BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Nov 09 - 08:30 PM

No Wesley, you must be thinking of the old parlour-trick of 'lifting the anvil'. That dates back to before television of course, when we had anvils in the parlour. We had to make our own fun in those days.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Nov 09 - 07:22 PM

So you call it a "stick" over there?

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 08:47 PM

Hmm... Never heard of the old 'jar of mint sauce dangling on the end of a stick' trick then? No sense of sophistication, you colonials.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 08:15 PM

Ya' think?   Tell ya' Smokester, that's really gonna' put the cabosh on quite a few of the posters on this thread as most who like to drink and drive often stop along the way to put the log to a poor sheep, especially in the coast and hill country. Those guys know the secret to a good sheepshag is getting the sheep up to the cliff so they shove back! Go ahead......ask them!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 07:32 PM

It's a hard world Spaw. Next thing you know, they'll be banning sheep shagging.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 07:19 PM

Gee.....I'd think that having a brew and smoke and some good old fashioned whatever is just the thing to keep the bars hopping. Lots of business was lost here when the government trounced allover our personal freedom to fire up a gasper whenever and wherever we chose. How can they take away such precious rights and freedoms?


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 07:08 PM

No Spaw, they say it's dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 06:53 PM

Are all these pubs now smoke free? I'd think that smoking would be a reasonable thing to allow wouldn't you? Maybe allow only a pack or so per guest per evening......or no more than two cigars.   Or do they still have smoking in your pubs?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 06:36 PM

The only way you can murder someone with a car is either to drive it at them at great speed, drop it on them from a great height, lock the doors with the driver inside and set it on fire, or cut the brake pipes. I'm in favour of not getting overly liberal with our definition of murder, thanks. Having said that, killing someone whilst driving pissed is sometimes not treated with the severity it deserves. Let's keep measured and avoid the the lynch-mob intemperance. And we're not just talking about the civil liberties of drunk drivers. We're also talking about the civil liberties of the 99% (estimated by me) who never drive drunk. Anyway, no harm to be done. This will never come to pass in any case.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 03:51 PM

& an ANGLO concertina at that, please note.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 02:41 PM

Of course not, as a standard retail item, but as a manufacturer fitted integral component in a car being sold into a highly competitive market, it is a realistic assessment of the likely extra cost.

You seem to have misunderstood me again, Don, but it's only a small difference of opinion and not worth arguing about when compared with the seriousness of the matter under discussion.


how about banning harmonicas? (GSS)

Be fair, Dick - they're only half a concertina without the leather bits.. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 01:49 PM

Furthermore, Steve seems to think that existence of any laws inhibiting any sort of conduct constitutes a Big Brother state. Those with such views are best off living on desert islands where they can just get on with whatever they have a mind to — & I hope it keeps fine for him.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 01:27 PM

Steve Shaw, I'm as bothered as you by the idea of a police state.

Just as long as YOU would be willing to explain to the bereaved why the civil liberties of drunken drivers are more important than their dead relative, I would be happy to accept the inevitability of continuing footdragging over curtailing civil liberties.

No matter what kind of free country you espouse, it CANNOT include the freedom to commit wanton murder.

That is the crime of the drunken driver. It is implicit in his/her decision to drive that car while in that condition, that he/she accept the possibility of killing somebody, yet this does not stop him/her.

That is why the charge, IMHO, should be murder, and I'm sure you would never be campaigning for the freedom to commit murder.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 10:31 AM

how about banning harmonicas?

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 09:59 AM

You could ban cars altogether. That would save 3,500 lives and 35,000 serious injuries in the UK every year. You could ban alcohol completely and cut out the tens of thousands of alcohol-related deaths too. You could ban Big Macs, and chips done in beef dripping (Rick Stein wouldn't love you), and prevent a few thousand coronaries. You could ban telly, which would force people to take more exercise (especially with the car ban in place!), with the same effect. Saving lives is easy. Not turning your country into Big Brother's kingdom is the hard bit.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 05:21 AM

""I doubt very much if a 'foolproof' alcohol detecting device/immobiliser is going to retail at £30 - £40. At least not on Japanese cars, anyway.""

Of course not, as a standard retail item, but as a manufacturer fitted integral component in a car being sold into a highly competitive market, it is a realistic assessment of the likely extra cost.

Sharon, you are of course correct in saying you would still be at risk from drunks in older cars. That risk of course would steadily decrease as you pointed out above.

Almost all innovations are progressively rolled out (eg seatbelts) and strangely, if you look at prices before and after, you find very small, or even no, increases.

Your questions re sensitivity are easily answered. Breathalisers already measure very accurately, so there would be no problem setting say a 25mlg/100ml limit.

Your putative passenger would have zero effect, as the machine requires a steady breath of 100ml volume to operate.

The car outside the pub would simply turn itself off automatically after say five minutes stationary with the doors locked.

None of this is rocket science, and if the aim is to prevent death by drunken driving, rather than waiting for the carnage, and punishing the miscreant, I'd say it was justified, and those who have lost loved ones would agree. Wouldn't you?


Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 06:19 PM

Yes Smokey, it's a matter of public record that houses are being burgled specifically to steal car keys, for the purpose of taking said cars.

I know that - the key stealing's been a commonplace method for years. Mine works the same way as yours, with a chip in the key. I was referring to the disabling of immobilisers by the vehicles' owners (who have more time to do it) for the purpose of getting round the alcohol detecting device, and the availability of the information on the internet enabling one to do so.

I recently priced a new key, by the way. £70 for a 'cheap' one made by a local locksmith re-using the old chip, and £150 - £200 for the manufacturer's own with a new chip. That's just the key.. I doubt very much if a 'foolproof' alcohol detecting device/immobiliser is going to retail at £30 - £40. At least not on Japanese cars, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 05:17 PM

Don sez: "As to the cost of the initial [BTI} equipment, it shouldn't add more than £30 - £40 to the cost of a car. Pretty insignificant I'd have thought, and as a driver sharing the road with drinkers, wouldn't you think that an extra £40 on the price of your car is a small price to pay for being protected from others who drink and drive."

Hmmm? Having a breath alcohol immobilizer as standard equipment on my new car isn't going to protect me from others who drink and drive older-model cars without BTI's. That's why I was asking whether you envision a law requiring BTI's to be retro-fitted onto older cars. If there were no such law in your scenario of new-cars-with-BTI's, then I think teetotalers with new cars would object strenuously to being monitored while drunk drivers with older cars are not!

Again, I have to ask: would a BTI immobilize a car when the driver had a trace amount of alcohol on his breath -- if he had just ingested a bit of cough syrup or had just gargled with Listerine? Also, would the unit detect a strong scent of alcohol being exhaled by a very drunken passenger that a designated driver was transporting home, and would the unit then prevent the driver's car from being started? Would a car with a BTI, once started, keep running if the sober driver popped into a bar and left the engine running and got back into the car drunk?

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 05:44 AM

""We can only hope that auto insurance companies would compensate for this by giving a discount to owners of cars equipped with BTI's.""

Given the cost to insurers of drunk driver crashes, I'd say that was a racing certainty.

As to the cost of the initial equipment, it shouldn't add more than £30 - £40 to the cost of a car.

Pretty insignificant I'd have thought, and as a driver sharing the road with drinkers, wouldn't you think that an extra £40 on the price of your car is a small price to pay for being protected from others who drink and drive.

Yes Smokey, it's a matter of public record that houses are being burgled specifically to steal car keys, for the purpose of taking said cars.

It doesn't apply so much to the bottom of the range cars, but most medium to large vehicles have double deadlocks, which can't be slipped, and immobilisers which won't allow the engine to start unless the specific chipped key is in the ignition.

My Scorpio works that way, and three attempts to steal it have failed dismally.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 04:34 PM

You may be right Smokey, but to put it in some perspective, that hasn't happened with existing hi-tech car immobilisers.

Do you know that for certain, Don? That aside, immobilisers are to stop other people taking the car, and they tend to be in a hurry. I don't quite see how the same method could be used for this purpose. You might well be right though - I'm not claiming superior knowledge or anything, I'm just a cynic. It would however, as Steve says, be an unfair financial burden on sober drivers, not to mention the inconvenience of doing whatever-it-involves every time the car is started.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 10:35 AM

"...the most prevalent car crime now is house burglary to obtain car keys, without which even the most dedicated thieves struggle to start their intended loot. This lends itself to a degree of confidence in the efficacy of new security technology, wouldn't you say?"

I suppose so... although it sounds like the technology of home security systems needs some beefing up! :-)

Of course, some car thieves work around the new technology by using the old-fashioned method of car-jacking -- stealing a car that is already running. To be honest, I'd rather lose my car to a thief who is stealing it when I'm not in it!!!

Anyway, thanks, Don, for the info about after-market BTI's. I agree with Steve Shaw that the additional expense of building a BTI into a new car as standard equipment -- and repairing the BTI when a thief tries to remove it or when some on-board computer problem arises -- would be an unnecessary burden on law-abiding citizens. We can only hope that auto insurance companies would compensate for this by giving a discount to owners of cars equipped with BTI's.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 07:39 AM

Yeah, simple. And all those teetotallers and the vast majority of drivers who would never dream of driving over the limit would have to pay for it all just the same as the potential drink-drivers.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 07:13 AM

Sharon, it would have to be new cars only. Anything bolted on after manufacture can of course be removed, but something built into the structure can be made damn near impossible to tamper with.

For example it should be possible to set it up so that it will permanently scramble the ignition if anyone tries to access or remove it.

That would then require resetting by an official garage, with a specific computer setup, which would also be required to notify the DVLC or the police.

Simples.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 07:05 AM

""The instructions would be on the internet inside a week..""

You may be right Smokey, but to put it in some perspective, that hasn't happened with existing hi-tech car immobilisers.

That's the reason why the most prevalent car crime now is house burglary to obtain car keys, without which even the most dedicated thieves struggle to start their intended loot.

This lends itself to a degree of confidence in the efficacy of new security technology, wouldn't you say?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 07:23 PM

The instructions would be on the internet inside a week..

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:49 PM

DonT sez: "I heartily agree with the first half of that. In an ideal world education would be the way forward. However I emphatically disagree with the contention that tightening limits will be more successful. As I said above, all the evidence is that the majority of the target group will, as they do now, ignore those limits. Even after being caught, fined, and banned, they will tend to repeat the offence."

True enough, Don. If BTI's are the wave of the (near) future, I'd be of the opinion that a repeat offender should, as part of his punishment, have a BTI fitted to his/her car.

But a BTI on every car? I confess I'm distrustful of the technology; would it detect low amounts of alcohol -- say, from cough syrup -- on the breath and keep one from starting one's car because of that?

If they were to be fitted to all new vehicles, would they then get retro-fitted to older vehicles, by law, as well? Or are you thinking that a BTI should only be a standard feature of new vehicles (and that the authorities should count on DUI arrests declining as the older vehicles are junked??

I agree that the majority of car owners wouldn't have a clue about how to disable a BTI, but I think that those who are determined to ignore the limits would find a way to have their BTI's disabled, even if they had to find/pay someone else to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:45 PM

I'd be in favour of much stiffer penalties. Up to and including a custodial sentence for the worst offenders, confiscation of vehicles and huge fines. There is no perfect solution, but at least people might start taking it more seriously. Hit them so hard in the pocket that they can no longer afford to either drink or drive. I agree that education is the way forward, but it's notoriously difficult to teach a drunk anything, except by drastic means.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:21 PM

""I think the ultimate aim should be to change the mindset of society toward more responsible behavior, and I don't think that those immobilizing devices achieve that goal.""

I heartily agree with the first half of that. In an ideal world education would be the way forward. However I emphatically disagree with the contention that tightening limits will be more successful.

As I said above, all the evidence is that the majority of the target group will, as they do now, ignore those limits.

Even after being caught, fined, and banned, they will tend to repeat the offence.

In the final analysis, it may be necessary to have BTIs fitted , by law, to new vehicles. You can't drink and drive if your car refuses to start, and let's face it, the majority of car owners these days wouldn't have a clue how to disable them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 05:59 PM

Surely if the demand for taxis in rural Ireland increases because of this legislation, the supply will increase accordingly? It seems obvious to me, unless there is actually a shortage of drivers. I'd imagine the employment opportunities would be very welcome to anyone prepared to stay sober long enough to work and drive.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 04:56 PM

everyone that has an occasional drink,or has even one periodically or even a pint a day ,because they feel like it is an alocholic now,ms gray must be one too,since she goes to the pub and makes alternative arrangements,

Oh, brother. You know that's not what I said.


however [as founder of parc] I hardly consider her to be someone who is viewing the situation with impartiality, any more than I consider Healy Rae to be impartial

As someone whose life will be affected by the new law, you aren't viewing the situation with impartiality either. One would assume that you started this thread in order to hear the views of impartial observers.... but apparently not, judging by your final comment:


Sharon,stop digging.

I'm not "digging", just pointing out the holes that already exist in your arguments sgainst this law. If you mean that you want me to stop looking up information on this subject, sorry but you're the one who got me interested in finding out more about it. If you mean that you want me to stop posting comments to this thread, then is it not okay for anyone else who disagrees with you to post comments??? Either way, ordering me to "stop digging" accomplishes nothing; I am under no obligation to obey your order.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 04:12 PM

I live in rural Ireland and my experience is completely different from Ms Gray.
everyone that has an occasional drink,or has even one periodically or even a pint a day ,because they feel like it is an alocholic now,ms gray must be one too,since she goes to the pub and makes alternative arrangements,
however [as founder of parc] I hardly consider her to be someone who is viewing the situation with impartiality, any more than I consider Healy Rae to be impartial
Sharon,stop digging.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 03:20 PM

if there was more public transport or taxis in rural areas,people would not have to drink at home,they would be able to go to the pub [to] drink and have an alternative form of transport to get home.

This assumes that people "have to drink" somewhere. Another alternative is to refrain from drinking. No one HAS to drink except the alcoholic who is addicted to it.

Besides, the no-public-transport argument is "a load of codswallop", according to Susan Gray, founder of Public Against Road Carnage (PARC) in the article I quoted earlier in this thread. Remember that Ms Gray said, "I live in a rural part of Ireland, you can't get anymore rural than Inishowen, and we make alternative arrangements about getting home from the pub, it's that simple."

So there you go. It can be done and it is BEING done already.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 03:03 PM

as DonT mentioned it WOULD not be necessary ,if more car manufacturers fitted these devices

No, DonT said that what is needed is to fit ALL cars with the Breath Alcohol Immobiliser. Even if such a thing could be done, it would take years to do, plus the years of legal entanglements which would result from the fact that people wouldn't want the devices on their cars. I'm not convinced that the devices couldn't be tampered with, anyway (what can be programmed can be deprogrammed or reprogrammed, and what can be attached can be removed or at least disarmed).

Meanwhile, Ireland wants to address its drinking-and-driving problems NOW. Seems like lowering the limit is the best short-term solution... and, perhaps, an ideal long-term solution as well, because it will persuade many people to change their habit of drinking and driving. In my opinion, this is better than fitting all cars with a device that forces compliance, which would only increase resentment rather than induce social responsibility. I think the ultimate aim should be to change the mindset of society toward more responsible behavior, and I don't think that those immobilizing devices achieve that goal.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 02:46 PM

""In the same way cars can be manufactured that dont go faster than the official speed limit,That would cut down a lot of accidents.""

Don't tag that one onto my comment Dick. It was piloted a long time ago, and that pilot showed speed limiters on private cars tend to increase accidents.

Apparently, there is research showing that the ability to accelerate sharply is a positive, as many more accidents are avoided by acceleration out of trouble, than by braking.

When drivers brake (except in nose to tail situations, where braking is trhe only option), they tend to still have the accident, but at a reduced speed.

That is why speed limiters fitted to high performance cars today operate at 155mph, and not 70mph.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:55 AM

Sharon,Isaid.quote
when the man is absent, the partners have a break from each other, why dont they divorce you ask?
religious pressure .
I never said it was an excuse for drink driving,what I said was drinking at home is likely to increase domestic violence.
when there are no pubs left,drinkers will drink at home,if people cant get to the pub without losing their licence,and there are no taxis or public transport,and the weather is too bad to walk they will stay at homne and drink, possibly increasing domestic violence,that is not a reason for people to drink drive and be over the limit,but it is a possible social problem,which is an indirect result of lowering the limit.
if there was more public transport or taxis in rural areas,people would not have to drink at home,they would be able to go to the pub drink and have an alternative form of transport to get home.
the irish government are spending 800 thousand on introducing a law that has not been proven effectively with statistics,meanwhile all sorts of social services and social welfare payments are being cut.
as DonT mentioned it WOULD not be   necessary ,if more car manufacturers fitted these devices,
In the same way cars can be manufactured that dont go faster than the official speed limit,That would cut down a lot of accidents.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 08:45 PM

"Put your coat on Elsie, I fancy a couple of pints."

"Oh, that's nice, we haven't been out for a while."

"No, you're not coming, I'm turning the heating off."

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 08:18 PM

""...when the man is absent, the partners have a break from each other..."""

I'm telling you Ossifer, itsh my wife. She drove me to drink, and thatsh why I am driving myshelf in the shame direcshun.....HIC!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 08:14 PM

""good idea, Don.
but the government wouldnt like it because they would be deprived of revenue.""

Not MY idea Dick.

Much cleverer folk than I have already fitted it to some cars, and it WORKS!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 08:11 PM

""I suppose the machine could tell who was blowing into it as well. I can imagine a little booth at the exit of pub car-parks with teetotallers offering a car mobiliser service for a couple of quid a puff.""

Yes Steve. As it happens the manufacturers state that the machine, properly programmed, can indeed tell who the driver is. I don't profess to know how, but this IS the claim they make.

In any case the random tests would soon expose any cheats, and let's face it, if a sober person travels in the car to pass the tests, he/she would logically insist on saving his/her life by driving the darn thing.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 07:53 PM

"...when the man is absent, the partners have a break from each other..."

Holy cannoli. There are some truly inane excuses for drinking and driving posted on this thread, but this one tops the list. What kind of a "break" does the woman in this partnership get when she's stuck at home while her man takes the car out to go drinking? ...when her man comes home boozed up and ready to fight with her? ...when her man doesn't come home because he's been arrested for drinking-and-driving or, worse, when he has an accident with the car and gets himself and/or someone else killed?

Good grief, Schweik. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses this time.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 01:28 PM

I said if I drink too much of it my driving deteriorates,therfore I treat it with respect,as I do alcohol, ALCOHOL two pints max in two hours,and then I leave it at least half an hour [switching to water] before I drive.

With respect, Dick, this isn't actually about you, it's about everyone who drives and/or drinks. No-one is accusing you of anything personally, but whatever rules we have need to be applicable to anyone, anywhere, any time. Just because you have been lucky or careful so far doesn't mean you are infallible or invincible, and it certainly doesn't mean everyone else is.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 12:34 PM

good idea, Don.
but the government wouldnt like it because they would be deprived of revenue.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 10:29 AM

I suppose the machine could tell who was blowing into it as well. I can imagine a little booth at the exit of pub car-parks with teetotallers offering a car mobiliser service for a couple of quid a puff.
Part of the rationale for setting limits is to keep the issue to the fore in the minds of the public. That and some hard-hitting education and proper punishments for offenders. The idea is to change people's minds about drink-driving. Repressive, intrusive measures will never do that - they just make people more resourceful at getting round them and make them hate the authorities all the more.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 09:31 AM

The bottom line is this.

No matter where the limit is placed, the inveterate drink driver will continue on his course to self immolation, and of course, being a jolly, gregarious sort of chap, he will probably take a few others with him.

Limits only work on those who already have sufficient sense of responsibility to control their actions without legal constraint.

Limits, in point of fact, serve only one purpose, and that is to punish those who have already offended.

What is needed is to fit all cars with the Breath Alcohol Immobiliser, which prevents the engine starting unless the driver can blow "clear", and can also be pre-set to demand random tests to catch anybody who does his boozing on the fly. As I understand it, the machine could render drink driving extinct, for a comparatively small cost.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 08:49 AM

There are lots of ways in which people can be in less than perfect nick for driving. Too tired, too fat, too stressed, bad cold, lost, row with wife or hubby, distracted by kids, lighting a fag, fiddling with a CD, unwrapping a Werther's Original. We're only human. But booze is in the category of things we have total control of. You don't have to drink, you don't have to use your phone, you don't have to try to drink coffee at the wheel, you don't have to play the harmonica whilst driving. We inveterate boozers can't complain if the limit is brought down. Personally, I think a zero limit would be too repressive. It's two in the afternoon now the night after I had a few pints. Am I alcohol-free yet? God knows. Probably. I think I might be too scared ever to get in my car.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 08:29 AM

If your own driving suffers when you drink coffee, then my advice would be not to do it, even if it's only for your own sake.[quote]
no,it keeps me awake, and keepsme alive and others
I said if I drink too much of it my driving deteriorates,therfore I treat it with respect,as I do alcohol, ALCOHOL two pints max in two hours,and then I leave it at least half an hour [switching to water] before I drive.
I welcome GUINNESS Introducing a 2.8 per cent beer.
800 thousand euros,on something whose necessity has not been statistically proven,not quite as daft as the millions wasted on electronic voting machines,but pretty stupid in these economically straitened times,meanwhile raw sewage is pumped into Schull harbour,quite frankly I would prefer that 800 thousand euros be spent on a sewage treatment plant for Schull.
more people drinking at home will result possibly in more domestic violence.
when the man is absent, the partners have a break from each other, why dont they divorce you ask?
religious pressure .

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 08:12 AM

the new equipment will cost an estimated 800,thousand euros.
meanwhile unemployment benefit for a single person has been cut from 200 a week to 100.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 06:35 PM

Interesting point, PL, I didn't realise that. In a way, it's a great shame - the end of an era, even. The smaller, outlying pubs are disappearing in the UK too, faster than in Ireland I think, but that seems to be more to do with prices, regulations, and of course the smoking ban, being the last twist of the knife. All of which seems to be suiting the brewers and distillers, who are selling more booze than ever. If people are going to be irresponsible with alcohol though, I'd rather they did it at home than inflict it on the rest of us. Unfortunately that could lead to, or exacerbate, another set of problems of a more personal/domestic than social nature. In principle I don't believe in banning anything, but alcohol should be treated with a great deal more respect than we are generally conditioned to give it.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 03:16 AM

Another thing that is rarely mentioned in the debate about the loss of rural pubs is the fact a lot of them are closing because their owners are retiring. Most rural pubs are small and have never been a full income raising business, they often were an extra, an aside to having a farm, working for eircom, having a grocery business (that side went belly up with EU regulations) or running a funeral home.

Children of the retiring owners with full time jobs and don't feel like entering a commitment that will tie them up for the night or weekend.

Ofcourse big urban pubs buying up licences, at some point for €100K-180K made for a nice pension fund for retiring owners. Most,probably all, rural pubs closing in the West Clare area that I know of followed the scenario of selling the licence for major money.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Wesley S
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 07:14 PM

"I wonder how many pubs[in rural Ireland] will be left after 2011,apparantly 1000 pubs have closed in the last three years"

If the new laws are the cause of it then maybe those pubs need to close. If they count on customers being able to drink to excess and then drive afterward I won't shead a tear at their passing.