Drink Driving

[gallsman]

I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.

I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours

There's a word for those people - c***ts.

Do you drive? Do you drink?

If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.

Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.

I have driven the next morning after nights out for sure. I have never "had a lock of pints and driven home".

[macdanger2]

I'd be curious as to the percentage of accidents caused by drivers at or marginally above the limit versus those caused by drivers speeding, texting or generally not paying attention.

I thought something similar when they lowered the alcohol limits (from 0.08 to 0.05 I think?) there a few years back. How many accidents were where the driver had a blood alcohol of 0.05-0.08 and so were being prevented by that change?

It would also be ineresting to consider the number of accidents caused by fairly marginal speeding (e.g. 0-10kph over the limit) - how significant is that? Lets face it, it's something we all do but we probably wouldn't consider it in the same vein as drink driving.

[NAG1]

I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.

I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours

There's a word for those people - c***ts.

Do you drive? Do you drink?

If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.

Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.

I have driven the next morning after nights out for sure. I have never "had a lock of pints and driven home".

Fair to say you live in an urban environment Gallsman?

[whitey]

I'd be curious as to the percentage of accidents caused by drivers at or marginally above the limit versus those caused by drivers speeding, texting or generally not paying attention.

I thought something similar when they lowered the alcohol limits (from 0.08 to 0.05 I think?) there a few years back. How many accidents were where the driver had a blood alcohol of 0.05-0.08 and so were being prevented by that change?

It would also be ineresting to consider the number of accidents caused by fairly marginal speeding (e.g. 0-10kph over the limit) - how significant is that? Lets face it, it's something we all do but we probably wouldn't consider it in the same vein as drink driving.

It would be interesting to look at the stats....what percentage of accidents are caused by drink drivers as opposed to people speeding and generally not paying attention

[blewuporstuffed]

I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.

I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours

There's a word for those people - c***ts.

Do you drive? Do you drink?

If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.

Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.

I have driven the next morning after nights out for sure. I have never "had a lock of pints and driven home".

Fair to say you live in an urban environment Gallsman?

I don't think your location is any excuse

[NAG1]

I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.

I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours

There's a word for those people - c***ts.

Do you drive? Do you drink?

If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.

Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.

I have driven the next morning after nights out for sure. I have never "had a lock of pints and driven home".

Fair to say you live in an urban environment Gallsman?

I don't think your location is any excuse

Didnt say it was an excuse Blewup

Difference is that when you are in Belfast it is perfectly easy to step out of any pub hail a taxi and on you go.

This is not available in rural areas therefore it is a more rural problem. So while I am not excusing it, it is easy to point the finger from an area of relative comfort. Not picking an urban rural fight either I am merely pointing out the difference.

[93-DY-SAM]

What if this guy only had two pints in him and had the same accident. The end result is still the same and no less tragic. If you are over the limit you are over the limit. Granted the more you have to drink the greater risk you become to yourself and everyone around you but accidents can still happen even after 1 or 2 pints. Should you end up in court you can be sure the judge won't say "Ah sure your grand, you only had 2 pints and you were a sensible fella to call it a day at that so you could drive yourself home".

[thewobbler]

It is of course a very emotive subject. It's not possible to read something like this opening post, without withering inside.

But those people (such as a few on this thread) who feel the need to wash drink driving as a black and white issue do not help at all.

As with all crimes and misdemeanours, there's 100 shades of grey before you reach the 50 shades of black. While a breathalyser might indicate that someone who is 0.01 over the limit has broken the same law as someone who 6 times the limit, there is not a judge in the world who would treat the cases the same.

But hand on heart, I'd prefer to take my chances on the road with a 5-pint man driving a car within the speed limits, over a pioneer who wilfully drives at 40mph in built-up areas. They're both guilty, but one of them is less likely to kill someone.

A car is one of the most dangerous weapons ever created by man, especially in the hands of a careless person.  There is no doubt that alcohol can be the conduit that evolves a normal person into a careless person, and as such we absolutely need laws that deter that carelessness from taking foot. But without meaning to sound flippant, human beings are a careless bunch, and the only way to stop human beings causing needless car accidents is to either ban cars or to wipe out humans. In scenarios such as the one that 93-DY-SAM describes above, I would put the 2 pints of alcohol a distant third (behind cars, and humans) in the reasons why someone died. 

[macdanger2]

What if this guy only had two pints in him and had the same accident. The end result is still the same and no less tragic. If you are over the limit you are over the limit. Granted the more you have to drink the greater risk you become to yourself and everyone around you but accidents can still happen even after 1 or 2 pints. Should you end up in court you can be sure the judge won't say "Ah sure your grand, you only had 2 pints and you were a sensible fella to call it a day at that so you could drive yourself home".

You'd wonder is the fella who's has 2-3 pints regularly and thinks he's grand more of a danger than the guy who's had 7-8 pints and knows he's cut but for whatever reason feels he has to drive but is being extra careful, driving pretty slowly, etc.?

[93-DY-SAM]

In scenarios such as the one that 93-DY-SAM describes above, I would put the 2 pints of alcohol a distant third (behind cars, and humans) in the reasons why someone died.

Granted, things are never completely black and white but if you are standing in front of a judge after being in an accident having killed a child (or anyone for that matter) after having a couple of drinks in what order do you think they will look at things?  No one will ever be able to prove that if you didn't have those couple of drinks the accident would never have happened but the mere fact there is alcohol involved means that is what gets the blame. So I'm saying why even put yourself in that situation in the first place and leave yourself at risk.

[deiseach]

I'm comfortable with the idea of portraying drink-driving as a black-and-white issue. I don't think it is inherently evil to drink-and-drive, and I appreciate the law has to be nuanced in sentencing. But it is something that is best treated as a taboo. Finbar O'Rourke said "I just didn't think, I just jumped into the car". If we lived in a place where getting behind the wheel with any amount of drink was frowned upon rather than treated as a form of the prisoner's dilemma, then some part of his lizard brain might have penetrated the fog of alcohol and stopped him before he ruined multiple lives - including his own.

[Bingo]

It is of course a very emotive subject. It's not possible to read something like this opening post, without withering inside.

But those people (such as a few on this thread) who feel the need to wash drink driving as a black and white issue do not help at all.

As with all crimes and misdemeanours, there's 100 shades of grey before you reach the 50 shades of black. While a breathalyser might indicate that someone who is 0.01 over the limit has broken the same law as someone who 6 times the limit, there is not a judge in the world who would treat the cases the same.

But hand on heart, I'd prefer to take my chances on the road with a 5-pint man driving a car within the speed limits, over a pioneer who wilfully drives at 40mph in built-up areas. They're both guilty, but one of them is less likely to kill someone.

A car is one of the most dangerous weapons ever created by man, especially in the hands of a careless person.  There is no doubt that alcohol can be the conduit that evolves a normal person into a careless person, and as such we absolutely need laws that deter that carelessness from taking foot. But without meaning to sound flippant, human beings are a careless bunch, and the only way to stop human beings causing needless car accidents is to either ban cars or to wipe out humans. In scenarios such as the one that 93-DY-SAM describes above, I would put the 2 pints of alcohol a distant third (behind cars, and humans) in the reasons why someone died.

I would consider this attitude as a more dangerous weapon than a car, 2 pints, a gun of whatever. And its a massive part of Irish society where actions of many are excused for some bullshit reason that sounds good when read out in court or talked about down the pub or outside the school gates. Everything seems to be excused.

When does 2 pints become 3? 5? 7? How many people excuse themselves as been fit to drive cause they can handle their drink. Jimmy seems Paddy taking 2 pints and driving, so he'll do it to but Jimmy is a light weight and 2 pints has him giddy and taking chances.

Getting into a car with a 5 pint driver within the speed limits should never be an option or a choice.

[general_lee]

It is completely a black and white issue. To argue otherwise is completely moronic. One drink alone can increase your risk of having an accident, so straight away your ability to drive will be brought into question if something does happen. I dare say doing 40 in a 30 zone is nowhere near as bad as driving after drinking near 3 litre of beer.

[Clov]

It is of course a very emotive subject. It's not possible to read something like this opening post, without withering inside.

But those people (such as a few on this thread) who feel the need to wash drink driving as a black and white issue do not help at all.

As with all crimes and misdemeanours, there's 100 shades of grey before you reach the 50 shades of black. While a breathalyser might indicate that someone who is 0.01 over the limit has broken the same law as someone who 6 times the limit, there is not a judge in the world who would treat the cases the same.

But hand on heart, I'd prefer to take my chances on the road with a 5-pint man driving a car within the speed limits, over a pioneer who wilfully drives at 40mph in built-up areas. They're both guilty, but one of them is less likely to kill someone.

A car is one of the most dangerous weapons ever created by man, especially in the hands of a careless person.  There is no doubt that alcohol can be the conduit that evolves a normal person into a careless person, and as such we absolutely need laws that deter that carelessness from taking foot. But without meaning to sound flippant, human beings are a careless bunch, and the only way to stop human beings causing needless car accidents is to either ban cars or to wipe out humans. In scenarios such as the one that 93-DY-SAM describes above, I would put the 2 pints of alcohol a distant third (behind cars, and humans) in the reasons why someone died.

I think this is where your argument misses the point - these two things are not uncorrelated. A 5-pint man behind the wheel is far more likely to drive 40mph in a built up area than if he were sober. Alcohol induces risk-taking.

[thewobbler]

Bingo, as long as you are willing to apply the same zero tolerance attitude to when anyone consciously chooses to break a driving law, then I'll applaud you for your integrity.

My point being that if you personally will tip it to 35mph in a built-up area if you're running a little late, then who are you to judge the man who believes he is of sound man to navigate that stretch at 40mph, 50mph, etc? Touch any pedestrian at those speeds and it's the end for them.

Personally I'm in 100% agreement with a drink driving limit, and like an earlier poster, I welcome the fact that drunk driving is largely taboo.

The point I'll continue to make though is don't lump people who've had a drink, in with people who aren't fit to drive. They're different, completely different entities.