"Drink drivers to get second chance under lower limits"

source

This was in the indo today:

By Paul Melia and Treacy Hogan

Tuesday August 23 2011

MOTORISTS caught just over the new drink-driving limit will be hit with penalty points and a €220 onthe- spot fine instead of losing their licence.

The Irish Independent has learned that a new three-tier drinkdriving regime – starting next month – involves a controversial ‘second chance’ for those who are just over the limit.

The new breath test limit of 50mg of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood – down from the current 80mg – is the equivalent of drinking less than one pint of beer.

The reduced punishment regime is designed to avoid an outcry should thousands of drivers get caught under the lower limit.

The reduced sanctions are also aimed at stopping the courts system being clogged up and cutting the huge cost and time spent bringing drivers to court. Under the current system, all drink drivers are prosecuted in court – and banned for 12 months if convicted.

The change to a more lenient court-free system for drink drivers comes at a time when the Road Safety Authority (RSA) warns that any amount of alcohol increases the risk of a fatal car crash.

The Government says the new penalties are “proportionate to the new lower drink-driving limit”. A spokesman for Transport Minister Leo Varadkar said the moves are an attempt to “ensure that the new regime is not unduly punitive”.

The new system will be reviewed in 18 months to see if it is working properly to reduce the incidence of drink driving. RSA chief executive Noel Brett rejected claims that allowing some drink drivers to escape a conviction was sending out the wrong message and encouraging people to take a chance.

“We believe that these are proportionate penalties, fairly targeted and we are comfortable with them,” he said. “There is also an immediacy to the punishment for the offence, whereas under the current system it takes a long time to get to court.

“These are new lower limits and it is important to bring people with you. I'm happy with them.”

Under the changes being rolled out in September, gardai will be given new powers allowing them to impose three penalty points and an on-the-spot fine of €200 for motorists caught slightly above the new legal limit of 50mg.

This will replace the current automatic court appearance and disqualification for one year, while these drivers will also escape a drink-driving conviction. However, drivers will be legally obliged to notify their insurance companies when renewing their premiums.

Motorists will only be allowed to use this lower penalty regime once in a three-year period. If caught a second time, they will go to court. Under a second tier, drivers found with between 80mg and 100mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood will be served with a fixed charge notice of €400 and will be disqualified from driving for six months, instead of the current 12 months imposed by courts.

They will have a conviction recorded against them. Finally, drivers who test above the 100mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood cannot avail of the fixed charge option and must appear in court.

A minimum ban of one year, and possible fines of up to €5,000, can be imposed. The number of drivers being prosecuted for drink driving is steadily falling.

In 2008, 28,000 motorists were prosecuted in the District Court, falling to 21,153 cases last year. Changes in driver behaviour have also resulted in a dramatic fall in the numbers being killed on the roads.

Last year, 211 died, the lowest on record. This compares with 376 fatalities in 2002. Meanwhile, the number of children dying on Irish roads almost halved between 1997 and 2009, new figures show.

The latest Road Safety Authority (RSA) report shows a 45pc decrease in fatalities to children aged 14 or younger. The number of child passengers killed in traffic accidents fell by 73pc over the 12-year period.

In total, 246 children were killed over the 12-year period between 1997 and 2009 and a further 1,013 were seriously injured.

The report coincides with an announcement by the RSA and ESB Electric Ireland that for the second year running they will be providing new primary school children with a road safety ‘Back to School Pack’.

Over 80,000 packs will be delivered to schools nationwide in November at a cost of €100,000 and will contain information for both children and parents.

- Paul Melia and Treacy Hogan

Fantastic idea, I take it this will be rolled out for breath as well, as last time I sent off a blood sample for a 49 I was waiting almost a month for the result to come back.

Hardly on the spot if you have to wait for a month before issuing the ticket. I do like the new powers and it's something I've been advocating for quite a while now.

The only problem is from way that article reads, the powers will only relate to the new lower blood limit. If that's the case then, it makes no sense. If these powers relate to the breath limit then they would actually be of some use.

gerire

If its done proportionally the lower breath limits will be 22-35 microgrammes per 100ml breath.
With the middle one being 35-44

seamus

The Irish Independent has learned that a new three-tier drinkdriving regime – starting next month – involves a controversial ‘second chance’ for those who are just over the limit.

The Indo "has learned"? This information has been in the public domain for months. It was all over the newspapers when it first came out because the farmers were protesting that they'd be caught coming home from the pub.

Some very poor journalism in that article.

That aside, this all sounds very good. A FCN with a disqualification with no court appearance for 80 - 100mg should free up court time and encourage the gardai to process these offences more quickly.

The 50mg limit carries a severe, but not livelihood threatening penalty. Enough to scare the crap out of someone and make them cop on without potentially ruining their life. Proper order.

breath is included. the fun though starts with section 8.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/index.html

source

foreign wrote: »

breath is included. the fun though starts with section 8.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/index.html

Grand so, they could have made it a little clearer in the article. But that allays my fears.

dilallio

I have a hypothetical question.

If a person who is driving with a learner permit is accompanied by a person with a full licence, does the person with the full licence have to be under the allowed alcohol limit, and if so, can the full licence-holder be breathalised?
Thanks.

dilallio

dilallio wrote: »

I have a hypothetical question.

If a person who is driving with a learner permit is accompanied by a person with a full licence, does the person with the full licence have to be under the allowed alcohol limit, and if so, can the full licence-holder be breathalised?
Thanks.

The full holder has to be in a position to be able to drive the vehicle so can't be under the influence. Driver can be prosecuted for driving unaccompanied.

source

source wrote: »

This was in the indo today:



Fantastic idea, I take it this will be rolled out for breath as well, as last time I sent off a blood sample for a 49 I was waiting almost a month for the result to come back.

Hardly on the spot if you have to wait for a month before issuing the ticket. I do like the new powers and it's something I've been advocating for quite a while now.

The only problem is from way that article reads, the powers will only relate to the new lower blood limit. If that's the case then, it makes no sense. If these powers relate to the breath limit then they would actually be of some use.

We discussed it over here too.

source

foreign wrote: »

We discussed it over here too.

Read both ops mate

BrianD

Question. Am I correct in saying that nobody is ever convicted on a roadside breath test. This is just an indicator. The evidence has to come from the formal test at the station - blood, urine or the other breath test machine that the use.

So people who fail a roadside will have to be arrested, formally tested and spend the night in the can? One presumes that even if you are "slightly over" you are still legally drunk and unfit to drive?

uberalles

I never have more than a pint if driving. I have a pint of water with it.

This new law will push me over the limit by the looks of things.

So what would be safe to keep under the limit?

Nate--IRL--

uberalles wrote: »

So what would be safe to keep under the limit?

Don't Drink?

Nate

ResearchWill

foreign wrote: »

The full holder has to be in a position to be able to drive the vehicle so can't be under the influence. Driver can be prosecuted for driving unaccompanied.

Can you link to legislation to cover that.

ResearchWill

BrianD wrote: »

Question. Am I correct in saying that nobody is ever convicted on a roadside breath test. This is just an indicator. The evidence has to come from the formal test at the station - blood, urine or the other breath test machine that the use.

So people who fail a roadside will have to be arrested, formally tested and spend the night in the can? One presumes that even if you are "slightly over" you are still legally drunk and unfit to drive?

Most people after arrest and brought to the station, spend no more than a couple of hours in the station. I knew of a guy and I swear this is true was arrested brought to station, gave sample, failed, released went back to his car, got into it drove got caught again by the same guard and failed second test. He tried to argue that as guard left him go after first test he must have been ok to drive.

BrianD

uberalles wrote: »

I never have more than a pint if driving. I have a pint of water with it.

This new law will push me over the limit by the looks of things.

So what would be safe to keep under the limit?

Unfortunately, in this country things aren't fully explained and there is a lack of education about sensible consumption of alcohol.

The number of pints that you can consume is only a rule of thumb. The conviction is based on the blood/breath alcohol level and not the number of pints that you have had! There is no denying the obvious link - they more you've had the more likely you are to exceed the limit in a specified time frame.

Drinkaware.ie estimate that a standard drink takes an hour to work it's way through your body. So if you had a healthy liver, eat well and have one pint in the pub. A pint is 2 std drinks approx so it would take 2 hours to get it out of your system. A sensible approach means that you can still enjoy a drink over time and be below the limit for driving. People tend to see this one pint rule as being black or white (yet we see the grey areas in the law when we want to)

However, there's no definite way of calculating your blood alcohol level and given the risks involved the best thing is always to stay on the dry if driving. You can still go into a pub and socialise without consuming alcohol!

BrianD

ResearchWill wrote: »

Most people after arrest and brought to the station, spend no more than a couple of hours in the station. I knew of a guy and I swear this is true was arrested brought to station, gave sample, failed, released went back to his car, got into it drove got caught again by the same guard and failed second test. He tried to argue that as guard left him go after first test he must have been ok to drive.

They seem to be more strict about this nowadays.

ResearchWill

BrianD wrote: »

Unfortunately, in this country things aren't fully explained and there is a lack of education about sensible consumption of alcohol.

The number of pints that you can consume is only a rule of thumb. The conviction is based on the blood/breath alcohol level and not the number of pints that you have had! There is no denying the obvious link - they more you've had the more likely you are to exceed the limit in a specified time frame.

Drinkaware.ie estimate that a standard drink takes an hour to work it's way through your body. So if you had a healthy liver, eat well and have one pint in the pub. A pint is 2 std drinks approx so it would take 2 hours to get it out of your system. A sensible approach means that you can still enjoy a drink over time and be below the limit for driving. People tend to see this one pint rule as being black or white (yet we see the grey areas in the law when we want to)

However, there's no definite way of calculating your blood alcohol level and given the risks involved the best thing is always to stay on the dry if driving. You can still go into a pub and socialise without consuming alcohol!

The only thing I would add to that, if you had a heavy session the night before do not drive the next morning, my usual rule is heavy session no driving at all the next day.

BrianD

Of course, if you pour 8 pints into you then that's 16 units or approximately 16 hours based on that drinkaware calculation.

zenno

better off not driving at all the next day after a good few beers the night before.

The Morning After Drivers.

Over the years, the "morning after" issue has been downplayed by the government because it was seen as blurring the overall message about the dangers of drink-driving, and because to understand it requires a knowledge of "unit counting" which could also be used to "drink up to the limit". But, with a lower limit, people would end up in this category after what to many is a normal evening in the pub rather than a "heavy session". Drivers should not be left in ignorance and exposed to a risk of breaking the law which they might well avoid if they were better informed. Anything more than four pints of normal strength, or three pints of 5% beer, could put someone over a 50 mg limit the following morning.

This is not widely understood at present, and I have come across a number of people, both in CAMRA and outside, who have been ostentatiously unwilling to drink as much as a half-pint immediately before driving, but who must on occasions have driven when well over the limit due to heavy drinking the night before. Again, this suggests that a lower limit would make little difference to the behaviour of morning after drivers unless the implications were properly appreciated.

The whole subject of "morning after" driving is one on which the government's consultation paper was strangely silent, yet I would suggest that even now it probably accounts for a majority of the technical drink-driving offences that occur, as opposed to those that are detected by the police. Motoring organisations have expressed the view that most of the additional prosecutions under a lower limit would fall into this category.

To have an impact on behaviour it would be necessary to mount a high-profile publicity campaign pointing out very clearly how slowly the body metabolises alcohol, and the risks of still being over the limit the following morning after what many would see as a tame evening's drinking. This has the potential to make a lot of people think seriously about their behaviour, as even the people who are currently driving "the morning after" when well over 80 mg would in many cases be fundamentally law-abiding individuals who do simply not realise the implications of their actions. Inevitably such a campaign would have to involve the dreaded "unit counting", as it is clearly unreasonable to insist that people should have nothing to drink the evening before driving (although I have seen this seriously suggested by supposedly reputable people from road safety groups). This objection could be met if the campaign concentrated on the complete elimination of alcohol from the bloodstream rather than its reduction below 50 mg.

However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that, for drivers in the "morning after" category, the risks may be overstated, as the effect of alcohol on impairing driving performance tends to wear off more quickly than the actual level of alcohol in the bloodstream. This is a recognised medical phenomenon known as the "Mellanby effect". Therefore, even if a substantial change in behaviour was achieved, it is doubtful whether it would in practice have a significant impact on casualties.

With a 50 mg limit, there would be a growing demand for self-test breathalysers to ensure that drivers did not fall foul of the law on "the morning after". In the past there has always been an objection to these on the grounds that they encouraged people to drink up to the limit, and while they have been available they have not been widespread. This objection would obviously carry much less weight with a 50 mg limit, and surely could be completely overcome if the devices were specifically targeted at morning after drivers and calibrated to give a positive reading over 20 mg (the Swedish legal limit) rather than 50 mg.

Hifiman

BrianD wrote: »

Unfortunately, in this country things aren't fully explained and there is a lack of education about sensible consumption of alcohol.

The number of pints that you can consume is only a rule of thumb. The conviction is based on the blood/breath alcohol level and not the number of pints that you have had! There is no denying the obvious link - they more you've had the more likely you are to exceed the limit in a specified time frame.

Drinkaware.ie estimate that a standard drink takes an hour to work it's way through your body. So if you had a healthy liver, eat well and have one pint in the pub. A pint is 2 std drinks approx so it would take 2 hours to get it out of your system. A sensible approach means that you can still enjoy a drink over time and be below the limit for driving. People tend to see this one pint rule as being black or white (yet we see the grey areas in the law when we want to)

However, there's no definite way of calculating your blood alcohol level and given the risks involved the best thing is always to stay on the dry if driving. You can still go into a pub and socialise without consuming alcohol!

Yes but people tend to forget that:

(a) the alcohol is processed from the first drop - so if you've sipped a slow pint over an hour, in another hour it'll be gone completely from your system.

(b) The law doesn't require that alcohol is cleared from your system only that you are within the limits. Say someone in a rural pub has three pints over two and a half hours, is breathalised 15 minutes after leaving the pub, is arrested and taken to the nearest intoxilizer, observed for a further 20 minuties as required by law (nil by mouth rule) and then blows twice into the machine. 17% is deducted from the lower reading so there's a good chance that he'll be below the limit.

The whole breath testing business is fraught with legal complications since it doesn't actually measure blood alcohol. it only estimates it based on average metabolism.

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Fool-a-Breathalyzer&id=121237
Hyperventilating for 20 seconds immediately before the analyses of breath, on the other hand, decreased the level by 10.6%. Keeping the mouth closed for five minutes and using shallow nasal breathing resulted in increasing the blood-alcohol level by 7.3%, and testing after a slow, 20-second exhalation increased levels by 2%. ("How Breathing Techniques Can Influence the Results of Breath-Alcohol Analyses", 22(4) Medical Science and the Law 275.)
Dr. Michael Hlastala, Professor of Physiology, Biophysics and Medicine at the University of Washington has gone farther and concluded:
"By far, the most overlooked error in breath testing for alcohol is the pattern of breathing... The concentration of alcohol changes considerably during the breath... The first part of the breath, after discarding the dead space, has an alcohol concentration much lower than the equivalent BAC (blood-alcohol concentration). Whereas, the last part of the breath has an alcohol concentration that is much higher than the equivalent BAC. The last part of the breath can be over 50% above the alcohol level... Thus, a breath tester reading of 0.14% taken from the last part of the breath may indicate that the blood level is only 0.09%." 9(6) The Champion 16 (1985).
Many police officers know this. They also know that if the machine contradicts their judgement that the person they arrested is intoxicated, they won't look good. So when they tell the arrestee to blow into the machine's mouthpiece, they'll yell at him, "Keep breathing! Breathe harder! Harder!" As Professor Hlastala has found, this ensures that the breath captured by the machine will be from the bottom of the lungs, near the alveolar sacs, which will be richest in alcohol. With the higher alcohol concentration, the machine will give a higher -- but inaccurate -- reading

johnnyskeleton

I only read the first and last lines of the article, but is schoolchildren drink driving really that big an issue?