New drink driving laws - 3 mth ban no more points

16-02-2017 04:26PM

Tigger wrote: »

i'm an Analytical Chemist and i'm aware of how to estimate blood alcohol levels
but to be sure i've owned a breathyliser since 2004 (not the same one different ones over the years)
the reason being that i wanted to be sure
i once drank pints from 8pm till 3am maybe 10 pints 22 units and then slept for 12 hours so thats 19 hours and some people think thats 19 units leaving 5 in my system which back then for someone of my size would be under the limit
well i wasn'y under the limit for another 6 hours

with the 0.05 limit i wouldntbe under till 11pm the next night

now 10 pints is a lot and you shouldn't be driving the next day
but lots of people have a feed aof drink at a wedding and then drive the next day

i had believed tht the 3 points at 0.05 for first timers was enough to wake people up but three month ban will ruin them

You see I read stuff like this but then it does not even nearly tally with what I've experienced in reality. I have quite a few example but two that really stood out to me were: A group of us went on a night out a while back, started drinking at 6pm and finished up at around 6am give or take. We were in rounds and there is no doubt we all have double figures of pints and loads of shots and shorts. We set off for home around 12:30 the next afternoon and we were all feeling very much worse for wear including the driver, around 1pm we hit a check point one sniff of the air from the car and the driver was being breathalysed. He was almost saying there is no point even bothering with the bag as he was so sure he was miles over the limit and he blew zero.

Second was a smilair ish night maybe not as late a finish say around 3am but again very heavy loads of pints and shorts. Into town the next day for lunch and a cure pint or two. Driver also had a cure pint and on the way back from town around 2pm got bagged, blew zero. I myself also blew zero driving home from the local after 1 pint, zero. All this was on the old limit of 0.08 but sure that makes no difference as it was all zeros and by your calculations it should have been hours and hours later before the person in the first example anyway was below the limit.

I'm all for coming down hard on people who drive hammered but the witch hunt for people who drive after 2 or 3 pints is beyond ridiculous. They are no more dangerous on the roads than anyone else IMO, particularity people who drive tired and pretty much everyone drives tired without a second thought.

Parchment · 16-02-2017 04:41PM

blue note wrote: »

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.

Where do you see me saying its ok to drive when you are impaired in anyway?

Its not.

osarusan · 16-02-2017 04:43PM

Parchment wrote: »

Where do you see me saying its ok to drive when you are impaired in anyway?

Its not.

There's no question though that we, as a society, view different reasons for being impaired very differently, even if the level of impairment is similar.

Parchment · 16-02-2017 04:51PM

osarusan wrote: »

There's no question though that we, as a society, view different reasons for being impaired very differently, even if the level of impairment is similar.

Drinking alcohol is a conscious action - you make a decision to drink and drive.

I know i have driven late at night and felt fine leaving then 30 mins into the drive felt groggy and pulled over and slept it off. I didnt know i was going to feel that way. I if i drink alcohol i know it will affect me.

blue note · 16-02-2017 04:53PM

Parchment wrote: »

Where do you see me saying its ok to drive when you are impaired in anyway?

Its not.

You replied to my post comparing driving with a small (possibly even legal) amount of drink taken with driving when impaired through tiredness and said that drinking is a choice. Obviously it's a choice, and by picking out that to say it's a choice and not the other you implied that people are driving while impaired through tiredness out of necessity.

So in your last post is where I saw you implying that it was more okay at least to drive while impaired through tiredness.

Anyway - here's a direct question for you. Driving at 60k in a 50k zone is obviously dangerous. Someone could run out from behind a parked car or whatever and you could very conceivably kill someone. I'm sure it happens all year round that accidents of all levels of seriousness are caused by people going too fast around housing estates. So would you have a similar opinion to your opinion on drink driving that if someone was caught speeding, however marginally over the speed limit that they would suffer an automatic ban and have their name published next to their offence?

Parchment · 16-02-2017 05:00PM

blue note wrote: »

You replied to my post comparing driving with a small (possibly even legal) amount of drink taken with driving when impaired through tiredness and said that drinking is a choice. Obviously it's a choice, and by picking out that to say it's a choice and not the other you implied that people are driving while impaired through tiredness out of necessity.

So in your last post is where I saw you implying that it was more okay at least to drive while impaired through tiredness.

Anyway - here's a direct question for you. Driving at 60k in a 50k zone is obviously dangerous. Someone could run out from behind a parked car or whatever and you could very conceivably kill someone. I'm sure it happens all year round that accidents of all levels of seriousness are caused by people going too fast around housing estates. So would you have a similar opinion to your opinion on drink driving that if someone was caught speeding, however marginally over the speed limit that they would suffer an automatic ban and have their name published next to their offence?

Well its never necessary to drink an alcoholic drink. Maybe it is necessary sometimes to drive home after a night shift as your spouse has to go to work and you have to mind the kids. Doesnt make driving while tired right but it shows the difference between the two types of impairments.

Why do you think drink driving is a "soft" offence and not worth publishing offenders names? I think it would have a huge effect on reducing drink drivers.

Well if you did knock someone down and kill them - it would go to court and your name would be in the papers anyway, right?

Happened to the guy who knocked down and killed my friend while drunk driving. His name was all over the news - as it should be. He took someones life through his selfish actions.

blue note · 16-02-2017 05:19PM

Parchment wrote: »

Well its never necessary to drink an alcoholic drink. Maybe it is necessary sometimes to drive home after a night shift as your spouse has to go to work and you have to mind the kids. Doesnt make driving while tired right but it shows the difference between the two types of impairments.

Why do you think drink driving is a "soft" offence and not worth publishing offenders names? I think it would have a huge effect on reducing drink drivers.

Well if you did knock someone down and kill them - it would go to court and your name would be in the papers anyway, right?

Happened to the guy who knocked down and killed my friend while drunk driving. His name was all over the news - as it should be. He took someones life through his selfish actions.

You haven't answered the question I asked. If someone is caught speeding, regardless of how marginally they were over the limit or whether or not it was accidental, do you think that their offence should be published and they should serve a ban? I'm sure you'll agree that it's never necessary to speed and speed is the biggest killer on our roads. You're talking about publishing names of people caught drink driving when they haven't caused an accident, so I suppose the same should apply to speeding?

I certainly don't regard drink driving as a soft offence. If someone is caught with over 0.8mg in their blood, then they either intentionally drank a chanced it or their calculations on it leaving their system were significantly wrong. Neither is an acceptable excuse in my view and I'm happy to see their driving privileges removed as a result.

Just to note I am sorry to hear of your friend and hope that the driver was treated appropriately in the courts.

And I can't say I agree with you about driving while significantly tired. If someone was driving home while too tired to do so safely and knocked down someone I know, I wouldn't be too forgiving of them because they had to get home to mind the kids. If they were in the pub and suddenly needed to get home to mind the kids because the mother was called away would you understand if they got into the car after a couple of pints? Out of necessity as you say.

osarusan · 16-02-2017 05:26PM

Parchment wrote: »

Well its never necessary to drink an alcoholic drink. Maybe it is necessary sometimes to drive home after a night shift as your spouse has to go to work and you have to mind the kids. Doesnt make driving while tired right but it shows the difference between the two types of impairments.

It doesn't really though, it's a just a different reason for being impaired.

While we as a society would agree with 'there's no reason to drink and drive', we would be more forgiving of somebody driving home after a night shift, even though their level of impairment and, consequently, risk to themselves and others on the road, might be similar.

I'd probably feel that way myself, even though it isn't really consistent at all. It's really a judgement on the reason for impairment, rather than the level of impairment.

thesultan · 16-02-2017 08:15PM

Parchment wrote: »

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

I agree with him. There is no harm in having two points and driving homebin rural areas.single men crying out for company in rural Ireland

Tigger · 16-02-2017 08:37PM

Vivienne Panicky Lever wrote: »

You see I read stuff like this but then it does not even nearly tally with what I've experienced in reality. I have quite a few example but two that really stood out to me were: A group of us went on a night out a while back, started drinking at 6pm and finished up at around 6am give or take. We were in rounds and there is no doubt we all have double figures of pints and loads of shots and shorts. We set off for home around 12:30 the next afternoon and we were all feeling very much worse for wear including the driver, around 1pm we hit a check point one sniff of the air from the car and the driver was being breathalysed. He was almost saying there is no point even bothering with the bag as he was so sure he was miles over the limit and he blew zero.

Second was a smilair ish night maybe not as late a finish say around 3am but again very heavy loads of pints and shorts. Into town the next day for lunch and a cure pint or two. Driver also had a cure pint and on the way back from town around 2pm got bagged, blew zero. I myself also blew zero driving home from the local after 1 pint, zero. All this was on the old limit of 0.08 but sure that makes no difference as it was all zeros and by your calculations it should have been hours and hours later before the person in the first example anyway was below the limit.

I'm all for coming down hard on people who drive hammered but the witch hunt for people who drive after 2 or 3 pints is beyond ridiculous. They are no more dangerous on the roads than anyone else IMO, particularity people who drive tired and pretty much everyone drives tired without a second thought.

the garda hand held meters don't read 0 they read pass fail warn as far as i know
its the station meters that read the acuall numbers

so unlesss you think that after having a cure pint your breath alcohol is still 0.00 there is nothing wrong with my calculations

16-02-2017 09:29PM

Tigger wrote: »

the garda hand held meters don't read 0 they read pass fail warn as far as i know
its the station meters that read the acuall numbers

so unlesss you think that after having a cure pint your breath alcohol is still 0.00 there is nothing wrong with my calculations

The guard said zero to me in the 3rd instance.

How to you explain the first two instances though. There was probably 30+ units drank over 12 hours then bagged 7 hours later and pass? I'm not getting at you btw im genuinely interested in how what appears to be someone who has to fail passes and it's not a one off. We were shocked on both occasions the people passed, as was the guard who was annoyed as she had him down as a fail just looking at him.

Mr. FoggPatches · 16-02-2017 09:33PM

Statistically it's safer to drink and drive than to drink and walk.
#personalsafety.

Specialun · 16-02-2017 09:41PM

Its a pity ross couldnt focus on the more serious and complicated issue such as insurance

thesultan · 16-02-2017 09:44PM

Specialun wrote: »

Its a pity ross couldnt focus on the more serious and complicated issue such as insurance

They have a think tank into that and could back two years later and tell us we are paying too much

Tigger · 16-02-2017 09:57PM

Vivienne Panicky Lever wrote: »

The guard said zero to me in the 3rd instance.

How to you explain the first two instances though. There was probably 30+ units drank over 12 hours then bagged 7 hours later and pass? I'm not getting at you btw im genuinely interested in how what appears to be someone who has to fail passes and it's not a one off. We were shocked on both occasions the people passed, as was the guard who was annoyed as she had him down as a fail just looking at him.

id say they were lucky
i'd say you should read up on how alcohol is transfered to the breath, it varies dramatica;lly from person to person and the test is set in such a way that it makes an assumption of the ratio of blood alcohol to breath alcohol based on those who transfer a high amount of alcohol to their breath https://www.jscimedcentral.com/SubstanceAbuse/substanceabuse-3-1029.pdf
this is why blood tests would be peferrable and why i recomended breathing techniques to lover the breath alcohol result earlier in the thread
id say that they probably had good liver function and that and that 0.08 is a high limit to start.

i think the points for 0.05 and the ban for 0.08 were good limits and that anacetdotal stories like yours do not effect the fact that a person with poor liver function wrt alcohol metabolisim and who transfers a higher ratio of alcohol from blood concentration to breath runs the risk of failing in a morning after situation

thats why i have my own tester, so i can see if i'm happy ill pass a morning test cos the variables are interesting in theory but loss of lisence and the crazy insirance costs i assume you'd get after would be awful

Mrs Woman · 16-02-2017 10:31PM

Parchment wrote: »

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.

And if it influences your opinion then you are going to be unreasonable and seek meaning for what's happened no matter the cost to anyone else. That is understandable but still unfair to everyone else. If it were my son I would be so blinded by grief that I would want people hung for an offence that killed him. I would not care if those people were ill, if they made a mistake or about any suffering inflicted on them. I would also not be thinking straight.

The punishment should fit the crime. Someone having a glass and a half of wine should not be caught three hours later and now be a criminal and have the whole of Ireland looking for them to be banned for life, their car crushed, their name on a register, lose their job and all the other things that people are calling for. For the love of God people! Do you even see that you are being manipulated for an agenda that does not serve you?

ABC101 · 17-02-2017 12:16AM

Graces7 wrote: »

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

So why are parts of my post irrelevant then? Please explain?

Are why should a person do time if they are safe to drive?

Divelment · 17-02-2017 12:27AM

It's the usual crap in this country, focus on people who are not a part of the problem, harass the sh(i)t out of them people, and ignore where the problem is actually happening.

Drive past any suburban pub in Dublin any night of the week and guess what, the car park is packed full of cars! The guys driving these cars to the pub and home again, aren't out for dinner with the missus and having a glass of red with their steak, they are hardened seasoned drinkers who habitually drink and drive.

It isn't rocket science, clamping down on these drivers, but no, in this dump of a country, the smart money is always on ignoring these people in terms of law enforcement and instead criminalising the guy who goes out for dinner with his other half and has a glass of wine with his steak, who is a threat to nobody.

Again and again and again in this country, you see common sense solutions thrown completely out the window and ideologies that are simply WRONG, applied to the simplest of problems. And then, obviously, nothing changes, the problem continues.

Graces7 · 17-02-2017 01:55PM

thesultan wrote: »

I agree with him. There is no harm in having two points and driving homebin rural areas.single men crying out for company in rural Ireland

Ah Healy Rae enters the scene..why do single men feel they have to drink to get company?

thesultan · 17-02-2017 02:50PM

Its like Shane Ross has to make a move on something to justify his ministry. How aboy focus on the 70% non drinking related deaths. Nearly everyone abeys the drink driving laws but to target the morning or afternoon after for most people is a joke

Mrs Woman · 17-02-2017 03:25PM

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.

Its legal to drive with a small amount of alcohol in your system therefore it IS actually ok to drink and drive. You can have half a glass of wine! But if you have any more than that you are a potential murderer and your life should be destroyed or so says an awful lot of people (less in the last few days since its dawned that the chickens may well come home to roost in their yard).
We want to save lives because they are so precious to us. We love those people so much that we want them to suffer endlessly if they ever make a mistake. There's something very wrong with attitudes and not just the attitudes of those who drink and drive. In fact they aren't the worst!

ABC101 · 17-02-2017 03:34PM

Mrs Woman wrote: »

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.

Its legal to drive with a small amount of alcohol in your system therefore it IS actually ok to drink and drive. You can have half a glass of wine! But if you have any more than that you are a potential murderer and your life should be destroyed or so says an awful lot of people (less in the last few days since its dawned that the chickens may well come home to roost in their yard).
We want to save lives because they are so precious to us. We love those people so much that we want them to suffer endlessly if they ever make a mistake. There's something very wrong with attitudes and not just the attitudes of those who drink and drive. In fact they aren't the worst!

Good points there indeed.

Ironic that protecting lives by brutalising and destroying other lives!

God save us from these zealots who are unable to distinguish between driving safely and legal limits for blood / alcohol etc

FishOnABike · 17-02-2017 05:45PM

It would be far more beneficial to ensure the current laws are rigorously and effectively enforced. In decades of driving I could count the number of times I've met a breath test checkpoint on one hand.

But something must be done about drink driving and politicians must be seen to do something about it, this is something, so it must be done.

Rather than allocate sufficient resources to make it less easy for drunkards to drive with little chance of being intercepted, lets just change the law and lower the limit. Ink is cheap.

It is pointless populism to bring in more draconian laws when our current laws are poorly enforced. If there is evidence to show drivers with a BAC between .02 and .05 are a significant contribution to road traffic collisions / injuries / fatalities then let's see the evidence.

I find it difficult to believe driving with a BAC just over .02 in Ireland could be so dangerous that it could warrant a mandatory driving ban whereas a few miles up the road or a short ferry trip away you are perfectly capable of driving at four times that level.

The UK has a lower road fatality rate than Ireland - do they have lower drink driving limits or do they just properly enforce the limits they have?

ABC101 · 17-02-2017 06:27PM

FishOnABike wrote: »

It would be far more beneficial to ensure the current laws are rigorously and effectively enforced. In decades of driving I could count the number of times I've met a breath test checkpoint on one hand.

But something must be done about drink driving and politicians must be seen to do something about it, this is something, so it must be done.

Rather than allocate sufficient resources to make it less easy for drunkards to drive with little chance of being intercepted, lets just change the law and lower the limit. Ink is cheap.

It is pointless populism to bring in more draconian laws when our current laws are poorly enforced. If there is evidence to show drivers with a BAC between .02 and .05 are a significant contribution to road traffic collisions / injuries / fatalities then let's see the evidence.

I find it difficult to believe driving with a BAC just over .02 in Ireland could be so dangerous that it could warrant a mandatory driving ban whereas a few miles up the road or a short ferry trip away you are perfectly capable of driving at four times that level.

The UK has a lower road fatality rate than Ireland - do they have lower drink driving limits or do they just properly enforce the limits they have?

Probably more mature and disciplined attitude in the UK.

There has been quite a few single vehicle accidents in Ireland, drivers going off the road into walls and trees etc, probably due to inappropriate use of speed for the conditions etc

Ireland is also a very humid country, makes driving difficult and tyre grip difficult under slippery conditions.

Rural roads can be very difficult to drive at night, particularly when tired.

idle · 17-02-2017 07:16PM

When did the obvious line between drinking and driving and DRUNK driving get so blurred?

People who drive while DRUNK should be imprisioned and banned for life from driving.

In the RSA adds it's always a DRUNK driver. In the inquests on the news it's always a DRUNK driver who was a multiple of the limit.

The pensioner driving home from his local after a few pints on a quiet country road is not the problem

ABC101 · 17-02-2017 09:33PM

idle wrote: »

When did the obvious line between drinking and driving and DRUNK driving get so blurred?

People who drive while DRUNK should be imprisioned and banned for life from driving.

In the RSA adds it's always a DRUNK driver. In the inquests on the news it's always a DRUNK driver who was a multiple of the limit.

The pensioner driving home from his local after a few pints on a quiet country road is not the problem

You're wasting your time trying to explain that to a zealot!

Tigger · 17-02-2017 09:35PM

ABC101 wrote: »

Probably more mature and disciplined attitude in the UK.

There has been quite a few single vehicle accidents in Ireland, drivers going off the road into walls and trees etc, probably due to inappropriate use of speed for the conditions etc

Ireland is also a very humid country, makes driving difficult and tyre grip difficult under slippery conditions.

Rural roads can be very difficult to drive at night, particularly when tired.

the uk limit is different in different parts
scotland is the same as us

Cameo · 17-02-2017 09:41PM

idle wrote: »

When did the obvious line between drinking and driving and DRUNK driving get so blurred?

People who drive while DRUNK should be imprisioned and banned for life from driving.

In the RSA adds it's always a DRUNK driver. In the inquests on the news it's always a DRUNK driver who was a multiple of the limit.

The pensioner driving home from his local after a few pints on a quiet country road is not the problem

Driving on a winding, unlit country road with a few pints taken is risky, in my opinion.

Parchment · 17-02-2017 09:42PM

I see many fair points in this post but i still abhor drink driving in any shape or form.

I do see where some of you are coming from but the bottom line for me personally is not understanding why people can just opt not to drink when driving. Its not that hard. Would you just take a few pulls off a joint if you were going to drive & hope it was ok?

I just cant reconcile it. Yes my judgement is coloured by a close friend being killed by a drunk driver but i dont believe its made me irrational in my views on the subject.

Cameo · 17-02-2017 09:44PM

A few pulls off a joint is more potent than a glass of beer or stout.

New drink driving laws - 3 mth ban no more points

Comments