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

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.

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

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.

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.

Guy:Incognito

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.

What other laws shouldnt apply to certain people based on the possibility of them losing their jobs?

Isnt it up to the person to make sure they dont break the law and cause themselves hardship?

Guy:Incognito

Discodog wrote: »

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.

.

So if you can avoid detection long enough to sober up enough to be just over the limit, score.

WoollyRedHat

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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.

I'm talking about the strict limits. If people want to have a drink they can't drive afterwards, doesn't matter where you are from.

Bannasidhe

Discodog wrote: »

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.

Perhaps the driver should consider the effect on their family and home and not drive while over the limit.
Priorities and all that.

Mad idea I know.

bazz26

Proposal from the Vintner's Federation of Ireland, says it all really. They are the alcohol equivalent of the S.I.M.I. imo.

Reality is they don't give a toss about drink driving laws, they are only interested in dealing with the high number of public houses that have closed in recent times especially outside of towns and cities. They are focusing on one aspect only - people staying at home because they have no public transport. Same goes with them campaigning for minimum alcohol pricing. Many people also stay at home to drink there because it's cheaper than going to the pub. Instead of focusing on reducing the price of drink in their public houses to encourage people back, they instead lobby to remove the cheaper competition from supermarket in the name of binge drinking. And that suits the Government too as it means more tax revenue.

dresden8

martyc5674 wrote: »

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

Well, it is a proposal from the Vintners Federation of Ireland?

I wonder what their interest is in letting people drink drive?

matrim

Why only drink driving? What happens if they lose their license because they were speeding or on their phone or any of the other reasons people get points?

Seth Brundle

matrim wrote: »

Why only drink driving? What happens if they lose their license because they were speeding or on their phone or any of the other reasons people get points?

It shouldn't be just car related.
If I murdered someone, it shouldn't prevent me from doing my job!

drunkmonkey

Good point, the chap driving to work after a few beers the night before loses his wife, house, job. The pedo gets to keep driving from town to town.

WoollyRedHat

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It shouldn't be just car related.
If I murdered someone, it shouldn't prevent me from doing my job!

Wait what. If the car was the reason itkilled someone it absolutely should. If someone killed another person because of improper use of a fire arm, do you think you should be able to retain your licence after.?

Guy:Incognito

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It shouldn't be just car related.
If I murdered someone, it shouldn't prevent me from doing my job!

If anything, we're not protecting people enough. There should be a law that bans your job from sacking you if you're convicted of murder.

doolox

Bad planning laws and a desire to live in remote areas by people with no legitimate reason to live in remote rural areas.

In the UK you had to have a job or reason to live in a country area, otherwise you live in an estate near public transport etc.

Only farmers, forestry workers, park rangers and the likes could get planning permission to build one-off housing in remote rural areas.

My cousins live about 2 miles from a bus route in a midland town. I would expect them to walk to that bus route if they were nabbed and banned from driving under the influence.

I am currently undergoing a drink cessation exercise under doctors supervision because I am finding it difficult to keep my drinking levels below the WHO standards of 21 units per week. I am fearful of liver damage in the future. I have been stopped and bagged twice with no repercussions but it could have been different. An ill considered pint could have ruined me.

The trouble with modern Ireland is that we have close to 2 million cars on our roads. They are much more powerful and faster than in the recent past. In my younger days there were less than 1 million cars on the roads, much slower and simpler times. Modern drivers rightfully expect a higher level of driving behaviour than in the past, the driving public tolerated and accommodated erratic and dysfunctional driving in a bizarrely humorous and lighthearted way, which would be alien to today's driving public.

What we need to do in future is to arrange housing near peoples work places and eliminate one-off rural housing in jobless villages and hamlets, keeping such houses for farmers and rural workers only. Then there will be no hardship excuse for exempting people from disqualification laws and penalties.

Public transport needs to be made more reliable and available in rural areas but people buying houses in such areas with an active social drinking lifestyle should think twice about such locations. Walking distance to a decent pub on a well lit street is becoming an important feature in a house, often overlooked in these virtue signalling times.

drunkmonkey

Or Uber, just leaglise it, feck the taxi drivers they cherry pick their hours during the week in the country.

swarlb

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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.

Has anyone here actually read the above link
...
No where in this article does it say Shane Ross is considering letting drink drivers drive to work...

"According to the paper, Transport Minister Shane Ross would consider any such proposal from the Vintner's Federation of Ireland."

VeryTerry

Why don't we fit breathalyzers in the cars of convicted lower end drink drivers? It works well in Australia.

drunkmonkey

swarlb wrote: »

Has anyone here actually read the above link
...
No where in this article does it say Shane Ross is considering letting drink drivers drive to work...

"According to the paper, Transport Minister Shane Ross would consider any such proposal from the Vintner's Federation of Ireland."

I read he would consider any proposal as he would consider the proposal. He hasn't said no.

swarlb

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I read he would consider any proposal as he would consider the proposal. He hasn't said no.

He hasn't actually said anything... which is what most professional politicians do.... and the reason they become professional and earn the 'big bucks' is because people who vote for them usually listen to what it is they didn't say.

Discodog

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps the driver should consider the effect on their family and home and not drive while over the limit.
Priorities and all that.

Mad idea I know.

The UK found that a hard core of drivers ignore the law & take a chance. People do make mistakes & it is possible to be over the limit when you had no intention of being so.

Law needs to be proportionate otherwise people ignore it.

[Deleted User]

amcalester wrote: »

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.

Your job shouldn’t be infringing on your life. While should I have to stay off the beer if I’ve work in the morning? Basically means work is impacting your time off.

Morning bagging is an disgrace imo, our limits are too low also. The limits should be set so the average man can have his 3 pints and drive home, it’s the lads with 14 pints driving home that’s the problem and no laws will stop them.

brightspark

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Your job shouldn’t be infringing on your life. While should I have to stay off the beer if I’ve work in the morning? Basically means work is impacting your time off.

Morning bagging is an disgrace imo, our limits are too low also. The limits should be set so the average man can have his 3 pints and drive home, it’s the lads with 14 pints driving home that’s the problem and no laws will stop them.

If you think 3 pints doesn't affect you then why bother drinking?? You might as well drink water. But the fact is it does have an effect and that effect is proven to be detrimental to driving.

It's no safer to drive under the influence in the morning than it is after a lunch time or post work pint! So why have a different limit in the morning?

elperello

Different forms of limited licences for offenders are common in the US.
This link is to how it works in Missouri.

https://dor.mo.gov/drivers/ldp.php

amcalester

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Your job shouldn’t be infringing on your life. While should I have to stay off the beer if I’ve work in the morning? Basically means work is impacting your time off.

Morning bagging is an disgrace imo, our limits are too low also. The limits should be set so the average man can have his 3 pints and drive home, it’s the lads with 14 pints driving home that’s the problem and no laws will stop them.

You don’t, you can drink as much as you want and go to work in the morning and no one other than your boss and possibly co-workers should care.

Just don’t drive if you’re over the limit.

bazz26

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Your job shouldn’t be infringing on your life. While should I have to stay off the beer if I’ve work in the morning? Basically means work is impacting your time off.

Morning bagging is an disgrace imo, our limits are too low also. The limits should be set so the average man can have his 3 pints and drive home, it’s the lads with 14 pints driving home that’s the problem and no laws will stop them.

Sorry but to me if you still have enough alcohol in your system to fail a roadside breath test the next morning you have work, then it suggests that its not work that's impacting your time off. That's even taken into account that you had a generous 8 hours sleep between going home from the pub and getting up the next morning for work, for a "few" pints to exit your system.

elperello

bazz26 wrote: »

Sorry but to me if you still have enough alcohol in your system to fail a roadside breath test the next morning you have work, then it suggests that its not work that's impacting your time off. That's even taken into account that you had a generous 8 hours sleep between going home from the pub and getting up the next morning for work, for a "few" pints to exit your system.

Quite a low threshold can cause one to fail the roadside breath test. It is the blood/urine test which determines your fitness to drive and will lead to prosecution.

Failing a breath test at low levels and subsequently "passing" the blood/urine test will not normally leave a person incapable of either working or driving.

Hours since last drink, sleep, meals consumed and the general health and metabolism of the driver are all factors. It is therefore better to err on the side of caution before getting behind the wheel.

[Deleted User]

brightspark wrote: »

If you think 3 pints doesn't affect you then why bother drinking?? You might as well drink water. But the fact is it does have an effect and that effect is proven to be detrimental to driving.

It's no safer to drive under the influence in the morning than it is after a lunch time or post work pint! So why have a different limit in the morning?

If you can’t manage to drive after 3 pints you aren’t able to drive in the first place imo. I’ve driven much harder to handle machines than cars after more than 3 pints without difficulty (private land before any accusations are made).

amcalester wrote: »

You don’t, you can drink as much as you want and go to work in the morning and no one other than your boss and possibly co-workers should care.

Just don’t drive if you’re over the limit.

Many people have no option but to drive. Bagging in the morning is new thing none of us gave a second thought to driving the next day up until a few years ago and how often did you hear of any crashes related to drink in the morning? I’ve heard of none anyway.

amcalester

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Many people have no option but to drive.

Me included, still doesn’t mean they should be allowed drive while over the limit.