Have we now the strictest drink driving laws in Europe?

musings

Before we adopted our new 50mg drink driving limit, we were constantly being told by advocates of a 50mg limit that our old 80mg limit was higher than all other European countries except Britain which also had an 80mg limit.

However do these other countries enforce their limits?

and if they do enforce their limits, what is the penalty for being over them?

For example, What happens in France if a man has 3 glasses of wine with his dinner and drives home? Will he a) get checked b) if he does get checked and has 100mg in his system, is he banned or given a fine like a speeding fine?

does anyone have experience of the system in these countries?

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, no.
A lot of Eastern states have a zero limit. Cough syrup and mouthwash can put you over, as well as a lot of medicine if you're unlucky.
Norway, Sweden and Poland have a 20mg limit and the rest have 50, we're simply in line.
The UK and Malta are now oddities with the highest limit in Europe AFAIK.

Do-more

Toughest in Europe?

I live in Sweden and the limit is 0.2 in blood and 0.1 in breath so effectively you cannot drive within many hours of drinking even small quantities of alcohol.

If you are caught they throw the book at you with heavy fines and driving bans and if you are over 1.0 you face up to 2 years in jail.

There is also a huge social stigma involved and you are likely to be shunned by the local community.

musings

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, no.
A lot of Eastern states have a zero limit. Cough syrup and mouthwash can put you over, as well as a lot of medicine if you're unlucky.
Norway, Sweden and Poland have a 20mg limit and the rest have 50, we're simply in line.
The UK and Malta are now oddities with the highest limit in Europe AFAIK.

20mg in Poland? Clearly they don't breathalyze too many people there. Either that or all the hardcore drink drivers fled to ireland!

annie.t

musings wrote: »

20mg in Poland? Clearly they don't breathalyze too many people there. Either that or all the hardcore drink drivers fled to ireland!

??
yes they do check this, your license is taken away and its treated as criminal offence once you're over 50mg, its not wild west ffs (or east)

Absurdum

the laws don't really matter when the enforcement is so poor

CiniO

musings wrote: »

20mg in Poland? Clearly they don't breathalyze too many people there. Either that or all the hardcore drink drivers fled to ireland!

Over last 4 years driving in Ireland (big distances) I was brethalised only once.

Before when I lived in Poland, I can't remember a month I wasn't brethalised, even I drove less than here.
I even recall one night when I was brethalised 3 times during one night by three different patrols in three different places.
Limit of 0.2 is very strict. Even a small amount above it like 0.21 and you are losing your licence for at least a year.
For values above 0.5 it is not an offence anymore, but a crime. It nicely fills your criminal record, making your life way more complicated in the future. Driving ban for at least 3 to 5 years, followed by obligatory driving test for every category you want to get back.

Everyone participating in any accident is brethalised, even just a parking fender-bender provided police is there. But very ofter they are.

Generally speaking you would have to be very lucky to get away drink driving in Poland without any consequences.

To be honest I don't really remember too many cases when I seen anyone drink driving there, while in Ireland I see it daily.

Maybe so it's not hardcore drink drivers from Poland who fled to Ireland, but it's just Polish people in Ireland trying to get used to local customs and traditions.



PS. I never driven in Poland even after one pint.
In Ireland quite often I drive after two pints, as this was legal.
Now I'll have to reduce to one.

CiniO

Absurdum wrote: »

the laws don't really matter when the enforcement is so poor

Agree 100%.
That's why I think new alcohol limits in Ireland won't change much.
In my area in West Mayo there wasn't any road alcohol checks for the last 5 years. That's confirmed with local pub community.
So in here, new alcohol limits, are not going to change a single thing.

zenno

there is no excuse with 20mg of alcohol but if they brought in a zero policy you would see many a people over the limit that don't ever drink alcohol, but it is only a matter of time before a zero alcohol concentration will be introduced in Ireland.

the people crying out for a zero tolerance do not actually understand what this means.

Can alcohol be created by the human body itself — without any drinking? Apparently so.
In an interesting scientific article, two physicians at Union Memorial Hospital in Baltimore reported that they detected the odor of beer in three of their patients. This was in an isolated hospital setting; there was no access to alcoholic beverages. The doctors had urine samples taken and analyzed by gas chromatography. Result? All three showed the presence of alcohol in their systems. Two of these were then tested for actual blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). One showed a BAC of .043%. The other was .121% — or 1 1/2 times the legal limit for DUI!

The presence of alcohol in human specimens containing glucose and yeast should come as no surprise. Several have made this observation. Under normal circumstances trace amounts of alcohol may be found in the blood; the alcohol is then channeled into an energy pathway by hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase…
The Japanese report the “auto brewery syndrome” in which they have seen middle aged patients with bowel abnormalities, most often after surgery, who have yeast overgrowth, usually candida, in the G.I. tract and who ferment ingested carbohydrates, producing enough alcohol to result in drunkeness.

Mullholland and Townsend, “Bladder Beer – A New Clinical Observation”, 95 Transactions of the American Clinical Climatological Association 34 (1983).
In other words, the body is manufacturing alcohol by itself — in some cases, enough to become legally intoxicated. This has been confirmed by other studies. Swedish researchers, for example, have found that:

Increasing evidence has emerged to show that endogenous ethanol does exist, the concentrations seen have large inter-individual variations. Our results show a markedly skewed distribution of values…The reason for the wide inter-individual variation in healthy abstaining individuals is hard to explain.

Jones et al., “Determination of Endogenous Ethanol in Blood and Breath By Gas Chromatography, 18 Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 267 (1983).
How many folks, with “immaculately conceived” alcohol in their systems, have been arrested and convicted for DUI? These people were innocent, right?
Wrong. In the rush to convict drunk drivers (and with federal pushing), 49 states have now passed so-called “per se” laws: driving with a BAC of .08% or more. Neither intent, negligence or even knowledge is required. The crime consists of simply having the alcohol in your body. Even if you’ve had nothing to drink.

Mountainsandh

Hi I'm French so thought I might enlighten you as to the sanctions in France, if you are caught drink driving : 0.80mg, 0.40 mg in breath.
http://www.lelynx.fr/assurance-infos-pratiques/assurance-auto/conduite-etat-ivresse-consequences-34015.aspx

/ Les sanctions encourues en cas de conduite en état d’ivresse
Le Code de la route détaille les sanctions consécutives de la conduite en état d’ivresse :

• 2 ans d'emprisonnement ; 2 years prison sentence
• 4 500 euros d'amende ; amende = fine
• Retrait de 6 points sur le permis de conduire ; - 6 points on licence
• L’immobilisation du véhicule dans certains cas ; vehicle immobilised/confiscated in certain cases
• Une suspension de permis pour une durée maximale de 3 ans ; driving licence suspension for up to 3 years
• L’annulation du permis et l’interdiction de repasser l’épreuve pendant 5 ans ; licence cancelled and forbidden to take test for 5 years
• L’interdiction de conduire certains véhicules pendant 5 ans ; forbidden to drive some vehicles for 5 years
• L’obligation d’accomplir un stage de sensibilisation à la sécurité routière à ses frais ; you have to do a training session(s) at your own expense
• Une peine de jours-amende ; daily/fine
• Une peine de travail d’intérêt général. community work

I know from my family back there that they very regularly confiscate vehicles, and of course all the rest : really high fines, points on licence, cancelled licences, etc...

Iwannahurl

zenno wrote: »

there is no excuse with 20mg of alcohol but if they brought in a zero policy you would see many a people over the limit that don't ever drink alcohol, but it is only a matter of time before a zero alcohol concentration will be introduced in Ireland.

the people crying out for a zero tolerance do not actually understand what this means.

Can alcohol be created by the human body itself — without any drinking? Apparently so.
In an interesting scientific article, two physicians at Union Memorial Hospital in Baltimore reported that they detected the odor of beer in three of their patients. This was in an isolated hospital setting; there was no access to alcoholic beverages. The doctors had urine samples taken and analyzed by gas chromatography. Result? All three showed the presence of alcohol in their systems. Two of these were then tested for actual blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). One showed a BAC of .043%. The other was .121% — or 1 1/2 times the legal limit for DUI!

The presence of alcohol in human specimens containing glucose and yeast should come as no surprise. Several have made this observation. Under normal circumstances trace amounts of alcohol may be found in the blood; the alcohol is then channeled into an energy pathway by hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase…
The Japanese report the “auto brewery syndrome” in which they have seen middle aged patients with bowel abnormalities, most often after surgery, who have yeast overgrowth, usually candida, in the G.I. tract and who ferment ingested carbohydrates, producing enough alcohol to result in drunkeness.

Mullholland and Townsend, “Bladder Beer – A New Clinical Observation”, 95 Transactions of the American Clinical Climatological Association 34 (1983).
In other words, the body is manufacturing alcohol by itself — in some cases, enough to become legally intoxicated. This has been confirmed by other studies. Swedish researchers, for example, have found that:

Increasing evidence has emerged to show that endogenous ethanol does exist, the concentrations seen have large inter-individual variations. Our results show a markedly skewed distribution of values…The reason for the wide inter-individual variation in healthy abstaining individuals is hard to explain.

Jones et al., “Determination of Endogenous Ethanol in Blood and Breath By Gas Chromatography, 18 Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 267 (1983).
How many folks, with “immaculately conceived” alcohol in their systems, have been arrested and convicted for DUI? These people were innocent, right?
Wrong. In the rush to convict drunk drivers (and with federal pushing), 49 states have now passed so-called “per se” laws: driving with a BAC of .08% or more. Neither intent, negligence or even knowledge is required. The crime consists of simply having the alcohol in your body. Even if you’ve had nothing to drink.

Hard cases make bad law. The people crying out for more attention to be paid to these side issues are really just engaged in special pleading.

The notion that a motorist's state of intoxication was caused by endogenously produced ethanol lacks merit.

See also: Endogenous ethanol production in patients with Diabetes Mellitus as a medicolegal problem.

murpho999

I do not understand how anyone in this day and age not realise that drinking and driving is wrong under any circumstances and why complain if a limit is 80mg or 50mg.

Surely you don't need the law to tell you what is right and realise yourself that you shouldn't do it.

If this new law prevents one accidental injury, let alone death, isn't it then worth it?

Dartz

murpho999 wrote: »

If this new law brings more fines into the exchequer and makes the #convictions statistic go up, is it not worth it?

Because that's how the government thinks.

It's easier to just make more people criminals and catch them, than it is to catch more of those who're already criminals.

zenno

murpho999 wrote: »

I do not understand how anyone in this day and age not realise that drinking and driving is wrong under any circumstances and why complain if a limit is 80mg or 50mg.

Surely you don't need the law to tell you what is right and realise yourself that you shouldn't do it.

If this new law prevents one accidental injury, let alone death, isn't it then worth it?

you sir are missing the whole point...

the reason most people will be worried is because they will be stuck trying to figure out the following day at what time of day their boc will be in check for driving. this has nothing to do with what you are saying in your comment.

you may have a few beers on a friday night and get a taxi home and go to sleep but how the hell do you know the next day that you are below 20mg. you might feel grand and perfectly fine but the boc in your blood might be slightly above 20mg and this is a hard thing to find out the following day.

I'm really sick to death of people like this blowing their trumpet on issues they do not understand.

JohnnyTodd

Do-more wrote: »

Toughest in Europe?

I live in Sweden and the limit is 0.2 in blood and 0.1 in breath so effectively you cannot drive within many hours of drinking even small quantities of alcohol.

If you are caught they throw the book at you with heavy fines and driving bans and if you are over 1.0 you face up to 2 years in jail.

There is also a huge social stigma involved and you are likely to be shunned by the local community.

I got pulled over on e4 coming back from soderhamn 2 weeks ago. Had 4 pints of beer the night before. Cop breath tested me and said I was borderline fail!

Very tough in Sweden and v
ery common to see them out in the mornings around Stockholm. Particularly after holidays....midsommer etc

joolsveer

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Hi I'm French so thought I might enlighten you as to the sanctions in France, if you are caught drink driving : 0.80mg, 0.40 mg in breath.
http://www.lelynx.fr/assurance-infos-pratiques/assurance-auto/conduite-etat-ivresse-consequences-34015.aspx

/ Les sanctions encourues en cas de conduite en état d’ivresse
Le Code de la route détaille les sanctions consécutives de la conduite en état d’ivresse :

• 2 ans d'emprisonnement ; 2 years prison sentence
• 4 500 euros d'amende ; amende = fine
• Retrait de 6 points sur le permis de conduire ; - 6 points on licence
• L’immobilisation du véhicule dans certains cas ; vehicle immobilised/confiscated in certain cases
• Une suspension de permis pour une durée maximale de 3 ans ; driving licence suspension for up to 3 years
• L’annulation du permis et l’interdiction de repasser l’épreuve pendant 5 ans ; licence cancelled and forbidden to take test for 5 years
• L’interdiction de conduire certains véhicules pendant 5 ans ; forbidden to drive some vehicles for 5 years
• L’obligation d’accomplir un stage de sensibilisation à la sécurité routière à ses frais ; you have to do a training session(s) at your own expense
• Une peine de jours-amende ; daily/fine
• Une peine de travail d’intérêt général. community work

I know from my family back there that they very regularly confiscate vehicles, and of course all the rest : really high fines, points on licence, cancelled licences, etc...

I accept what you say but how does this gell with drivers at truck stops drinking wine with their lunches? I have wondered about this over many years of visiting France.

aN.Droid

joolsveer wrote: »

I accept what you say but how does this gell with drivers at truck stops drinking wine with their lunches? I have wondered about this over many years of visiting France.

Non alcoholic or low alcoholic?

Mountainsandh

joolsveer wrote: »

I accept what you say but how does this gell with drivers at truck stops drinking wine with their lunches? I have wondered about this over many years of visiting France.

I don't see your point ? They take chances, and I'm sure a great number get caught, simples. Truck drivers as well as other people in France know what the law is, and that it is enforced. Although the checks are frequent, they cannot catch all people driving after 2/3 glasses of wine for their lunch, so yes, some will get away with it. Last time I was there saw one caught and truck parked outside toll station (you know, where garda stations are often). When they do get caught, they're in more serious trouble than here though.

I don't think it would be possible to design a system whereby every single driver over the limit will get caught, whether in France or Ireland or anywhere. So it is more a case of being very stringent with those caught so as to discourage others.

I think French people are stubborn when it comes to their "rights" whatever they believe they are, and so even when it's wrong re the law, they tend to persist in doing the deed and say : "this is my right". I have been here 15 years and while travelling back and forth have gradually seen the anti smoking laws tightening, and remember being torn between the French attitude, and the more disciplined Irish behaviour . Once in Charles de Gaulle, I asked the bar staff at the departure gate (that's a good few years ago now) where the smoking section was, since there were no smoking signs everywhere and the smoking ban was recent in airports, they told me go stand by that pillar over there, that's where everyone smokes, and they were right . So me and a few others happily broke the law "by the pillar". We used to happily break the law at the luggage withdrawal gates too, for years, and the security guards would always turn a blind eye.

So yes, the law is a lot more stringent in France, but people still choose to break it. They do face more serious consequences if they get caught.

Mountainsandh

Have to say too that the truck drivers lack of respect for road speed limits and their overtaking in France is ridiculous... Scary situations at times ! A lot of the people I know in France who have ever driven lorries for a living did not ever consider doing this for their entire lives, so I think a lot of them take chances and if caught and in trouble, simply swap jobs for something else. Some were put off the road for a year or 2 too, but with mopeds and buses and metros in towns, it's not as big a deal over there for finding work as it would be here. My b5 rother in law is one of these boyos, he simply changed jobs for a while. He's on a different job yet again now, since he left the army after his service he must have had at least 20/25 different jobs, he is in his 40s now.

CiniO

joolsveer wrote: »

I accept what you say but how does this gell with drivers at truck stops drinking wine with their lunches? I have wondered about this over many years of visiting France.

Current limit in France, is 50mg, so they can easily have a glass of wine with a dinner (or two) and drive legally.

CiniO

zenno wrote: »

you may have a few beers on a friday night and get a taxi home and go to sleep

Easy to be said by someone from Dublin.
Try to do it in rural Mayo, and you will realise, that you're gonna wait for a taxi till the morning in heavy rain.
In my area there isn't really any choice than driving.

zenno

CiniO wrote: »

Easy to be said by someone from Dublin.
Try to do it in rural Mayo, and you will realise, that you're gonna wait for a taxi till the morning in heavy rain.
In my area there isn't really any choice than driving.

I understand what you mean and it can be a right pain in the oxters, welcome to the nanny republic and it will get worse further down the line.

Iwannahurl

CiniO wrote: »

Easy to be said by someone from Dublin.
Try to do it in rural Mayo, and you will realise, that you're gonna wait for a taxi till the morning in heavy rain.
In my area there isn't really any choice than driving.

Of course there are choices, even in rural areas.

For example, not going to the pub or driving to the pub but not drinking alcohol.

zenno wrote: »

I understand what you mean and it can be a right pain in the oxters, welcome to the nanny republic and it will get worse further down the line.

Pain? What pain? Is there some compelling biological reason to drink alcohol?

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Of course there are choices, even in rural areas.

For example, not going to the pub or driving to the pub but not drinking alcohol.






Pain? What pain? Is there some compelling biological reason to drink alcohol?

Why should someone be denied a few pints just because of where thy live?

If the limit was left alone at least a man could have had two pints or could have have a night out without being overly worried about driving the next morning. Now its a joke, and for nothing.

Are people really that stupid that they believe having 80mg made any difference to your ability to drive.

Shay Conway

I have noticed an underlying assumption in this thread that even moderate drinking and road deaths are linked. This is just chat that is not backed up by any research, or maybe I am wrong and somebody has done research on this, if so point me to it.

No reasonable person with a small amount of scientific training could say that a mature man is a danger on the road after drinking two pints. The fact that the new law allows you to drive after being caught with up to 80mg per litre admits this (but you have to pay a small fine, and contribute to the insurance industry penalty points levy fund).

I would agree with Auberon Waugh's assertion that overall the pleasure gained from drinking alcohol far outweighs the misery inflicted by alcohol related road deaths.

<snip link>

zenno

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Pain? What pain? Is there some compelling biological reason to drink alcohol?

It is within my freedom to enjoy a few beers the night before without having to worry about how i am going to accurately measure my blood alcohol content the next day. and as i have already stated this is not easy so i always wait a longer period of time but how the hell can i know for sure ?.

so you say well don't drink...I like many a people enjoy my beer and i don't drink to get drunk i just like a few beers and never drive after them, it is the following day that annoys me as it is impossible to know for sure when it is fully out of my system and no one is going to pay over 600 euro for a fuel cell garda grade accurate breathalyzer.

this is not about drinking and driving per-say it is the following day that has us all fcuked.

Reg'stoy

Shay Conway wrote: »

I would agree with Auberon Waugh's assertion that overall the pleasure gained from drinking alcohol far outweighs the misery inflicted by alcohol related road deaths.

The stupidest and most ridiculous post I have ever seen, you are a tool of the highest order.

Shay Conway

Reg'stoy wrote: »

The stupidest and most ridiculous post I have ever seen, you are a tool of the highest order.

Of course it is ridiculous, it is also funny, unlike you. You take yourself far too seriously, you are an abusive person who is ashamed to sign your own comments.

<Snip link>

ardmacha

this is not about drinking and driving per-say it is the following day that has us all fcuked.

Maybe have a lie-in and stop complaining.

zenno

ardmacha wrote: »

Maybe have a lie-in and stop complaining.

I'm not complaining I am just stating a fact in regards to this new junk law.

you are the one complaining in regards to your comment. :rolleyes:

ardmacha

ardmacha wrote: »

Maybe have a lie-in and stop complaining.

What about people who have to go to work?

zenno

Let me just state this for the record...I have every bit of sympathy for the people that have died at the hands of a drunk driver as I would be in a bad way myself if a member of my own family or a friend of mine died in such circumstances.

but all I am trying to say (not complaining) is being able to test myself the next day to be sure i am under the legal limit by Law. for god sake I am at least trying to be responsible with my indulgence in alcohol and am trying to make sure I am under the limit as many other people wouldn't give a toss.

some people might say you can add up the drink you had the night before and work it out that way but that is a fallacy as this would not apply to every individual person and is still not accurate.

I personally am trying to get it bang on as it will be me facing a fine and penalty points so this is why I am trying to make an effort to calculate when I am ok to drive. so it is essential that people like this can easily test themselves to make absolutely sure they are within the legal drive limit. unless someone here has a less than 600euro way of doing this let me know.

Guy:Incognito

Arielle Repulsive Urchin wrote: »

What about people who have to go to work?

Leave drinking till your not in work the following day?

I doubt theres a person a;live that will be over the limit the following day after a couple of pints btw.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Leave drinking till your not in work the following day?

I regularly go out during the week so I would be missing a lot of nights out. Luckily at the moment I live close to work so dont need to drive, but for years I used to drive to work after nights out. I would have to be risking it now if I had to drive to work or if I do in future because of these new limits.

CiniO

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Leave drinking till your not in work the following day?

I doubt theres a person a;live that will be over the limit the following day after a couple of pints btw.

I already showed a chart in other thread, that if you a someone bit skinny drink 3 pints late evening (like 11 to 1) and then has to drive at 7 in the morning, there is a risk he will be over the lower (20mg) limit.

ardmacha

I already showed a chart in other thread, that if you a someone bit skinny drink 3 pints late evening (like 11 to 1) and then has to drive at 7 in the morning, there is a risk he will be over the lower (20mg) limit.

The lower limit would only apply to professional drivers etc.
In any case if you are drinking at 1am and driving at 7am, then you've not had a full nights sleep, which might be as bad for your driving as 20mg of alcohol. Someone with 8 hours sleep and breakfast probably could have 3 drinks the previous evening without any difficulty.

MugMugs

Done 25k miles in the past 6 months and have met 0 tax checks and 0 mat tests.

CiniO

ardmacha wrote: »

The lower limit would only apply to professional drivers etc.
In any case if you are drinking at 1am and driving at 7am, then you've not had a full nights sleep, which might be as bad for your driving as 20mg of alcohol. Someone with 8 hours sleep and breakfast probably could have 3 drinks the previous evening without any difficulty.

I wasn't saying about what's bad for your driving, but what's legal and what isn't.
There's nothing stopping you legally drive even after sleepless night.
But if lower limit applies to you, it's illegal to drive when you are over 20mg.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Hard cases make bad law. The people crying out for more attention to be paid to these side issues are really just engaged in special pleading.

The notion that a motorist's state of intoxication was caused by endogenously produced ethanol lacks merit.

See also: Endogenous ethanol production in patients with Diabetes Mellitus as a medicolegal problem.

So let's be clear about this (I am assuming you are seeking a very low or 0 alcohol limit)

You are saying that alcohol limits for drivers should be made without regard to how someone might have a small BAC level without having been drinking?

Capt'n Midnight

murpho999 wrote: »

If this new law prevents one accidental injury, let alone death, isn't it then worth it?

One of the unintended consequences is that there might be more hit and runs where a driver might not stop to offer assistance if they feel they might get done. So there is a chance that some lives could be lost.

Unlikely but just pointing out that it may not always as simple as you might think.


80mg to 50mg isn't a huge change. If you go on a session you couldn't have driven the next day anyway. It means that you probably can't have one pint and hit the road straight away.


20mg only applies to people in classes that are either more likely to be less competent or where the consequences would be worse.

If you can't remember to bring your license what else might you have you forgotten ?

CiniO

murpho999 wrote: »

If this new law prevents one accidental injury, let alone death, isn't it then worth it?

Do you know how many accidental injuries we could avoid by banning alcohol sale at all?

Somehow that's not happening.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

SeanW

murpho999 wrote: »

Surely you don't need the law to tell you what is right and realise yourself that you shouldn't do it.

If this new law prevents one accidental injury, let alone death, isn't it then worth it?

This is a common refrain of authoritarians - but its fallacious. If a law is reasonable and it has a demonstrable benefit then yes, its worth it. But if the cost in terms of personal liberty or money is too great and it accomplishes very little, then the answer - in a free society - must be a resounding NO!

I would accept it as an axiom that you "should NEVER drink and drive." So to that end I don't really have a huge issue with the drop from 80 to 50 though I'm not sure there was enough evidence to justify it.

What I would take issue with is the idea that there should be a 0 limit or a very low limit for everyone. Primarily because there are a whole menu of legitimate reasons for people to drive with a small alcohol content - WITHOUT HAVING BEEN DRINKING. These include.

1. Certain kinds of posh desserts have small quantities of alcohol.
2. "Edogenous" I think the word was, for people who have yeast issues and manufacture alcohol internally. Though obviously if someone was producing enough alcohol to be drunk, this wouldn't apply and they should not drive.
3. Cough syrup.
4. Mouthwash can cause someone to register positive on a breath test.
5. "Day after" issues: again subject to reason. (E.g a few the night before, OK, if you were on a bender, NO)

IWannaHurl is presumably calling for a zero limit and would dismiss all the above circumstances by saying "hard cases make bad law" but I think authoritarianism makes even worse law.

Then again IWH seems to have a severe hatred of motoring & motorists in general so I wouldn't pay too much attention. I just hope his/her ilk never gain too much political influence or they're going to make people's lives miserable.

Mountainsandh

authoritarianism

Well said. I'm all for safer roads, but I agree, personal liberties are being eroded in our modern societies, and the progressively tightening road rules are part of that.

Iwannahurl

Arielle Repulsive Urchin wrote: »

Why should someone be denied a few pints just because of where thy live?

If the limit was left alone at least a man could have had two pints or could have have a night out without being overly worried about driving the next morning. Now its a joke, and for nothing.

Are people really that stupid that they believe having 80mg made any difference to your ability to drive.

Is there some compelling (eg biological) reason to drink alcohol?

Does the location of anyone's residence have any causal relationship with their choice of beverage?

Are people really so stupid that (a) they are unable to make choices and (b) are unaware of the well-established link between alcohol and impairment of cognitive and motor functioning?

Iwannahurl

Shay Conway wrote: »

I have noticed an underlying assumption in this thread that even moderate drinking and road deaths are linked. This is just chat that is not backed up by any research, or maybe I am wrong and somebody has done research on this, if so point me to it.

No reasonable person with a small amount of scientific training could say that a mature man is a danger on the road after drinking two pints. The fact that the new law allows you to drive after being caught with up to 80mg per litre admits this (but you have to pay a small fine, and contribute to the insurance industry penalty points levy fund).

I would agree with Auberon Waugh's assertion that overall the pleasure gained from drinking alcohol far outweighs the misery inflicted by alcohol related road deaths.

<Snip link>

You're wrong.

I wouldn't take Auberon Waugh seriously on this or any other issue of importance.

dr.fuzzenstein

Many a country pub has regular "Poor Auld Fellas" who have been driving there since 190hgodknowswhen to have their 4 pints and a few woodbines.
Can't see that changing and the only thing they might hit is the hedge.

Iwannahurl

zenno wrote: »

It is within my freedom to enjoy a few beers the night before without having to worry about how i am going to accurately measure my blood alcohol content the next day. and as i have already stated this is not easy so i always wait a longer period of time but how the hell can i know for sure ?.

so you say well don't drink...I like many a people enjoy my beer and i don't drink to get drunk i just like a few beers and never drive after them, it is the following day that annoys me as it is impossible to know for sure when it is fully out of my system and no one is going to pay over 600 euro for a fuel cell garda grade accurate breathalyzer.

this is not about drinking and driving per-say it is the following day that has us all fcuked.

zenno wrote: »

... this new junk law.

I don't understand your first point re "within my freedom".

You may "like a few beers" but if there is any chance that you could be above the limit when driving then it is your responsibility not to drive afterwards or else not to drink to an extent that might put you over the limit when you're next behind the wheel.

I repeat my question: given the legal drink-driving limit now in force, is there any compelling reason for anyone to drink alcohol if they're going to be driving?

Iwannahurl

Arielle Repulsive Urchin wrote: »

I regularly go out during the week so I would be missing a lot of nights out. Luckily at the moment I live close to work so dont need to drive, but for years I used to drive to work after nights out. I would have to be risking it now if I had to drive to work or if I do in future because of these new limits.

Drink driving laws are there for very good evidence-based road safety reasons, not to facilitate people's consumption of alcohol on their nights out.

People are still free to go out as often as they wish, of course. There's no law against that, AFAIK.

Iwannahurl

SeanW wrote: »

So let's be clear about this (I am assuming you are seeking a very low or 0 alcohol limit)

You are saying that alcohol limits for drivers should be made without regard to how someone might have a small BAC level without having been drinking?

A zero limit would be ideal, as it would remove all doubt. Some European countries already have a zero BAC limit, though I have no idea how they enforce this in practice. It would be politically and practically difficult to implement such a policy in Ireland, IMO.

As I have already mentioned, hard cases make bad law. AFAIK, the phenomenon of endogenous ethanol is not prevalent enough to have any meaningful forensic impact. If it is a significant issue, then presumably zero BAC countries are having to deal with it in their enforcement policies and judicial systems.

Iwannahurl

SeanW wrote: »

This is a common refrain of authoritarians - but its fallacious. If a law is reasonable and it has a demonstrable benefit then yes, its worth it. But if the cost in terms of personal liberty or money is too great and it accomplishes very little, then the answer - in a free society - must be a resounding NO!

I would accept it as an axiom that you "should NEVER drink and drive." So to that end I don't really have a huge issue with the drop from 80 to 50 though I'm not sure there was enough evidence to justify it.

What I would take issue with is the idea that there should be a 0 limit or a very low limit for everyone. Primarily because there are a whole menu of legitimate reasons for people to drive with a small alcohol content - WITHOUT HAVING BEEN DRINKING. These include.

1. Certain kinds of posh desserts have small quantities of alcohol.
2. "Edogenous" I think the word was, for people who have yeast issues and manufacture alcohol internally. Though obviously if someone was producing enough alcohol to be drunk, this wouldn't apply and they should not drive.
3. Cough syrup.
4. Mouthwash can cause someone to register positive on a breath test.
5. "Day after" issues: again subject to reason. (E.g a few the night before, OK, if you were on a bender, NO)

IWannaHurl is presumably calling for a zero limit and would dismiss all the above circumstances by saying "hard cases make bad law" but I think authoritarianism makes even worse law.

Then again IWH seems to have a severe hatred of motoring & motorists in general so I wouldn't pay too much attention. I just hope his/her ilk never gain too much political influence or they're going to make people's lives miserable.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Well said. I'm all for safer roads, but I agree, personal liberties are being eroded in our modern societies, and the progressively tightening road rules are part of that.

Evidence instead of personal attacks, please.

What is the evidence that "yeast issues", "posh desserts", cough syrup or mouthwashes have had any meaningful impact on the implementation of evidence-based road safety policy or the administration of justice in any country with an equivalent or lower drink driving limit?

How is people's "personal liberty" being curtailed in any significant way? We are still free to drink alcohol and to drive. It's the combination of the two that's being restricted, for good evidence-based reasons.