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

Drink Driving Limits

Idbatterim

take a look at this artice! http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dempsey-in-nanny-state-showdown-on-drinkdriving-limits-1917582.html The backbenchers and anyone who opposes this are a disgrace! Greedy, self serving bast**ds. I enjoy a drink as much as the next man! but the amount of lives lost through drink driving, and for those that dont lose there lives, end up as vegetables, mamed etc is appalling! I really hope it gets lowered to 50mg.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mikemac

Ah FF, the publican party

When I opened the link I was expected to read about backbenchers in rural areas. You know, where there are 15 hackneys for 10,000 people and no buses at all

Last night, Dublin South East's Chris Andrews said the proposed changes were another step in turning Ireland into a "nanny state".

And the most outspoken TD represents Dublin South East?

A part of the country with some of the best public transport in the state!

Idbatterim

bring that Chris Andrews cu*t to the scene of a few accidents, bring him to the hospitals where people are recovering or dying, bring him to rehab, invite him to the funerals of the dead! Disgusting fu***ng subhuman!

Liam Byrne

Ah sure why not completely screw those who live in areas with zero public transport altogether......

I don't want to be attacked for appearing to condone drunk-driving; I don't; but two shandies / one pint is NOT going to make a difference to your driving, unless you're tired - in which case you shouldn't have been driving anyway.

And the point is that any accidents are caused by people who are ignoring the CURRENT rules, and the fact that rural Garda stations have been closed means that those people are driving around after 5 or 6 pints, no bother, and the rural roads are more dangerous as a result.

Basically, yet more headline-grabbing bull****; hitting the current law-abiders further while ignoring the actual issue and the actions required to fix the existing problem.

[Deleted User]

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah sure why not completely screw those who live in areas with zero public transport altogether......

I don't want to be attacked for appearing to condone drunk-driving; I don't; but two shandies / one pint is NOT going to make a difference to your driving, unless you're tired - in which case you shouldn't have been driving anyway.

And the point is that any accidents are caused by people who are ignoring the CURRENT rules, and the fact that rural Garda stations have been closed means that those people are driving around after 5 or 6 pints, no bother, and the rural roads are more dangerous as a result.

Basically, yet more headline-grabbing bull****; hitting the current law-abiders further while ignoring the actual issue and the actions required to fix the existing problem.

If you're only going to have one or two shandys or one pint, what is the point? Have a coke instead.

All having one pint does to anyone is gives them a hankering for one or two more. Which leads to idiotic decisions.

Liam Byrne

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

If you're only going to have one or two shandys or one pint, what is the point? Have a coke instead.

That is a ridiculous statement, to be honest. Not everyone goes out to get hammered. I've regularly gone out and had one or two (literally), and had a great night and went home.

I mean, extending that logic, what's the point in only having one meal ? I mean, if it tastes nice you might want a second.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

All having one pint does to anyone is gives them a hankering for one or two more.

Not necessarily.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Which leads to idiotic decisions.

Depends on the person. Personally my decision would be (a) leave the 3rd drink or (b) leave the car. And it's never let me down.

JonathanAnon

It's an issue of responsible driving, not with drink driving. If a person is tired, negligent or dangerously overtaking, then they are just as likely to cause an accident than someone who is drunk, which technically now is described as being over 80mgs.

To be honest I wish they would take the boy racer lot on. Saw an old woman nearly cleaned out by some muppet doing a handbrake turn coming round the trolley bay outside Tesco the other week. Although they were sober, they were gratuitously endangering other peoples lives. Not a guard in sight, yet two patrol cars had the time to tag my friend (who hasnt had a drink in six years) down to the same Tesco car park a few weeks ago.

Obviously everybody who is on the roads should
a) not be tired
b) not be drunk
c) be fully concentrating on the road (i.e. not using radio, phone etc)
d) not be driving excessively fast or dangerously (particularly overtaking)
e) be driving a perfectly working car.

But how many people driving to work today can honestly click off all five?

[Deleted User]

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That is a ridiculous statement, to be honest. Not everyone goes out to get hammered. I've regularly gone out and had one or two (literally), and had a great night and went home.

Would you not have had as good a night had you have not drank alcohol?
And if not, then it obviously had an effect on you mentally which would affect your driving.

JonathanAnon

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

If you're only going to have one or two shandys or one pint, what is the point? Have a coke instead.

I think this is something the anti drink driving brigade should look at.. I've drank Beck's N/A which is like something you would take out of the urinal in the mans jacks.. coke, lucozade, red bull, shandy etc etc rots your teeth and are VERY hard to sip away on while watching your friends haven a few pints. Personally I find it very hard to stomach that amount of sugar as well, and have trouble getting asleep after drinking them. And plus you get fleeced by the pub/nite club for the privilege.

seamus

I don't want to be attacked for appearing to condone drunk-driving; I don't; but two shandies / one pint is NOT going to make a difference to your driving, unless you're tired - in which case you shouldn't have been driving anyway.

Each case is so subjective that it's impossible to say that one pint won't make a difference. Inhale a pint of Guiness in ten minutes on an empty stomach, then hop into a car ten minutes later and tell me that you don't feel any different.

And the point is that any accidents are caused by people who are ignoring the CURRENT rules, and the fact that rural Garda stations have been closed means that those people are driving around after 5 or 6 pints, no bother, and the rural roads are more dangerous as a result.

The issue is not so much that people are ignoring the current rules, more that they either don't understand the current rules sufficiently to apply them, or think they're applying them when they're not.

That is, they have 4 pints over the course of three hours and assume they've broken it down enough so that they're grand (which they may be, to be fair). Or as I illustrate above, they throw one pint into them and assume they're fine. BAC is not a function of 1 pint = X BAC, even for a given individual. On any given day a single pint could put you over the 80mg, depending on a whole range of factors. The next day, two pints mightn't put you over the limit.

The point in applying such a low limit is to get it into people's heads that if you're planning on driving, don't drink. Simple as. Don't say one is OK, just don't do it. The reason it's not a zero limit is because a zero limit is easily challenged and defeated in court.

We need to challenge this societal nonsense that you can't be social if you're not drinking. What's wrong with a cup of tea or coffee in the pub? Well, there is one thing wrong with it - the publicans charge too much. Teh price of non-alcoholic drinks to the consumer should be capped with a fixed profit margin for the publican and zero-rated for VAT where sold in a licenced premises.

Idbatterim

I read that in most other EU countries that the limit is 50mg, Ireland currently has the highest, the EU recommends a level of 50mg! In countries which had an 80mg limit and subsequently lowered it to 50%, there was a substantial fall of in crashes and fatalities.

Liam Byrne

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Would you not have had as good a night had you have not drank alcohol?
And if not, then it obviously had an effect on you mentally which would affect your driving.

What's your point ? That the ONLY reason for drinking alcohol is to get pissed ? Nothing to do with, say, the taste ?

If you go for a meal, would you get as full if you ate a vegetarian meal, or a steak, or peanuts, or chocolate ? Then why go for a meal ? Why choose the steak ?

Nothing to do with the element of choice, where if you'd PREFER to have a particular lager or shandy than a coke ?

If you KNOW that you're awake/alert enough for it not to make a difference and stay within the law then you're NOT going increase your existing (because accidents do happen no matter what) chances of running anyone over.....

drunkmonkey

Idbatterim wrote: »

I really hope it gets lowered to 50mg.

I notice your location says Dublin:rolleyes:

Spare a thought for your country cousins, there is no public transport, would like us all to walk home on unlit roads in bad weather. That's more of a danger than 2 pints will ever be.

tbh, I'd like the limit to be set by the county councils. What's good for dublin isn't necessarly good for the rest of us.

Liam Byrne

seamus wrote: »

Each case is so subjective that it's impossible to say that one pint won't make a difference. Inhale a pint of Guiness in ten minutes on an empty stomach, then hop into a car ten minutes later and tell me that you don't feel any different.

Then don't drink on an empty stomach! Or when you're tired! Or whatever....I've already SAID this.

seamus wrote: »

The issue is not so much that people are ignoring the current rules, more that they either don't understand the current rules sufficiently to apply them, or think they're applying them when they're not.

That is, they have 4 pints over the course of three hours and assume they've broken it down enough so that they're grand (which they may be, to be fair).

Nothing I said above mentioned 4 pints, and I wouldn't view 4 pints as acceptable.

seamus wrote: »

The point in applying such a low limit is to get it into people's heads that if you're planning on driving, don't drink. Simple as. Don't say one is OK, just don't do it.

Instant closure of every pub in rural areas.

Look, my point is that before they make new laws and claim that they'll make ANY reduction, they should impose the existing ones.

You don't see a Government minister coming on-air and saying "well, because of our policies, we don't enforce the existing laws; but if we did, there would be a 50% reduction in road deaths".

seamus wrote: »

We need to challenge this societal nonsense that you can't be social if you're not drinking. What's wrong with a cup of tea or coffee in the pub? Well, there is one thing wrong with it - the publicans charge too much. Teh price of non-alcoholic drinks to the consumer should be capped with a fixed profit margin for the publican and zero-rated for VAT where sold in a licenced premises.

I'd agree with everything you said in that paragraph.

Liam Byrne

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I notice your location says Dublin:rolleyes:

Spare a thought for your country cousins, there is no public transport, would like us all to walk home on unlit roads in bad weather. That's more of a danger than 2 pints will ever be.

Great post and great points; even if your username is a bit ironic.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

tbh, I'd like the limit to be set by the county councils. What's good for dublin isn't necessarly good for the rest of us.

I'd see a nightmare issue with this, though, if someone was living near a county border and their "local" was in another county.

drunkmonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I wouldn't view 4 pints as acceptable.

I would if you take it nice and handy on the way home. No need for speed!

Liam Byrne

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I would if you take it nice and handy on the way home. No need for speed!

Doesn't matter. The 4 pints is definitely going to be over the limit, so it's illegal as well as pushing the boundaries.

murfie

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Doesn't matter. The 4 pints is definitely going to be over the limit, so it's illegal as well as pushing the boundaries.

Not necessarily, the avg person will process one alcoholic drink per hour. 4 pints over 4 hours, the avg person would not be over the limit. Other factors include food eaten, water drank between drinks which will allow the body to process better.

In my opinion the 80mgs limit is perfect. Its down to the individual to know their own limits and how much they are able to drink to be under this limit and OK to drive.

Mike 1972

tbh, I'd like the limit to be set by the county councils. What's good for dublin isn't necessarly good for the rest of us.

Are residents of Meath/Wicklow/Kildare somehow less suceptable to alcohol induced motor skill impairment than residents of County Dublin

starbelgrade

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The 4 pints is definitely going to be over the limit, .

Not strictly true. You could knock back 4 pints in a relatively short time, drive home & still pass a breath test. Breath testing can be quite unreliable when it comes to determining blood alcohol levels... for reasons such as;

- The temperature of the machine
- The body temperature of the person being breathalised
- incorrect calibrating of machines

.. amongst other factors.

drunkmonkey

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Are residents of Meath/Wicklow/Kildare somehow less suceptable to alcohol induced motor skill impairment than residents of County Dublin

Yea I'd say people in the country would be a lot better at drink driving, the dubs are good at feck all.

Overheal

So they want to bring it from 0.08% (shut up Im a yank) down to 0.05%.

That actually would put you on par with more countries than 80mg does. Mexico, the US, UK are the crazy folk. Even Germany (and they hold their drink better than any of us let it be said) has a 50mg law with Zero Tolerance for Learners, all drivers aged 18-21, and any new driver of >2 years.

I really dont see the problem with going to 50.

And the opposition is coming from the Finnicky Failures? Dont they wind up passing most Nanny State BS? Someone should really fill me in on that.

starbelgrade

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yea I'd say people in the country would be a lot better at drink driving, the dubs are good at feck all.

They're not bad at littering, in fairness.

Liam Byrne

starbelgrade wrote: »

Not strictly true. You could knock back 4 pints in a relatively short time, drive home & still pass a breath test. Breath testing can be quite unreliable when it comes to determining blood alcohol levels... for reasons such as;

- The temperature of the machine
- The body temperature of the person being breathalised
- incorrect calibrating of machines

.. amongst other factors.

Different issue; we're not talking about "getting away with it" (which you might if the machine calibrated was wrong) we're talking about being legal and safe to drive.

seamus

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then don't drink on an empty stomach! Or when you're tired! Or whatever....I've already SAID this.

Indeed, but is that not really the point? I hate to pull out this card, but if you already know what the right thing to do is, why are you worried about this law? It's not going to affect you, right? You can go on about nanny-statism, but if it's dangerous then people do need to be pulled into line. If you can get your hands on a breathalyser, do a little experiment and find out where the line is. See how pissed you feel at 80mg and you'll realise that it's not a place you'd want to get into a car at. Or that you'd want to have anyone else in a car at.

Look, my point is that before they make new laws and claim that they'll make ANY reduction, they should impose the existing ones.

You don't see a Government minister coming on-air and saying "well, because of our policies, we don't enforce the existing laws; but if we did, there would be a 50% reduction in road deaths".

I agree to a point. But altering public consciousness is far more effective than swarming the streets with Gardai to enforce the law. The smoking ban is a perfect example of the public keeping itself in line with minimum enforcement.
The 80mg limit provides wiggle room. It lets you have those two pints, which taste like more and lead to bad decisions. 50mg (theoretically) provides little to no wiggle room for drinking and driving and will make people think and avoid that first drink at all.

Remember that most people *want* to do the right thing, they don't have to be forced to do it. If the right thing is obeying the law, then most people will heed this limit and drink-driving figures will drop.

Liam Byrne

seamus wrote: »

The 80mg limit provides wiggle room. It lets you have those two pints, which might taste like more and can lead to bad decisions.

FYP.

People need to have a bit of cop-on. Outlawing and banning stuff is not the way to go. Two pints does not magically and automatically lead to 4; having 4 does not automatically lead to driving home, etc.

And like I said, they can quote all the studies that they like, but I would reckon that there are currently FAR more people driving over the 80mg than those between 50mg & 80mg, and those people are not being stopped or taken off the road.

So instead of saving 250 lives by going after those, they might save 5 by possibly catching the people who are barely drinking at all.

seamus wrote: »

Remember that most people *want* to do the right thing, they don't have to be forced to do it. If the right thing is obeying the law, then most people will heed this limit and drink-driving figures will drop.

Yes, and I'd view myself as one of those. And having done the right thing to date, I do not want to be criminalised.

But it's a rainy country, and the rural roads are dark, and the pub is a mile away, and there's no transport.

I can already see it happening; I'll be walking home after my single pint some night, and I'll be hit by someone who is over the the 80mg limit, unchallenged by non-existent rural Gardai.

It is an absolute joke!

Impose and educate THE EXISTING LAWS FIRST, and if the number of accidents goes down, maybe THEN look at the proper statistics of what would happen if they took it to zero.

I mean, I've already learned here that I was playing it TOO safe; instead of making sure I was under 2 pints, I could have had 3 or 4 ? Wow!

So maybe as a sensible drinker I'm already prepared for the new law.

But those who aren't - and haven't been caught to date - won't change in the slightest, while I'll be screwed if I'm 0.001% over this new limit......yes, it's a joke!

ednwireland

http://www.80mg.org.uk/limit.html

enforce whats there changing laws will not make any difference ( as this gov. has proved over and over again)

vinylrules

The Canadians did a comprehensive study on the effects of lowering BACs from 80mg to 50mgs - looking at most other countries who had already done it. You can read all 120 pages here:

http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_publications/BAC_Limits.pdf

If you can't be bothered - I've cut and pasted the main conclusions (with apoligies for the paragraph layout). It makes for interesting reading:

"..Indeed, simply having and enforcing a per se BAC limit is an efficient and effective means of dealing with the problem. The actual numerical value of the limit may be of relatively little importance compared to the policies, programs and procedures that have been implemented to support it.The function of a BAC limit may be to inform the public that the consumption of alcohol
beyond a certain point is considered illegal and dangerous when combined with driving.

The specific point at which driving after drinking crosses the line between acceptable
and unacceptable behaviour may be of relatively little consequence. This is because the
general public has only a very superficial understanding of the relationship between
alcohol consumption and BAC – particularly in terms of their own behaviour. Most do
not have access to facilities to measure their own BAC and, hence, must make the
decision about driving based on their own subjective assessment of the extent to which
alcohol has adversely affected their ability to operate a vehicle safely.

Merely knowing a limit exists – and that the limit is reasonable – may be sufficient to ensure that responsible citizens will attempt to comply with the law by drinking moderately and/or making alternative transportation arrangements.

Less responsible citizens – particularly heavy drinkers – have a tendency to make very poor decisions concerning driving after drinking. They don’t comply with the existing limit and are unlikely to change their behaviour in an attempt to comply with a new, lower limit. If so, a reduction in the legal BAC limit, in and of itself, would not be expected to have a substantial impact on the prevalence of impaired driving or alcohol-related crashes.

In conclusion, our critical review of the evaluation literature failed to provide strong,
consistent and unqualified support for lowering BAC limits. At best, the results are
mixed and the methodological weaknesses in the studies question the robustness and
veracity of the evidence."

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Two pints does not magically and automatically lead to 4; having 4 does not automatically lead to driving home, etc.

Its good to see that you can see the flaw in such generalisations, with the possible exception of the one that says one pint isn't going to effect anyone's driving except those who are tired.

And like I said, they can quote all the studies that they like, but I would reckon that there are currently FAR more people driving over the 80mg than those between 50mg & 80mg, and those people are not being stopped or taken off the road.

The notion that a change in a poorly-enforced law isn't going to change much is one I agree with.

The notion that quoting studies doesn't somehow help validate an argument, though, seems strangely counter-intuitive.

So instead of saving 250 lives by going after those, they might save 5 by possibly catching the people who are barely drinking at all.

Are this figures quoted from some study, or just made up to suit your argument?

One thing I would note that seems to pervade the conversation here is that people talk in terms of pints. Its logical enough, given that we're talking about Ireland...but as a counter-point, I'd offer my experience from the entire driving-qualification process here in Switzerland. Here, we were taught that a glass (3dl) is usually fine given the .05 limit....and maybe second, depending on a number of things.

So I had to smile when I saw the article saying that "one drink" would put people over the limit, when what I believe it actually meant was "one pint".

If you're having a beer because you enjoy a sociable beer...is having a glass instead of a pint such a tragedy?

murfie

bonkey wrote: »

So I had to smile when I saw the article saying that "one drink" would put people over the limit, when what I believe it actually meant was "one pint".

If you're having a beer because you enjoy a sociable beer...is having a glass instead of a pint such a tragedy?

I think the term one drink when taking in terms of BAC is generally accepted as:
1 – 12 oz. can/bottle of beer
1 – 4 oz. glass of wine
1 – mixed drink with 1 shot of liquor
1 – 1 ½ oz. liquor ( standard shot)
1 – 12 oz. bottle of wine cooler

For the avg 180Lb man it takes 5 12oz beers in 1 hour to reach a blood alcohol level of 0.08%.

Personally I know i can drive after 2 or 3 beers safely and under the legal limits.

ninty9er

If you have had alcohol of ANY kind in ANY measure then you should not be driving any time soon afterwards.

YOU may not think it affects your ability to drive, but the facts say otherwise.

Cop on and have a cup of tea or a MiWadi instead.