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; } } }

Attitudes to drink driving

Snickers Man

The publicity given to the recent tragic case of Ciaran Treacy, the four year old killed in a road accident involving a man who was driving after drinking about 10 pints of cider, has revitalised the issue of drinking and driving.

There have been many threads on this in the past but I would like to get a more detailed picture of people's attitudes. It has been suggested to me that it is people of my age group (50+) who are now more likely to drink and drive than younger people because attitudes have changed thanks to awareness campaigns and, let's face it, detection rates.

Personally, I have never knowingly got pissed and driven. I always restricted my intake if I was driving and religiously held to the adage that "two will do" which was the best advice given to my generation several years ago.

Nowadays the mantra is "Never EVER drink and drive" I personally think that's a load of old bollox but then I am rapidly approaching cranky old man status.

I get very irritated by hand wringing columnists like Miriam Donohe writing that "It should not be acceptable to get behind the wheel of a car with any drink on board. Forget about drink-driving limits."

Here she is equating someone who has one or two pints in the pub after a hard day at the office before driving home with somebody who downs a gallon or so of cider and then staggers into the car. They are NOT morally equivalent.

Or so say I. But what do the rest of you think?

And is it true that younger people are more intolerant of people driving after drinking a legal amount of alcohol than are us older ones?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Tarzana2

Yeah, I had five ciders last night from around 7pm to around 3am. So slow paced and I would not go anywhere near a car. Two pints in the pubs would likely be drank a lot of quicker than that so I really can't imagine anyone being fine to drive after two, except if those two were drank very slowly.

DeanAustin

Wouldn't do it in a million years. While I'm not drunk on a pint or two, there is an effect and anyone saying there isn't is wrong. That aside, even if I was 100% okay and had a crash, I'd always wonder and never forgive myself.

I know it is an emotional response and it wasn't one or two pints but reading Gillian Treacy's victim impact statement a couple of weeks ago, it has only strengthened my views. Genuinely one of the saddest and most upsetting things I have ever read.

XtraFalcon

I wouldn't allow someone to drive even after just a sip of a pint.

After drink starts to take effect your reactions are slightly slower, it might not seem like a huge difference but all it takes is a split second to cause serious (if not fatal) harm on the road.

Grab All Association

I live near a small local road in rural Tipperary where the majority of cars on the road after 12am are driven by drunk drivers. Garda checkpoints only seem to target drivers in the larger towns nearby Thurles and Clonmel. Stand outside pubs in most of the villages and you'll see farmers and GAA heads getting into their cars drunk.

To add when I was 13 years old I seen one driver who could barely walk to his car getting in his car. He sat in the car for 15 minutes. Another witness called the Gardai who never showed up. Drink driving enforcement/fpn/points are only for people in urban Ireland.

Tarzana2

Grab All Association wrote: »

Stand outside pubs in most of the villages and you'll see farmers and GAA heads getting into their cars drunk.

Such heroes.

My dad was out walking once, and had a drunk driver in a bull-barred jeep swerve at him for a "laugh". I shít you not. This only happened two or three years ago.

orthsquel

I wouldn't drink and drive. I only drink spirits so naturally I couldn't drive, even if it seemed like I was sober enough. Having been a passenger where I might have been given the odd lift by people over the years I have been a passenger in a car where someone had drink and had difficulty driving, where someone had had a few smokes, where someone else was on the phone while driving.... scary experiences as a passenger where you know the driving just isn't right, when you know there is a risk, and as a result I would never ever get in a car as a passenger ever again with someone under any influence of alcohol (even if under the legal limit), drugs or just glued to their phones.

All of this put me off the idea of drink driving, I only learned to drive in the last few years in my 30s and witnessed the behaviour of others - as mentioned above and more - with alcohol, drugs and phones long before I was driving... it was enough to make me never start with driving while even having had one drink, or driving after a few joints or even using a phone while driving. And I have never used my phone once ever, when driving, I'll only ever look at it when the car is parked and the engine is off. Same for drink, I wouldn't even drive hungover, never mind after a few drinks, just because I've seen the effects and results before on people who have driven in that state. Same for tiredness, I often do long drives, often will have coffee with me in the boot, will stop and take a break if I feel tired...why? Not because the RSA say so, but because I've witnessed as a passenger how fatigue can effect someone's driving.

I think it was the attitude of people, nice ordinary people, who just never once thought about me, the passenger in their car, while they were having had the 1 or 2 drinks (and couldn't control the car), the joint or whatever and drove that really kept me from ever taking the chance. I value my life a bit more than their own selfish needs would, as a result I wouldn't even be a passenger in some family members' cars because of their poor driving skills such as aggressive driving, use of phones and tailgating... what I have seen though has had more of an impact than all the ads, even the most graphic of them, simply because as a passenger I had no control over the situation and the driving (except to leave) where little consideration was ever given to me except in giving me a lift, but not about my safety and wouldn't place myself or anyone else in that same position I was once in.

ZzubZzub

I'd agree with a practically zero limit. I say practically, to allow for some anomaly that shows up on a breathalyser.

I personally won't drink more than 2 glasses of wine if I know I'm going to be driving the next morning.

I don't understand how people can get behind a wheel after a few drinks. It's just selfish.

I've wrestled keys out of a family members hands, and paid €50 for a friends taxi so they wouldn't drive after a few. It's just not worth the risk

Galwayguy35

I did it when I was 22, was bagged and put off the road.

I'd never do it again.

I saw the results of what can happen a few years later when a drunk driver crashed into my brother, a guy who never took a drink in his life.

Chancer3001

Drink driving normally is a complete no no.

For some reason it seems to be totally acceptable on the day of a wedding. Few pints. Drive to church. Few pints. Drive to hotel.

I'd say every wedding I've been to at least 30 cars have done this

Azalea

shugy wrote: »

Nothing wrong with drink driving as long as one knows his/her limit. People keep going on about this one and that one died because of it. That's ballix IMO, people die on the roads every day of the week and we never hear about it.

It's ballix when people say a person died because of drink-driving because people die on the roads every day of the week and we never hear about it? What?

I don't agree with drinking 10 pints and getting behind the wheel but a few pints, ffs giver your head a shake.

What's a few pints? A few pints can be four or five pints. It's certainly too much to drink before driving.

Snickers Man wrote: »

You see, there's Ireland's "drinking problem" right there: You're not drinking properly unless you're getting pissed. Everything else is incomprehensible.

It's ridiculous. It's destructive. it's not good for you. It's not even particularly pleasant. Especially if it's habitual.

I admit, I have been severely pissed in my life. I will probably do so again. If Ireland win the World Cup, or beat the All Blacks, or I have a lottery win. But generally speaking I like to have a few pints fairly regularly. If I'm meeting people for an evening I may have four or five (and wouldn't dream of driving after such a load) but if i pop into the pub for one or two after work that's great. And it doesn't impair me at all so why the hell can't I then drive home? I'm not breaking any law.

The problem with your attitude...

Calm down - they didn't say any of the above. They just said they don't see the point in one or two pints when you may as well have one or two soft drinks - they probably associate having alcoholic drinks with relaxing and getting merry, not necessarily pissed. I wouldn't want to get pissed as the hangovers are too horrendous but I wouldn't want to have to leave after just one or two drinks either when the sensation is starting to kick in. I'd prefer to be able to relax.

Snickers Man

Azalea wrote: »

Calm down - they didn't say any of the above. They just said they don't see the point in one or two pints when you may as well have one or two soft drinks - they probably associate having alcoholic drinks with relaxing and getting merry, not necessarily pissed.

Which is kind of what I said he said. "Why do you want to have an alcoholic drink at all unless you want to get incapacitated?"

Who the bloody hell is anyone to tell anyone else what they SHOULD drink in order to relax? If I enjoy a beer and can stop after one or two, having enjoyed them fully, then what right have you to tell me that I can't do that? What sort of argument is it to say "Well, if you had ANOTHER two you'd be a danger behind a wheel so you really shouldn't have had the first two anyway"?

That's not asking people to be responsible. That's setting an unnecessary and unjustifiably oppressive imposition on people which tends to be counterproductive. It leads to a destructive desire for people to push back against the forces that restrict their freedoms.

You may well force people off the road but instead of encouraging responsible and moderate alcohol consumption (which IS possible despite Tasden's seeming inability to comprehend the concept) you encourage binge drinking and antisocial behaviour. This is our experience. It is also the experience of other countries with repressive alcohol laws, in particular Scandinavia.

I reiterate: I do not approve of drunken driving. The guy who skulled nine or ten pints of cider and killed that kid belongs in jail. Perhaps for longer than he got.

But it is NOT a moral equivalence to say that drinking one or two pints before driving is the same as drinking ten. I do the former all the time and will continue to do so.

I would never dream of doing the latter.

Shanotheslayer

XtraFalcon wrote: »

I wouldn't allow someone to drive even after just a sip of a pint.

After drink starts to take effect your reactions are slightly slower, it might not seem like a huge difference but all it takes is a split second to cause serious (if not fatal) harm on the road.

I'm not condoning drunk driving for a minute. But in terms of saying '' reactions slight slower''.

Everybody has different reaction speeds in general:

I.e: A young person will have quicker reaction speeds than an elderly person.

So does this mean elderly people shouldn't drive?

Tasden

Snickers Man wrote: »

Which is kind of what I said he said. "Why do you want to have an alcoholic drink at all unless you want to get incapacitated?"

Who the bloody hell is anyone to tell anyone else what they SHOULD drink in order to relax? If I enjoy a beer and can stop after one or two, having enjoyed them fully, then what right have you to tell me that I can't do that? What sort of argument is it to say "Well, if you had ANOTHER two you'd be a danger behind a wheel so you really shouldn't have had the first two anyway"?

That's not asking people to be responsible. That's setting an unnecessary and unjustifiably oppressive imposition on people which tends to be counterproductive. It leads to a destructive desire for people to push back against the forces that restrict their freedoms.

You may well force people off the road but instead of encouraging responsible and moderate alcohol consumption (which IS possible despite Tasden's seeming inability to comprehend the concept) you encourage binge drinking and antisocial behaviour. This is our experience. It is also the experience of other countries with repressive alcohol laws, in particular Scandinavia.

I reiterate: I do not approve of drunken driving. The guy who skulled nine or ten pints of cider and killed that kid belongs in jail. Perhaps for longer than he got.

But it is NOT a moral equivalence to say that drinking one or two pints before driving is the same as drinking ten. I do the former all the time and will continue to do so.

I would never dream of doing the latter.

She, not he.

And it's not at all what I said.

Go back and read the initial post and the ones following your little rant. I said nothing about how you "should drink in order to relax". Maybe you should tone down the indignation a little, and read what I have posted, not your bizarre interpretation of it.

Wompa1

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I'm not condoning drunk driving for a minute. But in terms of saying '' reactions slight slower''.

Everybody has different reaction speeds in general:

I.e: A young person will have quicker reaction speeds than an elderly person.

So does this mean elderly people shouldn't drive?

Not entirely sure how it is in Ireland through regulation, I know we took my grandfather off the road many years ago because he was becoming a danger BUT in other countries. Once you get to a certain age you have to do your road test more frequently to prove you're still capable...

So, yes. Some elderly people should not drive.

A drunken state is a bit harder to measure for. You might be fine on 2 pints most nights but then there's the night you hadn't eaten in a few hours or even just chemically your body is a bit off and you're all of a sudden feeling it more after your 2 pints than you usually would.

For that reason, I don't think the same logic could be applied. You couldn't have somebody come in and do their test with 2 pints taken to get their drunk drivers license :pac:

SeanW

Mina Old Bagpipe wrote: »

I agree with her on a zero limit.

jamesbere wrote: »

It should be zero limit, if your stupid enough to drink drive you should have your licence taken off you on the spot. This attitude of ah shur I'll chance it needs to be stamped out.

There's just one problem, there's no such thing as a zero limit, because people will have some alcohol in their system, usually a residual amount, but never zero.

Tarzana2 wrote: »

That's why it needs to be zero.

So, everyone should be subject to a limit that is literally impossible because some people have no self-control?

What I find really objectionable is that everytime someone is killed due to ridiculous excess, there is a demand for a ridiculous over-reaction. I first saw it in about 2002 or thereabouts when the PDs were in government, some fool mixed a small amount of magic mushrooms with a massive quantity of alcohol, and died due to a misadventure which was mostly related to the alcohol. Result: magic mushrooms banned.

Likewise over the past year there's been the "Jake's legacy" campaign to have 30kph speed limits in all "urban" areas, (including many so-called "urban" areas where the speed limits are already too low to begin with) because a driver who had been reported as speeding (i.e. exceeding 50kph) in a residential area, killed a child named Jake so the mother starts this campaign to have 30kph limits everywhere. All because one asshole couldn't keep to a 50kph limit that was too high anyway.

Likewise, the accident in the OP was caused by an asshat drinking 10 pints of cider. 10 pints, not 2. After 10 pints, there can be absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that one may be fit to drive. It is not reasonable to any sane person to believe this, so the drivers actions could only be regarded as intentional and criminally irresponsible. Ergo, this incident is not a justification for lowering limits.

We have rules that specify a .05 limit (with between .05 and .08 attracting penalty points) in my view this is entirely correct. It is also correct IMO that this limit should be policed, and if you're not sure if you're under it you shouldn't be driving.

Nowhere in any of the incoherent rants demanding "zero" limits do I see anything to indicate that the 0.05 limit is not safe, nor any reason why excessively authoritarian rules should be applied to everyone because of legal and moral errors of reprobates like the one that caused the accident described in the OP.

FWIW I've never gone anywhere near those limits, but I see good reason for having a margin.

Tarzana2

SeanW wrote: »

So, everyone should be subject to a limit that is literally impossible because some people have no self-control?

If it's the case that it can be never be exactly zero, then I'm sure that would be taken into account in the writing of the law.

Azalea

Snickers Man wrote: »

Which is kind of what I said he said. "Why do you want to have an alcoholic drink at all unless you want to get incapacitated?"

No you said "You see, there's Ireland's "drinking problem" right there: You're not drinking properly unless you're getting pissed" - getting pissed is getting absolutely wasted. Tasden did not say that, I did not say that either. I don't see any point whatsoever to getting absolutely wasted, but getting that nice sense of wellbeing that alcohol gives though, I thought that was why people drank - not just for the taste, and I think that's what Tasden meant too (correct me if I'm wrong T).

Who the bloody hell is anyone to tell anyone else what they SHOULD drink in order to relax? If I enjoy a beer and can stop after one or two, having enjoyed them fully, then what right have you to tell me that I can't do that? What sort of argument is it to say "Well, if you had ANOTHER two you'd be a danger behind a wheel so you really shouldn't have had the first two anyway"?

I assume you mean the general "you" because neither I nor Tasden said anything about what you should or can't do. We merely wondered something.

responsible and moderate alcohol consumption (which IS possible despite Tasden's seeming inability to comprehend the concept)

That's just acting the dick - isn't that against the charter here?

But it is NOT a moral equivalence to say that drinking one or two pints before driving is the same as drinking ten.

And neither she nor I said it was. Cripes, some people will read whatever they want into anything.

DeanAustin

Snickers Man wrote: »

Which is kind of what I said he said. "Why do you want to have an alcoholic drink at all unless you want to get incapacitated?"

Who the bloody hell is anyone to tell anyone else what they SHOULD drink in order to relax? If I enjoy a beer and can stop after one or two, having enjoyed them fully, then what right have you to tell me that I can't do that? What sort of argument is it to say "Well, if you had ANOTHER two you'd be a danger behind a wheel so you really shouldn't have had the first two anyway"?

That's not asking people to be responsible. That's setting an unnecessary and unjustifiably oppressive imposition on people which tends to be counterproductive. It leads to a destructive desire for people to push back against the forces that restrict their freedoms.

You may well force people off the road but instead of encouraging responsible and moderate alcohol consumption (which IS possible despite Tasden's seeming inability to comprehend the concept) you encourage binge drinking and antisocial behaviour. This is our experience. It is also the experience of other countries with repressive alcohol laws, in particular Scandinavia.

I reiterate: I do not approve of drunken driving. The guy who skulled nine or ten pints of cider and killed that kid belongs in jail. Perhaps for longer than he got.

But it is NOT a moral equivalence to say that drinking one or two pints before driving is the same as drinking ten. I do the former all the time and will continue to do so.

I would never dream of doing the latter.

Question. Do you accept that drinking one or two pints, while not making you drunk, can impair your reaction time or judgement even ever so slightly?

Tarzana2

Snickers Man wrote: »

But it is NOT a moral equivalence to say that drinking one or two pints before driving is the same as drinking ten. I do the former all the time and will continue to do so.

Why so defensive? If you think it's fine, why do you care what others think?

Tasden

Azalea wrote: »

No you said "You see, there's Ireland's "drinking problem" right there: You're not drinking properly unless you're getting pissed" - getting pissed is getting absolutely wasted. Tasden did not say that, I did not say that either. I don't see any point whatsoever to getting absolutely wasted, but getting that nice sense of wellbeing that alcohol gives though, I thought that was why people drank - not just for the taste, and I think that's what Tasden meant too (correct me if I'm wrong T).

I assume you mean the general "you" because neither I nor Tasden said anything about what you should or can't do. We merely wondered something.

That's just acting the dick - isn't that against the charter here?

And neither she nor I said it was. Cripes, some people will read whatever they want into anything.

You're spot on. Tbh that poster has gone with their interpretation of my post and just ran so far in the complete wrong direction with it that I'm not even going to try argue point by point because it's all just irrelevant to what I was saying in the first place :pac:

I'll just make it clear that I don't care how other people drink or why they drink or how drunk they get. Just as long as they don't drive afterwards. Just how most other responsible adults would feel on the subject.

Tarzana2

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I.e: A young person will have quicker reaction speeds than an elderly person.

So does this mean elderly people shouldn't drive?

There would be a strong argument for some elderly people not to drive, IMO, yes. This should entail more frequent testing with advancing age to determine whether someone is fit to drive or not.

jluv

DeanAustin wrote: »

Question. Do you accept that drinking one or two pints, while not making you drunk, can impair your reaction time or judgement even ever so slightly?

While I wouldn't go out for a few drinks and drive, I have had a glass of red wine while out for dinner,where dinner has lasted for 2 hours. Why? I really enjoy the taste of red wine with food and honestly have never ever felt my reaction time was impacted. Tiredness from a long day at work would have impacted me more..

The Backwards Man

Years ago a neighbour of mine used to go to the pub every night, leaving the wife at home to deal with the kids. Kids grew up and moved away, leaving her alone in the house every night. Getting mightily fed up one night, it culminated in her saying to hell with it, she announced she was going with him.

You don't drink? says he. I'm starting now says she. So the two head off to the bar. What you having, says he. Dunno, says she, whatever you're having.

So he orders two pints of Smithwicks and they sit down beside the fire. She takes a sip, eeewwwww that's horrible, she says. I know, says he, did you think I came down here every night to enjoy myself?

Tarzana2

jluv wrote: »

While I wouldn't go out for a few drinks and drive, I have had a glass of red wine while out for dinner,where dinner has lasted for 2 hours. Why? I really enjoy the taste of red wine with food and honestly have never ever felt my reaction time was impacted. Tiredness from a long day at work would have impacted me more..

A glass of wine is under the limit.

Snickers Man

Tasden wrote: »

She, not he.

Profuse apologies.:o:o:o:o

Tasden wrote: »

And it's not at all what I said.

Go back and read the initial post and the ones following your little rant. I said nothing about how you "should drink in order to relax". Maybe you should tone down the indignation a little, and read what I have posted, not your bizarre interpretation of it.

And now back to being unapologetic.

What you said was.
"I don't understand the "only one" argument. If its only one and it does absolutely nothing to you/doesn't make you tipsy or whatever then why bother at all? Have a soft drink instead. "

There are only two ways this can be interpreted. (please suggest a third if you think there is one)

Either
1) You think that drinking "only one" makes you tipsy and therefore, presumably, unsafe to drive.
Or
2) You think that drinking "only one" doesn't make you tipsy and as such "why bother at all?" (your words)

The former option is false, at least for most people. The clear implication of the latter option is that one should only "bother" to drink to get into a state somewhere between "Tipsy" and "Twisted out of one's mind"

Which I consider to be the Irish disease and the core of our real drinking problem: excessive intoxication.

IE not the responsible people who might like to have a pint, or two, after a hard day at work and then drive home perfectly safely.

Azalea

There is a big difference between tipsy and pissed and you know it. Tipsy is not excessive intoxication and nobody said "twisted out of one's mind".

I drink alcohol for the pleasant sensation as well as the taste. I don't see the point in drinking alcohol just for the taste - totally pointless in my opinion, soft drink would do the same thing and is cheaper.

I never drink with the intention to get pissed - I think it's a bit ridiculous to do so - but I do enjoy feeling a little bit inebriated. I resent that this is inferred as me having a problem. Far from it. Some people can't cope without drink at every opportunity. I'll happily go weeks without it and won't binge to make up for lost time.

Nox's attitude to drink, now there's an unhealthy one.

Peist2007

Driving under the influence of any drugs should be banned full stop. Would never dream of getting behind a wheel in such a state. Amazed at how many advocate it on here, same people would probably regard someone smoking a J as "scum". We live in a stupid world really.

Tasden

Snickers Man wrote: »

Profuse apologies.:o:o:o:o

And now back to being unapologetic.

What you said was.
"I don't understand the "only one" argument. If its only one and it does absolutely nothing to you/doesn't make you tipsy or whatever then why bother at all? Have a soft drink instead. "

There are only two ways this can be interpreted. (please suggest a third if you think there is one)

Either
1) You think that drinking "only one" makes you tipsy and therefore, presumably, unsafe to drive.
Or
2) You think that drinking "only one" doesn't make you tipsy and as such "why bother at all?" (your words)

The former option is false, at least for most people. The clear implication of the latter option is that one should only "bother" to drink to get into a state somewhere between "Tipsy" and "Twisted out of one's mind"

Which I consider to be the Irish disease and the core of our real drinking problem: excessive intoxication.

IE not the responsible people who might like to have a pint, or two, after a hard day at work and then drive home perfectly safely.

How are you still having difficulty with this?

My "why bother at all" comment was not why would you bother drinking if you're not going to get pissed. This seems to be a viewpoint that you have a hang up about, not me.

It was why would you bother drinking alcohol specifically, as opposed to a soft drink, if it is not having any affect whatsoever- relaxation, social lubricant, placebo affect- whatever, when you can have a soft drink and not put anybodys life at risk.

And just fyi it's YOUR posts that are actually alluding to it being for relaxation purposes when you mentioned it being after a hard days work. If its only the social aspect of the pub that relaxes you then have a soft drink and keep safe. If its the alcoholic properties of the drink that helps you relax well then you've just proven my very point- that it alters your mind so you shouldn't drive.

But you appear to have your mind made up that I have some sort of drinking problem so wtf would i know about responsible alcohol consumption :pac:

[Deleted User]

For the taste??

Tasden

bluewolf wrote: »

For the taste??

I addressed that after the above poster had his initial rant in response to my op. Hence me telling him to go back and read the subsequent posts before continuing with his rants. I was just clarifying there my initial post cause he has a really twisted interpretation of what one sentence meant.

I agree some drinks do taste nicer, i myself prefer a beer generally to a soft drink, but i personally think that putting something as trivial as taste before safety is irresponsible. So again, my own feeling is why bother drinking an alcoholic drink over a soft drink when it is possibly putting someones life at risk.