Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

AndrewJRenko · 25-03-2019 11:15AM

Francis Scruffy Groin wrote: »

CoBo55 wrote: »

Em... What does virtue signalling mean?

Necro wrote: »

I'd also like to know this. Or preferably for people to stop using the stupid fcuking term.

It refers to when people are all talk about how something has to be done about something (but by others) or they might pay lip service but not actually do anything.

It's a valid criticism imo but of course the term gets misused frequently.

It's a technical term for those strange people who don't want to be killed by a drunk driver.

BPKS · 25-03-2019 11:59AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Why only 1-3 miles? Why not 10 to 30 miles? What is the difference. You could easily walk 1-3 miles.

Within a few miles radius of where I live, 2 people have been knocked down and killed (not by drunk drivers) in the last 3 years. They were both p1ssed and walking home on dark, country roads.

In the road death stats, their deaths would be counted as alcohol related.

25-03-2019 12:03PM

John_Rambo wrote: »

You’ve been a passenger in cars where you’ve witnessed the driver blow under the limit after been out on the lash till 2am at Garda checkpoints or pull-overs?

On a few occasions, all in the morning time?

I’ve seen it personally once at a random breath check point where I was a passenger and had good friends tell me they or the person driving was breathalysed in the morning on at least 3 other occasions. Two being random mandatory check points and as far as I remember the other was a pull over for something else and the smell of drink in the car prompted a check (car full of people who had been out the night before so an accumulated smell of drink rather than just the driver).

In 2 or possibly 3 of these occasions I was out with the person the night before and in one case we were stilll drinking spirits at about 5am and he was checked between noon and lunchtime and passed. I was driving home myself that morning a bit earlier than him and was sure glad to have missed the checkpoint we have no idea how he passed.

Over many years and across a large number of the people and where the majority of us would regularly drive the next morning after being out it’s not a high number of instances which I think you are suggesting in your post.

jmayo · 25-03-2019 12:18PM

The weird thing is that anyone survived at all during the years when we had higher drink drive limits. :rolleyes:

Well that appears to be the argument by the those in favour of Lord rosses ideas anyway.

Danny Healy Rae, gombeen that he is, asked a legitimate question of lord ross, dept of transport, RSA, etc and AFAIK they couldn't answer.
"How many people were killed by drivers with between 50 and 80mg of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels ?"

Yes we all know that drunk drivers have killed people and we all I would say that someone with a load of drink on them should not be near a wheel.
I had no problem with the 80mg limit as it allowed someone have a couple of pint over a few hours.

But lord ross and some people want a drink drive limit of ZERO.
In other words no sherry trifle.
No drink at all.

And BPKS mentioned an issue that this whole plan will not prevent, what about drunk pedestrians ?
Should they be charged as well ?
Are the deaths of drunk pedestrians fed into the general stats on drink related deaths ?

John_Rambo · 25-03-2019 12:22PM

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I’ve seen it personally once at a random breath check point where I was a passenger and had good friends tell me they or the person driving was breathalysed in the morning on at least 3 other occasions. Two being random mandatory check points and as far as I remember the other was a pull over for something else and the smell of drink in the car prompted a check (car full of people who had been out the night before so an accumulated smell of drink rather than just the driver).

In 2 or possibly 3 of these occasions I was out with the person the night before and in one case we were stilll drinking spirits at about 5am and he was checked between noon and lunchtime and passed. I was driving home myself that morning a bit earlier than him and was sure glad to have missed the checkpoint we have no idea how he passed.

Over many years and across a large number of the people and where the majority of us would regularly drive the next morning after being out it’s not a high number of instances which I think you are suggesting in your post.

Ah, bar stool talk so. I'd take all that with a pinch of salt.

Aside from that one time you say you witnessed it of course.

25-03-2019 12:36PM

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, bar stool talk so. I'd take all that with a pinch of salt.

Aside from that one time you say you witnessed it of course.

No I would believe it 100%, maybe your lifelong friends are liars but mine aren’t.

Skylinehead · 25-03-2019 12:38PM

jmayo wrote: »

The weird thing is that anyone survived at all during the years when we had higher drink drive limits. :rolleyes:

A lot of people didn't. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

John_Rambo · 25-03-2019 12:45PM

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

No I would believe it 100%, maybe your lifelong friends are liars but mine aren’t.

I just don't believe second hand drunken tales! Sure you started off saying you have seen lads getting off on a few occasions, turns out you only saw it once!

Barstool talk!

ArrBee · 25-03-2019 12:55PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And if someone did this and killed a member of your family you would be ok with them not being prosecuted because they had only had the 3 pints and driving a short distance?

Depends what the cause of the accident resulting in death was.
To say that drink caused it, or was even a factor, simple because it was present is a bit reactionary.

I wouldn't often have much time for these new "overused terms" like snowflake whataboutry, and virtue signaling, but I think it is appropriate in this context.

xckjoo · 25-03-2019 01:18PM

ArrBee wrote: »

Depends what the cause of the accident resulting in death was.
To say that drink caused it, or was even a factor, simple because it was present is a bit reactionary.

I wouldn't often have much time for these new "overused terms" like snowflake whataboutry, and virtue signaling, but I think it is appropriate in this context.

Alcohol effects all the things needed to drive safely (concentration, reaction time, judgement, coordination, spatial reasoning, etc.), so it would be very hard if not impossible to conclusively determine that it did not have an impact.

jmayo · 25-03-2019 01:25PM

Nixonbot wrote: »

A lot of people didn't. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes some people didn't survive, but the whole idea of lowering the limit is the usual bullcr** to be seen to be doing something.

Are we going to resort to the line that we have had massive number of deaths on our roads ?
Because according to international stats we aren't all that bad.

And I do know that is cold comfort to people who have lost friends and family due to drink caused road accidents, but in the grand scheme of things we weren't as terrible as some make out.
The key to making things safer is to tackle the issues like young guys driving like lunatics at night and early morning.
And that requires investment in policing.

BTW these new measures are akin to tackling gun crime due to drugs gangs by banning licensed firearms.

Will lowering the limit to 50mg stop someone drinking 10 vodkas and redbulls, 5 pints and driving to show off to his mates ?

Years ago you could pass a country pub of a Sunday/Saturday night and have 20 cars outside.
There was a damn good bet that a fair few were drinking more than a few pints and driving home.

Enforce the rules that were there already, enforce those rules at the likes of 11pm, 12am, 2am, 3am when the real issues are happening.
Not 8.30am or 9am the following morning and checking if someone is 60mg limit.

But we know why there isn't massive enforcement at night and it is due to finances of AGS.
Easier and cheaper to send the lads out in the morning rather than have proper police force operating at night.

ArrBee · 25-03-2019 01:34PM

jmayo wrote: »

The weird thing is that anyone survived at all during the years when we had higher drink drive limits. :rolleyes:

Well that appears to be the argument by the those in favour of Lord rosses ideas anyway.

Danny Healy Rae, gombeen that he is, asked a legitimate question of lord ross, dept of transport, RSA, etc and AFAIK they couldn't answer.
"How many people were killed by drivers with between 50 and 80mg of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels ?"

Yes we all know that drunk drivers have killed people and we all I would say that someone with a load of drink on them should not be near a wheel.
I had no problem with the 80mg limit as it allowed someone have a couple of pint over a few hours.

But lord ross and some people want a drink drive limit of ZERO.
In other words no sherry trifle.
No drink at all.

And BPKS mentioned an issue that this whole plan will not prevent, what about drunk pedestrians ?
Should they be charged as well ?
Are the deaths of drunk pedestrians fed into the general stats on drink related deaths ?

One question I'd like answered - but can't be arsed researching myself...
what proportion of drivers with >80mg had previously been caught between 50 and 80?

i.e. was the points between 50 and 80 an effective deterrent?

It does seem odd to have instant license suspension for over 50mg now. especially when you consider the many variables around actual impairment in an individual, differences in the method of measurement (breath/blood/urine), detected level vs time passed since driving, etc.

I would say this is an indication of further change to come.
Either the 50mg limit will be lowered with points being the penalty, or expect to see 3month suspension for going 125km/h on the motorway

patmahe · 25-03-2019 01:38PM

I think we're asking the wrong question here. Operating a ton of machinery in a public place is not something to be done when you've consumed a substance that impairs your ability to do so. This is not virtue signaling, its common sense.

What about alternatives to driving? Taxi's, designated drivers, buses run by pubs or local authourities, car pools etc... why aren't we discussing those?

Or why not make the same brethalisers that Gardaí use, available for sale to the public so anyone who wants to can check themselves before driving to ensure they are not over the limit?

I don't buy the 3 pints and ok to drive argument at all to be honest.

garv123 · 25-03-2019 01:42PM

Is there such a thing as an accurate, affordable, reusable breathalyzer that someone could use the morning after to check when they're ok to drive?

Necro · 25-03-2019 01:53PM

jmayo wrote: »

Yes some people didn't survive, but the whole idea of lowering the limit is the usual bullcr** to be seen to be doing something.

Are we going to resort to the line that we have had massive number of deaths on our roads ?
Because according to international stats we aren't all that bad.

And I do know that is cold comfort to people who have lost friends and family due to drink caused road accidents, but in the grand scheme of things we weren't as terrible as some make out.
The key to making things safer is to tackle the issues like young guys driving like lunatics at night and early morning.
And that requires investment in policing.

BTW these new measures are akin to tackling gun crime due to drugs gangs by banning licensed firearms.

Will lowering the limit to 50mg stop someone drinking 10 vodkas and redbulls, 5 pints and driving to show off to his mates ?

Years ago you could pass a country pub of a Sunday/Saturday night and have 20 cars outside.
There was a damn good bet that a fair few were drinking more than a few pints and driving home.

Enforce the rules that were there already, enforce those rules at the likes of 11pm, 12am, 2am, 3am when the real issues are happening.
Not 8.30am or 9am the following morning and checking if someone is 60mg limit.

But we know why there isn't massive enforcement at night and it is due to finances of AGS.
Easier and cheaper to send the lads out in the morning rather than have proper police force operating at night.

Got any facts to back up your anti-Garda nonsense? Any at all? Because what you're posting there is complete and utter mistruth.

If you have to drive the next morning, don't drink.

It's really, really, really simple.

I don't care about the social aspect or what Jimmy and Johnny did 10 or 20 years ago - the fact is there were less cars on the road then - and people still died because of drink driving.

The country needs to wake up to this idea that a night out or social function HAS to be accompanied by alcohol. It's absolutely ridiculous.

It is perfectly acceptable to go out and have a bit of a laugh with your mates or whoever without having a drop of alcohol.

And then you can drive from Malin Head to Mizen Head if you so wish at any and all times of the day.

xckjoo · 25-03-2019 02:22PM

garv123 wrote: »

Is there such a thing as an accurate, affordable, reusable breathalyzer that someone could use the morning after to check when they're ok to drive?

I'm sure there is, but not one that'll stand up in court if it conflicted with an official reading. Not a Guard, but I'd assume their breathalysers are highly regulated, calibrated and certified at regular intervals. It's not really feasible to do that at home. Expensive too.

Use them as an indicator only.

xckjoo · 25-03-2019 02:24PM

Necro wrote: »

I don't care about the social aspect or what Jimmy and Johnny did 10 or 20 years ago - the fact is there were less cars on the road then - and people still died because of drink driving.

It's also conveniently forgotten that if you go back slightly further than that, almost nobody had a car. Only 1 of my grandparents even had a driving license.

bodice ripper · 25-03-2019 02:29PM

Where are all these draconian check points? In 20 years of driving 700-1000km a week I have only been breathalysed twice, and both of them were outside festivals...

Tacklebox · 25-03-2019 02:31PM

Gone are the days you hear one of the lads boasting about drink driving or being better drivers after a few pints.

I knew a few of those kind of lads, most ended up overturned, dead or off the road.

Absolute knobs to be honest, driving impaired.

Trying to name drop when they're caught.

The funniest one was some guy thinking they should have let him go when his car was 200m from his house.
Got into his car absolutely hammered turned the key and drove out of the carpark, blue lights and a siren.. caught

The idiot could have walked across the road, lived in Tola Park in Shannon.
It's across the road from the Shannon Knights bar.

Absolute knob.

25-03-2019 02:37PM

Necro wrote: »

The country needs to wake up to this idea that a night out or social function HAS to be accompanied by alcohol. It's absolutely ridiculous.

It is perfectly acceptable to go out and have a bit of a laugh with your mates or whoever without having a drop of alcohol.

And then you can drive from Malin Head to Mizen Head if you so wish at any and all times of the day.

Personally I’d rather stay at home if I can’t drink, I go out to drink so going out without drinking has zero appeal.

Dial Hard · 25-03-2019 02:42PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Where are all these draconian check points? In 20 years of driving 700-1000km a week I have only been breathalysed twice, and both of them were outside festivals...

Outside every church in Healy-Rae territory, if you were to believe their nonsense.

bodice ripper · 25-03-2019 02:43PM

Dial Hard wrote:

Outside every church in Healy-Rae territory, if you were to believe their nonsense.

Well, it would certainly brighten my day...

Cienciano · 25-03-2019 02:45PM

Steve wrote: »

Disable all mobile data if the user is travelling over 5kph...

Watch the road deaths drop.

This reminds me of the senator who wanted all playstations and xboxes "chipped" so they go off after 2 hours.

eagle eye · 25-03-2019 03:43PM

Cienciano wrote:

This reminds me of the senator who wanted all playstations and xboxes "chipped" so they go off after 2 hours.

Doesn't seem anything like it to me. One is that people don't have distractions whilst driving.
The other is some crazy notion that would try and prevent people gaming for over two hours.

25-03-2019 03:52PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Doesn't seem anything like it to me. One is that people don't have distractions whilst driving.
The other is some crazy notion that would try and prevent people gaming for over two hours.

A certain level of distraction just has to be accepted as being part of driving otherwise we might as well just ban driving.

Operating the touch screen heating in many cars is no better and possibly worse than operating Spotify for example and very soon all manufacturers will have heating as a touch screen operation so it’s very much the opposite direction things are going.

xckjoo · 25-03-2019 03:57PM

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

A certain level of distraction just has to be accepted as being part of driving otherwise we might as well just ban driving.

Operating the touch screen heating in many cars is no better and possibly worse than operating Spotify for example and very soon all manufacturers will have heating as a touch screen operation so it’s very much the opposite direction things are going.

Ya that's exactly what's going on.

Hard to drive a car with no heat controls. Can distract you physically or fog up windows, etc. So the lack of control can be a greater distraction than the physical act of controlling it. Not really the same thing with changing music. Just don't turn it on in the first place if it's going to be such an issue.

Cienciano · 25-03-2019 03:58PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Doesn't seem anything like it to me. One is that people don't have distractions whilst driving.
The other is some crazy notion that would try and prevent people gaming for over two hours.

It's similar because it's an ill thought out plan that's intention is to help, but will have ways around it and will effect millions of people that don't have a problem with a phone while driving.

Your data wouldn't work while walking or jogging at 5kph. And your phone could still distract you, just because data isn't on doesn't mean people won't use their phones for other things.
There's a lot of things that could be done that "might" save 1 life. But like this idea, they're stupid, so they aren't done.

Here's more problems. Location services off. Phone doesn't know how fast your going, therefore I can post my selfie to instagram and run over a schoolkid at the same time. Also, mobile data off doesn't stop people texting. Or going through a phonebook to make calls. I can't use google voice command now because I don't have poxy data as I'm driving over 5kph. Never mind passengers not being able to use their phones, commuters (over 100k in Dublin alone a day commute using public transport) now can't use a service they're paying for because of this ridiculous law.

eagle eye · 25-03-2019 04:02PM

Stetson Witty Poppycock wrote:

A certain level of distraction just has to be accepted as being part of driving otherwise we might as well just ban driving.

Why? I drive over 1000km most weeks. I keep my eyes on the road. I use music quite a bit but put it on before I start driving.
I have at least one close call per day, usually in urban areas, and a lit if the time it's to do with drivers using their phones.

Stetson Witty Poppycock wrote:

Operating the touch screen heating in many cars is no better and possibly worse than operating Spotify for example and very soon all manufacturers will have heating as a touch screen operation so itâ€™s very much the opposite direction things are going.

Touch screen is a big mistake. Pack in what you can on the steering wheel and forget the other stuff

Bobtheman · 25-03-2019 04:47PM

Tacklebox wrote: »

Gone are the days you hear one of the lads boasting about drink driving or being better drivers after a few pints.

I knew a few of those kind of lads, most ended up overturned, dead or off the road.

Absolute knobs to be honest, driving impaired.

Trying to name drop when they're caught.

The funniest one was some guy thinking they should have let him go when his car was 200m from his house.
Got into his car absolutely hammered turned the key and drove out of the carpark, blue lights and a siren.. caught

The idiot could have walked across the road, lived in Tola Park in Shannon.
It's across the road from the Shannon Knights bar.

Absolute knob.

Is that a true story?

25-03-2019 04:54PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Why? I drive over 1000km most weeks. I keep my eyes on the road. I use music quite a bit but put it on before I start driving.
I have at least one close call per day, usually in urban areas, and a lit if the time it's to do with drivers using their phones.

Because I change what I’m listening to often while driving. It can all be done through the cars radio without even looking at the phone. As I said I can also have messages read to me and respond again without touching the phone. Everyone takes their eyes of the road for a second here and there it’s nonsense to claim otherwise, it’s just part of driving.

eagle eye wrote: »

Touch screen is a big mistake. Pack in what you can on the steering wheel and forget the other stuff

Touch screen are brilliant in cars but personally I’d prefer heating controls kept to dials and buttons. I’ve driven some cars that the only way to control the heat is to cycle to the correct menu, find the correct touch buttons and press them you have to look at the acreen to do it. It won’t be long before all cars have all controls on the screen.

Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

Comments