BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 06:47 PM

Dick, just because one driver managed to drive ok after two pints on one occasion doesn't mean it's safe to assume everyone can do it anytime. The law has to be such that it can apply to anyone, anytime. Two pints will affect a teetotaller significantly more than it would an alcoholic, for example. I think that point has already been adequately covered, but for a person to be unaffected by two pints, they would have to have previously built up quite a strong resistance to the effect of alcohol. If they actually need that amount to adjust their reactions etc. to a 'normal' level, they are probably alcoholics, or at least well on the way to being so, depending on one's definition.

Stringsinger is absolutely right: 'Don't drink and drive'. It's a crying shame we even need a law to enforce what should be no more than basic common sense.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: gnu
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 09:38 AM

Sorry... this is only a test. ?

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 09:31 AM

having now read the article in full,the new breathalysers cannot[for various reasons] be introduced till 2011.
if people dont like Irish driving and Irish Law,there is nothing to stop them moving elsewhere.
I am happy to stay here,and when the new law comes in 2011,I will conform to the new limits.I wonder how many pubs[in rural Ireland] will be left after 2011,apparantly 1000 pubs have closed in the last three years
I have been driving for 40 years ,I have never been involved in an accident caused by my drinking or anyone elses .
I did once report to the police a drunken driver who was driving all over the road,but this was not someone who had had two pints in two hours ,but someone who was weaving across the road from one side to the other.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 08:57 AM

article in sunday times today.TD MAKES HIS PINT IN DRIVING TEST.From The Sunday Times
November 8, 2009
TD makes his pint in driving test
Mark Tighe

    *



Mattie McGrath became an international laughing stock when he suggested that a pint could improve the performance of some nervous drivers.

However, a test on one of his Fianna Fail colleagues concluded that his responses on a driving simulator improved after consuming two pints of beer. Bobby Aylward, a TD for Carlow-Kilkenny, said his better reaction times with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 52mg, which is to be outlawed by Noel Dempsey, the transport minister, showed that "a social drink has no adverse reaction on rural people driving home".

Aylward is among the Fianna Fail backbenchers lobbying for a removal of the "two strikes and you're out" rule in the new Road Traffic Bill for those caught with a BAC between 50mg and 80mg.

Dempsey bowed to pressure to bring the penalty for first offenders down to three points, but his backbenchers say they did not know the punishment for a second offence in the 50mg-80mg range was a one-year ban from driving. "If a person is caught in that range again their penalty points should amalgamate as they do for speeding," said Aylward. "I don't think a ban for a second offence is fair."
Related Links

    * Aylward: My one for the road that said it all

"It has to be an amalgamation [of points]," said McGrath. "The fat lady hasn't sung yet. The bill was rushed through."
   Here is another point,Coffee is a stimulant,it can be very useful in keeping people awake whilst driving, however I find if I drink too much of it,my driving deteriorates.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 12:09 PM

The rationale for defending alcohol as being not important in drunk driving accidents is as specious as it can get.

The logical fallacy here of course is that claiming that there are other things that are worse.
This doesn't minimize the detriment of alcohol use in driving.

The solution is simple. Don't drink and drive. Futzing with the drink level is like deciding how much explosive material to put into a bomb.

Drink and driving is playing with fire.

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

No-one said it would prevent all the unrelated accidents - there are many road safety issues which need to be addressed, but they can only be addressed one at a time, and alcohol is one of the biggest factors as far as I'm aware. It isn't as though all the other factors are being ignored, after all.

I agree that public transport these days leaves a lot to be desired and the other problem is that there are too many cars on the road. Personally I think raising the driving age to about 25 would have a large effect on overall safety.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 09:16 PM

carry on, reduce the limit to zero.
we will then see whether people stop killing others on the road.
I dont think so,we will still see people tailgating, driving far too fast for the road conditions etc etc etc,what will you do then.
why not ban motor vehicles?but before that happens can we have a proper train system,thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:57 PM

I'd foolishly assumed Dick was referring to his own post, for some reason..

I agree with your last point, Sharon. The problem is, it doesn't take much alcohol at all to produce seriously dangerous thinking. At a guess, it was a 'regular drinker' who suggested the 80mg limit in the first place. I'll be glad when they reduce the level in the UK. I think the level should probably be something like 5mg, to be practical. We wouldn't want to go upsetting Norwegian teetotallers..

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:26 PM

but others were referring to the zero limit.

Dick, at the time you'd made your post about being "over the limit without having consumed any alcohol" (27 Oct 2009 09:33 AM), you started your post by saying "the problem with that is..." without clarifying which "that" you were referring to -- Mr Happy's suggestion of a zero limit (seconded by Villan and Peter Laban) or Richard Bridge's assertion that "small levels of alcohol improved absolute driving skills", or your own opening post about the proposed reduction of the limit to 50 mg. It was impossible to tell, at 9:33, WHICH "limit" you were talking about! If you would, please take the time to write a little more clearly, so as to avoid confusing those who read your posts. Your readers will thank you!

Glad to hear that the law is going to go through, even if you are not happy about it. It will be very interesting to see how much (or how little) the new law affects the rural areas of Ireland. In your post of 27 Oct 2009 02:07 PM, you expressed concern that "it will lead to further rural isolation, possibly more rural suicides in isolated communities"; we shall see whether the suicide rate rises, but I have my doubts.

What concerns me is the attitude expressed here, by you and others, that drinking and driving is no big deal as long as one's blood-alcohol level is below the legal limit. That is some seriously dangerous thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:24 PM

They were indeed Dick - I apologise for my unnecessary pedantry and I hope you aren't unduly inconvenienced by the legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 08:22 AM

but others were referring to the zero limit.
anyway the law is going to go through,so I cant waste any more time on this now ,sorry

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 06:34 PM

Was the Norwegian teetotaller(?) actually convicted for drunk driving? It's rather difficult to check with so little information to go on.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 06:01 PM

But you weren't referring to a zero limit, Dick, you were referring to lowering the level from 80 to 50 mg when you said that.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:52 PM

if the limit is zero this can be the case,in an earlier discussion[a year ago?] on a similiar subject,someone from[I think it was Norway ]mentioned this happening.
if my memory is correct the person was a teetotaller but was over the zero limit,due to medication.,if you are that bothered check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:51 PM

Smokey: Ah! I get it. You're right; I had misunderstood you.

You're also right that Schweik's statement sounds bogus. Yeah, I'd love to see him post some statistics to support that!

It should be noted, though, that one can be charged with DUI (Driving Under the Influence) when one is under the influence of medications that obviously undermine one's ability to drive. As stated in the articles I posted, a blood test or urine test would detect the presence of said medications. This is not to say that the presence of a medication in the bloodstream would necessarily be detected because of a blood-alcohol level above .08 mg.

I disagree with Schweik's assertion that it would be unfair to lose one's license because of a DUI conviction for having driven under the influence of a medication without having consumed alcohol. If a person uses such poor judgment as to drive when his faculties are noticably impaired by a medication's side effects, then obviously he needs to be taken out of the driver's seat for his own safety and the safety of others.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:20 PM

Thanks again Sharon, but I didn't mean drugs which enhance the effect of alcohol when combined with it, or deliver it to the bloodstream more efficiently - That, I understand. Likewise drugs which might mimic the effect of alcohol.

I was actually referring to this statement made by Dick:

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?

I don't see how, if no alcohol has actually been consumed, an illegal amount can be detected in either breath or blood to secure a conviction.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 02:50 PM

You're welcome, Smokey! You ask: "I'd be interested to learn exactly what medication can put an illegal amount of alcohol in the bloodstream, as was suggested earlier. I know some cough remedies and mouth-washes contain small amounts of alcohol, but I've never known anyone actually drink them in pints."

It's not "suggested", Smokey; it's a fact. Check out these articles, for starters, that give some information on the subject:

"DRUGS THAT RAISE BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVELS": http://www.healthcentral.com/static/pp/pdf_guides/alcohol-02.pdf

"Common Over-The-Counter Drugs In DUI/DWI/OUI/OWI Cases":
http://drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/non-prescription-medication-alcohol.htm

"Illegal or Prescription Drug DUI":
http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/PracticeAreas/DrivingUndertheInfluenceDUI/IllegalorPrescriptionDrugDUI.aspx

"DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MEDICATION":
http://www.bayareaduidefense.com/docs/dui_medication.shtml

"DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION:
http://www.floridaduilawyerblog.com/driving_under_the_influence_of/

"DUI AND SLEEP MEDICATIONS":
http://www.floridaduilawyerblog.com/2009/10/dui_and_sleep_medications.html

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 12:32 PM

I'd be interested to learn exactly what medication can put an illegal amount of alcohol in the bloodstream, as was suggested earlier. I know some cough remedies and mouth-washes contain small amounts of alcohol, but I've never known anyone actually drink them in pints.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Mr Happy
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 11:25 AM

.........or if not working next day, stay over, sleep in car, tent etc

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Mr Happy
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 11:24 AM

Surely it's not absolutely necessary to have an alcoholic drink when you go to the pub?

Me & the gang take turns driving if we're going distance, so whoever's turn it is has soft drinks or tea/coffee etc

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Genie
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 11:17 AM

In general, I think "zero tolerance" laws and policies are like using a sledgehammer to swat the wasp on someone's face.    It is not the person who had a small glass of champagne to toast the bride and groom at a wedding or the person who has one glass of wine with dinner who poses a threat to traffic safety - especially if they then drive home on city streets at speeds of 25-35 mph.   

I guess if you want to bring back prohibition, I can understand the push to lower the legal alcohol limit to 0.0, but it's unrealistic to expect or demand that anyone who consumes even a small glass of wine will (or should) pay exorbitant fees for taxis, etc.    Other serious impediments to driving may be harder to detect or prove after the fact, but there's something unjust about singling out one relatively minor factor because it's easy to measure, while letting more serious things slide because they are not.   

I think the same should apply to cell phone use. I see no reason why police forces should allocate resources to scoping out cell-phone-holding drivers instead of focusing on more serious infractions (tailgating, speeding, blocking intersections, etc.).

Of course, if an accident happens, any contributing factors should be taken into account in determining who should be ticketed, etc.   But if the driver is obeying all the traffic laws and driving in a normal, cautious manner, arresting him or her for not having a zero percent alcohol level accomplishes little beyond generating revenue and possibly wreaking havoc on the life of the arrested driver.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 03:33 AM

ha ha,there are no taxi drivers available here,you really dont know what its like here in rural ireland,you spout off, without knowing the circumstances.
there are not enough people living here to make it worth their while,sure there are taxi drivers ibn Cork city and Bandon,and even Skibbereen,but they make more money at the nightclubs in Skibbereen,you cant get them to come out here ,take a taxi,ha ha hahaha.

In the West of Clare, as well as many other places quite remote, there's a virtual fleet of minibusses and taxis that drive people around. Groups going to cinema, theatre, nightclubs, discos and whatnot in Ennis, people going out in Lahinch, teenagers going out, drinkers going anywhere and back.

'There are no taxis here' may hold true for Ballydehob, although I doubt it, it is certainly not representative for the whole of rural Ireland.

The whole talk of 'the breakdown of the social fabric of rural Ireland' is a load of bull spread by The Vintners Federation of Ireland and politicians like Jackie Healy Rae (a pub owner himself).

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 10:58 PM

It certainly is in the UK Wesley, but of course there has to be a co-operating group of like-minded individuals in order to initiate such an arrangement, and that isn't always possible to achieve, for one reason or another.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 10:49 PM

OK - so there aren't any taxis. How about the rest of it? Or is the thought of NOT drinking for one night out of the question? If so - that's a whole other discussion.


"In America we use the term "designated driver" for someone who doesn't drink and is responsible for driving folks home at the end of the evening. Is this a common practice in Ireland?"

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 09:32 PM

Interesting stuff, SA - thank you.

they should bring in a two teir system,so that in major cites the level can be 50mg but elsewhere it remains the same.

Call me cynical, but wouldn't people just go where they could drink more? In their cars, perhaps, as it would be further away?

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 08:16 PM

Another statistic from a different article: http://www.build.ie/national_news.asp?newsid=101472

IMO Former President, Dr. Declan Bedford said: "Drink driving is still a serious issue in Ireland. Research in Ireland has shown that where a blood alcohol concentration was available, one in two fatally injured drivers had a blood alcohol concentration of 50mg or higher."

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 07:33 PM

Not sure where "out here" might be in rural Ireland, but here's a website for folks to see what IS going on with the taxi industry in Ireland: http://www.taxi.ie/

Also, check out this article in the Mayo News: http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7974&Itemid=26
This article says the following about the proponents of the new legal limit (including several statistics):

FOR Noel Gibbons, the road safety officer for Mayo County Council, the proposal to reduce the blood alcohol limit (BAL) from 80mg to 50mg is a no brainer. He feels if it can save one life it should be introduced and that should outweigh any counter-argument.
Since becoming road safety officer, Noel has been to the forefront in the battle to reduce the number of deaths and accidents on our roads and he strongly welcomes the proposal by Minister Dempsey. He pointed out that the BAL for all EU countries bar Ireland, the UK and Malta was 50mg or lower and the number of road deaths in those countries has reduced since its introduction.

"Anything that will reduce the number of people killed on the roads has to be supported. If you look at the best practice used in other countries there has been a huge reduction in the number of fatalities as a result of reducing the drink driving limit. Naturally those countries had the same debate we are having when the reduced limits were introduced but they are now reaping the benefits with the reduction in deaths on the roads.

"The whole point of reducing the limit is to save lives and that should be the priority in all cases. When the random breath testing was introduced it was opposed but we are able to see the number of lives saved and this will be a follow-on from that," he said.
The common argument for opposing the reduction of the alcohol limit is the it will have a detrimental affect on rural Ireland and rural businesses. However, Mr Gibbons believes that this argument needed to be brought up on a different forum and another person who believes this argument does not wash is Susan Gray, founder of Public Against Road Carnage (PARC) - a road safety advocacy group based in Inishowen, Co Donegal who promote responsible driving. She told The Mayo News that her association was 100 per cent behind Minister Dempsey's proposal and would be very disappointed if he backed down.

"We should bring this in now and this time next year there will be people alive who would not be if it is not reduced," she said. "When you get behind the wheel you need all your concentration and if you have drink on you the chances of being involved in a collision are a lot higher. This silly argument about people living in rural Ireland being isolated and not getting to the pub is a load of codswallop. 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. Most of the electorate want this lower limit and support it except for a few with a load voice. It is a sad state of affairs if it does not go through and I hope people back Minister Dempsey."

Mr Gibbons revealed that a recent survey showed that 87 per cent of Irish people consider drink driving as a shameful act. However he feels that for the number of deaths to continue to fall the attitude amongst certain drivers that one pint will do no harm has to change.
"I believe people will accept this change but they need to realise that there is no safe limit with drink driving. If you have a drink you cannot drive. Even at a quarter of the current legal limit, your vision is affected. There's a huge percentage of fatalities every year where alcohol is in the system of people involved in those fatal collisions. Lowering the drink driving limit will reduce that risk."

Ms Gray believes that there is a culture of drink driving in the country but feels reducing the limit will go a long way in changing that culture.

"When mandatory testing came in it did reduce the drink driving a lot and if we bring a lower limit that will be another step in the right direction in saving lives. That is what it is all about, nobody should be dying on our roads unnecessarily."

...Most experts suggest that it will take a pint of average strength (four per cent) beer or cider at least two hours to leave your blood stream when you stop drinking, while a 250ml glass of 15 per cent wine will take four hours.

According to safedriving.ie, an average person drinking on a typical Saturday night may at midnight have 200 mg per 100 ml of blood in their system - 2.5 times the current drink driving limit. If the person stops drinking at midnight there will still be 90 mg in their system at 7.30am and they will still be over the limit, and may only be under the current limit by 10.30am.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 07:25 PM

It also occurs to me that if they bring in this proposed reduction, a certain proportion of drinkers will, in preference to drinking less, stay in in order to drink more. This will reduce the overall numbers of cars on the road, and consequently the overall number of accidents from all causes.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 06:51 PM

there is no statistical evidence to justify this reduction.

Of course there isn't, they haven't done it yet. There is quite probably evidence from other countries that have taken similar measures though - I suggest you have a look in Google if you are interested enough.

As far as I know though, and this is based solely on many years of personal experimentation and admittedly unscientific observation, the more one drinks, the more drunk one gets. It's by no means unreasonable, therefore, to assume that consuming less alcohol will, on average, improve the standard of driving.

Accidents caused by factors unrelated to the consumption of alcohol are completely irrelevant to your argument; those statistics aren't going to change significantly just because they lower the alcohol limit.

To expect the Irish government to start laying on public transport just to help people get more plastered is, I'm afraid, just too bizarre for my poor little illogical mind to comprehend. Perhaps you should write to your local MP on the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:57 PM

ha ha,there are no taxi drivers available here,you really dont know what its like here in rural ireland,you spout off, without knowing the circumstances.
there are not enough people living here to make it worth their while,sure there are taxi drivers ibn Cork city and Bandon,and even Skibbereen,but they make more money at the nightclubs in Skibbereen,you cant get them to come out here ,take a taxi,ha ha hahaha.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 01:27 PM

Why would anyone oppose a reduction in the legal limit unless they wanted to continue drinking and driving?

Why take the chance anyway? Keep the taxi drivers employed and call one the next time you've been drinking and need to get home. In America we use the term "designated driver" for someone who doesn't drink and is responsible for driving folks home at the end of the evening. Is this a common practice in Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: SharonA
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 01:11 PM

"a driver who drinks but is below the limit is not a drunk driver,a drunk driver is one who is over the limit."

No, Schweik, you are wrong, for several reasons:

- First of all, you said yourself that "you can be over the limit, without having consumed any alcohol [medication can do this]". Therefore, someone whose blood-alcohol level is over the legal limit for driving but who has not consumed alcohol is not "drunk", although his/her ability to drive is definitely affected by that blood-alcohol level. He or she would be "driving under the influence (DUI)" of a medication or whatever else had caused his/her blood-alcohol level to rise.

- Secondly, anyone who consumes any amount of alcohol is intoxicated because he/she has ingested a toxic substance that affects his/her brain chemistry AND is considered "drunk" because that toxic substance is alcohol. The level of drunkenness changes with the level of alcohol in his/her system, but the only non-drunk person is a sober person (i.e. a person who has not consumed any alcohol).

- Thirdly, you are confusing the term "drunk" with the term "legally intoxicated". (Either that, or you are intentionally being a prat!) Governments set laws to determine the level of intoxication at which they will prosecute a person for Driving Under the Influence; anyone below that level is still intoxicated, even though he/she cannot legally be prosecuted for driving at that blood-alcohol level. Governments can and do change their laws to lower the level of intoxication at which they will prosecute a driver, but that does not change the fact that anyone who consumes any amount of alcohol is going to be affected by it in a way that reduces his/her ability to drive safely.

Governments do represent all of the people they govern, BUT they have a mandate to fulfill the promises on which they were elected to office by the majority of the voters and to act responsibly in the interests of the safety and civility of their region, even when some of their constituents want them to do something irresponsible (such as raising the legal limit for DUI!).

Schweik, you keep claiming that there is no statistical evidence that justifies the lowering of the legal limit, but only because you keep ignoring the evidence that is there. When a statistic is presented to you, you insist that it "proves nothing" because you don't want to believe it. When someone posts a logical comment, you say it is illogical. When someone points out a flaw in your logic, you either ignore the comment or complain that the poster is ignorant. It seems that you do not want to listen to anyone but yourself, and that you've opened this discussion for the sole purpose of shooting down anyone who disagrees with you.

Unfortunately for you, what you have actually done here is to make yourself look awfully foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 08:46 AM

Smokey,your response is illogical,I do understand that if you have private reasons for feeling as you do,you feel strongly about it.but if you can put your emotional involvement aside:
any person who loses a realative through any kind of dangerous driving,whether the driver is sober or not has aright to feel upset.
   the responsibilty lies with the Irish government,it is their duty as they are supposed to represent every person in Irish society,to ensure there is proper public transport available to everyone before they bring in a law like this.,
if it isnt they should bring in a two teir system,so that in major cites the level can be 50mg but elsewhere it remains the same.
DANGEROUS DRIVING and deaths by car accidents involve both sober drugged tired and intoxicated people,there is no statistical evidence to justify this reduction.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 09:07 PM

I have my own private reasons for feeling strongly about this, but I recommend, Dick, that you put your views to a few people who have had relatives and children killed or injured by drunk drivers, and see what sort of reaction you get. The Law is supposed to be for everyone's benefit, not just a few selfish boozers.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 08:43 PM

I repeat: if I had two pints in two hours and drove home, I would be a drunk driver, whether or not I was over the legal limit. That is a fact. I would be drunk, and I would be driving. That is what a drunk driver is. The people you kill don't care much whether it was legal or not, they are still dead either way. I don't drink much, so it affects me more than it does a 'regular drinker'. I'm also on medication for hypertension which seems to double the effect of alcohol on me. There are no excuses; anyone who needs alcohol to the point of risking lives is an alcoholic, and shouldn't even have a licence to drive.

Subject: RE: BS: proposed alteration to drink driving level
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 07:55 PM

a driver who drinks but is below the limit is not a drunk driver,a drunk driver is one who is over the limit.

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

By the way, in the U.S., one does not "stand" for President; one "runs" for President.

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???

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.