Road Traffic (Fixed Penalty – Drink Driving) Bill 2017

Sam Russell

Victor wrote: »

Some countries do this. It may be an issue with blood or urine samples though.

The test at the Garda station is sufficient evidence accepted by the court for conviction. That is, a breath test is all that is required - blood or urine test are not necessary (as I understand it).

Having the court case immediately will reduce the chances of the drunk consulting a weasel to get off.

FishOnABike

Roadhawk wrote: »

I would just like to give my tuppence worth on this topic...

I think there should be a blanket ban on driving any vehicle after the consumption of alcohol. Any reading above a natural blood alcohol level should be deemed as drink driving. There should be zero tolerance in punishing those who drink and drive. A 3 month ban minimum, 9 points on the license and a €1500 fine for first time offenders. A 5 year ban minimum, €3000 fine and a possible custodial sentence for second offence.

There is no plausible argument that anyone can provide to promote driving after the consumption of alcohol.

But what is a natural blood alcohol level? How much is in that trifle you had for desert an hour ago, the mouthwash you rinsed your mouth with, the over the counter medicine you took for that tickly cough, etc... Or even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome a natural level could be an almost permanent state of intoxication.

The law sets limits beyond which a person is judged unfit to drive. It would be far better to have a graduated penalty system ranging from a fixed charge penalty to a custodial sentence and with the resources to ensure it is effectively enforced with our current limits than to introduce artifically low limits just to be seen to be tough on drink driving.

To get drink drivers off the road you either need to catch them in the act or increase the chance of them being caught so that they don't drink or use alternative transport because they get to the point where they don't think the risk is worth it. I wouldn't be bothered trying to appeal to their conscience.

Most cases you read in court reports are multiple times the current limits. Reducing the current limits won't have any effect on these drink drivers, more resources and more effective enforcement will.

magicbastarder

FishOnABike wrote: »

How much is in that trifle you had for desert an hour ago

are you saying this would be considered an exception? it doesn't matter if you consumed alcohol from a beer bottle or from a trifle.

FishOnABike

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you saying this would be considered an exception? it doesn't matter if you consumed alcohol from a beer bottle or from a trifle.

No, I'm saying a zero or impractically low limit, just to be seen to do something and appear tough on drink driving, would have no real impact on road safety. What would, is more resources and rigorous enforcement so the the probability of getting away with drink driving is very very low.

Victor

FishOnABike wrote: »

Or even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome a natural level could be an almost permanent state of intoxication.

If you suffer from an 'almost permanent state of intoxication', you shouldn't be driving.

Bray Head

Victor wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

5. Driver banned until case in court.
6. Case in court within 48 hrs, or next sitting day if later.

Some countries do this. It may be an issue with blood or urine samples though.

These are probably not in common law systems.

It would probably be unconstitutional to deprive someone of their licence without due process in Ireland. For many people their driving license is their livelihood. To take it away would be an infringement of property rights. This is why a taxi driver awaiting trail for assault of a passenger can still pick up fares.

On the other points, graduating the punishment by level of intoxication does indeed make sense. The problem is with the implementation. Any measuring systems (either for breath and blood) is imperfect. If you had narrow bands you would eat up time and resources with people challenging tests to try and get themselves into a lower bracket with a lower penalty.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

These are probably not in common law systems.

It would probably be unconstitutional to deprive someone of their licence without due process in Ireland. For many people their driving license is their livelihood. To take it away would be an infringement of property rights. This is why a taxi driver awaiting trail for assault of a passenger can still pick up fares.

How could it be unconstitutional if the case is brought to court within a day or so? For serious crimes, and this is a serious crime, accused are detained in custody until the remand hearing and can be denied bail. It has nothing to do with property rights but providing due process is followed, where is the harm?

blackwhite

Sam Russell wrote: »

How could it be unconstitutional if the case is brought to court within a day or so? For serious crimes, and this is a serious crime, accused are detained in custody until the remand hearing and can be denied bail. It has nothing to do with property rights but providing due process is followed, where is the harm?

Imposing a punishment without any conviction is the issue.

Remand or holding someone before charge are very specifically not for the purposes of imposing punishment on the accused.

If the person is subsequently acquitted, is the state going to have to compensate them for loss of earnings, costs of taxis/public transport, and anything else for the few days they were barred from driving?

magicbastarder

Sam Russell wrote: »

For serious crimes, and this is a serious crime, accused are detained in custody until the remand hearing and can be denied bail.

i think you're being a bit elastic with the use of the word 'serious'. it's a facile argument to make that all crime is serious, but i don't think drink driving and the sort of crime where someone is denied bail are that easily comparable.

Sam Russell

blackwhite wrote: »

Imposing a punishment without any conviction is the issue.

Remand or holding someone before charge are very specifically not for the purposes of imposing punishment on the accused.

If the person is subsequently acquitted, is the state going to have to compensate them for loss of earnings, costs of taxis/public transport, and anything else for the few days they were barred from driving?

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think you're being a bit elastic with the use of the word 'serious'. it's a facile argument to make that all crime is serious, but i don't think drink driving and the sort of crime where someone is denied bail are that easily comparable.

If you both are suggesting drink/driving is not a serious crime, then I'm not sure what can be said. In 40% of road deaths, alcohol plays a part, and the proposed new law is an attempt to reduce drink driving.

If you are stopped, tested and fail, you are taking to a Garda station where you are tested on an evidential tester which is accepted by the court as proof that you are guilty of the offence.

Do you think you should be allowed out of the Garda station to drive home?

The main point I was making was that the case should be in court as soon as is practical, namely next morning. If an adjounment is requested by the accused, it should be granted only on the basis that the inevitable ban starts then. Delaying such cases for up to six months is just ridiculous.

blackwhite

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you both are suggesting drink/driving is not a serious crime, then I'm not sure what can be said. In 40% of road deaths, alcohol plays a part, and the proposed new law is an attempt to reduce drink driving.

If you are stopped, tested and fail, you are taking to a Garda station where you are tested on an evidential tester which is accepted by the court as proof that you are guilty of the offence.

Do you think you should be allowed out of the Garda station to drive home?

The main point I was making was that the case should be in court as soon as is practical, namely next morning. If an adjounment is requested by the accused, it should be granted only on the basis that the inevitable ban starts then. Delaying such cases for up to six months is just ridiculous.

Where did I suggest drink driving isn't a serious crime?

Please don't resort to putting words in my mouth - that's pretty sh***y debating.

Drivers being prevented from driving away until their BAC levels have dropped is a direct action in response to a clear threat to public safety.
Once the person has sobered up, you're moving into a situation of imposing punishment without any conviction.
We have far too many instances of drink-drivers getting off because of some procedural error as it is. Throwing in a nice way for them to claim compensation afterwards won't help matters.

magicbastarder

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you both are suggesting drink/driving is not a serious crime, then I'm not sure what can be said.

you are likening drink driving to the sort of crime where someone is denied bail because they're both 'serious'.
i am saying that someone caught over the limit is not as serious as someone being denied bail because they've just committed a gangland murder. you can twist that whatever way suits.

Victor

If there are legal obstacles, they should be looked at.

Note that many drink drivers would actually like an intervention. One consistent comment from prosecuted drink drivers is that it saved their job / relationship / life (drinking being the problem from their side). Leaving them continue as normal may be doing them a disservice.

plodder

Sam Russell wrote: »

Delaying such cases for up to six months is just ridiculous.

Is there any evidence that people caught drink driving, repeat the offence before their day in court? It sounds unlikely to me. The experience is the kind of wake-up call that people would take seriously.

Except maybe, among those who already have multiple convictions, probably driving bans already and who are basically beyond the law, but people like that are a small minority (I hope).

expectationlost

FishOnABike wrote: »

But what is a natural blood alcohol level? How much is in that trifle you had for desert an hour ago, the mouthwash you rinsed your mouth with, the over the counter medicine you took for that tickly cough, etc... Or even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome a natural level could be an almost permanent state of intoxication.

The law sets limits beyond which a person is judged unfit to drive. It would be far better to have a graduated penalty system ranging from a fixed charge penalty to a custodial sentence and with the resources to ensure it is effectively enforced with our current limits than to introduce artifically low limits just to be seen to be tough on drink driving.

To get drink drivers off the road you either need to catch them in the act or increase the chance of them being caught so that they don't drink or use alternative transport because they get to the point where they don't think the risk is worth it. I wouldn't be bothered trying to appeal to their conscience.

Most cases you read in court reports are multiple times the current limits. Reducing the current limits won't have any effect on these drink drivers, more resources and more effective enforcement will.

the limits aren't being reduced, the punishment is changing.

FishOnABike

expectationlost wrote: »

the limits aren't being reduced, the punishment is changing.

My post was in response to a post which suggested "Any reading above a natural blood alcohol level should be deemed as drink driving." and also the proposed effect of substantially changing the current graduated penalty system.

expectationlost

the committee stage admendments http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2017/10817/b10817d-dcn.pdf

SECTION 1
1. In page 3, to delete line 10 and substitute the following:
“1. (1) The Road Traffic Act 2010 is amended in section 4 by the substitution of the
following for subsection 5:
“(5) A person who contravenes this section commits an offence and is
liable on indictable conviction to a fine not exceeding €10,000 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.”.
(2) The Road Traffic Act 2010 is amended in section 29—”.
—Robert Troy

and the bill https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2017/10817/B10817d.pdf section of current law http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/section/29/enacted/en/html#sec29

(5) A person who has been served with a fixed penalty notice and has paid the fixed charge, is not eligible to be served with another fixed penalty notice within the period of 3 years from the appropriate date relating to the endorsement of penalty points on the entry relating to the person or the date of commencement of the disqualification, whichever is applicable, following payment of the fixed charge in accordance with the notice.

so is Troy trying to add a fine and/or imprisoment as an option here or get rid of the disqualification bit?

ED E

plodder wrote: »

Is there any evidence that people caught drink driving, repeat the offence before their day in court? It sounds unlikely to me. The experience is the kind of wake-up call that people would take seriously.

Except maybe, among those who already have multiple convictions, probably driving bans already and who are basically beyond the law, but people like that are a small minority (I hope).

They do it even after their day in court, plenty of instances of double and triple convictions. No reason to believe they stop in the interim.

expectationlost

report stage amendments for road traffic bill,by Troy, including reflective clothing and MPD, and lesser punishments for drink driving then are in the bill. Im guesing alot of this will be ruled out of order https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2017/108/dail/4/amendment/numberedList/eng/b10817d-drnl.pdf it also looks like, Ross is changing bill to add to stuff re learners drivers http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=139 its his privilege as Minister