Two for the road
For those of you who are fortunate enough not to live in Ireland, we have been having a bit of a spat over the last couple of weeks about our drink driving laws.
The Nanny State here wants to reduce the alcohol limit to 50mg, for ordinary drivers and 20mg for learners and professionals. It will save countless lives, they say.
A backbencher in the government had the temerity to suggest that some people drove better with a couple of pints on them. There was, of course an uproar. The chairman of the Road Safety Authority, Gay Byrne [qualifications? A chat show host. Don’t ask!] declared that this was “sheer madness” and that “If you believe that, you’ll believe anything”.
Now I am an open minded person. I won’t say I’ll believe anything, but I would never dismiss a claim like that out of hand.
Nor did the Sunday Times.
They took another backbencher and a reporter and they put them through a driving simulator to test reaction times and the like. They then fed them with a couple of pints of Guinness and tested them again.
Guess what?
Yup. Reaction times were better.
Of course the Road Safety Authority have dismissed this as “a gimmick” and “not a scientific study”. They say that “overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows even one drink impairs driving”. In other words, they are dismissing what they don’t want to hear and are falling back on the “overwhelming body of evidence” shite that they love so much.
Of course this little experiment is going to be hushed up. It doesn’t fit into the pattern that the Nanny State likes to present. They like to throw statistics and “scientific research” at us to prove how their way is the right way and they don’t like these figures to be questioned.
So far they have told us that banning smoking in the workplace will improve health [false] and will reduce the number of smokers [false]. They have said that banning the display of cigarettes will stop young people smoking [false]. Now they are saying that eliminating alcohol from the roads will save “countless lives”, and I maintain that that is yet another falsehood.
I am not saying that any drunk is a good driver. Far from it.
What I am saying is not to believe all the shite that the Nanny State throws at us.
S’true that reactions and short term memory will improve after small amounts of alcohol but that doesn’t last. Obviously mixing alcohol with driving a ton of machinery around is not a human right nor is it clever.
The objection I have to nanny-statism is this ludicrous idea that it is possible to eliminate all known risk factors from the human experience. I wouldn’t like to live in a world like fucking Disneyland which is what the ‘elf and safety’ wankers seem hell-bent on.
I don’t think anybody should be allowed to drink while in charge of a ton of machinery. Or only if they sign a document stating that all responsibility for any subsquent incident rests with them.
There is no such thing as an improved driver after a drink. There’s only one who thinks he or she is better. I’d have much more time for drink drivers if they signed the ‘yes I’ll be pissed’ disclaimer and that saves courtroom time.
Cap’n – I agree. Machinery and alcohol don’t mix very well. The point I am making is that the Nanny State uses “facts” to back up their ever tighter laws, and that those “facts” are not as rigid as they would like to think, or as they would have us think.
For example, a couple of weeks ago, they stated [if I remember correctly] that ten people were killed last year on the roads, where the alcohol level was between 50 and 80mg. That sounds like a strong argument for lowering the limit? BUT… How do we know for sure that the accidents would not have happened if the driver or drivers had a zero level? It is impossible to say, but it is still used as an argument for their ever tightening laws.
Yes, I have followed your blogs on this Grandad. As I no longer drive, and haven’t for many a year now, I have no idea alcohol driving level so rely on drivers like yourself to enlighten me.
If the drink driving limit has served the Irish so well over the years then why do they wish to change it? Could it be that the Road Safety Authority is what we call over here a Fake Charity?
“Welcome to fakecharities.org, a directory of those so-called charities that receive substantial funding from either the UK or EU governments.”
http://fakecharities.org/
The nanny state is beginning to become all pervasive over here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
Now ‘Health & Safety’ are about to come into our homes to check we have smoke alarms and if not get the social services involved if you have kids. Is there no end to these bastards!
Gay Byrne in politics eh, who would have believed it. Yes, we did, but not in recent years, get his chat show over here. Seems like he’s a proper cuntin’ curtain twitcher.
Forgot link to the ‘Health & Safety’ paragraph: http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/government-snoopers-to-invade-your-home.html
It’s a blog.
Big Yin – Why would they wish to change it? Several reasons….
1) Because we have to be the same as the rest of Europe. *sigh* The more I hear that line, the more I am turning into a Eurosceptic.
2) Because it’s PC. Twice as many people kill themselves as die on the roads, but suicide is not PC.
3) [The real reason] To distract us from the fact that the lying incompitent cheating bastards in government have sunk this country into a recession that makes the rest of the world seem awash with money. You think you have it bad in the UK? Hah!!
Incidentally, I would have replied earlier, but you distracted me with those links. Fucking hell!! Welcome to 1984.
When it comes to drink driving in Ireland the old policy will suit best- you’ll get done if you don’t have any pull. If however you happen to be a TD or Ceann-Comhairle you can do pretty much what you want.
Basically there needs to be a civil rights and responsibilities bill and that should describe where and how far the state can go in interfering with people’s lives. I wouldn’t mind but in a democracy the Dail is there and the Senate and the Fourth Estate (bless) to ensure that none of the other arms of the state become oppressive.
Some little fuckhead somewhere is misinterpreting government as the ‘right to rule’ rather than the series of protections it is supposed to mean to the citizen. Something has gone horribly wrong somewhere and I have a feeling it will take violence at some stage to get government back to where it was- servant and not master.
Unfortunately it won’t be me as I am far too wise to spend my time arguing with fucking morons who think a vote is something someone gives you that you can then sell to the highest bidder or the first one to buy you a Dail expensed pint (here, have a pint out of your own taxes’ ‘grand, grand thats lovely. You can count on my vote, John. Ta.’)
The one thing I can promise you is that whatever is happening in the UK now will be presented by one of those cunts in the Dail as a great idea for Ireland at some point over the next three to five years.
Its what passes for individual thinking in the Dail- the UK Sunday Times.
Yep – shooting from the same hip today. this drink driving limit thing is pure bolloxology.
The statistics show that you are more likely to die of diabetes than a motor accident. forgive the plug, http://kerryview.blogspot.com/2009/11/propaganda-and-drink-driving-limits.html but since we are on the same side I hope you don’t mind.
Propganda – you are right. Why worry about diseases of the circulatory system (35% chance of dying) than drink driving (<1%).
I’m off for a nice black bush and a black pint.
My take is that the limit is too low and should be raised. At least for experienced drivers with a safe record. It used to be 0.1 here. Then they lowered it to 0.8. I reckon `1.2 would be about right.
“Save countless lives.” How many DD deaths are there in Ireland per year. Can’t be that many.
>tt; in 2006 there were 285 deaths related to motor vehicles. How many were DD? Nor 285 I bet.
correction 0.12
It doesn’t fucking matter how low the limit is, it won’t be enforced anyway. Typical Irish politicians solution – find a non-problem, say you’re going to do something about it, pretend to do something but don’t give any resources to what you have pretended to do so that the status quo prevails. Cunts. What would save lives on Irish roads would be taking away their blood limos and making them walk. Then we would all drive very carefully trying to spot a politician on foot so we could mow them down…
A fairly recent study of 10,000 accidents in Ireland showed that the highest cause was ‘getting it wrong’ on right-hand bends (often coupled with speed). Some reminder ads on TV about ‘why you should keep to the left’ would probably do more than this latest initiative (which seems to be about keeping the minister’s name in the news anyway).
The nanny needs a SLAP!!! methinks!
They need more than a slap. A few rounds of .45 would be better.