HEAD2HEAD: Susan Graysays there is overwhelming evidence that even one drink impairs driving and that families must be placed before the drinks industry. Pádraig Cribben says criminalising someone who has one pint while ignoring other factors will increase rural isolation without reducing road deaths
YES - SUSAN GRAY:MANY MEMBERS of Parents Against Road Carnage have lost their loved ones in crashes where alcohol was involved. It's time that the people with vested interests in keeping the alcohol limit at 80mg blood alcohol content (BAC) were made aware of the pain that grieving families will have to endure for the rest of their lives because of drink drivers.
These families' lives have been ripped apart. Our loved ones could be here with us today if it wasn't for the behaviour of others who decided to have a "few drinks" and then get behind the wheel and drive.
There's no getting over that - no matter how you try. Your life is ruined forever. We ask the question - "Are a 'few drinks' worth the risk of being involved in a crash causing death or serious injury?" Could a driver who has been involved in a crash resulting in the death of another seriously believe that they could reassure the grieving family that because they only had a "few drinks", alcohol played "no part" in the collision? Try telling that to the children left without a dad or to the wife left without her loving husband.
Only Ireland, the UK and Malta have an 80mg limit. All other 24 European Union countries have a limit of 50mg or less.
Road crash statistics for 2003 are at best an underestimate of how many crashes were alcohol-related, mainly because tests on killed drivers were not available in 25 per cent of cases, and the vast majority of drivers who survived were not tested. If more had been tested, the rates would have been higher. Nevertheless, 14 drivers killed in 2003 were below 80mgs.
Research conducted by the Canadian Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that drivers with blood alcohol levels between 50mg and 80mg were more than seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than drivers with zero alcohol. The scientific evidence from the USA is overwhelming - "crash rates increase with any departure from zero BAC". With blood alcohol levels of 50mg, there is a 38 per cent increased risk of collision, while at 80mg, the current permitted maximum, this increases to 200 per cent.
Above the limit of 20mg, there is impairment of driving. Probably the greatest danger of that first drink is that it impairs our ability to assess our own competence to drive.
Drivers' reaction times and motor skills deteriorate after even a small amount of alcohol but, after one drink, you may not feel intoxicated and may believe you can drive safely. This is due to your brain's impaired cognitive processing ability at low blood alcohol levels.
There is evidence to show that reducing the limit from 80mg to 50mg can have an effect on drivers with very high BACs. In the Australian Capital Territory, studies found that there was a 41 per cent reduction in the incidence of drivers tested with BACs above 150mg. France also found a pronounced effect for drivers at higher BACs (over 80mg) when the limit was reduced to 50mg.
The vintners are concerned about their livelihoods, but surely they must also have concern for the many innocent people dying, or being seriously injured on our roads, due to drink driving. We must have creative approaches to the problem of rural isolation, but drink driving is not one of them.
In fact, the need to have a designated driver could mean that there is more social contact between people than heretofore. People will be forced to make contact with neighbours to arrange lifts from the designated driver. Many rural pubs are already providing transport for patrons.
There are many men and women now widowed as a result of drink driving and many homes where there is the isolation of loneliness and heartache, but we do not hear the vintners' concern for these people and their families. There are many others left with horrific injuries for the rest of their lives and often forgotten.
When we say, "never, ever drink and drive" that must be reflected in the new drink-driving limit. People need a clear message from the Government on drinking and driving. If they are told that they are permitted to have one drink and then get behind the wheel of a car and drive, then a very dangerous message is being sent out.
Given our drink-driving performance, our frightening road death toll and our inability to control our urge to drive after drinking, we urge the Minister for Transport and our Government to send out a clear message to the public. The best deterrent would be that drinking and driving is totally unacceptable.
If they are influenced by the drink industry who have such a vested interest in keeping the limit at 80mg, then many more innocent victims will needlessly die on our roads and many more will be seriously injured for life.
Susan Gray's husband Stephen was killed in a road accident in 2004. She is founder and chairwoman of Parents Against Road Carnage
NO - PÁDRAIG CRIBBEN:
THE VINTNERS' Federation of Ireland is 100 per cent behind any realistic measures that reduce road carnage. However, we are totally opposed to reducing the level of alcohol permissible for experienced drivers, as this will not lead to achieving this all-important strategic objective.
Any right-minded person totally abhors the practice of drunk-driving and we in the VFI would never argue differently. Drinking to excess and getting behind the wheel of a car is morally reprehensible and socially unacceptable.
There is, though, a total absence of balance in the debate on road safety, and as a result it has become totally skewed. To restore this balance we have to ensure that the soft options are not taken on all road safety issues.
It is now fully accepted by everybody, including the Road Safety Authority, that speed is the biggest contributor to road deaths. World Health Organisation figures showed that a reduction of a mere 3km/h would save up to 6,000 lives per annum across Europe. So why in the current debate has nobody suggested that speed limits on roads be reduced?
There is no doubt that a reduction of speed limits by 10km/h, and adherence to same, would significantly reduce the numbers killed on the roads. We have to assume that it has been decided that the balance between the risk on the roads on the one hand, and the need to keep the country moving traffic-wise on the other, dictates that the current speed limits stay in place. Is leaving the status quo in place merely taking the soft option?
In 2006, 44 per cent of people killed on the roads were drivers and 25 per cent of these were not wearing seatbelts. We have to assume that if seatbelts were worn, that in some of those cases, lives would have been saved.
Why has there been no call for drivers caught not wearing seatbelts to be put off the road on a mandatory basis? Is leaving the status quo in place merely taking the soft option? In 2006, 73 pedestrians were killed on the road. Many of these fatalities occurred in the hours of darkness.
Why has there been no call for the compulsory wearing of high-visibility vests by pedestrians in the hours of darkness? Should a curfew not be imposed on those pedestrians out in hours of darkness without a high-vis vest, or will the soft option be taken again?
In each of the three instances above, hard and unpopular decisions would have a significant impact on reducing the numbers of people killed on our roads.
Yet, there has been little or no discussion or debate on any of these possibilities.
It is necessary to put the discussion on alcohol and driving in context and to find balance. The proposal to reduce the permissible alcohol level from 80mg to 50mg would, in essence, mean that an individual would not be in a position to have one pint of beer or a glass of wine and drive.
Donegal coroner Dr Madden, in his 17 years practice, claimed that in the vast majority of cases where drink is the cause of the accident, alcohol levels were between 150mg and 300mg and it was extremely rare for the alcohol levels to be between 50mg and 80mg.
The proposals to reduce the alcohol levels permissible are setting out to criminalise a section of drivers that would be much less likely to cause fatalities than your seatbelt-less, high-visibility vest-less, high-speeding and reckless users of the road.
Where is the balance between this proposal and the effect it will have on many people living in rural Ireland?
Rural isolation is a major issue. Consultant physiatrist Dr Bhamjee has noticed a link between rural pub closures, higher suicide rates and rural isolation and this has been backed recently by Dr Justin Brophy of the Irish Association of Suicidology.
Part of the cause of rural isolation is the fear of many people to go to the local village for a drink or two, to socialise with friends and to discuss the topics of the day. In the absence of this outlet, many resort to drinking at home in an uncontrolled environment and this over-indulgence can lead to depression and more serious problems.
This rural isolation is creating a new generation of binge drinkers, but these binge drinkers are not the young generation but rather the older generation who are living in fear of driving to their local village for a quiet chat, social interaction and a drink.
Reducing the blood alcohol level to the point where we are criminalising someone who has one drink and drives is taking a soft, ineffective option and ignores the necessity for balance which is missing in this discussion.
By doing so, we are not tackling the real issues and will not achieve the vital strategic aim of reducing road fatalities.
Pádraig Cribben is the chief executive of the Vintners' Federation of Ireland (VFI) which represents 5,000 publicans throughout Ireland outside of Dublin
Online: join the debate at www.ireland.com/head2head
YES 40% NO 60%
Seán Coleman is right to point out many reasons to punish the illegitimate Communist dictatorship ruling China for its appalling human rights record. However I agree with Pat Hickey that traditional Olympic boycotts don't work. But there is another way; another more democratic way involving personal empowerment. Let the games go ahead. Let no athletes be denied their chance to prove they're the world's best. Instead, it is the spectators who should boycott the games. For, from the Chinese perspective, worse even than a few countries not showing up in Beijing will be TV pictures, beamed across the world, of empty stadiums whilst the contests proceed, and everyone knowing why. Personally, I have cancelled my plans to attend.
Tony Allwright Ireland
With respect to the legendary anti-apartheid activist Donald Woods, who approved of sport boycotts in South Africa, I believe the level of public engagement on this issue at this time is too low for a boycott to be anything other than tokenism. Instead, efforts should be directed towards making the EU adopt a set of human rights standards applicable to imported goods, similar that which applies to safety standards for food imports into the EU.
Browser Ireland
Perhaps we should attend the games and each of us simultaneously commit to ignoring all the TV advertising that supports it and providing political and financial support to those who suffer because of Chinese governmental policies. Only such an active role would validate Pat Hickey's claim that the Olympics can promote human rights - a claim that otherwise he shows no real evidence to be true.
Peter Davis United States
China is a prime example why the Olympics, or any international sporting event, should only be held in a democracy. Earlier this year China's authoritarian regime gave its support to the violence unleashed against pro-democracy supporters in Burma, while also aiding attacks on Darfur's civilians. Tibet is only one of China's current victims. It is now conducting a campaign against internal human rights activists, while continuing to block use of the internet by its people. Boycotting the Beijing Olympics alone will not bring about reform in China; attendance at the event, however, will be promoted by the regime as acquiescence in its brutal mode of behaviour. Dan Ireland
Our athletes put a huge amount of effort and make massive sacrifices to have the honour of representing their country at the Olympic Games. This should not be taken away from them in order to make a political point. Sport should be above politics.
Kevin Ireland
Why pick on China when the USA was not boycotted despite its long and ongoing history of genocidal wars (some declared and some proxy via the CIA) against nations or individuals who won't accept American diktat. China is a virgin in foreign affairs by comparison. Keep politics out of sport and keep up dialogue with everyone.
Norman Ireland
I believe that in order to force China to look at their human rights abuse record, the only course of action is to stop selling raw materials to the Chinese, and to boycott the importation of Chinese goods... However, sadly, living in a world where "greed is good", I doubt that first world countries would ever be brave enough to take this step.
Marg McMullan Australia
I do not recall any clamour from the boycotting lobby regarding the Irish Special Olympics team competing in Shanghai earlier this year. I wonder why? Or, shock horror, would it have been politically incorrect to touch the subject?
D.D. Rafferty Ireland