nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Shane Ross considering letting drink drivers drive to work..

drunkmonkey

Tell me again why our drink drive laws aren't unfairly hurting rural Ireland due to a lack of any public transport if he's even considering this.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/minister-considering-vfi-proposal-to-allow-convicted-drink-drivers-to-drive-to-work-908328.html

I'm pretty sure this isn't a solution to the public transport problem.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

drunkmonkey

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I genuinely think this is the route cause of the problem. Ministers of the government facilitate this them vs US argument. which is used as a reference for an apparent attack on the rural population, when newsflash, it is also an inconvenience for city people.

Balls it is, most of the population live in Dublin, Ross is well able to have a few pints and get to work. If he lost his licence in the morning wouldn't knock a funk out of him.

WoollyRedHat

paw patrol wrote: »

i think its reasonable.

what is the point in making somebody unemployed due to drink driving and maybe having a family lose their home? more kids on the homeless list?
likewise some small businesses may rely on a driver/owner if they can't drive that business could fold maybe costing an innocent person their job.
or if somebody was a carer to an ill person - is it fair that person loses their transport to hospital?
there are some reasonable examples...

people are posting as if the proposal is to give every driver this partial licence when the investigation at present if that people can apply for one. They would still need to meet some criteria.

If it passes I'd hope it would be strictly enforced and perhaps only available to first time or minor offenders.

As a matter of interest what would be the criteria.. In my view for people hat have tested 5 times over the limit deserve a lifetime ban. Don't think that's unreasonable.

Discodog

biko wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but it seems a reasonable measure
Drinkdrivers aren't all raging alcoholics prowling the streets looking for kids to mow down.
This could allow some of them to keep their jobs.

The problem is that a ban doesn't just punish the driver. It can affect his family & his home.

I think the recent changes were counter productive. We should focus on those who flaunt the law & have 6 pints, not the person who is accidentally just over the limit.

If someone was just above the limit I would impose a fine & points. If someone was twice the limit I would ban them for three years.

WoollyRedHat

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I don't get it

A person might have had half a pint.. That pushes you over the limit but that isn't going to translate into an automatic driving ban, at least in the first incidence.

Guy:Incognito

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The problem is the penalties inflict disproportionate hardship on people outside cities. That fact it's even been proposed says there's a problem. I didn't propose it so no point going after me.

A taxi driver is disproportionately affected by a ban compared to a call centre worker living next door to their job. The answer isnt to let them drive anyway.

If a drink driving ban will badly affect you, dont drink drive.

martyc5674

strandsman wrote: »

People in the rural areas know full well the impact it would have so are less inclined to drink drive .

And now they’ll be more inclined to drink drive.....

paw patrol

i think its reasonable.

what is the point in making somebody unemployed due to drink driving and maybe having a family lose their home? more kids on the homeless list?
likewise some small businesses may rely on a driver/owner if they can't drive that business could fold maybe costing an innocent person their job.
or if somebody was a carer to an ill person - is it fair that person loses their transport to hospital?
there are some reasonable examples...

people are posting as if the proposal is to give every driver this partial licence when the investigation at present if that people can apply for one. They would still need to meet some criteria.

If it passes I'd hope it would be strictly enforced and perhaps only available to first time or minor offenders.

WoollyRedHat

dresden8 wrote: »

But then the insurance industry will be discriminating against rural people.

There's no end to this bogger bull****.

I genuinely think this is the route cause of the problem. Ministers of the government facilitate this them vs US argument. which is used as a reference for an apparent attack on the rural population, when newsflash, it is also an inconvenience for city people.

dresden8

brightspark wrote: »

Living in a rural area wouldn't be one of the nine grounds that you can claim discrimination.

Wont stop them moaning.

V8 Interceptor

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

There is a measurable difference between testing over the limit on one occasion and being over the limit that results in a ban.

I don't get it

Del2005

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The problem is the penalties inflict disproportionate hardship on people outside cities. That fact it's even been proposed says there's a problem. I didn't propose it so no point going after me.

If you know that something is going to have a major impact on your life why would you risk it? You chose to live in an area that can't be serviced by public transport you should make sure that you don't risk your only method of transport.

It's a bit like when they say that the old lad is just going to the pub for a few pints and for some company and sure the few pints will have no effect. So why bother with the alcohol? Just drink a tea/coffee/soft drink/cordial then and you can still have the company and your licence.

drunkmonkey

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Double negative there old boy.

Just checking how many posters could read before they started foaming at the mouth with rage.

brightspark

dresden8 wrote:

But then the insurance industry will be discriminating against rural people.

Living in a rural area wouldn't be one of the nine grounds that you can claim discrimination.

strandsman

biko wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but it seems a reasonable measure
Drinkdrivers aren't all raging alcoholics prowling the streets looking for kids to mow down.
This could allow some of them to keep their jobs.

i agree. a driving ban doesn't impact on a person as hard when they get a luas or bus to work every day. In fact i'd say they are more inclined to drink drive knowing a ban won't be a big issue. People in the rural areas know full well the impact it would have so are less inclined to drink drive . A person living and working in the city or near it won't loose their jobs but a person living in the country possibly will if they have no other means to get to work

V8 Interceptor

Its his ludicrous speeding laws he's bringing in that worries me.

brightspark

Hopefully the insurance companies will make it so expensive that if effectively keeps them off the road anyway.

dresden8

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Insurance industry will be licking their lips if this comes in can you imagine the premiums they’ll charge these people

But then the insurance industry will be discriminating against rural people.

There's no end to this bogger bull****.

vectra

Another thought.
Isn't drink driving a dangerous act?
Therefore, Should the same idea be applied to drivers that got a driving ban for dangerous driving?

dresden8

A random thought, what if they were caught drink driving on the way to work? Fine and a ban but then told to carry on?

The_Honeybadger

Insurance industry will be licking their lips if this comes in can you imagine the premiums they’ll charge these people

Seth Brundle

biko wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but it seems a reasonable measure
Drinkdrivers aren't all raging alcoholics prowling the streets looking for kids to mow down.
This could allow some of them to keep their jobs.

Wouldn't it be easier for them to not drink?
Are the road safety laws there for everyone or just some people? What's the point in having a road safety policy if you turn around and make exceptions for those you've been saying for years were a danger?

amcalester

biko wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but it seems a reasonable measure
Drinkdrivers aren't all raging alcoholics prowling the streets looking for kids to mow down.
This could allow some of them to keep their jobs.

Sure the threat of losing ones job is one of the main deterrents, remove that and you’ll have people willing to take the risk.

Ah, sure I’ll still be able to get to work.

WoollyRedHat

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The problem is the penalties inflict disproportionate hardship on people outside cities. That fact it's even been proposed says there's a problem. I didn't propose it so no point going after me.

Why not advocate for better transport in these areas?

If you would be at least more specific the merits of your position could be argued.

drunkmonkey

Uber is the solution to the public transport problem. It's not commercially viable to service rural areas any other way (when I say rural don't think of a house down an county road I'm also referring to towns with thousands of people with no transport services at night or in the morning). That decision is with the NTA and not the RSA. Ross is over both of them about time he grew a pair.
I'd have no issue with an uber ban in cities as they have transport options.

Seth Brundle

I must admit that I can't help holding Shane Ross in high regard. Every time I think he has reached the maximum stupidity level he always manages to exceed it!

biko

Maybe it's just me but it seems a reasonable measure
Drinkdrivers aren't all raging alcoholics prowling the streets looking for kids to mow down.
This could allow some of them to keep their jobs.

The Government is considering allowing convicted drink-drivers to drive to work.
Officials have been asked to examine a system in operation in New Zealand.
In New Zealand, a person can apply for a limited licence that would allow them to drive at specific times for specific reasons.

dresden8

Apt username op.

amcalester

I’ve a 200km round trip to get to work, do you know what I don’t do when I’ve work in the morning?

I don’t drink so much that I’d be over the limit in the morning.

Atlantic Dawn

When you come back from a driving ban for drink driving you should have to put D plates on your car for 5 years so other motorists know you are a fool.

WoollyRedHat

Great idea they should introduce a credit based system, the more pints you drink when you're driving, the more free pints you get. Drink and drive after 5 pints, get your next one free.

For anyone thinking I'm being ridiculous, don't worry, they'll refer to breath anyalsyer results to make sure no one is cheating.

ETA: From the article, really? There is a measurable difference between testing over the limit on one occasion and being over the limit that results in a ban...