Attitudes to drink driving

Gwynplaine · 01-12-2015 06:20PM

Beau Unkempt Package wrote: »

Be the last time I'd be offering you a lift too if I was him.

I hope so.

kyogger · 01-12-2015 06:47PM

Being honest I would drive after a few (max 3-4 pints) drive much slower and if I had a passenger they would be let known (if not with me during consumption) that I had a few on board. Wouldn't drive on motorway or long distance and again very slowly 20-30mph. Doing 50 mph on some of the back country roads 'legally' is much more dangerous in my opinion. Same limits shouldnt apply to experienced drivers as new drivers although I appreciate hard to enforce variable limits.

Tarzana2 · 01-12-2015 07:15PM

Beau Unkempt Package wrote: »

Wouldn't have thought twice about taking the lift, 15 euro more in my back pocket rather than wasting it when you have a lift offered for free. Be the last time I'd be offering you a lift too if I was him.

LOL at the bolded bit, I'm sure Gwynplaine would be gutted if he didn't offer him another lift.

You'd have no problem taking a lift from someone who has had at least 5-6 drinks, just to save a small amount of money?

01-12-2015 07:27PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

You'd have no problem taking a lift from someone who has had at least 5-6 drinks, just to save a small amount of money?

I've have gotten a lift home from people with 5 or 6 pints on them from time to time. Glad of saving a few euro on a taxi (and the hassle of getting one when you are out the country) or having to get someone to collect us. I've given lifts too with a few pints drank (3 or 4 at most) on an odd occasion and no one ever refused (well mostly they would have been with me anyway rather than offering a lift to someone random).

Arbiter of Good Taste · 01-12-2015 07:36PM

Beau Unkempt Package wrote: »

Come on, on the day of a wedding excitement and craic levels are high and people want to get on the beer good and early. You wouldn't want to come to the wedding from my circle of friends, everyone is in a rush to the pub as early as possible.

Classy

Tarzana2 · 01-12-2015 08:10PM

Beau Unkempt Package wrote: »

I've have gotten a lift home from people with 5 or 6 pints on them from time to time. Glad of saving a few euro on a taxi (and the hassle of getting one when you are out the country) or having to get someone to collect us.

Willing to get a lift with someone who should be nowhere near a steering wheel to save some money or hassle - interesting.

toptom · 01-12-2015 08:16PM

Remember well the 70's 80's early 90's cars full to brim with drivers drunk and taking turns to drive.
Did it myself before i was married but I wouldnt have been so drunk that i couldnt drive properly Saturday nights at OB'S Kilross , Silversands cahir but in fairness there were no drugs involved in those days, nowadays lads with only 1 or 2 pints could have being taking stuff and that would increase the risk of an accident.

Arbiter of Good Taste · 01-12-2015 08:25PM

toptom wrote: »

Remember well the 70's 80's early 90's cars full to brim with drivers drunk and taking turns to drive.
Did it myself before i was married but I wouldnt have been so drunk that i couldnt drive properly Saturday nights at OB'S Kilross , Silversands cahir but in fairness there were no drugs involved in those days, nowadays lads with only 1 or 2 pints could have being taking stuff and that would increase the risk of an accident.

Overloaded cars are a danger even if the driver is stone cold sober.

hynesie08 · 01-12-2015 08:32PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Willing to get a lift with someone who should be nowhere near a steering wheel to save some money or hassle - interesting.

Yeah, but in fairness nox lives in 1962 so there's less danger on the roads.

EazyD · 01-12-2015 08:38PM

Beau Unkempt Package wrote: »

Wouldn't have thought twice about taking the lift, 15 euro more in my back pocket rather than wasting it when you have a lift offered for free. Be the last time I'd be offering you a lift too if I was him.

As someone who lost a good friend to a drunk driver all I can say is I hope your caught before taking yourself and/or others out. I'll never understand the mentality.

Tarzana2 · 01-12-2015 09:16PM

EazyD wrote: »

As someone who lost a good friend to a drunk driver all I can say is I hope your caught before taking yourself and/or others out. I'll never understand the mentality.

I know, the entitlement of some people. :mad:

tomwaterford · 01-12-2015 09:23PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

Yeah, but in fairness nox lives in 1962 so there's less danger on the roads.

As the father used say....less cars = more pedistrians???

Though I did get a lift one night off a lad I was after walking 8 miles and it was pissing rain and sleet and like 10-15 miles left (got let down by a taxi)

I was probily over the legal limit....but was Deffo in better shape to drive than the lad I got a spin off

01-12-2015 10:05PM

EazyD wrote: »

As someone who lost a good friend to a drunk driver all I can say is I hope your caught before taking yourself and/or others out. I'll never understand the mentality.

Sorry about your friend.

Just to point out however at no point did I condone drunk driving in fact if you look back at my posts I very much condemned it as drunk driving is an extreme danger on our roads. However driving after a couple of pints is not drunk driving but the hysteria around it (driving after 2 or 3 pints) by some has built it up to being something it's not. Some other posters have made this point also.

Also it's very very rarely I would drive after more than one or possibly two pints as my licence is too valuable to me. In that post I was referring to getting lifts also not driving myself.

kyogger · 01-12-2015 10:40PM

Beau Unkempt Package wrote: »

However driving after a couple of pints is not drunk driving but the hysteria around it (driving after 2 or 3 pints) by some has built it up to being something it's not. Some other posters have made this point also.

Have to agree here the issue is not the people who had 2 or 3 pints and proceed to drive carefully (not foolishly) the same way the issue is not doing 33 in a 30 zone but the cops still try catch you out for that.

hynesie08 · 01-12-2015 10:41PM

Beau Unkempt Package wrote: »

Sorry about your friend.

Just to point out however at no point did I condone drunk driving in fact if you look back at my posts I very much condemned it as drunk driving is an extreme danger on our roads. However driving after a couple of pints is not drunk driving but the hysteria around it (driving after 2 or 3 pints) by some has built it up to being something it's not. Some other posters have made this point also.

Beau Unkempt Package wrote: »

I've have gotten a lift home from people with 5 or 6 pints on them from time to time. Glad of saving a few euro on a taxi (and the hassle of getting one when you are out the country) or having to get someone to collect us. I've given lifts too with a few pints drank (3 or 4 at most) on an odd occasion and no one ever refused (well mostly they would have been with me anyway rather than offering a lift to someone random).

Getting a lift home from people who are drink driving is condoning it, however you want to justify it.

Also it's very very rarely I would drive after more than one or possibly two pints as my licence is too valuable to me. In that post I was referring to getting lifts also not driving mysef[

So if your licence wasn't at risk you'd do it....... Sound.

Tarzana2 · 01-12-2015 11:35PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

So if your licence wasn't at risk you'd do it....... Sound.

My thoughts too!

Azrel · 01-12-2015 11:36PM

HIB wrote: »

This is what the WHO have to say about the matter. .03 bac does not raises your risk of being involved in an accident. For me, and most people thay equates to aboit one bottle of beer consumed over 30-60 mins. And yet, if we were to judge by the results of this poll, the majority of people feel the WHO are wrong. Why do they think this? I reckon it's because if you tell people something is shameful and irresponsible for long enough, they start to believe it. The RAC and others have ratcheted up the debate on drink driving to hysterical illogical, evidentiary bereft levels, and they show no signs of stopping. In my opinion, they ought to start paying more attention to other causes of road deaths, but hell who am I, or the WHO for that matter, to stop the drink driving hysteria juggernaut.

Simple fact is, society loves (and needs) a scapegoat. A group to point the finger at and say "They are the bad people". In this case it's anyone who consumes even the smallest amount of alcohol and gets behind the wheel - by the way I am referring to people who are UNDER the drink driving BAC limit, who are lumped into the same category by the high horse brigade as those multiple times over the limit.

I have absolutely no problem with people consuming a few drinks and driving, so long as they are under the limit. If you aren't happy with those people then lobby to have the law changed to a lower limit, or have a mega rant on an internet forum. Either way is good.

And before people start saying "even 1 drink puts you over the limit", this is so dependent on many different factors that it's actually wrong to come out with blanket statements like that. A 50 year old man, weighing 15 stone and drinking pints of guinness every week for the last 30 years and having eaten a large dinner before drinking - will have a very different BAC level to an 18 year old girl, weighing 7 stone who has no experience drinking and not eaten any food that day, even if they consume exactly the same amount of alcohol.

Tarzana2 · 01-12-2015 11:48PM

Azrel wrote: »

... the high horse brigade...

Oy vey.

Azrel wrote: »

And before people start saying "even 1 drink puts you over the limit", this is so dependent on many different factors that it's actually wrong to come out with blanket statements like that. A 50 year old man, weighing 15 stone and drinking pints of guinness every week for the last 30 years and having eaten a large dinner before drinking - will have a very different BAC level to an 18 year old girl, weighing 7 stone who has no experience drinking and not eaten any food that day, even if they consume exactly the same amount of alcohol.

It's been acknowledged on this thread that there are different tolerances towards alcohol. The limit should reflect the lowest of tolerances, not the highest, IMO. Case by case is impractical. A car is a heavy piece of machinery, I think cautious is the only way to go.

roverrules · 01-12-2015 11:48PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

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?

The methodology of your survey is surely suspect given the age demographic of people more likely to use the net and/or Boards?

HIB · 02-12-2015 11:35AM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Oy vey.

It's been acknowledged on this thread that there are different tolerances towards alcohol. The limit should reflect the lowest of tolerances, not the highest, IMO. Case by case is impractical. A car is a heavy piece of machinery, I think cautious is the only way to go.

The only sensible way to legislate is in terms of BAC. And we should try to set limits cautiously. However, there is a danger of setting it too low, as well as the obvious danger of setting it too high. Laws, all laws, must be realistic in what they expect of people, and if they are not, people start to ignore them. As an example...

I live in a rural area. Very rural. I would say that twenty years ago, the roads on Friday, Saturday, Sunday nights contained quite a few 'drunk' drivers. It was common to see people driving unsteadily, extremely slowly, without dipping headlights etc. For the most part, this was on very narrow, single lane, sparsely populated country roads, so the chances of fatal accidents were almost zero, and thankfully, non ever occurred in my area. However, it was an undesirable situation.

Then the law changed, and people changed with it. People who would previously have gone to the pub for 5+ pints, started having 2-3 pints only, having a cup of coffee before they went home etc. They continued to drive, but within the limits. The roads got safer. No more auld lads with no lights on weaving home along the main road! I think everyone breathed a collective sigh of relief. Then the law changed again, bringing with it a wave of fear and uncertainty. In the media, and from the RAC, the mantra became 'even one drink can put you over the limit'. And the result? Of the people who used to have 2-3 pints over the course of the night, a sizeable portion have decided to stop socialising altogether. The remainder have decided 'I may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb'. No more careful consumption of a few pints, and a slow drive home afterwards. It's 'have as many drinks as I feel I can safely consume', and hit the road afterwards. Oh and don't drive slowly because that's like advertising the fact that you have a few drinks on board.

The incentive to be responsible in your consumption has been completely removed. Many who are lonely and isolated still feel compelled to try and get out and socialise on a Friday or Saturday night. They continue to do so, and they feel it is worth risking their license to do so. The focus has shifted to evasion of the law, rather than compliance with the law. And rural roads? Rural roads are as dangerous now as they were twenty years ago.

recylingbin · 02-12-2015 11:41AM

I suffer from terrible nerves, so need at least 8 pnts to summon the confidence to drive.

ahnowbrowncow · 02-12-2015 12:53PM

Listening to Rte 1 there now and it was describing how lots of people are availing of the ridiculous Irish language loophoole to get off from their drink driving charge. I thought Pascal said that this ****e wouldn't happen.

Quite depressing that they're getting off and that there's a significant amount of them, 8 one day and 10 on another in Cavan.

Can only imagine how disheartening it is for the gardai to catch them and see them get off.

Tarzana2 · 02-12-2015 02:31PM

HIB wrote: »

And rural roads? Rural roads are as dangerous now as they were twenty years ago.

Can you back up this statement? Check out the road death stats up until 2009, bearing in mind the increasing population:
http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Road_deaths_Ireland59_to_09.pdf

Many different factors responsible for that no doubt, and I'm confident that the reduction in drink-driving is part of that. And, as far as I know, road deaths continue to decrease.

As for the rest of your post: cry me a river. There are ways of getting to the pub other than driving yourself.

HIB · 02-12-2015 04:34PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Can you back up this statement? Check out the road death stats up until 2009, bearing in mind the increasing population:
http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Road_deaths_Ireland59_to_09.pdf

Many different factors responsible for that no doubt, and I'm confident that the reduction in drink-driving is part of that. And, as far as I know, road deaths continue to decrease.

As for the rest of your post: cry me a river. There are ways of getting to the pub other than driving yourself.

That link sheds no light on the question. As far as I'm aware stats on road deaths classified by rural/urban do not exist. My comments, the same as yours is based on a hunch. In my local area, 4-5 years ago the roads on Saturday nights contained, for the most part, drivers with 2-3 pints on board. Now, with the lower limits, it seems the focus has shifted in people's minds from compliance to evasion. Now there are quite a few people after slipping back into their old ways. And a number of youngsters seem to be following suit. That's my observation.

I see this as no surprise. Laws that place unrealistic demands on people tend to breed a culture of evasion and resentment. Resentment in rural areas has grown now to levels where something of a community early warning system has developed i.e. If someone sees guards out they warn the pubs. That's what happens when people feel a law is unfair and unworkable.

Oh and as regards other ways of getting to the pub. Clearly there are insufficient other viable options, or how else can you explain the extraordinary reduction in the number of rural pubs in the last few years (60ish% in my own area)

Tarzana2 · 02-12-2015 06:38PM

HIB wrote: »

That link sheds no light on the question. As far as I'm aware stats on road deaths classified by rural/urban do not exist. My comments, the same as yours is based on a hunch.

Ah. OK. All I know is road deaths have nearly halved since the '80s/early '90s and the population is bigger now. Therefore, nationwide, the roads are safer then they were twenty years ago, contrary to your claims. It's not a "hunch". I doubt that reduction is due to lower numbers of deaths in urban areas only. That doesn't seem very likely, does it? For it just to be in urban areas, the accident rate would likely nearly have to drop to zero in urban areas for it to stay static in rural areas.

HIB · 02-12-2015 06:51PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Ah. OK. All I know is road deaths have nearly halved since the '80s/early '90s and the population is bigger now. Therefore, nationwide, the roads are safer then they were twenty years ago, contrary to your claims. It's not a "hunch". I doubt that reduction is due to lower numbers of deaths in urban areas only. That doesn't seem very likely, does it? For it just to be in urban areas, the accident rate would likely nearly have to drop to zero in urban areas for it to stay static in rural areas.

I'd say it's highly highly likely that the reduction in road deaths is driven (pardon the pun) by a reduction in urban areas and on roads of major importance.
Again all just idle speculation on our parts really but I'd hazard a guess that the number of fatalities on L class (aka rural) roads has stayed pretty static. I'd say it was always close to zero, if not actually zero and it likely remains so.

Galwayguy35 · 02-12-2015 07:05PM

I agree it's a lot more dangerous driving on rural roads, you have to deal with situations that you just wouldn't come across in cities.

02-12-2015 07:17PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Ah. OK. All I know is road deaths have nearly halved since the '80s/early '90s and the population is bigger now. Therefore, nationwide, the roads are safer then they were twenty years ago, contrary to your claims. It's not a "hunch". I doubt that reduction is due to lower numbers of deaths in urban areas only. That doesn't seem very likely, does it? For it just to be in urban areas, the accident rate would likely nearly have to drop to zero in urban areas for it to stay static in rural areas.

Vast improvements in cars in terms of avoiding crashes through advances in technology and being safer in the event of a crash have a big role to play in this along with a lot of the major roads which carry high volumes of traffic now being motorways etc.

Tarzana2 · 02-12-2015 07:24PM

HIB wrote: »

I'd say it's highly highly likely that the reduction in road deaths is driven (pardon the pun) by a reduction in urban areas and on roads of major importance.
Again all just idle speculation on our parts really but I'd hazard a guess that the number of fatalities on L class (aka rural) roads has stayed pretty static. I'd say it was always close to zero, if not actually zero and it likely remains so.

So, we're both speculating? Grand. Meanwhile, road fatalities continue to decrease. It seems we are doing a lot right when it comes to road safety. Long may it continue to improve, however it has been achieved.

Beau Unkempt Package wrote: »

Vast improvements in cars in terms of avoiding crashes through advances in technology and being safer in the event of a crash have a big role to play in this along with a lot of the major roads which carry high volumes of traffic now being motorways etc.

Yup, all that is part of it. Do you know that reduced levels of drink driving hasn't been a factor in the improved figures when it comes to road fatalities?

02-12-2015 08:10PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yup, all that is part of it. Do you know that reduced levels of drink driving hasn't been a factor in the improved figures when it comes to road fatalities?

I would think at a reduction of drunk driving would play a role in the reduction in deaths however in my opinion a reduction in people driving home after a few pints due to fearing for their licence makes no difference as these people were not causing crashes in the first place.

Attitudes to drink driving

Comments