Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

One drink helps some drivers

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    I know of at least 2 people who have been done going to work the next morning between 7-8am. they hadn't been on an all night benders either,just a few glasses of wine the night before. Bring it down to 50 and we'll see a huge increase in the instance of this

    This is what I'm worried about. It could kill the Sunday night out. Blood alcohol tests the following morning should at least keep the 80 limit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,703 ✭✭✭✭R.O.R


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    This is what I'm worried about. It could kill the Sunday night out. Blood alcohol tests the following morning should at least keep the 80 limit.

    Ah crap, you're not going to have to give up going on the Piss on a Sunday night so you aren't over the legal limit are you?

    The sacrifices some people are going to have to make to save lives eh - bloody liberty from the damn government again.


  • Posts: 24,714 [Deleted User]


    R.O.R wrote: »
    Ah crap, you're not going to have to give up going on the Piss on a Sunday night so you aren't over the legal limit are you?

    The sacrifices some people are going to have to make to save lives eh - bloody liberty from the damn government again.

    Is there even one scrap of evidence to support the stance that people who drive to work in the morning after a night out are the cause of crashes?

    Try living out the country when your only option is to drive to work after a night out, there is no choice but to drive and its hardly fair to ask people to give up going out or we would be heading for a worse nanny state than we are already living in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,703 ✭✭✭✭R.O.R


    Is there even one scrap of evidence to support the stance that people who drive to work in the morning after a night out are the cause of crashes?

    Is there one scrap of evidence that they are safer than someone with the same amount of alcohol in their blood who has just come out of the pub? Or is it just circumstantial evidence from people who "feel fine" the next morning?

    I'm sure the guy who get's in to his car after 10 pints before heading down the wrong side of the Motorway to kill someone in a head on collision "feels fine" before he sets off. That doesn't mean he should be behind the wheel now should it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,423 ✭✭✭pburns


    R.O.R wrote: »
    Ah crap, you're not going to have to give up going on the Piss on a Sunday night so you aren't over the legal limit are you?

    The sacrifices some people are going to have to make to save lives eh - bloody liberty from the damn government again.

    I'm sorry but what a load of pious cock:rolleyes: Besides, your statement sounds more anti-drink than anti-drink-driving (which is another issue entirely).

    Now we all know the saying about lies, damned lies and statistics but look again at the stats posted earlier in the thread for blood alcohol levels in killed drivers (from a 2008 Irish, RSA report mind):

    Not recorded : 35%
    Zero: 26%
    1-19: 2%
    20-49: 3%
    50-80: 3%
    81-159: 9%
    160-239: 12%
    240+: 9%

    30% of those killed are above the current legal limit, with just 3% within the 50-80mg gap between current and proposed limits. A total of 8% killed are within the current 1-80mg group...but hey...26% of those killed do not have a traceable quantity of alcohol in their system at all:rolleyes:!

    All this talk of saving x number of lives is emotive bull. It's theoretical pick-a-number-from-favourable statistics stuff (kinda like what I've done above - only in this case the stats are from the main mover behind the proposed changes!).

    To me the stats indicate that we need more checkpoints to enforce the current limit, not headline-grabbing PR stunts to placate the right-on brigade and divert attention from all the other **** going on...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭maidhc


    pburns wrote: »
    To me the stats indicate that we need more checkpoints to enforce the current limit, not headline-grabbing PR stunts to placate the right-on brigade and divert attention from all the other **** going on...


    Noel Dempsey... PR stunt... NEVER!

    This guy "opened" the Cork Midleton rail line 2 months before it took passengers.. but just before the local election. Go Figure!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    vinylrules wrote: »
    Strange how the highest deaths of any range listed is the zero alcohol range!

    Careful how you present percentages. That statement might be technically correct, but only by virtue of the fact that they've grouped the ones with limits into categories. It still means that 30% of all drivers killed in 2008 were over the legal limit, 26% had zero alcohol, the rest had SOME level of alcohol, but within the legal limit. By that reckoning, the lowest deaths of any range are the ones with zero alcohol. You could also argue that you are 3 times more likely to be in a fatal accident with any trace of alcohol in your system, but it's not as simple as that.
    The fact is enforcement is the only solution to work. Look at when the penalty points came in, for 3 months there were hardly any deaths, then people began to realise that they can go back to their old habbits because no one is catching them.
    A 6 month major clampdown on ALL driving infringments would change the attitude of Irish drivers from carefree/careless to very careful and aware.
    Even pulling people over and verbally warning them is enough in many cases.


  • Posts: 24,714 [Deleted User]


    Biro wrote: »
    Careful how you present percentages. That statement might be technically correct, but only by virtue of the fact that they've grouped the ones with limits into categories. It still means that 30% of all drivers killed in 2008 were over the legal limit, 26% had zero alcohol, the rest had SOME level of alcohol, but within the legal limit. By that reckoning, the lowest deaths of any range are the ones with zero alcohol. You could also argue that you are 3 times more likely to be in a fatal accident with any trace of alcohol in your system, but it's not as simple as that.

    I am sure there is also at least a certain percentage of the deaths of people with alcohol in their system where the alcohol had no bearing on the crash and it would have happened regardless i.e caused by the driver of the other car etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,342 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    Is there even one scrap of evidence to support the stance that people who drive to work in the morning after a night out are the cause of crashes?

    Try living out the country when your only option is to drive to work after a night out, there is no choice but to drive and its hardly fair to ask people to give up going out or we would be heading for a worse nanny state than we are already living in.

    Try starting and finishing your sunday seission a little earlier. There's no rule saying you have to keep drinking right up to closing time. If everybody is in the same boat, they'll all be out earlier and home earlier too, same seission but still in proper shape to drive the next day.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,102 ✭✭✭✭Drummerboy08


    Try living out the country when your only option is to drive to work after a night out, there is no choice but to drive and its hardly fair to ask people to give up going out or we would be heading for a worse nanny state than we are already living in.


    I do live in the country. If I know I have to be on the road the next morning, I'll still go out, but I just wont drink. Its simple really.

    If you really need to go out and drink alcohol, there's something wrong with you somewhere.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    R.O.R wrote: »
    Is there one scrap of evidence that they are safer than someone with the same amount of alcohol in their blood who has just come out of the pub? Or is it just circumstantial evidence from people who "feel fine" the next morning?

    I'm sure the guy who get's in to his car after 10 pints before heading down the wrong side of the Motorway to kill someone in a head on collision "feels fine" before he sets off. That doesn't mean he should be behind the wheel now should it?

    So you're saying even though there is no evidence that people that read between 50 and 80 mg the following morning cause accidents or deaths we should lower it anyway because logically it can only make things safer.
    So would you support a 30 km/ph across the board speed limit too? There's no evidence it would save lives but logically it has to be safer than our current setup. So it probably will. Actually I'd suggest it would save even more than 10 lifes.
    Actually let's get rid of cars and such all together then there'll be no road deaths :D


  • Posts: 24,714 [Deleted User]


    I do live in the country. If I know I have to be on the road the next morning, I'll still go out, but I just wont drink. Its simple really.

    I have no interest in going out unless I'm drinking.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,102 ✭✭✭✭Drummerboy08


    I have no interest in going out unless I'm drinking.


    Dont go out then if you have to drive the next day. Simple.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Wherever I go, I have to drive (no taxis/or way too expensive, no public transport)

    One of the reasons I do go out is to have a nice pint of Guinness that didn't come out of a can. One pint. Just the one.

    I stopped going to pubs when I wasn't allowed a smoke with my pint and only had a rare one when going for a meal.

    Now that I can't even have one pint I'll just stop going out altogether ...drink and food is cheaper at home and I can smoke there too if I want to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,822 ✭✭✭✭EPM


    I am sure there is also at least a certain percentage of the deaths of people with alcohol in their system where the alcohol had no bearing on the crash and it would have happened regardless i.e caused by the driver of the other car etc.


    And conversely this could also have been the case in the deaths without alcohol so that kinda negates your point


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    EPM wrote: »
    And conversely this could also have been the case in the deaths without alcohol so that kinda negates your point

    In what way? :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,822 ✭✭✭✭EPM


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    In what way? :confused:

    Think about it. If there's a percentage of people with alcohol in their systems killed in accidents that weren't their fault like nox said then on the law of averages then people without alcohol in their systems can be killed in accidents that weren't their fault


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    mikkael wrote: »
    I'm off down to Tipperary this week. I'll head on down to the pub and sit there with the local publican and his 87 year old mother by the stove. On a big night, 3 customers might come in.
    What's wrong with any non alcoholic drink?
    mikkael wrote: »
    The nearest town is 15 miles away on a road with so many twists it'd give Michael Schumacher dead arms. Taxi my eye. Who's going to call a taxi doing a 30 mile round trip to go 1.5 miles up the road?
    I wasn't aware that there was anywhere in ireland that was that far from its nearest town. I'd be curious to know where it is.
    mikkael wrote: »
    Before someone says "walk it", bear in mind that country roads aren't lit, and most nights it's so dark you can't even see the road. I think we need a bit of perspective in this. There were no spate of road deaths when people were going home from these pubs in areas such as the one I am talking about with drink on them. Sorry, but it's bollocks.
    What did people there do before they had cars? There mustn't have been any social life at all!
    mikkael wrote: »
    As I mentioned in a previous post, they were predominantly old guys who do dot miles and hour and are used to drinking, and live withing a couple of miles. There's a bit of a difference between them and some youngster getting loaded on an irregular basis. Someone who's likely to kill with drink is someone who's likely to kill sober too. Question - so why are they driving in the first place?
    So you are agreeing with the two tier system?
    mikkael wrote: »
    This "it's just not acceptable" pc stuff is getting corny. How many people have died because of home drinking and the boom in off - license sales since pubs were deserted? How many more will die? I'm thinking domestic violence, drink - induced homicide, suicide ... and so on. It's very easy to sit in the bright lights of Dublin and tell everyone what to do having listened to newstalk. Actually living in the country is slightly different.
    What the f... are you on about? The plan is to reduce fatalities because of people driving whilst under the influence. There are also campaigns to reduce binge drinking, domestic violence, etc. Your rant is suggesting that because some people decide to stay at home so they don't break one law they end up breaking another? Some cnut who will beat the crap out of his missus will probably do it regardless but I'm not getting drawn into a dumb argument!
    mikkael wrote: »
    I'd be in favour of either a total ban or having the limit raised. That way, for once, people would clearly know what the feck is going on. I'm happy to sit there for 2 hours with a Heineken shandy but most aren't. Allowing them drink a little is bullshyte, because I can guarantee you 90% will be over the limit leaving. If the limit gets zero'd, the smoking ban should be lifted. Country pubs are getting wiped out at an almighty rate at the moment.
    There is no confusion. The proposal is actually quite clear, and strangely has nothing to do with smoking. If you or anyone else finds it difficult to understand then maybe they are better off not drinking or smoking in order to preserve the few brain cells they have!
    mikkael wrote: »
    Incidentally, country pubs in the main should not be confused with urban ones. Believe me, the so - called 'boom' passed over a lot of country publicans.
    1. these so called passed over publicans could have sold their licences for vast sums had they anted to
    2. not everyone in 'Dublin' did well in the boom. Many of them actually had to move outside of Dublin because they couldn't afford property and yet still have to pay to travel to work - its like they are culchies but not!
    3. this argument as part of an anti-drink proposal is reall stretching it!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭Richie15


    mikkael wrote: »
    If the limit gets zero'd, the smoking ban should be lifted. Country pubs are getting wiped out at an almighty rate at the moment.
    The rest of your message is... well, I don't agree with it. But this part I do. I think pubs, or at least country pubs, should be an exception to the Ban (despite the fact it was them that kicked off the whole thing). But that's a different arguement, it's nothing to do with road safety.
    pburns wrote: »
    Now we all know the saying about lies, damned lies and statistics but look again at the stats posted earlier in the thread for blood alcohol levels in killed drivers (from a 2008 Irish, RSA report mind):

    Not recorded : 35%
    Zero: 26%
    1-19: 2%
    20-49: 3%
    50-80: 3%
    81-159: 9%
    160-239: 12%
    240+: 9%
    So 30% over the limit, 3% between the new and old limits, 5% under the proposed limit and 26% clean.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the way you're presenting these statistics, it sounds like you're in support of the "1 pint is good" campaign. Those with no alcohol in their system (and those with it, I'll admit) could have all sorts of different circumstances affecting their driving, even if we do assume they were at fault! Tiredness, icy weather, needing a wee, changing the channel on the radio etc. Too many variables. The most trustworthy statement in your post was the comparisson between statistics and damned lies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,316 ✭✭✭Reginald P. DuM


    Mattie McGrath would want to go back to South Tipperary and his wayward electorate.

    Remember, this is the same constituency that re-elected a convicted fraudster a few years ago (Mr Lowry, for those who dont remember).

    Mattie McGrath - South Tipp.
    Ml. Lowry - North Tipp.

    Chalk and cheese in other words.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭vinylrules


    Didn't the Road Safety Authority recommned that anyone suffering from tiredness while driving, should stop and take two strong cups of coffee? They did you know!

    http://www.topazenergy.ie/en/News/RSA-and-Topaz-announce-joint-initiative-to-combat-driver-fatigue/
    Noel Brett, Chief Executive of the Road Safety Authority said; “ Scientific studies show that if a driver persists in fighting sleep while driving, the impairment level is the same as driving while over the drink drive limit.”

    “To drivers we say; if you are fighting sleep at the wheel, stop immediately. If you can, drink a cup of coffee or caffeine drink but most importantly take a 15 to 20 minute nap. Following the nap stretch your legs and get some fresh air. By following this advice you should be able to drive for another hour or more

    Now, let's just tease this one out a bit. Isn't caffeine a drug, a stimulant? So we're recommending that somone take a particular kind of drug to avoid being killed or killing someone else. A TD suggests on a radio show, that in some cases, a nervous, jumpy individual just might - just might - be a little bit more relaxed after just one drink - and he's hung out to dry.

    As a regular moderate drinker I can attest that a small amount of alcohol reduces stress. So it's not entirely implausable that say, an overstressed call centre worker on a Friday at 5pm, after a hectic day, dealing with angry customers, would calm down a little after one drink before taking to the roads. So, rather than heading straight out and driving agressively with all the barely suppressed anger and rage, he is a little more chilled and takes his foot off the accelerater.

    Oh wait, I see what's wrong with this picture. It's about drink isn't it? Alcohol. Booze. The Devil's Buttermilk. You just can't trust these Irish drinkers to have one drink - they'll want another and another and another...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,686 ✭✭✭JHMEG


    It is a simple fact that a lot of people who live in the country made a decision to do so, for clean air, no noise, nice (distant) neighbours, etc. There are soooo many things that are not sustainable about this model, especially in an Irish context, and one of them is driving to the pub.

    If you want guaranteed access to services, I'm afraid you have to move to a population centre, especially now that money to subsidise services to rural dwellers is drying up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭Richie15


    vinylrules wrote: »
    Isn't caffeine a drug, a stimulant? So we're recommending that somone take a particular kind of drug to avoid being killed or killing someone else. A TD suggests on a radio show, that in some cases, a nervous, jumpy individual just might - just might - be a little bit more relaxed after just one drink - and he's hung out to dry.

    As a regular moderate drinker I can attest that a small amount of alcohol reduces stress. So it's not entirely implausable that say, an overstressed call centre worker on a Friday at 5pm, after a hectic day, dealing with angry customers, would calm down a little after one drink before taking to the roads. So, rather than heading straight out and driving agressively with all the barely suppressed anger and rage, he is a little more chilled and takes his foot off the accelerater.

    Oh wait, I see what's wrong with this picture. It's about drink isn't it? Alcohol. Booze. The Devil's Buttermilk. You just can't trust these Irish drinkers to have one drink - they'll want another and another and another...
    That's a fair arguement although there's one problem, it's built on the assumption that we agree with Mr. Brett. I don't. The only cure for tiredness is sleep. Caffeine doesn't actually give you energy, or improve your concentration. There's a part of your brain that takes the "I'm tired" message from your body, and puts it to sleep. Caffeine just shuts this part down so your body doesn't know it's tired.

    The best way to deal with fatigue behind the wheel (besides not starting to drive if you're tired, of course) is to drink a cup of coffee and sleep for 15 minutes. Any longer and you're into a deep sleep and you'll wake up groggy, any shorter and your wont be rested enough. The caffeine will have taken effect by this time but like I said, the sleep is more important.

    (Appologies for dummenning the "part of your brain" piece, that's just how I understand it. Wait, that's not how you spell "dumbenning"!) :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    kbannon wrote: »
    If you or anyone else finds it difficult to understand then maybe they are better off not drinking or smoking in order to preserve the few brain cells they have!

    That is particularly childish coming from a Moderator.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    kbannon wrote: »
    What's wrong with any non alcoholic drink?
    I wasn't aware that there was anywhere in ireland that was that far from its nearest town. I'd be curious to know where it is.

    There are several such villages. Go for a drive in the countryside.
    kbannon wrote: »
    What did people there do before they had cars? There mustn't have been any social life at all!

    People didn't have inside toilets once. That didn't stop them from going to the loo. Silly argument.[/QUOTE]
    kbannon wrote: »
    So you are agreeing with the two tier system?

    No, they're your words. I'm just pointing out that people who live in Dublin haven't a clue about living in the country.

    kbannon wrote: »
    What the f... are you on about? The plan is to reduce fatalities because of people driving whilst under the influence.

    Right, but we continue to ignore the cause of the other 2/3 fatalities. Makes sense that.
    kbannon wrote: »
    There are also campaigns to reduce binge drinking, domestic violence, etc. Your rant is suggesting that because some people decide to stay at home so they don't break one law they end up breaking another? Some cnut who will beat the crap out of his missus will probably do it regardless but I'm not getting drawn into a dumb argument!

    Right, well if there are campaigns for other fatal and near fatal things then that's the problem sorted so. Yes, well done - my 'rant' is indeed suggesting that some people will die as a result, just in a different place. At least you got something right ( almost )
    kbannon wrote: »
    There is no confusion. The proposal is actually quite clear, and strangely has nothing to do with smoking. If you or anyone else finds it difficult to understand then maybe they are better off not drinking or smoking in order to preserve the few brain cells they have!

    Well the latter silly remark is dealt with in a previous post. The rest is also a silly personal attack which kind of goes nowhere.
    kbannon wrote: »
    1. these so called passed over publicans could have sold their licences for vast sums had they anted to

    Maybe the ones you read about in the 'Irish Times', but not the ones I know. Once again, ignorance.
    kbannon wrote: »
    2. not everyone in 'Dublin' did well in the boom. Many of them actually had to move outside of Dublin because they couldn't afford property and yet still have to pay to travel to work - its like they are culchies but not!

    Indeed. And so many of the accidents happen on roads like the N7, not country villages.
    kbannon wrote: »
    3. this argument as part of an anti-drink proposal is reall stretching it!

    Again that's your opinon. I'm anti - drink driving but also anti denying reality.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    mikkael wrote: »
    There are several such villages. Go for a drive in the countryside.
    I frequently do!
    mikkael wrote: »
    People didn't have inside toilets once. That didn't stop them from going to the loo. Silly argument.
    My point is valid. People claim that they cannot have a social life yet for all the hardship they must endure, they used to do it without complaining!
    mikkael wrote: »
    No, they're your words. I'm just pointing out that people who live in Dublin haven't a clue about living in the country.
    Thats a bit of a generalisation. I used to live in the country. Even now I don't live far from some cows and wheat.
    However, I did used to live in the country about two miles from the nearest town. I used to be of the view that it was alright to drive home after one pint. I also used to think that it was alright to drive home after about ten pints and a similar amount of chasers. I did os without killing myself or others - somehow!
    Don't make feckin assumptions that people who live near Dublin don't know what's going on. It just shows up your ignorance otherwise.
    mikkael wrote: »
    Right, but we continue to ignore the cause of the other 2/3 fatalities. Makes sense that.
    What are the causes?
    mikkael wrote: »
    Right, well if there are campaigns for other fatal and near fatal things then that's the problem sorted so. Yes, well done - my 'rant' is indeed suggesting that some people will die as a result, just in a different place. At least you got something right ( almost )
    No you were suggesting that people will become more likely to die or suffer from domestic violence because their spouse cannot drive home from the pub
    mikkael wrote: »
    Well the latter silly remark is dealt with in a previous post. The rest is also a silly personal attack which kind of goes nowhere.
    pfffft
    You said that its confusing. Its not and stop pretending that it is. Its an inconvienence to your social life, thats all.
    I go to the pub. If I have my car then I drink alcohol free beer, coke, coffee, whatever. I do it without a second thought and not because I would be afraid of getting stopped by the gardai.
    mikkael wrote: »
    Maybe the ones you read about in the 'Irish Times', but not the ones I know. Once again, ignorance.
    You mean that their licence wasn't as good as the others that did actually sell?
    Can you show me an example of a rural pub licence not being sold in a short space of time?
    mikkael wrote: »
    Indeed. And so many of the accidents happen on roads like the N7, not country villages.
    and what?
    mikkael wrote: »
    Again that's your opinon. I'm anti - drink driving but also anti denying reality.
    now you have lost me. How are you anti denying reality? Because you think that people should be allowed to D&D? Why not let them drink the four or five that they traditionally did on a Saturday night (and don't say they didn't)? Why not indeed?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    If people keep up this us-and-them attitude (rural VS urban) then the country will get nowhere. If people down the country want special alcohol-limit rules, then campaign for more (a lot, lot more - I'm talking almost federalisation) regional autonomy. However, the countryside needs Dublin - its economy would completely stagnate without the big shmoke (link). If the countryside does actually want the benefits that Dublin brings, then it needs to abide by Dublin's rules. It's a warts-and-all deal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    Aard wrote: »
    However, the countryside needs Dublin - its economy would completely stagnate without the big shmoke (link). If the countryside does actually want the benefits that Dublin brings, then it needs to abide by Dublin's rules. It's a warts-and-all deal.

    Interesting stuff. I'm not sure I agree, but the issues you raise are indeed valid. A big part of the problem in Ireland is that Dublin IS Ireland - but yet there's a whole big country out there. What I see on a regular basis in the country is few if any obeying the current alcohol limits, and defo not the smoking ban.

    Therefore, we go back to old Irish thing. You must do 15 kph through roadworks. I tried it one night at 4 a.m. Joke. I doubt that anyone has ever done it, but it's the law which you can be bashed with if you get caught / something goes wrong. It's the same with the current alcohol limit. 90% of rural dwellers ignore it.

    Now, my point is this. Wouldn't it be a better idea for the government to MAKE AN ACTUAL DECISION! Either a/ let everyone get pissed and drive home, or 2/ drop the limit to zero and we'll all know to watch out. Imho that's better than having a law which few respect and pretending because it's the law that everything is hunky dory. That's living in denial.

    Not least due to decades of ballsing up on planning / infrastructure - which is part of the problem - they decided to fudge it with this bollocks about one glass of wine. Who goes to a pub for one glass of wine? The truth is that many of the very politicians who are slating this guy ( OP ) probably drive home pissed at the weekends. How fecking Irish.

    I've read a lot about principle. Well, principle has failed. It's time for the governement for once to come out and make a real decision. Drink - driving is like just about everything else in law in this country. The reality is one thing, then there's a barmy law which can be dusted off. It creates a situation by design where people take a chance, but technically you're wrong all of the time if needs be.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,102 ✭✭✭✭Drummerboy08


    kbannon wrote: »
    What's wrong with any non alcoholic drink?

    This is actually a very good point. I have to laugh at all the talk of the publicans giving out, saying that they'll lose a fortune over this. And then with everyone else giving out about the social aspect, not being able to go out etc.

    The most profit in a bar is made on Coke Cola, 7up, Lucozade etc. Win win for everyone.
    Mattie McGrath - South Tipp.
    Ml. Lowry - North Tipp.

    Chalk and cheese in other words.


    Sorry. I never realised they were so far apart.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael



    The most profit in a bar is made on Coke Cola, 7up, Lucozade etc. Win win for everyone.


    ... except the customer. I defy anyone to sit in a pub for 2 hours with a little glass of coke.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I still don't get this idea of having to go to the pub. Is that the only form of entertainment/socialising people have?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,102 ✭✭✭✭Drummerboy08


    mikkael wrote: »
    ... except the customer. I defy anyone to sit in a pub for 2 hours with a little glass of coke.


    Done it many times. It's really sad on your behalf if you cant walk into a pub without having a pint. Are you that weak that you cant resist Mr Guiness?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    Done it many times. It's really sad on your behalf if you cant walk into a pub without having a pint. Are you that weak that you cant resist Mr Guiness?

    No, I can't stand Guinness actually. I drink a pint of heineken shandy over and evening actually. Keeps me under the limit and costs the same as a glass of coke that lasts 10 minutes or less.

    It's pretty hilarious if you think that someone's going to pay 5 times as much drinking coke in the same period. I've done it many times myself and given up. You state that you did it many times.

    So what about the times you didn't? ... be honest now! That goes back to my original point.

    The only thing that's sad is your attempt to play the man instead of the ball.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    Aard wrote: »
    I still don't get this idea of having to go to the pub. Is that the only form of entertainment/socialising people have?

    Sadly, yes. Imho it's part of a much wider issue, not least the fact that young people and their needs are not taken seriously in Ireland. Growing up with booze companies sponsoring every sporting event doesn't help either.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Done it many times. It's really sad on your behalf if you cant walk into a pub without having a pint. Are you that weak that you cant resist Mr Guiness?

    Can you not see the difference between can't and shouldn't have to? Is this a case of "I don't go to the pub for a pint so you don't have to"?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    mikkael wrote: »
    Sadly, yes. Imho it's part of a much wider issue, not least the fact that young people and their needs are not taken seriously in Ireland. Growing up with booze companies sponsoring every sporting event doesn't help either.
    The young people thing is a red herring. What would you propose young people do instead? Even in the cities, where there's a helluva lot more needs being met, young people still go out drinking. It's not because of a lack of other things to do that people drink. It's because, for some reason, in this country there's a certain amount of prestige (in the socialogical sense that is) attached to getting wasted. In school, teenagers kept going on about being really drunk. The same in college, but even more so. Even in the workplace it happens. The only reason people get wasted is because their peers think it's cool to get wasted. In other countries, if you're smashed then you're a gob****e, over here you're a legend. The problem isn't lack of facilities - it's the Irish psyche.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    mikkael wrote: »
    Sadly, yes. Imho it's part of a much wider issue, not least the fact that young people and their needs are not taken seriously in Ireland. Growing up with booze companies sponsoring every sporting event doesn't help either.
    You seem to have a problem with the level of drink in society yet you reckon people should be allowed have a drink and drive home?
    I can't figure your angle out at all!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    Aard wrote: »
    The young people thing is a red herring.

    Well, they're the adults of tomorrow ....
    Aard wrote: »
    In other countries, if you're smashed then you're a gob****e, over here you're a legend.
    Aard wrote: »

    That's changing imho. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw someone staggering off the edge of a path drunk. Used to see it all the time before.
    Aard wrote: »
    The problem isn't lack of facilities - it's the Irish psyche.

    Agree and disagree. Facilities alone don't do it, a culture needs to be developed in tandem with facilities. This is a broad and varied issue. If you look at some of the Nordic countries there's a lot of food for thought there.

    Just a few of my own observations ...

    1/ I know two scientists and one lawyer who live in Sweden. One drives a BMW, one Merc, one Volvo. In two cases the first thing these guys do when they get a chance is go off cycling with their families. In Ireland if you have that position / status you act like your ****e don't smell and see bikes as a sign of poverty.

    2/ Children go to summer / autumn / winter camps where they are socialized with other children, and learn to express themselves without getting pissed. They are also encouraged to look at themselves / their lives in a fun and non - morbid way. One such activity is that of posting letters to themselves, which are sent on 6 months later or so so's they can chart their progress. Life stuff, if you will.

    I've been in a couple of towns in Germany where teens are accommodated with radio / tv studios - of decent standard. They're given top of the range equipment and told to go out and make something. They're given POWER. In Ireland middle aged men use the terms 'they' and 'them' when plotting the course of young people's lives, rather than giving them empowerment in the first place.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    kbannon wrote: »
    You seem to have a problem with the level of drink in society yet you reckon people should be allowed have a drink and drive home?
    I can't figure your angle out at all!

    Your words entirely. Your views entirely.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I almost entirely agree with you mikkael. I feel, however, that I'd be veering way off-topic to give further opinion on the matter of facilities/services for young people and/or the rural community. New thread material, perhaps :) .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,102 ✭✭✭✭Drummerboy08


    mikkael wrote: »
    No, I can't stand Guinness actually. I drink a pint of heineken shandy over and evening actually. Keeps me under the limit and costs the same as a glass of coke that lasts 10 minutes or less.

    It's pretty hilarious if you think that someone's going to pay 5 times as much drinking coke in the same period. I've done it many times myself and given up. You state that you did it many times.

    So what about the times you didn't? ... be honest now! That goes back to my original point.

    The only thing that's sad is your attempt to play the man instead of the ball.

    How many pints of Heineken shandy can you drink before your over the limit? Not many. You dont have to go to the pub and drink gallons of Coke. The pub is a social place, not where you go to neck Coke all night.

    I have done it many a time. I done it on Sunday night gone actually - In a nightclub. I had three pints of Lucozade for the night, and drove home. Where's the problem in that?

    All the times I didn't what, drink coke, but alcohol instead? I usually get a lift into town, or to the pub. Either with the oul fella, the girlfriend, or a mate who is driving that night. The odd occasion that I have drove to the pub the night before, I've picked it up around lunchtime. And I know thats true, because I'm never out of the bed before 12 on a Sunday....;)

    How am I playing tha man instead of the ball?
    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Can you not see the difference between can't and shouldn't have to? Is this a case of "I don't go to the pub for a pint so you don't have to"?


    No its not a case of that. Its a case of if you know your driving somewhere the next day, prepare for it. Only have 3 or 4 pints instead of 7 or 8 the night before. Get a lift to the pub so you dont have to collect your car first thing in the morning.

    Or just say, "you know what? I can do without a few pints tonight, seen as I have to drive to x tommorow".

    It's not that hard.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7 ajkc85


    Mattie McGrath would want to go back to South Tipperary and his wayward electorate.

    Remember, this is the same constituency that re-elected a convicted fraudster a few years ago (Mr Lowry, for those who dont remember).

    What a fcuking stupid thing to say. If a driver needs a drink to improve his/her driving skills, they have no place whatsoever on these roads. Or even to hold a driving licence.

    Clowns, the whole lot of em. :mad:


    Very true


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭restaurants


    kbannon wrote: »
    The two tier system could be brought in with Mary White's daft idea for a two tier licencing system!
    Your alcohol limit could be based on a fitness test with a weekly retest.
    Your location / profession could also be taken into account to complicate it.
    This should create some jobs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    How many pints of Heineken shandy can you drink before your over the limit? Not many. You dont have to go to the pub and drink gallons of Coke. The pub is a social place, not where you go to neck Coke all night.

    I have done it many a time. I done it on Sunday night gone actually - In a nightclub. I had three pints of Lucozade for the night, and drove home. Where's the problem in that?

    All the times I didn't what, drink coke, but alcohol instead? I usually get a lift into town, or to the pub. Either with the oul fella, the girlfriend, or a mate who is driving that night. The odd occasion that I have drove to the pub the night before, I've picked it up around lunchtime. And I know thats true, because I'm never out of the bed before 12 on a Sunday....;)

    How am I playing tha man instead of the ball?




    No its not a case of that. Its a case of if you know your driving somewhere the next day, prepare for it. Only have 3 or 4 pints instead of 7 or 8 the night before. Get a lift to the pub so you dont have to collect your car first thing in the morning.

    Or just say, "you know what? I can do without a few pints tonight, seen as I have to drive to x tommorow".

    It's not that hard.


    We can argue all day about Coke and Shandy lol but it's getting us nowhere. You, like several posters, fell into the Irish thing of assuming I must have an agenda, rather than dealing in any meaningful way with what I've posted.

    I don't know what the answers are, but I certainly know that ignoring laws that don't work in favour of saying the noble / pc thing is a nonsense. This reminds me of the general road safety 'debate'.

    The government and RSA set different social groups against each other ( ie: all young men are killers ... ignore truck drivers and women etc. ). Oh, but statistics proved something! Eff me pink! Yeah, and back in the days of the Safety council several AXA executives were on the board of the Safety council. How impartial is that?

    An industry which made €200 million loss in one year made enormous profits the next. LOL @ 'statistics' basically. Sad thing is, while people are arguing amongst each other and getting catty, it acts as a fine diversion from the govt. passing half - arsed laws that don't work, no?


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    @ restaurants: I do hope that you are taking the piss!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    Oh, I forgot one last thing. The road safety strategy has worked! It's got nothing to do with the fact that there's comparitively nothing on the roads since the recession lol. It's all a PR stunt and we are not militant enough in this country.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    mikkael wrote: »
    The government and RSA set different social groups against each other ( ie: all young men are killers ... ignore truck drivers and women etc. ). Oh, but statistics proved something! Eff me pink! Yeah, and back in the days of the Safety council several AXA executives were on the board of the Safety council. How impartial is that?p
    Yeah. To have representatives of a company who have a vested interest in ensuring there are less RTAs is really impartial! :rolleyes:
    mikkael wrote: »
    An industry which made €200 million loss in one year made enormous profits the next. LOL @ 'statistics' basically. Sad thing is, while people are arguing amongst each other and getting catty, it acts as a fine diversion from the govt. passing half - arsed laws that don't work, no?
    What has that got to do with the discussion?


    Debating with you is like peeing into the wind. I give up!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    kbannon wrote: »
    Yeah. To have representatives of a company who have a vested interest in ensuring there are less RTAs is really impartial! :rolleyes:

    What has that got to do with the discussion?


    Debating with you is like peeing into the wind. I give up!


    Thanks for the peeing in the wind comment. I take it as a compliment.

    The vested interests were creaming the Irish motorist goodstyle whilst promoting 'road safety' until the Insurance Ombudsman finally put a stop to it, having discovered that they were making colossal and completely unreasonable profits.

    Much as I would like to believe that our insurers were serious about road safety, surely if they were dishonestly inflating charges the lack of road safety - which they highlighted so much - acutally helped their cause ( ripping people off )?

    I can certainly see how vilifying one sector of society at the exclusion of all others and getting people at each other's throats would help, yes. I also think it was wrong that the very people shafting the consumer were promoting 'road safety'.

    I don't believe a thing that the RSA say. They have a political agenda, and politicians never got anything done.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,102 ✭✭✭✭Drummerboy08


    mikkael wrote: »
    We can argue all day about Coke and Shandy lol but it's getting us nowhere. You, like several posters, fell into the Irish thing of assuming I must have an agenda, rather than dealing in any meaningful way with what I've posted.

    Yes we can argue all day, and you still wont be right! I dont think you have an angenda, I just think your attitude is wrong.

    If you want to drink, make sure you dont have to go anywhere in your car first thing the next morning.

    If you know you do have to go somewhere in it first thing the next day, take it handy on the drink, only have one or two and you'll be fine.

    If you need to drink alcohol when you step foot inot a pub, there is something wrong with you. You sir, speak of falling into the "Irish thing", well, you've just fallen into one too - not being able not to drink.
    I don't know what the answers are, but I certainly know that ignoring laws that don't work in favour of saying the noble / pc thing is a nonsense. This reminds me of the general road safety 'debate'.

    I dont understand where your going with this? We should all ignore drink driving laws? :confused:

    The government and RSA set different social groups against each other ( ie: all young men are killers ... ignore truck drivers and women etc. ). Oh, but statistics proved something! Eff me pink! Yeah, and back in the days of the Safety council several AXA executives were on the board of the Safety council. How impartial is that?

    An industry which made €200 million loss in one year made enormous profits the next. LOL @ 'statistics' basically. Sad thing is, while people are arguing amongst each other and getting catty, it acts as a fine diversion from the govt. passing half - arsed laws that don't work, no?


    Different argument for a different day.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭mikkael


    Man, you're all theory!

    Reality check again! = allowing people one drink usually leads them to have more. Obvious!

    Re: your invention of my 'attitude' is as previously stated. What you assume to be my attitude that is. Let's ignore the reality and keep on telling it how it should be. Clearly telling it as it is just leads to the usual Irish thing ( personalities ).

    Would love to stay all day but I've got a few things to do. You can tell everyone I "lost" if you like ;)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement