Lowering drink driving limit.

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.
 

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.
 


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!




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

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.
 
podgerodge said:
... People at 80mg are not causing such deaths and injuries.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
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!
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
BONDGIRL said:
true...
I never even seen a checkpoint, I am driving 13yrs!!! (everyday in dublin)
Click to expand...

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...
 
MrMan said:
Yor comments are constantly mis-leading when you talk about 'pro-drunk driving' ...
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register