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

dvpower

vinylrules wrote: »

Here's another Aussie link re above post. Scroll down about half way and you'll find the info I've pasted below

http://www.afp.gov.au/act/drugs_alcohol/drink_driving.html

Drinking limits advice

To stay below 0.05 BAC, drivers are advised to limit their drinking to:
For men: No more than two standard drinks in the first hour and no more than one standard drink every hour after that.

For women: No more than one standard drink in the first hour and no more than one every hour after that.

This is a conservative estimate that is designed to minimise the risk of exceeding the legal limit to drive. Because everyone is different, some people need to drink less to maintain a BAC level below the legal limit. This guide is based on advice from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

But the social fabric of the country will break down if rural ould fellas are limited to just two pints over the course of 3 hours.

Liam Byrne

dvpower wrote: »

But the social fabric of the country will break down if rural ould fellas are limited to just two pints over the course of 3 hours.

No more than two standard drinks in the first hour and no more than one standard drink every hour after that.

So - according to that - 3 hours would be 2 + 1 + 1 = 4 pints ? Or is the "one standard drink" a half-pint ?

Then again - like I said - drinking shouldn't be about legal limits and rules - it should be about commonsense, too.

vinylrules

T runner wrote: »

But is it not the Nanny state mentality amonst the population that people need to be told what 50mg means in this detail?

If you want to drink and drive, find out what it means. Dont start complaining that nanny wont tell you. People demand that the government does everything for tem and complain about a nanny state when this doesnt happen.

2 pints is likely to put you over the limit BTW

T runner, the Australian Governement and police have let their population know exactly how to stay below 0.5mg. I posted these earlier but here they are again below. These are conservative estimates and it's possible that some people can drink more and stay under the limit. I'm not advising it by the way - but given the back benchers revolt we have to presume that plenty of people in rural areas are having a couple of pints and driving home. If they're complying with the law there is nothing that can be done.

A typical Irish rural scenario might go something like this.

Man sips two pints in his local over a couple of hours...gets into his car and a few miles down the road meets a garda checkpoint. He blows into the road-side breathaliser and it comes up with a warning, Garda decides to arrest him and takes him to the nearest station with an Intoxilser evidential breathalizer ( this station is a 15 minute drive away). Now, this man has to be observed for 20 minutes by a Garda (I think it's called the nil-by-mouth rule - to ensure removal of any mouth alcohol) It's now about 45 mintues since he finished his second pint. He's had 2 hours and 45 minutes to absorb and eliminate alcohol. He blows twice into machine and is given the lowest reading with 17.5% reduced to allow for metabolsim rate. His reading is 3mg. Now, he knows that drinking two pints will keep him within the limits and he sticks to that rule. If he meets the same garda again and the same thing happens he will probably have good reason to make a complaint for unlawful harrassment.

Interesting article in yesterdays Herald by a Counsellor: http://www.herald.ie/opinion/why-i-believe-dempsey-is-wrong-to-ever-try-to-outlaw-people-having-one-drink-and-driving-1921367.html

http://www.afp.gov.au/act/drugs_alcohol/drink_driving.html

Drinking limits advice

To stay below 0.05 BAC, drivers are advised to limit their drinking to:

For men: No more than two standard drinks in the first hour and no more than one standard drink every hour after that.
For women: No more than one standard drink in the first hour and no more than one every hour after that.

This is a conservative estimate that is designed to minimise the risk of exceeding the legal limit to drive. Because everyone is different, some people need to drink less to maintain a BAC level below the legal limit. This guide is based on advice from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Do not drive if there is any doubt.

vinylrules

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No more than two standard drinks in the first hour and no more than one standard drink every hour after that.

So - according to that - 3 hours would be 2 + 1 + 1 = 4 pints ? Or is the "one standard drink" a half-pint ?

Then again - like I said - drinking shouldn't be about legal limits and rules - it should be about commonsense, too.

Oops - someone has already re-posted the Aussie guidelines.
Liam - a standard drink is a half pint - so it would be a pint for the first hour and a half pint per hour after that...but these are worst case scenarios, on empty stomach etc, so as I say some people could drink more.

Does anyone remember the Late Late Show many years ago where at the start, a group of people backstage started drinking - at the end of the show two and a half hours later their BAC was measured. One bloke had three or four pints and was well below the 80mg limit!

T runner

vinylrules wrote: »

I've read this report in detail. Please bear in mind that the RSA failed to control for

(a) the global risk for accidents - ie the fact that some so-called alcohol related accidents would have happened anyway. A careless, reckless, speeding driver is a danger whether he has low levels of alcohol or none at all.

(b) the fact that some of the those low alcohol levels would also have involved drugs (having a couple of tabs of something, a snort of coke and a pint or two is a lethal cocktail - greater than the sum of its parts but since the above report just examined alcohol, excluding other substances, such an accident would come under the heading of a low BAC fatality,

(c) the report failed to establish blame in an accident e.g a sober driver runs a red light and smashes into a car with a driver with a glass of wine or a pint onboard, killing both. We all know who caused this crash but it will be written up in the report as "two alcohol related road fatalities."
another example - an elderly, sober driver has a heart attack and mows into a bus stop killing two blokes who've had a few pints - more alcohol related deaths but no drink driving!

Problem is - the RSA is still using those statistics, they are about as useful as property prices for 2003! Since then we've had a whole raft of laws, Random Breath Testing, more penalty points, tougher sentences etc.

Thanks for the site.

Your last sentence is a large generalisation about those statistics. People still behave the exact same way when they get behind the wheel with alcohol on them whether it is now or in 2003.

A couple of things you didnt mention:

Half the a accidents were in single vehicle cars which reduces the scope considerably of your "it was the sober drivers fault theory".

The average BAC was 97 mg just slightly over the legal limit. This banishes the myth that legless drivers are responsible for most car deaths.

It is the drivers after who after a couple of pints think that they can drive safely who are responsible for most of the carnage.

The following section from another report on that site shows clearly why this is the case. It is also worth noting that a lot of people on thsi site clearly believe that they can handle a couple of pints and drive correctly. PLease have a good, honest read of this report.

Also if you look at the Link you will see an eccellent graph spreading the number of car fatalaties in the US by the amount of drink taken. Very few fatalities caused by large amounts being taken. The vast majority around the current limit by these "confident" drivers feeling good after a couple of pints but not with the capacity anymore to notice the changes to their alertness, motor skills reaction and lack of peripheral concentration (ie mowing down pedestrians).

In April 2000, Professor H. Moskowitz 7 and Dary Fiorentino, published a review of
112 scientific studies into the Effects of Low Doses of Alcohol on Driving Related
Skills.

Their study reveals that at under 1/8 of our legal limit both basic Driving Skills and Divided. Attention ability were found to be impaired in half or more of the behavioural tests. The ability to divide attention between different sources of information on the road is a crucial requirement of safe driving – and this ability starts to be impaired at the lowest doses of alcohol. The evidence is that impaired drivers tend to focus more on steering when Divided Attention ability is affected – and thus they miss out on vital happenings in their peripheral field of vision9 - the child about to cross the road, the truck emerging from a side road, the danger round the next bend which would be quickly spotted and assessed when sober.

GivenBetween 1/8th and ¼ of our legal limit, impairment of Wakefulness was found in half or more of the tests, producing Drowsiness in impaired drivers at low BAC levels....
Research has shown that the complete impact of a road crash is over in one fifth of a second - which is why a millisecond’s doze at the wheel due to drowsiness caused by a low intake of alcohol, can have such fatal and tragic consequences....But drowsiness is not the only impairment found at under ¼ of our legal limit. Impairment was also found at this low BAC level for Psychomotor Skills (for instance body balance and skilled physical tasks); for Tracking (for instance steering within lane limits while monitoring the driving environment); and for Cognitive Tasks (information processing, such as the time a driver needs to read a street sign or recognise and respond to a traffic signal, or make a decision).
The impairment of Information Processing skills at low BAC levels takes us to one of the greatest dangers of the first drink’s effect upon driving ability.
Alcohol impairs sensible decision-making.15 It distorts our ability to process information and therefore impairs our ability to assess our own competence to drive.16 After a drink, you may not feel intoxicated and may believe you can drive safely. 17 This is due to impairment of your brain’s cognitive processing capability. As Forensic Physician Dr
Morris Odell puts it:
“The problem is that most people feel fine at low blood alcohol levels, so they
don’t realise they’re already at risk.”18
This is why the decision to take the first drink, when intending to drive, can be the fatal decision – because it leads to a downward spiral of impaired decisions to have one
more, then another, then another.

At under 1/3 of our legal limit both Visual Functions (including the brain’s control of the eyes) and Choice Reaction Time (multiple responses involving information processing as well as simple reaction time) were beginning to show impairment.

At under 1/2 of our legal limit Vigilance (including alertness) was impaired in half or more of the scientific tests – and Perception skills (including hazard perception) were beginning to show impairment.

By 3/5 of our legal limit both Perception skills and Visual Functions were impaired in half or more of the scientific tests. By 3/4 of our legal limit Tracking skills were impaired in half or more of the tests.
And by 4/5 of our legal limit half or more of the tests were showing impairment in
Cognitive Tasks, Psychomotor Skills and Choice Reaction Time.

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Going for 2 pints is a decent status quo.

THis is really what it boils down to, Liam.

You are used to going out for 2 pints, or having the equivalent with a meal out. For you, its a reasonable status quo.
Others, who have no issues with having non-alcoholic beverages, or just a half-pint, would see a drastically lower level as little of an issue...and the reduction from 80 to 50 as no issue at all.

I'm (ironically) reminded of the smoking ban. Some smokers looked on it with the "how does it effect me" goggles and were outraged. Others looked on it as "how does this effect everyone" and supported the idea. Over time, some of those who've been outraged have turned into supporters....and I would say that they outnumber any who originally supported it and are now outraged.

but the fact is that the current law is adequate and still permits a social life.

Unless you're equating a certain level of alcohol consumption with "social life", this line of argumentation is completely false.

It's not that simple, and you know it. The risk between 80 and 100 is obviously greater, so it wouldn't "just" be 18;

How is it "obviously" greater?

I'd like to refer you back to the question I asked, where I said we'd pick 100 on the assumption that 80-to-100 had the same increase in death-toll as 50-80 did.

Even if you ignore that...I'd still ask...how is it obviously greater? The only reason its obvious is because the more alcohol in your system, the greater the risk....which is as true between 50 and 80 as it is between 80 and 100.

secondly, I wouldn't drive with more than 3 drinks in a few hours because I know that I wouldn't be safe.

Which, once again, brings us back to the notion that you're defining an acceptable law based on what is suitable for you, personally. You would be fine with 2 (or, at least, you believe so), but not 3. Therefore, the law should allow you 2. It doesn't need to allow 3 for those who'd be fine with 3...because you aren't amongst those. It doesn't need to allow for only 1, for those who wouldn't be fine with 2....because that would impact you.

So - speaking as an average person - the law is accurate.

What basis have you used to determine your adequacy?

my point is that if the law - the speed limits, etc, were enforced - combined with people being responsible - then the total could easily be reduced. The fact that this is not done means that any suggestion that a new / changed law is "for safety reasons" is, quite frankly, bull.

I woudl argue that the two are somewhat unrelated.

I agree entirely that laws should be properly enforced, and that people should be encouraged (and even enticed) to be responsible...but that this doesn't mean that we can't also improve our laws.

In fact, I would go so far as to argue that the two approaches will effect almost exclusive sets of people. One will effect responsible people who already take the approach of "my limit or the law, whichever is more restrictive". The other will effect people who treat the law only as something you get caught for breaking, and who follow it only when the cost/risk is sufficient.

So without assuming this law is an improvement, I would maintain that the line of "enforce first" reasoning is irrelevant. We should both enforce our laws and seek to improve them. The question is whether or not a reduction to 50 is an improvement.

So far, the only real argument against it appears to be that it would hamper some section of the populace from enjoying themselves in the manner they are accustomed to...for questionable benefits.

Again, I agree, but why did you put in the caveat about facilities?

Because in a rural area, there cannot be pedestian crossings every couple of hundred meters (or less). Its simply not practical. However, one cannot rule out the occasional pedestrian on such roads.

The notion I proposed is that in housing areas, you have th ehighest probability of pedestrians running out on the road. You give them right of way, and limit the car-speed.

In urban and suburban areas, you ensure frequently-spaced pedestrian crossings, and enforce a road-culture that says pedestrians will be penalised for not using these, and vehicles will be penalised for ignoring them.

In rural areas, you allow for pedestrians by requiring that cars give them a certain clearance on the road, and by requiring that the pedestrians do not attempt to cross in the presence of traffic or in areas of poor visibility.

So in rural areas, you don't have the facilities to enforce where they may or may not be crossing a road....but you do have the ability to define how everyone should behave in a manner which is suitable.

And this is precisely the issue - there is no public transport in rural areas.

I don't agree that this is "precisely" the issue at all....because it suggests that a certain level of safety towards others plays second fiddle to some notion of a "right" to consume alcohol in a social environment and drive a vehicle whilst still under the influence of alcohol.

the fact that you included it proves my point; if there were no facilities you would be seriously inconvenienced

Are you suggesting that it would be a serious[/i] inconvenience for someone to be told they had to drink less then they were used to?

If not, then I'm not proving your point at all, Liam.

T runner

vinylrules wrote: »

Oops - someone has already re-posted the Aussie guidelines.
Liam - a standard drink is a half pint - so it would be a pint for the first hour and a half pint per hour after that...but these are worst case scenarios, on empty stomach etc, so as I say some people could drink more.

Does anyone remember the Late Late Show many years ago where at the start, a group of people backstage started drinking - at the end of the show two and a half hours later their BAC was measured. One bloke had three or four pints and was well below the 80mg limit!

Wow! was there anyone above it? So almost everyone is starting to agree that 50mg is more appropriate than 80mg. The discussion is now how much drink constituttes 50 mg.

murfie

T runner wrote: »

Also if you look at the Link you will see an eccellent graph spreading the number of car fatalaties in the US by the amount of drink taken. Very few fatalities caused by large amounts being taken. The vast majority around the current limit by these "confident" drivers feeling good after a couple of pints but not with the capacity anymore to notice the changes to their alertness, motor skills reaction and lack of peripheral concentration (ie mowing down pedestrians).

Nice report, my question is though whats the increase in fatal accidents from drivers with a BAC up to the limit and drivers with a zero BAC. This figure is crucial if you want to prove that lowering the legal limit is justified.

vinylrules

T runner wrote: »

Wow! was there anyone above it?

I think there was one female just above the limit after three vodka and cokes or something like that. Thanks by the way for the links you posted above. I'm very familiar with all that research - some of it is a bit dramatic to be honest and much of it has been carried out on simulators rather than real driving conditions. And I note that at the various levels he said "half of those were impaired" meaning presumably that the other half weren't impaired. I'm searching for the research where slightly increased impairment didn't translate into accidents - will post link when I find it.

I had to smile when he said "alchol results in poor decision making," which might well be true But I met my wife in a pub 20 years ago after having a few and it was one of the few good decisions I've ever made!

Getting back to the main topic A driver with say a couple of pints on board is fully aware that he might be slighty impaired, so he reduces his speed by about 10k - wouldn't that compensate for his impairment? In other words - a slighty impaired driver at 50k might have the same reaction time as a sober driver at 60k? I think there is evidence that a lot of drivers at low levels of alcohol "take her easy" on the way home accounting for the "Borkenstein Dip" or "Grand Rapids dip" whch found drivers up to 40mg had lower accident rates than drivers at zero.

Incidentally, I haven't seen it posted anywhere but this time last year the UK government decided not to lower their limits and there was very little fuss about it The UK is in the top three for road safety. Once again, it's not all about limits When our fatality rate at the end of this year turns out to be the lowest ever by a long margin this whole fuss may be turn out to be the biggest red herring we have seen in recent times

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7654272.stm

bridgitt

The limits should not be lowered. If they are, lower them for under thirties or under 35s as they do in California I think. Middle aged people tend to drive carefully after one or two drinks at the local. Its young people speeding and drunk driving who cause the accidents - not all of which are accidents either, unfortunately. I am well able to drive after one bacardi and coke and I was breathalised once and was ok. I do not condone people driving if over the limit of 80mg.

squonk

vinylrules wrote: »

Compare that with leaving a pub in a country village - where you can probably drive at 80k or even 100k on a narrow, un-lit, badly marked, winding road with high hedges, ditches or stone walls either side. Yes Dublin roads are much safer than rural roads - which is presumably why this weekend the Gardai are targetting Dublin for their major enforcement campaign!!!

The difference is though that people driving to their local in the country know the roads very well. They know the dangerous spots and while they could do 80, they wouldn't. It'd be more like 50 or thereabouts.

That doesn't say there'll always be one eejit speeding or driving back from a pub miles away where he wouldn't be as familiar with the roads. In general though the average journey is about a mile or two at the most.

T runner

vinylrules wrote: »

Thanks by the way for the links you posted above. I'm very familiar with all that research - some of it is a bit dramatic to be honest and much of it has been carried out on simulators rather than real driving conditions.

Has to be simulators for safety purposes. But if your reactions are affected in a simulator when drinking they will be affected on the road.

And I note that at the various levels he said "half of those were impaired" meaning presumably that the other half weren't impaired.

"basic Driving Skills and divided attention ability were found to be impaired in half or more of the behavioural tests. "

This is quote is for drivers at or below one quarter of legal limit (20mg)

I'm searching for the research where slightly increased impairment didn't translate into accidents - will post link when I find it.

The graph on the Link I posted seems to show a steady increase in deaths from 10 mg up with most jsut above the limit at say the 2.5-3 pint range.

I had to smile when he said "alchol results in poor decision making," which might well be true But I met my wife in a pub 20 years ago after having a few and it was one of the few good decisions I've ever made!

Glad to hear it and good for you! That said there may have been a few you met before your wife after a few that might go on the bad decision side!

Getting back to the main topic A driver with say a couple of pints on board is fully aware that he might be slighty impaired,

Alcohol impairs sensible decision-making. It distorts our ability to process information and therefore impairs our ability to assess our own competence to drive After a drink, you may not feel intoxicated and may believe you can drive safely. This is due to impairment of your brain’s cognitive processing capability. As Forensic Physician Dr
Morris Odell puts it:
“The problem is that most people feel fine at low blood alcohol levels, so they
don’t realise they’re already at risk.”
This is why the decision to take the first drink, when intending to drive, can be the fatal decision – because it leads to a downward spiral of impaired decisions

so he reduces his speed by about 10k - wouldn't that compensate for his impairment? In other words - a slighty impaired driver at 50k might have the same reaction time as a sober driver at 60k?

He probably wouldnt reduce his speed for the reasons above but even if it did it would not compensate. A driver with even 20mg on him gets tunnel visioned. He cant concentrate on things on his periphary. So to see things to his side he must look there. He will not notice them when concentrating on the road. If he is aware he is drunk and has slowed all that this will do will give him a fraction extra of a second to swerve and miss that obscured parked car-or pedestrian or lesson the damage slightly after impact (unless he hits a pedestrian obviously).

And to be honest we both know that if drink is affecting you enough that you are conciously tryng to be careful you shouldnt be behind that wheel.

Once again, it's not all about limits When our fatality rate at the end of this year turns out to be the lowest ever by a long margin this whole fuss may be turn out to be the biggest red herring we have seen in recent times

If the fatality rate reductions turns out to be as a result of a lower percentage of alcohol related deaths then targetting alcohol related accidents should be pursued.

The average amount of alcohol for a killed driver is just above the current limit. This might mean that drink drivers are flirting with the limit: trying to get away with as much taken as possible. This unfortunately coincides with the most most dangerous level: where the driver confidently feels fine to drive but actually is not.
After the legislation 2 pints is now a risky amount, therefore the average for fatalities in this graph will move closer to the 50mg amount with an ensuing saving of lives.
The most dangerous amount of alcohol ofcourse, will remain at the 2-3 pint mark.

T runner

bridgitt wrote: »

The limits should not be lowered. If they are, lower them for under thirties or under 35s as they do in California I think. Middle aged people tend to drive carefully after one or two drinks at the local. Its young people speeding and drunk driving who cause the accidents - not all of which are accidents either, unfortunately. I am well able to drive after one bacardi and coke and I was breathalised once and was ok. I do not condone people driving if over the limit of 80mg.

Your periphary vision and motor controls affected by drink do not improve no matter how slow (ie careful for someone with drink on them). It means in effect you will hit the object or pedestrian at 10 kph slower which wont make any difference: well to the pedestrian at least.

Most people in Ireland are killed at just above the legal limit where the driver thinks he is fine but is not.

Very few deaths are caused by legless drivers compared to drivers after 2-3 pints.

T runner

murfie wrote: »

Nice report, my question is though whats the increase in fatal accidents from drivers with a BAC up to the limit and drivers with a zero BAC. This figure is crucial if you want to prove that lowering the legal limit is justified.

Might help to look at it this way. 110 deaths related to alcohol in Ireland in 2003 ie 35% of total. About 205 non-drink related fatalities.

What % of journeys are made with alcohol in the system? We are taking driving to work, shopping dropping kids off every type of journey. What % of total motor journeys is made with someone with drink on them?

2% is probably high but lets take 2%. That means that (35/2 =14.5) you are 14.5 times more likely to be involved in a fatl accident with drink taken.

Now 13 was the figure from that report in the 50-80 mg range. (sblood sample taken from the corpses of the dead drivers).

How many percentage of "drunk" journeys are made with this amount of alcohol? 33% is generous again. So (33% of 2%

.66% of ALL motor journeys are made by drivers in the 50-80 mg range. This accounts for (13/330=) 3.5% of all road deaths. So a driver in the 50-80 mg range is (3.5%/.66%=) 5-6 times more likely to be involved in a road death than the average user.

The average user includes drunk users, taking this group out (another third ot total) means that a person with 50-80 grams is about 10 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than someone who is sober.

I think I have been conservatime in the estimations and these are crude figures but hopefully you see the point. The effect of alcohol on chances of road fatality is huge (35%) and drinkers in the 50-80 range account for a signicant amount of the death tole for their tiny minority of total traffic.

Villain

Villain wrote: »

IMO what should happen is the following:

Limit is reduced to 20mg for all Provisional Drivers and Professional Drivers (Taxi Drivers etc)

Gardai setup 5 times as many checks as compared to last year with 70% of those checks been setup after 11pm and before 5am

The General Limt is lowered to 50 mg in 2013 if there hasn't been a further 10% reduction in Road Deaths over the next 2 years

Rural transports schemes are setup to part fund transport in areas with the publicans funding 50% of the cost and each service must service at least 3 pubs and a 40 mile radius

no comments on the ideas??

doc_17

if i have 5 pints and go to bed at 12, when will I be legally allowed to drive again? It's bull.

vinylrules

T runner wrote: »

The average amount of alcohol for a killed driver is just above the current limit. This might mean that drink drivers are flirting with the limit: trying to get away with as much taken as possible. This unfortunately coincides with the most most dangerous level: where the driver confidently feels fine to drive but actually is not.

The most dangerous amount of alcohol of course, will remain at the 2-3 pint mark.

Aren't average BAC levels for killed drivers meaningless in the sense that most drivers are well over the limit - some two and three times the limit. Doesn't using the average figure for all drivers have the effect of driving down the most severe cases to a much lower level thus giving the impression that more drivers with two or three pints were killed than actually were in that range? I'm no statistiction but I've always found average figures to be misused. If for example this weekend a minibus with 8 pensioners on board, and a minibus with 8 children crashed, killing everyone. Wouldn't the average age of all those killed be something like 45? - What does that tell us - that people aged 45 are the ones at risk?

Isn't that why we use average day-time temperatures and average night-time temperatures when looking at forecasts. Using the average for the entire 24 hours would of course have the effect of making the days cooler and the nights much warmer! It would tell us nothing about the weather we might expect in our holiday destination

Let's say this weekend four drivers were killed with a BAC of 200mg and four drivers killed with a BAC of 50mg. The average BAC of those killed would be 125mg - which is well over the current legal limit, even though half of those killed were well under the limit

It's a bit like those average public sector pay levels - which I imagine are brought way up by those at the very top of the scale!

Anyway - time for a pint! Will check in again tomorrow!

Mad_Max

doc_17 wrote: »

if i have 5 pints and go to bed at 12, when will I be legally allowed to drive again? It's bull.

Most likely by the time you wake up.

Princess Zelda

I don't think the issue that should be examined by the government should be the lowering of drink driving limits, it should be a radical overhaul of the current legislation. Currently I believe the conviction rate once it gets to the courts is about 40%. Convictions on drink driving will affect a lot of people's livelyhood, so these cases are heavily contested, and some do get thrown out on technicalities. I believe that the current penalties ought to be changed i.e that there should be a lesser ban / penalty points if the person pleads guilty from the outset. Also I believe that just over the drink driving limit should be dealt with through issuing of penalty points - enough of a deterrent to most people without affecting their livelyhood

Vintagekits

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.

How many deaths are caused by people who are between the proposed drink driving limited and less than the current drink driving limited?

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

Might help to look at it this way. 110 deaths related to alcohol in Ireland in 2003 ie 35% of total.

2% is probably high but lets take 2%. That means that (35/2 =14.5) you are 14.5 times more likely to be involved in a fatl accident with drink taken.

Major flaw in that calculation!

If you're saying that 2% of accidents have the minimum level of alcohol, then that's 2% of (110+205) which is 6 accidents.

205 with no alcohol
6 with some alcohol

So you've increased your chances of having an accident by 3%. So you are 1.03 times more likely to have be involved in a fatal accident with the minimum of drink taken.

vinylrules

T runner wrote: »

Most people in Ireland are killed at just above the legal limit where the driver thinks he is fine but is not.

Very few deaths are caused by legless drivers compared to drivers after 2-3 pints.

Don't know how you can come to this conclusion based on the RSA figures. Have a look again at the report from 2003
http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/Alcohol%20In%20Fatal%20Road%20Crashes%20in%20Ireland%202003.pdf?PHPSESSID=e33adc55c3a88bafa57e927158e223b0

Now look at table 5 (page 13) on the first two columns "Killed Drivers" and you will see that 14 killed drivers were below the legal limit and 64 were above the legal limit - quite a contrast - the vast majority above the limit.

Now, how much above the limit were they? You suggest not much above but scroll down to page 18, table 9. and you will see that only 8 drivers were killed between 50 and 80 (our current and possibly new limit) but 48 (31 + 17) were more than twice the limit.
There is no other way of intrepreting this - the vast majority of drivers killed were indeed "legless" .

Another way of looking at it - 18 drivers (4+6+8) killed in the various ranges below the limit but 61 (13+31+17) over the limit with the highest number within that range - 31 - at twice the legal limit.

(By the way you will note that there is a slight discrepency between the figures on table 5 and table 9 which I can't explain. RSA figures are not always reliable it seems.)

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Major flaw in that calculation!

If you're saying that 2% of accidents have the minimum level of alcohol, then that's 2% of (110+205) which is 6 accidents.

205 with no alcohol
6 with some alcohol

So you've increased your chances of having an accident by 3%. So you are 1.03 times more likely to have be involved in a fatal accident with the minimum of drink taken.

Im not saying that. Please read my text more carefully:

2% of all motor journeys are driven by someone who has taken alcohol.
That means if you counted every car that passed by a particular point in street over 24 hours, that one in fifty cars would be driven by someone who had taken a drink (at least). That is 20%. My estimation if you think its higher no problem. This 2% are responsible for 35% of all road fatalities (in 2003) therefore you are 35/2=14.5 times more likely to die driving if you have drink in you.

If you say one third of all drivers with drink on them are in the 50-80mg range (this is generous). Then they account for one third of 2% or .66% of all drivers. The amount of deaths in this range is 13 which is 3.5 % of all deaths.

So .66% of drivers in this category are responsible for 3.5% of total deaths. Therfore 6 times more likely than the average driver and comparing it to the sober driver figure amout 10 times more likely.

ninty9er

vinylrules wrote: »

Actually, the experts also say that your body eliminates one standard drink per hour (some people eliminate it even quicker). Therefore someone having a glass of wine with a meal and driving, say an hour and a half later, has zero alcohol in their system. Zero alcohol = no drink driving , which means no impairment.

Actually, the experts say the liver eliminates one standard drink per hour. That doesn't mean it suddenly disappears from your system.

vinylrules

ninty9er wrote: »

Actually, the experts say the liver eliminates one standard drink per hour. That doesn't mean it suddenly disappears from your system.

It does actually "disappear" from your system - not suddenly - but at the rate of one standard drink per hour for the average person. It turns into C02 and water - apparently. Plenty of info online about it but here's one explanation

http://www.mydr.com.au/gastrointestinal-health/liver-and-alcohol-breakdown

What happens after I drink alcohol?

After you swallow an alcoholic drink, about 25 per cent of the alcohol is absorbed straight from your stomach into the bloodstream. The rest is mostly absorbed from your small bowel. How quickly you absorb the alcohol depends on several factors, including:

the concentration of alcohol in your drink (drinks with a higher alcohol concentration are generally absorbed faster);
whether your drink is carbonated (champagne, for example, is absorbed more quickly than non-sparkling drinks); and
whether your stomach is full or empty (food slows down the absorption of alcohol).

Once alcohol has entered your bloodstream it remains in your body until it is processed. About 90-98 per cent of alcohol that you drink is broken down in your liver. The other 2-10 per cent of alcohol is removed in your urine, breathed out through your lungs or excreted in your sweat.
The average person will take about an hour to process 10 grams of alcohol, which is the amount of alcohol in a standard drink. So if you drink alcohol faster than your body can process it, your blood alcohol level will continue to rise.
How does my liver process the alcohol?

There are 2 ways that alcohol can be processed by your liver. Most alcohol is broken down, or metabolised, by an enzyme in your liver cells known as alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH). ADH breaks down alcohol into acetaldehyde, and then another enzyme, aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), rapidly breaks down acetaldehyde into acetate. The acetate is further metabolised, and eventually leaves your body as carbon dioxide and water.

vinylrules

T runner wrote: »

. This 2% are responsible for 35% of all road fatalities (in 2003) .

T runner - the 35% figure for 2003 (it's actually 36.5% ) is the "alcohol related" figure - which also includes pedestrians (7%) who died with alcohol in them.

The driver alcohol figure is 27.5%, not 35%. This "alcohol-related" term is very misleading and is used deliberately by road safety campaingers world wide to make the situation appear worse than it is, to justify ever-tougher laws. In the US they even include passenger alcohol stats. So, in other words, if two designated drivers each with three passengers with alcohol taken, had a head-on collision killing everyone, it would be written up as 8 alcohol-related deaths even though there was no drink driving involved. It's outragous that figures are abused in this way - Pat Kenny alluded to this on his radio show during the week.

Anyone of us with an interest in this subject should read below (sorry, it's a bit long - there goes your Satuday night! But it's a highly-regarded and oft-quoted study) if you don't want to read it all I've highlighted the conclusions at the end - it backs up my own feeling and that of many others that enforcing the current limits is the best way forward.

Grand Rapids Effects Revisited: Accidents, Alcohol and Risk

H.-P. Krüger, J. Kazenwadel and M. Vollrath

Center for Traffic Sciences, University of Wuerzburg, Röntgenring 11, D-97070 Würzburg, Germany

In 1964, Borkenstein et al. presented the well-known risk function for drivers responsible for causing an accident, which was one basic argument for setting BAC limits in different countries (for example, Germany). Figure 1 shows this risk function compared with the function computed from the Accident Study (both functions were smoothed). The shape as well as the magnitude of the functions are very similar. For drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) up to 0.04%, the alcohol-related accident risk is nearly identical to or even less than that for sober drivers. Both studies found that, for drivers at BACs ranging from 0.14% to 0.16%, the accident risk is about 25 times as high as it is for sober drivers. However, for nearly all BACs, the 1994 alcohol-related accident risk in Germany was greater than in 1964, a finding that may be a function of today's more complex traffic situations, which in combination with alcohol cannot be handled adequately anymore. At BACs greater than 0.14%, the deteriorating effects of the intoxication may be so great as to make the differences in traffic conditions irrelevant

Although drivers under the influence of alcohol are obviously at a greater relative risk than unintoxicated drivers, the magnitude of the risk to the larger community attributable to the presence of intoxicated drivers remains an unanswered question. In the German Roadside Survey, only 5.5% of all drivers were found to have BACs greater than 0. Thus, drivers in Germany are exposed to the increased accident risk due to DUI in only 5.5% of their trips (this statement is valid because of the representative weighting procedure described above). By combining the information about the distribution of exposure (DUI) with the estimate of alcohol-related accident risk, one can determine the degree to which accidents can be explained by DUI. This question is adressed by the measure of the attributable risk (for an overview, see Breslow & Day, 1980; Kahn & Sempos, 1989). The basic idea of attributable risk is that some of the accidents involving intoxicated drivers are not due to the effects of alcohol but are the result of the global accident risk also present for sober drivers. This means that the number of accidents involving intoxicated drivers is adjusted to allow for this global accident risk, yielding an excess number of accidents which are attributable to the effects of alcohol.
There are two definitions of attributable risk (AR), addressing two different aspects: (1) The attributable risk for exposed persons (Cole & MacMahon, 1971) renders an estimate of the proportion of all accidents with intoxicated drivers that is attributable to the effects of alcohol. (2) The attributable risk for the population (first described by Levin, 1953) renders an estimate of the proportion of all accidents (including those with sober drivers) that is due to the effects of alcohol.
To compute these ARs, we chose the BAC classes given in Table 1. The first column shows the number of drivers from the German Roadside Survey according to BAC class, and the second column the number of drivers from the accident study. The first step in computing the number of accident-involved drivers within each BAC class attributable to the effects of alcohol (excess) is to compute a factor k of accident involvement for sober drivers. This factor is calculated as:

k = 1638 / 8438 = 0.1941

Using this factor, the number of drivers that would be expected to be responsible for causing an accident is estimated for each BAC class. For example, for a BAC greater than 0.20%, 10 drivers were found in the Roadside Survey. Multiplying this number by k results in 10 * 0.1941 = 2. Thus, we would expect 2 drivers to be found in the Accident Study in this BAC class (not due to alcohol). However, 64 were found yielding an excess number of 62 accidents which may be attributed to the effect of alcohol. Those excess numbers are given in the third column of Table 1. Of course, there are large difference among the BAC classes. At lower BACs, we even find negative numbers indicating the "dip" in the risk function for lower BACs first described by Borkenstein et al. (1964).

For all BAC classes above 0%, we found 330 drivers in the accident study. Of those accidents, 213 were attributable to the effects of alcohol. By dividing those two numbers, we obtain an AR for exposed persons of 213/330=0.65 or 65%. That means, 65% of all accidents involving an intoxicated driver can be attributed to the effects of alcohol. However, in only 16.8% of all accidents (or 330 accidents) was the driver intoxicated. To determine which proportion of all accidents are attributable to the effects of alcohol, the population AR should be computed. This is done by dividing the excess accidents by the total number of all accidents, that is, 213/1968=0.108. Thus, 10.8% of all accidents may be attributed to the effects of alcohol.

Figure 2 gives both ARs computed for different BAC classes. The AR of exposed drivers indicates for each BAC class the percentage of accidents attributable to alcohol. For BACs less than 0.06%, the AR is small, even negative. Hardly any accidents involving drivers with those BACs can be attributed to intoxication. This changes dramatically for BACs greater than 0.06%. At BACs less than 0.08% but greater than 0.06%, about 70% of all accidents are due to alcohol. For all BAC classes greater than 0.08%, the ARs are greater than 80%. For drivers in this latter BAC categories, nearly all the accidents may be attributed to the effects of alcohol.

The AR of the population indicates the magnitude of those alcohol effects in relationship to the total number of accidents occuring. The population ARs can be interpreted as follows: If no drivers with BACs greater than 0.20% were present in traffic, 3% of all accidents would not happen. Adding these percentages for all BAC classes gives the 10.8% of all accidents which are due to alcohol. About a third of these accidents can be attributed to drivers with BACs greater than 0.2%.

As Figure 3 shows, this population AR gives a good indication of the effectiveness of measures directed against DUI. In this Figure, the 10.8% accidents were set to 100%. Had no DUI drivers been present in traffic, none of these accidents would have occured, which would have resulted in a 100% reduction. If no one with a BAC greater than 0.08% drove, a reduction of 96% would result. Thus, if the legal limit for DUI in Germany (0.08%) was an effective deterrant against driving with a higher BAC, this would mean that nearly everything that could be done to prevent alcohol-related accidents would have been accomplished. Thus, countermeasures directed at those persons driving at BACs higher than 0.08% can be expected to be most effective in reducing the number of accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol. In contrast, measures directed at drivers with BACs less than 0.08% cannot be very effective. At most, 4% of all accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol may be prevented.

vinylrules

T runner wrote: »

2% of all motor journeys are driven by someone who has taken alcohol.
That means if you counted every car that passed by a particular point in street over 24 hours, that one in fifty cars would be driven by someone who had taken a drink (at least). That is 20%. My estimation if you think its higher no problem.

It is higher - according to the European Transport Safety Council.

http://www.etsc.eu/enforcement-drinkdriving-whyincrease.php

ETSC experts estimate that across the EU about 2% of all journeys are associated with an illegal blood alcohol level.

2% had an illegal blood alcohol level but presumably many, many more had a legal level (one drink, morning after, etc.etc ) How many more - 2%, 5%?, 10%? who knows?

I personally wonder about this. A friend of mine is in the Garda reserve and he often goes out on checkpoints and he told me that it's relatively rare to catch someone over the limit - on most nights everyone passes the test. Remeber that time when Gay Byrne was brought out on a checkpoint somewhere on the Northside of Dublin and not one driver was over the limit.
Same last year when Morning Ireland did a Road Safety week and they went live to a "morning after" checkpoint in Mayo at 7am - and then checked in with them again just before 9am - not one driver caught in two hours.

Liam Byrne

vinylrules wrote: »

T runner - the 35% figure for 2003 (it's actually 36.5% ) is the "alcohol related" figure - which also includes pedestrians (7%) who died with alcohol in them.

Now there's an interesting angle to this; since people can walk places without being under the limit, and presumably their peripheral vision is worse, should we legally ban people walking on public roads when they have alcohol taken for "safety reasons" ?

vinylrules

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Now there's an interesting angle to this; since people can walk places without being under the limit, and presumably their peripheral vision is worse, should we legally ban people walking on public roads when they have alcohol taken for "safety reasons" ?

Liam, since the Intoxicationg Liqor act 2008 it is now illegal to be intoxicated in a public place - you don't have to be causing a public order offence (the old drunk and disorderly charge) I don't know how it would be enforced - unless pedestrians were breathalised!

By the way - did you know that the drink drive limits also apply to electric wheelchair users? Someone who works with disabled people told me this a while ago and I didn't believe it. But I checked it out and it's true. I wonder how many people have been killed by drink drivers of these killing machines. (I lived near a Chesire home and a lot of the residents frequented the nearby pub - going home in their electric wheelchairs. If they're over the limit - after just one or two they're drink drivers and presumably could be fined and put off the road! Talk about social isolation

Some geniuses we have in the Dept of Justice!

Here's the relavent info:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/travel-and-recreation/motoring-1/driving-offences/drink-driving-offences-in-ireland

What is mandatory alcohol testing and how does it work?
Mandatory alcohol testing means random breath testing. The Road Traffic Act 2006 allows the Gardai (in certain circumstances) to breathalyse the drivers of vehicles without the need to have formed the opinion that the driver had consumed alcohol.
The power can however only be exercised at checkpoints which have been authorised by a Garda Inspector. These checkpoints are specifically designed for the purpose of mandatory alcohol testing. The authorisation must be given by the Inspector in writing and allows Gardai to set up a checkpoint in a public place (or another place). The Gardai can stop any mechanically propelled vehicle (including motorcycles, scooters, electric bicycles, wheelchairs, etc.) and may require the driver of the vehicle to do the following;
• Provide a specimen of their breath by exhaling into equipment used for indicating the presence of alcohol in the breath, or
• Accompany the Garda (or another Garda) to a place (including a vehicle) at or near the checkpoint to provide by a breath specimen, or
• To leave the vehicle at the place where it has been stopped.

slimjimmc

vinylrules wrote: »

By the way - did you know that the drink drive limits also apply to electric wheelchair users? Someone who works with disabled people told me this a while ago and I didn't believe it. But I checked it out and it's true. I wonder how many people have been killed by drink drivers of these killing machines. (I lived near a Chesire home and a lot of the residents frequented the nearby pub - going home in their electric wheelchairs. If they're over the limit - after just one or two they're drink drivers and presumably could be fined and put off the road! Talk about social isolation

Some geniuses we have in the Dept of Justice!

Do you think the effects of intoxication only affects other road users but not wheelchair users? Wheelchairs don't offer much protection if the user rolled into the path of a truck because their decision making was impaired by booze.
I wonder how many people have been killed by hot air balloon pilots over the limit? AFAIK very very few, if any, so using your logic do you think aviation law should be changed to allowed them drink and fly?