Ideas on drink driving the vintners federation of ireland might like to consider

falinn merking

The Vintners federation of ireland has lobbied Government for a Massive increase
in the cost of carry out drinks in the interest of trying to curb binge drinking.

It really gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that this organisation has all our best interests at heart.


Being so concerned with our health and safety I would like to bring to their attention a few concerns which I am sure they will be more then happy to lobby the government to resolve.

When I am out driving on Friday and Saturday nights I notice a LOT of cars in pub car parks.
I am sure the VFI would be in favour of setting a big parking fee for cars parked in those spaces for more than one hour after 7PM for example.

Maybe a few stings in which the guards block off these car parks unannounced last thing at night and anybody wishing to leave in those cars must pass a breath test.

I know the VFI are all in favour of designated drivers so I am sure they would agree with a scheme in which car keys must be handed in at the start of the night and a breath must be taken before they are handed back.
And this should be regulated and checked by the relevant authorities.

Now I am sure other people have ideas too and like many have said we need an adult debate on our little islands drinking habits.

We should applaud the VFI for the concern they have shown over binge drinking in the home.
I am sure they will be more then happy to throw their influence behind efforts in enacting measures to curb drink driving.

Alcohol is a factor in 40% or road deaths in Ireland and I am sure the vintners federation of ireland want to make sure people leaving their establishments are not going to cause a fatal accident.

vicwatson

Don’t ever drink and drive, you might spill it

freshpopcorn

I have seen people drink and drive in both urban and rural areas. Generally these people were under the limit. Some even got breathalysed and passed.
The amount of people who would drive after a drink would scare people here and they might be shocked at the amount that would do it. These include firemen/nurses/etc who are well used to dealing with fatal collisions.
The reason they do it is because they are know under the limit or feel they are under the limit and they feel safe. The same people wouldn't drive after several drinks because they'll know they would be a danger.
I think a major issue with people continuing to drink and drive is that they have never really seen the damaged that is caused after having one drink. They are a few campaigns going around but all these people have being really over the limit and some even had cocaine in their system from what I remember.
I think if the government/RSA released stats of fatal collisions where the person only had one drink. They might cut the number drink driving even further.

amcalester

You want compulsory parking fees introduced on private property? Seems a bit mad.

You also want motorists to have to surrender their car keys before buying a drink/meal etc. not sure many motorists would be happy with that.

And if the Vitners were so powerful and could lobby so successfully then why Do we have such low drink driving limits.

falinn merking

amcalester wrote: »

You want compulsory parking fees introduced on private property? Seems a bit mad.

Massive compulsory price hikes for a few beers from your local Aldi seems a bit mad too when you think about it but it's all for our own good now.

dirtyden

They are not bad ideas to be fair. Impossible to enforce though.

I would be inclined to force pubs to have some means available for getting customers home, whether that is a link with a taxi firm or arranging transportation.

amcalester

Verpiss dich wrote: »

Massive compulsory price hikes for a few beers from you local Aldi seems a bit mad too when you think about it but it's of for our own good now.

But the publicans will still get the revenue from the car parking fees and the customer will just end up spending more.

Your suggestion is stupid.

end of the road

amcalester wrote: »

You want compulsory parking fees introduced on private property? Seems a bit mad.

You also want motorists to have to surrender their car keys before buying a drink/meal etc. not sure many motorists would be happy with that.

And if the Vitners were so powerful and could lobby so successfully then why Do we have such low drink driving limits.

of course most people don't want this.
however the VFI are good people who care so much about our health and wish to protect us from ourselves and from drinking at home. so the op is asking the question as to why they don't take a further step in relation to dealing with a drink issue, drink driving. if they want to protect us from ourselves and want us to have no option but to go back in to the pub to drink as they are the only safe establishment for the consumption of drink, then surely it stands to reason that they must protect us from driving home with drink on us?
it's for the good of the nation's health after all so why not?

amcalester wrote: »

But the publicans will still get the revenue from the car parking fees and the customer will just end up spending more.

Your suggestion is stupid.

it's not a serious idea. it's exposing the hypocrisy of the VFI.

falinn merking

amcalester wrote: »

But the publicans will still get the revenue from the car parking fees and the customer will just end up spending more.

Your suggestion is stupid.

How is this stupid it will encourage people to get a taxi or if they realise they can't afford one maybe they should opt to stay in with a few cans.

amcalester

end of the road wrote: »

of course most people don't want this.
however the VFI are good people who care so much about our health and wish to protect us from ourselves and from drinking at home. so the op is asking the question as to why they don't take a further step in relation to dealing with a drink issue, drink driving. if they want to protect us from ourselves and want us to have no option but to go back in to the pub to drink as they are the only safe establishment for the consumption of drink, then surely it stands to reason that they must protect us from driving home with drink on us?
it's for the good of the nation's health after all so why not?

I’m not trying to fight the Vitners corner.

I just don’t think the answer to minimum priced alcohol is to introduce mandatory parking fees on private property and/or other increased bureaucracy.

frozenfrozen

amcalester wrote: »

I’m not trying to fight the Vitners corner.

I just don’t think the answer to minimum priced alcohol is to introduce mandatory parking fees on private property and/or other increased bureaucracy.

the idea is that if they are doing it to protect people from binge drinking why aren't they protecting people by not letting them drive home pissed?

at least someone binge drinking at home is only damaging themselves, compared to killing someone innocent on the road..

amcalester

Verpiss dich wrote: »

How is this stupid it will encourage people to get a taxi or if they realise they can't afford one maybe they should opt to stay in with a few cans.

It won’t stop people drink driving, that’s why it’s stupid. It’ll only affect pubs with private car parks, not ones in town centers etc.

Free parking alongs the quays in Dublin after 7 for example. Few pints in Messr. then hop in the car and drive home.

falinn merking

amcalester wrote: »

It won’t stop people drink driving, that’s why it’s stupid. It’ll only affect pubs with private car parks, not ones in town centers etc.

Free parking alongs the quays in Dublin after 7 for example. Few pints in Messr. then hop in the car and drive home.

Do you believe minimum pricing is for our safety?

amcalester

frozenfrozen wrote: »

the idea is that if they are doing it to protect people from binge drinking why aren't they protecting people by not letting them drive home pissed?

at least someone binge drinking at home is only damaging themselves, compared to killing someone innocent on the road..

Ah if it’s just a slagging the Vitners then have at it.

It’s hardly surprising though that a representative body lobbies in favor of their members.

falinn merking

amcalester wrote: »

Ah if it’s just a slagging the Vitners then have at it.

Are you for real?

Minimum pricing is either for our safety or it's total hypocrosicy from the greedy Vintners.

How am I slagging them they can either back up what they are lobbying for or they can't.
And questions have to be asked why as the government bent over backwards for them.
If they can not compete in a free market maybe we have too many of their establishments.

Should we have put a massive tax on Itunes and Netflix to try and keep xtravision going?
Edit too many people binge watching entire seasons on Netflix.

amcalester

Verpiss dich wrote: »

Are you for real?

Minimum pricing is either for our safety or it's total hypocrosicy from the greedy Vintners.

How and I slagging them they can either back up what they are lobbying for or they can't.
And questions have to be asked why as the government bent over backwards for them.
If they can not compete in a free market maybe we have too many of their establishments.

Should we have put a massive tax on Itunes and Netflix to try and keep xtravision going?

Absolutely for real.

Like I said I’m not defending the Vitners, I thought you were making serious suggestions. You’re not

Lobbyists don’t really have to back up what they say, that’s for the government to do before enacting any legislation as a result of that lobbying.

I’ve no idea if minimum priced alcohol will have any health benefits (I doubt it will) but I’m more annoyed at the government for passing the legislation than the Vitners for lobbying for it.

I vote for politicians to act on my behalf and in my interests (naively you could say) so when they don’t I change my vote.

falinn merking

amcalester wrote: »

Absolutely for real.

Like I said I’m not defending the Vitners, I thought you were making serious suggestions. You’re not

Lobbyists don’t really have to back up what they say, that’s for the government to do before enacting any legislation as a result of that lobbying.

I’ve no idea if minimum priced alcohol will have any health benefits (I doubt it will) but I’m more annoyed at the government for passing the legislation than the Vitners for lobbying for it.

I vote for politicians to act on my behalf and in my interests (naively you could say) so when they don’t I change my vote.

So would you say I am slagging off the VFI or would you say I am exposing their baloney?
It is not up to me to say who shoulders more of the blame the VFI or the government there is plenty of blame to go around.

Me going into a supermarket to purchase a legal product at a price their are willing to sell it to me is nothing to do with the VFI.

When this nonsense becomes law I just want to do my part in letting as many people as possible know the real motives behind it.

amcalester

Verpiss dich wrote: »

So would you say I am slagging off the VFI or would you say I am exposing their baloney?
It is not up to me to say who shoulders more of the blame the VFI or the government there is plenty of blame to go around.

Me going into a supermarket to purchase a legal product at a price their are willing to sell it to me is nothing to do with the VFI.

When this nonsense becomes law I just want to do my part in letting as many people as possible know the real motives behind it.

Nah, you’re slagging and haven’t exposed anything.

If you want to fight minimum priced alcohol then contact your local TD’s.

This isn’t new by the way, wasn’t there previously a ban on supermarkets selling certain products below cost?

And as recently as 2013 an Oireachtas Committee called for a ban in below cost selling of milk and bread and other groceries.

amcalester

Verpiss dich wrote: »

But drink is not sold below cost we are already and the top of the table in Europe as regards drink pricing.

Do you know how much a 500ml can of beer costs to produce?

It’s still an example if minimum pricing though, the minimum price being set by the cost of the product rather than the alcohol content.

falinn merking

amcalester wrote: »

This isn’t new by the way, wasn’t there previously a ban on supermarkets selling certain products below cost?

But drink is not sold below cost we are already at the top of the table in Europe as regards drink pricing.

Do you know how much a 500ml can of beer costs to produce or do you think just saying below cost makes supermarkets sound shady ?

Markcheese

I wouldn't have a problem with a significant reduction in duty on pub alcohol, but.... I think there should be a serious loosening of licensing laws.. (Cafe bars or whatever)..
. . And for rural pubs... Uber (or something like it) to get people to and from rural pubs..
But I think the days of many(but not all) rural pubs are numbered anyway...

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's become quite common place again in the rurals areas of my locality. Loads driving in from the sticks to the pubs at the weekends.

We've seen a big reduction in Garda presence over the past few years. I'm happy to see that they're recruiting strong again, we need more where I am.

amcalester

Verpiss dich wrote: »

But drink is not sold below cost we are already at the top of the table in Europe as regards drink pricing.

Do you know how much a 500ml can of beer costs to produce or do you think just saying below cost makes supermarkets sound shady ?

Are you sure? A lot of the price of drink is made up of taxes and excise duty rather than profit to the retailer. Margins on off-trade alcohol are very small and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were often negative.

I think you missed my point completely however.

There’s no point being annoyed at the Vitners (or any other lobbying group) for acting in the interests of its members.

Instead you should be annoyed at the politicians who pass these poorly thought out laws.

Zaph

If the Vintners Federation really cared about people not drink driving they'd have a scheme in place where designated drivers could get free soft drinks. At present the price per ml of Coke is significantly more than that of beer in many, if not all pubs, so it's not as if they couldn't absorb the cost from the profits they'd be creaming from those non-designated drivers who are paying over the odds for their mixers.

Hermy

If the vintners of Ireland cared one iota about binge drinking they'd all be out of business.