The new drink/drive limit, your thoughts

nosey nelly

Can't believe there is so much resistance to the proposed drink/drive limits. Will rural culture disappear if people can only have one pint instead of two (or whatever it is for the legal limit)?

Of all the sh!te that is happening in the country I can't believe that trying to stop people drink and drive is the one that the TDs get most upset about?

admiralofthefleet

all out prohibition, its the only solution

minidazzler

1 pint of stout will bring the average person to just below the legal limit now anyway.

If Rural Culture involves drink driving, then who care's if it disappears?

orourkeda

ZERO.

Simple

Sulmac

It should be zero.

TheZohanS

I think it should be dropped to 50mg or even lower, but not zero.

The only reason it shouldn't be dropped to zero is because of the chances of having a few mgs of alcohol in your blood the following morning.

minidazzler

TheZohan wrote: »

I think it should be dropped to 50mg or even lower, but not zero.

The only reason it shouldn't be dropped to zero is because of the chances of having a few mgs of alcohol in your blood the following morning.

Is it not currently at 35 mg???

admiralofthefleet

minidazzler wrote: »

Is it not currently at 35 mg???

no its 80mg at the moment

AnonoBoy

I fail to feel sorry for anyone who thinks they have a right to drink and drive.

As for 'a drink making you a better driver' as one of our brilliant politicians put it well you know what? F*ck right off you backwards ar*ehole. F*ck right off back to whatever backwater you came from.

minidazzler

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

no its 80mg at the moment

Oh, I thought it came down 2 years ago, guess i was wrong.

Thanks Admiral *Salutes, About face, marches off*

indenial

I think 80mg/ml is fine as it is. I can say drinking 1 pint and driving has never impaired my driving.

Mike 1972

minidazzler wrote: »

Is it not currently at 35 mg???

The 35 figure is for breath samples 80 if for blood.

A zero limit would mean nobody could drive since there is a small amount of naturally occuring alcohol in your body even if youve never had a drink in your life. 20mg is about the lowest practicable limit which can be set

Overheal

The vast majority of the rest of the world (US included) gets by just fine with the 50mg limit.

That doesnt stop road fatalities. Enforcement is probably a larger factor. It does help though. Its the difference between have to let someone drive away who has 79mg in him versus jailing him, when in most other countries he would be regarded a danger to the road.

artanevilla

Can the O.P make a poll with the options:

I'm for the measure, I drive, but don't drink.
I'm for the measure, I drive, and I drink.
I'm for the measure, I don't drive, but I drink.
I'm for the measure, but I neither drive nor drink.

and the same for against.

Pygmalion

Should be as low as practical to be honest.

Thing is it can't be "0" or fairly close as certain foods and drinks will contain a tiny amount of alcohol anyway(I've gotten some cola drink from a health shop before with "Only 0.5% alcohol" or whatever, and I believe a lot of "non-alcoholic" beers contain about this amount, as well as food which use it for flavouring), and some IIRC occur naturally in the body.

nosey nelly

Mike 1972 wrote: »

A zero limit would mean nobody could drive since there is a small amount of naturally occuring alcohol in your body even if youve never had a drink in your life. 20mg is about the lowest practicable limit which can be set

Interesting.

yeah i agree with no drink driving and all this but i can honestly say the drink driving causing the deaths on roads arent people after 2 pints. be realistic if you had 2 pints would you be so drunk or tipsey that you couldnt drive.
doesnt bother me, if i had 1 bottle of beer i wouldnt even get behind the wheel but i can see other peoples arguments

ilovelamp2000

How many people were killed by people with a reading of between 50mg and 80mg ?

G_R

should be 50. i dont bye the whole "itll kill off rural ireland thing". If rural Ireland has come down to having 1 pint in the local pub then driving home then good ridance tbh. Get a taxi ffs

My name is URL

orourkeda wrote: »

ZERO.

Simple

It's not that simple, it'd mean a hell of alot of people are arrested.. even the day after having a drink you can be above 0Mg, even longer in some cases if you take certain medications

crossmolinalad

dannym08 wrote: »

should be 50. i dont bye the whole "itll kill off rural ireland thing". If rural Ireland has come down to having 1 pint in the local pub then driving home then good ridance tbh. Get a taxi ffs

i live rural
the nearest pub is to far to walk
to get a taxi on friday saturday evenings/nights is in rural almost impossible
they dont want to go for a drive of 3/4 hour to pick u up from a rural pub , bring u home (a 15 mins drive) and going back another 3/4 hour for just 12 euro
they get more if they stay local

so it means what u say: the rural pub have to close down and we have to stay home
thats whats gonna happen

phasers

If you're drinking, don't drive.

Simple.

eviltwin

crossmolinalad wrote: »

i live rural
the nearest pub is to far to walk
to get a taxi on friday saturday evenings/nights is in rural almost impossible
they dont want to go for a drive of 3/4 hour to pick u up from a rural pub , bring u home (a 15 mins drive) and going back another 3/4 hour for just 12 euro
they get more if they stay local

so it means what u say: the rural pub have to close down and we have to stay home
thats whats gonna happen

Tough.

I live in dublin but I often drive to the pub. I'm not in an area serviced by late night buses and the cost of a taxi would be more than my night out so most of the time I drive in.

I can quite happily sit in a pub and not drink. I don't go to pubs for the booze, I go to see my mates, soak up the atmosphere etc

If I want to drink I'll stay at home and do it there

Drink driving is disgusting. My dad was hit by a drunk driver one morning on his way to work. The guy driving the car had been out the night before and thought he was okay. My dad survived but ended up losing the use of his left leg which meant losing his job and the knock on effects to our family were devestating

I'd like to see zero tolerance and a zero limit.

A person's right to have a drink should never be more important than a person's right to live

amacachi

Just a hypothetical here. You own a rural pub with maybe 20 regulars on a Friday night. Each one of them is only having a single drink then driving home. Total into the till of around 90 quid.
Now IF this were the case I would hire a minibus for a couple of hundred euro and let them get ****faced and still go home. An extra 3-4 drinks per person will cover the cost.
One possible reason why no pub owners are doing this could be because the customers are already having more than one-two drinks each night.

Are we really meant to believe that they're worried about only being able to have 1 pint instead of 2?

stovelid

amacachi wrote: »

JNow IF this were the case I would hire a minibus for a couple of hundred euro and let them get ****faced and still go home. An extra 3-4 drinks per person will cover the cost.

I've always thought this too. Publicans should be more proactive.

To be honest, some of my in-laws (and their friends) are from rural communities and I'm actually sympathetic to the plight of people (especially the elderly) who want a few pints but live in an isolated community.

It's easy to lecture when you live in a city or town.

Like you say, surely the pubs could purchase a mini-bus - perhaps even with the help of a grant - and any punter that uses it throws the driver a fiver. It would be a nice earner for somebody for a few hours work each weekend night, and the pubs would definitely see increased trade.

arybvtcw0eolkf

IMO its grand as it is.

In fact, I much preferred it when it was 100mg - then I didn't feel like a criminal if I took the car out the next day.

Yup, I'd like to see it brought back up to the 100mg.

phasers

Serious question: Can wine gums or sherry trifle or foods cooked in wine and stuff make you have a bit of alcohol in the blood? That would be my only reason to oppose a limit of zero.


I just love wine gums so damn much

Terry

phasers wrote: »

Serious question: Can wine gums or sherry trifle or foods cooked in wine and stuff make you have a bit of alcohol in the blood? That would be my only reason to oppose a limit of zero.


I just love wine gums so damn much

Then wind your...

Nah.

brummytom

phasers wrote: »

Serious question: Can wine gums or sherry trifle or foods cooked in wine and stuff make you have a bit of alcohol in the blood? That would be my only reason to oppose a limit of zero.


I just love wine gums so damn much

Nope, there's no wine at all in wine gums apparently. The name comes from the experience of eating wine gums being like 'savouring a fine wine'.

Personally, I'd take the gums over a shitty glass of wine any day

eviltwin

phasers wrote: »

Serious question: Can wine gums or sherry trifle or foods cooked in wine and stuff make you have a bit of alcohol in the blood? That would be my only reason to oppose a limit of zero.


I just love wine gums so damn much

Dont think so

Saw an experiment where a guy ate a lot of those chocolate liqueur things and it had no impact on his alcohol levels at all

df1985

i dont think going from 80mg to 50mg will make much difference.you will always have a group that will drink-drive regardless of the limit.do you really think them aul fellas in the back arse of kerry are having their 1 pint as it is and then driving home.how many of us go to the pub for one pint? theyre having their 4/5 pints anyways, they couldnt give a ****e about the limit.

Joey the lips

My own feeling.

Ban drinking and driving period!

But then you have to think of people in the backwaters of donegal,kerry and Cork. Alone nearest neighbour is a mile away. No visitors. That one pint is 2 halfs of shandy in a pub. Its about 4 hours of talking. We talk about drink driving but what do the stats say? Do the stats say "A 78 year old driving home in donegal kill 7 sheep because of 1 pint"

or do the stats say "Mark smith 24 yrs old suspected of drink driving was killed when his car went out of control and hit a three"

Its not about money really its not about one drink its about one social drink which means an awful lot to a lot of people. Its fine for us living in the pale but we have alternatives.

prendy

if they actually enforced the current limit would be alot better.

for the record i dont drink and drive..never

but..

I think at the minute 3 pints puts you over so people can have 2. I seriously doubt anyone has been killed by a driver who has had 2 pints. drink driving incidents usually involve people way over the legal limit, these people wont care if the limit is 50 or 80mg. they will continue to drink and drive until they are caught or are dead.

amacachi

Joey the lips wrote: »

My own feeling.

Ban drinking and driving period!

But then you have to think of people in the backwaters of donegal,kerry and Cork. Alone nearest neighbour is a mile away. No visitors. That one pint is 2 halfs of shandy in a pub. Its about 4 hours of talking. We talk about drink driving but what do the stats say? Do the stats say "A 78 year old driving home in donegal kill 7 sheep because of 1 pint"

or do the stats say "Mark smith 24 yrs old suspected of drink driving was killed when his car went out of control and hit a three"

Its not about money really its not about one drink its about one social drink which means an awful lot to a lot of people. Its fine for us living in the pale but we have alternatives.

Why, why does there have to alcohol consumed!? I really think that's the trouble most people have with that argument.

TheZohanS

prendy wrote: »

I think at the minute 3 pints puts you over so people can have 2.

For some people, depends on weight, what you've had to eat, metabolism, medications you might be on and how efficient your body is at processing alcohol.

mickos

amacachi wrote: »

Just a hypothetical here. You own a rural pub with maybe 20 regulars on a Friday night. Each one of them is only having a single drink then driving home. Total into the till of around 90 quid.
Now IF this were the case I would hire a minibus for a couple of hundred euro and let them get ****faced and still go home. An extra 3-4 drinks per person will cover the cost.
One possible reason why no pub owners are doing this could be because the customers are already having more than one-two drinks each night.

Are we really meant to believe that they're worried about only being able to have 1 pint instead of 2?

My local pub has done something like this. He used to have a commercial jeep, which he used for collecting stock or whatever. In 2008 he traded in the jeep for a minibus, which he can still use for collecting stock. The pubs slogan now is "you get here and we will get you home". It has worked quiet well and although his trade is back, like everywhere, the pub still does a reasonably good trade on weekends. i don't see why more rural publicans can't trade in their Mercs and BMWs to provide this service for their customers.

Pygmalion

mickos wrote: »

My local pub has done something like this. He used to have a commercial jeep, which he used for collecting stock or whatever. In 2008 he traded in the jeep for a minibus, which he can still use for collecting stock. The pubs slogan now is "you get here and we will get you home". It has worked quiet well and although his trade is back, like everywhere, the pub still does a reasonably good trade on weekends. i don't see why more rural publicans can't trade in their Mercs and BMWs to provide this service for their customers.

As well as that, if the bus leaves at 2 in the morning then the customers stay until 2 in the morning, which I'm sure is a plus for him :P

Venom

crossmolinalad wrote: »

i live rural
the nearest pub is to far to walk
to get a taxi on friday saturday evenings/nights is in rural almost impossible
they dont want to go for a drive of 3/4 hour to pick u up from a rural pub , bring u home (a 15 mins drive) and going back another 3/4 hour for just 12 euro
they get more if they stay local

so it means what u say: the rural pub have to close down and we have to stay home
thats whats gonna happen

Why not take turn as designated driver with other drivers who like to have a drink thus no taxi hassles?

The same issue you are complaining about effect people living in cites as well and have been dealt with for a long time and as others have stated if its just to socialise why not have a soft drink.

Kipperhell

I just want to see how many people were involved in accidents where by the new limit would have meant they were charged. It is below 50 for the entire country then you got to wonder is the expense of the law change worth it.

I know one guy who has been charged twice and both times got away with it so I think that would be a better area to focus on.

restaurants

TheZohan wrote: »

I think it should be dropped to 50mg or even lower, but not zero.

The only reason it shouldn't be dropped to zero is because of the chances of having a few mgs of alcohol in your blood the following morning.

I agree with bringing it down, but we need some level of tolerance next morning. That is why 'zero' is wrong.

peepeep

Joey the lips wrote: »

or do the stats say "Mark smith 24 yrs old suspected of drink driving was killed when his car went out of control and hit a three"

Good thing he didn't hit a four or there'd be hell to pay.

ejmaztec

Mobile bars. They can drive around picking up alcoholics, then shove em back out onto their door-steps when they're in a coma.

bog master

amacachi wrote: »

Just a hypothetical here. You own a rural pub with maybe 20 regulars on a Friday night. Each one of them is only having a single drink then driving home. Total into the till of around 90 quid.
Now IF this were the case I would hire a minibus for a couple of hundred euro and let them get ****faced and still go home. An extra 3-4 drinks per person will cover the cost.
One possible reason why no pub owners are doing this could be because the customers are already having more than one-two drinks each night.

Are we really meant to believe that they're worried about only being able to have 1 pint instead of 2?

In defence of the publican, you expect him to spend all of his profit made from these 20 lads staying on later to pay for a minibus to take them home?

mickos

Pygmalion wrote: »

As well as that, if the bus leaves at 2 in the morning then the customers stay until 2 in the morning, which I'm sure is a plus for him :P

Thats another thing. The bus leaves at closing time and not a minute before, so keeps the punters drinking til closing. Unfortunately they don't get to stay for the lock in though;)

I am totally against lowering the limit it is fine as it is. Why people think reducing it will make the slightest difference is beyond me. All it is doing is putting more hardship on people who need to drive the next day as it is already risky with this rubbish of bagging in the morning. It will also make it harder for people especially older people who have no choice but to drive to the pub when they want a pint or two.

caseyann

They should just ban drink from Ireland altogether;)That would solve the drink drivers problem.And cigarettes also.

oppenheimer1

bog master wrote: »

In defence of the publican, you expect him to spend all of his profit made from these 20 lads staying on later to pay for a minibus to take them home?

Well does the publican want to stay in business or not? Just had a look on Carzone, a 5 year old minibus will set you back about €5k, and if the bus is just for running drunks home you could get away with spending even less. Assuming a reasonably busy pub running the bus service 3 nights a week at €5 a head it could turn out to be a reasonably profitable venture. If publicans were creative they could even turn it into a selling point, buy 5 pints and get a free lift home within a 5km radius or something along those lines. The banter on the bus could be the best craic of the night. The rural transport scheme runs in my area and most pensioners like it because it gives them a chance to meet others, despite the fact that it may take one and a half hours to go five km as it has such a roundabout route.


Rural attitudes are changing anyway and when the current batch of auld fellas die off they will take the way of the old rural Irish pub trade with them to the grave.

Only those that innovate will survive.

Wertz

Wonderful. Yet more newly enacted legislation that panders to the populist masses and the generally clueless.
Nevermind the fact that the previous limit was not being effectively enforced due to lack of checkpoints or pro active garda crackdowns in the right areas...so now instead of trying to make people comply with the 80mg level with the current level of enforcement, they want to make people comply with a lower limit...ie doing more with less.

This protects no-one...for instance it doesn't protect people from plain old stupidity like the woman and her three children I encountered less than an hour ago, whilst I was pulling out of a petrol station, who in heavy rain and near darkness (4.45pm) hadn't the basic level of knowledge to put on even her fecking sidelights, never mind her headlights...only I checked my off side a third time, before puling out, I'd have cleaned her/her kids out of it, probably written off both cars and perhaps killed someone.
This is without a drop of alcohol comsumed by either party (I assume, if she's driving her kids home)...I certainly haven't touched a drop in weeks, nor would I ever consider getting behind the wheel after even a bottle of beer.

Where are the laws to deal with that? Me flashing my lights at her in her rearview didn't get the message home and I'd be fairly sure she drove down the road cursing me for being some sort of maniac...who happened to have his lights on like 95% of the rest of the urban traffic.

Neither does the new limit protect anyone from the likes of the bespectacled idiot in a Golf GTi I met yesterday doing 50km/h in an 80 zone, who then decides to brake test me, in heavy rain/surface water, for coming up faster behind him...brake testing me with one of his brake lights out might I add, and who then proceeds to take a (wrong ) turn whilst flipping me the finger, and ends up sitting beside me at the traffic lights further down and then tries to ignore me.

We didn't need any new limits or penalties for alcohol, we needed a roadside idiot test and some legislators who actually understand what the real issues are for road safety, not this continued 'speed kills' mantra and 1 unit of alcohol turns you into the motoring equivalent of Hannibal Lectre....if you want to cut rural road deaths in late night collisions then try widening some roads, painting some new lines, trimming back hedgerows and filling in potholes...but no, that takes actual work and money....easier to make it look like you're being tough on the big bogeyman of the roads by making more rules against it which you still can't effectively instigate.

All a nice diversion away from the whole NAMA thing too BTW...I get very worried when our politicians stay up past midnight...means they're robbing us all again, but that's one for another thread...


[edit] All that said, I do welcome the mandatory testing after collisions...I'm utterly amazed that that wasn't made the case years ago.

Joey the lips

amacachi wrote: »

Why, why does there have to alcohol consumed!? I really think that's the trouble most people have with that argument.

True but you are missing my underlying point... Where is most of the accidents coming from? and at what price to society do we lower the limits. Like really lets call a spade a spade

Ban drink all together because it causes death.

Make sure all cares are fitted with tacho;s and speed limiters

Anyone that smokes should pay a premium on the health service

If you drive a motorbike you should pay a premium on the health service.

This list can go on and granted drinking is the issue but

Speed kills
Smoking Kills
Motors bikes are the highest fatality.

You see where do we stop. What is needed imo is a focus on where the deaths come from and how. On the news today noel dempsey is preposing for first offence its a fine and 3 penality points. This is an acknowledgement imo that it will cut rural life off. Additionally. Will the money generated by these fines go into paying for extra garda. I dont think so.

I said at the start I could not care if drinking is banned all together but there is banning things for a reason and banning them for sense and tbh this has no sense in my reasoning.

miss_feminem

Pygmalion wrote: »

Should be as low as practical to be honest.

Thing is it can't be "0" or fairly close as certain foods and drinks will contain a tiny amount of alcohol anyway(I've gotten some cola drink from a health shop before with "Only 0.5% alcohol" or whatever, and I believe a lot of "non-alcoholic" beers contain about this amount, as well as food which use it for flavouring), and some IIRC occur naturally in the body.

Yup, and I'm pretty sure mouth wash has alcohol too so it can't be zero really.

miss_feminem

Joey the lips wrote: »

If you drive a motorbike you should pay a premium on the health service.

Motors bikes are the highest fatality.

Not sure about this now in fairness. Most accidents involving motorbikes are caused by car drivers "not seeing" the bike. My OH has a bike (but has been driving a car for a lot longer) and he went through an insane training course to make sure he was driving the safest he possibly could.