Reducing drink drive limit to 50mg from 80mg

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

even if the limit is 0?
 

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ubiquitous said:
Did you bother reading ANY of the responses to your earlier post?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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

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

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 ?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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?
 

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