Lowering drink driving limit.

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...
 
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.
 


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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrMan said:
If its precious lives that you want saved ...
Click to expand...
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, ...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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>
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 - 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?
 
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.
 
mathepac said:
pro drunken-driving lobbyists
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register