ED E wrote: » You can be impaired and still be ok (if not a learner etc). Impairment starts ~ .03 so a "zero tolerance" policy would mean 0.2 for regular drivers and 0.00 for novices and those who drive for work.
BunkMoreland wrote: » Is there really much harm in having a few drinks and driving? I mean really? It's not as if you're going to drive straight into the wall or anything. If you're langered then yeah not a good idea but after 2 or 3? I've never done it but I've completed much more complicated tasks than driving after a few.
emeldc wrote: » I think he's doubled up on his figures. It's more like 1 unit p/h, not a half unit p/h.
emeldc wrote: » Where are you getting those figures from. 4 hours to burn off 1 single pint. I had 3 pints last night. By your reckoning I'm still pi$$ed.
lamb stew wrote: » Firstly I am against drink driving. However I worry how this is going to be enforced. How about food sauces deserts mouthwashes etc. I think for this reason that a total zero limit is not practicle. Its coming to the stage where every motorist who even takes an occasional drop should invest in a breathalyser. Theres so many things that contain alcohol that they must involve lee way. But automatic ban....... Will people be able to prove the breathalyser wrong
Sonics2k wrote: » I've had several friends die over the years as a result of drunk drivers. Each one of those absolute bastards said something like "Sure I've only had one or two drinks" and they effectively murdered my friends. IMO drink driving should get you in jail for 3 months.
elefant wrote: » Would it be an idea for the State to sell breathalysers that can be used once-off to determine this? Is it, perhaps, already a thing just just isn't very widespread?
osarusan wrote: » You can already buy them from private businesses. Not a good idea for the state to do it anyway, as they wouldn't have any legal weight compared to their own official police tests.
elefant wrote: » This thread strongly suggests to me that pretty much nobody can calculate with certainty how long one needs to wait before being legally ready to drive safely. Would it be an idea for the State to sell breathalysers that can be used once-off to determine this? Is it, perhaps, already a thing just just isn't very widespread? Losing your license for three months because you didn't wait an extra half-an-hour before driving in the early afternoon would be very tough.
Delacent wrote: » Current system is reasonable and there's no reason to change except for Mouthpiece Ross' requirement to be seen to be doing something in the transport area. 50mg limit allows for a pint or one glass of wine. Here's the current system "A driver who is not treated as a "specified driver" and who is found to be between 50mg and 80mg will be arrested and brought to a Garda station in the normal way, where an evidential breath test will be carried out. If confirmed to be over the limit, the driver will be given a fixed charge notice of €200 and three penalty points. This only applies to a driver between 50mg & 80mg and can only applied once in a three year period. A second 50mg-80mg offence is brought ot court. Any driver who gives a blood-alcohol concentration reading of 80mg-100mg will be given a fixed charge notice of €400 and be disqualified from driving for six months. Motorists who test above 100mg will face an automatic court appearance, where they will receive a minimum ban from driving of 12 months. Any motorist who cannot produce a licence within 10 days of their arrest will be treated as a specified driver to whom the 20mg limit applies."
elefant wrote: » I was thinking along the lines of allowing the public purchase the exact same model of testing that the Gardai use, so they can have a certain degree of certainty about the results.
osarusan wrote: » I think the problem would be that somebody does their own test and it says they're ok, then they get stopped by Gardai and they're over the limit. The Gardai result would be the only one that would count, but people would be pretty upset with what had happened. I don't think the state should have any role in selling them when it would possibly conflict with their own police tests.
osarusan wrote: » I think the problem would be that somebody does their own test and it says they're ok, then they get stopped by Gardai and they're over the limit. The Gardai result would be the only one that would count, but people would be pretty upset with what had happened. Whatever about the public getting their hands on the same model, I don't think the state should have any role in selling them when it would possibly conflict with their own police tests.
Tigger wrote: » http://www.drinkfox.com/information/alcohol-metabolism its more complicated than you think what i can say is that 0.08 is approx two hours before 0.05 so if you were safe to drive under the old limit of 0.08 yo now need two more hours of not drinking to reach 0.05
Estimated BAC level: 0.193 This would take roughly 12.1 hours to exit your system
emeldc wrote: » Ok let's discuss. I want to try and understand this I used the BAC calculator in the link. 12 standard drinks (6 pints Approx i assume) Male 5 hours drinking time 7-12 13st 7lbs weight. The results: 12.1 hours. Is that not 1 unit per hour? What they don't tell you is if it's 12 hours from when you start drinking or when you stop drinking. I'm of the opinion that you are burning alcohol all the time so when you stop you have already burned approx 5 units over your 5 hour drinking time. You're right though, it's confusing.
elefant wrote: » Fair enough. I could imagine that happening fairly regularly alright! I wonder is there any way at all for the State to encourage the use of breathalysers then without something like you're describing unfolding?
osarusan wrote: » I think they can encourage them alright. You can already buy single-use breathalysers in Halfords for €2.50, and other places I'd imagine. A 'breathalyser-lite' (whatever that is) costs about €50. Perhaps some kind of joint campaign with the RSA? The whole thing would just need a massive disclaimer about what legal weight they would (not) carry.
eeguy wrote: » ABC101 wrote: » It's not a case of needing that one pint. It's a case of loosing ones job/ livelihood / career because you had ONE pint / glass of wine. Such is the puritanical state Ireland is turning into. ONE pint / glass of wine AND making a conscious decision to break the law. Just because you feel like you'll be grand to drive is no excuse to break the law. BunkMoreland wrote: » Is there really much harm in having a few drinks and driving? I mean really? It's not as if you're going to drive straight into the wall or anything. If you're langered then yeah not a good idea but after 2 or 3? I've never done it but I've completed much more complicated tasks than driving after a few. It's nowt to do with complexity. It's to do with attentiveness and reaction times, which are lower after a drink.
ABC101 wrote: » It's not a case of needing that one pint. It's a case of loosing ones job/ livelihood / career because you had ONE pint / glass of wine. Such is the puritanical state Ireland is turning into.
Willa Unkempt Bandage wrote: » He wasn't being literal. Ok, then 'until the entire drinking population is banned'
Atlantic Dawn wrote: » Hopefully there's a public record of everyone done for drink driving, there was talk of this coming in too, name and shame will be good deterrent too.
PabloAndRoy wrote: » I don't like this idea at all .. I don't drink and drive, but why do this?. Someone makes a mistake, then they get punished (ban, fine etc). Hopefully they learn their lesson and change their habits for the better. I can imagine Insurance companies and employers scraping this database and keeping track of who got caught years ago, still paying through the nose on insurance etc. Someone could make one mistake at 18 years old and be punished for life. No thanks. Take your punishment, learn your lesson, be better!
Parchment wrote: » You're a selfish a$$hole if you drink and drive - the world should know how little regard these people have for others.
diomed wrote: » There is a bit of an obsession with drink driving. Is it just because it is easy to detect? I'm for bans but there should be some sense shown when the result is marginal. I would like big bans for multiple offences. How many accidents are caused by driving on drugs (prescription or other), or driving when sleep deprived.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
