New drink driving laws - 3 mth ban no more points

freshpopcorn · 15-02-2017 07:25PM

Regarding naming and shaming. It's slightly already done in regional papers after they appear in court but not everyone ends up in the paper. It just depends on how the paper is filling up.
A good few people in our area have being caught over the years and in general there all well over the legal limit and to be honest the vast majority of people I know who've being caught are alcoholics or borderline alcoholics.
This would be a rural area and the Gardai are meant to have received tip offs about some of these people's wives because they were sick of him going to pub every night spending all their money.
Now I've known people who've drank one or two pints and driven home and even being breathalyzed and they've passed. I believe if you had three or four pints you should be fine the next morning regarding being under the legal limit.
Now the vast majority of the people I know who were caught would have had other means to organise transport to get home be it a friend/family/taxi. The good local publicans in my area drops their regular or anybody who's stuck home after a night.

_Kaiser_ · 15-02-2017 07:26PM

It's very simple... if you're going to be driving later, don't drink.. or don't drink so much the night before that it'll still impair your reactions and put you over the limit the next morning.

If someone can't go out without needing to have alcohol then they have a much bigger issue IMO, but if you MUST have a few drinks, then either get someone to collect you afterwards, or get the bus/train the next morning.

The verbal gymnastics some are going through to try and justify otherwise, just validates the need for harsher penalties IMO

Infini · 15-02-2017 08:07PM

To be honest I think there's a serious obsession over the Drink driving issue. The same as with speed. Drink Driving is always being hyped up all the time but everyone is affected differently by alcohol in different ways. Some can be completely intoxicated from a few drinks and yet others can have 6 or more beers and yet not be affected in the slightest. Some people can have one or 2 drinks and not be affected in the slightest because their tolerance is so high.

The ban would be extreme if say someone is slightly over the limit or only had the odd drink but not if say they had enough that theyre significantly intoxicated and its definately affecting their driving. The key reasoning should be how COMPETENT the driver is.

Problem with the whole issue is it can never stay balanced it ends up going to extremes or turning into a witch hunt. Obviously it's easy to turn around and say drink driving is the cause of this or that but at the end its the person driving who is the ultimate cause and responsible one not drink itself.

One_Of_Shanks · 15-02-2017 08:34PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's very simple... if you're going to be driving later, don't drink.. or don't drink so much the night before that it'll still impair your reactions and put you over the limit the next morning.

Ah but this is the key for me.
I can fully understand people slamming drink-driving.
Of course if you have a few (or a lot) pints and then drive home you know you're over the limit and drink-driving. If you get done for that then no sympathy. You're in the wrong and you knew it.

But the person having wine/beers at night and genuinely thinking they're OK to drive to work the next day before getting done at an 8am check-point for being slightly over has a degree of sympathy from me.

A lot of people seem to take the "drink drivers are scum" and "name and shame" and "we want zero tolerance" lines but when they envisage this drink-driving scumbag they're imagining Mick drunk as a skunk knowingly hopping into the car after a handful of beers at the local and knowingly putting lives at danger.
But the reality is that the closer you creep towards zero tolerance the more you get to the stage where you have Mary getting home from a long day at work and having some wine to unwind and then she heads off to work the next morning and loses her license and livelihood without knowing she was doing anything wrong.
If you can't get to work then you lose your income and the family suffers so it has massive impact.
But is she still a scum-bag? She didn't know she was doing anything wrong.

So I agree with other posters about breathaylsers being made widely available that are in keeping with the ones the Guards use.
The French have a law about needing to have a breathalyser in your car at all times don't they?
It's getting to the stage here where we need to do the same if we're going to be moving closer to zero tolerance.

The amount of people in this thread alone guessing and genuinely wanting to know if they would be over the limit the next days suggests to me that there is a genuine concern there about accidentally drink-driving.
So the solution is to make them readily available at a fair price from an Irish supplier and make it law to have one in your car.

Then nobody has any excuses but equally people know where they stand before they become "scumbags" on their way to work the next day.

Graces7 · 16-02-2017 08:34AM

ABC101 wrote: »

I don't agree with public naming and shaming.

Anybody who does is oblivious to what is going on within the senior ranks of AGS at the moment.

If it is deemed safe enough to drive up to 0.08 in the U.K. Then how would you feel about getting busted at 0.06 in Ireland.

And then getting publicaly named and shamed, possibly destroying your relationship with others, damaging future career prospects and possibly encouraging the pogrom mob to burn down your home, all because you broke a very low limit.

But medically and technically you were still safe to drive!!

The Garda Black propaganda dept would have a field day against anybody they did not like.

"Oh sorry it was a accidental cut and paste, you were never done for drink driving, we should never have published you name"

Too late.

first bolded.. totally irrelevant and of no bearing on this

second; old saying, if you can't do the time don't do the crime. LEGALLY you are not allowed to drive, here in Ireland ...period

cantdecide · 16-02-2017 08:40AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

When does Ireland get a public transport system to be proud of?

When the majority of us pool resources by clustering into a handful of larger cities or when the population doubles. In the meantime, it's cars cars cars with high taxes and political piety.

thesultan · 16-02-2017 08:45AM

Get rid of Shane Ross. A clown of a man. This great for all the city folk with all the amenities at their door step, yet a rural person does everything right the night before and they still are scared of their life

mikeoneilly · 16-02-2017 08:51AM

Grandeeod wrote: »

Over the limit means automatic ban. I reckon its only a matter of time before any alcohol in the system will mean a prosecution.

There will always be a limit for practical reasons

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 16-02-2017 10:10AM

Graces7 wrote: »

first bolded.. totally irrelevant and of no bearing on this

second; old saying, if you can't do the time don't do the crime. LEGALLY you are not allowed to drive, here in Ireland ...period

Keep that legal argument in mind when the insurance is due then. Or can they drink but keep to the back lanes?

blue note · 16-02-2017 11:39AM

Has it been answered how much of an effect they expect this to have? i.e. how many accidents do people in the affected bracket (0.5-0.8) cause?

It sounds to me like Shane Ross wanting to be seen to be doing something, but actually doing something that will have a negligible effect.

I reckon speeding and tiredness are not focused on enough. They've successfully managed to make drink driving completely unacceptable socially (which is great). I think this is as big a prevention as the fear of checkpoints or penalties. Whereas I still hear people essentially bragging about how quickly they make some journeys. Essentially they want to be congratulated for speeding. Similarly, people wanting ego massages for driving tired - looking for a "you poor thing, I hate driving like that." Stuff like someone driving back home to Cork from Dublin airport after getting off a 12 hour flight with no sleep. I virtually never hear someone admit to drink driving, but driving tired and speeding are totally normal. If he wanted to make roads safer, he'd focus on changing the public opinion on these things. As well as not letting the message on drink driving slip. It's not an easy job he has regarding road safety!

Zebra3 · 16-02-2017 11:55AM

Will there be exemptions for old people in Kerry and FF ministers who like to drive the wrong way down a motorway while hammered?

irelandrover · 16-02-2017 12:00PM

Parchment wrote: »

I cannot understand how people argue with any sort of limit on alcohol for drivers. If you're driving DO NOT DRINK.

If you cant skip the one drink - maybe consider your relationship with alcohol.

I like to have a glass of wine with my dinner sometimes. I feel it compliments the meal. I often have a glass of wine with my dinner when out and drive home a few hours later.

worded · 16-02-2017 01:33PM

TGJD wrote: »

A healthy liver processes a unit an hr. But you need to digest the drink first. So a pint of guiness which is approx 2.2 units would mean under a zero tolerance policy you couldn't drive for 3 hrs and 12 mins if assuming an hr for the guineas to pass through the stomach and small intestine.

With the current min lower tollerance level what do you calc the safe driving time to be

Shurimgreat · 16-02-2017 01:51PM

I can understand taking people off the roads who've had a lot to drink and are clearly a risk to themselves or others.

But is there anything to indicate people who have had only 1 drink and drove home are a major risk of causing accidents? I would say the risk is smal.

A bigger risk is people using their mobile phones for which I'd like to see an automatic 3 month ban, or people driving when very tired.

Chakra Khan · 16-02-2017 01:59PM

Parchment wrote: »

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!

You're a selfish a$hole if you drink and drive - the world should know how little regard these people have for others.

Most people are selfish by nature, very few Mother Teresas around. The wolrd already knows this, no need to start putting heads on plates to serve up to Mr and Mrs Self Righteous. If its absolutely necessary then lets be fair start this silly and dangerous 'naming and shaming' for everything. In arrears with your mortgage payments? Name and Shame. Paedophile? Name and shame. Any difficulties you have or mistakes you or any of your family have made ( and by God sometimes people make out of character mistakes that they do not deserve to be crucified over) Name and Shame.

re_shaft · 16-02-2017 02:01PM

Chakra Khan wrote: »

Most people are selfish by nature, very few Mother Teresas around. The wolrd already knows this, no need to start putting heads on plates to serve up to Mr and Mrs Self Righteous. If its absolutely necessary then lets be fair start this silly and dangerous 'naming and shaming' for everything. In arrears with your mortgage payments? Name and Shame. Paedophile? Name and shame. Any difficulties you have or mistakes you or any of your family have made ( and by God sometimes people make out of character mistakes that they do not deserve to be crucified over) Name and Shame.

People who have been convicted of offenses which endanger lives, be they drunk drivers or paedos, should absolutely be named and shamed.

Chakra Khan · 16-02-2017 02:13PM

re_shaft wrote: »

Chakra Khan wrote: »

Most people are selfish by nature, very few Mother Teresas around. The wolrd already knows this, no need to start putting heads on plates to serve up to Mr and Mrs Self Righteous. If its absolutely necessary then lets be fair start this silly and dangerous 'naming and shaming' for everything. In arrears with your mortgage payments? Name and Shame. Paedophile? Name and shame. Any difficulties you have or mistakes you or any of your family have made ( and by God sometimes people make out of character mistakes that they do not deserve to be crucified over) Name and Shame.

People who have been convicted of offenses which endanger lives, be they drunk drivers or paedos, should absolutely be named and shamed.

Someone marginally over the limit for the first time ever and its the morning after does not deserve to be named and shamed. Absolutely no way do they deserve that. But be careful what you wish for people, it may not be you but one of your family and then you won't want them hung high. It will be nice for peoples kids when all the other children are callying their mother or father a drunk driver won't it? Especially when they aren't actually a 'drunk driver'. It doesn't matter who gets hurt as long as some of you get your pound of flesh. We don't mind endangering lives or welfare once we get to know names!

thesultan · 16-02-2017 02:50PM

A lot of crashes are suicide. Yet its all drink..

blackwhite · 16-02-2017 03:00PM

The penalties that go with our motoring offences really are a joke.

The penalty for blowing a 0.81 or a 1.61 are identical.

Penalty for speeding is the same whether you are 10km/h over or 30km/h over.

All in the name of the RSA and politicians to be seen to be doing "something" and taking a hard line, instead of making a genuine effort to tackle the root of the problems.

Parchment · 16-02-2017 03:05PM

PabloAndRoy wrote: »

Now I remember why I don't post in After Hours any more.

Maybe come back to me once you have a friend killed by a drunk driver. I hope it never happens to you but believe me it influences your opinion.

mikeoneilly · 16-02-2017 03:17PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I can understand taking people off the roads who've had a lot to drink and are clearly a risk to themselves or others.

But is there anything to indicate people who have had only 1 drink and drove home are a major risk of causing accidents? I would say the risk is smal.

A bigger risk is people using their mobile phones for which I'd like to see an automatic 3 month ban, or people driving when very tired.

Handsfree has been shown to be just as risky as mobile phone use

Any sort of distraction is more dangerous than a fella after 1 pint.

Right2Write · 16-02-2017 03:50PM

This is typical Nanny State legislation thought up by a Nancy Boy who thinks that Stepaside is a rural area!

The thing to do here if you live in a real rural area is to write, mail, phone your local TD and tell them where to go with this idea. Tell them to think very very carefully if they want your vote at the next election.

This is utter nonsense, nobody wants to see people killed by drunk drivers but there's a vast gulf between the ordinary rural man with NO public transport options, whose ONLY social outlet is the local pub and who wants to enjoy a pint or maybe two at most and the sorts that don't give a flying feck and drink multiple drinks, and often drive with no insurance, tax or licence etc.

How many annual deaths are down to rural isolation these days? Why should these peoples lives all be blighted because the 'drink driving' penalties are more sexy???

Parchment · 16-02-2017 03:54PM

Right2Write wrote: »

This is typical Nanny State legislation thought up by a Nancy Boy who thinks that Stepaside is a rural area!

The thing to do here if you live in a real rural area is to write, mail, phone your local TD and tell them where to go with this idea. Tell them to think very very carefully if they want your vote at the next election.

This is utter nonsense, nobody wants to see people killed by drunk drivers but there's a vast gulf between the ordinary rural man with NO public transport options, whose ONLY social outlet is the local pub and who wants to enjoy a pint or maybe two at most and the sorts that don't give a flying feck and drink multiple drinks, and often drive with no insurance, tax or licence etc.

How many annual deaths are down to rural isolation these days? Why should these peoples lives all be blighted because the 'drink driving' penalties are more sexy???

I thought people with opinions like this died out 40 years ago. get a grip.

Parchment · 16-02-2017 04:00PM

Some of the opinions in this thread make me see why this country will never move forward. I cannot understand how anyone thinks its ok to drink any amount and drive.

elefant · 16-02-2017 04:04PM

Parchment wrote: »

Some of the opinions in this thread make me see why this country will never move forward. I cannot understand how anyone thinks its ok to drink any amount and drive.

I think most of the reasonable posts are about the potential for failing a test the day after, even after taking precautions. Losing your license for three months could mean ruin for a lot of people, and for that to happen in such a case would be a very tough break. The new law is very black and white, when not all circumstance are so.

I don't think too many people are advocating drivers firing pints into them and then getting right back behind the wheel. I think that is something most people in Ireland would consider very taboo nowadays.

re_shaft · 16-02-2017 04:10PM

Chakra Khan wrote: »

Someone marginally over the limit for the first time ever and its the morning after does not deserve to be named and shamed.

We can publish their blood alcohol reading along with the names so.

blue note · 16-02-2017 04:13PM

Parchment wrote: »

Some of the opinions in this thread make me see why this country will never move forward. I cannot understand how anyone thinks its ok to drink any amount and drive.

I don't understand why some people are happy to accept that people "have to drive" to get home after a 12 hour shift, or to the airport having not slept or home back down the country after a concert in Dublin. They accept the risk of those tired people on the roads, but are unwilling to accept that someone could have a Guinness mid-strength or a small glass of wine and then drive which is probably a far smaller risk. Even though people who have this amount of drink might still be under the limit, some will still demonise them.

If their objection is putting others at risk on the road, then why is the outrage limited to drink driving for so many. I'm not saying Parchment that you're not equally absolute on your opinions on someone driving at 51kph in a 50 zone, but there are lots out there who will happily go at 60 in these zones and have zero tolerance when it comes to others and drink, however small or legal.

Parchment · 16-02-2017 04:13PM

elefant wrote: »

I think most of the reasonable posts are about the potential for failing a test the day after, even after taking precautions. Losing your license for three months could mean ruin for a lot of people, and for that to happen in such a case would be a very tough break. The new law is very black and white, when not all circumstance are so.

I don't think too many people are advocating drivers firing pints into them and then getting right back behind the wheel. I think that is something most people in Ireland would consider very taboo nowadays.

But if youre over the legal limit...youre over the limit.

If you plan on drinking the night before - make appropriate plans for the next day. I would rather order a taxi just to be careful rather than risk losing my licence or driving impaired and harming someone/myself.

Parchment · 16-02-2017 04:15PM

blue note wrote: »

I don't understand why some people are happy to accept that people "have to drive" to get home after a 12 hour shift, or to the airport having not slept or home back down the country after a concert in Dublin. They accept the risk of those tired people on the roads, but are unwilling to accept that someone could have a Guinness mid-strength or a small glass of wine and then drive which is probably a far smaller risk. Even though people who have this amount of drink might still be under the limit, some will still demonise them.

If their objection is putting others at risk on the road, then why is the outrage limited to drink driving for so many. I'm not saying Parchment that you're not equally absolute on your opinions on someone driving at 51kph in a 50 zone, but there are lots out there who will happily go at 60 in these zones and have zero tolerance when it comes to others and drink, however small or legal.

Drinking alcohol is optional - why cant someone just have a soft drink if they are driving? i dont see it as a huge inconvenience. If you cant skip a drink - you may have an issue with alcohol.

blue note · 16-02-2017 04:19PM

Parchment wrote: »

Drinking alcohol is optional - why cant someone just have a soft drink if they are driving? i dont see it as a huge inconvenience. If you cant skip a drink - you may have an issue with alcohol.

Driving is optional too. If someone has to be in the airport early in the morning, maybe they should stay in a hotel the night before. If they're going to a concert a few hours drive away maybe they should stay overnight or not go. If they're going to be exhausted after a 12 shift maybe they should have a nap in the car before driving.

Tired people cause a huge amount of accidents. And yet, no-one is ashamed to admit they drive and sometimes have to fight the sleep.

New drink driving laws - 3 mth ban no more points

Comments