Lowering of drink drive limit - Nanny state strikes again

listermint

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

See, that's the kind of stuff i can get behind man.

Where i grew up there was a big sign on the road saying Accident Blackspot!!! Didn't stop any of the multiple fatal accidents that occurred there when i was a kid.

Signs are cheap, seems life is too. Thats the problem with regional planning and national strategy.

Degag

Tipp Man wrote: »

a curfew on drivers under the age of 25 (for example) would have a far greater impact on road fatalities than this reduction on the drink driving limits

I agree with this to a certain extent. There are so many young people out there who drive overpowered cars at excessive speeds. Accidents often happen late at night with friends in the car when they are trying to show off etc.

galah

you guys can argue til the cows come home. And the government can make up driver's rules as much as they want. Unless or until any of these rules are actually ENFORCED, nothing will change. And that's where the problem lies...

As long as people know they'll get away with it (especially in rural areas), they will continue to do so.

I'm not for money-spinning, by all means, but random drink driving checks (and proper, common sense speed regulation enforcement) could provide a good means to fill the governments coffers in such a way that those who don't want to contribute don't have to - by sticking to the limits. Surprised the government hasnt copped on to that yet...


And regarding poor Mickeling down the country - if rural communities and gettogethers are that important to rural people, maybe the pubs could start proper initiatives to bring people home at the end of the night if they want the patronage but not be responsible for drink driving incidents. Our rural pub does it, free of charge. Or people could sign up to be designated drivers in some sort of system. Or, if it's really JUST about the social life - just not drink when down the pub. All simple solutions, really...

_feedback_

Poor auld Mickeling. His ears must be burning.

Tipp Man

galah wrote: »

you guys can argue til the cows come home. And the government can make up driver's rules as much as they want. Unless or until any of these rules are actually ENFORCED, nothing will change. And that's where the problem lies...

As long as people know they'll get away with it (especially in rural areas), they will continue to do so.

I'm not for money-spinning, by all means, but random drink driving checks (and proper, common sense speed regulation enforcement) could provide a good means to fill the governments coffers in such a way that those who don't want to contribute don't have to - by sticking to the limits. Surprised the government hasnt copped on to that yet...


And regarding poor Mickeling down the country - if rural communities and gettogethers are that important to rural people, maybe the pubs could start proper initiatives to bring people home at the end of the night if they want the patronage but not be responsible for drink driving incidents. Our rural pub does it, free of charge. Or people could sign up to be designated drivers in some sort of system. Or, if it's really JUST about the social life - just not drink when down the pub. All simple solutions, really...

Or go down have a couple of drinks and go home - same as they've always done

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tipp Man wrote: »

a curfew on drivers under the age of 25 (for example) would have a far greater impact on road fatalities than this reduction on the drink driving limits

I would love to see this brought in for the sheer hell of it!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Mickeling has unfortunately passed away. The barman tried to take his keys and Mickeling fough back, giving himself a heart attack in the process.

elviscostello wrote: »

Poor auld Mickeling. His ears must be burning.

As was the rest of him. He was cremated this morning.

tayto lover

elviscostello wrote: »

Poor auld Mickeling. His ears must be burning.

I think he was actually killed by a drunk driver while walking home from the pub.

chipsdave

Urban Dwellers get the message ...Country people have done and always will have their few pints and drive home safely so go **** yourselves !

Pompey Magnus

Reg'stoy wrote: »

As for one poster mentioning adjusting the A/C or radio in the car as somehow been akin to having drank a pint or two well that is complete BS, the act of adjusting the A/C or radio takes a fraction of a second where as the effects of having drank the couple of pints is with you from the moment you turn the ignition to the moment you switch it off.

Well you'd be wrong with that belief. A joint study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 80% of crashes and 65% of near crashes were caused by drivers being distracted, included in the study were adjusting A/C and the radio.

So by rights you claiming that sure its grand for a driver to have a quick glance away from the road to fiddle with his radio stations should be seen as just as reprehensible as someone advocating having a pint before driving or talking on the phone.

I wonder how many years it will be until the shrill cries will be heard "You have serious personal problems that you are so in need of music to keep you company that you can't go without it whilst driving a vehicle", in fact I can picture the Road Safety ads now:

A young lad (do women ever appear on these ads except as victims?) driving along happily listening to the radio when suddenly on comes a Miley Cyrus song, with a look of disgust he glances down at the radio to change to a different station when, out of nowhere, a child runs onto the road to grab his football that rolled out...cue black screen with a background noise of screeching breaks, a thud and then a horrible crash with some catchy slogan to induce guilt in all those drivers who would dare distract themselves whilst driving.

Reg'stoy

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Well you'd be wrong with that belief. A joint study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 80% of crashes and 65% of near crashes were caused by drivers being distracted, included in the study were adjusting A/C and the radio.

So by rights you claiming that sure its grand for a driver to have a quick glance away from the road to fiddle with his radio stations should be seen as just as reprehensible as someone advocating having a pint before driving or talking on the phone.

You what now??? If you re-read my post I was countering someone else's assertion that changing radio etc was worse than if they had drink on them. The poster went on to suggest sarcasticlly, that we should also ban radio or A/C changing which one assumes was a way of stating that the new limits were over kill. Their inference was stupid in the extreme, as a person with a few pints on them is as likely to change radio station etc when driving I am also being sarcastic before someone points it out.

The momentary act of changing a radio station or adjusting your car's A/C is just that momentary, and hopefully you do this safely. But the choice made by the individual to drink and then get behind the wheel; effects their driving for the entire lenght of that journey.

Now nobody decides (hopefully) to look down and change channels at the worst possible moment, most of us make an responsible choice when to safely do this.

Accidents have causes and yes one may be when a person decides to change station, light a cigarette etc. But the person who decides to have a drink which as we know scientifically affects you judgement and reaction times and then drive, does it deliberately.

I'm not being a buzzkill, I enjoy a drink because of the very effects it has on the human body. It is because of these same effects that I chose not to have a drink and drive.

The drink driving limits will in the long term save lives because, someone, some where, some day, will decide it's just not worth the risk. The habitual drink driver will not worry one iota about limits but this selflishness does not mean the rest of us ignore them. The habitual drink driver will hopefully be caught and this is done quicker by regular check points.

Pompey Magnus

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Now nobody decides (hopefully) to look down and change channels at the worst possible moment, most of us make an responsible choice when to safely do this.

A driver doing 100 km/h who takes their eyes off the road and one hand off the steering wheel for 2 seconds to change the radio station will have travelled over 55 meters in that time. Alot can happen in that moment.

Accidents have causes and yes one may be when a person decides to change station, light a cigarette etc. But the person who decides to have a drink which as we know scientifically affects you judgement and reaction times and then drive, does it deliberately.

We also know scientifically that someone who decides to change the radio station whilst driving is affecting their reaction times and does so deliberately just so they can listen to a better song. Where is the moral outrage at this?

zenno

not sure if this was put here already but this is from 2007 and mouthwash would still put you over the limit.....

Under the new drink driving laws drivers may be over the limit by using various popular brands of mouthwash. The substantially high level of alcohol in household mouthwash brands means that some well known varieties could leave drivers up to four and a half times over the current Irish legal alcohol limit.
Independent tests carried out by the Sunday Independent on a state of the art CA2000 Digital Breathalyser found that certain alcohol mouthwash formulas can fool garda breathalyser machines into thinking drivers have consumed several pints of alcohol by dramatically raising test results.

so get ready to be arrested for using mouthwash, what a fooking joke.

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

Degag

Oh well, i just got a drive home with someone who had at least 4 pints and i'm still alive. We met no one on the road, we drove away at our own pace and we got home no problem, like we have for the last 20 years.

Pompey Magnus

Some people really need to understand the Law of Diminishing Returns. The lower and lower the alcohol limit is set the less and less effect will be seen in the statistics, or there may indeed be a negative effect noticed where a lower limit actually leads to increased road fatalities as happened in the US in the 2000s

This was due to police time being wasted in arresting and bringing people with negligible levels of alcohol back to the station. While the cop's time was tied up dealing with this person who was not a major threat (the processing time averaged 2 hours) he was unable to be out looking for actually dangerous drivers or dealing with other crimes.

Liam Byrne

listermint wrote: »

Better Planning for accident blackspots including changes in road design.

and

a comprehensive driver training system starting in secondary level education is the best way forward.


But look neither of these generate revenue such as penalty pointing and gathering fines.

Read between the lines people.

A limiter on all cars sold in the state to the legal max of 120kph would prove they were serious about actual safety too.

The new limits are p(o)intless - those of us who would have one, or possibly two over time if wide awake, are being targeted, while those already ignoring the laws and drinking 5 or 6 and then driving will continue to do so.

They should have increased the penalties and left the limits alone, but no - it's Ireland, so those of us who don't subscribe to the stereotype asshole drinkers get targeted again - it's ridiculous.

Reg'stoy

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

We also know scientifically that someone who decides to change the radio station whilst driving is affecting their reaction times and does so deliberately just so they can listen to a better song. Where is the moral outrage at this?

You still didn't address my point that someone who has consumed alcohol which no matter what you say affects their reaction time carries this effect they entire lenght of the journey and are equally as likely to change radio stations.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

This was due to police time being wasted in arresting and bringing people with negligible levels of alcohol back to the station. While the cop's time was tied up dealing with this person who was not a major threat (the processing time averaged 2 hours) he was unable to be out looking for actually dangerous drivers or dealing with other crimes.

Under the new limits if you blow under 80mg and over 50mg you are dealt with at the side of the road as in 6 points and a fine (and no they're not allowed drive home). Only as is the current regime if you blow over 80mg are you taken back to the station where you can accept a 6 month ban with no court appearance rather then the current minimum one year after a court visit. So there will be less court appearances and no more than the current visits to the local Garda Station.

Pompey Magnus

Reg'stoy wrote: »

You still didn't address my point that someone who has consumed alcohol which no matter what you say affects their reaction time carries this effect they entire lenght of the journey and are equally as likely to change radio stations.

I'm not disagreeing with you, drinking a small amount of alcohol will affect reaction times slightly, what I am saying is that there are quite a few different causes for poorer reaction times yet only alcohol seems to be focused on and I don't understand why.

If the aim is to make sure a driver has the maximum possible reaction time then why not address every problem? Why not ban car radios, ipods, test drivers for fatigue, have a minimum blood sugar limit, make it illegal to operate A/C whilst the vehicle is in motion etc etc? There is no question but all of these have been proven to affect a drivers reaction time and all have been shown to contribute to accidents, why keep pushing more and more on alcohol for smaller and smaller gains instead of looking at these other areas? Why the obsession with alcohol?

IrishEyes19

listermint wrote: »

Ahh the old ignorance is bliss adage,

Perhaps you missed my post where i said my father was near killed when he was rear ended at 80 Kmph last year on his way to work on the Nass Road. Hmm Doesnt look like your reading these posts.

That driver was on drink (absolutely wasted) and drugs, and when his car went up on the embankment after the crash the tool was so wasted he pulled out a can and started drinking that. Yes the guards got him.

But see like other posters here i dont let emotions run policy because that is an insane way to bring about legislation. Its only a moron who would condone an 0.0 limit and it makes no sense.

But hey my stories of personal crashes, wont get a 'thanks' because i disagree with some people.

Firstly, Im sorry your father had a near accident. Its frightening how close it can come to something serious like getting killed.
Secondly, Im not ignorant, nor letting emotions take over. I'm simply expressing an opinion.
Thirdly. Yes I actually didnt see that post, and I have been reading this thread, but it did escape me. There are over 14 pages now on this, I have a job, I dont spend every waking minute on this. :rolleyes: the fact that I had to explain that makes me question my own sanity.

Furthermore, have you read my posts, brainbox. because I didnt say anything about a o.o limit, I merely stated. People shouldnt drink and then get into a car regardless. Im quite aware that it would be impossible to enforce such a rule. Its a personal view I have and perhaps other have. It has nothing to do with policies. At the end of the day, people will have to decide what is safe and isnt. Only the individual can do that.

I dont appreciate your sarcastic attack on me for my views, as quite simply, Im not ignorant nor are many other posters here. In simple words Im just saying I dont respect anyone who drinks and gets into a car, be it 1 or 10 drinks. Thats that. I havent mentioned anything about the law, or policies in any of my posts, only in reference to some questions thrown at me. But otherwise, no.

I have no problem or issue with your personal experiences regarding car and alcohol related crashes. Im just expressing my own views. Hope that clears it up for you.

yammycat

Irish society kneels before drunkeness, we work mon to fri and then get wasted on fri night , OMG I WAS SO WASTED LAST NIGHT LAWL, IT WAS SOOO CWAZY

Only right some of us should die under the wheels of drunk drivers.

Pompey Magnus

yammycat wrote: »

Irish society kneels before drunkeness, we work mon to fri and then get wasted on fri night , OMG I WAS SO WASTED LAST NIGHT LAWL, IT WAS SOOO CWAZY

Only right some of us should die under the wheels of drunk drivers.

No-one is questioning the prosecution of "drunk drivers", what is in question is just how sensible it is to prosecute a sober driver who has had a negligible amount of alcohol.

bnt

I suppose this is like many other things: people start off free, and we watch what they do with their freedom. They get their chance to behave like responsible adults: if they do, great, we never hear about it. If they don't, in comes the "nanny state" to do for people what they can't do for themselves. I'm just worried that there will, at some point, be nowhere left for adults to live.

Mike 1972

Tipp Man wrote: »

a curfew on drivers under the age of 25 (for example) would have a far greater impact on road fatalities than this reduction on the drink driving limits

Sounds a lot like this really.

Surely if you are going to restrict the hours they can drive then they should also pay lower road tax too.

Haelium

bnt wrote: »

I suppose this is like many other things: people start off free, and we watch what they do with their freedom. They get their chance to behave like responsible adults: if they do, great, we never hear about it. If they don't, in comes the "nanny state" to do for people what they can't do for themselves. I'm just worried that there will, at some point, be nowhere left for adults to live.

I don't care about people killing themselves with alcohol, but when somebody operates a piece of machinery while tipsy that could kill somebody, there's a problem. Most people wouldn't be tipsy at the new limit, but there are many people who get drunk quite quickly.

It's all relative to metabolism, and might I remind the Libertarians that the government builds the roads? I'm probably wrong, but if you build your own road and keep it as private property then I think you can still drive on it if you are completely pissed.

naldface

Haelium wrote: »

I don't care about people killing themselves with alcohol, but when somebody operates a piece of machinery while tipsy that could kill somebody, there's a problem. Most people wouldn't be tipsy at the new limit, but there are many people who get drunk quite quickly.

It's all relative to metabolism, and might I remind the Libertarians that the government builds the roads? I'm probably wrong, but if you build your own road and keep it as private property then I think you can still drive on it if you are completely pissed.

I believe that, sooner or later here on Earth, people will soon be replaced with robots. Don't you think so?

Haelium

naldface wrote: »

I believe that, sooner or later here on Earth, people will soon be replaced with robots. Don't you think so?

Cyborgs hopefully.

naldface

Haelium wrote: »

Cyborgs hopefully.

I'm going because you are a disgrace.

Pompey Magnus

Haelium wrote: »

It's all relative to metabolism, and might I remind the Libertarians that the government builds the roads? I'm probably wrong, but if you build your own road and keep it as private property then I think you can still drive on it if you are completely pissed.

Who did the government get the money from to build the roads?

Haelium

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Who did the government get the money from to build the roads?

Fair point, however we did elect the representatives who decide these things.

zenno

yammycat wrote: »

Only right some of us should die under the wheels of drunk drivers.

well you shouldn't be falling onto the road should you. there is such thing as a path if you haven't noticed or do you be that drunk you don't realize this. road is for vehicles, path is for pedestrians. don't fall onto the road and you won't get run over, simple.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

zenno wrote: »

well you shouldn't be falling onto the road should you. there is such thing as a path if you haven't noticed or do you be that drunk you don't realize this. road is for vehicles, path is for pedestrians. don't fall onto the road and you won't get run over, simple.

Keep death of the roads, drive on the path, as the joke goes.

What makes you assume the drunk (or high,tired, inattentive, whatever, for that mater) driver is going to remain on the road?