Zero tolerence on Drink driving for new Drivers - ireland
Discussion
www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=9532
How would this work exactly ? I thought that drink driving tests were too inaccurate to work with zero tolerance.
In theory it sounds good, in practice it sounds like a nightmare for young people.
How would this work exactly ? I thought that drink driving tests were too inaccurate to work with zero tolerance.
In theory it sounds good, in practice it sounds like a nightmare for young people.
Minister Cullen is misguided. There is evidence, that the authorities find shocking, that low blood alcoloh levels result in a lower crash risk. That's not to encourage such low levels as the body's response is very individual. But the result is there.
The study on blood alcohol levels and crash risk that gave this country its drink drive limit, the Borkenstein Grand Rapids research, showed that levels of blood alcohol just above this country's drink drive limit start to be associated with a higher crash risk. There's no benefit by going down to 50 from 80, let alone 0. This kind of comment is typical of people who want to make a name for themselves in politics but who can't be arsed to do any homework before spouting forth.
A zero level would see people criminalised for eating some foods, taking some medicines, receiving Holy Communion in some churches, for using mouthwash, and even for just being alive as the body can metabolise some organics into alcohol. This is feckwittery of the highest order.
The study on blood alcohol levels and crash risk that gave this country its drink drive limit, the Borkenstein Grand Rapids research, showed that levels of blood alcohol just above this country's drink drive limit start to be associated with a higher crash risk. There's no benefit by going down to 50 from 80, let alone 0. This kind of comment is typical of people who want to make a name for themselves in politics but who can't be arsed to do any homework before spouting forth.
A zero level would see people criminalised for eating some foods, taking some medicines, receiving Holy Communion in some churches, for using mouthwash, and even for just being alive as the body can metabolise some organics into alcohol. This is feckwittery of the highest order.
apache said:That does seem to be the latest target and like anything that can seriously impair a driver's ability it needs attention, hopefully they'll get it right.
Minister Cullen is misguided.
he's also out of touch, the target of hate has moved on to the drugged driver these days
For blood alcohol, anyone who hasn't seen the BGR study might be interested in this graph. Note that dip at 35 that's had officialdom cursing and trying to massage the data or spin it away, plus the marked rise in risk at 95 which suggests 80 is a reasonable limit with an acceptable safety margin. Certainly 50 offers nothing but trouble, and zero is a joke (not a funny one).
turbobloke said:
A zero level would see people criminalised for eating some foods, taking some medicines, receiving Holy Communion in some churches, for using mouthwash, and even for just being alive as the body can metabolise some organics into alcohol. This is feckwittery of the highest order.
Hmmmmmmm.....
Einion Yrth said:There's a lot of good PR to be had from a 29mg limit but precious little else really. Why 29? Why not 39? It would be interesting to know if there is a rational basis for it as opposed to selecting some 'impressively low' number.
Police safety critical posts are already subject to a 29mg limit, with random testing.
Probably needlessly cautious, but no big issue - it's the impossibility of a zero bac limit that is the issue.
If you look at the very gentle up-slope in the Grand Rapids results, and ignore the "safer" dip at 35, there is a good reason for suspecting it isn't purely to do with alcohol if at all. The number of people studied in the research was a big number, about 11000 in total, and there is every reason to believe that a person in any country at any time willing to consume any alcohol and get behind the wheel will take risks in other aspects of their life, including driving in its own right so to speak, so as you go from left to right you will see an increasing proportion of risk takers in the sample. It's reasonable to expect these folk will be involved in more crashes for that reason, not (just) alcohol.
Up to about 85 or 90 it's not necessarily alcohol related effects alone on show. Beyond that at about 90 up there's litte doubt we're into alcohol impairment and after that initial rise come the serious drinkers and alcoholics at the very top end. Our limit set at 80 is one of the objective commonsense aspects of motoring law and I for one hope it stays as it is.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff