Lowering of drink drive limit - Nanny state strikes again

Orando Broom

Lollipops23 wrote: »

While I agree things need to be far tighter when it comes to inspection, you can't have people banned for drinking too much pineapple juice or a gone off mince pie (both of these could present minute amounts of alcohol in the bloodstream, but not enough to cause someone to be a danger on the roads).

That will still show up as trace, you won't be locked. The zero tolerance should be on the culture of drinking socially and thinking it's okay to drive.

If the likes of Listermint and others feels compelled to drink his pints and drive then nothing will stop him. Guys like him will flaunt the law regardless, he is typical of the Irish attitude. He is no different to the Seanie Fitzs or any named or unnamed gangster of this world you can imagine. Laws are always for other people. What do I know I, I was only in a neck brace for a couple of weeks. I'm only ranting.

listermint

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

The time for "having one and drive home," is over. It ended after things got so bad with the level of car crashes due to drink related driving.
Your post is ignorant and it's riddiculous comments like this that sends out the example that drink driving is ok. This isn't an arguement over whether or not one drink can make a difference. thats an arguement for another thread, but where does it stop with the one drink?

At the end of the day, a complete NO DRINK DRIVING ban is much more preferable than having the gardai come to my door at 2am and telling me you or someone else have killed a family member or a friend of mine. Fullstop!!!!

You have given no actual stats on this. Would you not think decisions should be made on stats and not knee jerk reactions ? or by policy makers with hidden agendas ?

once again we have one of the lowest road fatalities in Europe per capita, even though other states have 0.2 limits. So explain that?

Road Conditions / Speed / Falling asleep behind the wheel? What are your policies on tackling these rather than another high profile pouring of money into a marketing campaign that isnt warranted in the first place.

Orando Broom

listermint wrote: »

You have given no actual stats on this. Would you not think decisions should be made on stats and not knee jerk reactions ? or by policy makers with hidden agendas ?

once again we have one of the lowest road fatalities in Europe per capita, even though other states have 0.2 limits. So explain that?

Road Conditions / Speed / Falling asleep behind the wheel? What are your policies on tackling these rather than another high profile pouring of money into a marketing campaign that isnt warranted in the first place.

Win the drink driving battle first. That one is winnable. get the likes of the drink drivers off the road and get the apologists onside then you can start to mend driver habits across the board.

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

That will still show up as trace, you won't be locked. The zero tolerance should be on the culture of drinking socially and thinking it's okay to drive.

If the likes of Listermint and others feels compelled to drink his pints and drive then nothing will stop him. Guys like him will flaunt the law regardless, he is typical of the Irish attitude. He is no different to the Seanie Fitzs or any named or unnamed gangster of this world you can imagine. Laws are always for other people. What do I know I, I was only in a neck brace for a couple of weeks. I'm only ranting.

Excuse me? Where the F did i say i did? Point it out?

Exactly I didnt. I am giving rational thought to the arguement, your ranting about being hit by a drunk driver.

And id appreciate if you retract your statement about my so called 'compulsions' because you are wrong and you dont know me.


reported.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Orando Broom wrote: »

Lollipops23 wrote: »

While I agree things need to be far tighter when it comes to inspection, you can't have people banned for drinking too much pineapple juice or a gone off mince pie (both of these could present minute amounts of alcohol in the bloodstream, but not enough to cause someone to be a danger on the roads).

That will still show up as trace, you won't be locked. .

Which means that you will be over the blood alcohol limit (zero), which according to your rules would have someone convicted for drink driving. You don't have to be locked to be over the limit. You're contradicting yourself now.

Do you see the problem yet?

Orando Broom

listermint wrote: »

Excuse me? Where the F did i say i did? Point it out?

Exactly I didnt. I am giving rational thought to the arguement, your ranting about being hit by a drunk driver.

And id appreciate if you retract your statement about my so called 'compulsions' because you are wrong and you dont know me.


reported.

Report away. I will not retract anything. Seriously I'll do the ban if the mods find there is a case. But you are trying to defend and indefensible position for some unknown reason.

Answer me this: Why do you want there to be a law that allows people drink and drive?

XxMCRxBabyxX

Orando Broom wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

Excuse me? Where the F did i say i did? Point it out?

Exactly I didnt. I am giving rational thought to the arguement, your ranting about being hit by a drunk driver.

And id appreciate if you retract your statement about my so called 'compulsions' because you are wrong and you dont know me.


reported.

Report away. I will not retract anything. Seriously I'll do the ban if the mods find there is a case. But you are trying to defend and indefensible position for some unknown reason.

Answer me this: Why do you want there to be a law that allows people drink and drive?

Have you read his posts at all? He's on the same side as you.

He is just also being rational. A zero% limit is simply not enforceable

Orando Broom

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Which means that you will be over the blood alcohol limit (zero), which according to your rules would have someone convicted for drink driving. You don't have to be locked to be over the limit. You're contradicting yourself now.

Do you see the problem yet?

Nope. The zero tolerance would be on the person getting into a car having KNOWINGLY consumed alcohol. It's the culture that needs to be attacked not the science. I agree Mouthwash has alcohol, but how much Mouthwash needs to be drank to give a level? There is a problem there too mind. Same with Coke or Pineapple juice. How much do you think you'd need to consume?

These are ridiculous arguments, straw men arguments used to defend the culture of driving in Ireland having been drinking alcohol knowingly and recklessly.

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

Win the drink driving battle first. That one is winnable. get the likes of the drink drivers off the road and get the apologists onside then you can start to mend driver habits across the board.

Battle ? what the hell are you talking about, the person that hit you was probably 10 times over the limit, no Zero limit is going to effect that.

The people that will drink and drive at 2 / 3 / 10 pints will still do it. The same as the people that burgle homes, you can legislate for that.

The only way to win you so called battle would be to put 1000 guards on the road to breathalise people everyday. Its not plausible and the benefits of such are not scalable.

You still havent addressed my point about drink driving Road Fatalities versus other fatalities.


Regardless of what legislation we put in, when you put a human in a car accidents can happen, people will die all the legislation in the world can prevent that. Short of banning all cars and putting everyone on bicycles.


When do you stop?

Orando Broom

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Have you read his posts at all? He's on the same side as you.

He is just also being rational. A zero% limit is simply not enforceable

He most certainly is not! He is a drink driving apologist and a vehement one at that.

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

Report away. I will not retract anything. Seriously I'll do the ban if the mods find there is a case. But you are trying to defend and indefensible position for some unknown reason.

Answer me this: Why do you want there to be a law that allows people drink and drive?

No you havent read a thing ive said. And are clearly inflamed in your own opinion that you are not capable of rational posts, because you havent read mine.

Nothing to do with allowing people to drink and drive. I never once said that. Read them all again and apologise.

Because all youve done so far is slandered me online in a public forum.

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

He most certainly is not! He is a drink driving apologist and a vehement one at that.

Shovel


4



U

Seachmall

Orando Broom wrote: »

Nope. The zero tolerance would be on the person getting into a car having KNOWINGLY consumed alcohol.

Which is impractical, if not impossible, to enforce.

Orando Broom

listermint wrote: »

Battle ? what the hell are you talking about, the person that hit you was probably 10 times over the limit, no Zero limit is going to effect that.

The people that will drink and drive at 2 / 3 / 10 pints will still do it. The same as the people that burgle homes, you can legislate for that.

The only way to win you so called battle would be to put 1000 guards on the road to breathalise people everyday. Its not plausible and the benefits of such are not scalable.

You still havent addressed my point about drink driving Road Fatalities versus other fatalities.


Regardless of what legislation we put in, when you put a human in a car accidents can happen, people will die all the legislation in the world can prevent that. Short of banning all cars and putting everyone on bicycles.


When do you stop?

Look, when you drive there is inherent risk. End of. When you drive you should be in the best possible condition to do so that in the event of an accident you can say you did absolutely everything in your power to minimise the impact of that accident. People will still die by sober people's hands but in Ireland we are incapable of moderating our behaviour on any level. It's all in or none in. We treat drinking and driving exactly like this hence we need draconian laws.

You just need to see the ridiculous level of carnage on US road to understand that Ireland's progressive attitude to drink driving is working. in the last ten years the cultural shift has been remarkable and it needs the final push. It needs to be seen as culturally offensive as lighting up a cigarette uninvited in a non smokers house.

Answer me this: Why do you want there to be a law that allows people drink and drive?

geetar

who the hell is this mickling lad?



why in this country when we bring in new laws to we bring up stories of how it will affect three 80 year olds in the country.

same thing happened with the smoking ban.



youre suggesting we abondon making new laws to save lives on our roads, to facillitate one 80 year old drink driving alcoholic.

Orando Broom

listermint wrote: »

The people that will drink and drive at 2 / 3 / 10 pints will still do it. The same as the people that burgle homes, you can legislate for that.

If the sentences were stiffer it might make people think twice.

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

Look, when you drive there is inherent risk. End of. When you drive you should be in the best possible condition to do so that in the event of an accident you can say you did absolutely everything in your power to minimise the impact of that accident. People will still die by sober people's hands but in Ireland we are incapable of moderating our behaviour on any level. It's all in or none in. We treat drinking and driving exactly like this hence we need draconian laws.

You just need to see the ridiculous level of carnage on US road to understand that Ireland's progressive attitude to drink driving is working. in the last ten years the cultural shift has been remarkable and it needs the final push. It needs to be seen as culturally offensive as lighting up a cigarette uninvited in a non smokers house.

Answer me this: Why do you want there to be a law that allows people drink and drive?

What the hell are you talking about ? What final push ? Zero limit?

Its not workable. Its NOT WORKABLE. you obviously havent got a clue what you are talking about.

Let me put it in caps again ZERO LIMITS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE IN THE REAL WORLD.


and as for your second part. I dont, so stop asking the same stupid question.

and im still waiting for your apology on your slander.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Orando Broom wrote: »

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Which means that you will be over the blood alcohol limit (zero), which according to your rules would have someone convicted for drink driving. You don't have to be locked to be over the limit. You're contradicting yourself now.

Do you see the problem yet?

Nope. The zero tolerance would be on the person getting into a car having KNOWINGLY consumed alcohol. .

And you plan on proving that how?

And where on earth are you making this stuff up about listermint? He is being a lot more realistic than you and he is clearly AGAINST drink driving.
Some rationality would be nice...

listermint

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

And you plan on proving that how?

Im sure magic fairy dust, Or maybe he wants a whole team of private detective garda division 100 people strong to go through peoples bin bags to see what they were eating / drinking.

Dempsey

I dont think it should be lowered, are the people that drink 2 pints and go home responsible for all the drink related accidents on the road? How many fatalities can attributed to someone with 80-100mg/L? This wont solve the problem of drunk driving, they wont care what the limit is.

My biggest gripe is people being done the morning after. Someone who leaves the pub and hops straight into their car will get the same as someone who got a taxi out and home, a good nights sleep and bagged driving to work.

Sure whilst we are on the subject of zero tolerance, why dont we ban fatigue/smoking/sneezing/radios etc whilst we are at it! :rolleyes:

Orando Broom

listermint wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about ? What final push ? Zero limit?

Its not workable. Its NOT WORKABLE. you obviously havent got a clue what you are talking about.

Let me put it in caps again ZERO LIMITS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE IN THE REAL WORLD.


and as for your second part. I dont, so stop asking the same stupid question.

and im still waiting for your apology on your slander.

Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.

Statement: "If the likes of Listermint and others feels compelled to drink his pints and drive then nothing will stop him.

Where is the slander? It's a statement made with a caveat. IF. A big if. Please show me how I have 'slandered' you?

seamus

Has anyone ever actually used a breathalyser to see what the various limits are? I have.

Got it just over 0.08 one evening. I'd had four cans and I took a half hour break before checking again to be sure. And I was fairly tipsy and giddy. No fncking way that I'd even consider jumping in a car at that stage.

Even at 0.05 I was well on my way to the happy place and past the point where I would have considered it safe to get behind the wheel.

People seem to think that the current limits are set just above the point of one pint. They're not. They're set at the point where you're verging on "drunk".

In practice a proper system would discourage people from drinking anything before getting behind the wheel. This would be a 0.02 limit - enough room for someone who'd taken something not specifically alcoholic, but low enough that virtually anyone would be over the limit after one standard drink.

In reality the statistical difference between 0 and 0.05 is small enough that stopping people for BAC below 0.05 is unlikely to yield any improvements in road safety.

Orando Broom

seamus wrote: »

Has anyone ever actually used a breathalyser to see what the various limits are? I have.

Got it just over 0.08 one evening. I'd had four cans and I took a half hour break before checking again to be sure. And I was fairly tipsy and giddy. No fncking way that I'd even consider jumping in a car at that stage.

Even at 0.05 I was well on my way to the happy place and past the point where I would have considered it safe to get behind the wheel.

People seem to think that the current limits are set just above the point of one pint. They're not. They're set at the point where you're verging on "drunk".

In practice a proper system would discourage people from drinking anything before getting behind the wheel. This would be a 0.02 limit - enough room for someone who'd taken something not specifically alcoholic, but low enough that virtually anyone would be over the limit after one standard drink.

In reality the statistical difference between 0 and 0.05 is small enough that stopping people for BAC below 0.05 is unlikely to yield any improvements in road safety.

Blood test is the only definitive way of finding the level. I've heard some dodgy stories about breathalyser readings.

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.

Statement: "If the likes of Listermint and others feels compelled to drink his pints and drive then nothing will stop him.

Where is the slander? It's a statement made with a caveat. IF. A big if. Please show me how I have 'slandered' you?

You said enough, and are back tracking. You know full well what your intent was in no small part that you worked yourself up over nothing and decided to puke it up on your keyboard.


Grow up and address the issue at hand, and stop taking side swipes at people.

Plazaman

The Government has to introduce this Zero limits policy as ye can't be trusted to go for ONE and not take the car home.....

And ye can't be trusted that ye won't Gamble too much either...

And ye can't be trusted that ye won't eat Healthily......

Orando Broom

listermint wrote: »

You said enough, and are back tracking. You know full well what your intent was in no small part that you worked yourself up over nothing and decided to puke it up on your keyboard.


Grow up and address the issue at hand, and stop taking side swipes at people.

HAHAHA!!! Show me where I slandered you?

No **** it.

Reported.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hank_Jones wrote: »

In order for Mickerling to abide by your suggestions,
I would think he would require a high paying job,
as he would spend a feckin fortune on taxi fares.

Or he could leave the house that he has lived in for maybe 50 years and move to another,
with moving house surely being an enjoyable process for an 86 year old man.

Lando Griffin wrote: »

He cant stay in town as his elderly wife is bed ridden.

There is only one taxi available and costs 20 euro to bring him home as the taxi driver has to be covered for the return trip.
Anyway, Mickeling would have to wait thill the publican is finished serving and cleaning up as he drives the taxi.

Stop making excuses. If all these situatinos were correct, then Mickelin would be the only one in the country in this rather unique situation.

And if he has elederly dependendants and not a lot of money, how come he drinking every night...? Perhaps Mickeling should be a little lesss selfish and only go out two or three times a night which, with taxi, will probably come to the same weekly cost. Works for the rest of us.

That last line is good though.

Dr Bob

Hank_Jones wrote: »

In order for Mickerling to abide by your suggestions,
I would think he would require a high paying job,
as he would spend a feckin fortune on taxi fares.

Or he could leave the house that he has lived in for maybe 50 years and move to another,
with moving house surely being an enjoyable process for an 86 year old man.

Remember kids , its OK to have people killed on the roads by drunk drivers , so long as a few elderly cluchies can get to the boozer.
...sheesh

_feedback_

I find it amazing that there are still people around that would argue that they (or a fictional elderly person) should be allowed drink a load of pints and drive.

The zero limit thing is ridiculous too.

I'm in favour of lowering limits, although I'm not sure if it would make much difference to the idiots that drink and drive anyway.

I'm in Poland pretty often. They have a 0.02 limit. They love a few drinks too, but if you are driving the following day you just don't drink, end of story.

I must admit, I would find that quite hard.

Orando Broom

luas_dublin wrote: »

Remember kids , its OK to have people killed on the roads by drunk drivers , so long as a few elderly cluchies can get to the boozer.
...sheesh

A few city folk advocating for status quo too!