drink driving lower limit

businessdit

Under the new Drink driving laws I see it is possible to be charged with "driving under the influence" - but only receive a small fine and penalty points (and no driving ban) if you have do not exceed the following:

(a) Not exceeding 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood
(b) Not exceeding 107mg of alcohol per 100ml of urine
(c) Not exceeding 35mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath

How many units of alcohol would you have to consume in order to actually exceed the above? Are the above very very low readings? I cant seem to work it out.

Thanks in advance!

Dannyboi3k

No idea, was 35mg per breath not always the limit?

Victor

Those are the old limits. Depending on factors like body size and the concentration of the drink, typically 1-2 pints.

Dannyboi3k wrote: »

No idea, was 35mg per breath not always the limit?

I suspect it was.

is this meant to be MG? or is is MCG as in micromilligrammes?

Microgrammes. "micromilligrammes" is an erroneous unit on your behalf.

Evaex

I have 3 pints. If Im over 50mg it's only a few points and a small fine.

If I'm over 80mg per 100ml of blood, it's only a six month disqualification. That's not too bad and I doubt I'd go over that.

bath handle

Evaex wrote: »

I have 3 pints. If Im over 50mg it's only a few points and a small fine.

If I'm over 80mg per 100ml of blood, it's only a six month disqualification. That's not too bad and I doubt I'd go over that.

Try getting insurance for a few years after conviction.

Jev/N

Evaex wrote: »

I have 3 pints. If Im over 50mg it's only a few points and a small fine.

If I'm over 80mg per 100ml of blood, it's only a six month disqualification. That's not too bad and I doubt I'd go over that.

You're only concerned about the penalties rather than the possibility of your's or someone else's life?

Evaex

Jev/N wrote: »

You're only concerned about the penalties rather than the possibility of your's or someone else's life?

The law deemed me to be a safe driver at 79mg last week. It didn't suddenly change over night. Im a responsible driver after having consumed alcohol. Same as I adjust my driving in bad weather, ice, snow or when I'm very tired.

I now will keep alcohol limit below 50mg but will aim for around 40mg for a safety margin. That does mean consistent factors in place such as recent exposure to alcohol so tolerance is maintained, no other medications, keep similiar body weight, not taking other medication, reasonable amount of food obtained, etc and minimum time elapsed before attempting to drive.

The point remains though - a driver doesnt suddenly become unsafe after crossing the border from Newry to Louth with 79mg/100ml alcohol in his blood.

234

And neither does he where he has 49mg as opposed to 50mg of alcohol in his blood. The point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere and the Oireachtas chose a level that would bring us in line with European norms.

Some people can undoubtedly drive safely after a few drinks while others might be unsafe after just one. The point is that a purely subjective test would be impossible to apply in hindsight in a courtroom setting. The criminal justice deals with hundreds of these cases and court are not in a position to conduct a detailed inquiry in each case as to whether the driver in question was driving 'safely' with alcohol in his system.

Victor

Evaex wrote: »

The law deemed me to be a safe driver at 79mg last week. It didn't suddenly change over night. Im a responsible driver after having consumed alcohol. Same as I adjust my driving in bad weather, ice, snow or when I'm very tired.

Remember: alcohol may lead to boasting!

I now will keep alcohol limit below 50mg but will aim for around 40mg for a safety margin. That does mean consistent factors in place such as recent exposure to alcohol so tolerance is maintained, no other medications, keep similiar body weight, not taking other medication, reasonable amount of food obtained, etc and minimum time elapsed before attempting to drive.

Note that food and a time delay can affect how your body deals with alcohol. Eat a large meal and have one drink and the alcohol can be in your system for a long time, as the body will process the food before the alcohol.

Jayo2011

234 wrote: »

And neither does he where he has 49mg as opposed to 50mg of alcohol in his blood. The point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere and the Oireachtas chose a level that would bring us in line with European norms.

Some people can undoubtedly drive safely after a few drinks while others might be unsafe after just one. The point is that a purely subjective test would be impossible to apply in hindsight in a courtroom setting. The criminal justice deals with hundreds of these cases and court are not in a position to conduct a detailed inquiry in each case as to whether the driver in question was driving 'safely' with alcohol in his system.

It is pretty clear that the methods used to determine whether somebody is driving safely need to be revised. the government charges unscrupulous taxes on alcohol, and so have a duty of care to its customers. Yet there is no standard/quantitative measure that states how long one must wait before a single unit of alcohol has left the system and leaves them in a fit state to drive safely - 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 week, 1 year etc.

I could have 4-5 social pints tonight, get a cab home, have a decent nights rest, be bright as a daisy in the morning and still be over the limit tomorrow morning on my way to work. No warning came with the alcohol I purchased, I clearly did not drink and drive, yet I will still be treated the same as a drunk who regularly gets tanked up and drives home from the pub. The new drink driving laws are purely revenue based and have nothing whatsoever to do with road safety. either you are drunk and unsafe to drive or you are not. giving a fine instead of an all out ban is a pure money racket. It makes a mockery of the people who have lost their lives due to drunken drivers. putting a price on blood is a disgrace.

the amount of alcohol in blood is not a reliable way of determining whether somebody is unsafe to drive or not. The system of walking the line as used in america is a much more reliable method of determining whether somebody is unfit to drive.

I do not condone drunk driving, but I do feel that some people can drink more than others and still drive safely, just as the amount of drink taken will equally affect the blood alcohol of people differently. It is high time that advocates of the zero tolerance should their heads out of their ass. There is no quantitative standard per unit of alcohol. To say we cannot drink and drive is unrealistic without giving a set timeframe for each drink type. I had a few drinks last week, yet there is no way for me to know for sure if I am still over the limit until I am pulled and tested. If the government accepts taxes for drink, they have a duty of care to the customer to ensure that they leave enough of an alcohol free timeframe to allow them to drive legally safe. At present there is no such quantitative standard, just meaningless mg of alcohol in blood. People need to know how much time they need to leave after a few pints in order to drive safely

source

Jayo, it's a well documented fact that it takes an hour for the human body to process 1 unit of alcohol. Have a quick google and you'll find out quite a lot on the topic. This is a great indicator on how long you should leave between drinking and driving.

It's not the governments job to hold your hand and tell you when you've had enough, and your taxes have nothing to do with it, even alcohol manufacturers say don't drive after a heavy night drinking as you may still be impared. You're an adult, you're responsible for your own actions.

As for different people having different reactions to drink, I agree that it affects some more than others, but it's impossible to legislate for that. So a bottom line is put in place in accordance with international best practice.

I can assure you having dealt with numerous RTCs caused by drink driving, that this is not a revenue based law and is there purely for the safety of the regular road users, who are put in danger by the selfish actions of a few who want to drink and drive.

MagicSean

Jayo2011 wrote: »

It is pretty clear that the methods used to determine whether somebody is driving safely need to be revised. the government charges unscrupulous taxes on alcohol, and so have a duty of care to its customers. Yet there is no standard/quantitative measure that states how long one must wait before a single unit of alcohol has left the system and leaves them in a fit state to drive safely - 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 week, 1 year etc.

I could have 4-5 social pints tonight, get a cab home, have a decent nights rest, be bright as a daisy in the morning and still be over the limit tomorrow morning on my way to work. No warning came with the alcohol I purchased, I clearly did not drink and drive, yet I will still be treated the same as a drunk who regularly gets tanked up and drives home from the pub. The new drink driving laws are purely revenue based and have nothing whatsoever to do with road safety. either you are drunk and unsafe to drive or you are not. giving a fine instead of an all out ban is a pure money racket. It makes a mockery of the people who have lost their lives due to drunken drivers. putting a price on blood is a disgrace.

the amount of alcohol in blood is not a reliable way of determining whether somebody is unsafe to drive or not. The system of walking the line as used in america is a much more reliable method of determining whether somebody is unfit to drive.

I do not condone drunk driving, but I do feel that some people can drink more than others and still drive safely, just as the amount of drink taken will equally affect the blood alcohol of people differently. It is high time that advocates of the zero tolerance should their heads out of their ass. There is no quantitative standard per unit of alcohol. To say we cannot drink and drive is unrealistic without giving a set timeframe for each drink type. I had a few drinks last week, yet there is no way for me to know for sure if I am still over the limit until I am pulled and tested. If the government accepts taxes for drink, they have a duty of care to the customer to ensure that they leave enough of an alcohol free timeframe to allow them to drive legally safe. At present there is no such quantitative standard, just meaningless mg of alcohol in blood. People need to know how much time they need to leave after a few pints in order to drive safely

There is no standard time because there is no standard person. Everybody is different in how alcohol is processed in their body

Dublin_Gunner

Evaex wrote: »

The law deemed me to be a safe driver at 79mg last week. It didn't suddenly change over night. Im a responsible driver after having consumed alcohol. Same as I adjust my driving in bad weather, ice, snow or when I'm very tired.

I now will keep alcohol limit below 50mg but will aim for around 40mg for a safety margin. That does mean consistent factors in place such as recent exposure to alcohol so tolerance is maintained, no other medications, keep similiar body weight, not taking other medication, reasonable amount of food obtained, etc and minimum time elapsed before attempting to drive.

The point remains though - a driver doesnt suddenly become unsafe after crossing the border from Newry to Louth with 79mg/100ml alcohol in his blood.

That seems like a lot of effort on your part.

How about just don't drive if you want a few drinks? Is it really that hard for you?!

If you're going that deep into being able to keep within the limits just so you CAN drink and drive, I think you have a problem, seriously.

Evaex

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

That seems like a lot of effort on your part.

How about just don't drive if you want a few drinks? Is it really that hard for you?!

If you're going that deep into being able to keep within the limits just so you CAN drink and drive, I think you have a problem, seriously.

It's not that hard, really. Maybe it would be for you. I think you have a problem.

mathepac

Evaex wrote: »

The law deemed me to be a safe driver at 79mg last week. ...

The law in your case made no such idiotic determination. The law simply states that if you have achieved that level of intoxication you are not liable for prosecution under the current drink-driving laws.

Evaex wrote: »

... Im a responsible driver after having consumed alcohol. Same as I adjust my driving in bad weather, ice, snow or when I'm very tired...

"responsible driver", I think not I'm afraid. The RSA suggest that if you drink, don't drive; they also have suggestions about what to do if you are "very tired"; adjusting your driving isn't one of them.

NeuroCat

It's shocking the level of ignorance regarding the effects of alcohol on the system. Don't drink and drive, simple. I think many people would be shocked to discover how little ethanol in the system is required to cause subtle (perhaps unnoticeable) changes.

Personally I'm of the opinion that a driving ban should be maintained, with a massive fine for anyone caught over the limit.

Jev/N

Evaex wrote: »

The law deemed me to be a safe driver at 79mg last week. It didn't suddenly change over night.

Yes, it did actually. It changed the other day..

Evaex wrote: »

Im a responsible driver after having consumed alcohol. Same as I adjust my driving in bad weather, ice, snow or when I'm very tired.

Responsibility or not, your reactions will be affected the more you drink - if something surprising or out of the ordinary happened on the road, it may be the case that you might not react in adequate time. Fair enough, this may be the case when tired also but you shouldn't drive when too tired either

Evaex wrote: »

The point remains though - a driver doesnt suddenly become unsafe after crossing the border from Newry to Louth with 79mg/100ml alcohol in his blood.

No,but it would not be wise to be driving with such a level, even if it may be legal in one of the countries (and was previously legal here). As mentioned previously, the advice is to never drink and drive

BrianD

Evaex wrote:

Im a responsible driver after having consumed alcohol. Same as I adjust my driving in bad weather, ice, snow or when I'm very tired.

This thinking is probably the root problem of the attitude problem regarding drink driving. As a responsible driver you should know that you can not make any rational decision regarding driving while under the influence of alcohol. Your judgement is impaired. If I am sober and caught in a snow storm I can make informed decisions and adjust my driving.

It is ironic that in most cases the decision to drive to a pub and consume any amount of alcohol is done while sober and "fully responsible". Once you imbibe alcohol your decision making ability is impaired. The irresponsible quickly becomes justifyable and rational.