Printable View
In the first article, Ahern apparently stated that “26 people had lost their lives in the past two weeks, while an average of over one a day had died this year”. This looks suspiciously like Ahern bumping numbers by suggesting that all of those road deaths were caused by drink driving -- does anyone know the facts here?
I dislike this kind of law intensely, it's USA/PATRIOT-style putting the cart before the horse, hit and miss policing.
adam
hmmm, still something has to be done about deaths on the road, and i know drink driving is still a major problem from what ive seenQuote:
Originally Posted by Ken Shabby
How many years now have FF had to make these road law changes?
I got stopped monday night by checkpoint & they never check tax or insurance which is very unusual. Must have been rare drink driving checkpoint or else looking for gangland hitmen.
:eek: :eek: Lads I cant stop laughing I read the topic wrong and thought It was random breast tests..................:eek:
I'm on my way to Templemore!:pQuote:
Originally Posted by ccfcgirl
Much as I dislike the police being able to pester people who haven't done anything wrong, I'd be willing to give up that much to help stop other road users from putting me at risk. I'm open to other workable suggestions though.
You're dead right and unfortunately i'm in a very well-informed position to tell you that i know 2 of the 26 cases and drink was not involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Shabby
I agree with yer opinion on the act.
As if Garda resources weren't stretched enough without sendind them out to harass the general public (not the bad drivers as such.)
Also i thought these handle changes/mergers were limited to one.:)
Someone get Vetinari on the case.
Edit = A face below says my opinion perfectly.
Education, Education, education.
Why cant they just tackle the driving education and test process and be done with the whole problem. People in this country have a very good chance of filtering through the system not knowing how to actually drive safely. It is crazy .... Driving Instructors is a complete mixed bag and it is all over the place. There is nothing stopping you from sitting you test without having had one lesson.
People also never get to learn about other aspects other than driving such as traffic and how it manages itself and how bad driving contributes to it. Also speed and that whole issue, the science behind it and how out of control you can actually be if you need to react. Driving manners and behaviour, road rage and all that stuff. The list goes on .... and if people knew about it, it would probably resolve an awful lot.
Can blame people for driving poorly if they have never been thought, or if they have never had to think about it barr the driving test, which actually isn't a proper test at all.
Their answer is to bring out this radical measure to bring us closer to being a police state yet again. ffs
It is being proposed that random breath test be introduced as a measure to help the problem of drink driving.
At the moment it is illegal for Gardaí to stop motorists at random and breath test them, they can only ask them to take a breath test if the form the opinion that they may be under the influence.
The Oireachtas Enterprise & Small Business Committee have asked for a referendum on it to let the people decide!
I think it should be allowed and think it would have a major impact on the number drink drivers on our roads!
I would have no problem in providing a breath sample if stopped but many people are saying its unconstitutional and shouldn't be!! I would presume most people are all for random breath testing! But I could be wrong what do you think??
I'm all in favour. 399 deaths on the road last year is way to high. I know a lot of peole, especially the older generation, that continue to drink and drive. I spent a good bit of time on the roads over Xmas/New Year and didn't see a single check-point.
If you have nothing to hide it's not a hassle to get checked.Anyone that drinks and drives are nothing but mugs imo.I'd be for it.
It's a good idea.
I'm fairly sure they can do random testing in England. I got stopped late one night before Christmas for driving a few yards with no lights on (newish car - I forgot :o ). The guy asked had I had a drink, and I told him that being honest I'd had one. Because I said that, he said he had to breathalyse me, but I'm sure he could've anyway.
Though this was the annoying bit - because of a lack of funds, each Police car apparently doesn't carry its own dedicated breath-test kit. So I had to stand at the side of the road in freezing cold fog at 1:30am at night for 25mins -with a friend waiting in the car having no idea what was going on - whilst they radioed and waited for another car that had one to come and meet us!
So if the Gardai do introduce this positive meaaure, I hope for the sake of Irish motorists they've got the funding in-place to equip all vehciles accordingly ! Otheriwse - make sure you've got a nice warm jacket in your car (I didn't !)
I think this is a disgracefull attempt to sell more mints.
Wasnt there some figure realsed that drink is a major factor in 30% of road deaths? Anseo
I think fair enough, the whole idea of Government is that you ceade some of your liberity for security. Im more than happy to be stopped every now and again and give a random test if it increases the chances of me not coming up against a drunk driver
I agree with you Ken in that I also dislike this type of law but I dislike even more people being killed so overall I'm in favour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Shabby
I also agree with the point A-Face made earlier about driver education but I think that that's not the only problem. Obviously noone turns up drunk for their test or speeds during it. There's no education issue here simply poor behaviour. The solution to people not knowing how to handle their car is education. The solution to people knowingly handling their car badly is enforcement.
I would imagine face meant education when it comes to alcohol, not drunk driving. Irish people are atrociously badly educated when it comes to drink. Hopefully this is being addressed at primary/secondary level now, but this won't tackle the adult population, and I have major doubts that the shock'n'awe ads do either. I have no time for those ads at all, and I doubt any of the organisations involved have a shred of serious, proven evidence to back up their claimed effectiveness.
Same goes for this, for speed cameras, for CCTV, for nearly every new iniative modern policing organisations come up with. Like I said, hit and miss policing. Governments should be investing in police, not "initiatives" and marketing.
adam
OK, so if they get the new police, what do they do then? Its obviously not an ideal situation but surely these "small" efforts add up to the " every little helps" I'm usually not one for hyperbole and clichès but surely if it saves even one life, no one can be that put off having to blow into a tube?
People who commit crime of ANY sort are only incentivised to stop doing so when the chances of being caught are high - and particularly when it outweighs the reward gained form committing that crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Shabby
If people believe there's a genuine risk they'll get caught drink-driving, then a lot will stop doing it. There is a small hardcore of repetitive drink-drivers who will frankly be stopped by nothing short of injury or prison. The vast majority of the remainder are ordinary people like you and me who on-occassion have had a few too many, are stuck with their car etc etc, and think to themselves - 'ahh, I'll never be able to find a taxi/it'll be too expensive, so I'll just drive nice and steady home. It's not far, no big deal and I won't get caught'. The reward from that criminal act - getting the car and yourself home quickly and easily, without the hassle and expense of getting a taxi and returning the next day for the car - outwighs the perceived risk of getting caught. Random breath-testing will both increase the deterrent factor for those people, and also act as a final solution for the small hardcore who will drink-drive regardless.
The opposite of random breath-testing is only doing it when you have a clear suspicion that someone may be over the limit. That places drivers in the position where as long as THEY believe they can successfully exhibit driving nornally (we all over-estimate our abilities after a few jars) they perceive they're highly unlikely to get caught. Which makes them willing to committ the crime.
Random breath-testing introduces the risk that they could get stopped for no apparent reason - increasing the risk of being caught, reducing the likely net-reward from the criminal act and, if it's well advertised and seen to be happening, thereby impactiing their willingness to do it.
I therefore can't see how stopping cars and breathalysing people only when you have clear suspicion will be as effective in stopping drink-driving as doing it randomly.
If you're saying that random breath-testing etc are just gimics, and that the real solution is more police on the beat the question then becomes - 'Will that be more effective as a deterrent for drink-driving and other crimes than random breath-testing, CCTV etc et?' ? Unless you have police saturation, they will not be an effective deterrent for most types of crime. And again, if you only breath-test on suspicion, then they won't alter the risk-reward balance for the majority of drink-drivers - no matter how many police you throw on the streets.
I thought speed was the main factor (on motorways as that's the only place they have camera's)
Don't see the need for this law at all. They can already do random breath checks via the tax and insurance checkpoints. If they smell drink then that's enough to justify breathalysing you.
Are there actual figure's for the numbers caused by speed, drink etc and at what time? If they do crack down on drink driving (which I think they should, just not through random testing), will they set up checkpoints at the right time on the right roads? Or will it be like the farcical situation with speed checks on good roads during daylight only?
btw I wouldn't trust any organisation that launches a campaign about people having one drink and being below the limit in the run up to Christmas when the majority of drink drivers caught are multiples of the current limit. Christ, concentrate on the law abiding motorists rather than the one's driving around locked :rolleyes:
Thats not random though Macy - they have to smell the alcohol or see you driving erratically to breathalise you. If this law is brought in they can set up check-points just to perform breath tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
I think it would deter people way more from drink driving.
Possibly random breath tests would work, but only if it was done in the right places at the right time. There is no evidence from speed checks and drink drive/ tax and insurance checkpoints that there is the desire in the guards to actually do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by finlma
How many check point’s do you see at night coming out of country towns and villages now? Or around cities? They could catch far more under the current system, if they only showed the will. Changing the law will make fook all difference is there is still no check points.
While Macy spoke a lot of sense about education earlier on I'm all for random breath testing as it's been shown to be one of the tools available in countries where international best practice holds sway ... i.e. 19-20 deaths per month per 4 million population as opposed to our 33 per month per 4 million population.
I agree with that completely. There are places that are notorious for drink driving and accidents. Most of these are rural locations. If check-points were set up on a random basis in these areas word would spread pretty quick and I think drink driving numbers would be greatly reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Are the random tests also going to cover drugs? Could this be used as a system of random drug testing through the back door?
Ehhhh? It'd only cover drivers - which means only people over the age of 17 (?) who both can drive and happen to be actively doing so at the time they are stopped. So hardly a process for introducing anything upon the general population really...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
Drivers make up a fair chunk of the population though Steve. Probably a majority of the adult population.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
The situation I'm wondering about is if someone were stopped and traces of an illegal drug were found in their system, could they be prosecuted? I presume traces of most substances could be detected even a few days after they've been taken. There is a limit for alcohol (80mg/l or something like that) which ensures that only people drunk at the time are arrested, trace ammounts of alcohol in your body are ignored. Is there a similar limit for cocaine or cannibas? Could someone who smoked or snorted something a few days ago be done for drugged driving?
(Disclaimer: IANAL) I doubt they could. The state would be obliged to prove in court that their driving was impared by it. Whether you could be done for taking drugs or not is another matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
But even taking it to court could be enough to loose someone their job. With the proposed law as it currently seems to stand there will be at the very least one test case.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83