Mad_Max wrote: » Personally I've not time for this argument. If you want to be a social 2-3 pint drinker, make plans to get home. end of. Driving is a priviledge and not a right. There limit should be 0 imo. and p.s. Who gives a sh*t about the pub industry in comparison to someones life.
Liam Byrne wrote: » You're entitled to your opinon, and it was well put, but how do you reckon the above ? For about 60% of the country, driving is a necessity, because there is no public transport whatsoever. Maybe that's not the case in Clondalkin, in which case yes, I'd agree that there's no excuse for not jumping on a Luas or Nightlink, but there is no alternative whatsoever in large areas of the country. And if those people are within the law and capable of driving home safely, there is no issue or added risk. As others have said, enforce and educate the existing laws.
starbelgrade wrote: » It's one thing enforcing & educating the existing laws, but driving to and from a pub is not a necessity if you live in rural areas. You can always choose not to go to the pub. Or walk.
lmimmfn wrote: » lol, so in my case when im at home i could walk 4 and a half miles to the pub and back again? Yes i could choose to go to the pub but i like to catch up with my mates. Again i could choose not to drink and a lot of the times i do just that however i do actually like the taste of my beer of choice and absolutely hate fizzy crap drinks like coke, in which case theres feck all with having 1 pint apart from bringing out a stupid law to prohibit it. Some tosser on a valium would be more likely to cause an accident than your average bloke on 1 pint.
starbelgrade wrote: » You quoted only my first paragraph. The other paragraphs I wrote do not only agree with what you are saying, but go a step futher. From one rural living beer drinker to another... cheers.. mine's a pint.
Idbatterim wrote: » 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.
Idbatterim wrote: » 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!
SeanW wrote: » Specifically, before we change the limit from .80 to .50 (or even lower :eek:) is it too much to ask for statistics re: how many accidents are caused by people driving with BACs between .50 and .80? How many people die on the roads because of such accidents?
Liam Byrne wrote: » You can if you're responsible and make the judgement before going out.
seamus wrote: » But you've already agreed that in particular circumstances a person could be tipsy after a single pint, which would impair their judgement, rendering any pre-judgement useless.
seamus wrote: » Besides, we don't make laws to catch out responsible people.
Liam Byrne wrote: » Maybe not, but we seem to implement our enforcement to hit those trying to abide by the rules harder.
vinylrules wrote: » This also implies that simply changing the legal DUI limit from 0.08% to 0.05% is insufficient with respect to alcohol-induced accidents as the potential reduction would be only about 4%.
I_am_Jebus wrote: » It was at least 24 hours before I was legally able to drive again. Even though, my judgement was perfectly fine.
The Federation said most drunk drivers involved in accidents were three or four times over the limit and pointed out that respected Donegal Coroner, Dr. John Madden, had publicly stated that he rarely came across accidents where people had between 50 and 80 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood.
They point to statements attributed to a Donegal Coroner who says that the vast majority of drink related deaths on our roads involve people with 100 to 150mg of alcohol in their blood – not 50mg. They also have rubbished claims that lowering the limit will save 18 lives a year. Instead they say that this is the latest installment from the anti-alcohol lobby which will criminalise people who want to have a social pint or two and drive home.
Mad_Max wrote: » So for up to 24 hours you were over a limit that has been shown to effect decision making? Then how can you be so sure your judgement was fine? I have a breathalyzer too and if I am over the limit I don't drive regardless of how long its been because by the law I'm still drunk. The only times I have been over the limit hte morning after (or had anything at all on me) is after a heavy/late session. Thats where the morning after argument loses me. As has been pointed out you can process 1 unit an hour so if you wakeup after a nights sleep and still are over the limit then you obviously had a hat full of drink the night before. If you need to drive the day after you're drinking heavily, then you have to make a choice between one or the other.
Mad_Max wrote: » My view on this would be that if you are caught breaking the law then no matter how unfair it is that the enforcement was out to get you, you still broke a law especially if it involves alcohol and driving.
Mad_Max wrote: » Again I would go back to my argument that a morning after driver who is still over the limit obviously had a heavy nights drinking.
How can it be seen as responsible to do that if you know you have to drive to work, or wherever, the next morning.
Being a responsible drinker/driver doesnt just mean leaving the car at home at night, its also remembering the next day.
Again just my personal opinion, even if it goes against what the experts and reports say.
seamus wrote: » For reasons I've already pointed out, such statistics would be of limited use because the impact is greater than simply removing that band of people from the fatalities. You would need to conduct a comprehensive survey of people - find out how many would drive on occasion with the current limit and how many of them will be knocking that on the head after the limit is lowered.
