The Truth About The Drink Driving Laws

The proposal by Minister Noel Dempsey to lower the alcohol limit for drivers from 80mg to 50mg provoked a predictable range of responses. Official Ireland broadly accords with the Government’s view, which is also shared by the temperance movement, that levels should be lowered and that doing so will reduce road deaths and lead to greater road safety.

Yet, not everyone agrees. It is no surprise to find the drinks industry in opposition, but many Fianna Fáil TDs also doth protest. No doubt they took account of what happened to the party in the local and European elections and also the probable reaction to the forthcoming budget. But they also expressed fears for the social life of rural Ireland.
Experience shows that a Government that is deeply unpopular with the public and commentators is very likely to push through measures that show it in a more positive light. This is especially true where it has adopted the mantle of authoritarian probity.
So, the measure is likely to pass. My purpose, therefore, is not to oppose it but to examine what lies beneath…
Proponents of the lower level say that its effectiveness is supported by scientific evidence contained in a body of reports and papers that can be read on the website of the Road Safety Authority.
There’s just one problem with this and it’s to do with what we mean by scientific evidence. When you look at the reports you’ll see lots of statistics and correlations. But it’s a fundamental precept of science that correlation does not prove causation and the ‘scientific research’ is very shy of causation.
This is how the stats work: if you drink one glass of wine and drive home and on the way are struck and killed by a speeding HGV driven by someone who hasn’t taken a drink, your glass of wine is regarded as having contributed to your death.
Of course, the stats also show that the most at-risk group on the roads are those who have not taken any drink at all. But nobody wants to talk about that.
And there are many other examples of stat blindness here. We are told that price increases and restrictions on sales of alcohol have led to a decrease in consumption. Really? Isn’t it at least as likely that sales have simply migrated to Northern Ireland? Apparently, sales of alcohol in Northern Ireland account for 50% of alcohol on the island even though only 25% of the population of the island lives there… surely an argument for lower excise duties, eh? But I digress…
While nobody disputes that a person with a skinful of liquor is a danger to everyone on the road, RSA apologists argue that any measurable amount of alcohol impairs a person’s ability to drive.
Rubbish. There’s no scientifically sustainable evidence that a glass of wine or bottle of beer consumed before driving has ever actually caused an accident.
Furthermore, if ‘impairment to drive’ is the basis for regulation then the Government should set and enforce limits for both prescription drugs (especially, but not only, diazepam) and over-the-counter drugs containing codeine.
Read the bloody labels! What else could ‘may cause drowsiness, if affected do not drive or use machinery’ mean?!?
And that’s before we even begin to consider illegal drugs… and enforcement…
Rates of death on the roads may be lower next year than this. But a multitude of factors might influence this including better roads, better weather, less construction workers traversing the country, a dip in road usage arising from swine flu…
The truth is that road deaths decrease when people drive with more care, cars are safer and roads are better.
But this is too rational. The new measure is about being seen to do something rather than actually doing something. It’s also to do with faith and behaviourist mumbo-jumbo, not reason.
I hold no truck with drunken driving nor with driving in a way that places anyone else at risk. But I remember being at the wheel of a car that crashed into a bridge wall, seriously injuring three others as well as myself.
There was no drink involved. Nor was I speeding. No, all that happened was that it was this time of the year. The road was damp and covered with greasy fallen leaves. The camber of the road was against the direction of the curve.
The bridge wall was whitewashed so the lights suddenly picked it out. The instant reaction was to brake. But this car had a fault – the brakes tended to lock in a skid. And so they did. We hit the bridge head on. We almost went into the river. We might all have been killed.
I’ve driven that road quite a few times since. It has not been improved, resurfaced or re-cambered. And locals say, when they hear the road I am taking, ‘watch out there, that’s a dangerous road’.
I’ve been told the same thing about dozens of other roads too, the length and breadth of the country.
These are roads where people get killed, people who aren’t boy racers or drunken farmers, but who, if they have had a glass of wine with their dinner are subjected to the ultimate indignity of being blamed by some smartarse road safety faith healer for their own deaths…
They deserve better.