The new drink/drive limit, your thoughts

Joey the lips · 30-10-2009 01:17PM

My own feeling.

Ban drinking and driving period!

But then you have to think of people in the backwaters of donegal,kerry and Cork. Alone nearest neighbour is a mile away. No visitors. That one pint is 2 halfs of shandy in a pub. Its about 4 hours of talking. We talk about drink driving but what do the stats say? Do the stats say "A 78 year old driving home in donegal kill 7 sheep because of 1 pint"

or do the stats say "Mark smith 24 yrs old suspected of drink driving was killed when his car went out of control and hit a three"

Its not about money really its not about one drink its about one social drink which means an awful lot to a lot of people. Its fine for us living in the pale but we have alternatives.

prendy · 30-10-2009 01:26PM

if they actually enforced the current limit would be alot better.

for the record i dont drink and drive..never

but..

I think at the minute 3 pints puts you over so people can have 2. I seriously doubt anyone has been killed by a driver who has had 2 pints. drink driving incidents usually involve people way over the legal limit, these people wont care if the limit is 50 or 80mg. they will continue to drink and drive until they are caught or are dead.

amacachi · 30-10-2009 01:27PM

Joey the lips wrote: »

My own feeling.

Ban drinking and driving period!

But then you have to think of people in the backwaters of donegal,kerry and Cork. Alone nearest neighbour is a mile away. No visitors. That one pint is 2 halfs of shandy in a pub. Its about 4 hours of talking. We talk about drink driving but what do the stats say? Do the stats say "A 78 year old driving home in donegal kill 7 sheep because of 1 pint"

or do the stats say "Mark smith 24 yrs old suspected of drink driving was killed when his car went out of control and hit a three"

Its not about money really its not about one drink its about one social drink which means an awful lot to a lot of people. Its fine for us living in the pale but we have alternatives.

Why, why does there have to alcohol consumed!? I really think that's the trouble most people have with that argument.

TheZohanS · 30-10-2009 01:33PM

prendy wrote: »

I think at the minute 3 pints puts you over so people can have 2.

For some people, depends on weight, what you've had to eat, metabolism, medications you might be on and how efficient your body is at processing alcohol.

mickos · 30-10-2009 01:44PM

amacachi wrote: »

Just a hypothetical here. You own a rural pub with maybe 20 regulars on a Friday night. Each one of them is only having a single drink then driving home. Total into the till of around 90 quid.
Now IF this were the case I would hire a minibus for a couple of hundred euro and let them get ****faced and still go home. An extra 3-4 drinks per person will cover the cost.
One possible reason why no pub owners are doing this could be because the customers are already having more than one-two drinks each night.

Are we really meant to believe that they're worried about only being able to have 1 pint instead of 2?

My local pub has done something like this. He used to have a commercial jeep, which he used for collecting stock or whatever. In 2008 he traded in the jeep for a minibus, which he can still use for collecting stock. The pubs slogan now is "you get here and we will get you home". It has worked quiet well and although his trade is back, like everywhere, the pub still does a reasonably good trade on weekends. i don't see why more rural publicans can't trade in their Mercs and BMWs to provide this service for their customers.

Pygmalion · 30-10-2009 01:59PM

mickos wrote: »

My local pub has done something like this. He used to have a commercial jeep, which he used for collecting stock or whatever. In 2008 he traded in the jeep for a minibus, which he can still use for collecting stock. The pubs slogan now is "you get here and we will get you home". It has worked quiet well and although his trade is back, like everywhere, the pub still does a reasonably good trade on weekends. i don't see why more rural publicans can't trade in their Mercs and BMWs to provide this service for their customers.

As well as that, if the bus leaves at 2 in the morning then the customers stay until 2 in the morning, which I'm sure is a plus for him :P

Venom · 30-10-2009 02:42PM

crossmolinalad wrote: »

i live rural
the nearest pub is to far to walk
to get a taxi on friday saturday evenings/nights is in rural almost impossible
they dont want to go for a drive of 3/4 hour to pick u up from a rural pub , bring u home (a 15 mins drive) and going back another 3/4 hour for just 12 euro
they get more if they stay local

so it means what u say: the rural pub have to close down and we have to stay home
thats whats gonna happen

Why not take turn as designated driver with other drivers who like to have a drink thus no taxi hassles?

The same issue you are complaining about effect people living in cites as well and have been dealt with for a long time and as others have stated if its just to socialise why not have a soft drink.

Kipperhell · 30-10-2009 02:58PM

I just want to see how many people were involved in accidents where by the new limit would have meant they were charged. It is below 50 for the entire country then you got to wonder is the expense of the law change worth it.

I know one guy who has been charged twice and both times got away with it so I think that would be a better area to focus on.

restaurants · 30-10-2009 03:03PM

TheZohan wrote: »

I think it should be dropped to 50mg or even lower, but not zero.

The only reason it shouldn't be dropped to zero is because of the chances of having a few mgs of alcohol in your blood the following morning.

I agree with bringing it down, but we need some level of tolerance next morning. That is why 'zero' is wrong.

peepeep · 30-10-2009 03:03PM

Joey the lips wrote: »

or do the stats say "Mark smith 24 yrs old suspected of drink driving was killed when his car went out of control and hit a three"

Good thing he didn't hit a four or there'd be hell to pay.

ejmaztec · 30-10-2009 03:04PM

Mobile bars. They can drive around picking up alcoholics, then shove em back out onto their door-steps when they're in a coma.

bog master · 30-10-2009 03:25PM

amacachi wrote: »

Just a hypothetical here. You own a rural pub with maybe 20 regulars on a Friday night. Each one of them is only having a single drink then driving home. Total into the till of around 90 quid.
Now IF this were the case I would hire a minibus for a couple of hundred euro and let them get ****faced and still go home. An extra 3-4 drinks per person will cover the cost.
One possible reason why no pub owners are doing this could be because the customers are already having more than one-two drinks each night.

Are we really meant to believe that they're worried about only being able to have 1 pint instead of 2?

In defence of the publican, you expect him to spend all of his profit made from these 20 lads staying on later to pay for a minibus to take them home?

mickos · 30-10-2009 04:04PM

Pygmalion wrote: »

As well as that, if the bus leaves at 2 in the morning then the customers stay until 2 in the morning, which I'm sure is a plus for him :P

Thats another thing. The bus leaves at closing time and not a minute before, so keeps the punters drinking til closing. Unfortunately they don't get to stay for the lock in though;)

30-10-2009 05:14PM

I am totally against lowering the limit it is fine as it is. Why people think reducing it will make the slightest difference is beyond me. All it is doing is putting more hardship on people who need to drive the next day as it is already risky with this rubbish of bagging in the morning. It will also make it harder for people especially older people who have no choice but to drive to the pub when they want a pint or two.

caseyann · 30-10-2009 06:31PM

They should just ban drink from Ireland altogether;)That would solve the drink drivers problem.And cigarettes also.

oppenheimer1 · 30-10-2009 06:43PM

bog master wrote: »

In defence of the publican, you expect him to spend all of his profit made from these 20 lads staying on later to pay for a minibus to take them home?

Well does the publican want to stay in business or not? Just had a look on Carzone, a 5 year old minibus will set you back about €5k, and if the bus is just for running drunks home you could get away with spending even less. Assuming a reasonably busy pub running the bus service 3 nights a week at €5 a head it could turn out to be a reasonably profitable venture. If publicans were creative they could even turn it into a selling point, buy 5 pints and get a free lift home within a 5km radius or something along those lines. The banter on the bus could be the best craic of the night. The rural transport scheme runs in my area and most pensioners like it because it gives them a chance to meet others, despite the fact that it may take one and a half hours to go five km as it has such a roundabout route.

Rural attitudes are changing anyway and when the current batch of auld fellas die off they will take the way of the old rural Irish pub trade with them to the grave.

Only those that innovate will survive.

Wertz · 30-10-2009 06:59PM

Wonderful. Yet more newly enacted legislation that panders to the populist masses and the generally clueless.
Nevermind the fact that the previous limit was not being effectively enforced due to lack of checkpoints or pro active garda crackdowns in the right areas...so now instead of trying to make people comply with the 80mg level with the current level of enforcement, they want to make people comply with a lower limit...ie doing more with less.

This protects no-one...for instance it doesn't protect people from plain old stupidity like the woman and her three children I encountered less than an hour ago, whilst I was pulling out of a petrol station, who in heavy rain and near darkness (4.45pm) hadn't the basic level of knowledge to put on even her fecking sidelights, never mind her headlights...only I checked my off side a third time, before puling out, I'd have cleaned her/her kids out of it, probably written off both cars and perhaps killed someone.
This is without a drop of alcohol comsumed by either party (I assume, if she's driving her kids home)...I certainly haven't touched a drop in weeks, nor would I ever consider getting behind the wheel after even a bottle of beer.

Where are the laws to deal with that? Me flashing my lights at her in her rearview didn't get the message home and I'd be fairly sure she drove down the road cursing me for being some sort of maniac...who happened to have his lights on like 95% of the rest of the urban traffic.

Neither does the new limit protect anyone from the likes of the bespectacled idiot in a Golf GTi I met yesterday doing 50km/h in an 80 zone, who then decides to brake test me, in heavy rain/surface water, for coming up faster behind him...brake testing me with one of his brake lights out might I add, and who then proceeds to take a (wrong

) turn whilst flipping me the finger, and ends up sitting beside me at the traffic lights further down and then tries to ignore me.

We didn't need any new limits or penalties for alcohol, we needed a roadside idiot test and some legislators who actually understand what the real issues are for road safety, not this continued 'speed kills' mantra and 1 unit of alcohol turns you into the motoring equivalent of Hannibal Lectre....if you want to cut rural road deaths in late night collisions then try widening some roads, painting some new lines, trimming back hedgerows and filling in potholes...but no, that takes actual work and money....easier to make it look like you're being tough on the big bogeyman of the roads by making more rules against it which you still can't effectively instigate.

All a nice diversion away from the whole NAMA thing too BTW...I get very worried when our politicians stay up past midnight...means they're robbing us all again, but that's one for another thread...

[edit] All that said, I do welcome the mandatory testing after collisions...I'm utterly amazed that that wasn't made the case years ago.

Joey the lips · 30-10-2009 08:13PM

amacachi wrote: »

Why, why does there have to alcohol consumed!? I really think that's the trouble most people have with that argument.

True but you are missing my underlying point... Where is most of the accidents coming from? and at what price to society do we lower the limits. Like really lets call a spade a spade

Ban drink all together because it causes death.

Make sure all cares are fitted with tacho;s and speed limiters

Anyone that smokes should pay a premium on the health service

If you drive a motorbike you should pay a premium on the health service.

This list can go on and granted drinking is the issue but

Speed kills
Smoking Kills
Motors bikes are the highest fatality.

You see where do we stop. What is needed imo is a focus on where the deaths come from and how. On the news today noel dempsey is preposing for first offence its a fine and 3 penality points. This is an acknowledgement imo that it will cut rural life off. Additionally. Will the money generated by these fines go into paying for extra garda. I dont think so.

I said at the start I could not care if drinking is banned all together but there is banning things for a reason and banning them for sense and tbh this has no sense in my reasoning.

miss_feminem · 30-10-2009 09:19PM

Pygmalion wrote: »

Should be as low as practical to be honest.

Thing is it can't be "0" or fairly close as certain foods and drinks will contain a tiny amount of alcohol anyway(I've gotten some cola drink from a health shop before with "Only 0.5% alcohol" or whatever, and I believe a lot of "non-alcoholic" beers contain about this amount, as well as food which use it for flavouring), and some IIRC occur naturally in the body.

Yup, and I'm pretty sure mouth wash has alcohol too so it can't be zero really.

miss_feminem · 30-10-2009 09:25PM

Joey the lips wrote: »

If you drive a motorbike you should pay a premium on the health service.

Motors bikes are the highest fatality.

Not sure about this now in fairness. Most accidents involving motorbikes are caused by car drivers "not seeing" the bike. My OH has a bike (but has been driving a car for a lot longer) and he went through an insane training course to make sure he was driving the safest he possibly could.

VinnyTGM · 30-10-2009 09:27PM

I think it should be brought down to 35mg/100ml, but not zero, as mouthwash or food with alcohol could put you over.

Biggins · 30-10-2009 09:39PM

I'm all for the change.
I've lost too many friends and others injured over the years to drunk drivers.

OutlawPete · 31-10-2009 01:46AM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

A zero limit would mean nobody could drive since there is a small amount of naturally occuring alcohol in your body even if youve never had a drink in your life. 20mg is about the lowest practicable limit which can be set

Few years back I was diagnosed in the Blackrock which higher than normal blood alcohol. I was put on Diflucan meds and told I was basically brewing alcohol internally

Was taken off all starch, sugars and fruit. I had mad withdrawls and the doc said that was because I was going around for years with a very slight alcohol buzz. I was driving at the time and asked him about the level but he said that it was no where near what the legal alcohol level so not too worry about it.

Joey the lips · 31-10-2009 09:04AM

miss_feminem wrote: »

Not sure about this now in fairness. Most accidents involving motorbikes are caused by car drivers "not seeing" the bike. My OH has a bike (but has been driving a car for a lot longer) and he went through an insane training course to make sure he was driving the safest he possibly could.

What aspect are you not sure about? I never said about who causes them I said they have the highest fatalitly rate which is fact. Your actually focusing on the wrong part of my example. I was using other examples to explain a point of where do we stop.#

Noel dempseys attitude is cut the limit to Zero, fine! but why not charge premium on other items that cause accidents if they are a real concern. That was my point.

See deep down I have no problem with banning the drink driving but who is going to enforce the new limit and who has actually proved the old limit never worked so we need to revise.... The old limit never worked because it was never enforced so now making the limit stricter will make it harder to enforce.

Then in a back down noel dempsey has changed the first offence to a fine and 2 points. This is an admission that it will not work and a fear to show face.

I would prepose that on the current limits we give a fine for the first offence and use the money to fund more garda. That way there will be stricter controls and more chances of getting caught.

i dive an adverage of 350 miles a week across 3 counties on various backroads, Dublin, Kildare and meath. The 3 busiest counties in the country imo. I see less than 4 checkpoints a year.... This is where the current problem lies not in the current limits.

The govt attitde is akin to fire fighting and they dont have a firetruck big ernough to put out the fire.

snaps · 31-10-2009 10:33AM

but what's going to change? the kind of person that will drink 8 pints and drive still will, but the kind of person like me that may have 2 pints and drive won't now go out? also so many people the next day will be screwed. this new legislation won't stop drink driving or save lives on the road. surely this government needs to be sorting out the country first?

31-10-2009 10:50AM

Got breathalyzed for the first time ever last night around half 1 in galway.. Glad to see them out, hopefully they'll have a big presence for a while now and get it into peoples heads.

If I get caught some morning though, i'll be ragin.

Sofiztikated · 31-10-2009 11:00AM

To be honest, I think they've made an awful balls up here.

Not on the lowering of the limit, or the lack of enforcement, but the U turn they did on it. It went and publicised to everyone that, "Ah, sure one drink is ok if you're driving!"

And if people think one drink is ok, then 2 must be alright. And if I have 2, and I can still drive, the 4 should be ok as well.

For the first time (I'd like to say ever, but that'd be lying, I was stupid when I was younger) in a long time, I was in the pub the other night, and driving. I had a drink, simply because this had been in the media so much, I felt I could get away with having a drink a driving.

Mark200 · 31-10-2009 11:08AM

TheZohan wrote: »

The only reason it shouldn't be dropped to zero is because of the chances of having a few mgs of alcohol in your blood the following morning.

That happens anyway, there has been numerous people who have been banned because they still had alcohol in their system the day after a night out. And they weren't all drinking heavily the night before either. As the scientists in Ireland are saying... you can decide with your emotions and reduce the limit out of your hatred for drink drivers, or you can actually decide based on facts and statistics.

The current limit would be fine if it was actually enforced. You can make all the laws you want but it means feck all unless you enforce it.

Biggins wrote: »

I'm all for the change.
I've lost too many friends and others injured over the years to drunk drivers.

Yeah but I'm confident the drunk drivers involved were over the current limit anyway... so what difference would lowering the limit make?

SoupyNorman · 31-10-2009 11:26AM

80mg --> 50mg pfft, ie 2pints to 1pint. The most Ive ever had was a shandy after the golf, I'll now not even bother, thats how the reduced limit will affect my life.

It's a ridiculous exercise, reducing the limit by such a flippant number. I am 100% against drinking and driving, being over the limit and operating any vehicle is one of the most heinous acts a person can do however like was said before, it's not the limit thats the issue it's the number of checkpoints and guards out there bagging folks and obviously, they can only operate with the funding they get from the state.

It's an airy fairy exercise thats trying to curry favor with us all. If the minister said that the reason he was lowering the limit was because thats the limit in 90% of EU countries then fair enough, but to claim that he is doing it to reduce road deaths is quite insulting when it's Garda Resources that are required....

Reducing the limit from 80 to 50mg is not guaranteed to reduce road fatalities, increasing checkpoints and Guard presence on the roads will.

Im driving 2/3 years now, Ive been all over the country and never been stopped, my Uncle was stopped last week for the first time in 30years on the road...it paints a stark picture.

The Big Red Button · 31-10-2009 11:42AM

amacachi wrote: »

Just a hypothetical here. You own a rural pub with maybe 20 regulars on a Friday night. Each one of them is only having a single drink then driving home. Total into the till of around 90 quid.
Now IF this were the case I would hire a minibus for a couple of hundred euro and let them get ****faced and still go home. An extra 3-4 drinks per person will cover the cost.

That's why my local pub does, well something like that ... see last photo on the page! OK the transportation isn't exactly as advertised in the photo!

But the owner of the bar does offer anyone who needs it a lift at the end of the night, and the regulars who get it spend a hell of a lot more during the night than whatever it would cost him in petrol! If rural pub owners are dedicated enough to their business, they should be more proactive and actually work out a solution for their customers rather than just moaning about the drink-driving laws.

The new drink/drive limit, your thoughts

Comments