New lower legal alcohol limits - when are they coming in force?

CiniO

I remember last year I was reading few articles about it.
AFAIR it was supposed to be this September when legal alcohol limits will be lowered from 80mg/100ml blood to 50mg/100ml and 20mg/100ml for learner and professional drivers.

I didn't hear anything since.

Is it really coming in force from 1st September?

If so, it would be worth to know, as this might affect a lot of people.

unkel

I was wondering about this myself recently. A link to any definite answers would be appreciated!

dr.fuzzenstein

Woukld lloik it yp, buyut topo dtrunkl

-Corkie-

Am I OK to drive this keyboard after 6 pints?????

CiniO

-Corkie- wrote: »

Am I OK to drive this keyboard after 6 pints?????

Have another 6 and try to write it again ;P

dr.fuzzenstein

-Corkie- wrote: »

Am I OK to drive this keyboard after 6 pints?????

I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

unkel

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

You're jober as a sudge, wha?

Monty.

It'll soon get to the stage that mouthwash will put you over.

When are they going to bring in proper random drug driving tests, that would be more like it.

cursai

Monty. wrote: »

It'll soon get to the stage that mouthwash will put you over.

When are they going to bring in proper random drug driving tests, that would be more like it.

Probably when the next boom hits. The Gardai haven't been supplied with a lot of the things. Its a shoestring budget for most stations outside the major cities. Even when these new laws come into force. The recalibrated equipment will at best follow months later. Half the stations won't get them. Its a pure pr stunt.

dr.fuzzenstein

Monty. wrote: »

It'll soon get to the stage that mouthwash will put you over.

When are they going to bring in proper random drug driving tests, that would be more like it.

It can!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mouthwash-could-put-motorists-over-drinkdrive-limit-1206641.html

So, the way to break this system is for everyone to use mouthwash.
What will the gards do when every single person they pull over reads as stinkin' drunk, have to get them to the station, further tests, only to find out (hours later) the guy is fine?
There would be queues out the door, they would need thousands of paddywagons and an extra 2000 gards per county.
The system would break down in a matter of weeks and good enough for this pile of horsesh*t.

Also, orange juice could put you over:
http://quezi.com/14067

It's all about hysteria, think about the children, call Joe, it's just so that politicians are see to "Do Something", like the speed cameras this is not about anyone actually caring beyond the usual screaming ninnies, but simply to say "I've done my bit, my ass is covered, you can't blame me!"

UnkieKev

What seems to be the officer problem

Reg'stoy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It can!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mouthwash-could-put-motorists-over-drinkdrive-limit-1206641.html

So, the way to break this system is for everyone to use mouthwash.
What will the gards do when every single person they pull over reads as stinkin' drunk, have to get them to the station, further tests, only to find out (hours later) the guy is fine?
There would be queues out the door, they would need thousands of paddywagons and an extra 2000 gards per county.
The system would break down in a matter of weeks and good enough for this pile of horsesh*t.

Also, orange juice could put you over:
http://quezi.com/14067

It's all about hysteria, think about the children, call Joe, it's just so that politicians are see to "Do Something", like the speed cameras this is not about anyone actually caring beyond the usual screaming ninnies, but simply to say "I've done my bit, my ass is covered, you can't blame me!"

Strange how you parody 'Joe' even thought you post two sensationalist 'liveline' articles. You then ask people to 'break' the system because they are going to reduce the drink drive limit, you obviously have a problem with that. Post some salient points as to how this reduction will affect an innocent driver rather than "I ate four and a half kilos of sherry trifle Guard" nonsense. If you read the Indo article, it says the subject blew zero than gargled for 30secs and then blew over, please enlighten me as to when this would happen in real life.


You are observed for 20mins before giving a breath sample back at the station or you can also ask to give a blood or urine sample, so neither scenario holds water. Even for a roadside positive you would have to had been gargling directly prior to blowing, "sorry about your shoes Guard it's my halitosis".

I've seen the result of drink driving in the course of my work so to use such ridiculous arguements to justify getting caught is just juvenile. Before the 'next morning' situation rears its head, if you've only just got to bed for a couple of hours after a skinfull and feel hard done by if you get caught; I've no sympathy for you.

I'll nail my colours to the mast and state for the record that I've never drank a pint and driven. We take it in turns to drive or stay overnight. My not drinking, as in a social pint or two after work and driving home is not a holier than thou attitude, it's a personal choice and mine is not to do it.

To answer the OP's question according to the RSA they state that you are correct in saying it comes into effect later this year.

AugustusMinimus

Instead of further reducing the limit, how about having Gardai policing the present limits even better.

Seems like a much better option.

Monty.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Instead of further reducing the limit, how about having Gardai policing the present limits even better.

Seems like a much better option.

And introduce anti drug driving measures and roadside drug driving testing as in the UK.

Drug driving seems to be going totally unpoliced and undetected.

The RSA are stuck 20 years in the past.

Anan1

Monty. wrote: »

When are they going to bring in proper random drug driving tests, that would be more like it.

Monty. wrote: »

Drug driving seems to be going totally unpoliced and undetected.

My gut feeling is that the drug-driving issue is a media-fed red herring. I'd imagine that the vast majority of people driving under the influence of illegal drugs are also over the legal alcohol limit, which is still barely enforced in this country. The possible exceptions to this are people driving under the effect of marijuana and prescription drugs. In the case of the former, the drug can still be found in the system for days, if not weeks, after the effects have worn off. Does the technology even exist for proving that someone was driving while under the influence?

Monty.

Anan1 wrote: »

The possible exceptions to this are people driving under the effect of marijuana and prescription drugs.

About 95% of drug use then ? I've seen many's a stoned ejit get into a car and drive and laugh about having no drink taken.

Anan1

Monty. wrote: »

About 95% of drug use then ? I've seen many's a stoned ejit get into a car and drive and laugh about having no drink taken.

Ok, let's take that case. How do you prove driving while under the influence? I might be wrong here, but my understanding is that drug tests can't do that.

Monty.

Anan1 wrote: »

Ok, let's take that case. How do you prove driving while under the influence? I might be wrong here, but my understanding is that drug tests can't do that.

Well for example, the UK cops are allowed to make an assessment at the side of the road, dilated pupils, walk line, balance test, speed of talking, sweating fidgeting etc. If they have any suspicions they are allowed to take them in to the station for blood and urine testing. In Ireland the cops can do **** all about it other than lift then for a traffic offense if they see one. None of the stations have drug testing. Just concentrating on drink driving is a joke/PR scam.

ResearchWill

Monty. wrote: »

And introduce anti drug driving measures and roadside drug driving testing as in the UK.

Drug driving seems to be going totally unpoliced and undetected.

The RSA are stuck 20 years in the past.

There are prosecutions for drug driving, also if a person is arrested for drink driving and the sample is blood or urine, and said sample is negative for drink it is automatically sent for drug screening. Also drug driving can be for prescription drugs, know of a case where women crashed, there was prescription drugs in system got done for driving while intoxicated.

Anan1

Monty. wrote: »

Well for example, the UK cops are allowed to make an assessment at the side of the road, dilated pupils, walk line, balance test, speed of talking, sweating fidgeting etc. If they have any suspicions they are allowed to take them in to the station for blood and urine testing. In Ireland the cops can do **** all about it other than lift then for a traffic offense if they see one. None of the stations have drug testing. Just concentrating on drink driving is a PR joke.

Ok, say the Gardaí do the roadside test and form the opinion that the person is stoned. They then bring them to the station and do a drug test, which comes up positive for marijuana. The case goes to court, and the driver says that they had smoked a joint the previous weekend. This makes the positive drug test worthless, so all that's left is the opinion of the Garda that the driver was under the influence when stopped. How do you get a conviction?

ResearchWill

Monty. wrote: »

Well for example, the UK cops are allowed to make an assessment at the side of the road, dilated pupils, walk line, balance test, speed of talking, sweating fidgeting etc. If they have any suspicions they are allowed to take them in to the station for blood and urine testing. In Ireland the cops can do **** all about it other than lift then for a traffic offense if they see one. None of the stations have drug testing. Just concentrating on drink driving is a joke/PR scam.

Nope also an offense here,


“49.—(1) (a) A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

(b) In this subsection ‘intoxicant’ includes alcohol and drugs and any combination of drugs or of drugs and alcohol.

Any Garda can do the above test you mention at the side of the road arrest, bring to station and doctor can take blood or urine, and do sobriety tests. The big problem is lots of drugs stay in system for days. It's also a mandatory 4 year ban.

Monty.

Anan1 wrote: »

Ok, say the Gardaí do the roadside test and form the opinion that the person is stoned. They then bring them to the station and do a drug test, which comes up positive for marijuana. The case goes to court, and the driver says that they had smoked a joint the previous weekend. This makes the positive drug test worthless, so all that's left is the opinion of the Garda that the driver was under the influence when stopped. How do you get a conviction?

I don't know all the complexities, but it works fine in the UK, you don't get away with drug driving there.

Monty.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Nope also an offense here,


“49.—(1) (a) A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

(b) In this subsection ‘intoxicant’ includes alcohol and drugs and any combination of drugs or of drugs and alcohol.

Any Garda can do the above test you mention at the side of the road arrest, bring to station and doctor can take blood or urine, and do sobriety tests. The big problem is lots of drugs stay in system for days. It's also a mandatory 4 year ban.

Then it's either piss poor legislation or piss poor enforcement. I've never ever heard of a conviction for drug driving in Ireland.

Anan1

Monty. wrote: »

I don't know all the complexities, but it works fine in the UK, you don't get away with drug driving there.

This isn't 'all the complexities', it's a very basic issue. With alcohol we can prove impairment, AFAIK with drugs we can't. How can we get a conviction for driving while 'under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle' when we can't even prove impairment?

ResearchWill

Anan1 wrote: »

Ok, say the Gardaí do the roadside test and form the opinion that the person is stoned. They then bring them to the station and do a drug test, which comes up positive for marijuana. The case goes to court, and the driver says that they had smoked a joint the previous weekend. This makes the positive drug test worthless, so all that's left is the opinion of the Garda that the driver was under the influence when stopped. How do you get a conviction?

Are you a lawyer, that is the exact point and the problem with drug driving. There was supposed to be a case stated to the HC on that very point last year but it never went ahead. To get the conviction in my opinion the doctor who takes the sample should do a sobrierty test and give his expert opinion the person was incapable of having proper control of a MPV.

ResearchWill

Monty. wrote: »

Then it's either piss poor legislation or piss poor enforcement. I've never ever heard of a conviction for drug driving in Ireland.

I have seen a few convictions, one was for Diazepine, but the person did mount a foot path for no reason, and was kinda out of it.

Also say a prosecution for cannabis but got off as no proof of incapacity.

Monty.

Anan1 wrote: »

This isn't 'all the complexities', it's a very basic issue. With alcohol we can prove impairment, AFAIK with drugs we can't. How can we get a conviction for driving while 'under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle' when we can't even prove impairment?

How do they manage it in other similar jurisdictions then ?

Monty.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Also say a prosecution for cannabis but got off as no proof of incapacity.

So you can be doped up to the eyeballs on weed and drive around to your hearts content, but with the new limts, God help you if you have a one pint when you're out for a meal. It's a great little country.

Anan1

ResearchWill wrote: »

Are you a lawyer

No.

ResearchWill wrote: »

that is the exact point and the problem with drug driving. There was supposed to be a case stated to the HC on that very point last year but it never went ahead.

Probably because they couldn't prove impairment?

ResearchWill wrote: »

To get the conviction in my opinion the doctor who takes the sample should do a sobrierty test and give his expert opinion the person was incapable of having proper control of a MPV.

What's needed here is proof, if opinions were enough to get convictions then we wouldn't bother with BAC readings at all.

ResearchWill

Anan1 wrote: »

This isn't 'all the complexities', it's a very basic issue. With alcohol we can prove impairment, AFAIK with drugs we can't. How can we get a conviction for driving while 'under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle' when we can't even prove impairment?

UK legislation is pretty much the same


A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.

(2)Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a person who, when in charge of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] which is on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person shall be deemed not to have been in charge of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs.

(4)The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (3) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired.

(6)[F2A constable may arrest a person without warrant if he has reasonable cause to suspect that that person is or has been committing an offence under this section.]

(7)[F2For the purpose of arresting a person under the power conferred by subsection (6) above, a constable may enter (if need be by force) any place where that person is or where the constable, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.]

The use the word unfit.

Anan1

Monty. wrote: »

How do they manage it in other similar jurisdictions then ?

I've no idea.

ResearchWill

Monty. wrote: »

So you can be doped up to the eyeballs on weed and drive around to your hearts content, but with the new limts, God help you if you have a one pint when you're out for a meal. It's a great little country.

Before limits were introduced you had to do sobriety tests touch your nose etc, still used in some states in America, a Garda or doctor can give evidence that the person was unfit to drive.

ResearchWill

Anan1 wrote: »

No.
Probably because they couldn't prove impairment?
What's needed here is proof, if opinions were enough to get convictions then we wouldn't bother with BAC readings at all.

Yes you can get convictions on the opinion of Garda or doctor, BAC was brought in to make the whole system easier. Of course it is harder to get conviction with professional opinion evidence but not impossible. The doctor has to turn up in court give evidence if test be cross examined etc. But with a reading over limit simple.

Anan1

ResearchWill wrote: »

Before limits were introduced you had to do sobriety tests touch your nose etc, still used in some states in America, a Garda or doctor can give evidence that the person was unfit to drive.

In this country, we need proof of impairment.

Anan1

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yes you can get convictions on the opinion of Garda or doctor, BAC was brought in to make the whole system easier. Of course it is harder to get conviction with professional opinion evidence but not impossible. The doctor has to turn up in court give evidence if test be cross examined etc. But with a reading over limit simple.

So why hasn't it been done yet? I'm guessing because the authorities here know that they won't be able to make a conviction stick without, you guessed it, proof of impairment.;)

ResearchWill

Anan1 wrote: »

In this country, we need proof of impairment.

Yes and the evidence of a doctor is that proof. A doctor takes blood sample comes back positive for hash, doctor gives evidence that person could not stay awake, was uncoordinated, could not walk a straight line etc. The court has proof the person was unable to control a MPV.

Also a lot of cases come from unexplained accidents, where on blood sample coming back there was drugs. Example person driving along main road suddenly swerves mounts footpath drives for couple hundred yards hits pole. Blood says drugs in system, car was in perfect order, person was very groggy, it is up to the judge to decide is that proof.

Monty.

Anan1 wrote: »

So why hasn't it been done yet? I'm guessing because the authorities here know that they won't be able to make a conviction stick without, you guessed it, proof of impairment.;)

Yet other authorities can manage it in similar jurisdictions.

So there is practically no bar to driving your car stoned out of your head in this country, but God help you if you have a pint with a meal under the new limits.

Wonderful. Lets all skin up. What a joke the RSA is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2qPmaSrS50

invinciblePRSTV

RE: Drug Driving

I was under the impression that the Traffic Corps had in their possession these drug testing yokes which take swabs from the drivers hands and steering wheel, indeed I recall reading several months ago in the Evening Echo that the Cork Traffic Corps at least had already begun random roadside drug testing.

PS to those saying there is no enforcement of drug driving laws, I know anecdotally of 2 people recently who have been caught for driving whilst under the influence of Cannabis, as a result one has lost his job and the other is about to!

ResearchWill

Anan1 wrote: »

So why hasn't it been done yet? I'm guessing because the authorities here know that they won't be able to make a conviction stick without, you guessed it, proof of impairment.;)

I know of cases of persons convicted of drug driving. I have seen persons convicted of drug driving. It is hard to get convictions, and also detections as most drink drivers are detected by road side test. A person on drugs will blow a pass at the side of the road.

ResearchWill

Monty. wrote: »

Yet other authorities can manage it in similar jurisdictions.

So there is practically no bar to driving your car stoned out of your head in this country, but God help you if you have a pint with a meal under the new limits.

Wonderful. Lets all skin up. What a joke the RSA is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2qPmaSrS50

It is been done in fact one of the problems here is DCJ are convicting on just the evidence of a positive blood test for hash, and hash can stay in system for a few days at least.

ResearchWill

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

RE: Drug Driving

I was under the impression that the Traffic Corps had in their possession these drug testing yokes which take swabs from the drivers hands and steering wheel, indeed I recall reading several months ago in the Evening Echo that the Cork Traffic Corps at least had already begun random roadside drug testing.

PS to those saying there is no enforcement of drug driving laws, I know anecdotally of 2 people recently who have been caught for driving whilst under the influence of Cannabis, as a result one has lost his job and the other is about to!

It's defo in UK, thought I had heard something here but have not seen any evidence of those test been used yet.

Anan1

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yes and the evidence of a doctor is that proof. A doctor takes blood sample comes back positive for hash, doctor gives evidence that person could not stay awake, was uncoordinated, could not walk a straight line etc. The court has proof the person was unable to control a MPV.

That's not proof - at best, it's an expert opinion.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Also a lot of cases come from unexplained accidents, where on blood sample coming back there was drugs. Example person driving along main road suddenly swerves mounts footpath drives for couple hundred yards hits pole. Blood says drugs in system, car was in perfect order, person was very groggy, it is up to the judge to decide is that proof.

Hardly, person has just been in an accident.

Here's an interesting link: http://www.duicentral.com/dui/dui_drugs.html

Bottom line seems to be that convictions without proof are hard to get, and wide open to appeal. I wonder is it possible to develop drug testing to prove impairment? One would think that the resources are there, particularly in the US.

kevin101

cursai wrote: »

Monty. wrote: »

It'll soon get to the stage that mouthwash will put you over.

When are they going to bring in proper random drug driving tests, that would be more like it.

Probably when the next boom hits. The Gardai haven't been supplied with a lot of the things. Its a shoestring budget for most stations outside the major cities. Even when these new laws come into force. The recalibrated equipment will at best follow months later. Half the stations won't get them. Its a pure pr stunt.

Stations had the machines delivered already and Gardai are being trained throughout September

ResearchWill

Anan1 wrote: »

That's not proof - at best, it's an expert opinion.

Hardly, person has just been in an accident.

Here's an interesting link: http://www.duicentral.com/dui/dui_drugs.html

Bottom line seems to be that convictions without proof are hard to get, and wide open to appeal. I wonder is it possible to develop drug testing to prove impairment? One would think that the resources are there, particularly in the US.

Experts are the only people who can give opinion evidence, it is up to the Judge to decide does that evidence prove at the criminal standard ie beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was incapable of having proper control of a MPV, if the court does then it convicts if not is does not.

The link you provided shows the difficulties other jurisdictions also have but they are operating under similar law to Ireland.

The testing so that exact amounts of drugs in the system can be quantified and then be a similar to the current law in relation to drink would bring certainty and easier convictions. I am not sure if such tech exists.

Anan1

ResearchWill wrote: »

The testing so that exact amounts of drugs in the system can be quantified and then be a similar to the current law in relation to drink would bring certainty and easier convictions. I am not sure if such tech exists.

IMO that's the heart of the matter. As with anything else, though, it will come down to cost/benefit. Obviously we all want to see people driving while unfit convicted but, given that it's still quite possible to drive drunk in Dublin with little risk of being caught, I wouldn't be holding my breath.

CiniO

OK - discussion has come to complete different direction, but original question has still not been answered.

Anyone know?