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

Lowering of drink drive limit - Nanny state strikes again

Hank_Jones

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0922/drink.html

A Bill that will pave the way for the introduction of lower drink-driving limits is being published today.

The Road Traffic No 2 Bill will allow for mandatory breath testing at the new limits, which are due to be introduced next month.

It will reduce the legal blood alcohol limit from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg per 100ml.

Instead of the current ban, those found over the new 50mg limit will be given three penalty points and an on-the-spot fine of €200.

However, if they are found to be over the existing limit of 80mg they will be automatically disqualified from driving for six months and fined €400.

The option of taking a fine and points rather than going to court can only be availed of once in a three-year period.

Those who drive for a living and learner drivers will be subject to a 'virtually zero' limit of 20mg per 100ml of blood.

If they are caught over the limit they will be disqualified for three months and fined €200.

Dr Denis Cusack of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety in UCD says that the only way people can guarantee not being over the new limits is not to drink and drive.

Testing equipment calibrated for the new limits is due to become available in the comings weeks.

Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar will then announce a date for the introduction of the new limits, which is expected to be in October.

Why do we have to conform with everything that the EU do?

We have politicians that are a bunch of sheep, lowering the limit by such a small percentage isn't going to affect those that are drink driving.

If people want to drink drive, they are going to, shouldn't punish the people that want to go for one and drive home.

Find more posts tagged with

getting drunk

save mickeling

Quick Links

Comments

Guy:Incognito

Dempsey wrote: »

My biggest gripe is people being done the morning after. Someone who leaves the pub and hops straight into their car will get the same as someone who got a taxi out and home, a good nights sleep and bagged driving to work.
:

AGAIN. Whats the difference? If theres a set of twins and they both head out for a night seperatley. All things being equal other than the first lad has 3 pints and jumps in the car, heads home early and gets stopped by the Gards, breathalised and fails. 2nd guy has a skinfull and gets a taxi home, gets up early and drives to work, gets stopped by the gards and breathalised. Hase the very same level of alcohol as his brother the night before. IIs he not as impaired? What makes his crime any less?

seamus

Of course everyone forgets that there's a perfectly reasonable way of going to the pub, having four pints and getting home;

Walk or cycle. A 5km walk should take about an hour. A 5km cycle should take 20 minutes, at most. Cycling after 4 pints carries a drastically lower risk than driving, primarily because you're not in control of a 1.5 tonne steel box capable of travelling at 150km/h.

If you're planning more than 4 pints, then either way take a taxi. If your pub is more than 5km away, then find a new pub or go less often.

Mickerling doesn't have a right to go the pub whenever he wants and under his terms. If he wants to have ten pints in the pub 7 miles away, then he has to figure out how to get there and back legally and safely.

jackal

Been driving for about 17 years and have never, ever been breathalysed or even seen a checkpoint for anything other than tax/nct.

However, the culture has changed irrevocably in relation to drink driving in this country, for the better, but I don't want to see it go too far - as if they are going for zero, then they had better introduce analayzers for sleepyness, being an asshole driver, talking on the mobile, turning around to talk to the kids, being an idiot on motorways and all the other things that cause similar amounts of accidents as tiny amounts of alcohol.

I just can't stick the thought of getting done the next morning, which is what is going to happen to some unfortunate learners or professionals with the new .20mg limit.

Orando Broom

seamus wrote: »

Of course everyone forgets that there's a perfectly reasonable way of going to the pub, having four pints and getting home;

Walk or cycle. A 5km walk should take about an hour. A 5km cycle should take 20 minutes, at most. Cycling after 4 pints carries a drastically lower risk than driving, primarily because you're not in control of a 1.5 tonne steel box capable of travelling at 150km/h.

If you're planning more than 4 pints, then either way take a taxi. If your pub is more than 5km away, then find a new pub or go less often.

Mickerling doesn't have a right to go the pub whenever he wants and under his terms. If he wants to have ten pints in the pub 7 miles away, then he has to figure out how to get there and back legally and safely.

I presume this is the locked calculation!!

Mr. Presentable

Degag wrote: »

People don't kill other people after a pint or two. They kill people driving after 10 pints or so. I drive home after a few pints and have no problem saying so. I've never killed anyone or came close to it. Have always being comfortable with my driving ability and of being within the limit most of the time.

That'll be the confidence borne of alcohol.

Alcohol impairs your judgment - not just of driving but of your judgment. By which I mean, if you have taken alcohol you are in no condition to judge your own ability to drive safely.

Akrasia

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Wondering what people's positions are on driving while fatigued?

Suppose we'll all have to have 8 hours sleep before getting behind the wheel now...

And ban babies.

I'd love to call the boss in the morning "Sorry boss, I can't go to work today, the babby cried all night so I didn't get much sleep and I'd be a risk to the public while driving on the road in the morning"

There is evidence that listening to talk radio (or other distractions) could increase the risk of an accident by as much as consumption of alcohol. That is why I find it hilarious listening to politicians and pundits going on drive time radio and telling us that even having one pint is too much to risk driving.

Orando Broom

Akrasia wrote: »

And ban babies.

I'd love to call the boss in the morning "Sorry boss, I can't go to work today, the babby cried all night so I didn't get much sleep and I'd be a risk to the public while driving on the road in the morning"

There is evidence that listening to talk radio (or other distractions) could increase the risk of an accident by as much as consumption of alcohol. That is why I find it hilarious listening to politicians and pundits going on drive time radio and telling us that even having one pint is too much to risk driving.

Would you let a person who will listen to the radio drive your kid around?

Would you let a person who has taken a drink or two drive your kid around?

Logical Fallacy

Orando Broom wrote: »

HAHAHA!!! Show me where I slandered you?

No **** it.

Reported.

Slander = verbal

Libel = written.

Come on tha ****.

yupyup7up

I reckon you should be allowed 1 pint and that's it. Can't see that doing any harm.

Orando Broom

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Slander = verbal

Libel = written.

Come on tha ****.

I don't have the same experience of 'slandering' someone as you may have!!!

Dempsey

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

AGAIN. Whats the difference? If theres a set of twins and they both head out for a night seperatley. All things beign equal other than the first lad has 3 pints and jumps in the car, heads home ealry and gets stopped by the Gards, breathalised and fails. 2nd guy has a skinfull and gets a taxi home, gets up ealry and drives to work, gets stopped by the gards and breathalised. Hase the very same level of alcohol as his brother the night before. IIs he not as impaired? What makes his crime any less?

One intentionally broke the law, the other didnt. I dont think somone who intentionally break the law should be punished the same as someone who didn't.

I think fatigue is a much bigger issue for a person than a blood alcohol level between 50-80mg/L

Guy:Incognito

Dempsey wrote: »

One intentionally broke the law, the other didnt. I dont think somone who intentionally break the law should be punished the same as someone who didn't

Ignorance is not a defence. People know full well at this stage whats involved.

Plus, whos to say the guy thats stopped in the mornign hasnt been drinking slowly all night and headed straight to work? How do you test for that?

I'm sure theres a few alcoholics aroudn that probably have a drink in the morning too.

Dempsey wrote: »

I think fatigue is a much bigger issue for a person than a blood alcohol level between 50-80mg/L

Theres no a huge amount you can do about that other than try to educate people. I've seen and heard plenty o fads about drivign tired. It's not somthign you can breathalise for.

SantryRed

Absolutely blatant money making scheme.

Guy:Incognito

SantryRed wrote: »

Absolutely blatant money making scheme.

Howzat?

Dempsey

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Ignorance is not a defence. People know full well at this stage whats involved.

Plus, whos to say the guy thats stopped in the mornign hasnt been drinking slowly all night and headed straight to work? How do you test for that?

I'm sure theres a few alcoholics aroudn that probably have a drink in the morning too.

I didnt say that they were ignorant of the law, did I?

A court of law would be the way to prove what you did in the hours leading up to the failed test.

Notorious

I'm quite annoyed at the lowering of the drink drive level. Due to where I live, I have to drive pretty much every day, therefore I rarely drink. I go out to the pub with my friends at least once a week and I like to have a single pint while I'm there. One pint will does not effect my driving ability at all. I now probably won't be able to have that one pint.

Will that small change in the alcohol levels effect the amount of people killed on Irish roads? I doubt it. If people are happy to break the limit that's in place now then why would this proposed change in the alcohol levels deter them?

Orando Broom

Drink driving is a crime of strict liability. Ignorance is simply not a defence. The mental guilt of the person at the time does not need to be established.

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

Drink driving is a crime of strict liability. Ignorance is simply not a defence. The mental guilt of the person at the time does not need to be established.

Neither is ignorance of alcohol content in Daily Environment, yet you still insist on a 0.0 Level.

Your ignorance is blatant for all to see.

And you the fact that you cant see this as a money making and RSA quango scheme is hilarious. Your a ripe punter for the taking.

Degag

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

That'll be the confidence borne of alcohol.

Alcohol impairs your judgment - not just of driving but of your judgment. By which I mean, if you have taken alcohol you are in no condition to judge your own ability to drive safely.

A bit of sensibility please. We are talking about 2 pints here.

ROCKMAN

Drinking limit should be zero , just my opinion.

listermint

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Drinking limit should be zero , just my opinion.

You are another one doesnt understand 0.0 is not enforceable.

Keith186

Can't believe the amount of people looking for zero limits.

Won't make any noticeable difference IMO like the new lower limit either.

Its drunk drivers causing serious accidents and fatalities not people driving after a pint or two.

Bunch of fûcking lightweights! You know who you are!

RichieC

Sticjones wrote: »

I would be very surprised if anyone on the planet (regardless of weight/height/age/tolerance/etc) would have a blood alcohol concentration of over 0.8mg after a single drink.

there's one on the wall in a local boozer and it fails you before you even have a scoop.

Lando Griffin

geetar wrote: »

who the hell is this mickling lad?

why in this country when we bring in new laws to we bring up stories of how it will affect three 80 year olds in the country.

same thing happened with the smoking ban.

youre suggesting we abondon making new laws to save lives on our roads, to facillitate one 80 year old drink driving alcoholic.

Mickeling and thousands like him around the country whose only avenue of social life is a few pints down the local.
They have been driving since before a drink driving limit and got on all right, now they are just to be forgotton about as the like the cold shoulder of winter wraps itself around them.

Temptamperu

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Mickeling and thousands like him around the country whose only avenue of social life is a few pints down the local.
They have been driving since before a drink driving limit and got on all right, now they are just to be forgotton about as the like the cold shoulder of winter wraps itself around them.

I suppose we should forgive his racism because he was a racist before it was bad :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

Whatever limit they place on it, it's not going to stop those with a drink problem getting behind the wheel. Their cravings far outweigh the effect of any law.

Orando Broom

ejmaztec wrote: »

Whatever limit they place on it, it's not going to stop those with a drink problem getting behind the wheel. Their cravings far outweigh the effect of any law.

I know of a guy on a ten year ban driving locked, sure. But at least he was jailed. Then hospitalised.

Chuck Stone

Zero alcohol limit is stupid and punishes the moderate among us and won't deter the habitual drunk driver.

ejmaztec

Orando Broom wrote: »

I know of a guy on a ten year ban driving locked, sure. But at least he was jailed. Then hospitalised.

These are the people who, if they do manage to get home in one piece, fall out of their cars and crawl to the front door, through pools of their own piss and vomit.

The King of Moo

Degag wrote: »

A bit of sensibility please. We are talking about 2 pints here.

yupyup7up wrote: »

I reckon you should be allowed 1 pint and that's it. Can't see that doing any harm.

The problem is that different people react differently to alcohol.
Your average Irish male is used to drinking and wouldn't be greatly affected by one pint. But that doesn't mean one pint still doesn't affect you in subtle ways, and as mentioned earlier, even a fairly small amount of alcohol impairs your ability to judge your own competence.

And I know quite a few people who would be tipsy after one pint and more noticeably drunk after two.

One can be one too many.

Just because you're fairly sure that's not the case for you, doesn't make it a universal truth.