breathalyzer - learner level unless full licence on you

pippip

http://www.thepost.ie/breakingnews/ireland/ojcweyojsney/

Basically, if you are breathalyzed by the gardai and cannot prove you hold a full licence, on the spot, then you will be treated as a learner and subject to the 20mg (new learner level) rather than 50mg (new standard level)

So keep your licence on you.

barura

Aren't you supposed to have your licence on your person at all times when you're driving anyways? :P

KamiKazi

What a stupid f*cking idea.

seamus

Makes sense.

The limit will only apply to the roadside test on their decision of whether or not to take you down to the station for a full test.

For the purposes of being charged, the normal limit will apply if you actually hold a full licence.

**Timbuk2**

Does anybody else think that there should be no limit? I do, but whenever I mention it to people, they all think I'm crazy ("What if you want to have wine with dinner, and drive home, etc.") But personally I think that when operating a potentially dangerous piece of machinery on public roads, there should be zero tolerance.

seamus

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Does anybody else think that there should be no limit? I do, but whenever I mention it to people, they all think I'm crazy ("What if you want to have wine with dinner, and drive home, etc.") But personally I think that when operating a potentially dangerous piece of machinery on public roads, there should be zero tolerance.

A zero limit is functionally unenforceable. Trace amounts of alcohol exist in many day-to-day foodstuffs and may also be produced in the body under certain circumstances. So a zero tolerance limit is impossible to enforce if it's impossible for people to be able to completely control the level of alcohol in their bodies.

The aim here is to prevent people from operating vehicles while in a mental or physical condition that impairs your ability to do so safely. Studies have shown that while the effects of alcohol kick in at about 0.02, there's no significant increase in risk level until 0.05, but even then it only becomes a massively pronounced problem at around 0.08.

To put it in context, a BAC of 0.05 is as risky as driving while slightly tired or while talking on the phone. A BAC of 0.08 is as risky as driving while very tired.

So in that regard, a zero tolerance limit loses sight of the actual point of BAC limits in the first place, and that is to prevent people from operating vehicles while impaired. If you prosecute people for have a BAC of 0.001, you're not punishing them for doing anything except consuming alcohol, as they present no additional risk to the rest of society.

A 0.02 limit seems silly, but the aim of such low limits is to get people to change their mindset and basically think that there's no safe level of alcohol which can be consumed if you plan on driving.

Cookie_Monster

guilty until proven innocent???

Our man in Havana

Scaremongering as per usual.

pudzey101

or a simple solution is NOT to drink & drive

vetstu

Why is this being blown up so much in the media? It makes perfect sense. How can you expect a guard to take someones word on the side of the road as to whether they have a full or provisional licence. If you are between 20 and 50 when you blow you will be arrested if you have no licence. In the station when they get your full licence you will be free to go. If you have a provisional, tough ****. Or just carry your licence and avoid it.


Waits for rant about credit card licences.....

unkel

seamus wrote: »

A BAC of 0.08 is as risky as driving while very tired.

And interestingly, a BAC of 0.08 is as risky as driving while talking on a hands-free phone, which is completely legal

PaddyTheNth

unkel wrote: »

And interestingly, a BAC of 0.08 is as risky as driving while talking on a hands-free phone, which is completely legal

What's the source for these blood alcohol vs other distraction comparisons people are giving?

jimmycrackcorm

pudzey101 wrote: »

or a simple solution is NOT to drink & drive

Well that is just ingenious. Perhaps you could enlighten us further by telling us that if we do have a drink, at what point we would be ok to drive?

_Conrad_

Well I don't mind, I carry my licence with me (what's the point of it otherwise?) and I don't drink and drive.

cormie

I don't drink so have never had any reason to pay attention to these levels, that said, with the post Seamus made above, there are of course times that alcohol might be in my body, a white wine sauce with dinner, a few too many chocolate truffles, maybe some baileys ice cream too

With these new lower limits, just how much can a "non drinker" have if you can't measure your intake in simple "half a glass of wine" terms.

Break all ties

It is another step closer to a police state.

corktina

Police State? do me a favour, they cant even police Learner Permits.

Reg'stoy

Break all ties wrote: »

It is another step closer to a police state.

pudzey101

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Well that is just ingenious. Perhaps you could enlighten us further by telling us that if we do have a drink, at what point we would be ok to drive?

At no point...drink drivers are stupid that ruin many peoples lifes..

cadaliac

The police should be able to determine whether or not you have a full licence on the side of the road. End of.

You could be driving someone else's car or forgot your wallet (or whatever) but the notion that you will be penalised like a learner driver when they "could" easily determine your licence level from the squad car is scaremongering to me.

Its just another example of poor IT systems employed by the state and a silly work around to compensate.

seamus

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

What's the source for these blood alcohol vs other distraction comparisons people are giving?

I was citing them primarily from memory.

The numbers are often slightly different per-study, this is because it's difficult to accurately measure the effects of alcohol and talking on the phone, because the tests have to be conducted in a closed environment. So the fact that the person being tested is aware of it, will affect the outcome.
While the figures don't always match exactly, the consensus usually does.
Here's one google I found. WHO, so it's going to be fairly reliable;
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_traffic/activities/roadsafety_training_manual_unit_2.pdf

Choice quotes:

- For the general driving population, as the blood alcohol content increases from zero, the risk of being involved in a crash starts to rise significantly at a blood alcohol content of 0.04 g/dl.
- Inexperienced young adults driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.05 g/dl have 2.5 times the risk of a crash compared with more experienced drivers.
- If the legal limit stands at 0.08 g/dl, there will still be twice the risk than at 0.05 g/dl.

- There is some evidence from studies that drivers who use mobile telephones while driving face a risk of a crash four times higher than the risk for drivers who do not use mobile telephones.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Relative_risk_of_an_accident_based_on_blood_alcohol_levels_.png

So if an experienced driver faces twice the risk @ 0.05, then they are four times the risk @ 0.08, which is roughly comparable to using a mobile phone while driving.

The second point in the quote above is also quite important as it indicates that an inexperienced young driver @ 0.05 has the same risk factor as an experienced driver at just over 0.08. I imagine alcohol tolerance also plays a factor in that as an older person will have better mental control at the same BAC.

The university of Utah conducted a study which suggested that driving while using a mobile is more dangerous than a BAC of 0.08;
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf

It's also now fairly well accepted that there is no safety difference between using a handsfree device and not using one. Contrary to common thought, the danger is not from having one hand off the wheel, the danger comes from the act of having a conversation with a remote party. Which qualifies unkel's statement that using a handsfree kit is as dangerous as driving at BAC 0.08.

challengemaster

What the hell is everyone whinging about?

You should have the license on you anyway, looks like they've finally done something intelligent and got the two with one stone. Enforcement of one law (that they'd never otherwise enforce) by another one.

unkel

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

What's the source for these blood alcohol vs other distraction comparisons people are giving?

Drink drivers (at 0.08% BAC) vs hands-free callers vs hand-held callers

Brake reaction time in ms:

888 943 1022

it is actually safer to drive drunk than sober. After controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers

Linky

Perhaps the Gardai should focus more on the real dangerous drivers -> call-drivers and leave the drink-drivers alone

PaddyTheNth

seamus wrote: »

It's also now fairly well accepted that there is no safety difference between using a handsfree device and not using one. Contrary to common thought, the danger is not from having one hand off the wheel, the danger comes from the act of having a conversation with a remote party. Which qualifies unkel's statement that using a handsfree kit is as dangerous as driving at BAC 0.08.

Very interesting reading in those links. Being a currrent handsfree user I would probably agree that it makes very little difference to my level of distraction when using it vs holding the phone in my hand.

A couple of other quotes which jumped out at me

• Travelling at 5 km/h above a road speed limit of 65 km/h results in an increase in the relative risk of being involved in a casualty crash that is comparable with having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05 g/dl.
• Factors that substantially increase the risk of a
  fatal crash or a crash with serious injuries are:
  —driving while feeling sleepy;
  —driving after five hours of sleep;
  —driving between 02:00 and 05:00.

With regard to the topic of the thread, I think your original reply is spot on:

Makes sense.

The limit will only apply to the roadside test on their decision of whether or not to take you down to the station for a full test.

For the purposes of being charged, the normal limit will apply if you actually hold a full licence.

unkel

You googled quicker than me, seamus

Cormic

vetstu wrote: »

Waits for rant about credit card licences.....

No one has had one yet vetstu so I will oblige

Why can't we have credit card licences like the US do. It is stupid not to have them !!!!!111one!

Also why does our licence have to be pink. Can it not be a manly black colour with a picture of a car on the back !!!!!one11!!

seamus

challengemaster wrote: »

What the hell is everyone whinging about?

You should have the license on you anyway, looks like they've finally done something intelligent and got the two with one stone. Enforcement of one law (that they'd never otherwise enforce) by another one.

This is actually one of the few times that someone seems to have spotted the loophole before it could be used as a defence.

The obvious problem is that a provisional driver could be stopped by the Gardai and register @ 0.04. If they lie to the Gardai and say that they're a fully licenced driver, the Garda has no powers to take them down to the station.

By the time the learner produces their permit at the station, the chance has passed for the Garda to do anything about the drink-driving charge, because they cannot be prosecuted on the basis of the hand-held breathalyser alone.

The whingers are contesting that they might end up wasting an hour sitting in the Garda station because they don't have their licence with them. Hopefully the imminent (!) introduction of credit-card style licences will end all the excuses.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

To put it in context, a BAC of 0.05 is as risky as driving while slightly tired or while talking on the phone. A BAC of 0.08 is as risky as driving while very tired.

from personal experience driving with a BAC of 0.08 (around 2 pints for arguments sake) is much much safer than driving while tired. Ive never felt as unsafe behind the wheel as when I have driven when extremely tired.

savagecabbages

Gardai can check if you have a full licence over the phone, a problem would only arise if you were driving with absolutely no ID, in which case you couldn't prove who you are at all. You wouldn't be able to prove you aren't giving false details.

Notice the wording of the article:

Motorists who do not carry their licences could be arrested for driving with a blood alcohol level of 20 milligrammes, the level normally reserved for learner drivers.

Mororists could be...

EDIT: I got my levels messed up, how does 0.08% compare to 50mg?
I may have made a clown of myself

starfish12

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2011/1012/1224305633672.html

Our man in Havana

starfish12 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2011/1012/1224305633672.html

Old news is still old. Welcome to last week.

starfish12

Cormic wrote: »

No one has had one yet vetstu so I will oblige

Why can't we have credit card licences like the US do. It is stupid not to have them !!!!!111one!

Also why does our licence have to be pink. Can it not be a manly black colour with a picture of a car on the back !!!!!one11!!

my point was that we will have credit card licences from next year, so not having your licence on your person when stopped should be less of an issue

seamus

savagecabbages wrote: »

EDIT: I got my levels messed up, how does 0.08% compare to 50mg?
I may have made a clown of myself

Yeah, it can get a bit messy because breath content is measured in microgrammes and has different exact figures.

50mg of alcohol per litre blood gives a blood alcohol content of roughly 0.05%

Capt'n Midnight

What are the penalties for not carrying a license ?
and it's been an offence not to carry it since at least 1994, which is before some licence holders were born !

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0007/sec0025.html

“40.—(1) (a) A member of the Garda Síochána may demand, of a person driving in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle or accompanying pursuant to regulations under this Act the holder of a provisional licence while such holder is driving in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle, the production to him of a driving licence then having effect and licensing the said person to drive the vehicle, and if the person refuses or fails so to produce the licence there and then, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) Where a person of whom the production of a driving licence is demanded under this section refuses or fails to produce the licence there and then, a member of the Garda Síochána may require the person to produce within 10 days after the date of the said requirement the licence in person to a member of the Garda Síochána at a Garda Síochána station to be named by the person at the time of the requirement and, if the person refuses or fails so to produce the licence, he shall be guilty of an offence.

...
(4) A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant—

(a) a person who pursuant to this section produces a driving licence to the member but refuses or fails to permit the member to read it, or

(b) a person who, when his name and address is lawfully demanded of him by the member under this section, refuses or fails to give to the member his name and address or gives to the member a name or address which the member reasonably believes to be false.

CiniO

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What are the penalties for not carrying a license ?
and it's been an offence not to carry it since at least 1994, which is before some licence holders were born !

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0007/sec0025.html

I don't think you are right.

Act is indeed from 1994, but I remember when I moved to Ireland in 2004, I bought a booklet with rules of the road issued in 1997 and is stated that you don't need to carry your licence with you.

When you click on a button "Legislation Directory Entry" on the top of line you provided, you can see that article 25 quoted by you, entered in force way later than 1994.

challengemaster

The rules of the road is NOT the equivalent to the irish statute book. The irish statute book is the law in it's official form, the ROTR is just an interpretation provided by the RSA that the common person can read easily. It is not law, or does not hold any legal bearings.

CiniO

challengemaster wrote: »

The rules of the road is NOT the equivalent to the irish statute book. The irish statute book is the law in it's official form, the ROTR is just an interpretation provided by the RSA that the common person can read easily. It is not law, or does not hold any legal bearings.

ROTR is not equivalent to Irish statute book, but anyway information provided in it should be correct (even we know there's few examples where there are obvious mistakes).

Anyway - fact that some legislation is available on irish statute book, doesn't mean that legislation is in force.
Perfect example is a "Road traffic act 2010" published in 2010 which includes all new regulations about new alcohol limits, and we all know, that they are not in force yet, even the act was already published over a year ago.

pudzey101

i still dont know what the fuss is lads i woudnt get behind the wheel if i even had so much of a sip of alcohol wish everyone else was the same i mean whats the point of risking your own life + more importantly someone elses?

challengemaster

pudzey101 wrote: »

i still dont know what the fuss is lads i woudnt get behind the wheel if i even had so much of a sip of alcohol wish everyone else was the same i mean whats the point of risking your own life + more importantly someone elses?

I reckon at this stage it's more about the morning after, or atleast for the younger generations. The older ones seem to still have no issues with drink driving, and it's clear the gardai turn a blind eye to it in most cases

Capt'n Midnight

challengemaster wrote: »

I reckon at this stage it's more about the morning after, or atleast for the younger generations. The older ones seem to still have no issues with drink driving, and it's clear the gardai turn a blind eye to it in most cases

From what I've heard when they tested those driving back the morning after oxygen one in four failed the test.

challengemaster

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

From what I've heard when they tested those driving back the morning after oxygen one in four failed the test.

I'd well believe that, I was at it... the way some people were for the most of the weekend, and a lot stayed drinking through the last night too... :rolleyes: