Dempsey in 'nanny state' showdown on drink-driving limits

Quote:

---

TRANSPORT Minister Noel Dempsey is facing a major showdown with Fianna Fail backbenchers who are openly accusing him of pursuing "nanny state" policies.

A motion signed by 21 backbench Fianna Fail TDs, which called for drink-driving limits to be left unchanged, has been temporarily withdrawn after Mr Dempsey acceded to requests for a debate at tomorrow night's Fianna Fail parliamentary party meeting.

The minister's plans to lower the blood alcohol limit from 80mg to 50mg -- effectively putting motorists over the legal limit after one drink -- and to reduce the level to 20mg for learner and professional drivers faces stiff opposition from angry backbenchers who have branded the change a "sledgehammer approach", a "scud missile" and a "step too far".

However, the Road Safety Authority (RSA) said it is "scientific fact" that a reduction in the limit would save lives.

---

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...s-1917582.html

If they were really serious about saving lives they'd enforce the existing laws. The amount of learner drivers driving around on their own. The amount of speeding in built up areas. :mad:

I doubt the RSA would know a "scientific fact" if one came up and bit them on the arse.

And niether the Government or the RSA are arsed about actually doing something on road safety, once they can be seen to be doing something on road safety.

More on this: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking27.htm

Totally agree with the reduction, stunned that people are opposed to it.

The proposed "middle ground" of reducing the limit to 50, but only a penalty point sanction for 50-100 is a VFI/FF abomination that will likely increase drink driving rather than reduce it. Its an absolute disgrace.

I'm also sick of hearing the same old "social fabric"/"lonely bachelor" argument in favour of drink driving.

If its a social concern and the pub is only a social meeting place, why do people NEED to drink alcohol, why can't they take the car and have a soft drink? Even better, why can't groups of people take turns to have a soft drink and be a designated driver?

The cold, hard truth is that this reflects more on our dependence on alcohol rather than anything specifically to do with drink driving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I'm also sick of hearing the same old "social fabric"/"lonely bachelor" argument in favour of drink driving.
If its a social concern and the pub is only a social meeting place, why do people NEED to drink alcohol, why can't they take the car and have a soft drink? Even better, why can't groups of people take turns to have a soft drink and be a designated driver?

---

AND/OR ...how about a little initiative from the other side of the bar? From all these pubs in all these provincial towns and villages that are supposedly taking a hammering because of the drink driving laws I have heard of exactly zero ideas on how they, as the service providers, could facilitate the safe, affordable transport of customers home from their premises. Zero.

None of them seem to have come together and said lets hammer out a deal with somone licensed to drive a 15-20 seater to tour our 5-6 pubs from say 11pm to 1.30am picking up folks ready to call it a night.

I can't believe it wouldn't work when I know of no evidence that it's ever even been tried.

Ah it has LR, there's been minibuses ploughing the boreens taking people home for years. I don't know the details (cost, margins, who pays, etc) but plenty of pubs in east Cork do it.

There should be zero tolerence as regards drink. You should not be allowed one drop and drive afterwards. As regards people not indicating is that a thing of the past now??

You can't have a zero policy on drink-driving, as has been explained here a dozen times, too many things contain alcohol to make it technically feasible. There has to be a limit, the question is where that limit is set.

Personally, I think the limit should stay where it is but an additional clause should be added, whereby anyone whose driving is affected by less than one pint is put in jail for a month for being a pussy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

You can't have a zero policy on drink-driving, as has been explained here a dozen times, too many things contain alcohol to make it technically feasible. There has to be a limit, the question is where that limit is set.

Personally, I think the limit should stay where it is but an additional clause should be added, whereby anyone whose driving is affected by less than one pint is put in jail for a month for being a pussy.

---

You can you just don't eat or drink anything with alcohol in it and if you do you don't drive. Not hard to do. A life before a drink for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rafa B

You can you just don't eat or drink anything with alcohol in it and if you do you don't drive. Not hard to do. A life before a drink for me.

---

How long do you wait after you have a drink to drive? 12 hours, a day, a week?

Is your zero to one decimal point, two, three four....

Lots of practical reasons why zero is unfair.

50 is the European standard, and I'd want to know why its right for most other countries but not us?

Call me a cinic but whats the deal with - "ah if its your first time we wont ban you, we will just take money off you, recesion and all that guvnor".

Quote:

---

However, this morning's reports say the new law will also allow for motorists with a blood-alcohol reading below 100mgs to receive a fine and penalty points rather than a driving ban.

---

linky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

How long do you wait after you have a drink to drive? 12 hours, a day, a week?

Is your zero to one decimal point, two, three four....

Lots of practical reasons why zero is unfair.

50 is the European standard, and I'd want to know why its right for most other countries but not us?

---

Mostly agree with that, though I think 80's a reasonable limit, and reducing it further will have no effect whatsoever. As someone else has said, enforcement is so poor that there's a far more obvious route to achieving some results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Mostly agree with that, though I think 80's a reasonable limit, and reducing it further will have no effect whatsoever. As someone else has said, enforcement is so poor that there's a far more obvious route to achieving some results.

---

I can't link to a report, but there was a medical-type on Newstalk this morning who reckoned there is concrete proof that reducing the level from 80-50 has had a material reduction in the level of drink driving accidents, injuries and deaths in other countries.

I do agree that the limited enforcement currently greatly reduces the impact.

To me however, thats an argument for more enforcement AND reducing the limit, not keeping the limit where it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I can't link to a report, but there was a medical-type on Newstalk this morning who reckoned there is concrete proof that reducing the level from 80-50 has had a material reduction in the level of drink driving accidents, injuries and deaths in other countries.

I do agree that the limited enforcement currently greatly reduces the impact.

To me however, thats an argument for more enforcement AND reducing the limit, not keeping the limit where it is.

---

They usually reference North Queensland when talking about zero tolerance but afaik they have a much higher rate of random breathalizing and enforcement than we seem unable to manage. When done in tandem then it would make a huge difference, however it needs a change of attitude from the general public as well.

OT posts deleted.

The worst thing about the enforcement is that in the six months after the establishment of the separate Gardai Traffic Corps and introduction of random breath testing there was a definite blitz of enforcement.

I went through 3 or 4 checkpoints in just over a month and remember taxi drivers bitching and moaning (plus ca change) that they had been stopped 4 or 5 times in one evening at checkpoints and breathalysed.

I'm not sure whether its solely down to the clampdown on Gardai numbers and overtime but the visibility of the Traffic Corps has dropped hugely in the last year.

Virtually all the FF back benchers are against the reduction: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking27.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Totally agree with the reduction, stunned that people are opposed to it.

---

Selfishly, I'm opposed to it. I often enjoy a pint or two after different occasions before then driving home, possibly a few hours after consumption. I'm a careful driver usually, and that doesn't change. My response-times, awareness and judgment might be technically poorer if tested. But any deterioration can only be negligible and I don't consider my behaviour irresponsible. So I'm opposed to it on the selfish, narrow basis that it would impinge on me without achieving its aim.

I would also 'oppose' it in the sense that others have touched on: it's impotent without greater enforcement. Also other things could be more effective at making roads safer - eg, speed cameras at blackspots, lower speed-limits at blackspots, more stringent driving tests, higher sanctions for speeding, etc.

It would be a pity if the regulation was over-inclusive and criminalised safe driving. I accept a system can't work on a nebulous "who is or isn't safe" - so there has to be a limit. For me though, the balance would swing too far if the level is reduced.

Reducing the limit without increasing enforcement is window dressing. You are just criminalising people who stick to the current limit, when most of those actually caught for drink driving are multiples of the current limit.

I expect we'll keep see new laws, with no increase in enforcement over the next few years, as it costs nothing. It does nothing either, but who cares about that?