# Lowering drink driving limit.



## dewdrop (20 Oct 2009)

Apart from Britain how can the social life of rural Europe survive the lower limit and in Ireland it is a hugh issue. Dare is say lobby power?


----------



## Guest116 (20 Oct 2009)

The only concern I have is that you are likely to be over the limit the next day if you are getting up and driving after a night out.

But beyond that I dont see any problem, it doesnt stop people socialising in rural areas or any other area. Just dont drink and drive, what is the problem with that?


----------



## zztop (20 Oct 2009)

Cant buy a bottle of wine after 10,,cant have 1 pint to socialise,,remove
english from road signs,,country banjaxed,,
Welcome to the Nanny & Nama state.


----------



## Guest116 (20 Oct 2009)

Why do you think you need a drink to socialise?


----------



## S.L.F (20 Oct 2009)

aristotle25 said:


> Why do you think you need a drink to socialise?


 
The only time I really need a drink is when I'm out with really boring people...

Speaking for myself I believe the drink drive limit should be zero.


----------



## Guest116 (20 Oct 2009)

zero would be a bit dodgy, if you went out for a meal you wouldn't be able to eat your triffle desert as that contains some sherry!


----------



## Purple (20 Oct 2009)

S.L.F said:


> The only time I really need a drink is when I'm out with really boring people...


 Do people drink much in your company?


----------



## MrMan (20 Oct 2009)

aristotle25 said:


> Why do you think you need a drink to socialise?



because some people like it.


----------



## S.L.F (20 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> Do people drink much in your company?


 
Funny you should mention it but no they don't but by christ I could use a few scoops when reading your posts...


----------



## mathepac (20 Oct 2009)

aristotle25 said:


> ... But beyond that I dont see any problem, it doesnt stop people socialising in rural areas or any other area. Just dont drink and drive, what is the problem with that?


Not a problem at all, very safe and sensible in fact and the proposal to lower the BAC from 80 to 50 is in line with the rest of Europe.

In the week-end papers Jackie Healy-Rae and some of the lunatic FF fringe have apparently threatened to vote against proposals to lower the BAC, not that Mr. Healy-Rae could be accused of having a vested interest in the matter; its not like he or his family own any boozers or hold intoxicating liquor licences in and around rural Kilgarvan do they?


----------



## S.L.F (20 Oct 2009)

aristotle25 said:


> zero would be a bit dodgy, if you went out for a meal you wouldn't be able to eat your trifle desert as that contains some sherry!


 
I was watching a program (I believe called the truth about food) with Jimmy Tarbucks daughter she drank a half bottle of wine on an empty stomach and she was quite drunk anyway you know what the word is but then (the next evening) she ate a full meal and then drank a half bottle of wine and she was not anywhere as bad as she was the previous evening.

My point is if you have a sherry trifle the chances are that you would have a dinner beforehand.

And I still say zero


----------



## Guest116 (20 Oct 2009)

S.L.F said:


> My point is if you have a sherry trifle the chances are that you would have a dinner beforehand.
> 
> And I still say zero


 
What if you had brandy sauce with your steak?


----------



## S.L.F (20 Oct 2009)

aristotle25 said:


> What if you had brandy sauce with your steak?


 
Ah but the heat burns off the alcohol anyway I perfer a red wine sauce


----------



## orka (20 Oct 2009)

S.L.F said:


> My point is if you have a sherry trifle the chances are that you would have a dinner beforehand.
> 
> And I still say zero


I think the point is that while you would be absolutely safe to drive after dinner and sherry trifle (does anyone still eat sherry trifle?), you might fail the breathalyser because of your sherry trifle if there was a zero limit - and lose your licence unfairly.  Maybe 10 as a limit to cover sherry trifle and brandy sauce?


----------



## papervalue (20 Oct 2009)

My understanding of the reason they can not bring it to zero is that some medicines and tablets people are taking prescribed by doctor has a touch of alachol in the make up of them.


----------



## Caveat (20 Oct 2009)

...and the body can produce it's own alcohol and mouthwash can give a false positive. Absolute zero would be close to unenforceable.  

Those countries that have it (e.g. Japan? Sweden maybe?) must allow for a margin of error for this kind of thing in practice.


----------



## Purple (20 Oct 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Funny you should mention it but no they don't but by christ I could use a few scoops when reading your posts...


  You say the nicest things.


----------



## mathepac (20 Oct 2009)

papervalue said:


> ... some medicines and tablets people are taking prescribed by doctor has a touch of alachol in the make up of them.


AFAIK this is untrue but if it were the case, I'm sure responsible doctors and dispensing pharmacists would inform their patients or refer them to the patient information leaflet or PIL in order to make them aware of the potential consequences. Some prescription medications can have drug-effects similar to alcohol, and alcohol was used as a preservative when prescribed medicines were mainly plant-based (alcohol is still used this way in some alternative / complementary preparations made of fresh rather than dried plant-material).

Instead of some posters (not papervalue) bemoaning the proposed sensible changes to the drink-drive laws, I believe we need to implement them ASAP, and take action on drug-impaired driving, whether the drugs in question are illicit or prescribed.


----------



## bb12 (20 Oct 2009)

what are the exact statistics of drink driving accidents/fatalites in this country? are they even published? in my opinion i often think drink driving is blamed for a lot more than it causes...i would think there are more accidents/fatalities caused by drugs and speed...would love to know actual statistics...plus i always find it strange that so much focus and money is spent on road safety when more people commit suicide each year than are killed on the roads.....


----------



## truthseeker (20 Oct 2009)

bb12 said:


> what are the exact statistics of drink driving accidents/fatalites in this country? are they even published? in my opinion i often think drink driving is blamed for a lot more than it causes...i would think there are more accidents/fatalities caused by drugs and speed...would love to know actual statistics...plus i always find it strange that so much focus and money is spent on road safety when more people commit suicide each year than are killed on the roads.....


 
[broken link removed]

Above article claims 276 people died on the roads in 2008 in Ireland (no mention of people badly injured, disabled by road accident though).

[broken link removed]

Above article claims 424 deaths by suicide in 2008 (in Ireland).

I dont think one method of death warrants more money pumped into campaigns than another, but I do think that better road safety is more easily attained, whereas its near impossible to know if someone is thinking of committing suicide until they actually do it.


----------



## bb12 (20 Oct 2009)

that article doesn't say whether the accidents/fatalities were as a direct result of drink driving as opposed to say drug taking/ speed/ general bad driving...my point is that it's very easy to get on the anti-drink-driving bandwagon but where are the actual statistics back it up that this is the greatest cause of road accidents and warrants so much time/money put into these campaigns?? if it's NOT actually the greatest cause then efforts should be focused elsewhere to reduce the real risks out there...


----------



## mathepac (20 Oct 2009)

bb12 said:


> what are the exact statistics of drink driving accidents/fatalites in this country? are they even published? in my opinion i often think drink driving is blamed for a lot more than it causes...i would think there are more accidents/fatalities caused by drugs and speed...would love to know actual statistics...plus i always find it strange that so much focus and money is spent on road safety when more people commit suicide each year than are killed on the roads.....


Another fine example of denial or vested interests at work. Accurate statistics and studies are readily available for at least the last 10 years from sources such as RTE, HSE, RSA, Irish Medical Journal, The Irish Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, etc. etc. Here are a few (brief) examples I'm just wondering in advance how you'll seek to find issue with them :



[broken link removed]

"*Alcohol Related Road Traffic Accidents*
In Ireland, alcohol is estimated to be causally associated with at least 30% of all road accidents and 40% of all fatal road accidents6. Although there has been a decrease in the number of people killed and injured in road accidents in Ireland since 1997, the number of people killed during the time period most associated with drink driving (9pm to 4am) has not substantially decreased..."



"According to an article in the Irish Times , alcohol is still a big factor in causing road accidents......the HSE consultant said that about a third of those killed had tested positive for alcohol... A leading public health doctor has said that most drivers killed in collisions test positive for more than the legal limit of alcohol in their system.
 Dr Declan Bedford presented his research on drink driving in Ireland to a special one-day conference in Dublin organised by the Road Safety Authority."

Is it your case that drink-driving is less of a problem than suicide or a different problem to suicide? Do you believe that that drink-driving should be allocated a lower action priority? If so that's a rather ill-informed outlook as studies currently being undertaken link alcohol and suicide to deaths in single-vehicle road-accidents involving males.

Anyone interested in find statistics doesn't have far to look, but from my point of view, if lowering the legal BAC level saves a single precious life it is worth doing.


----------



## truthseeker (20 Oct 2009)

mathepac said:


> ...from my point of view, if lowering the legal bac level saves a single precious life it is worth doing.


 
+1


----------



## mathepac (20 Oct 2009)

Sorry, I meant to give this link to the pro drunk-driving lobby reported in Fianna Fáil, including Jackie Healy Rae and Mattie McGrath - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6879477.ece


----------



## bb12 (20 Oct 2009)

mathepac said:


> Another fine example of denial or vested interests at work. Accurate statistics and studies are readily available for at least the last 10 years from sources such as RTE, HSE, RSA, Irish Medical Journal, The Irish Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, etc. etc. Here are a few (brief) examples I'm just wondering in advance how you'll seek to find issue with them :
> .




WOW!! what a incredibly bad attitude you have!! I am certainly not in denial and have no vested interest. With attitudes like yours, no wonder some people are afraid to thoroughly debate some topics. This is a thread to debate whether lowering the drink driving limit is worth it or not. Attacking me because I might question this is pretty narrow minded of you in my opinion!


----------



## terrontress (20 Oct 2009)

The main issue here is what injuries and damage to property are caused by people in the band between 50mg and 80mg. If it cannot be proven that it is going to be such a difference to impose the restrictions that it will upon people then it should not be imposed.

Same thing with the zero limit. What is the difference between a 0mg and 10mg limit? If a zero limit will prevent 0.001% of accidents over 10mg is it worth while having people lose their jobs and self-respect over it?

With the greatest of respect, I think those of you who call for a zero limit may be basing their points solely on emotive factors rather than reason or logic.


----------



## mathepac (20 Oct 2009)

terrontress said:


> The main issue here is what injuries and damage to property are caused by people in the band between 50mg and 80mg. If it cannot be proven that it is going to be such a difference to impose the restrictions that it will upon people then it should not be imposed...


No is not, that's another example of a post that is both irresponsible and ill-informed. The real issue here is unnecessary death and injury and that ... 

"There is no need for further research in this area -- two government working groups have already recommended lowering the drink-driving limit, as has the influential [broken link removed]."

and

"[broken link removed] and [broken link removed] are the only two countries in the [broken link removed] which have the higher 80mg drink-driving limit."

Its really simple; the experts above say the 80mg alcohol level is too high for safe, unimpaired driving and thus needs to be reduced; also see here from the same article - 

"The current row was prompted by a letter released under the Freedom of Information Act,in which department of health secretary general, [broken link removed], criticised his counterparts in transport for not supporting the lower limit. "I would strongly advocate for the 50mg level to be included in the new Road Safety Strategy given its potential to save more lives and reduce injuries on our roads," he wrote."" 

Full article here (from Jan 2008) - 

The pointless wasteful debate about the reduction in the legal  BAC level has continued for more than two years while innocent people continue to die needlessly.  It don't understand the need to maintain the current levels of proven alcohol-impaired driving and avoidable death and injury on our roads.


----------



## baldyman27 (20 Oct 2009)

I would be interested to know what proportion of the posters here will be affected by a lowering of the limit, i.e., how many live in the arsehole of nowhere (relatively speaking) where there isn't a ready supply of taxis or people to share driving duties with. Where, if you go for 2 or 3 pints and head away home at 11:30 or 12, you just won't meet a car on your route as there is rarely traffic on it during the day. Where some elderly people wouldn't have a social life were it not for the local. There are many, many small communities like this around the country. Thankfully it seems that most Gardai use a level of discretion in most situations where they decide themselves whether or not the person is in a fit state to drive, not rely on a digital read out from a piece of technology. That's hearsay, BTW, should anyone seek info to back it up.


----------



## MrMan (21 Oct 2009)

mathepac said:


> Anyone interested in find statistics doesn't have far to look, but from my point of view, if lowering the legal BAC level saves a single precious life it is worth doing.


 
If its precious lives that you want saved then ban cars altogether. Ban drink, ban knives (including domestic ones), ban rope, or we could just carry on as we are and have a little less nit picking in our lives.


----------



## mathepac (21 Oct 2009)

MrMan said:


> If its precious lives that you want saved ...


Hopefully that will be the outcome of getting more drunk-drivers prosecuted.


MrMan said:


> ... ban cars altogether. Ban drink, ban knives (including domestic ones), ban rope, ...


Nah, I reckon I'll leave the proposals like that to the lunatic fringe / pro drunken-driving lobbyists,  although I believe certain kinds of knives are banned in public, but not in kitchens.


MrMan said:


> ... or we could just carry on as we are and have a little less nit picking in our lives.


I don't regard a sensible proposal to reduce the level at which someone can be found guilty of drunk-driving as "nit-picking", especially as such proposals can help reduce the slaughter of innocent people on the roads by drunken-drivers, and as I already posted, I see no upside to carrying on as were are.


----------



## Caveat (21 Oct 2009)

I also live in that same townland  

I never drink and drive.  Having said that, I see a few likely suspects on the roads near me who could and should get a nasty shock before they kill someone. Have never seen or heard of anyone in the locality being breathalysed.


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Oct 2009)

The 2nd poster made a good point - forget about the night itself, you might as well have nothing as 3/4's of a pint or whatever figure it would be depending on gender, weight, food, time yadda yadda. If it goes to 50mg I wont even have the one anymore.

but the important point is that you could be bagged the morning after, having not done the dog on it, had a good sleep, ate something etc. etc., what if you registered 60mg, so you're a drink driver and off the road, wouldnt you be fairly sore that the limit had come down from 80mg to 50mg??  

I'm not convinced that lowering the limit will do anything to stop people being killed, is someone on 79mg really such an additional threat compared to someone on 49mg??, I'd wager that most of the drink driving fatalities are where people are "wild drunk" - most drink fatalities seem to be between about 1am and 5am on Friday & Saturday nights, many of them single vehicle accidents. Speed may have been a factor as well, or very arguably attempted suicide, but I doubt very much that they were under 80 mg or indeed under double it, or that reducing the limit to 50mg would make a blind bit of difference.

It seems to be a case of collective punsihment for the population because some people are reckless, and IMHO wont help anyway. What next?, outlaw drink because some people are alcoholics??

They should quit beating about the bush and have more enforcement of the 80mg. Legislation costs little and can be poiinted at to impress people, effective enforcement costs money and means you'd have to get off your ass, see which one they always go for. I've never been bagged in Ireland. Bagged 3 times in a few months in Australia, twice on the same day (passed all). That made me think more about drinking and driving than some penal limit that will punish innocent crayturs !!  <rant over>


----------



## truthseeker (21 Oct 2009)

I just dont buy the 'isolating people in rural areas' argument.
You can still drive to the pub to socialise, just dont drink alcohol while there.
Or rotate a designated driver among a group of friends.


----------



## Guest116 (21 Oct 2009)

I think the Govt. have said that if you are between 50 and 80 mg then you get a fine and penality points rather than a ban.


----------



## boris (21 Oct 2009)

TBH I don't think the laws that are there are being enforced. 

I live in an Urban area and generally go for a pints with Mrs B and friends on a Friday night. Mrs B (who doesn't drink) always drives home. I have yet to see the guards out checking since last Christmas. When I go home to my home place which is out the country it is the same story there. Random checks are not being done anymore. 

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to have more of these first before bringing in stricter laws (which I have no issue with)


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 Oct 2009)

aristotle25 said:


> I think the Govt. have said that if you are between 50 and 80 mg then you get a fine and penality points rather than a ban.



I think that was for the first offence aristotle. I'd agree with Betsy Og, I think proper enforcement of the current laws should be the first step here. I don't have any huge problem with the reduction from 80 to 50 but given that the current laws are not enforced enough I can't see how it will make a huge difference.


----------



## MrMan (21 Oct 2009)

mathepac said:


> Hopefully that will be the outcome of getting more drunk-drivers prosecuted.
> Nah, I reckon I'll leave the proposals like that to the lunatic fringe / pro drunken-driving lobbyists, although I believe certain kinds of knives are banned in public, but not in kitchens.
> *Why would it need to be lunatics that suggest saving lives. A guy I went to school with was stabbed by his friend with a kitchen knife, maybe if we were made use plastic knives he would be alive. Of course I don't think this should be the case but if people want to keep picking at a problem that doesn't exist why not go the whole hog.*
> I don't regard a sensible proposal to reduce the level at which someone can be found guilty of drunk-driving as "nit-picking", especially as such proposals can help reduce the slaughter of innocent people on the roads by drunken-drivers, and as I already posted, I see no upside to carrying on as were are.
> *You like your drama 'slaughter of the innocent'*


----------



## truthseeker (21 Oct 2009)

MrMan - are you saying that drink driving is a problem that doesnt exist?
Or that death by drink driving is a problem that doesnt exist?

Would you agree that drink driving poses a risk?

What about injury by drink driving - wonder how many peoples lives are affected - even if no death involved?


----------



## shnaek (21 Oct 2009)

We should try moving the limit around in order to find the best limit. Try it at 150, then at 50, then at 75, then at 90 - just keep moving it around until we find the best level. But don't look behind you because the government is robbing your house.


----------



## Pique318 (21 Oct 2009)

mathepac said:


> pro drunken-driving lobbyists


The what now ?

I'm not going to be affected by this as I never drive after drinking (I did a couple of times in the past though) but I don't know anyone who is lobbying for drunk driving. This makes it sound like the same argument that says pro-choice campaigners are pro-abortion. They're not telling women to have an abortion, and I've heard no-one telling anyone to drive drunk.

The 'benefits' of lowering the limit to 50mg are:
Co-ordinating limits across Europe.
Pleasing the zero-tolerance groups(read: zealots) a little.
Looking responsible and taking a hard line against drink-driving

The drawbacks are:
More expensive to police. People in general were used to the 80mg limit and the vast majority were either careful not to go over it, or didn't give a damn. This will happen in time when/if the 50mg limit is introduced, but many people will still breach the limit (many unintentionally) and get points and a fine if they're ever caught.


So on paper the positives outweigh the negatives. 
However: As was mentioned, there are duck all checkpoints enforcing the current limits except during some 'blitz' and then they disappear. One of the local pubs near me has a huge carpark which was full every Thurs-Sun night. Yet no checkpoint ever once was set up outside or nearby. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. If the current limits aren't enforced, how will the stricter ones be?

Will this mean 6-8am checkpoints instead of 2-4am checkpoints, cos I know which would catch the more dangerous group.

Also, as was mentioned, and this is the most critical point in the argument, if the 50-80mg group are responsible for a portion of accidents/injuries/deaths that is greater than the ones below 50mg (a statistically significant difference taking into account conditions, external factors etc.) then maybe the limit should be decreased. I personally have not seen any information to verify this is the case and I am of the opinion that the only reason it's being done is for the 3 reasons under the 'Benefits' heading above: To look good.


----------



## demoivre (21 Oct 2009)

Mechanically cap all cars at 30mph and you'll soon see the true cause of road deaths. That you can be deemed fit to drive home after a 12 hour night shift or an overnight flight, and not after a pint following a round of golf on a Saturday evening is silly imo.


----------



## boris (21 Oct 2009)

demoivre said:


> Mechanically cap all cars at 30mph and you'll soon see the true cause of road deaths. That you can be deemed fit to drive home after a 12 hour night shift or an overnight flight, and not after a pint following a round of golf on a Saturday evening is silly imo.


 


Personally agree. While I certainly do think that there is a certain amount of drinking driving going on, it is not the sole reason for accidents on our roads which I put down to the following:

Non enforcement of the laws already there
Speeding
Careless driving / fatique
Lack of respect and consideration on the roads.


----------



## starlite68 (21 Oct 2009)

why not just ban drinking and pubs full stop....then we can all celebrate our wonderfull new nanny state with a nice cup of tea!
in a few short years we will looked upon as the boring nation in the world.


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 Oct 2009)

starlite68 said:


> why not just ban drinking and pubs full stop....then we can all celebrate our wonderfull new nanny state with a nice cup of tea!
> in a few short years we will looked upon as the boring nation in the world.



aye that's right starlite, ignore the fact that we're one of only 3 countries remaining in the EU with a limit greater than 50mg. If we follow along your line of thinking we must be one of the most exciting nations in the EU right now because our limit is 80mg and the likes of Italy, France and Spain must be damn boring places!


----------



## starlite68 (21 Oct 2009)

its only being done to grab a few votes and make some people good.....wont make a blind bit of differance....in six months or a year some other clown will try to make hay and call for it to be made 30mg...and so on..ect


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 Oct 2009)

I don't disagree there, I certainly don't see this making much difference unless enforcement is really ramped up so yeah it does smack of a vote grabbing move. But hardly think the term nanny state is appropriate in this instance, nor equating a limit of 50mg with being a boring nation!


----------



## starlite68 (21 Oct 2009)

as i said its only a matter of time before someone else sees a few handy votes and wants it made even lower...under the pretence of having a social  conscience,probably someone with the luxury of a government car and driver to bring them to the pub.


----------



## annet (21 Oct 2009)

It beggars believe why people would drink and drive - it would never cross my mind but then I've seen the consequences!  I wonder how many of those people who complain about the lowering of the limit would change their attitude if they were brought into an A&E, ITU, Ortho or Neuro unit, or they stopped off at a hospital morgue so they could see the full extent of injuries through a PM.  The National Rehab in Dun Laoighaire...would teach them the reality!


----------



## starlite68 (21 Oct 2009)

if the government were really serious about taking drink drivers off the roads they could do it in a matter of months! no new laws or no new new limits needed.
they are not serious.....this is vote grabbing pure and simple!


----------



## annet (21 Oct 2009)

starlite68 said:


> if the government were really serious about taking drink drivers off the roads they could do it in a matter of months! no new laws or no new new limits needed.
> they are not serious.....this is vote grabbing pure and simple!


 
+1


----------



## Tinker Bell (21 Oct 2009)

Sad to say but I know two mothers who are quite vociferous in their denunciation of drivers who drink just one drink and yet they both are on mama's little helpers. They both do the school run, daily shopping, pleasure trips.


----------



## MrMan (22 Oct 2009)

annet said:


> It beggars believe why people would drink and drive - it would never cross my mind but then I've seen the consequences!  I wonder how many of those people who complain about the lowering of the limit would change their attitude if they were brought into an A&E, ITU, Ortho or Neuro unit, or they stopped off at a hospital morgue so they could see the full extent of injuries through a PM.  The National Rehab in Dun Laoighaire...would teach them the reality!




And what exactly was the cause of those accidents? was it people flamed off their head, people speeding, or people with 51mg in their blood system?


----------



## MrMan (22 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> MrMan - are you saying that drink driving is a problem that doesnt exist?
> Or that death by drink driving is a problem that doesnt exist?
> 
> Would you agree that drink driving poses a risk?
> ...



Plenty of problems exist, its the exact nature of each problem that needs to be looked at. Road death fatalities caused by drink should be looked at and examined. If there is a medium to high percentage below 80mpg then of course there is a problem, but I would doubt if that were the case very much. If there is even one case that the driver had less than 80mpg in their system then other causes for the crash should also be looked at. If we keep blaming everyone for those that blatantly don't show any responsibility then we are missing the point. 
I've spent so much time on the road in the last few years yet have only been checked once and that was outside a pub after a munstrer match, maybe its enforement we should look at first before we take any other moves.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Oct 2009)

According to today's Irish Times, South Cyprus has a limit of .9mg, and then Ireland, Britain, Luxembourg, Malta and Britain come in at .8mg.

Does anyone know what the penalty system is in those countries? 

Do you get points? 
Do you get put off the road? 

Brendan


----------



## DB74 (22 Oct 2009)

I am in favour of a reduction in the drink-driving limit (should be zero IMO) but I would far prefer to see the traffic cops put to more use than merely revenue-generation which is what is happening at the moment.

The Guards are more interested in enforcing unreasonable speed-limits on safe roads in order to generate fines etc than putting any meaningful effort into stopping people speeding and/or driving dangerously where it matters.

My brother-in-law was speaking to a German man about 6 months ago and the German asked him what the signs on the road for for "accident black spot" meant. When my BiL told him that it was to warn people that it was a dangerous stretch of road, the German replied "Oh ... in Germany we just fix it"


----------



## mathepac (22 Oct 2009)

According to [broken link removed] - 
*"Drink Driving or Driving under the Influence of Alcohol*

 It is illegal to drive a car or motorbike - or even pedal bicycle - while under the influence of alcohol. A driver is considered to be driving drunk in Cyprus if:


The breath/alcohol level equals or exceeds 22 microgrammes of alcohol per     100 millilitres of breath
The *blood/alcohol level* equals or exceeds 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100     millilitres of blood *(0.5 grams per litre)*
 A holder of a Cypriot driving licence could have from 3 to 6 points deducted from the licence for drink driving. The fine will be determined by the court. Foreign licence holders not living in Cyprus can be imprisoned or fined on the spot."

So it seems the IT may be in error regarding the Republic of Cyprus.


----------



## Latrade (22 Oct 2009)

I know the issue of blood alcohol level has been discussed on the forum elsewhere, but the answers to that question are part of the justification. Most people would be under the impression that 2 pints are ok, when it is too variable for that to be an absolute rule. 

Having the lower limits effectively introduces a built in safety factor between the 50 and 80. Hence the suggestion by the minister that between the two limits there would initially be points rather than court. It would mean that to be safer people would abstain or "just have one". The problem with the "just have two" idea is that in the main it rarely is "just two" (I accept anecdotal evidence).

From the media attention and the arguments put forward there and here I don't see any logical or rational argument against the new limits.

Will affect rural publicans? Probably, but the reality is public safety comes before their profits on this account. If it is such a concern aren't there measures they can use to attract people? Say providing a mini bus service? I know there are licences, insurance and driver training that are needed for this, but it could increase trade.

The argument about people still being over the limit in the morning somehow showing how unfair the system is a complete red herring. I don't care if you got a taxi home that night, you're still under the influence in the morning. I'm afraid your common sense at night doesn't justify a lack of common sense in the morning.


----------



## BONDGIRL (22 Oct 2009)

Personally I think you are better off having zero limit, why? Well because most of my friends etc always have the one, but like how do they really know its not already over the limit etc. Then you might say ah I will have just one more and then 2 is defo over the limit.  so maybe just ban it see what happens..

but I agree I love to drink socialably and I think its a great gift to do this.. i.e. not getting hammered everyday you drink, to enjoy a few with friends etc..  Am I going off the point here?  

FACT drinking driving kills, along with a lot more stuff, but we gotta tackle one thing at a time.  My friend is a guarda, she said everyday she is pulling men out of their car hammered drunk... now that is disgraceful and yes in her case, she said its mostly men. She works in city centre area so catches a lot leaving work parties etc but said most of hammered


----------



## mathepac (22 Oct 2009)

I'm finding it difficult to get Malta specific BAC information from the interweb, but in searching I came across this little gem  from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office website, http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/europe/malta

*"Road Travel*
... Caution should be exercised whilst driving as some roads are in a poor state of repair. ...  Local standards of driving are poor.

In 2007 there were 14 road deaths in Malta (source: Maltese DfT).  This equates to 3.4 road deaths per 100,000 ... and compares to the UK average of 5.0 road deaths per 100,000 ...." Only the Brits.


----------



## dereko1969 (22 Oct 2009)

I'm struggling to see how any of the people on here can regard it as a vote grabbing exercise? Does anyone really think that it will actually gain votes? i'm as cynical as the next person (more so) but i can't for the life of me see this as a vote-grabbing exercise quite the opposite actually.

I'm personally in favour of a reduction but it wouldn't make me more likely to vote for the Government.


----------



## shnaek (22 Oct 2009)

I agree - I don't think it's vote grabbing. I do think it's a good distraction though, and I expecte several more distractions to be produced from the clowns pockets as we head towards the budget.


----------



## Latrade (22 Oct 2009)

dereko1969 said:


> I'm struggling to see how any of the people on here can regard it as a vote grabbing exercise? Does anyone really think that it will actually gain votes? i'm as cynical as the next person (more so) but i can't for the life of me see this as a vote-grabbing exercise quite the opposite actually.
> 
> I'm personally in favour of a reduction but it wouldn't make me more likely to vote for the Government.


 
I thought the vote grabbing side of things are comming from the Rural TDs who have one eye on losing their seat and so are opposing this move.


----------



## podgerodge (26 Oct 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> I'd wager that most of the drink driving fatalities are where people are "wild drunk" - most drink fatalities seem to be between about 1am and 5am on Friday & Saturday nights, many of them single vehicle accidents. Speed may have been a factor as well, or very arguably attempted suicide, but I doubt very much that they were under 80 mg or indeed under double it, or that reducing the limit to 50mg would make a blind bit of difference.





Pique318 said:


> The 'benefits' of lowering the limit to 50mg are:
> Co-ordinating limits across Europe.
> Pleasing the zero-tolerance groups(read: zealots) a little.
> Looking responsible and taking a hard line against drink-driving
> ...



I agree with the points of view of the above posters.  I guess I simply do not believe that having one pint will affect my driving regardless of what anyone says.  Over in the USA a while back I saw a drink drive ad on television - where the reporter showed a "sober" person driving through an obstacle course with cones - and then (after drinking 2 small cans of beer) repeating the course and knocking them all down!  Yeah..right.

My opinion on the above does not mean I agree with "drunk driving".  I don't.  I believe that people that cause accidents as a result of drinking are drunk.  Reducing the limit to 50mg is just annoying people that want "a" drink after work etc.  Hic!




annet said:


> It beggars believe why people would drink and drive - it would never cross my mind but then I've seen the consequences!  I wonder how many of those people who complain about the lowering of the limit would change their attitude if they were brought into an A&E, ITU, Ortho or Neuro unit, or they stopped off at a hospital morgue so they could see the full extent of injuries through a PM.  The National Rehab in Dun Laoighaire...would teach them the reality!




People at 80mg are not causing such deaths and injuries.


----------



## BONDGIRL (29 Oct 2009)

did you see the poor guys that were killed last weekend on the way to the airport for their holidays.. guy that crashed into them fled the scene.. was it drunk related/speed...  anyway just a heartbreaking situation


----------



## Latrade (29 Oct 2009)

podgerodge said:


> I agree with the points of view of the above posters. I guess I simply do not believe that having one pint will affect my driving regardless of what anyone says. Over in the USA a while back I saw a drink drive ad on television - where the reporter showed a "sober" person driving through an obstacle course with cones - and then (after drinking 2 small cans of beer) repeating the course and knocking them all down! Yeah..right.


 
Ummm you hit the nail on the head: in your opinion. The problem is research shows there is imparement of driving ability above certain limits. The suggestion of 50 as a limit is to remove the uncertainty and set a definite safe limit. 

And the tv demonstration has been run numerous times on various programmes, some with more controls in place. More or less with similar results that there is some effect. It has also been run in more controlled circumstances with volunteers and again with similar results. There is enough of an effect on response, etc to be of concern.

At this stage, opinion and belief just don't come into it.


----------



## mathepac (29 Oct 2009)

podgerodge said:


> ...  People at 80mg are not causing such deaths and injuries.


Is there any evidence to back up your contention?

The reason informed authorities in countries apart from for example the UK, Ireland and Malta have reduced the "safe" BAC to below 50mg is because they have found  medical and scientific evidence of impairment at 50mg and above. As pointed out already, that same evidence has been highlighted here, but the pro drunk-driving lobby and the "refuseniks" apparently think we are or need to be different i.e. the present level of death and injury caused by drunk-driving is acceptable.

The argument that says the problem is lack enforcement of speed limits, lack of testing for the current BAC and checking for licences, insurance, road-tax and NCTs, ignores our real need to do *all* of these things and that we have a Garda Traffic Corps that was established and chartered to enforce existing and new road-traffic  legislation.


----------



## starlite68 (29 Oct 2009)

if the drink driveing laws are not being fully enforced now as we speak...changing the limit to 50 or 30 or 10 wont make a blind bit of differance!...its simply vote grabbing.


----------



## Latrade (30 Oct 2009)

starlite68 said:


> if the drink driveing laws are not being fully enforced now as we speak...changing the limit to 50 or 30 or 10 wont make a blind bit of differance!...its simply vote grabbing.


 
Not quite true. While there is an issue with enforcement, many reasonable people have changed their habits in line with any new legislation and the threat of possible enforcement has been very effective for people to "not take the chance".

You only have to have a couple of spot checks that people see in order to reinforce the message.


----------



## starlite68 (30 Oct 2009)

you have more chance of being hit by a train then stopped on the way home from the pub...that why people take the chance in the first place!


----------



## BONDGIRL (30 Oct 2009)

starlite68 said:


> you have more chance of being hit by a train then stopped on the way home from the pub...that why people take the chance in the first place!


 
true...
I never even seen a checkpoint, I am driving 13yrs!!! (everyday in dublin)


----------



## mathepac (30 Oct 2009)

I'm not sure what the linked article is meant to demonstrate apart from the writer's breathtaking ignorance of such an important topic and his inability or unwillingness to consult any research before penning such ill-informed tripe.

Might the tenor of the piece and the writer's apparent reluctance to consult or be influenced by anything as basic as fact, currently available statistics or evidence-based research raise a suspicion that he has on his agenda issues other than road-safety?


----------



## MrMan (31 Oct 2009)

mathepac said:


> Is there any evidence to back up your contention?
> 
> The reason informed authorities in countries apart from for example the UK, Ireland and Malta have reduced the "safe" BAC to below 50mg is because they have found  medical and scientific evidence of impairment at 50mg and above. As pointed out already, that same evidence has been highlighted here, but the pro drunk-driving lobby and the "refuseniks" apparently think we are or need to be different i.e. the present level of death and injury caused by drunk-driving is acceptable.
> 
> The argument that says the problem is lack enforcement of speed limits, lack of testing for the current BAC and checking for licences, insurance, road-tax and NCTs, ignores our real need to do *all* of these things and that we have a Garda Traffic Corps that was established and chartered to enforce existing and new road-traffic  legislation.



Yor comments are constantly mis-leading when you talk about 'pro-drunk driving' If having 50-80mpg in your system is legal then it is not drunk driving so you may as well drop that from your argument straight away.
The present level of death by drunk driving is not acceptable to anyone, but instead of being dramatic why not pinpoint the actual causes of each accident. Wouldn't it be better if we had real statistics to work with instead of banging on about 30mpg.


----------



## Teatime (31 Oct 2009)

BONDGIRL said:


> true...
> I never even seen a checkpoint, I am driving 13yrs!!! (everyday in dublin)


 
I have been checked for drink driving twice and both times were while living abroad. I live in a rural area now and the chances of being stopped on way home from the local are almost zero. That said, I cycle to and from pub for a few scoops these days and that can be a scary experience too...with crazy local drivers and me falling asleep...


----------



## mathepac (31 Oct 2009)

MrMan said:


> Yor comments are constantly mis-leading when you talk about 'pro-drunk driving' ...


No, my comments and commentary are clear, accurate and consistent. Any confusion that arises is between a legally-acceptable BAC for driving versus a BAC where scientifically measureable intoxication occurs.

In other words being legally “sober enough” to drive is not the same as being scientifically or medically sober. People are understandably confused by this difference and vested interests and the pro drunk-driving lobby are playing on this confusion.



MrMan said:


> ... If having 50-80mpg in your system is legal then it is not drunk driving so you may as well drop that from your argument straight away...


This is precisely the confused thinking and lack of scientific insight that the vested interests and the pro drunk-driving lobby are preying on and seem to want to perpetuate.

While it is possible to enact legislation that says a person at or below a given BAC can legally drive, it is not possible to enact legislation that makes a person at or below a given BAC scientifically or medically sober. 



MrMan said:


> … The present level of death by drunk driving is not acceptable to anyone, but instead of being dramatic why not pinpoint the actual causes of each accident...


Personally, I don’t have the resources to “pinpoint the actual causes of each accident” and that’s not the point of my joining this thread, but I can state that based on existing statistics and expert opinion alcohol is a factor in as many as 40% of deaths and injuries on our roads.



MrMan said:


> … Wouldn't it be better if we had real statistics to work with instead of banging on about 30mpg.


I notice posters are very quick to demand statistics in support of lowering the BAC for drunk-driving detection and prosecution – have you looked at any of the links I have already provided or read any the expert opinion I have quoted? Conversely do you are anyone else have access to statistics that demonstrate it is safe to drive with a BAC of between 50 – 80 mg?

*"Specific Effects (related to the Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC))*

The effects of alcohol intoxication are greatly influenced by individual variations among users. Some users may become intoxicated at a much lower Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) level than that shown.


20 - 30  No loss of coordination, slight euphoria and loss of shyness, depressant effects are not apparent
40 - 60  Feeling of well being, relaxation, lowered inhibitions, and sensation of warmth, euphoria, some minor impairment of reasoning and memory, lowering of caution possibly leading to risk-taking activities
70 - 90  Slight impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing, euphoria, judgement and self- control are reduced, caution, reason and memory are impaired [this is the current legal level in UK, Ireland and Malta]
100 - 125  Significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgement, speech may be slurred; balance, vision, reaction time and hearing will be impaired, euphoria [this was legal level in Ireland before being dropped to 80 mg]
130 -150  Gross motor impairment and lack of physical control; blurred vision and major loss of balance, euphoria is reduced and beginning to be replaced by restlessness and anxiety
160 – 200  Dysphoria (anxiety, restlessness) predominates, nausea may appear; the drinker has the appearance of a "sloppy drunk"
250 Needs assistance in walking; total mental confusion; dysphoria with nausea and some vomiting
300 Loss of consciousness
400 and up  Onset of coma, possibly death due to respiratory arrest."
 The above is summarised / adapted from here - http://www.indiana.edu/~adic/effects.html originally collated in 1991 and updated in 1995.

This document - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0847/is_n1_v14/ai_9353143/?tag=content;col1 reviews and lists a series of scientific papers from the 1950’s through to the 1990’s about the topic of drunk driving. 

This information is in the public domain, other information I have access to is restricted for copyright or other reasons.


----------



## Pique318 (31 Oct 2009)

mathepac said:


> In other words being legally “sober enough” to drive is not the same as being scientifically or medically sober. People are understandably confused by this difference and vested interests and the pro drunk-driving lobby are playing on this confusion.
> This is precisely the confused thinking and lack of scientific insight that the vested interests and the pro drunk-driving lobby are preying on and seem to want to perpetuate.


mathepac, your posts on this topic are becoming increasingly tiresome.

You bang on about this mysterious 'pro drunk-driving lobby' which appears to amount to people who are adverse to (or at least sceptical about the reasons for) lowering the limit from 80-50mg. Yet in your own statement above, one has nothing to do with the other. ie, being over the limit does not make you 'drunk'.

Do YOU have any vested interests in this cause, or have you been personally affected by someone driving over the limit in the past ? This might clarify a potential emotional overreaction on your behalf to comments made decrying the lowering of the limits.
Note: I do not wish to ask for details if there are any, but I'm just wondering why you seem to have a very aggressive agenda against those who (for one reason or another) oppose the lowering of the limits.


----------



## mathepac (31 Oct 2009)

Pique318 said:


> mathepac, your posts on this topic are becoming increasingly tiresome...


There is nothing on the site obliging you to read material you find tiresome.


----------



## starlite68 (31 Oct 2009)

mathepac said:


> There is nothing on the site obliging you to read material you find tiresome.


 thats hardly an answer to the question!


----------



## Pique318 (31 Oct 2009)

starlite68 said:


> thats hardly an answer to the question!


It's a stereotypically evasive answer though.


----------



## One (1 Nov 2009)

..


----------



## One (1 Nov 2009)

mathepac said:


> No, my comments and commentary are clear, accurate and consistent. Any confusion that arises is between a legally-acceptable BAC for driving versus a BAC where scientifically measureable intoxication occurs.


 
I agree.


----------



## One (1 Nov 2009)

Teatime said:


> I have been checked for drink driving twice and both times were while living abroad. I live in a rural area now and the chances of being stopped on way home from the local are almost zero.


 
I gotta agree with this too. Enforcement of the law with regard drinking and driving is not all it could be.


----------



## mathepac (1 Nov 2009)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6898273.ece

From today's Sunday Times - "... Recent research by the Health Service Executive found that at least 18 drivers killed in crashes between 2003 and 2005 had a blood alcohol level of between 50mg and 80mg.  ..."

In the same article Jan Battles perpetuates a dangerously inaccurate and sweeping generalisation with no basis in science or research  -  " ...  reduced limit of 50mg — the equivalent of a glass of wine or pint of beer.  ..."

Although the inappropriateness of her comments pale into insignificance beside Mattie McGrath's beliefs about alcohol's use as a relaxant to improve driving standards  - [broken link removed]


----------



## ACA (1 Nov 2009)

I think that mandatory testing at accident scenes is a good thing but on the whole feel that this is just another way our government is taking money off us. Pretty soon no-one is going to have the cash to run a car if things keep on going.... increased fuel costs, motor tax costs and higher insurance premiums....its just getting ridiculous. Laws keep on being brought in and not followed through, (don't get me started on provisional licence holders ) - I suppose the govenment have to find new and creative ways to justify their expense accounts (trips to Cyprus/Malta to check out their drink driving regs for instance )


----------



## starlite68 (1 Nov 2009)

as i said before the politicians dont give a toss about road safety,.this is all about making themselves look good by appeasing the 'temperance movement'
when did anyone ever see a politican miss an oppertunity to grab a headline!


----------



## shnaek (1 Nov 2009)

mathepac said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6898273.ece
> 
> From today's Sunday Times - "... Recent research by the Health Service Executive found that at least 18 drivers killed in crashes between 2003 and 2005 had a blood alcohol level of between 50mg and 80mg.  ..."



But what were the other factors involved in those cases? Without knowing all the facts, this piece of info is not conclusive. Where did the crashes occur? Were the drivers speeding? Were they provisional license holders? 
Without all the facts, the argument is only as valid as Homer Simpsons Rock/Tiger argument.


----------



## mathepac (1 Nov 2009)

shnaek said:


> ... Without all the facts, the argument is only as valid as Homer Simpsons Rock/Tiger argument.


What argument?


----------



## MrMan (2 Nov 2009)

mathepac said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6898273.ece
> 
> From today's Sunday Times - "... Recent research by the Health Service Executive found that at least 18 drivers killed in crashes between 2003 and 2005 had a blood alcohol level of between 50mg and 80mg.  ..."
> 
> ...



Lets say that in those two years 20 people involved in fatal accidents had between 50 and 80 mpg in their system. Do we leave it at that and say that the cause was 'drunk driving' or do we look further, what speed, how long were they on the road, outside factors etc. We should broaden our scope.


----------



## mathepac (2 Nov 2009)

MrMan said:


> ...  Do we leave it at that and say that the cause was 'drunk driving' ...


Where is that suggestion made?


----------



## MrMan (2 Nov 2009)

mathepac said:


> Where is that suggestion made?



My point is that rather than simply go for the lowering of alcohol limit we should analyse everything.


----------



## mathepac (2 Nov 2009)

MrMan said:


> ... we should analyse everything.


Ah yes, the good old "paralysis through analysis" option. Do nothing but continue to talk about doing something, sometime, maybe. Set up more tribunals, commission more expert reports, establish yet more committees of inquiry and research groups - give the appearance of doing something while people are dying and getting injured.

The research is done, the evidence is in and the congruent policy changes are implemented across the EU - apart from Ireland, Malta and the UK, 89% of the member states agree.

Why not change one key factor that has a significant effect on road safety and monitor for statistical variation? It might save lives and injuries and it is highly unlikely to cause any harm.

Alternatively, expand on Mattie McGrath's ingenious suggestion, which I'm sure is backed up by vast armies of researchers and libraries of papers. According to the article above, the bould Mattie believes that  "... some people feel more relaxed behind the wheel after a drink... " and "...  drink ...  can make people who are jumpy on the road, or nervous, be more relaxed ...".

So by extrapolation, make drunk-driving Government policy and ensure all drivers including Pioneers, recovering alcoholics, teetotallers, 17-year old moped drivers and 16-year old farmers can only start their vehicles after consuming alcohol. Look out for the beneficial effects of implementing these insightful and perfectly-researched observations. It might be an idea to run this on a test basis initially though, somewhere like Craggy Island with Messers McGrath, Healy-Rae & Co as the crash-test dummies-in -chief.


----------



## MrMan (2 Nov 2009)

mathepac said:


> Ah yes, the good old "paralysis through analysis" option. Do nothing but continue to talk about doing something, sometime, maybe. Set up more tribunals, commission more expert reports, establish yet more committees of inquiry and research groups - give the appearance of doing something while people are dying and getting injured.
> 
> The research is done, the evidence is in and the congruent policy changes are implemented across the EU - apart from Ireland, Malta and the UK, 89% of the member states agree.
> 
> ...



Now where did I get the idea that you enjoy dramatics?

If speed is the major factor in road deaths then maybe we should lower the national limit to 60kph, but will that make people drive at that limit or will certain people continue to break the law regardless? 
If people were against reducing the national speed limit to 60kph would you label them 'pro speeders' or speed freaks? It would have more of an impact on road deaths than dropping from 80mpg to 50mpg, so why not?

Or we could let those who obey the law as it is get on with things and prosecute those that do not obey the law. There are so many grey areas as to how many you can have most people wont stray over one pint, so I don't see the need for any further change.


----------



## mathepac (2 Nov 2009)

Although the thread title is *"Lowering drink driving limit"* the bulk of your post is about speed limits and this  IMHO is symptomatic of the "paralysis through analysis" syndrome; let's talk about anything except the elephant in the middle of the living-room, in this case our propensity as a nation to drive with BACs that would get us banned in all except two other jurisdictions in the EU.


MrMan said:


> ... There are so many grey areas as to how many you can have most people wont stray over one pint, so I don't see the need for any further change.


Amazingly government-sponsored advertising for years gave the right message in the "If you drink, don't drive" campaigns. So for anyone with an interest in road-safety and who cares about the well-being of other road-users the message has been clear for years.

There is no grey area  - for anyone who cares, don't drink and drive; if you don't care, guess at a safe limit and you'll eventually get it wrong. Hopefully the consequences of this behaviour  will be visited only on the drunk-driver.

The bar-stool wisdom of "just one will do" has back-fired too often. As the BAC table I reproduced above says "... Some users *may become intoxicated at a much lower Blood Alcohol Concentration* (BAC) level than that shown... ". So as the experts can't predict in advance how much is safe to drink, you'll understand if I take issue with some ignorant idiot deciding that he knows how much alcohol  he can safely drink before sitting into his car.


----------



## starlite68 (2 Nov 2009)

so  mathepac, i take it you would be in favour of a zero alcohol limit?


----------



## mathepac (2 Nov 2009)

starlite68 said:


> so  mathepac, i take it you would be in favour of a zero alcohol limit?


You can of course interpret my documented support for the topic in the posted thread Title "Lowering drink driving limit."  to 50 mg as being "in favour of a zero alcohol limit", that's your entitlement.

Here are the circumstances in which I believe this would be an appropriate interpretation - 

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone," it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many things." 

*Through The Looking-Glass: And What Alice Found There *
Lewis Carroll

But to respond to your statement / question directly, I'll quote another character in the same book -  "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."


----------



## starlite68 (2 Nov 2009)

wow!


----------



## Pique318 (2 Nov 2009)

Methinks mathepac could use a drink !


----------



## MrMan (3 Nov 2009)

mathepac said:


> Although the thread title is *"Lowering drink driving limit"* the bulk of your post is about speed limits and this  IMHO is symptomatic of the "paralysis through analysis" syndrome; let's talk about anything except the elephant in the middle of the living-room, in this case our propensity as a nation to drive with BACs that would get us banned in all except two other jurisdictions in the EU.
> Amazingly government-sponsored advertising for years gave the right message in the "If you drink, don't drive" campaigns. So for anyone with an interest in road-safety and who cares about the well-being of other road-users the message has been clear for years.
> 
> There is no grey area  - for anyone who cares, don't drink and drive; if you don't care, guess at a safe limit and you'll eventually get it wrong. Hopefully the consequences of this behaviour  will be visited only on the drunk-driver.
> ...




A title provides the the theme for the topic and other issues can and should be used to tease out our arguments. without doing that we might all end up with very narrow minded views.
your use of 'paralysis through analysis' is perhaps more of a sidestep to a question rather than an answer.


----------



## podgerodge (4 Nov 2009)

mathepac said:


> From today's Sunday Times - "... Recent research by the Health Service Executive found that at least 18 drivers killed in crashes between 2003 and 2005 had a blood alcohol level of between 50mg and 80mg.  ..."



Recent alternative research (that I have just made up) found that at least 18 drivers in the last 20 years that crashed cars in supermarket carparks had rice krispies for breakfast.



mathepac said:


> 40 - 60  Feeling of well being, relaxation, lowered inhibitions, and sensation of warmth, euphoria, some minor impairment of reasoning and memory, lowering of caution possibly leading to risk-taking activities
> [*]70 - 90  Slight impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing, euphoria, judgement and self- control are reduced, caution, reason and memory are impaired [this is the current legal level in UK, Ireland and Malta]



Wish I got that amount of value when I drink one pint.

Would you reduce speed limits on Motorways to 50mph - it would save lives?


----------

