# Reducing drink drive limit to 50mg from 80mg



## podgerodge (12 Mar 2008)

Can someone explain to me how reducing the limit from approx 1.5 pints of beer to 1 pint of beer will have an impact on road deaths?

And what "statistics" show (according to the Indo) that drivers just under the current drink drive limit are 2 to 3 times more likely to be in an accident?

I'm not saying I don't believe them.  Well, I am actually.  I still don't believe my reactions have slowed down (not scientifically, but to have an effect on my driving) after 1.5 pints.  Cue - rants about "it should be a zero limit" without backing up with proof.


----------



## DavyJones (12 Mar 2008)

I don't know! I don't drink and drive but what concerns me is driving the following day after a few beers the night before. if it goes to zero limit, then drivng next day may well get you nabbed!


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

podgerodge - to say that you dont think your reactions are slowed is simply a subjective opinion - perhaps if you submitted to scientific testing you would find that they had slowed. For some people who metabolise faster or who have a bigger body weight/frame perhaps 1.5 pints wouldnt have too much of an effect - speaking personally Id be drunk after 1.5 pints - so Im sure its different for everyone.

It should be a zero limit - why on earth would anyone think its a good idea for someone to drive after drinking alcohol - a drug that is known to slow reaction speeds and impair judgement?


----------



## MrMan (13 Mar 2008)

> It should be a zero limit - why on earth would anyone think its a good idea for someone to drive after drinking alcohol - a drug that is known to slow reaction speeds and impair judgement?



Zero limit makes no sense, you would probably be over the limit after a meal that had alcohol as an ingredient. The real point is that next day driving is a real concern. I don't have a drink anymore when I'm driving but when I'm working next day I'm very conscious of the fact that I could be over the limit even though I definitely am not impaired. They should leave it as it is.

I would be interested in the statistics that point to how many people that have been involved in accidents that were in the 50-80mg bracket. Very few if any i'm sure.


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

MrMan said:


> Zero limit makes no sense, you would probably be over the limit after a meal that had alcohol as an ingredient.


 
I would like to see some scientific proof that backs this claim up.


----------



## shnaek (13 Mar 2008)

MrMan said:


> I would be interested in the statistics that point to how many people that have been involved in accidents that were in the 50-80mg bracket. Very few if any i'm sure.



This is also what concerns me. I'd like to see the facts that back up the lowering of the limit from 80mg to 50mg. Those facts would help me believe that this is not just the government making it look like they are doing something - as is their strategy in so many other areas under their responsibility - instead of actually doing something.


----------



## Caveat (13 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> I would like to see some scientific proof that backs this claim up.


 
I don't understand this - why would you need scientific proof? 

Zero tolerance = 0 mg blood alcohol permitted. If you consume any alcohol at all, be it in a meal/desert or whatever, your blood alcohol level could easily be above zero?

Yes, very small amounts may be metabolised very quickly but this will not always be the case.


----------



## swordshead (13 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> I would like to see some scientific proof that backs this claim up.


Not sure about scientific but a few points worth looking into after reading this article http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=229461


----------



## ashambles (13 Mar 2008)

There's plenty of scientific research (though I think a program on mythbusters was the most convincing evidence I've seen). 

Have a read through http://www.madd.ca/english/research/point5limit.PDF, or otherwise just do a search for alcohol driving impairment in google.


----------



## shanegl (13 Mar 2008)

If 1.5 pints have no effect on you, why do you even want to drink it? Surely non-alcoholic would do just as well?


----------



## shnaek (13 Mar 2008)

shanegl said:


> If 1.5 pints have no effect on you, why do you even want to drink it? Surely non-alcoholic would do just as well?



Some people drink because they like the taste, not to get drunk - believe it or not!


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

good - scientific evidence galore then (Mythbusters being the pinnacle of scientific evidence of course) 

So then - why not avoid boozy food if you are going to be driving also? I dont think this is a particularly hard line to take - I cant remember the last time I had food with booze in it, surely itd be special occasion type stuff?

As for liking the taste - surely a non alcoholic beer tastes like a beer?


----------



## Caveat (13 Mar 2008)

Stroganoff, sherry trifle, loads of red or white wine based casseroles to name a few...


----------



## shanegl (13 Mar 2008)

shnaek said:


> Some people drink because they like the taste, not to get drunk - believe it or not!


 
And there are no non-alcoholic alternatives? I don't think so.


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

Caveat said:


> Stroganoff, sherry trifle, loads of red or white wine based casseroles to name a few...


 
exactly my point - I dont eat any of those on a regular basis - there is also a huge difference in something containing alcohol that has been 'baked' in an oven whereby most of the alcohol will have evaporated such as a casserole, or a food that contains a pure alcohol that hasnt been heated up.

All mostly a moot point anyway, if you ate something containing alcohol and drove within 20 minutes you may not be absolute zero but chances are you would either have metabolized the amount consumed or it would be so small as to be undetectable in your blood.

If on the other hand you went off and ate 5 kilos of freshly prepared sherry trifle you may be more at risk - but people dont tend to consume such large quantities of food as to be at risk.


----------



## Caveat (13 Mar 2008)

> or it would be so small as to be undetectable in your blood.


 
But zero limit is what was suggested above - I take zero to mean zero, as in 0.00mg. I realise in practice that in a lot of cases there is a small permissible level e.g. 0.02 - 0.05, but if you look at Swordshead's link, some countries actually do apply a 0.00 limit.

Yes, Obviously it makes sense to avoid booze saturated meals or deserts but I'd be pretty upset if I found myself being fined/prosecuted for having an e.g. 0.01 mg reading - which is theoretically possible under an _actual_ zero limit.

My point being, I don't think it's at all practical to apply this 'absolute zero' type of limit.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Mar 2008)

Noel Brett from the Road Safety Authority said on Morning Ireland about a year ago that a zero alcohol limit was unenforceable and probably unconstitutional in Ireland as alcohol is sometimes created naturally in the human body and even a tetotaller could find themselves registering a small level of alcohol in their system.

The Donegal County Coroner recently stated his opinion that reducing the limit from 80mg to 50mg will have no impact in reducing road deaths, while also confirming that in his 25+ years as a coroner, he has rarely if ever seen a case where moderate consumption of alcohol by a driver caused a fatality or serious injury. He believes that this move ignores the point that there is still a hard core of people driving around while several times over the legal limit, and who are causing accidents. He appealed for resources to be concentrated to catch these people, rather than moderate drinkers.

On a wider point, its not hard to see how the latest move could encourage drug driving - which the Gardai are comparatively powerless to either monitor or punish.


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

Caveat said:


> But zero limit is what was suggested above - I take zero to mean zero, as in 0.00mg. I realise in practice that in a lot of cases there is a small permissible level e.g. 0.02 - 0.05, but if you look at Swordshead's link, some countries actually do apply a 0.00 limit.
> 
> Yes, Obviously it makes sense to avoid booze saturated meals or deserts but I'd be pretty upset if I found myself being fined/prosecuted for having an e.g. 0.01 mg reading - which is theoretically possible under an _actual_ zero limit.
> 
> My point being, I don't think it's at all practical to apply this 'absolute zero' type of limit.


 
Ok - point taken and agreed upon - there should be some tolerance level to allow for food ingestion as opposed to absolute zero.

When advocating absolute zero I hadnt thought about food (or perhaps cough medicine or other over the counter remedies that are alcohol based). Its not as clear cut as absolute.

But I still feel that people shouldnt consume alcohol as alcoholic drinks at all and then drive.


----------



## Simeon (13 Mar 2008)

About the 5 kgs of Sherry Trifle ........ yes, no problem but you've got to eat it fast. Yum yum. If not, a few generous sized Black Forest Gateaux with loads of Kirchwasser. Or my Aunty Mary's famed Christmas cake ....."Yerra, sure the brandy stops the fruit from goin' stale". The latter washed down with a few toisins of cough mixture.


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

Simeon said:


> The latter washed down with a few toisins of cough mixture.


 
And maybe a couple of tablespoonfuls of Rescue Remedy for good measure.


----------



## annR (13 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> The Donegal County Coroner recently stated his opinion that reducing the limit from 80mg to 50mg will have no impact in reducing road deaths, while also confirming that in his 25+ years as a coroner, he has rarely if ever seen a case where moderate consumption of alcohol by a driver caused a fatality or serious injury. He believes that this move ignores the point that there is still a hard core of people driving around while several times over the legal limit, and who are causing accidents. He appealed for resources to be concentrated to catch these people, rather than moderate drinkers.


 
This does make sense for Donegal alright - it seems to me based on some of the high profile accidents reported in the last few years in Inishowen that Donegal has got a bigger problem of young people rallying driving while drunk than the other counties.  Perhaps the other counties or the country as a whole is seeing accidents caused by more moderate drinking.  Just speculating. 
I agree that enforcement remains of paramount importance but I am also in favour of a sensible law i.e. one which does not permit driving while under the influence.


----------



## Simeon (13 Mar 2008)

The boys from Tir Conaill seem to have a healthy disrespect for law and order. This, may or may not, be due to the lack of public transport in that county which numerically could be compared with hen's teeth.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Mar 2008)

annR said:


> TPerhaps the other counties or the country as a whole is seeing accidents caused by more moderate drinking.  Just speculating.



I'm not necessarily saying that your speculation is wrong, but in my home village, 4 local people have died on the roads in the past 12 years. Three of the four involved drunken driving, in each case where persons were driving while very, very drunk. Two of these three drivers served jail terms, the other died in their accident. The fourth was a teenage motor cyclist who was presumed to be travelling at excessive speed along a wide, straight stretch of national road. None of these deaths involved moderate consumption of alcohol.



annR said:


> I agree that enforcement remains of paramount importance but I am also in favour of a sensible law i.e. one which does not permit driving while under the influence.



I honestly don't think a zero alcohol law is sensible. While any amount of alcohol impairs driving, one could also reasonably argue that driving at any speed, fast or slow, contains its own risks. Banning driving after a pint of beer or equivalent strikes me as the same as banning driving at any more than 80 km/hour on a motorway, ie on the surface a laudable idea that would be expected to reduce road fatalities, but in reality a pointless exercise that merely criminalises responsible behaviour and shifts the emphasis of law enforcement away from the real causes of fatalities.


----------



## gebbel (13 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> But I still feel that people shouldnt consume alcohol as alcoholic drinks at all and then drive.



So do I. It's extremely irresponsible behaviour trying to second guess how your body will metabolise 1/2, 1 or 2 units of alcohol, depending on if a meal has been consumed or not. I believe in zero tolerance. Too many people have lost their lives.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Mar 2008)

gebbel said:


> So do I. It's extremely irresponsible behaviour trying to second guess how your body will metabolise , depending on if a meal has been consumed or not. I believe in zero tolerance. Too many people have lost their lives.



But have they lost their lives due to people consuming 1/2, 1 or 2 units of alcohol? I think not, and neither does the Donegal Coroner.

Should everyone be forced to drive below 80km/hour on motorways or 40 km/hour on other roads? I think not, despite the fact that too many people have lost their lives also through speeding.


----------



## elefantfresh (13 Mar 2008)

Without enforcement it dosnt matter a toss - i drive every day and have never been stopped for anything except tax/insurance glance and once for supposedly jumping a light. Never been tested or even had a cop stick his head in the window.


----------



## michaelm (13 Mar 2008)

A reduction from 80mg to 50mg will have no effect on road deaths, it's simply intended to create a perception that something is being done; as is the case for many laws.  It would impact many peoples lives, criminalising them for no good reason.


----------



## podgerodge (13 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> But have they lost their lives due to people consuming 1/2, 1 or 2 units of alcohol? I think not, and neither does the Donegal Coroner.




Indeed. And back to the Indo stating that those just under the limit are 2-3 times more likely to be in an accident - What statistics and from where show this?  

Secondly, would the government row back on the limit if, as I suspect, no reduction in road deaths is achieved by this proposed change?  If not, why not?

Edit:  Numerous studies have shown that men get a little sleepy after having sex.  Accordingly Gardai will be enforcing with the use of lie detectors a "no sex before driving rule".  "You have the look of a lad thats just been satisifed sexually.  Please stand out of the veehhhicle"


----------



## MrMan (13 Mar 2008)

> So do I. It's extremely irresponsible behaviour trying to second guess how your body will metabolise 1/2, 1 or 2 units of alcohol, depending on if a meal has been consumed or not. I believe in zero tolerance. Too many people have lost their lives.



there are many more issues that need to be tackled than chasing the guy that has 1 pint and drives. I don't drink and drive anymore as I've said but thats more down to not knowing if I'm over the limit at one pint or not than my concern over how my driving has been impaired. I don't think personally that one pint would make a difference to me. Alot of the argument from ministers seems to be very shaky and tries to rely on 'anything thaty reduces deaths is a good thing'.


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

MrMan said:


> 'anything thaty reduces deaths is a good thing'.


 
Anything that reduces deaths surely IS a good thing?

there may well be many other issues to be addressed but this thread is addressing the subject of alcohol and driving, you have said that YOU dont think that 1 pint makes a difference to you - but I still say that that is a subjective observation and that if you were tested for reaction speeds and judgement impairment objectively you may see different results.


----------



## MrMan (13 Mar 2008)

Well removing our choice to drink at all would reduce death, remove our choice to drive a vehicle would reduce death, the list goes on. Its a simple statement that is put there because what kind of person wouldn't want to reduce deaths on the road yadda yadda. My point is that there must be more reasonable choices that can be made that will have similiar if not greater impact on the 'carnage' on our roads. 

Regarding judgement calls, i know if I drive a long journey with little sleep my reactions will be a lot worse than if I drink 1 pint, but theres no law against being tired (yet)


----------



## Graham_07 (13 Mar 2008)

elefantfresh said:


> Without enforcement it dosnt matter a toss - i drive every day and have never been stopped for anything except tax/insurance glance and once for supposedly jumping a light. Never been tested or even had a cop stick his head in the window.


 
Must agree. Driving 29 years. Never stopped either except at routine tax/ince checks. Have never seen any of these "monday morning" random breath checkpoints either. Don't drink & drive so it doesn't bother me and also very wary of even moderate drinking on a night if likely to be driving in the following morning.  But again enforcement of existing laws must be accomplished at a reasonable level before considering any new ones.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Anything that reduces deaths surely IS a good thing?



The Donegal Coroner claims that reducing the limit will not reduce deaths and as such is NOT a good thing. He argues that if the State's resources are diverted away from catching drunk drivers towards detecting and prosecuting sober (or soberer) drivers, then the drunks will enjoy a greater chance of getting away with their crimes.


----------



## Madangan (13 Mar 2008)

I am a not very tall female. I often have driven my car having had one glass of wine or a glass of beer. I do not believe that in doing so I have ever put myself or any other road user at risk. 

I believe that my driving is far more affected when I am talking to someone else in the car, if I am tired, if I am stressed(which most of us seem to be) , by getting distracted listening to the radio, the antics of other drivers on the road etc..

I expect the limit will be reduced as it is the PC thing to do but until we have enforcement of speeding limits on roads other than motorways, the rules of the road generally on all roads etc... we will have 300 plus road deaths every year. The reduction will make no difference other than to allow Gay Byrne to stay self satisfied and smug in his job.

I drive a lot from Dublin to the west. I seldom have had a journey without seeing 2/3 examples of dangerous driving..overtaking 5-6 cars coming up to the brow of a hill in heavy rain being my favourite but also overtaking on corners,overtaking to fill that space between the two cars in front( left by me as braking distance) ..you mane it i see it but what I never see are any of these morons being pulled in by gardai because the gardai are not out on the roads, there aren't enough speed cameras etc.. Deal with those and make a difference before reducing the drinks limit.


----------



## joe sod (13 Mar 2008)

i wonder can noel dempsey just sign it into law or does the dail have to vote on it, if it is a dail vote it could be interesting, would back bench rural TDs support this, all the one off housing that was allowed to be built in the country side, the problems with this are now really showing up, most european countries with 50mg limit don't have a scattered population like we do but an urban one, i think there could be a backlash against this


----------



## shnaek (13 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> As for liking the taste - surely a non alcoholic beer tastes like a beer?


Obviously you aren't a beer drinker my friend! Either that, or a budweiser drinker  If you attempt a comparison between kaliber and Schofferhoffer or Paulaner you will soon know the difference.



shanegl said:


> And there are no non-alcoholic alternatives? I don't think so.


Of course there are alternatives, if you fancy going to the pub and having a coke. But you will find that many older people like to have a Guinness or other brand of stout, and there are no non alcholic alternatives to stout - if it is stout you are after.

Anyways - I don't wish to take the subject off topic here.


----------



## Seagull (13 Mar 2008)

MrMan said:


> The real point is that next day driving is a real concern. I don't have a drink anymore when I'm driving but when I'm working next day I'm very conscious of the fact that I could be over the limit even though I definitely am not impaired. They should leave it as it is.


If your blood alcohol level is above the limit, then your driving will be impaired. You may have had several hours of sleep and feel fine, but that does not mean that your driving will not suffer.


----------



## redstar (13 Mar 2008)

Madangan said:


> I drive a lot from Dublin to the west. I seldom have had a journey without seeing 2/3 examples of dangerous driving..overtaking 5-6 cars coming up to the brow of a hill in heavy rain being my favourite but also overtaking on corners,overtaking to fill that space between the two cars in front( left by me as braking distance) ..you mane it i see it but what I never see are any of these morons being pulled in by gardai because the gardai are not out on the roads, there aren't enough speed cameras etc.. Deal with those and make a difference before reducing the drinks limit.



Totally agree. Speed and plain bad driving cause more accidents than drink driving. As a Dub recently moved to a rural area I was shocked at the sheer recklessness of local drivers. Crazy overtaking, even in bad conditions, tail-gating, speeding along narrow country roads, taking corners at high speed... I never saw this in Dublin (probably because its so grid-locked traffic can barely move   )

The Gardai always seem to be found on major roads or near bus-lanes. I have NEVER seen a garda speed check or roadblock on the narrower, rural roads in the two years since I moved 'to the country'.


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

shnaek said:


> Obviously you aren't a beer drinker my friend! Either that, or a budweiser drinker


 
Spot on - Im not a beer drinker at all. 

If people want to enjoy a particular type of alcohol that there is no non alcoholic version palatable enough for them then can they not have a drink or two at home and not be using the car at all? (this follows the line of reasoning that some people drink because they enjoy the taste and not to get drunk), if they enjoy the taste and want the specific alcoholic drink there is nothing stopping them enjoying it safely and responsibily in the comfort of their own homes?


----------



## Johno (13 Mar 2008)

Reducing the limit from 80mg to 50mg will not reduce accidents on the road. What it will do is close the remaining country pubs who are struggling as it is. I live 2 miles from my local pub. Their is no Taxi service or public transport available so I will not be able to have 1 pint and drive home.


----------



## annR (13 Mar 2008)

I don't understand that mindset at all.  Why should you be able to drive after drinking?  Don't you think that people who consume much more alcohol and then drive are also under the impression that they are fine?  The law must be based on scientific evidence of the effects of alcohol not on people's subjective judgement of how much is safe to drink for them.

I agree with all the other points though that it all needs to be enforced, and that careless driving is an absolute menace - see it every single day.


----------



## MrMan (13 Mar 2008)

> If your blood alcohol level is above the limit, then your driving will be impaired. You may have had several hours of sleep and feel fine, but that does not mean that your driving will not suffer.



even if the limit is 0?


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Mar 2008)

annR said:


> I don't understand that mindset at all.  Why should you be able to drive after drinking?  Don't you think that people who consume much more alcohol and then drive are also under the impression that they are fine?  The law must be based on scientific evidence of the effects of alcohol not on people's subjective judgement of how much is safe to drink for them.



Did you bother reading ANY of the responses to your earlier post?


annR said:


> I agree with all the other points though that it all needs to be enforced, and that careless driving is an absolute menace - see it every single day.



How then do you react to the Donegal Coroner's opinion that the limit reduction will dilute rather than strengthen the law enforcement effort against drunk drivers?


----------



## annR (13 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Did you bother reading ANY of the responses to your earlier post?


 
I did. I was answering Johno's post about driving home from the pub after 1 pint.



ubiquitous said:


> How then do you react to the Donegal Coroner's opinion that the limit reduction will dilute rather than strengthen the law enforcement effort against drunk drivers?


 
Ambiguously.  Ideally we should have both, a lower limit, AND enforcement.  I don't think that just because we are lacking in enforcement that we should have a high limit.  Put another way, the calls for more enforcement are fine but I would like to see them enforcing a lower limit.


----------



## joe sod (13 Mar 2008)

alot of ideas the government is getting on drink driving comes from australia, however australia has the most urbanised population in the world with very few people living outside urban areas, ireland is totally different with a very high proportion of people living in rural areas, therefore accidents are going to be higher as traffic on rural roads is not as controlled as urban, if france or britain allowed the propoertion of people to live in a scattered pattern their road statistics would be horrendous, they are trying to close the door after the horse has bolted, ever since the government brought in the smoking ban they have been in love with these sort of measures, they look good grab the headlines but don't have long term effects, smoking has not fallen since the ban


----------



## annR (13 Mar 2008)

I'm sure passive smoking has definitely fallen since the smoking ban.


----------



## shnaek (13 Mar 2008)

annR said:


> The law must be based on scientific evidence of the effects of alcohol not on people's subjective judgement of how much is safe to drink for them.



Is it based on this evidence though - that is the question - or is the law based on politician's subjective judgement?


----------



## olddog (13 Mar 2008)

Johno said:


> Reducing the limit from 80mg to 50mg will not reduce accidents on the road. What it will do is close the remaining country pubs who are struggling as it is. I live 2 miles from my local pub. Their is no Taxi service or public transport available so I will not be able to have 1 pint and drive home.



Walk to pub

Have a couple of pints

Set out home

Get creamed by some sober sod who didnt think there would be pedestrians on country roads

Isnt this how pedestrian deaths on country roads happen ?


----------



## olddog (13 Mar 2008)

annR said:


> .......The law must be based on scientific evidence ...........



Why ?

How many laws in Ireland are based on scientific evidence ?


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Mar 2008)

olddog said:


> Walk to pub
> 
> Have a couple of pints
> 
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## DavyJones (13 Mar 2008)

Lower limit - bad, better enforcement of existing laws - good.


----------



## podgerodge (13 Mar 2008)

Wouldnt it be nice if our Government did some tests of its own instead of relying on tests carried out with the very purpose of "proving" that a teaspoonful of alcohol affects your driving.  As reliable as a survey from 'ASH' on smoking.

I'd love to take one of those drive between the cones tests after a pint and prove them wrong (or right) - in fact, I'd probably pay to do it!


----------



## truthseeker (14 Mar 2008)

Regardless of peoples subjective opinions on how they feel after 1 pint or scientific evidence to proof that peoples judgement and reaction times may (or may not) be impaired, whether or not new laws will actually save any lives etc....

Surely the fact that alcohol is a drug and a car is a potentially lethal weapon that in itself is enough to say 'only an idiot would consume ANY amount of alcohol and then think they were ok to drive?'. 

Lets put it another way - if you were a surgeon - would you think that it was ok to have a pint and then perform brain surgery on your next patient? How would you like it if you found out that your wives/husbands surgeon had a pint and then operated?

How would you like it if you took a taxi and the taxi driver smelled of drink and during conversation it transpired that he had just had a pint?

The point Im making here is that there are some things you need to have a fully clear head in order to be able to do - and driving a car is one of them, there are other people on the road, its not just yourself that you need to worry about. What if you had a pint and some other idiot on the road caused an accident that wasnt your fault but that you couldnt avoid - dont you think you would always wonder if you hadnt had that pint that you might have avoided it?

Whatever about laws and scientific evidence, its my opinion that common sense and moral responsibility would be the key factors in deciding that you shouldnt drink and drive.


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Mar 2008)

I think that is an very simplistic analysis of the problem. You could just as easily use such logic to apply a driving ban to:

- anyone who drives at speeds of over 20/40/50km per hour
- anyone who didn't get 8 hours sleep last night
- anyone who listens to a radio or music while driving
- anyone who eats, smokes or drinks coffee while driving
- anyone who may be distracted while carrying children in a car.
- anyone (hundreds of thousands of people  in this country) who is on ongoing antidepressant or other medication.


----------



## csirl (14 Mar 2008)

> I seldom have had a journey without seeing 2/3 examples of dangerous driving..overtaking 5-6 cars coming up to the brow of a hill in heavy rain being my favourite but also overtaking on corners,overtaking to fill that space between the two cars in front( left by me as braking distance) ..you mane it i see it but what I never see are any of these morons being pulled in by gardai because the gardai are not out on the roads, there aren't enough speed cameras etc.. Deal with those and make a difference before reducing the drinks limit.


 
Agree. Instead of speed cameras, has anyone ever thought of putting cctv cameras on dangerous sections of road to catch people e.g. overtaking on solid white line? Would have a bigger effect on road safety than speed cameras on long straight stretches of motorway.


----------



## shnaek (14 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I think that is an very simplistic analysis of the problem. You could just as easily use such logic to apply a driving ban to:
> 
> - anyone who drives at speeds of over 20/40/50km per hour
> - anyone who didn't get 8 hours sleep last night
> ...



Indeed. You would feel equally unimpressed if a brain surgeon had his kids in the surgery when he was operating on your wife/husband, or if he had his stereo blasting away, or if he was on a hands-free kit while he was operating. The reality is that only a small few are qualified to be brain surgeons because it is a seriously specialised task - not comparable to driving, which is relatively simple.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I think that is an very simplistic analysis of the problem. You could just as easily use such logic to apply a driving ban to:
> 
> - anyone who drives at speeds of over 20/40/50km per hour
> - anyone who didn't get 8 hours sleep last night
> ...



I dont disagree with most of the above actually and I would also think someone eating/drinking while driving is mad also. 

I saw an interesting documentary recently where they measured reaction speeds for someone who was talking on a mobile phone (hands free), this same logic would apply to chatting to a passenger:
They sat the person at the edge of a table and there was a vertical pole held in place at table height with a release mechanism. The person held their hand just below table height and when the pole was released they had to catch it. There were huge differences in how quickly they could catch the pole depending on whether or not they were engaged in conversation - much slower when the mind was elsewhere.

I dont dispute at all that there are many variable factors affecting someones concentration while driving, and that no doubt many road deaths are the result of things other than drink driving. But it still does not take away from the fact that driving a car after drinking any amount of alcohol is riskier than not and that it is impossible for an individual to accurately gauge their own ability to drive after drinking alcohol as it is a subjective opinion.


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> But it still does not take away from the fact that driving a car after drinking any amount of alcohol is riskier than not and that it is impossible for an individual to accurately gauge their own ability to drive after drinking alcohol as it is a subjective opinion.



Indeed - but the law should also reflect the fact that this increased risk is marginal in the case of moderate consumption of alcohol, and as such should not subject drivers in this category to the same level of punishment as applies to serious offenders.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Indeed - but the law should also reflect the fact that this increased risk is marginal in the case of moderate consumption of alcohol, and as such should not subject drivers in this category to the same level of punishment as applies to serious offenders.



I can feel the effects of just one sip of wine because Im not a regular drinker. I would consider it to be dangerous for me to drive after any amount of alcohol. There are other people like me, and there are others who feel no effects. Its impossible for a law to cover each individuals tolerance and ability to metabolise alcohol - is it not better for the law to err on the side of safety?


----------



## annR (14 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I think that is an very simplistic analysis of the problem. You could just as easily use such logic to apply a driving ban to:
> 
> - anyone who drives at speeds of over 20/40/50km per hour
> - anyone who didn't get 8 hours sleep last night
> ...


 
You could but it's unenforceable and in some instances, unreasonable like for instance having kids in the car that might distract you.  However, surely it's not out of order to suggest that people should be concentrating as best they can when they're driving.  Alcohol impairs that ability to concentrate and react as best you can even if none of the above factors are present so why would you argue for the higher limit?  Ah never mind this is going in circles.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Mar 2008)

annR said:


> You could but it's unenforceable and in some instances, unreasonable like for instance having kids in the car that might distract you.  However, surely it's not out of order to suggest that people should be concentrating as best they can when they're driving.  Alcohol impairs that ability to concentrate and react as best you can even if none of the above factors are present so why would you argue for the higher limit?  Ah never mind this is going in circles.



You are right AnnR, I dont think people should drink and drive - other people here think its ok. What that says to me is that these people place a higher priority on alcohol than they do on safety. 

We shall have to agree to disagree - nothing will convince me that its ok to drink and drive just as clearly nothing will convince some people here that it is not ok.


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Mar 2008)

annR said:


> However, surely it's not out of order to suggest that people should be concentrating as best they can when they're driving.



Did anyone say otherwise?



> Ah never mind this is going in circles.


You're right there


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> I can feel the effects of just one sip of wine because Im not a regular drinker. I would consider it to be dangerous for me to drive after any amount of alcohol. There are other people like me..



You should stay off the road then whenever you have had a drink.


truthseeker said:


> ...and there are others who feel no effects.



Good for them.



truthseeker said:


> Its impossible for a law to cover each individuals tolerance and ability to metabolise alcohol - is it not better for the law to err on the side of safety?



Not always, otherwise we would be all driving around at 20km/hour. Matters such as civil liberties, enforcement practicalities, constitutional rights (as averted to by Noel Brett) and not least, common sense, also have to be factored into the equation.


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Mar 2008)

...


----------



## MrMan (14 Mar 2008)

> You are right AnnR, I dont think people should drink and drive - other people here think its ok. What that says to me is that these people place a higher priority on alcohol than they do on safety.



I don't think anyone was lobbying for the pro drink drive campaign. Most of the debate has been regarding the dropping of the limit from 80 to 50 and how futile this is, not that drink driving should be encouraged. Its very easy to take moral high grounds, but some sense has to come into it that is why I say leave it as it is because I don't think that anyone with 80mg or less in their blood is a danger to anyone.


----------



## ashambles (14 Mar 2008)

A coroner in Ireland doesn't imply any expertise in the area of effects of intoxication. Any ordinary GP or solicitor can become a coroner - there's no training. 

This coroner happens to be a GP who admits to having a drink and driving, so how can anyone be surprised he supports drinking and driving. 

[broken link removed]


> "If it is my turn to drive, I will have one drink and no more. This would push you over a 50mg/100ml limit, were such a limit introduced."


The current limit can allow for much more drinking than many people (including that coroner) think. There's a lot of factors involved.

Here's two high profile cases where the lead characters were under the limit. In one case 2 pints and a glass of wine, the other 3 pints and 2 bottles of corona. 

http://www.independent.ie/national-...offduty-garda-ran-over-him-1208439.html?r=RSS
[broken link removed]


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Mar 2008)

ashambles said:


> This coroner happens to be a GP who admits to having a drink and driving,


He is perfectly entitled to drink and drive as long as he remains compliant with the law in doing so. As such, I don't think "admit" is the correct word.



ashambles said:


> [broken link removed]
> The current limit can allow for much more drinking than many people (including that coroner) think. There's a lot of factors involved.
> 
> Here's two high profile cases where the lead characters were under the limit. In one case 2 pints and a glass of wine, the other 3 pints and 2 bottles of corona.



I would have thought that would be an argument against reducing the limit, rather than the opposite. If some people are well capable of drinking a couple of pints and staying safe (and legal) on the road, good luck to them, even if it displeases the anti-alcohol "devil's buttermilk" brigade.


----------



## elefantfresh (14 Mar 2008)

I dont fully understand the problem with drinking and driving. If you're drinking, leave the car. If you're driving, don't drink. I absolutly never ever do both. Why can people not get this into their heads? Where is the confusion??? I dont do it not because of the fear of being caught but the fear of hitting somebody. How could you live with yourself if you killed someone after a few beers? It doesnt bare thinking about.


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Mar 2008)

elefantfresh said:


> How could you live with yourself if you killed someone after a few beers?



No wonder we have so many suicides in this country when we all hear messages like "could YOU live with the shame?" on our TV every night...


----------



## MrMan (14 Mar 2008)

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I dont fully understand the problem with drinking and driving. If you're drinking, leave the car. If you're driving, don't drink. I absolutly never ever do both. Why can people not get this into their heads?



Because it isn't always cut and dried, you may have a glass of wine at home and your daughter rings in distress somewhere and needs to be picked up, you should be still under the limit but if its dropped further or to zero you are basically going to put yourself into the same category as the guy who drinks 15 pints and hops into his car. By dropping the limit you are criminalising the wqrong people.



> I dont do it not because of the fear of being caught but the fear of hitting somebody.



I presume then as other posts have pointed out that you also drive alone, without a radio and with the required resting period before you drive to alleviate your fear of hitting someone.


----------



## ashambles (14 Mar 2008)

> If some people are well capable of drinking a couple of pints and staying safe


You evidently didn't bother to read the links.


----------



## elefantfresh (14 Mar 2008)

> I presume then as other posts have pointed out that you also drive alone, without a radio and with the required resting period before you drive to alleviate your fear of hitting someone.


 
Ah come on MrMan...


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Mar 2008)

ashambles said:


> You evidently didn't bother to read the links.
> 
> In the first case the driver with 3 pints and 2 bottles drank drove over somebody lying on the road and killed him.



I think you should withdraw any negative inference about the involvement of that driver in that poor man's death. The media report linked by you, which covers the subsequent inquest, makes no inference or allegation whatsoever that the actions of the driver caused or contributed to the man's death.


----------



## shnaek (14 Mar 2008)

ashambles said:


> You evidently didn't bother to read the links.
> 
> In the first case the driver with 3 pints and 2 bottles drank drove over somebody lying on the road and killed him.



Drove over somebody lying on the road! Ludicrous argument. Do we have to be looking out for people lying on the road now? If somebody is lying on the road, there is a pretty good chance they are going to be hit by a car regardless of whether the driver has had drink or not.


----------



## MrMan (14 Mar 2008)

> Ah come on MrMan...



Just saying that one pint is prob equal to the effects that these other variables have on driving reactions.


----------



## Pique318 (14 Mar 2008)

I like foglights..oops sorry, wrong thread


----------



## podgerodge (14 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> I can feel the effects of just one sip of wine



Just interested...what effects does one sip of wine cause you to have?  Are you sure it's not just imagined?


----------



## truthseeker (14 Mar 2008)

podgerodge said:


> Just interested...what effects does one sip of wine cause you to have?  Are you sure it's not just imagined?



1 sip of wine for me today has the same effect as 1 glass of wine had in the past when I would have been a more regular drinker. I can feel that mildly euphoric buzz that you associate with the beginnings of being drunk. Straight to my head.


----------



## Caveat (14 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> 1 sip of wine for me today has the same effect as 1 glass of wine had in the past when I would have been a more regular drinker. I can feel that mildly euphoric buzz that you associate with the beginnings of being drunk. Straight to my head.


 
From literally one sip? Are you serious?

I think this is highly unusual, if not unique - in all honesty, I'd actually worry about that!


----------



## truthseeker (14 Mar 2008)

Caveat said:


> From literally one sip? Are you serious?
> 
> I think this is highly unusual, if not unique - in all honesty, I'd actually worry about that!



Yeah, I feel it immediately. I dont think its that unusual, Ive just got a very low tolerance - I probably wouldnt feel a sip after a large meal but on an empty stomach definitely. I know another couple of people with similarly low tolerances.


----------



## Graham_07 (14 Mar 2008)

whether drinking or driving or both or neither, have a safe St PAtrick's weekend everyone & come back on Tuesday refreshed

....now who took the cork off my lunch... 1/2 hour & finished work yippee.


----------



## bond-007 (19 Mar 2008)

You have to look at the idiots that comprise Kerry Council Council. They do not support the lowering of the limit. But the council is made up with publicans so what do you expect. I would expect a county council to have some cop on in such matters.


----------



## podgerodge (19 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> You have to look at the idiots that comprise Kerry Council Council. They do not support the lowering of the limit. But the council is made up with publicans so what do you expect. I would expect a county council to have some cop on in such matters.



I don't support the lowering of the limit either on the basis that I believe that people having 10 pints will still have 10 pints.  I don't believe that lowering the limit from approx 1.5 pints to 1 pint will have any effect at all on road safety.  And I don't think I'm an idiot!


----------



## Simeon (19 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> You have to look at the idiots that comprise Kerry Council Council. They do not support the lowering of the limit. But the council is made up with publicans so what do you expect. I would expect a county council to have some cop on in such matters.


Surely, if the people elected to power are idiots, then the people who voted them in must also be in the same mould. I haven't met too many Kerry idiots in my travels.


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> You have to look at the idiots that comprise Kerry Council Council. They do not support the lowering of the limit. But the council is made up with publicans so what do you expect. I would expect a county council to have some cop on in such matters.



Its easy to label as idiots those with whom you disagree on a particular issue - a lot easier than discussing the issue on its merits. I agree with Kerry Council Council on this and like the previous poster, I don't think I am an idiot.


----------



## bond-007 (20 Mar 2008)

Lower the limit to zero and be done with it. 

I don't agree with pandering to habitual criminals (make no bones about it for that is what they are) in rural areas who flaunt the law by continuing to drive and drive. The are not detected and prosecuted due to the lack of Garda resources. I have nothing but comptempt for those that break the law by continuing to drink and drive.

I would support more money for the Gardaí to sit out side every pub in the land and catch those drinking and driving.


----------



## truthseeker (20 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> I would support more money for the Gardaí to sit out side every pub in the land and catch those drinking and driving.


 
I always wondered why checkpoints are set up half a mile away from the local pub when the carpark of it is completely full, one person passes it and then phones the pub to tell everyone not to turn right leaving the carpark so all the drivers who have had a drink know not to pass it - surely itd make more sense to set it up outside the carpark?


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> I don't agree with pandering to habitual criminals (make no bones about it for that is what they are) in rural areas...


only in rural areas?



bond-007 said:


> ... who flaunt the law by continuing to drive and drive.


But drinking and driving is neither criminal nor illegal, once one's alcohol levels remain within specified limits.


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> I always wondered why checkpoints are set up half a mile away from the local pub when the carpark of it is completely full, one person passes it and then phones the pub to tell everyone not to turn right leaving the carpark so all the drivers who have had a drink know not to pass it - surely itd make more sense to set it up outside the carpark?


What do you think would happen if they're at the carpark?


----------



## DavyJones (20 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> I always wondered why checkpoints are set up half a mile away from the local pub when the carpark of it is completely full, one person passes it and then phones the pub to tell everyone not to turn right leaving the carpark so all the drivers who have had a drink know not to pass it - surely itd make more sense to set it up outside the carpark?


 
Don't think you'd find anybody stupid enough to see a check point in a car park and then proceed to car and drive through it. 
my concern is the morning after and having no buffer if there is drink still in your system but your very much sober.


----------



## bond-007 (20 Mar 2008)

> my concern is the morning after and having no buffer if there is drink still in your system but your very much sober.



They should use caution and choose not to drive.


----------



## Caveat (20 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> Lower the limit to zero and be done with it.


 
What do you mean by "zero" Bond-007 (see earlier posts) ?


----------



## bond-007 (20 Mar 2008)

5 to 10mg (an effective zero limit) to allow for the use of mouthwashes etc that may have negligible alcohol content.


----------



## shnaek (20 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> I would support more money for the Gardaí to sit out side every pub in the land and catch those drinking and driving.



Talk about the wrong focus - how about the Gardai tackling the gangs in Finglas instead of harassing daycent rural folk coming out of pubs.


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Mar 2008)

shnaek said:


> Talk about the wrong focus - how about the Gardai tackling the gangs in Finglas instead of harassing daycent rural folk coming out of pubs.



...or daycent urban folk for that matter


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> 5 to 10mg (an effective zero limit) to allow for the use of mouthwashes etc that may have negligible alcohol content.



Mouthwashes can produce breathalyser readings at much higher levels than 5-10mg. As can certain medication. If sober people who have never drank alcohol end up facing serious legal consequences for DUI, then the law stands a strong chance of ultimately being declared unconstitutional. And the head of the Road Safety Authority has publicly stated this.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/exp/can-you-beat-the-breathalyzer/



> Mouthwash however had a major effect on the breathalyser, because alcohol is a key ingredient. The breathalyser is supposed to read lung alcohol only however because our backpacker swilled the mouthwash immediately before taking the test the machine did erroneously measure her mouth alcohol level and as a result the breathalyser reading was sky high.


----------



## truthseeker (20 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> What do you think would happen if they're at the carpark?


 
What I think would happen is that those who had had more than they should be driving with would leave the car - thus making the roads safer. 

And no doubt there would be some people who would blunder off regardless and at least they might be caught and prosceuted for breaking the law.


----------



## DavyJones (20 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> They should use caution and choose not to drive.


 

Wish I had that luxury. Have you ever drove the morning after a few the night before?


----------



## bond-007 (20 Mar 2008)

Never.


----------



## bond-007 (20 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Mouthwashes can produce breathalyser readings at much higher levels than 5-10mg. As can certain medication. If sober people who have never drank alcohol end up facing serious legal consequences for DUI, then the law stands a strong chance of ultimately being declared unconstitutional. And the head of the Road Safety Authority has publicly stated this.
> 
> http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/exp/can-you-beat-the-breathalyzer/


Is that not the reason they must wait 20 mins before they can use the breathalyser on a suspect that claims to have consumed alcohol recently. Mouth alcohol breaks down in 20 mins.

Also any positive roadside test must be verified by doing an evidential breath test in a Garda Station. Garda rules require a 20 minute observation period before the administration of the evidential breath test.


----------



## DavyJones (20 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> Never.


 

Your either a teetotaler or you don't drive


----------



## bond-007 (20 Mar 2008)

Yes, I am a teetotaler.


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> Mouth alcohol breaks down in 20 mins.


Exactly 20 mins? Can you support this statement


----------



## truthseeker (20 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Exactly 20 mins? Can you support this statement


 
Why do you need support for it - true or untrue the point being made is that the Guards wait for 20 mins before doing an evidential test.


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Mar 2008)

I see what you mean, ie "Mouth alcohol breaks down within 20 mins" not "Mouth alcohol breaks down in 20 mins." if you get my drift.

Still, if your theory holds true, you have to ask why did Noel Brett of the RSA say the opposite on national radio not long ago.


----------



## Jock04 (20 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> Yes, I am a teetotaler.


 

MiWadi, shaken, not stirred?


----------



## truthseeker (20 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I see what you mean, ie "Mouth alcohol breaks down within 20 mins" not "Mouth alcohol breaks down in 20 mins." if you get my drift.
> 
> Still, if your theory holds true, you have to ask why did Noel Brett of the RSA say the opposite on national radio not long ago.


 
What did Noel Brett say?


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Mar 2008)

I stated this at the outset of the thread



> Noel Brett from the Road Safety Authority said on Morning Ireland about a year ago that a zero alcohol limit was unenforceable and probably unconstitutional in Ireland as alcohol is sometimes created naturally in the human body and even a tetotaller could find themselves registering a small level of alcohol in their system.



He also mentioned the effect of mouthwashes, although I didn't mention this particular point earlier.


----------



## truthseeker (20 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I stated this at the outset of the thread
> 
> 
> 
> He also mentioned the effect of mouthwashes, although I didn't mention this particular point earlier.


 
sorry ubiquitous - i was in a different place there - i agree after previous discussion that zero is not practical.

i thought you meant a theory about the 20 mins and mouth alcohol.


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Mar 2008)

Not to worry, I think I was in a different place there myself


----------



## truthseeker (20 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Not to worry, I think I was in a different place there myself



On reflection of this whole thread I think that now I agree to zero tolerance being impractical. 

But back to the original question - 80mg to 50mg.
Im coming from the perspective that I dont drink at all if I want to bring the car - which is why, to me, 80 to 50 seems like no big deal because its 7up all the way in my world if Ive the car with me.

In practical terms i means around 1.5 pint to 1 pint? (correct me if Im wrong).

Does this amount really matter so much to people?


----------



## joe sod (20 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> On reflection of this whole thread I think that now I agree to zero tolerance being impractical.
> 
> But back to the original question - 80mg to 50mg.
> Im coming from the perspective that I dont drink at all if I want to bring the car - which is why, to me, 80 to 50 seems like no big deal because its 7up all the way in my world if Ive the car with me.
> ...


 
Well thats an "im alright jack " perspective, i dont drink so it wont affect me therefore i support it, 

you could also use the same argument for many things, eg reducing social welfare,... im coming from the perspective that im not on the dole, so reducing social seems like no big deal to me.

... Its the same argument just because it doesn't affect you but affects other people doesn't make it right, thats the argument a child would make,

....maybe the government is taking us for children


----------



## Caveat (20 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Im coming from the perspective that I dont drink at all *if I want to bring* *the car...*


 
Think you may have misinterpreted Truthseeker's post Joe Sod.


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> On reflection of this whole thread I think that now I agree to zero tolerance being impractical.
> 
> But back to the original question - 80mg to 50mg.
> Im coming from the perspective that I dont drink at all if I want to bring the car - which is why, to me, 80 to 50 seems like no big deal because its 7up all the way in my world if Ive the car with me.
> ...



The issue isn't really the difference in the volume of alcohol that one can drink. 

The real problem is the severity of the consequences (including losing the right to drive, and possibly one's livelihood) if a driver makes an honest mistake and ends up marginally over the limit - particularly given that blood/alcohol readings can vary as much due to outside factors like food consumption patterns or whether one is (knowingly or unknowingly) coming down with a cold, as opposed to how much alcohol they have consumed.

Every decrease in the permitted limit leads to an exponential rise in this risk.

What has happened in rural Ireland within the past 18 months or so is that the vast majority of responsible & moderate drinkers have totally cut out driving to and from the pub. The pubs are quieter as a result which means that the rest of the pub customers don't bother going as often, as it is cheaper and less depressing to drink at home rather than in an empty pub. The vicious circle repeats itself to the extent that most of the time the only people in the average rural or small town pub are the hardcore drinkers and alcoholics, who are continuing to drink and drive to their hearts' content. Meanwhile the policymakers wonder why on earth the road fatality statistics refuse to fall, and everyone else wonders why an air of irrational pessimism and general despondency seems to have taken a firm grip on the populace...


----------



## Complainer (20 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> What has happened in rural Ireland within the past 18 months or so is that the vast majority of responsible & moderate drinkers have totally cut out driving to and from the pub. The pubs are quieter as a result which means that the rest of the pub customers don't bother going as often, as it is cheaper and less depressing to drink at home rather than in an empty pub. The vicious circle repeats itself to the extent that most of the time the only people in the average rural or small town pub are the hardcore drinkers and alcoholics, who are continuing to drink and drive to their hearts' content.



I found myself in a busy, thriving pub in small-town UK at 9.30 in the morning, one day last week - see [broken link removed] for more details. Maybe the Irish pub owners need to get a bit more creative.

In the broader issue, I don't see any point in lowering the current limit until we are actually enforcing it.


----------



## truthseeker (22 Mar 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> The real problem is the severity of the consequences (including losing the right to drive, and possibly one's livelihood) if a driver makes an honest mistake and ends up marginally over the limit - particularly given that blood/alcohol readings can vary as much due to outside factors like food consumption patterns or whether one is (knowingly or unknowingly) coming down with a cold, as opposed to how much alcohol they have consumed.



This is an excellent point - it would be extremely easy to make an honest mistake when you are talking such low volumes to begin with.

I do hear you about rural drinking and the pubs being quieter, its not just rural areas, the 3 local pubs (urban) near me have also become quieter (possibly as a result of the smoking ban also) - but the people drinking in them with cars in the car parks ARE the hard core drinkers who have never changed their behaviour.

You do present a well balanced debate Ubiquitous and there are many points you have raised that are valid. The situation is not quite as black and white as it seems at first appraisal.


----------



## bond-007 (22 Mar 2008)

> but the people drinking in them with cars in the car parks ARE the hard core drinkers who have never changed their behaviour.


It is these people that the Gardaí need to spend their time targeting.


----------



## truthseeker (24 Mar 2008)

bond-007 said:


> It is these people that the Gardaí need to spend their time targeting.



absolutely agree with you.


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Mar 2008)

I think we are all agreed on that particular point.


----------

