden reduction of crashes. It'd also ensure that anyone walking home would have to be careful of a sudden increase of drunken bastards on the roads.

maidhc

Calm down lads, seriously.

There are about a million bigger problems on the roads than the odd punter who might have one pint and have the audacity to drive home.

Jomcc

The sooner that people realise that this new drink driving proposal is just another government initiated smoke screen designed to divert attention away from the serious sh1t that the country is in the better.
It’s the very same as they did with the provisional driving licence cock-up. People are saying that these politicians are stupid………very very wrong. They know exactly what they are doing. Suits perfectly for country to be up in arms over a drink driving law. Joe Duffy, Gerry Ryan and co are lapping it up. Expenses, NAMA are off the front pages for a while……..they are all falling for it.

As for the need for reducing the limit……I know very little about it. In my opinion, until they are sure that everybody who is over the current limit is being caught, there’s absolutely no point in reducing the limit. Whether the limit is 50 or 80 makes very little difference to the fella who drives full of drink………which goes to prove my theory

---

it’s a carefully planned PR scam!!!!!!!!!

mikkael

The Govt. have clearly backed themselves into a corner on this one. Having grown up in the country but being from de big shmoke, I can see both sides of it.

Back in the '80's auld fellas driving decrepit beetles, shagged corollas and Cortinas with no back springs would go to the local country boozer and have a few pints. They did it every day for decades.

Two factors came into play. 1/ They were used to the level of drink they were drinking and weren't binge drinking, and 2/ they didn't ( couldn't ) go over 30 mph. Suddenly by the late '90's people were scrapping these cars and hopping into new ones with 10 times more power. Que major problems.

These old guys were safer than a younger person ( usually ) stone cold sober and going too fast. I'm not saying drink driving is good, but there's a whole big expanse out there that's not Dublin, and what Mattie McGrath was saying - albeit in a ballsed up way - was pretty much the same thing I think.

I don't believe the drink / drive thing has ruined country life. I think country life has changed big time and as usual the government haven't a feckin clue. The answer? - half measures ( no pun intended ). What's the point in being allowed 1 pint? Who goes to the pub for one pint? - it's a joke. Bloody Irish solution.

As a previous poster pointed out, enforcement of what we have would be good. I've gone through 3 wing mirrors thanks to drunks on country roads in the past 4 years, all going like the clappers. I had to do a very hasty 3 point turn and 90 mph to catch one bast'd who knew he hit me but didn't stop.

Last but not least, we've been hearing wall to wall for a decade that a third of all accidents are drink related. What about the other 2/3? For example, being overly tired presents much the same symptoms as being drunk, and is just as dangerous.

DonJose

This fukking muppet can be emailed at the following email address,

mattie.mcgrath@oireachtas.ie

This was my first email of today.

shoegirl

The nearest funny farm would be a good place for Mattie right now.

There is a lot of evidence that any amount of alcohol impairs the quality of driving (and operating complex machinery of any kind). And so the converse of this would be that forcing people not to self-impair will improve their driving. It really lowers overall risks, as it requires aggressive implementation to police and a law-friendly courts system to impose punishment for those who refuse to comply.

The overall number of people saved by silencing knuckle-draggers like Mattie is small, but even one or two lives saved means far less pain and suffering over the decades for quite a lot of friends and relatives. Secondly, if we include the horrific injuries that people suffer in accidents, there would be hundreds of people living healthier lives. It all adds up.

The real problem in country life is a lack of any sort of transport infrastructure. I am from Dublin but I lived in country villages for 3 years and experienced at first hand the impacts of this - for example, I would rate not being able to get to any workplace outside of the town I lived in before 8.30am and therefore shutting out people from getting jobs requiring a 7am or 8am start as far more harmful than the tightening up of the drink laws. I do think there needs to be a little extra incentives to encourage people to setup taxi services where none exist and good tax breaks for those already existing. The current "all-Ireland" system of taxi regulation fails rural areas badly. I recall, in the last village I lived in, at facing the option of 40 euros to get home by taxi. While this is also common in much outlying Dublin commuter towns, at least many have the option of late night buses, although again I am sure that few of these go beyond Balbriggan, Leixlip or Bray.

People might want to ignore that truth, but its only in order to enable them to continue to do something which is inherently risky. That would be ok if it didn't threaten others well being but it does. Therefore the law has no real option but to migitage against the risks by tougher laws and harsher penalties.

shoegirl

the_syco wrote: »

I suppose it's one way to ensure people use the backroads that the Gardai don't seem to police: would look great on paper, a sudden reduction of crashes. It'd also ensure that anyone walking home would have to be careful of a sudden increase of drunken bastards on the roads.

They have always used those backroads, and for this reason they are not only very dangerous but have a far higher level of road deaths. That said, a lot of regions cannot police these roads because of tip off systems that just divert drivers to other places. Unless its an area where there is only one road in/out.

cascade35

How many of these went into the pub for one drink?

Everyone knows someone whose life has been effected by drink driving.

I.S.T.

Jomcc wrote: »

The sooner that people realise that this new drink driving proposal is just another government initiated smoke screen designed to divert attention away from the serious sh1t that the country is in the better.
It’s the very same as they did with the provisional driving licence cock-up. People are saying that these politicians are stupid………very very wrong. They know exactly what they are doing. Suits perfectly for country to be up in arms over a drink driving law. Joe Duffy, Gerry Ryan and co are lapping it up. Expenses, NAMA are off the front pages for a while……..they are all falling for it.

Agree 100%

Will Gay Byrne please show us the figures. How many drivers between the 50mg and 80mg range are responsible for fatal and serious injory crashes? If the figures prove the case I think most reasonable will have no problem supporting the change and there will be no need for this debate.

dudara

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Agree 100%

Will Gay Byrne please show us the figures. How many drivers between the 50mg and 80mg range are responsible for fatal and serious injory crashes? If the figures prove the case I think most reasonable will have no problem supporting the change and there will be no need for this debate.

Sorry, but I hate hearing this 'let's wait for the numbers' argument. Either we take a progressive stance on drink driving or we don't. You don't need those numbers to understand that reducing the blood alcohol limit is a good thing to do for road safety. (It's not going to be a cure-all for road safety but it will be one facet of it).

I.S.T.

dudara wrote: »

Sorry, but I hate hearing this 'let's wait for the numbers' argument. Either we take a progressive stance on drink driving or we don't. You don't need those numbers to understand that reducing the blood alcohol limit is a good thing to do for road safety. (It's not going to be a cure-all for road safety but it will be one facet of it).

Look, if they want an end to this debate all they need to do is release the figures to shut up all the critics. Why do they not do this? Will it actually save as many lives as they claim? Or is this debate convenient to them as it deflects from issues such as NAMA and the economy?

Richie15

bazzachazza wrote: »

Apparently the only place that people living in the country get to have a social life is down the pub and the only way people can be social to one another is after 3-4 pints.

Fair enough there's feck all to do in the bog, but what's wrong with taking turns hosting a party, or having a designated driver, or bunching in for a minibus?

Or maybe, just maybe, some enterprising young chap could set up one of those fancy ball-trowing lanes they have in the cities, y'know, where you have to knock down the sticks? Or maybe some sort of building where you could see a moving picture... like a telly but bigger. Or a sports pitch, or a swimming pool, or a hunting club, or a night class...

There's tons to do without getting plastered if someone just gets off their arse and starts it. In fact, there's even tons of ways of getting plastered safely, if that's what you want.

I think the minibus idea is the best, each pub could have one or two to drop people home at closing time. And, aswell as the road safety benefits, it's keeping a bus driver in a job!

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Or is this debate convenient to them as it deflects from issues such as NAMA and the economy?

You might wanna ask these guys.

dudara

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Look, if they want an end to this debate all they need to do is release the figures to shut up all the critics. Why do they not do this? Will it actually save as many lives as they claim? Or is this debate convenient to them as it deflects from issues such as NAMA and the economy?

Firstly, I doubt that such figures exist - it would mean that there is a standard protocol for blood testing all drivers involved in accidents. I don't think that this happens. I think people who shout for these figures know that and are hoping to make this reduced blood alcohol level proposal look foolish. Just because these figures don't exist doesn't undermine the argument in any way.

Secondly, bringing NAMA etc into this totally different argument is ridiculous. It is akin to people voting NO to Lisbon just to show their annoyance with the government. This reduced blood alcohol level proposal has been coming our way for a while now.

RobAMerc

Jomcc wrote: »

The sooner that people realise that this new drink driving proposal is just another government initiated smoke screen designed to divert attention away from the serious sh1t that the country is in the better.
It’s the very same as they did with the provisional driving licence cock-up. People are saying that these politicians are stupid………very very wrong. They know exactly what they are doing. Suits perfectly for country to be up in arms over a drink driving law. Joe Duffy, Gerry Ryan and co are lapping it up. Expenses, NAMA are off the front pages for a while……..they are all falling for it.

As for the need for reducing the limit……I know very little about it. In my opinion, until they are sure that everybody who is over the current limit is being caught, there’s absolutely no point in reducing the limit. Whether the limit is 50 or 80 makes very little difference to the fella who drives full of drink………which goes to prove my theory

---

it’s a carefully planned PR scam!!!!!!!!!

Exactly - all the cafuffel over this is pure diversionary tactics in order for us to take our eye off the fact these twats have run the country into the ground.

Mattie McGrath has been instructed to go out there and ruffle a few feathers and maybe start a bit of a urban / rural square off while also giving the facade that back bench TD's have the balls to stand up for anything they believe in.

What difference does it make that the limit is changed - its not enforced in any sort of meaningful way anyhow.

Pure Bollocks!

nkay1985

We all know that this is one of the most ridiculous things an Irish politicial has ever come out with (and that's saying something) but you can be guaranteed that come election time, this will get Mattie McGrath votes because "Mattie looks after us in the rural areas. Without him, we'd have a load of jackeens making the decisions for us."

/facepalm

BnA

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Mattie McGrath would want to go back to South Tipperary and his wayward electorate.

Remember, this is the same constituency that re-elected a convicted fraudster a few years ago (Mr Lowry, for those who dont remember).

What a fcuking stupid thing to say. If a driver needs a drink to improve his/her driving skills, they have no place whatsoever on these roads. Or even to hold a driving licence.

Clowns, the whole lot of em. :mad:

For the record you can't pin the re-election of Michale Lowry on the people of South Tipp. He's in the North Tipp constiuency.

But yeah... shockin' shockin' dumb thing to say.

I.S.T.

dudara wrote: »

Firstly, I doubt that such figures exist - it would mean that there is a standard protocol for blood testing all drivers involved in accidents. I don't think that this happens. I think people who shout for these figures know that and are hoping to make this reduced blood alcohol level proposal look foolish. Just because these figures don't exist doesn't undermine the argument in any way.

What about this study by Traffic Injury Research Foundation in Canada that concludes:

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

dudara wrote: »

Secondly, bringing NAMA etc into this totally different argument is ridiculous. It is akin to people voting NO to Lisbon just to show their annoyance with the government. This reduced blood alcohol level proposal has been coming our way for a while now.

Why now of all times had this topic come up? The RSA say 10 lives a year COULD be saved. However many more will be lost due to the health cutbacks which are taking place right now due the massive screw up by the government in relation to the economy. It is very convenient that this topic comes up and takes over the airwaves right now.

I am not against lowering the limit if there is adequate evidence to show it will have a real impact. If the evidence is available then it should be released for us all to see.

Zube

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Will Gay Byrne please show us the figures.

The closest I've seen are these numbers from a report from an RSA conference in 2008.

The key data is on page 24 "Blood Alcohol levels in killed drivers":

Not recorded : 35%

Zero: 26%
1-19: 2%
20-49: 3%
50-80: 3%
81-159: 9%
160-239: 12%
240+: 9%

So, does anyone think we should focus on the 3% in the 50-80 group, or should we worry about the 30% who are above the existing limit first?

dudara

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

What about this study by Traffic Injury Research Foundation in Canada that concludes:

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

I understand where you're coming from with this link. However, I wouldn't compare this survey to the Irish situation unless I knew some more background facts. It is entirely possible (but I don't know for certain) that there is a lower tolerance of drink driving in Canada and that therefore less perencentage of Canadian people drive under 80mg. I think that due to our lax attitude in Ireland, we, as a population, are more inclined to drive following some drink.

Why now of all times had this topic come up? The RSA say 10 lives a year COULD be saved. However many more will be lost due to the health cutbacks which are taking place right now due the massive screw up by the government in relation to the economy. It is very convenient that this topic comes up and takes over the airwaves right now.

I'm not going to argue any form of politics with you. This country is f*cked right now, no matter what way you look at it, and if this is a diversionary tactic, then it's a risible one.

I am not against lowering the limit if there is adequate evidence to show it will have a real impact. If the evidence is available then it should be released for us all to see.

Why not lower the limit anyway regardless of evidence? Common sense dictates that no drink is better than one drink when it comes to driving.

IrishSpeedTraps

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Agree 100%

Will Gay Byrne please show us the figures. How many drivers between the 50mg and 80mg range are responsible for fatal and serious injory crashes? .

+1

I dont understand why a lot of people appear to think that its people who drink 2 or 3 pints that are causing crashes on the roads. It is people who are completely locked drunk who are causing drink related crashes. This limit reduction is just the government putting on a show to please the bandwagon. The worst thing about reducing the limit imo is driving the next day. Its bad enough now trying to get places the next day after a night out wondering will there be morning breath testing around the next corner but if they keep reducing the limit people wont be able to drive for a fecking week after a night out.

vinylrules

Zube wrote: »

The closest I've seen are these numbers from a report from an RSA conference in 2008.

The key data is on page 24 "Blood Alcohol levels in killed drivers":

Not recorded : 35%

Zero: 26%
1-19: 2%
20-49: 3%
50-80: 3%
81-159: 9%
160-239: 12%
240+: 9%

So, does anyone think we should focus on the 3% in the 50-80 group, or should we worry about the 30% who are above the existing limit first?

Your figures are correct. Strange how the highest deaths of any range listed is the zero alcohol range!

This is also worth reading. (I've highlighted the conclusions at the end)

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s9p2.htm

Considering the incidence of DUI, it was argued that effective countermeasures that substantially reduce the number of accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol should be directed towards drivers with BACs greater than 0.08%. This also implies that simply changing the legal DUI limit from 0.08% to 0.05% is insufficient with respect to alcohol-induced accidents as the potential reduction would be only about 4%. Further inspection of the risk function indicates that certain subgroups of drinking drivers are responsible for the alcohol-related accident risk in the higher BAC range. Measures capable of deterring drinking drivers in this range were expected to have a substantial impact on traffic safety, namely, result in a decrease in accident rates.

R.O.R

I've just had a quick flick through this:
http://www.apolnet.ca/resources/stats/stats_BAC50mg.pdf

While it's not Ireland, it does seem to point towards a decline in the number of fatalities in areas where the limit has been dropped from 80mg to 50mg.

I.S.T.

Zube wrote: »

The closest I've seen are these numbers from a report from an RSA conference in 2008.

The key data is on page 24 "Blood Alcohol levels in killed drivers":

Not recorded : 35%

Zero: 26%
1-19: 2%
20-49: 3%
50-80: 3%
81-159: 9%
160-239: 12%
240+: 9%

So, does anyone think we should focus on the 3% in the 50-80 group, or should we worry about the 30% who are above the existing limit first?

Ok, excellent stuff, thanks for that.

So as you say 30% of drivers killed are above the current legal limit. 3% are between 50 & 80mg. Fine, reduce the limit if they want, it could save up to 9 people per year. But NOT WITHOUT FIRST allocating more resources to the Guards so they can increase their random breath tests which will help catch the people who are already driving above the current legal limit and causing the vast majority of the crashes.

pburns

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

What about this study by Traffic Injury Research Foundation in Canada that concludes:

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



Why now of all times had this topic come up? The RSA say 10 lives a year COULD be saved. However many more will be lost due to the health cutbacks which are taking place right now due the massive screw up by the government in relation to the economy. It is very convenient that this topic comes up and takes over the airwaves right now.

I am not against lowering the limit if there is adequate evidence to show it will have a real impact. If the evidence is available then it should be released for us all to see.

Zube wrote: »

The closest I've seen are these numbers from a report from an RSA conference in 2008.

The key data is on page 24 "Blood Alcohol levels in killed drivers":

Not recorded : 35%

Zero: 26%
1-19: 2%
20-49: 3%
50-80: 3%
81-159: 9%
160-239: 12%
240+: 9%

So, does anyone think we should focus on the 3% in the 50-80 group, or should we worry about the 30% who are above the existing limit first?

Good stuff...

Finally some balance injected into this thread. The amount of myopic, PC-bandwagon-jumping this topic stimultes sickens me. So too however does the self-defeating parish-pump politics of Matty the Muppet.

As the post above points out - and we all know it - this is really a smokescreen for the greater ills in our society and body politic. It is also a chance for FF to curry favour with the type of middle-class, middle-of-the road people who are deserting them in droves.

peasant

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Why now of all times had this topic come up? The RSA say 10 lives a year COULD be saved.

I have (of course) absolutely no proof for this, but IMO this is coming up NOW because the RSA is in danger of losing a significant chunk (if not all) of their budget.

They have to be seen to be doing something, as their record isn't exactly outstanding.

alias no.9

I have no problem with reducing the limit, as far as I'm concerned voluntary compliance with the current limit is not drinking at all if you're driving later that day / evening, so the new limit would make no difference to that. However, I think with our current level of enforcement, it's pointless because the detection levels are so low. Fair enough, this is a minimal resources change but what we need is resources, this is just another pathetic effort to do things on the cheap. Like most compliant drivers, I will see no effective change in my circumstances due to the change because I simply don't drink if I'm driving but similarly someone who flouts the current limit will see no change because they're not being breathylised, that leaves the tiny portion of the population who drive between 50 and 80. It's fiddling about at the edges of a problem that needs to be tackled head on.

vinylrules

peasant wrote: »

I have (of course) absolutely no proof for this, but IMO this is coming up NOW because the RSA is in danger of losing a significant chunk (if not all) of their budget.

They have to be seen to be doing something, as their record isn't exactly outstanding.

You might be onto something there. The drop in road deaths over the past few years probably has more to do with the recession plus the sheer amount of new motorways, bypasses etc., being built. The Dublin Port Tunnel for example, has taken thousands of trucks off the streets of Dublin. Why aren't the National Roads Authority, rather than the RSA taking the credit?

There is another element to this whole drink driving hysteria. The HSE anti-alcohol department (the "alcohol implementation" section as they call it) are all over this. The amount of non-stories being placed in the papers in recent months about alcohol has been unprecedented. I heard Dr Joe Barry calling for the amount of calories to be printed on a can of beer. Heard him on the radio saying "a pint has 200 calories - so if you have five pints that's a thousand calories". (Clearly he thinks people who drink five pints are not capable of doing their five times tables, so we need new laws from our nanny state.) These are the people who recommended that off-licences should be shut at 10pm and they've even called for the drinking age to be raised to 21)
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=13144

beachlife

The limit will be so low in the future that if you own a car you can't drink full stop. What i mean is if you have a FEW pints on sunday evening.then on monday morning you will be over the limit. Imagine that getting done for drink driving on monday on the way to work!!! And i'm not talking about being on a bender till 4 in the morning. I'm talking about normal people haveing 2-3 pints til closing time and then going home.

Seth Brundle

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Why now of all times had this topic come up? The RSA say 10 lives a year COULD be saved. However many more will be lost due to the health cutbacks which are taking place right now due the massive screw up by the government in relation to the economy. It is very convenient that this topic comes up and takes over the airwaves right now.

I don't think that reform of the heath service is within the scope of the RSA hence why they are looking to reduce road fatalities but saying nothing about the general economy

Deacon Lively Wafer wrote: »

I dont understand why a lot of people appear to think that its people who drink 2 or 3 pints that are causing crashes on the roads. It is people who are completely locked drunk who are causing drink related crashes.

Not according to many A&E doctors!

Deacon Lively Wafer wrote: »

This limit reduction is just the government putting on a show to please the bandwagon. The worst thing about reducing the limit imo is driving the next day. Its bad enough now trying to get places the next day after a night out wondering will there be morning breath testing around the next corner but if they keep reducing the limit people wont be able to drive for a fecking week after a night out.

IIRC most of the cabinet including the Taoiseach himself is against the proposal because of what it will do to their electoral chances!

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Ok, excellent stuff, thanks for that.

So as you say 30% of drivers killed are above the current legal limit. 3% are between 50 & 80mg. Fine, reduce the limit if they want, it could save up to 9 people per year. But NOT WITHOUT FIRST allocating more resources to the Guards so they can increase their random breath tests which will help catch the people who are already driving above the current legal limit and causing the vast majority of the crashes.

I agree that enforcement is key. However, that should not stop the RSA in pushing for what they believe is a better set of standards.

peasant wrote: »

I have (of course) absolutely no proof for this, but IMO this is coming up NOW because the RSA is in danger of losing a significant chunk (if not all) of their budget.

They have to be seen to be doing something, as their record isn't exactly outstanding.

But isn't it really Dempsey pushing it (at least visibly)? I haven't heard a huge amount from the RSA.

mikkael

I'm off down to Tipperary this week. I'll head on down to the pub and sit there with the local publican and his 87 year old mother by the stove. On a big night, 3 customers might come in. The nearest town is 15 miles away on a road with so many twists it'd give Michael Schumacher dead arms. Taxi my eye. Who's going to call a taxi doing a 30 mile round trip to go 1.5 miles up the road?

Before someone says "walk it", bear in mind that country roads aren't lit, and most nights it's so dark you can't even see the road. I think we need a bit of perspective in this. There were no spate of road deaths when people were going home from these pubs in areas such as the one I am talking about with drink on them. Sorry, but it's bollocks.

As I mentioned in a previous post, they were predominantly old guys who do dot miles and hour and are used to drinking, and live withing a couple of miles. There's a bit of a difference between them and some youngster getting loaded on an irregular basis. Someone who's likely to kill with drink is someone who's likely to kill sober too. Question - so why are they driving in the first place?

This "it's just not acceptable" pc stuff is getting corny. How many people have died because of home drinking and the boom in off - license sales since pubs were deserted? How many more will die? I'm thinking domestic violence, drink - induced homicide, suicide ... and so on. It's very easy to sit in the bright lights of Dublin and tell everyone what to do having listened to newstalk. Actually living in the country is slightly different.

I'd be in favour of either a total ban or having the limit raised. That way, for once, people would clearly know what the feck is going on. I'm happy to sit there for 2 hours with a Heineken shandy but most aren't. Allowing them drink a little is bullshyte, because I can guarantee you 90% will be over the limit leaving. If the limit gets zero'd, the smoking ban should be lifted. Country pubs are getting wiped out at an almighty rate at the moment.

Incidentally, country pubs in the main should not be confused with urban ones. Believe me, the so - called 'boom' passed over a lot of country publicans.

SupaDupaFly

I'm actually from the same area as Mattie McGrath...ashamed to say! Local people are absolutely outraged by his stupid comments about drink driving. This is the same man who show's up at every local mass, 21st, match, funeral. You name it you'll see him there lookin for publicity...how sad is that in a small town! He was at a halloween kiddies disco on friday nite shakin hands wit 5 year olds! How sad is that? Basically he will go out of his way to get noticed and this is another way of getting any attention. If he is the type of person who could have a say in our country then its no wonder were fcuked!

remotesensor

I think reducing the limit is just a PR stunt. The whole "saving 10 lives a year" is a joke too. I know of one area where people drink and drive all the time without being caught. I have never seen a checkpoint in that area.

Any checkpoints I've been through myself seem to be at the same few places all the time. So if one was to drink drive they would know where to avoid. We don't need a change in the law. We need enforcement of the current laws.

Tipp Man

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Mattie McGrath would want to go back to South Tipperary and his wayward electorate.

Remember, this is the same constituency that re-elected a convicted fraudster a few years ago (Mr Lowry, for those who dont remember).

What a fcuking stupid thing to say. If a driver needs a drink to improve his/her driving skills, they have no place whatsoever on these roads. Or even to hold a driving licence.

Clowns, the whole lot of em. :mad:

Your not quite right there, Mattie McGrath is a South Tipp TD, Michael Lowry was a North Tipp TD and as far as i'm aware was never convicted

Tipp Man

beachlife wrote: »

The limit will be so low in the future that if you own a car you can't drink full stop. What i mean is if you have a FEW pints on sunday evening.then on monday morning you will be over the limit. Imagine that getting done for drink driving on monday on the way to work!!! And i'm not talking about being on a bender till 4 in the morning. I'm talking about normal people haveing 2-3 pints til closing time and then going home.

I know of at least 2 people who have been done going to work the next morning between 7-8am. they hadn't been on an all night benders either,just a few glasses of wine the night before. Bring it down to 50 and we'll see a huge increase in the instance of this

Drummerboy08

Tipp Man wrote: »

Your not quite right there, Mattie McGrath is a South Tipp TD, Michael Lowry was a North Tipp TD and as far as i'm aware was never convicted

That only proves to me that South Tipp is as bad as North TIpp when it comes to this kinda stuff so.