# 59

Posted: 19/11/2009 10:22

Brandy I think what you have done there is taken both extremes from either end of the spectrum - most elderly drivers are not half blind and doddery, most drink drivers are not 7ft rugby giants who cna hold their drink - the relality is MOST people fall somewhere in between and these are the ones that the legislation is geared towards.

Statistically, young male drivers are the worst and, although I may be biased, given that my parents were nearly killed by so called "boy racers" (I prefer little spotty kids in mammys car trying to be cool) I agree.

# 58

Posted: 18/11/2009 18:57

Brandy,Bad driving by the old man indeed, but I suspect all the same that statistics are in favour of the elderly driver. Young, healthy men are the worst offenders on the road in terms of serious accidents. For example, let us imagine that the encounter on a dark night that you mention did happen. You are approaching each other on a bend -- who do you think would be likely (according to stereotype) to be going faster, the rugby player or the old gent? And if both went over the central line so that a head-on collision with you was imminent, which would therefore give you more time to brake or otherwise avoid contact?

There is some evidence that some people can perform some tasks effectively after drinking. Pistol shooting competitors for example can benefit from taking one drink -- but on the roads, statistics favour a zero limit as I see you do. Speed is a similar issue in that many skillful drivers are good at avoiding accidents even when they speed -- but the inexorable fact is that in general the slower you drive the safer you and others are -- boring and inconvenient as it may be.

It is already technically possible for our cars to avoid each other automatically, allowing higher speeds and perhaps even fully automatic driving for inebriated motorists -- but I suspect this will only happen when we have flying personal vehicles, for which safety will be a major selling point. These vehicles may also have a pig-like shape...

# 57

Posted: 17/11/2009 21:03

Let's be clear,

As far as I'm concerned....zero limit is the only way to go; but while we're at it....I personally witnessed (what can only be described as a myopic 80 year-old driver with an elderly passenger...reversing in a shop'-centre car park today.  directly behind this driver was a large red plastic bollard ('witches hat')....which was quite visible before they got into the car.  To my astonishment....the car reversed ('pushed back' against this object), which had obviously not been noticed....persevered in reversing, and reversing until the object became an obvious 'obstruction' to their progress!  What would have happened if that 'obstruction' had been a child in a buggy ??

What I'd like to know is....if a 7ft physically fit rugby player (driver) has 2 pints with a meal...and is over the limit legally....which would you rather 'meet' on a dark road at night ??  See my point?  The Law is a complete Ass !!

# 56

Posted: 05/11/2009 10:08

KBN,

I just want to nail one misconception that may arise from the last couple of posts, i.e. that low alcohol levels have no discernible effect. As I had thought, there does seem to be a considerable amount of research on changes in various reflexes and skills under the effect of alcohol, including this page http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=13&tierID=2&navID=79C0A0AA7F00000100517A059EAFAEC9&navLink=null&pageID=329 from the Australian Traffic Safety Administration, which quotes US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) research covering vigilance, drowsiness, vision and other factors. Among its conclusions are "the review indicated impairment of reaction time by alcohol at as low as 0.02 and consistently at a BAC of  0.06."

This is the kind of evidence I was referring to in my earlier posts. I fully recognise the role of damsels and other distractions, but while I believe no statistics exist to indicate how attractive a member of the opposite sex has to be to constitute a distraction, there do appear to be numbers available for drink -- possibly the two factors would be synergistic!

# 55

Posted: 05/11/2009 09:18

Very interesting post kbn - and very distressing to hear you mention that you are distracted by scantily clad damsels :-)

However alphasun, aren't we already supposed to have a mechanism for the deactivation of risky cars day and night - called the NCT test., If you do not pass it and have a disk to display to show you passsed it you are not supposed to be on the road - yet again, something which is not enforced.

Once passed as safe, it is then legal to drive the car both day and night - which considering almost all commuting takes place in darkness or partial darkness between November and March, I would have thought it was essential.

# 54

Posted: 04/11/2009 16:38

KBN,Thanks for the clarification. I think we disagree on the issue of low alcohol levels. I tend to believe, on the basis of what I have read over the years, that even a low level of alcohol is unsafe on the grounds that it impairs reflexes that affect such things as braking distance. You appear to have a category of drunkenness, with lower levels allowed.

I place little faith in ongoing training or TV propaganda etc. I believe that control of speed and possibly spacing of cars, plus if necessary other restrictions such as deactivation of risky cars at night (instead of penalty points alone for an offence, disable the car at night as well) -- may eventually prevent most accidents.

# 53

Posted: 03/11/2009 19:17

Alphasun,

re: your second question, as to what "degree of driving impairment" I would ascribe to "consumption of a small amount of alcohol", I would say: a very small degree. I am not saying it is non-existant, that would be unscientific, but I do believe it is minimal, especially compared to grossly more significant factors particularly usage of drugs such as coke, ecstasy, cannabis, & whatever else they are on these days.  I believe, as I said, that this statistic is NEVER researched or disclosed, and that if it was it would expose the fact that driving at such modest blood-alcohol levels is statistically no more significant than a range of other factors involved in road accidents such as street lighting, road surfaces, parked cars, on-coming headlights, passenger distraction, mobile phones, loud music, bad eyesight, and even roadside distractions such as advertising hoardings and of course scantily-clad damsels! 

I know of no statistics that show otherwise, therefore i do believe that indeed "a great deal of road safety literature needs to be rewritten".  That's because such material usually makes the mistake that correlation imlplies causality, ie that a statistical link proves that one thing is the cause of another.  For example, if most drivers who crash are found to be wearing white underwear, so what? Or if they all have their headlamps on, ban headlamps?  The fact that the headlamps are statistically relevant does not prove that headlamps are the CAUSE of the crash, they only happen to be an effect of the real cause, which is probably the fact that it is dark.  Similarly, which is my main point, modest blood-alcohol levels in road accident statistics are not necessarily the CAUSE of such accidents, but rather an observable effect of the real cause, again the fact that is dark.  This happens because it is at night time that most people like to go out to have a drink, and night time is when it gets dark.

Finally, a little challenge to all sceptics to prove the point - let us see the statistics for Saudi Arabia where there really is zero tolerance on alcohol.  Anyone with experience of Arab drivers will not even need these stats!

(ps: I deliberately don't mention speed, which i think is an aspect of driver skills/inexperience rather than a cause in itself, (eg) German autobahns have no speed limit and are safer than our roads)

kb

three kinds of disciples, those who impart Zen; those who tend the altars & temples; those who are the rice-bags & clothes-hangers

# 52

Posted: 03/11/2009 18:58

three kinds of disciples, those who impart Zen; those who tend the altars & temples; those who are the rice-bags & clothes-hangers

# 51

Posted: 02/11/2009 12:46

KBN,

Your view would have more weight for me if you indicated exactly where you stand on drinking and driving. Your second paragraph does not mention directly what degree of driving impairment you ascribe to consumption of a small amount of alcohol. I think it's fair to say that you imply that any accident reduction that might result from removing low-consumption drivers from the road is simply due to the arithmetic of substracting them from the total cohort of drivers. Do you doubt that even a small amount of alcohol impairs driving, which would include your driving, to a degree that shows up in accident statistics? If this is untrue then a great deal of road safety literature needs to be rewritten.

Personally, I think that it is irresponsible to risk consuming any alcohol when driving, since the risk is still significant when abstinent and the consequences of hitting someone or being hit are so serious. I agree with the importance of darkness as a factor -- you leave out another, speed. It would be great if drivers had to keep lights on all the time and cars were prevented from speeding by application of modern electronic means as I have outlined earlier. It would also be great if drivers gave up the attitude that their driving freedom is sacred.

# 50

Posted: 02/11/2009 12:38

Well I'm glad to hear it, what limits speed according to the type of roiadl, road condtions and experience of the driver is supposed to be between the drivefrs two ears. My poi was that if a driver is behind a line of 10 cars doing 30 and is fruatrated enough that s/he attempts to overtake ina  dangerous manner -  and this is something I have seen countless times, does cause accidentsd and even pile ups and consequebtly does kill.

# 49

Posted: 31/10/2009 15:56

The water has become very muddied on this issue with all these half-baked opinions & fuzzy logic. Wouldn't it be a good idea to take stock and just ask what exactly is going on here?

Firstly, we all agree that drunkenness causes road deaths.  In other words - when you've had a large amount to drink like 6 or 7 pints, or possibly 4 or 5 pints for some people, but a significant amount in any case.  Reducing the current blood alcohol levels however will affect NOT ONE PERSON in this category - as this level of drunkenness is already excluded by existing limits.  Meaning that drunks will continue to drive, or not, exactly as at present.  In other words NO ROAD DEATHS due to this cause will be saved.

Secondly, the so-called "statistics" trotted out to support this reactionary trend, are simply not adequate.  The actual statistic we need in relation to reducing the limit is NOT the percentage of accidents involving alcohol (this statistic is relevant only to the feeble ENFORCEMENT of existing limits!), but rather the percentage of such accidents that involve blood-alcohol levels BELOW 80mg.  We never get this statistic, but suppose (just as a working hypothesis) that most of them involve levels above the current 80mg limit (and even up to a couple of hundred mg), i.e. levels already proscribed by the existing limits, what then is to be gained by banning drivers UNDER 80mg? 

The answer is: a deception.  Think about it - take these drivers off the roads (regardless of evidence, statistical or otherwise, of their involvement on accidents), what do you get?  Fewer drivers on the roads of course.  Thus fewer accidents, since accidents reduce in proportion to reduced numbers of motrists.  But now the deception!  Now we are told how this "proves" (usually "categorically", or "indisputably") that reduced alcohol limits cause reduced fatalities.  Of course it proves nothing of the sort.  The lower number of drivers, not the lower alcohol limits per se, is what reduces the fatalities.  This is the classic case of "lies, damn lies, and statistics", because you will get the SAME reduction in fatalities by lowering driver numbers under ANY pretext - banning spectacles, red hair, black underwear, names beginning with a certain letter of the alphabet, whatever.

Seeing the (surprisingly high) number of people on this post advocating an ayatollah-like zero tolerance on this, there's bound to be those who'll say this isn't true.  But stop & think - if these drivers really were the cause of the accidents, then taking them off the roads would obviously bring down accidents by near 100%, but they will of course come down only by the same percentage as the reduced no. of drivers, (eg) if 30% of drivers are "frightened" off the road, accidents will be down roughly 30%.  70% of drivers are causing the rest.

Real causes of roadway carnage?  Drunkenness, drugs, in-car distractions, driver inexperience, and in my opinion the single greatest cause - the fact that it gets dark at night. 

three kinds of disciples, those who impart Zen; those who tend the altars & temples; those who are the rice-bags & clothes-hangers

# 48

Posted: 31/10/2009 12:17

Grago on the 19th tells us (slightly modified) that 63.5% of fatal traffic accidents in 2003 were not due to drink. Conclusion 1: It is safer to be plastered when driving. Conclusion 2 (the real one): Let us have a spread sheet with all the driving fatalities and all the causes (including levels of alcohol) so that objective conclusions can be made.  This is science!

By the way our bodies produce alcohol - this is normal. With a zero level all drivers will be guilty (including non drinkers).  This is another reason for an objective and informed assessment.

# 47

Posted: 31/10/2009 11:58

Alphasun, you seem to be disgruntled that I only mentioned foreign drivers without including our Northern Ireland neighbours. 

It wont stop road accidents, but my point was, that there was not a level playing field for the 'little islanders'.

And contrary to the spin and hype of the false celtic tiger years, that we were world leaders, we are still a little island.

Brandy, the fact that this new EU drink/driving law has gone through taking in the foreign licence issue, I guess it will bring this discussion to a close.

Of course enforcing it, is another matter.

# 46

Posted: 30/10/2009 19:12

Why would you drink and drive in this day and age. Taxis are everywhere. I live in a very small village in West Tipperary and there are three taxis supporting the local area. For the price of a pint you get home safe and sound. People are saying that you can't enjoy a glass of wine with your dinner now for fear of being caught and breathalised. Of course you can enjoy a glass of wine, just let someone else drive. This is proven to save lives in other countries, why oh why do we Irish think we are entitled to have a few then drive home. Stop this stupid drinking culture of ours and teach our children that life matters. Their lives and the lives of other drivers on the roads. Please.

# 45

Posted: 30/10/2009 16:06

ann,

ok....agree with you on those points....especially re the 'European project'!  However....I repeat my point regarding 'cross-border' drivers (which I and thousands have experienced) who are indeed allowed to 'get away with it' all the time in this jurisdiction....you didn't acknowledge or address that point.  Surely if 'we' can't control/regulate drivers who live 'a few miles away'....we can hardly expect to do so for 'European' drivers??

There may be a political reason behind the above anomaly....but if there is....maybe that's an avenue that should be explored?

# 44

Posted: 30/10/2009 16:03

Ann, you seem to be emphasizing the danger posed by foreign drivers, which is real but not the whole story -- do you seriously imagine that getting rid of foreign drivers will stop road accidents? You also seem to have a 'little irelander' approach. Lowering alcohol levels has been found to be beneficial, especially when combined with random testing (the next barrier that Irish road safety advocates will have to confront). What part of 'our culture' does the Brussels regulation not suit in this case? Is it going to be any consolation to an accident victim or their relatives to know that ah sure 'twas an Irish driver and he had a good healthy Irish alcohol level in his blood...?

# 43

Posted: 30/10/2009 12:19

Brandy, I was making the point that we have an awful lot of people in this country from europe, who escape the net because of their foreign driving licences, many of whom are poor drivers and not familiar with driving on the left.

One of Ireland's largest trucking companies were told to stop employing foreign drivers, during the era of full employment that is, on instructions from their insurance company.

Now the european road safety authority told Cowen last week that the drink driving level has to be at the same level for all european countries that overlap each other, and told him not to drag his heels in conforming to the rules.

As we are an island, what we do in our country does not and should not affect drivers in the EU, so why is big brother EU telling us what to do.

Is this what our YES to Lisbon means, and that we have to do everything Brussels tell us to do in future, regardless whether it suits our culture or economy?

# 42

Posted: 29/10/2009 19:55

Anonymous, I am not necessarily proposing an absolute, invariable limit of 30 for young drivers only, although I don't think the objections you mention are all that persuasive. I would suggest that all cars be limited to a safe speed that would vary according to the type of road and driver, and possibly to the number of other cars around. Wireless computer systems already allow this to be done.I would prefer young and new drivers to be limited to a lower speed than others in locations where that seems advisable, and as for your point about frustrated drivers delayed behind them, frustration doesn't kill, and these more mature drivers can either overtake safely -- being allowed to go a bit faster -- or just wait, being mature enough to do so. With regard to people finding a way of disabling the devices, this would be a crime, and in any case, with modern technology cars can be (and already are -- see the Traksure scheme for young drivers) monitored in all sorts of ways, e.g. by satellite using black boxes that would have to be tampered with pretty drastically to be disabled. I suspect that we will eventually see self-driving cars, and speeding offences will become a thing of the past instead of a national way of life.

# 41

Posted: 29/10/2009 15:44

ann,

Sorry....did you not read my last post?  I particularly mentioned the fact that drivers beyond this jurisdiction get away with it. I also 'mentioned' the 'govts' unlevel playing field.....read it again....and....any comments on the other points eg...cyclist, the 'guards', the law etc etc...would be welcome.

buzz n alphasun....agree with u n others.  Thanks.

# 40

Posted: 29/10/2009 09:49

Yes alphasun, young male drivers are predominantly (but not all) the ones who use excessive speed when driving, but seriously, limiting them to a speed 30 is just not practical. For a start it would mean they would be breaking the law on every motorway in the country - unless you're going to suggest they all use both less safe minor roads and are forced through every over-congested town and city. Second it would just be a safety hazard - can you image the frustration of other drivers stuck behind a line of cars doing 30? This would also double the number of through traffic on roads where traffic is actually moving. This already leads to people overtaking ina dangerous manner and that would be so much worse, the more slow drivers that are on the road. Third, what is to stop them borrowing a car from family or freind and what happens when an older family member uses their car? Are they too, despite their experience, compelled to drive slowly ? - a nice fix to be in if you have to use car to take a child, pregnant woman or elderly person to hospital. Also do yu really think for a minute that people wouldn't find a clever way to disable the devices. Control,if it is to actually work, must be internal.

# 39

Posted: 28/10/2009 18:23

Ann, I fail to see how it is particularly 'lucrative' to pursue drinking drivers, but I agree that speeding should be targeted. A stationary car (unless parked so as to form a dangerous obstruction) cannot cause an accident, and every mile perhour of speed adds to the potential harm it can cause. People hit at a speed of 30mph have apparently a much beter chance of survival than those hit at higher speeds.

It follows that one of the most effective measures that could be taken would be to install speed limiting governors on all cars -- they already exist for some vehicles. Younger drivers, who are by far the most dangerous, could be limited to 30 or less and more experienced drivers perhaps allowed to go faster according to their safety records.

This is a concept that is found in a crude form in the driving ban, which imposes zero speed. However, it raises an outcry from our bould troop of motorists, who are so wedded to the pleasure and eof speed and have not usualy had to witness a serious crash and its aftermath.

# 38

Posted: 28/10/2009 11:42

Hi

I would certainly prioritise someone's safety on the road over livelihood, after all what is the point having profits if you are mangled at the side of the road or behind the wheel.

It also has to be remembered that publicans have been raving about the smoking ban causing a drop in sales for years now...but they never think to look at other factors such as the huge markup on drink.

Why drink in the pub at €4.80 a pint when you can buy 6 cans for €9.99?

It suits publicans to use the smoking ban as their scapegoat, but the reality is sales have not dropped for one reason only.

# 37

Posted: 28/10/2009 06:14

The suggestion that those of us in rural areas who do not depend on alcohol have no social life is pure fiction. The opposite is true. There are so many social activities in these areas that do not depend on alcohol consumption. Many of these social activities are outdoor and require the use of transport to travel long distances often shared. Travelling to schools, shops, church etc. does not seem to be a problem. But when it comes to the pub it is a different matter! Remember the objecton to the smoking ban in the workplace! Most of it referred to pubs forgetting the benefit to workers in all other sectors.

There is no smoke witofire!

# 36

Posted: 27/10/2009 14:15

Brandy 22/10, one group you failed to mention, maybe through fear of political incorrectness and that would never do, are foreign drivers who cannot be given points because of their foreign driving licences.

A level playing field is another thing our govt does not aspire to before bringing in their draconian laws, just like the smoking ban that disenfranchised a minority's legal habit by throwing smokers onto the streets to smoke a legal cigarette, thanks to the power of suggestion by the vested interests who seem to rule this country rather than our govt.

As regards a taxi service for people living in rural Ireland.  It has been tried and DOES NOT WORK.

Pubs in rural Ireland are barely keeping afloat since the smoking ban and nowadays open only in the evenings and are mostly family run, otherwise they could not stay open at all, as they cannot afford to employ bar staff and more often, with just one person available to serve in the bar.

If a rural pub could provide a taxi service, how could they be expected to collect, or to drive pub goers home, with people living many miles away and in different directions, or if their customers did drive to the pub where do they leave their cars with no car parks.  How do they collect their cars the next day with no transport.

So get real and just THINK please, before making unworkable suggestions that you must be picking up from media spin doctors, that havent a clue about life in rural Ireland and just play to the audience with their quick-fit soliutions for all, on matters they havent a clue about.

I notice that no one on this site makes the argument that speeding and drugs, which are not detectable in a breath test, as being the prime factor for accidents on the roads.

I wonder is that because drink/driving is by far the more lucrative and easier to detect and control.

# 35

Posted: 26/10/2009 11:12

alphasun, the digestion of certain fruits does result in a limitied fermentation process. I do agree with your point on enforcement tho'. However, deciding that "some of whom would do well to abstain anyway@ is really not your place to say and frankly not your judgement call. Brandy, as far as I am aware, there is now, and only recently a cross border alignment of records, so a driving offence her applies there and vice versa. I agree however, the law should be for everyone - politicians, guards and everyone else.

# 34

Posted: 24/10/2009 10:23

First, where did this idea come from that eating fruit will somehow result in a blood alcohol level? This is barmy as far as a healthy person is concerned.

A zero limit removes all confusion, but 50mg is progress.

I noticed that when a spokesman for a road safety orgasnisation quoted the better statistics in other countries that followed the introduction of the 50mg limit, he mentioned that these countries had simultaneously introduced random breath testing. I suspect that this may confuse the statistics to some extent, and I believe that if motorists were aware that there was a good chance, say one in twenty, of meeting a mobile random breath tester  the level of drink driving would drop considerably.

The issue of social isolation in rural areas is a real one, but I feel that society can adapt, and I would ask which is more important -- the boredom or frustration of pint-dependent groups of people, some of whom would do well to abstain anyway, or the avoidance of death  and serious injury, with all the attendant human and financial cost?

# 33

Posted: 22/10/2009 17:28

I think the legal alcohol limit should be zero:

As a drinker and a driver.....I will not drink and drive.  I think that a reduction to x limit is a joke...it would be so small as to be ridiculous.

There are a few points to be made here however:

1.  If this was to be brought into affect....it should apply to every one on the roads here; we already know that drivers from the North can break driving laws down here with impunity. Will these laws apply to them?....because, to date they don't even have to worry about speed or tolls down here!!

2.  When I say "every one on the road"...I mean cyclists aswell; if any one thinks that a drunken cyclist could not 'kill' any one else....then they'd want to cop on....they already get away with 'breaking' red lights and are 'never' caught!

3.  The Law is an ass....does any one think that there are never, ever gardai driving over the limit?  How many are prosecuted?  if there are 1 or 2 that hit the headlines...should we be foolish enough to think that that is all? If I'm a 'Guard' and I come across some one from my own area...and he/she is an acquaintance of mine....do you think I'll be prosecuting them???

4.  If a driver of a diplomat's car is observed to be erratic...are we foolish enough to believe that he/she will be punished to the full extent of the law??  For that matter....how many minister's/president's cars are checked....answer...absolutely none !!

What I'm saying here, is that laws in this country...while the politicians express them to be for the public good...and they might be....do not encompass the whole of society....there are those, in power etc......who are immune.

Re the country pubs etc; I'm sure there is an opening for a 'mini-bus' etc to make sure the rural communities...who might be affected....could avail of the 'distant' local pubs.....might even give employment to an out-of-work driver??

# 32

Posted: 22/10/2009 13:51

Catts, the legal limit is 80 and the proposed new limit is 50 so you are not actulaly over the limit with one unit at the moment unless you are very small in stature. Alcohol on its own moderately taken, is not a dangerous substance so that assertion is untrue mixed with driving of course is a different matter. Yes Drago, you're quite right a breathalyser can't convict you, a blood or urine sample is needed for that but with the new limit, those between 50 and 80mg will not have their driving license revoked, be charged in court or be banned from driving but will recieve penalty points and a fine.

# 31

Posted: 22/10/2009 08:35

Anon, fair enough regarding moutwash, but then to the best of my knowledge, a breathalyser can't convict you, the gardai need to take a blood or urine sample to confirm results. perhaps somebody can correct me on this?

# 30

Posted: 22/10/2009 00:18

The more I think of it, the more I am convinced that if you drink at all then you are very definitely over the limit, other people will benefit from you leaving your car at home, what is the big deal  ALCOHOL IS A DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE MIXED WITH DRIVING IS LETHAL AND HAS TO BE AVOIDED ENTIRELY. So as far as I am concerned the limit should be ZERO

# 29

Posted: 21/10/2009 14:20

Wwifofire, with respect, I am talking about the next morning. Have you never gone out, had four pints, got a taxi home and driven the next morning? If so, there would have been a significant chance you were over the limit as you stil have had alcohol in your system. How many road deaths occur from people who have had a pint and a half - this being over the limit? Moytheash contains alcohol and the digestio of fruit creates alcohol inthe system both of which would show up in a breath or blood test at a zero alcohol limit. You yoyurself admit that it is tiredness that is a contributary factor in many accidents and not having a pint and half and you can;t arrst peopel for tiredness - you;d have us all in jail. People on illegal drugs should not drive at all I would think. . The difference with the smoking ban is that your landlord polices it - do you expect him to police the lower alcohol limit as well? Now the bit about ruining the social life I don't get either to be honest. I don't see the problem with going to the pub and having a few soft drinks or meeting in a cafe (or pub) and having a few coffees. There is nothing wrong with alcohol in moderation priviuded you act safely (get sa lift of taxi home) but I agree it's not neccessary.

# 28

Posted: 21/10/2009 09:31

What's the point in lowering it if it's not policed? I've never in my life driven past a police checkpoint for this.

# 27

Posted: 20/10/2009 19:01

Anonymous,I suggest you read your own post. You seem to infer that people can be over the legal limit and not be a danger to the public. It has been proven in other countries that dropping the legal limit brings about a reduction in road deaths.Suggesting that fruit or mouthwash could not be used is what is really silly. Tiredness is a contributary factor in many accidents. People on certain drugs should not drive anyway.

I doubt if half the country would have to be put off the road in the event of a lifetime ban for having one pint. Maybe half the population would not drive while under the influence! Impractical and unenforceable – they said that about the smoking ban in the workplace too!

It really grates my nerves to hear those bleeding heart publicans bemoaning the loss of jobs in rural Ireland – their only interest is profit. All this malarky about it ruining social life in the rural areas is hogwash. What is ruining life in those areas is abuse of alcohol. People must realise that alcohol consumption is not neccessary for social interaction.

There is no smoke witofire!

# 26

Posted: 20/10/2009 16:05

For goodness sake witofire, I was referring to people who are technically still over the limit driving to work the next day but who aren't a danger to anyone

Read the post please

# 25

Posted: 20/10/2009 14:07

Hi Drago, do they mention the other 63.5% ie the majority, at all?

# 24

Posted: 19/10/2009 17:23

Anon Post #20,

“Some people are technically still over the limit driving to work the net day even tho' they aren't a danger to anyone.” Does that mean that someone who drinks so much that they are still drunk the following morning is suffering from a particular type of drunkenness that makes it safe for them to drive?

There is no smoke witofire!

# 23

Posted: 19/10/2009 16:02

according to the RSA, 36.5% of traffic fatalities in 2003 were a direct result of drink driving. official stats on the gardai website state that 335 people were killed on the roads in 2003, meaning 122 of them were killed because of drink driving. Just something to think about.

# 22

Posted: 19/10/2009 16:01

I think I can help with "sterotypical" - you can usually tell by the car they are driving (a big handle thing on the back bumper - makes the car go faster you know, fat tyres etc), and how they drive it (squealing tyres, loud exhausts, lots of reving and then of course the speed).  These souped up older cars are usually loaded up with other young fellows. I think the insurance companies would agree that men under 25 are the most likely to have an accident. Thankfully there are loads of young men in this age group who drive within the law, but sadly they too could become victims of the sterotypical types! Zero tolerance for drinking and drugging when driving - how can you live with yourself if something goes wrong, and ... how do victims live with the life-sentence of drinkers/drugger's actions repercussing onto them? Take a taxi or a bus/train or stay home and party there.

# 21

Posted: 19/10/2009 14:55

Sorry I think I answered too quickly on a Monday morning and read the question wrong. It should read yes - I think the law should be not to drink at all and drive.

# 20

Posted: 19/10/2009 14:25

I think maybe I was a bit hasty, I said that for me personally the limit is Zero - in other words I don't drive if I have drank alcohol. Of course a real zero limit means none of us can eat fruit or use mouth wash - which would be a bit silly. However I think others made excellent point about a zero legal limit meanignthat some people are technically still over the limoit driving to work the net day even tho' they aren't a danger to anyone. This of course would be a ludicrous situaiton ad would make criminals out of half the country. To the perosn who thinks there should be a lifetime ban for anyone having one pint??? You'd render half the country unemployable on those grounds alone  - impractical and unenforceable. Dancing queen if we had to ban from the road everyone who was tired, every working parent in the country would be off the road. Ban anyone on medication and the rest of us are off the road. Irishmike moderate intake of certain types of alcohol (while not drivign of course) actually have certain proven health benefits.