New Drink Driving rules???

ohnonotgmail

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

as I always say, we are in am era of fantastic electronic equipment now, and it could be linked to the cars mobilisation system - a tube (or sensor near the screen) if it detects alcohol from the breath then the engine doesnt start - simple as .

not foolproof I suppose but it could be a start. - cars could even have gyro sensors inside them that detect erratic unusual driving as well .

when you cannot rely on humans on following rules and keeping to them, then I suppose we have to enter the nanny state side of things.

These already exist.

Ginger83

Chances of being caught during 3 month ban......slim to none

Andy From Sligo

Ginger83 wrote: »

Chances of being caught during 3 month ban......slim to none

would people be prepared to take the gamble? ...

Andy From Sligo

here this (UK) advert might make people realise what could be at stake ...

Ginger83

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

here this (UK) advert might make people realise what could be at stake ...

You'd need gardai to be worried about that.

RustyNut

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

as I always say, we are in am era of fantastic electronic equipment now, and it could be linked to the cars mobilisation system - a tube (or sensor near the screen) if it detects alcohol from the breath then the engine doesnt start - simple as .

not foolproof I suppose but it could be a start. - cars could even have gyro sensors inside them that detect erratic unusual driving as well .

when you cannot rely on humans on following rules and keeping to them, then I suppose we have to enter the nanny state side of things.

A couple of private bus operators here are using similar devices to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-3AzuEfYhs

Graniteville

Patrick2010 wrote: »

I don't get that. What has a guard to do different today than last week.? Once he arrests someone and charges them then the only difference is in the penalty the driver gets eventually?, or am I missing something?

Nope, that's exactly it.

Gra just like nurses union will always make a mountain from a molehill

fin12

Where can you buy an accurate breathalyzer?

Andy From Sligo

I dont know how accurate this one might be from Micks Garage .. but its sold out anyway at the moment

https://www.micksgarage.com/d/driving-in-europe/products/2355016/basic-4-in-1-multifunction-alcohol-breath-tester?nostock=1



I noted on the page that it said it is law to have a breathalyzer in a car when you are driving in France - maybe be a good Idea to make it law to carry one in vehicles here too in Ireland ?

jimbobaloobob

Worth listening back to Matt Cooper Wednesday last word. Apparently it can be challenged. Can't explain the ins and outs of it.

Long overdue. Drunk drivers have ruined more than enough lives and families in Ireland.

4ensic15

Deleted User wrote: »

Long overdue. Drunk drivers have ruined more than enough lives and families in Ireland.

So have tired drivers, incompetent drivers and drivers who fail to maintain the vehicle and speeding drivers. Why are people who drive a car home a short distance, after drinking a small quantity of alcohol, pilloried as if they were child rapists?

Pinch Flat

Outrageous. Irish drivers are so responsible with utmost respect for the law. Completely OTT.

D3V!L

4ensic15 wrote: »

So have tired drivers, incompetent drivers and drivers who fail to maintain the vehicle and speeding drivers. Why are people who drive a car home a short distance, after drinking a small quantity of alcohol, pilloried as if they were child rapists?

"I'm breaking the law. Don't look at me and penalize me because it doesn't suit."

sbsquarepants

Austria! wrote: »

Quick maths says a litre of 3% alcohol which is about a standard pint


Assuming 5ltr of blood
Alcohol is 78924 mg/ml

I ain't no scientist - but that sounds quite tipsy to me:eek::eek::D

lawred2

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

This evening in pubs and restaurants around the country they need a big poster as you walk in through the front door saying "From midnight tonight if you drink and drive you will face a 3month ban and a fine" - so there is no confusion and no buts, and cannot say people werent warned!

Did people not know they couldn't drink and drive?

murpho999

Rodin wrote: »

And this is the most important point.
Only been breathalysed twice in 20 years.
People drink and drive because they have no fear of being caught.

There should be more random checkpoints to solve that but people should also take more responsibility.

Instead of thinking of "not being caught" the attitude should be about what is the right thing to do.

The laws are not about catching people but increasing road safety.

Most people could drive home after 1-2 pints but it's the reaction times that are affected, if a car stops suddenly in front of you or a pedestrian steps out on the road, the reaction reflexes would be affected enough to cause a collision.


The attitude about it just needs to change and I think if people saw more of the consequences of it (I know of two people killed through drink drivers) then they would think different about it.,

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Long overdue. Drunk drivers have ruined more than enough lives and families in Ireland.

There is no drunk drivers at between the 50 and old 80 which is what this new rule is having an impact on. The limit should have been left at 80 like in the Uk, it’s perfectly fine and it’s just nanny state nonsense reducing it. The dangers of driving after 2/3 pints are massively exaggerated.

TCM

It's very simple really, don't drink and drive.
PS: I do like a pint or two of larger.

cantalach

Raelyn Sweet Matchmaker wrote: »

The dangers of driving after 2/3 pints are massively exaggerated.

Oh that's really good to know. Thanks. Hey when you have a chance, would you mind sharing a link to the peer-reviewed scientific research on which you're basing that. I only ask because there are numerous (clearly erroneous) studies which have found the exact opposite. Alternative facts are always good eh? Thanks again!

lawred2

Raelyn Sweet Matchmaker wrote: »

There is no drunk drivers at between the 50 and old 80 which is what this new rule is having an impact on. The limit should have been left at 80 like in the Uk, it’s perfectly fine and it’s just nanny state nonsense reducing it. The dangers of driving after 2/3 pints are massively exaggerated.

:rolleyes:

PlaneSpeeking

4ensic15 wrote: »

So have tired drivers, incompetent drivers and drivers who fail to maintain the vehicle and speeding drivers. Why are people who drive a car home a short distance, after drinking a small quantity of alcohol, pilloried as if they were child rapists?

You mean apart from the law breaking, two fingers to authority, putting people in danger, gob****ery ?????

Feisar

How many breath tests are being carried out though?

For instance I've driven nearly 100K Kms in the past two years and haven't been stopped.

Granted I don't be driving around my town of a Saturday night and a lot of my kilometers are on moterway but still.

doolox

The reason so many rural people are annoyed with the new rule is that they live on one-off low density housing at an inconvenient distance from their local pubs.

They were attracted to the assured privacy and quietness of an out-of-town location but, if you are fond of a pint and some social interaction, this quietness and privacy can become a pain in the arse.

There are not enough customers so that small town pubs and pubs in remote locations are closing down. This exacerbates the situation for rural people in small towns who now have no pub in walking distance, hence many elect to drink at home in isolation, a further loss to the onsite licenced trade.

Rural people face similar problems in sourcing services such as internet, cable TV, Gas and in some extreme cases, electricity and phone services costing way more than if they lived in higher density groupings and in towns, which most rural people are reluctant to do.

The new law will only serve to accelerate the demise of the small Irish rural pub as a feature of the Irish way of life. Even in the large cities pubs are closing down if they are not conveniently located for foot traffic, The Foxhunter near Lucan has been closed for many years as its roadhouse pattern of trade is now redundant in a zero tolerance drink/driving world. I would say that it is very unlikely to re-open any time soon. Across the road is the Deadmans Inn also remote from any significant housing and too reliant on the car.

In stark contrast are the pubs in the middle of Lucan village, convenient to many housing estates with bus stops and Taxi Ranks just outside the door and all are doing reasonably well.

Jameswhalley

Rural publicans were slow out of the traps

They should have been organising buses long before now besides complaining.

The are getting their act together now albeit slowly

murpho999

doolox wrote: »

The reason so many rural people are annoyed with the new rule is that they live on one-off low density housing at an inconvenient distance from their local pubs.

They were attracted to the assured privacy and quietness of an out-of-town location but, if you are fond of a pint and some social interaction, this quietness and privacy can become a pain in the arse.

There are not enough customers so that small town pubs and pubs in remote locations are closing down. This exacerbates the situation for rural people in small towns who now have no pub in walking distance, hence many elect to drink at home in isolation, a further loss to the onsite licenced trade.

Rural people face similar problems in sourcing services such as internet, cable TV, Gas and in some extreme cases, electricity and phone services costing way more than if they lived in higher density groupings and in towns, which most rural people are reluctant to do.

The new law will only serve to accelerate the demise of the small Irish rural pub as a feature of the Irish way of life. Even in the large cities pubs are closing down if they are not conveniently located for foot traffic, The Foxhunter near Lucan has been closed for many years as its roadhouse pattern of trade is now redundant in a zero tolerance drink/driving world. I would say that it is very unlikely to re-open any time soon. Across the road is the Deadmans Inn also remote from any significant housing and too reliant on the car.

In stark contrast are the pubs in the middle of Lucan village, convenient to many housing estates with bus stops and Taxi Ranks just outside the door and all are doing reasonably well.

So people should be allowed drive drunk for the sake of rural people.

You can't have a selective law like that.

If people are isolated and go to the pub they know they can only have 1 pint which would get them the maximum of an hour.

I believe they stay longer and drink more. So the law is right.

They could also just go to the pub and not drink alcohol if it's all about social interaction

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

So people should be allowed drive drunk for the sake of rural people.

You can't have a selective law like that.

If people are isolated and go to the pub they know they can only have 1 pint which would get them the maximum of an hour.

I believe they stay longer and drink more. So the law is right.

They could also just go to the pub and not drink alcohol if it's all about social interaction

Or go in groups and each weekend/trip someone is the designated driver. Not very difficult to do

kerryjack

TBH i probably agree with it, if you are bombing down the motorway one laps of concentration could cause havoc. No sympathy for rural pubs or rural people. I live rural myself and i choose to live there. I knew the 56 bus isn't going to pull up outside my door anytime soon using the excuse that you can't go out if you can't have a drink is rubish. My local pub refuses to change for there customers, if you asj for a cup of coffee he gives you a look he pulls out an ould jar of Maxwell house like what does a decent coffee machine cost these days

cantalach

cantalach wrote: »

Oh that's really good to know. Thanks. Hey when you have a chance, would you mind sharing a link to the peer-reviewed scientific research on which you're basing that. I only ask because there are numerous (clearly erroneous) studies which have found the exact opposite. Alternative facts are always good eh? Thanks again!

These studies find what they want to find. Just look at the nonsense you see on any tv program that does a test on someone’s driving and then lets them drink a pint or two and does the tests again and the person is basically unable to drive which is total fiction. They couldn’t be seen to say it makes little difference though as that’s not what many people what to hear.

Jameswhalley

Raelyn Sweet Matchmaker wrote: »

These studies find what they want to find. Just look at the nonsense you see on any tv program that does a test on someone’s driving and then lets them drink a pint or two and does the tests again and the person is basically unable to drive which is total fiction. They couldn’t be seen to say it makes little difference though as that’s not what many people what to hear.

if you killed someone after a couple of pints


how would you feel about it




would you feel guilty that it could have been different without the alcohol

Feisar

kerryjack wrote: »

TBH i probably agree with it, if you are bombing down the motorway one laps of concentration could cause havoc. No sympathy for rural pubs or rural people. I live rural myself and i choose to live there. I knew the 56 bus isn't going to pull up outside my door anytime soon using the excuse that you can't go out if you can't have a drink is rubish. My local pub refuses to change for there customers, if you asj for a cup of coffee he gives you a look he pulls out an ould jar of Maxwell house like what does a decent coffee machine cost these days

LOL about €2,500 for a basic model!

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

So have tired drivers, incompetent drivers and drivers who fail to maintain the vehicle and speeding drivers. Why are people who drive a car home a short distance, after drinking a small quantity of alcohol, pilloried as if they were child rapists?

Brilliant. How about we abolish all laws based on the above logic of "Well, A, B, C is not outlawed yet so it's wrong to outlaw D'?

Electric Sheep

murpho999 wrote: »

So people should be allowed drive drunk for the sake of rural people.

You can't have a selective law like that.

If people are isolated and go to the pub they know they can only have 1 pint which would get them the maximum of an hour.

I believe they stay longer and drink more. So the law is right.

They could also just go to the pub and not drink alcohol if it's all about social interaction

I don't think doolox was suggesting it should be allowed in rural areas, but that people made the choice to live in such areas, because they wanted isolation, etc. The side effect of choosing to live there is that many services are harder to access, as is the pub, but they have to take the bad with the good. That is how adults make choices, they weigh the pros and cons before making a decision, rather than making it and whinging about the parts that don't suit them.

Feisar

Feisar wrote: »

LOL about €2,500 for a basic model!

For a barista model, a pub that’s not serving a terrible amount of coffee could buy a consumer model.

Beasty

What did all these rural dwellers and pub frequenters do before they had cars? How did the rural pubs survive back then?

I know what I do - I don't drink much and never drink if I'm going to drive...

...and I never have a hangover - wins (not pints) all round!

thesultan

Can I have one pint or would I be over the limit?

Electric Sheep

Jameswhalley wrote: »

Rural publicans were slow out of the traps

They should have been organizing buses long before now besides complaining.

The are getting their act together now albeit slowly

It's not just the transport though. Most people have homes that are much more comfortable and have more amenities than 20 years ago. Most people I know would rather have friends over for dinner and drinks, or stay at home with a bottle of wine and Netflix, in a nice warm quiet house. The visitors might still need a designated driver if they are not within walking or cab distance, but it's still a much more pleasant evening than going to the pub. A bus would only tempt me to go to a pub a couple of times a year if I lived rurally.

Zorya

Beasty wrote: »

What did all these rural dwellers and pub frequenters do before they had cars? How did the rural pubs survive back then?

I know what I do - I don't drink much and never drink if I'm going to drive...

...and I never have a hangover - wins (not pints) all round!

Yeah, Jesus the attachment to drink is a bit mad, people can socialise without it and people who drink and drive are rotten. Though if I had a tenner for every time it's shrugged off in these parts with an indulgent smile and what a mad lad,eh, type comments I would be very well off. It's an amoral act that shows disgusting selfishness and contempt for ones fellow humans. There. I've said it.

thesultan

It's fine for all so city dwellers but rural ireland has no transport system enable people to get home. Drinking at home might be a solution but is this a worse academic for the alcohol consumption of the country? Most youngsters are drunk going out now where before everyone met at the pub and the older crowd mingled with the youth.

4ensic15

Deleted User wrote: »

Brilliant. How about we abolish all laws based on the above logic of "Well, A, B, C is not outlawed yet so it's wrong to outlaw D'?

Which of tired, speeding, incompetent and poor maintenance of vehicles are not outlawed?

SEPT 23 1989

Anyone who enjoys a few drinks should buy a breathalyser now

You would never drink and drive but with these new rules a lot of people are going to loose their licences the next day

Only 12 quid worth the investment

4ensic15

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Anyone who enjoys a few drinks should buy a breathalyser now

You would never drink and drive but with these new rules a lot of people are going to loose their licences the next day

Only 12 quid worth the investment

Those things are no panacea. Blood alcohol levels vary, those things need to be maintained carefully or they are useless. Better to spend the €12 on a taxi. The cheapest legal team you will ever use.

HappyAsLarE

Someone who becomes a danger on the road after 2/3 pints is likely a danger without any drink taken.

How the hell can your driving ability be so bad that it falls off a cliff after a couple.

Edit: before I get attacked - I have never touched a drop and drove. Not because I think it would be dangerous, but because I don’t want to lose my licence.

kirving

I have no issues with trying to limit the amount of drink driving, but this is another half arsed attempt to make the RSA look like they're doing something.

The reality is that in the US, you can fly a 747 with 0.04%, while in Ireland you get banned from driving at 0.05%. It's effectively the same number when you consider all of the other variables in play.

I'd say the FAA have done far more scientific analysis than the RSA in determining what is a safe level of alcohol.

I'm all for regulating it, but do it based off facts and data, rather than a politicians attempt to gain some publicity ahead of a rumoured potential FG snap election.

Road deaths have been steadily reducing in this country due to the roll out of a world class motorway network, and PCP finance deal enticing people into buying new cars.

Take a look at this map (which they haven't managed to update in three years, why?), the total number of collisions bounces around, but doesn't show a clear reduction at all. So collisions are happening, but outcomes are better.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

Zorya

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Someone who becomes a danger on the road after 2/3 pints is likely a danger without any drink taken.

How the hell can your driving ability be so bad that it falls off a cliff after a couple.

Edit: before I get attacked - I have never touched a drop and drove. Not because I think it would be dangerous, but because I don’t want to lose my licence.

It is dangerous. And it is an attitude like yours that is behind 2 out of every 5 fatal collisions. Because 2 out of every 5 fatal collisoons involve alcohol. A single drink triples your risk of being involved in a fatal collision. Some people, especially the young and small bodied people, increase their risk even more than that after one drink. If a person is going to be in charge of a ton of metal in the public space where they may encounter other people going about their business then the very least they could do is have the respect for their fellow person to be wholly capable and physically able to control the vehicle, to be drink and drug free, to wear glasses if they need them, to not be on the phone , to not speed or drive dangerously, etc. Anything else is potentially fatal contempt.

Drink all you want, or need. It's your own business. But if you go out onto the public road, your alcohol level should be zero, because at that point it is other people's business too.

murpho999

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Someone who becomes a danger on the road after 2/3 pints is likely a danger without any drink taken.

How the hell can your driving ability be so bad that it falls off a cliff after a couple.

Edit: before I get attacked - I have never touched a drop and drove. Not because I think it would be dangerous, but because I don’t want to lose my licence.

This is a very poor argument.

Alcohol effects depend on different circumstances, food taken, body mass, etc but there is no way you can say that somebody is unaffected by 2-3 drinks.

You may feel yourself that you’re fine after 2-3 drinks and in control and maybe you are but I would be certain that your reaction times are slower and that would be the difference between being involved in an incident or not.

Also, I’m sure you know people who would be drunk quicker than others and lawmakers have to make laws for all of society and not just a select few.

kerryjack

How many of us went in with the intention of having 2 pints and ended up having 4 so better not have any in my opinion so its Heineken 00 for me and would be great if it could be on tap. Its not the 3 months off the road its the hassle of trying to get insurance after. They would ride you.

HappyAsLarE

Zorya wrote: »

It is dangerous. And it is an attitude like yours that is behind 2 out of every 5 fatal collisions. Because 2 out of every 5 fatal collisoons involve alcohol. A single drink triples your risk of being involved in a fatal collision. Some people, especially the young and small bodied people, increase their risk even more than that after one drink. If a person is going to be in charge of a ton of metal in the public space where they may encounter other people going about their business then the very least they could do is have the respect for their fellow person to be wholly capable and physically able to control the vehicle, to be drink and drug free, to wear glasses if they need them, to not be on the phone , to not speed or drive dangerously, etc. Anything else is potentially fatal contempt.

Drink all you want, or need. It's your own business. But if you go out onto the public road, your alcohol level should be zero, because at that point it is other people's business too.

Causation vs correlation. A classic case.

HappyAsLarE

murpho999 wrote: »

This is a very poor argument.

Alcohol effects depend on different circumstances, food taken, body mass, etc but there is no way you can say that somebody is unaffected by 2-3 drinks.

You may feel yourself that you’re fine after 2-3 drinks and in control and maybe you are but I would be certain that your reaction times are slower and that would be the difference between being involved in an incident or not.

Also, I’m sure you know people who would be drunk quicker than others and lawmakers have to make laws for all of society and not just a select few.

What is my argument? I am not advocating drink driving. I am saying that those who can’t handle a couple of pints are crap drivers to begin with. Reactions of a sloth.

murpho999

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

What is my argument? I am not advocating drink driving. I am saying that those who can’t handle a couple of pints are crap drivers to begin with. Reactions of a sloth.

You’re stating or implying that poor drinkers are poor drivers and therefore those that can handle a few pints are better drivers.

It’s a ridiculous point you’re making and you don’t seem to accept that a couple of pints do affect reactions.