One drink helps some drivers

ShooterSF

R.O.R wrote: »

Is there one scrap of evidence that they are safer than someone with the same amount of alcohol in their blood who has just come out of the pub? Or is it just circumstantial evidence from people who "feel fine" the next morning?

I'm sure the guy who get's in to his car after 10 pints before heading down the wrong side of the Motorway to kill someone in a head on collision "feels fine" before he sets off. That doesn't mean he should be behind the wheel now should it?

So you're saying even though there is no evidence that people that read between 50 and 80 mg the following morning cause accidents or deaths we should lower it anyway because logically it can only make things safer.
So would you support a 30 km/ph across the board speed limit too? There's no evidence it would save lives but logically it has to be safer than our current setup. So it probably will. Actually I'd suggest it would save even more than 10 lifes.
Actually let's get rid of cars and such all together then there'll be no road deaths

Drummerboy08

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I do live in the country. If I know I have to be on the road the next morning, I'll still go out, but I just wont drink. Its simple really.

I have no interest in going out unless I'm drinking.

Drummerboy08

Deacon Lively Wafer wrote: »

I have no interest in going out unless I'm drinking.

Dont go out then if you have to drive the next day. Simple.

peasant

Wherever I go, I have to drive (no taxis/or way too expensive, no public transport)

One of the reasons I do go out is to have a nice pint of Guinness that didn't come out of a can. One pint. Just the one.

I stopped going to pubs when I wasn't allowed a smoke with my pint and only had a rare one when going for a meal.

Now that I can't even have one pint I'll just stop going out altogether ...drink and food is cheaper at home and I can smoke there too if I want to.

EPM

Deacon Lively Wafer wrote: »

I am sure there is also at least a certain percentage of the deaths of people with alcohol in their system where the alcohol had no bearing on the crash and it would have happened regardless i.e caused by the driver of the other car etc.

And conversely this could also have been the case in the deaths without alcohol so that kinda negates your point

ShooterSF

EPM wrote: »

And conversely this could also have been the case in the deaths without alcohol so that kinda negates your point

In what way?

EPM

ShooterSF wrote: »

In what way?

Think about it. If there's a percentage of people with alcohol in their systems killed in accidents that weren't their fault like nox said then on the law of averages then people without alcohol in their systems can be killed in accidents that weren't their fault

Seth Brundle

mikkael wrote: »

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.

What's wrong with any non alcoholic drink?

mikkael wrote: »

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?

I wasn't aware that there was anywhere in ireland that was that far from its nearest town. I'd be curious to know where it is.

mikkael wrote: »

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.

What did people there do before they had cars? There mustn't have been any social life at all!

mikkael wrote: »

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?

So you are agreeing with the two tier system?

mikkael wrote: »

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.

What the f... are you on about? The plan is to reduce fatalities because of people driving whilst under the influence. There are also campaigns to reduce binge drinking, domestic violence, etc. Your rant is suggesting that because some people decide to stay at home so they don't break one law they end up breaking another? Some cnut who will beat the crap out of his missus will probably do it regardless but I'm not getting drawn into a dumb argument!

mikkael wrote: »

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.

There is no confusion. The proposal is actually quite clear, and strangely has nothing to do with smoking. If you or anyone else finds it difficult to understand then maybe they are better off not drinking or smoking in order to preserve the few brain cells they have!

mikkael wrote: »

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.

1. these so called passed over publicans could have sold their licences for vast sums had they anted to
2. not everyone in 'Dublin' did well in the boom. Many of them actually had to move outside of Dublin because they couldn't afford property and yet still have to pay to travel to work - its like they are culchies but not!
3. this argument as part of an anti-drink proposal is reall stretching it!

Richie15

mikkael wrote: »

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.

The rest of your message is... well, I don't agree with it. But this part I do. I think pubs, or at least country pubs, should be an exception to the Ban (despite the fact it was them that kicked off the whole thing). But that's a different arguement, it's nothing to do with road safety.

pburns wrote: »

Now we all know the saying about lies, damned lies and statistics but look again at the stats posted earlier in the thread for blood alcohol levels in killed drivers (from a 2008 Irish, RSA report mind):

Not recorded : 35%
Zero: 26%
1-19: 2%
20-49: 3%
50-80: 3%
81-159: 9%
160-239: 12%
240+: 9%

So 30% over the limit, 3% between the new and old limits, 5% under the proposed limit and 26% clean.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the way you're presenting these statistics, it sounds like you're in support of the "1 pint is good" campaign. Those with no alcohol in their system (and those with it, I'll admit) could have all sorts of different circumstances affecting their driving, even if we do assume they were at fault! Tiredness, icy weather, needing a wee, changing the channel on the radio etc. Too many variables. The most trustworthy statement in your post was the comparisson between statistics and damned lies.

Reginald P. DuM

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).

Mattie McGrath - South Tipp.
Ml. Lowry - North Tipp.

Chalk and cheese in other words.

vinylrules

Didn't the Road Safety Authority recommned that anyone suffering from tiredness while driving, should stop and take two strong cups of coffee? They did you know!

http://www.topazenergy.ie/en/News/RSA-and-Topaz-announce-joint-initiative-to-combat-driver-fatigue/
Noel Brett, Chief Executive of the Road Safety Authority said; “ Scientific studies show that if a driver persists in fighting sleep while driving, the impairment level is the same as driving while over the drink drive limit.”

“To drivers we say; if you are fighting sleep at the wheel, stop immediately. If you can, drink a cup of coffee or caffeine drink but most importantly take a 15 to 20 minute nap. Following the nap stretch your legs and get some fresh air. By following this advice you should be able to drive for another hour or more

Now, let's just tease this one out a bit. Isn't caffeine a drug, a stimulant? So we're recommending that somone take a particular kind of drug to avoid being killed or killing someone else. A TD suggests on a radio show, that in some cases, a nervous, jumpy individual just might - just might - be a little bit more relaxed after just one drink - and he's hung out to dry.

As a regular moderate drinker I can attest that a small amount of alcohol reduces stress. So it's not entirely implausable that say, an overstressed call centre worker on a Friday at 5pm, after a hectic day, dealing with angry customers, would calm down a little after one drink before taking to the roads. So, rather than heading straight out and driving agressively with all the barely suppressed anger and rage, he is a little more chilled and takes his foot off the accelerater.

Oh wait, I see what's wrong with this picture. It's about drink isn't it? Alcohol. Booze. The Devil's Buttermilk. You just can't trust these Irish drinkers to have one drink - they'll want another and another and another...

JHMEG

It is a simple fact that a lot of people who live in the country made a decision to do so, for clean air, no noise, nice (distant) neighbours, etc. There are soooo many things that are not sustainable about this model, especially in an Irish context, and one of them is driving to the pub.

If you want guaranteed access to services, I'm afraid you have to move to a population centre, especially now that money to subsidise services to rural dwellers is drying up.

Richie15

vinylrules wrote: »

Isn't caffeine a drug, a stimulant? So we're recommending that somone take a particular kind of drug to avoid being killed or killing someone else. A TD suggests on a radio show, that in some cases, a nervous, jumpy individual just might - just might - be a little bit more relaxed after just one drink - and he's hung out to dry.

As a regular moderate drinker I can attest that a small amount of alcohol reduces stress. So it's not entirely implausable that say, an overstressed call centre worker on a Friday at 5pm, after a hectic day, dealing with angry customers, would calm down a little after one drink before taking to the roads. So, rather than heading straight out and driving agressively with all the barely suppressed anger and rage, he is a little more chilled and takes his foot off the accelerater.

Oh wait, I see what's wrong with this picture. It's about drink isn't it? Alcohol. Booze. The Devil's Buttermilk. You just can't trust these Irish drinkers to have one drink - they'll want another and another and another...

That's a fair arguement although there's one problem, it's built on the assumption that we agree with Mr. Brett. I don't. The only cure for tiredness is sleep. Caffeine doesn't actually give you energy, or improve your concentration. There's a part of your brain that takes the "I'm tired" message from your body, and puts it to sleep. Caffeine just shuts this part down so your body doesn't know it's tired.

The best way to deal with fatigue behind the wheel (besides not starting to drive if you're tired, of course) is to drink a cup of coffee and sleep for 15 minutes. Any longer and you're into a deep sleep and you'll wake up groggy, any shorter and your wont be rested enough. The caffeine will have taken effect by this time but like I said, the sleep is more important.

(Appologies for dummenning the "part of your brain" piece, that's just how I understand it. Wait, that's not how you spell "dumbenning"!)

mikkael

kbannon wrote: »

If you or anyone else finds it difficult to understand then maybe they are better off not drinking or smoking in order to preserve the few brain cells they have!

That is particularly childish coming from a Moderator.

mikkael

kbannon wrote: »

What's wrong with any non alcoholic drink?
I wasn't aware that there was anywhere in ireland that was that far from its nearest town. I'd be curious to know where it is.

There are several such villages. Go for a drive in the countryside.

kbannon wrote: »

What did people there do before they had cars? There mustn't have been any social life at all!

People didn't have inside toilets once. That didn't stop them from going to the loo. Silly argument.[/QUOTE]

kbannon wrote: »

So you are agreeing with the two tier system?

No, they're your words. I'm just pointing out that people who live in Dublin haven't a clue about living in the country.

kbannon wrote: »

What the f... are you on about? The plan is to reduce fatalities because of people driving whilst under the influence.

Right, but we continue to ignore the cause of the other 2/3 fatalities. Makes sense that.

kbannon wrote: »

There are also campaigns to reduce binge drinking, domestic violence, etc. Your rant is suggesting that because some people decide to stay at home so they don't break one law they end up breaking another? Some cnut who will beat the crap out of his missus will probably do it regardless but I'm not getting drawn into a dumb argument!

Right, well if there are campaigns for other fatal and near fatal things then that's the problem sorted so. Yes, well done - my 'rant' is indeed suggesting that some people will die as a result, just in a different place. At least you got something right ( almost )

kbannon wrote: »

There is no confusion. The proposal is actually quite clear, and strangely has nothing to do with smoking. If you or anyone else finds it difficult to understand then maybe they are better off not drinking or smoking in order to preserve the few brain cells they have!

Well the latter silly remark is dealt with in a previous post. The rest is also a silly personal attack which kind of goes nowhere.

kbannon wrote: »

1. these so called passed over publicans could have sold their licences for vast sums had they anted to

Maybe the ones you read about in the 'Irish Times', but not the ones I know. Once again, ignorance.

kbannon wrote: »

2. not everyone in 'Dublin' did well in the boom. Many of them actually had to move outside of Dublin because they couldn't afford property and yet still have to pay to travel to work - its like they are culchies but not!

Indeed. And so many of the accidents happen on roads like the N7, not country villages.

kbannon wrote: »

3. this argument as part of an anti-drink proposal is reall stretching it!

Again that's your opinon. I'm anti - drink driving but also anti denying reality.

Seth Brundle

mikkael wrote: »

There are several such villages. Go for a drive in the countryside.

I frequently do!

mikkael wrote: »

People didn't have inside toilets once. That didn't stop them from going to the loo. Silly argument.

My point is valid. People claim that they cannot have a social life yet for all the hardship they must endure, they used to do it without complaining!

mikkael wrote: »

No, they're your words. I'm just pointing out that people who live in Dublin haven't a clue about living in the country.

Thats a bit of a generalisation. I used to live in the country. Even now I don't live far from some cows and wheat.
However, I did used to live in the country about two miles from the nearest town. I used to be of the view that it was alright to drive home after one pint. I also used to think that it was alright to drive home after about ten pints and a similar amount of chasers. I did os without killing myself or others - somehow!
Don't make feckin assumptions that people who live near Dublin don't know what's going on. It just shows up your ignorance otherwise.

mikkael wrote: »

Right, but we continue to ignore the cause of the other 2/3 fatalities. Makes sense that.

What are the causes?

mikkael wrote: »

Right, well if there are campaigns for other fatal and near fatal things then that's the problem sorted so. Yes, well done - my 'rant' is indeed suggesting that some people will die as a result, just in a different place. At least you got something right ( almost )

No you were suggesting that people will become more likely to die or suffer from domestic violence because their spouse cannot drive home from the pub

mikkael wrote: »

Well the latter silly remark is dealt with in a previous post. The rest is also a silly personal attack which kind of goes nowhere.

pfffft
You said that its confusing. Its not and stop pretending that it is. Its an inconvienence to your social life, thats all.
I go to the pub. If I have my car then I drink alcohol free beer, coke, coffee, whatever. I do it without a second thought and not because I would be afraid of getting stopped by the gardai.

mikkael wrote: »

Maybe the ones you read about in the 'Irish Times', but not the ones I know. Once again, ignorance.

You mean that their licence wasn't as good as the others that did actually sell?
Can you show me an example of a rural pub licence not being sold in a short space of time?

mikkael wrote: »

Indeed. And so many of the accidents happen on roads like the N7, not country villages.

and what?

mikkael wrote: »

Again that's your opinon. I'm anti - drink driving but also anti denying reality.

now you have lost me. How are you anti denying reality? Because you think that people should be allowed to D&D? Why not let them drink the four or five that they traditionally did on a Saturday night (and don't say they didn't)? Why not indeed?

Aard

If people keep up this us-and-them attitude (rural VS urban) then the country will get nowhere. If people down the country want special alcohol-limit rules, then campaign for more (a lot, lot more - I'm talking almost federalisation) regional autonomy. However, the countryside needs Dublin - its economy would completely stagnate without the big shmoke (link). If the countryside does actually want the benefits that Dublin brings, then it needs to abide by Dublin's rules. It's a warts-and-all deal.

mikkael

Aard wrote: »

However, the countryside needs Dublin - its economy would completely stagnate without the big shmoke (link). If the countryside does actually want the benefits that Dublin brings, then it needs to abide by Dublin's rules. It's a warts-and-all deal.

Interesting stuff. I'm not sure I agree, but the issues you raise are indeed valid. A big part of the problem in Ireland is that Dublin IS Ireland - but yet there's a whole big country out there. What I see on a regular basis in the country is few if any obeying the current alcohol limits, and defo not the smoking ban.

Therefore, we go back to old Irish thing. You must do 15 kph through roadworks. I tried it one night at 4 a.m. Joke. I doubt that anyone has ever done it, but it's the law which you can be bashed with if you get caught / something goes wrong. It's the same with the current alcohol limit. 90% of rural dwellers ignore it.

Now, my point is this. Wouldn't it be a better idea for the government to MAKE AN ACTUAL DECISION! Either a/ let everyone get pissed and drive home, or 2/ drop the limit to zero and we'll all know to watch out. Imho that's better than having a law which few respect and pretending because it's the law that everything is hunky dory. That's living in denial.

Not least due to decades of ballsing up on planning / infrastructure - which is part of the problem - they decided to fudge it with this bollocks about one glass of wine. Who goes to a pub for one glass of wine? The truth is that many of the very politicians who are slating this guy ( OP ) probably drive home pissed at the weekends. How fecking Irish.

I've read a lot about principle. Well, principle has failed. It's time for the governement for once to come out and make a real decision. Drink - driving is like just about everything else in law in this country. The reality is one thing, then there's a barmy law which can be dusted off. It creates a situation by design where people take a chance, but technically you're wrong all of the time if needs be.

Drummerboy08

kbannon wrote: »

What's wrong with any non alcoholic drink?

This is actually a very good point. I have to laugh at all the talk of the publicans giving out, saying that they'll lose a fortune over this. And then with everyone else giving out about the social aspect, not being able to go out etc.

The most profit in a bar is made on Coke Cola, 7up, Lucozade etc. Win win for everyone.

Reginald P. DuM wrote: »

Mattie McGrath - South Tipp.
Ml. Lowry - North Tipp.

Chalk and cheese in other words.

Sorry. I never realised they were so far apart.

mikkael

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

The most profit in a bar is made on Coke Cola, 7up, Lucozade etc. Win win for everyone.

... except the customer. I defy anyone to sit in a pub for 2 hours with a little glass of coke.

Aard

I still don't get this idea of having to go to the pub. Is that the only form of entertainment/socialising people have?

Drummerboy08

mikkael wrote: »

... except the customer. I defy anyone to sit in a pub for 2 hours with a little glass of coke.

Done it many times. It's really sad on your behalf if you cant walk into a pub without having a pint. Are you that weak that you cant resist Mr Guiness?

mikkael

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Done it many times. It's really sad on your behalf if you cant walk into a pub without having a pint. Are you that weak that you cant resist Mr Guiness?

No, I can't stand Guinness actually. I drink a pint of heineken shandy over and evening actually. Keeps me under the limit and costs the same as a glass of coke that lasts 10 minutes or less.

It's pretty hilarious if you think that someone's going to pay 5 times as much drinking coke in the same period. I've done it many times myself and given up. You state that you did it many times.

So what about the times you didn't? ... be honest now! That goes back to my original point.

The only thing that's sad is your attempt to play the man instead of the ball.

mikkael

Aard wrote: »

I still don't get this idea of having to go to the pub. Is that the only form of entertainment/socialising people have?

Sadly, yes. Imho it's part of a much wider issue, not least the fact that young people and their needs are not taken seriously in Ireland. Growing up with booze companies sponsoring every sporting event doesn't help either.

ShooterSF

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Done it many times. It's really sad on your behalf if you cant walk into a pub without having a pint. Are you that weak that you cant resist Mr Guiness?

Can you not see the difference between can't and shouldn't have to? Is this a case of "I don't go to the pub for a pint so you don't have to"?

Aard

mikkael wrote: »

Sadly, yes. Imho it's part of a much wider issue, not least the fact that young people and their needs are not taken seriously in Ireland. Growing up with booze companies sponsoring every sporting event doesn't help either.

The young people thing is a red herring. What would you propose young people do instead? Even in the cities, where there's a helluva lot more needs being met, young people still go out drinking. It's not because of a lack of other things to do that people drink. It's because, for some reason, in this country there's a certain amount of prestige (in the socialogical sense that is) attached to getting wasted. In school, teenagers kept going on about being really drunk. The same in college, but even more so. Even in the workplace it happens. The only reason people get wasted is because their peers think it's cool to get wasted. In other countries, if you're smashed then you're a gob****e, over here you're a legend. The problem isn't lack of facilities - it's the Irish psyche.

Seth Brundle

mikkael wrote: »

Sadly, yes. Imho it's part of a much wider issue, not least the fact that young people and their needs are not taken seriously in Ireland. Growing up with booze companies sponsoring every sporting event doesn't help either.

You seem to have a problem with the level of drink in society yet you reckon people should be allowed have a drink and drive home?
I can't figure your angle out at all!

mikkael

Aard wrote: »

The young people thing is a red herring.

Well, they're the adults of tomorrow ....

Aard wrote: »

In other countries, if you're smashed then you're a gob****e, over here you're a legend.

Aard wrote: »

That's changing imho. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw someone staggering off the edge of a path drunk. Used to see it all the time before.

Aard wrote: »

The problem isn't lack of facilities - it's the Irish psyche.

Agree and disagree. Facilities alone don't do it, a culture needs to be developed in tandem with facilities. This is a broad and varied issue. If you look at some of the Nordic countries there's a lot of food for thought there.

Just a few of my own observations ...

1/ I know two scientists and one lawyer who live in Sweden. One drives a BMW, one Merc, one Volvo. In two cases the first thing these guys do when they get a chance is go off cycling with their families. In Ireland if you have that position / status you act like your ****e don't smell and see bikes as a sign of poverty.

2/ Children go to summer / autumn / winter camps where they are socialized with other children, and learn to express themselves without getting pissed. They are also encouraged to look at themselves / their lives in a fun and non - morbid way. One such activity is that of posting letters to themselves, which are sent on 6 months later or so so's they can chart their progress. Life stuff, if you will.

I've been in a couple of towns in Germany where teens are accommodated with radio / tv studios - of decent standard. They're given top of the range equipment and told to go out and make something. They're given POWER. In Ireland middle aged men use the terms 'they' and 'them' when plotting the course of young people's lives, rather than giving them empowerment in the first place.

mikkael

kbannon wrote: »

You seem to have a problem with the level of drink in society yet you reckon people should be allowed have a drink and drive home?
I can't figure your angle out at all!

Your words entirely. Your views entirely.

Aard

I almost entirely agree with you mikkael. I feel, however, that I'd be veering way off-topic to give further opinion on the matter of facilities/services for young people and/or the rural community. New thread material, perhaps .