One drink helps some drivers

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

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.

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!

livvy wrote: »

Every body hear knows of the horrors of drink driving - anything to rid it is welcomed.

mikkael wrote: »

Nothing for me personally, but again you're making assumptions in order to try and find a point. I think you're doing a bit of trolling here tbh.

Sorry. I have more than 2,500 posts, most of which were made in this forum. How am I trolling? Any of the established posters in here, including mods, will vouch for me.

I'd actually say its you who's doing the trolling here.

Nope. See my reply above. Usually when people post childish comments like this it's a sign of boredom. Are you bored?

You can have your law as much as you want, but if the majority of people ( those who admit to it - none ) ignore the drink drive laws in the country what's the point? You keep missing this point, in order to keep it going I think.

Drag yourself away from the computer and go for a stroll ( as opposed to a troll ). It'll do you good.

Im not making any assumptions. If you want to drink when you go to the pub, take some easy steps to ensure you dont have the drive your vehicle the next morning. Get a lift down, leave your car at home, and get a taxi if needs be.

If you need your car, do away with the drink.

Its a bit of common sense, something which I feel your posts lack.

David Quinn: Let's get balance right in drink-drive debate



By David Quinn
Friday October 30 2009

I have to confess to a small amount of sympathy for the TDs and senators who are rebelling against proposals to further reduce the drink-driving limit.
Their opponents are presenting this as a completely black-and-white, open-and-shut case. But that's not fair because the issue is more complicated than they say.
For outright supporters of the proposed reduction, things couldn't be clearer. Reducing the limit from the already low level of roughly a pint to roughly half a pint will save lives. That's all there is to it.
Anything that saves lives has to be supported. Any politician who opposes a reduction obviously doesn't care if people die and is only chasing votes.
Again, this is way too simple and here's why. If we really wanted to reduce road fatalities to zero, we would ban driving altogether. But no-one proposes this. Why not? If saving lives is the one and only consideration then you would have to ban driving. But we don't ban driving and the reason for this is obvious. The social, personal and economic benefits of allowing people to drive far outweigh the costs. What we try to do instead is minimise the cost of driving -- not just the risk to life and limb, but the environmental costs -- as much as possible.
That's why everyone supports speed limits, curbs on drink driving, compulsory seat belts, unleaded petrol and so on.
But at the same time, no one supports cutting the speed limit on motorways to 20kmh even though it would undoubtedly save lives, and even though there would be no problem tracking down a scientist who could show exactly how many lives a year such a move would save. No one supports a 20kmh speed limit because it would be going too far. It would strike the wrong balance between road safety and personal freedom.
So what about drink-driving limits? Again, no one opposes some limits, so the real question is what limit should be struck? Some people say the limit should be zero. Others believe it should remain at the current limit of 80mg. A few probably think that is already too low, while still others, including Transport Minister Noel Dempsey, want it reduced to 50mg.
The big argument against further reducing the drink-driving limit is that it will impose unacceptable social costs. The argument that it will lead to further rural isolation can't be airily and contemptuously dismissed as if it simply doesn't count for anything.
The fact that rural pubs are a dying species is of no particular consequence unless it is having other, knock-on effects. It's not for nothing that rates of suicide are higher among isolated farmers than among the general population. Road accidents can certainly kill, but so can isolation. And that's without mentioning the depression caused by it.
The prospect that rural isolation, and all the problems associated with that, will be made worse by the proposed reduction in the drink-driving limit has to be taken into account by its proponents.
For example, has a study ever been conducted into the effects of very strict drink-driving limits on rural isolation? Has it made it worse? Or has it had no effect? We don't know.
Also, it is not as though the decline of the pub has reduced the amount of drinking overall. In fact, there has been a big increase and maybe the two are partly connected. Maybe a lot of people are drinking four pints at home every night instead of one down at the pub.
The possibility that there might be a connection between increased drinking and the decline of the pub should be investigated as well because if this is the case then all the other health and social problems associated with excessive drinking are going to get much worse, not better.
And by the way, hasn't it occurred to anyone in this debate that most traffic accidents are caused by men in their 20s and not elderly farmers driving home from the pub at night?
Perhaps the real answer to road fatalities is to ban men aged 18-25 from driving altogether?
The reaction of the media to the mini-rebellion by rural TDs and senators to the proposed reduction in the drink-driving limit has been entirely predictable and reeks of urban versus rural snobbery as rural TDs go on radio with broad country accents only to be sneered at because they lack the smooth, polished arguments of urban 'sophisticates'.
It is also predictable that there is much more support for the proposed reduction in urban areas than in rural ones. Rural isolation by definition is not a problem in urban areas and most people in towns and cities are in walking distance of pubs.
But whatever your position on this issue, can we allow that it is not a black or white one and that reasonable people are allowed to have differing opinions on it without being shouted down and demonised as apologists for road killings?