The Healy-Raes embarrassing the country yet again

Ash.J.Williams

I think the healy rae man was taken out of context... He didnt say call in the army in the literal sense.

Zubeneschamali

jmayo wrote: »

I and others have asked for the stats to back up where it says how many people with 50mg - 80mg of alcohol have caused accidents. Where are those stats ?

The don't release them because the don't support the official story. Long ago, I saw a report from a 2008 conference which included the stats:


"Blood Alcohol levels in killed drivers":

Not recorded : 35%

Zero: 26%
1-19: 2%
20-49: 3%
50-80: 3%
81-159: 9%
160-239: 12%
240+: 9%

At that time, 3 times as many died while more than three times the 80 limit as between 50-80.

So they introduced the 50 limit instead of enforcing the old one.

Special Circumstances

From the RSA (masters of not following statistics through to a useful level):
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/RSA%20Summary%20of%20Alcohol%20Fatalities%20NDRDI%202014.pdf

Table 3 Blood alcohol concentration (BAC mg%) by type of road user, NDRDI 2014*
Driver car (52) Driver MCycle (15) Pedestrian (25)
Total with alcohol present
19 6 7
Total with positive BAC
18** 6 7
Median BACmg%
192 104 243
BAC 0-50 mg%
2 2 2
Bac 51-80 mg%
1 0 1
BAC 81-100 mg%
0 2 0
BAC 101-150 mg%
2 1 0
BAC 151-200 mg%
4 1 0
BAC 201-250 mg%
2 0 2
BAC 251-300 mg%
3 0 1
BAC 301-350 mg%
2 0 1
BAC 351-400 mg%
2 0 0



So, for 2014 there were 136 fatalities according to this report.
6 of them occurred below the current legal limit.
2 in the contentious 3 glasses of guinness zone.
23 in the "definite ban" zone.

A glass of horrifically addictive and dangerous stimulating coffee for anyone who can point out the glaringly silly omission that is bothering me about these stats...

Special Circumstances

Better stats here
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Fatal%20Collisions%202008-2012_Alcohol%20as%20a%20Factor.pdf
It does address my question about the previous report but again, it kinda fluffs it in the end and doesn't break things out into the detail that I would like to see to arrive at some useful conclusions.

Interesting stats all the same
2008 -2012
31% no insurance, 16% no licence - ie they don't give a f**k what the law is anyway. (note, there is a significant number of "insurance status unknown" not included in that - that is hidden in a different report because RSA)
26% 5 x the limit, 50% >4x the limit - ie they don't give a f**k what the limit is anyway.
57% no seatbelt.
Of the 164 collisions involving "loss of control", 137 were "single vehicle accidents".


No insurance, no licence, 5x the limit... what is the answer to this?

Single vehicle accident, no seatbelt, 4x the limit.... what does this sound like?

Snickers Man

jmayo wrote: »

Exactly.


Hell no on is saying people with a couple of pints should be driving.

Er, actually. I am.

I did say a while back that we should have kept the old drink driving limits (which in my mind always equated to two pints) and simply enforce them better with the new powers of random breath testing that the gardai have received since.

I realise I am probably in a minority in thinking this, or at least being willing to say it out loud. But look what has happened since the limits were lowered: death rates on the roads have actually gone UP!

Apart from that minor quibble I agree with pretty much everything else you said.

flexcon

Special Circumstances wrote: »

From the RSA (masters of not following statistics through to a useful level):
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/RSA%20Summary%20of%20Alcohol%20Fatalities%20NDRDI%202014.pdf

Table 3 Blood alcohol concentration (BAC mg%) by type of road user, NDRDI 2014*
Driver car (52) Driver MCycle (15) Pedestrian (25)
Total with alcohol present
19 6 7
Total with positive BAC
18** 6 7
Median BACmg%
192 104 243
BAC 0-50 mg%
2 2 2
Bac 51-80 mg%
1 0 1
BAC 81-100 mg%
0 2 0
BAC 101-150 mg%
2 1 0
BAC 151-200 mg%
4 1 0
BAC 201-250 mg%
2 0 2
BAC 251-300 mg%
3 0 1
BAC 301-350 mg%
2 0 1
BAC 351-400 mg%
2 0 0



So, for 2014 there were 136 fatalities according to this report.
6 of them occurred below the current legal limit.
2 in the contentious 3 glasses of guinness zone.
23 in the "definite ban" zone.

A glass of horrifically addictive and dangerous stimulating coffee for anyone who can point out the glaringly silly omission that is bothering me about these stats...

Great find. So out of the 136, only 2 were in the zone they want to bring down again? In other words, having a pint or two, puts you into this zone and the statistics are showing that you are of least likely to be in a crash, vs just being under and being polluted?

Am I totally wrong in saying that?

Samaris

jmayo wrote: »

DOH were they seriously trying to say all the criminals were using legally registered handguns. :rolleyes:

Agree with bits of that, disagree with other bits, but this bit just caught my eye. No-one is saying with that sort of law that all criminals go out and politely buy handguns, register them and otherwise make it nice and easy to find them when they do something criminal with them. It's more that in a country where everyone has a gun, it's far more easy to get your hands on them illegally (like by stealing them) and there the trail back to who fired said gun ends. Cutting down the number of guns in a country cuts down the amount of guns being fired, legally or illegally. I'm afraid while it does hit the sensible people (although how many sensible people need handguns in Ireland is questionable), other peoples right not to be shot comes above their right to carry a handgun around.

There are exceptions where it works. It's usually in countries that can control the matter in other ways (conscription at least might teach people properly how to use the damn things) and/or do not have a long history of terrorist/criminal/gangland groups that like to shoot each other. Given the long-running war on the border (which while it has ended, more or less, it's been part of our national culture for about as long as we've been a state), it's not hugely unreasonable to take as many guns as possible out of the equation.

BattleCorp

Samaris wrote: »

No-one is saying with that sort of law that all criminals go out and politely buy handguns, register them and otherwise make it nice and easy to find them when they do something criminal with them. It's more that in a country where everyone has a gun, it's far more easy to get your hands on them illegally (like by stealing them) and there the trail back to who fired said gun ends. Cutting down the number of guns in a country cuts down the amount of guns being fired, legally or illegally. I'm afraid while it does hit the sensible people (although how many sensible people need handguns in Ireland is questionable), other peoples right not to be shot comes above their right to carry a handgun around.

There are exceptions where it works. It's usually in countries that can control the matter in other ways (conscription at least might teach people properly how to use the damn things) and/or do not have a long history of terrorist/criminal/gangland groups that like to shoot each other. Given the long-running war on the border (which while it has ended, more or less, it's been part of our national culture for about as long as we've been a state), it's not hugely unreasonable to take as many guns as possible out of the equation.

I'm guessing you don't have a gun, am I right?

So, by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, you think it will get rid of gun crime? Really?

You ask what sensible person would need a handgun? I'm one such sensible person. I need one to take part in my sport, target shooting.

By the way, in Ireland you can't carry your handgun around with you like in America. You can bring it to a range and use it there, that's it. No walking around Tesco with it strapped to your hip.

Target shooting with pistols and rifles has an unbelievable safety record here in Ireland. And it's the oldest international sport in Ireland too.

Criminals aren't stealing licenced handguns to use them to commit crimes. It's far easier for them to get the guns smuggled in with drug shipments.

It might surprise you to know that handguns are far more widely available legally in the North than here and they have no problems with them up there.

There's no problem with licenced guns here in Ireland. The problem is with scumbags smuggling them in from abroad.

Removing guns from law abiding citizens won't stop criminals one little bit.

Special Circumstances

flexcon wrote: »

Great find. So out of the 136, only 2 were in the zone they want to bring down again? In other words, having a pint or two, puts you into this zone and the statistics are showing that you are of least likely to be in a crash, vs just being under and being polluted?

Am I totally wrong in saying that?

Yes. You are twice as likely to die while under 50mg compare to having 3 glasses of Guinness
;-)

Journal.ie did a "fact check" on the RSA stats and came to the conclusion basically completely opposite to this. ">50 is lethal altogether and really the limit should be 20mg" was the gist of it.

flexcon

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Yes. You are twice as likely to die while under 50mg compare to having 3 glasses of Guinness
;-)

Journal.ie did a "fact check" on the RSA stats and came to the conclusion basically completely opposite to this. ">50 is lethal altogether and really the limit should be 20mg" was the gist of it.

I read that. How did they come to that conclusion?

Special Circumstances

flexcon wrote: »

I read that. How did they come to that conclusion?

Because journal.ie

Must look into it when I get a chance. Seems like fake news to me!

dense

Surely with Ross's train of thought on this*, a zero tolerance regime is the only answer.

It stands to reason that according to his research, any amount, however residual or minute eg from mouthwash or whatever is going to affect impair ability.

Therefore it's logical that he should adopt a no excuse zero tolerance position.
No excuses.

*He couldn't explain anything sensibly to Pat Kenny about any of his proposals a couple of weeks ago.