BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level

Subject: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 08:55 AM

to justify the proposed reduction of the drink drive blood alcohol limit from 80 mg to 50 mg per 100ml,the Sunday Times reports that according to HSE `at least18 driver skilled in crashes beteween 2003 and 2005 had ablood alcohol level of between50 mg and 80 mg`.
this statistic proves nothing.
the same research concludes that 165 drivers were killed with zero alcohol in their system.
does this mean that sober drivers are more dangerous than those between 50 and 80 mg, quite possibly they are, depending on the speed that they[sober and intoxicated] are all driving at.
a few months ago the HSE told us that over the period 1990 __2006 65 per cent of road deaths were unrelated to alcohol.
has anyone ever demonstrated any increase in accidents attributable solely to a blood alcohol of between 50 and 80 mg level.
the proposed reduction[imo] is not about safety,but is possibly about increasing revenue for the[cash strapped] Irish government.
if the Irish government were serious about safety,they would be making more effort to catch people driving well above the permitted speed limits,and people who are driving too fast and too close to other vehicles in unsuitable weather conditions.
where I live in Rural Ireland,there is very little public transport,at night time, and as I walk down to the pub,I am in more danger from speeding sober drivers,than drivers who are between 50 and 80 mg and riving at30 to 35 miles per hour,I therefore oppose this lowering of the alcohol driving level.
rural pubs and rural communities in Ireland are threatened by this latest proposed legislation,which is illogical and statistically unproven as to its benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: Mr Happy
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:00 AM

IMO it'd be best to have a zero level of alcohol for driving, then everyone would know where they stood, instead of the rather vague indicators prevalent at the moment

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: Rasener
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:15 AM

Couldn't agree more Mr Happy.

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:28 AM

I am in more danger from speeding sober drivers,than drivers who are between 50 and 80 mg and riving at30 to 35 miles per hour,I therefore oppose this lowering of the alcohol driving level.

That's the worst piece of thinking ever Dick. Now throw the drunken arses driving the roads of rural Ireland at speed, and those are more than a few, into the equation. They'd be the ones I'd be worried about. I am all for taking the drink out of the driving altogether but for now lowering the limit will do as a first step.

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:32 AM

My recollection was that research had shown that small levels of alcohol improved absolute driving skills.

Do the Times stats indicate the causes of the accidents in which those deaths resulted? If not, the sample is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:33 AM

the problem with that is that you can be over the limit, without having consumed any alcohol.[medication can do this]
so that is not a good idea.,it is a litle unfair to lose your licence if you have not consumed alcohol ,do you not think?
no[imo],bad driving, carelessness, driving while using a mobile phone and excessive speed is more of a problem.
I had a driver hit the side of my house,she was perfectly sober,but lost contol on a bend cos she was driving far too fast.

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:38 AM

PETER, sorry, but you should throw the sober execssive speeding drivers off the road first.
drink impairs judgement,but a driver driving at 35 mph,who is betwen 50 and 80mg[therfore legal]is less of a problem[imo] than a sober driver driving at 60 mph down a country road,the faster the driver is going the greater is the braking distance required.

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:44 AM

The problem with zero alcohol levels is when you have had a drink the night before and may still have some residual alcohol in your system. I'm sure most people would know not to drive in the morning after a heavy session, but how long does it take to have nil alcohol in the blood after, say, three or four pints?

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:51 AM

But it is not an either/or question, Dick. Both speeding drivers & drunk drivers constitute a menace. No good saying one lot is 'worse' or 'more dangerous' than the other — both are illegal, & the purpose must be to try & put a stop to both lots.

Richard - I should like to know what 'research' had indicated that an itsy-bitsy bit of alcohol made one drive better, & who commissioned it. Sounds dangerous bollox to me, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: Mr Happy
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:55 AM

Alcohol per unit takes one hour to leave the body.

If you'd had a heavy session the previous night, assuming you stopped drinking at, for example, 3 am & you'd drunk 6 pints of beer of, say 4%.

6 pts of beer = 12 units

To be alcohol-free, you'd need to wait 12 hours before contemplating driving, i.e. 3pm the next day.

The maths will vary according to the strength of the alcohol consumed

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 10:16 AM

Richard Bridge said:


My recollection was that research had shown that small levels of alcohol improved absolute driving skills.

First, assuming that your recollection is correct, and assuming that the research was well conducted, what constitutes "small levels of alcohol"? Say 1%?   2%?

Second, with the same assumption, far from all of the additional danger from drinking drivers is the result of deficient "absolute driving skills". Much (if not most) of the danger is from the alcohol-related defective attitudes, emotions, outlook, et cetera. The drinker might have the skills to control a car without being safe at all.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 11:17 AM

Yes Dave, that was another aspect of the research - as I recollect.

Nothing in life is absolutely safe. I also frequently see people who are absolutely ratarsed driving out of the Medway Towns (well, they need both lanes of a dual carriageway at 25mph) and if there is an issue of allocation of scarce resources, it would be a better use of funds to catch them!

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 11:20 AM

MGM,it is not illegal to be below 80 mg,and that does not constitute drunken driving,it should not be lowered,because there is no statistical evidence to show that it would improve safety by reducing it 30 mg.
people over 80 mg should lose their licence,but someone who is 81,should not get the same severity of sentence,as someone who is 160.
the proposed legislation is just a load of bollocks,and does not take into consideration factors pecuilar to rural Ireland ,that is why it is bad law.

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 11:22 AM

How many people "killed in crashes beteween 2003 and 2005" had zero alcohol levels in their blood?   I suspect the answer would be quite a few. And that wouldn't be because not having had a drink makes people worse drivers, but because alcohol levels are by no means the only cause of accidents.

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: Rasener
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 11:52 AM

Of course they are not McGrath.

There are many bad drivers who put others at risk.

Drinking is only one part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: prposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 12:42 PM

The point being that, without further information about the circumstances of the accidents a statistic such as "`at least 18 drivers killed in crashes beteween 2003 and 2005 had a blood alcohol level of between 50 mg and 80 mg` does not mean much.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: GUEST,TT
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 01:31 PM

Seems GSS might be in a minority.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1027/drink.html

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 02:07 PM

I wouldnt believe that crap,the survey was probably done in cities,where there is alternative public transport.
no, it would be a bad law, because it will lead to further rural isolation,possibly more rural suicides in isolated communities,where getting out to the pub once a week and socialising,and having two pints just about makes life worth living.
good law takes into account the needs of a community a,bad law such as this does not.
why should we conform to other parts of Europe.,Ireland has a differentsewt of problems than Berlin or Paris.
there is no statistical evidence,that this will make any difference,meanwhile boyracers,mobile phone users, tired drivers,drivers with flu,drivers on drugs,drive around threatening everyone with their molotov cocktail of tiredness carelessness and witlessness.
no ,the irish government just want to be seen to be doing something,and preening themselves on their odour of sanctity,sometimes I think we would be better off with no government

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: gnu
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 03:24 PM

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 03:25 PM

correction to my grammar,better off without any government.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: gnu
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 03:26 PM

Happy is right... except for one thing... cough syrup.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 06:13 PM

happy is wrong ,one pint of beer[3.8 percent] normally takes I hour to leave the body.
Six pints of beer[3.8 percent to 4] would normally take about seven and half hours, very few pubs are open in ireland after 1 30 pm.
I rarely drink six pints generally two or three ,I do not think it unreasonable to be able to drink two pints,[maximum] over two hours and be able to drive home,when there is no alternative public transport.
that is not drunken driving.
I have been breathalysed three times in my life and passed each time,that is because I drink THE lower strength STOUT Beamish[3;8 per cent].MURPHYS IS 4 PER CENT, GUINNESS 4 .2 PERCENT.
I generally leave 20 minutes to 30 minutes,after a drink,before I get in my car.
however Guinness are bringing out a lower strength beer 2 .8 per cent,which is good news [if there are any pubs in rural ireland left to sell it]most of the other alternatives are too sweet or ridiculously expensive[bally gowan etc].
if the Irish government were serious[of course they are a bloody joke,look at the millions wasted on electronic voting machines abd berties bowl and 3o k wasted on a leaflet in the irish language that no one read]they would be ensuring ballygowan was the cheapest drink in the pub,but they are not they are just trying to appear that they are doing something for the people,b#####w ########

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: GUEST,TT
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 01:07 PM

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1030/drink.html

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: SharonA
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 01:40 PM

"...at night time, and as I walk down to the pub,I am in more danger from speeding sober drivers, than drivers who are between 50 and 80 mg and [d]riving at 30 to 35 miles per hour."

Soldier, how do you know that the speeding drivers are sober? The answer, of course, is that you don't.


"I rarely drink six pints generally two or three ,I do not think it unreasonable to be able to drink two pints,[maximum] over two hours and be able to drive home, when there is no alternative public transport. That is not drunken driving."

Perhaps not, under the current legal definition of "drunken driving" where you live, but.... Here in the States there is a public-service message that's broadcast frequently on radio, the message of which is "Buzzed driving IS drunk driving." You may not feel as though you are impaired, but that doesn't mean that you are not impaired. The authorities may not have the authority to arrest you, but that doesn't mean that your reaction time isn't slowed down. I can't help but wonder why you've been breathalyzed three times. Could it be because you were obviously impaired in your speech, movements, and/or driving, even though your alcohol level was within the legal limit?

The safest course is to go out and socialize without drinking. If you must consume alcohol to make life "worth living", it's time to take a good, hard look at your life and make some changes for the sake of your own well-being and personal growth.

All this ranting about a "bad law" and all your descriptions of how little you drink and all those questionable statistics sound, to me, like excuses for continuing a course of behavior that you simply don't want to admit is self-destructive. Sorry but I've heard the same litany of cr*p from every drunk driver I've ever known.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 03:31 PM

I am not a drunken driver,and neither are those people who go out and have two pints over a couple or three hours.
I am not talking about the states ,I am talking about Rural Ireland.
I have been breathalysed three times in 40 years, twice because of random breath testing,and the first time because the policeman,thought my Morris 1000 van was a getaway van in an armed robbery,that tells you a lot about the English Police,on neither occasion had I consumed any alcohol.
on the occasion that someone tried to destruct my house with their car,I do know they were sober ,I called the Garda,result nil alochol.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving leve
From: Tootler
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 08:07 PM

IIRC, Mr Happy is right, it is one hour per unit of alcohol. Even if I am wrong and you are right, Dick, it does no harm to assume that.

Usually if I am likely to be out for two hours or more - typical folk club evening, I will have one pint. If it is likely to be less I will make do with a half and have a soft drink if I want any more liquid.

PS: I loved your mondegreen in your opening post "at least18 driver skilled in crashes beteween 2003 and 2005 had ablood alcohol level of between50 mg and 80 mg"

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Oct 09 - 07:21 AM

yes, and then there are all the people driving while using anti histamines or suffering from flu, or simply tired.,or under the influence of drugs,whose judgement is impaired,logically they should all lose their livenves too
no it is a bad law for rural Ireland,by all means introduce it in major cities[ Dublin Cork].where there is alternative public transport.,and where there is a larger volume of road traffic,and keep the 80 mg limit for evereywhere else.

Sharon A,Exhibits her ignorance,she clearly does not know english and irish law and random breath testing,and assumes I must have been driving in an erreatic fashion to get breathalysed,and casts aspersions on my character and social habits,an ignorant American.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Genie
Date: 31 Oct 09 - 05:11 PM

I think there should be more use of performance tests to determine, not just how "impaired" the driver is, but how well s/he is functioning at the time s/he is pulled over. And if you are impaired, it should not matter whether it's because of sleep deprivation, cold meds, alcohol, or what.

Not that drinking and driving is good, but a driver who is driving very slowly and carefully through town on the side streets in the wee hours of the AM (not holding up traffic) trying to compensate for having had a couple of beers is probably much less dangerous than someone driving 10 miles over the speed limit on the freeway, too confident because s/he is "sober."

Is there really any evidence that having a blood alcohol level of, say, .04 or .05 significantly contributes to car crashes?    Especially when compared to, say, going 5 to 10 miles over the speed limit -- which is pretty routine on the freeway.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Oct 09 - 07:12 PM

I read an article today that apparently bad driving is in the genes.
according to research done by resarchers in the USA,people with a particular gene variant performed more than 20 percent worse in a driving test than people with a different DNA sequence.,
should they be allowed to have a licence?
should we be selecting drivers on the basis of their genetic impairment?
   In Portugal [European state]there is no smoking ban.
so its ok ,for some countries to have their own laws on this ,and yet the Irish government,are desperate to conform on the alcohol law[ ]leaving England and Malta with there own higher alcohol driving levels]         
Finally, why is it suddenly necessary for the irish government to have the same drink alcohol level as all other European states apart from England and Malta.
I believe it is a diversionary tactic by the Irish government to distract the electorate from the really important economic issues
.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 08:19 AM

The Irish Times : Is this really the face of Rural Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 08:41 AM

dont worry Peter,you soon wont have any pubs left in which to play music.
there has been no statitistical evidence that proves lowering the limit
from 80 to 50,will reduce the number of accidents.
or that sober drivers have less accidents than those between 80 and 50.
I would be happy with a two tier system,so that it was 50 inlarge cities[where there is proper alternative public transport] but 80 everywhere else.
this is just a diversionary tactic by the irish government,to take our minds off economic issues.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 09:30 AM

Maybe it's time your local publicans, if they're so worried about the social implications, enquire with the local minibus driver about the cost of a sweep of the area to bring in drinkers and safely get them home. It's easily done and some places operate a system like that.

Over here at the weekend people drive into ditches, houses, telephone poles, bridges or just forget to take the bends in the road all the time. There's more going on than just fatal accidents. And I don't think it's the non drinkers doing it either.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 11:11 AM

well I know that nondrinkers do it as well,some are on drugs and the one that hit my house was perfectly sober,as was another one who asked me to pull them out of a ditch.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 11:34 AM

Did a blood test did you?

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 12:51 PM

No,but you can smell alcohol,even one drink,when you have had nothing to drink yourself,
and in the case of the first one the Garda did that I overheard the result, nil alcohol. are you not getting a bit aggressive?

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 10:04 PM

there has been no statitistical evidence that proves lowering the limit
from 80 to 50,will reduce the number of accidents.

How could there be? They have to do it first, and then count..

I'm all for setting the limit at zero, on the grounds that everyone is affected to their own degree by any fixed quantity over a fixed time. It is impossible to judge the ability to drive on that basis, objectively or subjectively.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Rowan
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 01:08 AM

Performance tests aren't, automatically, adequate tests. Many years ago I read of various performance tests that had been used (somewhere in the UK, I think) to indicate alcohol-related diminished performance. One involved walking a straight line, a skill unrelated to driving and thus regarded as irrelevant as a test for drivers. Of more interest to me, another involved setting five matches parallel to each other, balanced across the edge of a matchbox so they could be picked up between the fingers without touching the box. The idea was to pick up one between the tips of the thumbs, then the next between the tips of the index fingers and so on until all had been picked up. You were then required to replace each of them across the matchbox, all without dropping any.

As a test of fine motor coordination I figured this'd be a goodie. Trouble is, most sober people can't do it without practising a while. Once I got the hang of it I kept testing myself during sessions to find out when I could be regarded as "drunk"; I walked home routinely irrespective of the result. There were several occasions when I reckoned I was as pissed as a parrot but I could still do the test better than most sober people.

And, just over the last weekend, a young bloke got picked up for speeding, doing 198 kph in a 100 kph area; he had a blood alcohol content of 0.11%. It would appear that his fine motor control was OK but his judgement was seriously impaired and I'm glad I was nowhere near him or the roads he was on.

And the calculations above for metabolic removal of alcohol from the blood are, I suspect, correct only for blokes. The stats used as a public health measure in Oz suggest that, while blokes can deal with a daily consumption of two units of alcohol (although it's better to have a couple of alcohol-free days per week) women are advised that, due to their smaller (on average) body size their recommended alcohol should be half that of blokes. By the same measure, their limit for performance impairment related purposes is regarded (as an advisory recommendation) as half the consumption limit advised for fellas.

Sorry, GSS, if the Oz info is not rural Eire but I suspect it would apply there. I might add that several Oz jurisdictions, when they introduced Proscribed Blood Alcohol limits, started out with 0.08% as the uppermost legal blood alcohol content but all now have 0.05% as the maximum allowable. All the arguments you've used against lowering the PCA were used then but all the evidence (which was so long ago that I can't recall it) indicated that any alcohol detrimentally affected performance but that, for the reasons cited above a zero limit would unfairly penalise nondrinkers whose metabolism retained minute alcohol levels for various reasons.

And the breathalisers still pick up large numbers the day after most Saturdays and public holidays, when most drivers think of themselves as sober.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Genie
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 01:51 AM

Peter L said, "Over here at the weekend people drive into ditches, houses, telephone poles, bridges or just forget to take the bends in the road all the time. There's more going on than just fatal accidents. And I don't think it's the non drinkers doing it either."

But do they often do that sort of thing after having had one or two beers?

And Good Soldier Schweik is right that totally sober, non-drug-using drivers do that sort of thing sometimes too.

Several years ago in Oregon a cop had pulled off the interstate to help a driver with a disabled vehicle. They were well off of the shoulder, with one car parked between the highway and the other car, and the people standing on the far side of the two cars, when another car left the road and hit them, killing everyone but the driver of the wayward vehicle.
That driver had not been drinking at all. He was a full-time student and working full time on top of that. Sleep deprivation, pure and simple.

There are lots of things that can and do contribute to inattentive or erratic driving or slowed reflexes: emotions (e.g., anger), in-car conversations, looking at scenery, fatigue, sneezing, eating or smoking in the car, fiddling with the CD changer or radio, speeding, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 04:19 PM

"Sharon A,Exhibits her ignorance,she clearly does not know english and irish law and random breath testing,and assumes I must have been driving in an erreatic fashion to get breathalysed,and casts aspersions on my character and social habits,an ignorant American."

No, Soldier Schweik, I didn't assume; I said I couldn't help but wonder why you were breathalyzed three times. By the way, they have random testing over here in America, too.

True, I am "ignorant" in the literal sense that I don't know you or your character or your social habits or your area's laws. However, I have known a lot of drunks in my time (and I lived with an alcoholic for over 8 years) and I am intimately familiar with the excuses they give for drinking to excess. One of the things they do is to rant about how unfair the drunk-driving laws are, regardless of whether the laws are lax or stringent. Another is to rattle off statistics which may or may not be accurate (and, in many cases, are contradictory to another drunk's statistics!). All I'm saying is that your posts sound just like those drunks to me.

That's my opinion. This forum is here so that people can give their opinions. You don't have to like mine, but I have every right to give it here in this forum which, by the way, is based in the American state in which I reside.

Again, I think you would be wise for you to take a break from being aggressive and defensive, and just think for a moment about your own drinking-behavior and the reasons you feel that drinking in a pub (as opposed to being in a pub with friends but without drinking) makes life "worth living". All the ranting you're doing isn't going to change the laws where you live, so you need to do what you can to live within the law, right? Well, then, what logical reason is there for having anything to drink when you're not at home and need to drive to get there?

I'll say it again: Buzzed driving IS drunk driving. BE SAFE -- stay stone-cold sober from the time you drive away from your home to the time that you arrive back! Once you're back, drink at home!!! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 04:55 PM

I did not say anything about life being worth living with or without a an alcoholic drink,you invented that.,
what makes my life worth living,is my music and my singing.
neither did I give excuses for drinking to excess, [both my mother and stepfather were alcoholics]however having two pints of beer at 3.8 percent over two to three hours is not drinking to excess.
because of my family background I think a lot about drinking behaviour,including my own.
yes , you are ignorant in the literal sense.
I have explained why I have been breathalysed three times in 40 years,I think that if I was a drunk,I would have lost my licence before now.
you seem to enjoy telling me what to do.
finally, being stone cold sober is no guarantee of being safe,I could be killed by a perfectly sober driver talking on his her /mobile phone,or who falls asleep at the wheel through tiredness,or who just has too much tetesterone,and thinks he is a racing driver.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 06:36 PM

Some jurisdictions here in the U.S. are thinking of introducing DWD laws - Driving While Distracted - which would encompass, cell phone use, texting, adjusting radio/CD player, drinking non-alcoholic beverages such as coffee, tea, soda, etc.

Makes sense to me.

Another thing I'd like to see - police on the scene having the authority to check the cell-phone records of anyone involved in an accident. I mean, if they can breathalyze you, why shouldn't they be able to see if DWD was the cause of the accident?

Although how they could test for driving while knackered I don't know.
An accident would wake you up pretty fast.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 06:48 PM

Alcohol consumption is undoubtedly only one of many things which cause dangerous driving, but it certainly does, and it is one factor which can fairly easily be minimised with legislation. Setting any 'maximum limit' is nonsensical, as the amount people are affected by however much is 'legal' cannot be universally predicted. Zero tolerance is the only way to be sure.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 06:58 PM

having two pints of beer at 3.8 percent over two to three hours is not drinking to excess.

If I did that, GSS, I would probably fall over. No way would I be fit to drive a car.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 07:08 PM

Soldier Schweik: I did not "invent" your words. I quote from your post of 27 Oct 09 - 02:07 PM:

"...it would be a bad law, because it will lead to further rural isolation,possibly more rural suicides in isolated communities,where getting out to the pub once a week and socialising,and having two pints just about makes life worth living."

I'm not "telling" you what to do; just giving my advice and my opinion. Take it or leave it.

All this talk by you and others about all the other factors that lead to dangerous driving is beside the point. The point, I thought, was the "proposed reduction of the drink drive blood alcohol limit from 80 mg to 50 mg per 100ml", to quote you again. To me, the look-at-what-all-the-other-drivers-are-doing-wrong talk is just so much childish whining. Wahh, wahhh, wahhhhh. Sheesh -- man up, already, and put the pacifier away!

It's true that being stone-cold sober is no guarantee of being safe from those other drivers, but it will increase your chances of not killing someone else! Likewise, the logic of the lawmakers seems to be that lowering the blood-alcohol limit may increase every drinker's chances of not killing him/herself and/or someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 07:48 PM

"...being stone cold sober is no guarantee of being safe,I could be killed by a perfectly sober driver talking on [his/her mobile] phone,or who falls asleep at the wheel through tiredness,or who just has too much [testosterone],and thinks he is a racing driver."

But being stone-cold sober does mean that you will have a faster reaction time when trying to avoid an accident with another driver who is doing one or more of those things.

Have you ever had anyone videotape you after you've had your "two pints of beer at 3.8 percent" over the course of two hours? Y'know -- recording your steadiness on your feet, your reaction time to a surprise such as someone jumping in front of you, your ability to get in a car and get the key in the ignition switch, etc.? Anyone ever tape your driving when you've had that much to drink, and show you the tape? If not, then how do you know you're OK to drive? Once your judgment has been clouded by the alcohol, you are by definition NOT the best judge of your fitness to operate a coupla tons of motor vehicle safely.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 07:00 AM

sorry, there is a misunderstanding, my remark about life worth living, was not applying to myself,[although I agree,I should have phrased it better,]it was a reference to isolated dwellers,,whose main social activity might be once a week in a local pub.
I do not fall into that category   I can walk to my local pub[it is about one mile], and frequently do, weather permitting.
however there will not be many pubs left in rural ireland to walk to soon,they seem to be closing rapidly.
yes, but faster reactions are no use, when you are going 70 100 mph. the faster the speed the greater the braking distance required [check Rowans post].
sorry, but a driver going 30 to 35 mph[imo]having consumed two pints lets say in two and a half or three hours,is less dangerous than a driver going 65 70 80 mph plus who is perfectly sober and breaking the speed limit.
can you provide statistics otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 11:25 AM

A few points here, just for discussion.

1. Although I would not be pleased at having to give up the two pints I drink over a three hour period, when driving myself to a folk session, I have only THAT selfish basis for wishing to see the limit unchanged. This being the case I would not raise ANY objections if it were reduced.

2. Zero alcohol legislation immediately criminalises anyone who drives a motor vehicle. Nobody can guarantee to be alcohol free, even teetotallers. Certain processes within the human metabolism will, from time to time make every one of us test positive for alcohol, and you can't tell for sure that it WASN'T the remains of a nip of brandy.

3. Nobody has, to my knowledge, bothered to apply statistical analysis to the following question:-

In what percentage of the accidents involving drivers who were over the proposed NEW limit were those accidents caused by the other, alcohol free, party? Given that there were only eighteen, that should not be difficult to answer, but my guess is that the question was never asked. One whiff of alcohol = instantly guilty.

All of these are to my mind worth discussion, when deciding on the necessity for a change.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 12:16 PM

GSS: Okay, sorry I misunderstood what you meant to say about "isolated dwellers" not applying to you personally.

Agreed that the faster the speed, the greater the braking distance required to come to a full stop or to the same lowered speed. I disagree with your assertion that this is a reason why "faster reactions are no use." On the contrary -- the faster a person can put his foot on the brake, the sooner he can use the brake to stop the car! :-)

You say "a driver going 30 to 35 mph[imo]having consumed two pints lets say in two and a half or three hours,is less dangerous than a driver going 65 70 80 mph plus who is perfectly sober and breaking the speed limit. can you provide statistics otherwise." I don't see any point in trying to provide them to you, since in your initial post you poo-pooed the statistic provided by your Sunday Times by saying, "This statistic proves nothing." Also, although you've made that assertion about dangerousness several times in this thread, you haven't provided a reference for it and, in fact, this last time you've admitted it's just your opinion, not a statistic.

In the US, on limited-access highways, driving 65-80 mph is the norm, and millions of drivers do it safely every day without killing themselves or anyone else. However, if a drunk driver were to be on one of those roads doing 30-35 mph, he would be posing an extreme danger to himself and the other drivers. In fact, limited-access highways in the US typically have minimum speed-limits of 40 mph for the sake of safety (except in emergency conditions such as fog, heavy rain, or snow).

So your assertion is dependent on some very specific conditions. If a driver is speeding down a rural (two-lane?) road at 65-80 mph (when the posted speed limit is what?), then of course he should be pulled over whether he's drunk or sober. But a drunk driver traveling at 30-35 mph should be pulled over as well. Both drivers are dangers to themselves and others, and in my opinion I don't think one is "more" dangerous than the other. A car that hits you at 35 mph can kill you just as dead as one traveling at 80 mph; your body may be smeared over fewer feet of the road at 35 mph, but you wouldn't care because you'd be dead either way.

According to this site -- http://www.alcoholissues.co.uk/drinking-driving.html -- "after two pints of strong lager... a driver would be over the legal limit [of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood]." "The 80mg figure translates into a total of four units of alcohol for men, and three units for women. By way of an example, ...one pint of beer, at 5% ABV, contains 2.8 units." So your two pints makes you legally drunk under your present law. Your assertion that you're OK to drive after your two pints is not supported by that website's statement. Are you going to poo-poo that statistic too?

Also, if you're having two pints of beer and walking home, how steady are you on your feet? How likely are you to weave at the wrong time and step in front of an oncoming car??? Doesn't sound like a safe habit to me.

Like I said before, take a good look at your own behavior... and stay sober when you go out!

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 01:28 PM

but I am not talking about drunk drivers,I am talking about drivers,who are under the 80 mg limit.
I would suggest you look at your own behaviour,have you thought of standing for President of the USA,you seem to like telling people what to do.
the speed limit in IRELAND,was 63 MPH,I believe its now 70,I never drive faster than 60mph,and am punctillious in observing speed limits,I have never been fined for speeding.I am a very careful driver.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 03:09 PM

"Not talking about drunk drivers" because you are thinking that any drinker who is under the 80 mg limit is not drunk??? Granted that he's not legally drunk under your present law, but he will be if the proposed law passes. But come on, now, stop splitting hairs -- a driver who drinks is a drunk driver. I'll say it once again: buzzed driving IS drunk driving. Do you understand what "buzzed" means???? It means "drunk but under the blood-alcohol level that would cause one to be prosecuted as being legally drunk."

Here we go again with the "you seem to like telling people what to do" bullcrap. I already said that you can take or leave the advice I'm giving (and that I'm free to give in a discussion forum). If you didn't want to hear what people have to say to you on this subject, why did you start this thread and repeatedly ask people what they think?

And what's up with your description of the speed at which you drive? You're the one who brought up the subject of speeding drivers, and now you're acting as if I'm accusing you of speeding. Why so defensive???