Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT Shane Ross has announced that he has received approval from his Cabinet colleagues to implement a new law that will see drink drivers disqualified from driving.
Ross said that he hopes that the General Scheme of a Road Traffic (Fixed Penalty – Drink Driving) Bill can be now be passed as soon as possible, and without any amendment.
He said that disqualifying drivers who were found to be drink driving was “proportionate” and would “ultimately save lives”.
He said that drink driving continues to be a serious issue in Ireland, and that “we can no longer be ambivalent in our attitude toward this destructive practice”.
The Minister cited research conducted by the Road Safety Authority, which shows that 500 people were arrested for drink driving in the first three weeks of December alone, as showing the need for a change in how we punish those found to have been drink driving.
He said: “What I am now proposing is that the existing provision allowing people to get penalty points rather than a disqualification for drink driving sends the wrong message and should go.
Instead of three penalty points, such drivers will get a three-month disqualification.
“Drink driving is serious, and potentially fatal. Even a small amount of alcohol can impair people’s reactions, and that cannot be tolerated when people are behind the wheel of a car.”
He added that it was important to get this bill through quickly to send the message that drink driving can no longer go “without serious consequences”.
The bill will now be submitted for formal drafting with a view to publication as soon as possible. It will also be referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Now that everyone is off the hook with this sticky plaster move to make themselves ‘appear’ like they are fixing the problem, politicians, law enforcers and do gooders how are we now actually going to tackle the real issue around drink driving road deaths…those that don’t give a f**k eitherway…just look at the recent case a guy with 500 previouis convictions, no insurance, no tax, no nct and disqualified from driving causing a death…would this move have put him off?…or the young guys who take a chance or the guy who lioves down the road. It’s easy to make bad laws for hard cases but have we delved into the statistics to check the profiles of those who break the law anyhow. Does the death penalty reduce murder rates?
@winston smith: They should take and sell the car. Doesn’t matter if it’s a company one, borrowed one or still has finance on it. Should have thought of that before you started the engine.
Can’t drink & drive if you have no car & it’ll raise funds for victims of DUI
So there is now no difference between drunk driving and drink driving, This attitude of moral superiority by some is getting out of hand.
When is as much time and attention going to be given to the suicide rate in this country far more people die by suicide than on our roads. I am very pleased with the new drink drive law but it must include TDS garda judge’s etc no exceptions otherwise it’s a farce.
Nonsence. Those driving a private car are allowed consume more than TWICE the amount of alcohol than the driver of a company car. Like saying you are less drunk by drinking more
@winston smith: What are the stats on how many drink related road deaths where due to drivers that were like your example as apposed to fully taxed legal drivers? I think you will find the later will outway ur example.
Andy I don’t have those stats and you must not either otherwise you would have produced them rather than ‘thinking one would find’!…stats aren’t black and white and there are many types of drink driving circumstances and just like we accept motorised transport in general which incurs many deaths but gives much in return we should also accpet a certain cut off level of interference from the state so our lives aren’t unbearable or controlled excessively.
Val, that is my whole point, there are many causes of road deaths…I recall two French tourists killed in Ballyfermot by a drunken traveller who mounted the footpath. The authorities don’t have a simple solution or even effective solutions not to mention implementing and policing them but they throw out these new rules and limits to keep the EU happy. The sad part is there are so many who are brain washed that they never question the restrictions in the detail. Education and self responsibility are more key to the solution but apart from that foolproof systems. What if next year they discover a pill which washes alcohol out of your sytem in minutes, surely this would reduce deaths considerably …not entirely out of the bounds of possibility…but we would still need random checks becasue some drivers would forget to take their pill. But what if all cars were driverless we wouldn’t need any drink driving checks.
@winston smith: You have given one example. Its not a court if law I can think logically on the matter and most people on the road would be driving legally so it must be true most drink drivers that have caused fatalities are legal drivers. (Don’t make me quote Spock)
If driving is part of your profession this is a severe law. Can no longer risk having a pint or glass of wine with meal, or drive next day after a few. Pub trade will loose out big. In my opinion ban should be based on how much over the limit you are.
You very obviously have never lost anyone that has been mowed down by a drunk driver
Pub trade lost out a long time ago .. this’ll affect the people who drink at home and think that they’re alright to drive the next morning. .
@Barney r – I sincerely hope that’s a wind up response. Yes it is a severe law, and rightly so . If you drive for a living, and drink, you have no place on the road, period.
Poor response Lynda, plenty of people have been killed by sober drivers, I’d assume more than drunk drivers.
John, bit of an over reaction there. Nobody is suggesting that if one drives for a living they’re swilling out of a bottle whilst driving. However if you have 3-4 pints in the evening after work you might be over the limit the following morning. Therefore a graded system should be a better option.
If you have 3-4 pints then drive then you’re a numpty.
@canuckandgo – It doesn’t matter when you drink. If you sit behind the wheel intoxicated, it’s irrelevant whether you drank 1 or 10 drinks, and irrelevant whether 10 minutes or 10 hours beforehand. If you’re intoxicated you’re intoxicated : there is no half measure (sic). You can’t have half an accident.
I don’t think having a glass of wine will put you over the limit the next day. Unless dinner time in your house is 5am
Its not a wind up, the odd day, take the wife for meal or to see pub band. I have one pint or wine with food which is within current law limit then drive home. Why have any limit if there is no difference between being barely over limit or 8 pints over limit. As pointed out above how does it target anyone who doesnt care with prevous convictions.i think its wrong as it affect people more who need to drive for living, and people who want to obey law by taking away that 1 pint because of other unresponsible people.
Good God Barney! How hard is it to say “no thanks I’m driving”? If you want a drink, leave the car. If you know you’re going to be driving in the morning, don’t get locked the night before. Why do people NEED alcohol to enjoy themselves?
John, I agree entirely, one should never drive drunk. However, you might not know you’re intoxicated as per the law. One might feel fine and normal but the blood reading might be marginally over the limit.
This is my point, are you not supposed to drive for the whole day after having a few pints the night before? At what point can you honestly say “yep I feel fine to drive” after a few pints the night before. At what point can you legally drive? 10am, noon, 1pm? I’m talking 3-4 pints, not a 12 hour session of course. It might be the case that the time you say you’re fine you could be over the limit.
If you have 3-4 points before 11 and go home, you will not be over the limit the next morning. If you have 10 pints and finish at 3, you will be. As now, if you have a glass of wine for lunch, you will not be over the limit, but you should try and plan to not drive if you have any alcohol. And it’s not an either/or – someone driving at 140 in an 80 zone should be automatically banned as well. Both kill people, whether the drunk driver or speeder means or intends to, and should be treated manslaughter of either are involved in an accident, and mandatory loss of driving licence if they are not.
How do you know 1 pint or glass of wine is within current law ? You’re not grasping physiology here: there is no safe limit.
@canuckandgo:
I read somewhere that it takes one hour per unit for most adults to process the alcohol out of their system so if you have 3-4 pints and get 5 hours sleep then you are ok, unless you say 3-4 pints and mean 10-12??
There has to be a limit, zero tolerance is not the answer.
If you have zero tolerance people can be bagged for having a bialys cheesecake.
You need a limit, a low limit. But having a small fraction of alcohol in your system should be looked at practically
@John Moylan I suppose you think accidental manslaughter is as bad as premeditated murder too?
@John Tierney: You are a non drinker because you are too mean to buy it.
Barney. Why do you think it is called a limit?
Exactly Maria, a very basic concept people commenting on this article cannot grasp!!
Wonder can you plead the noreen o Sullivan defence
“Mea culpa” seems to work if you’re a spoofer who’s been found out. Try that.
A well you could run the risk of being reported to tusla as a smear campaign
At least the points would come to your neighbors house not yours. Plausible deniability there!
As I said in an previous comment, should bad drivers for using their mobile phone too. Texting or taking I see people talking texting, every day.
Speed is the number one killer, nobody wants to face up to it, as the Gardaí, TD’s etc are too busy racing around
An Beal: That’s because if the Gardai pursued drivers using speed guns and cameras with the same vigour as they do breath tests the public would react negatively. Speeding and bad dangerous driving is socially acceptable and drink driving isn’t. I find that disgusting. The accident carnage that I have witnessed or come across in the last few years has all been down to speed and phones.
Patrick speed limits are arbitrary so there will always be a lot of people who disagree with them. If I suggested a limit of 30kmph we could reduce deaths to zero tomorrow, but would you agree with that? I know there would be a lot of opposition.
@An_Beal_Bocht: Driving fast has never killed anyone, Speed does not kill. Stupidity does.
@Nigel Briganti: Driving faster than the reaction and stopping distance is what kills. For example on rural roads you can be driving within the legal limits but if a person, dog or deer jump out of the bushes straight into you then the damage you do to them is relative to speed. A person might survive the blow at 50km/ph but not at 60km/ph as impact damage tends to double as the speed inreases marginally. Therefore it could be argued that it is speed that kills.
An excellent move. A ban and endorsement on your licence is much much worse than points. Will make people think twice before drinking and driving and ultimately save lives.
As much as I’d like to think you’re right, I think there has been an increase in drink driving simply because there has been a decrease in Garda presence on the roads. People don’t like being caught drink driving, irrespective of the punishment. There’s no point increasing the punishment unless there is an increased Garda presence. If people are confident they won’t meet a Garda then no increase in punishment is going to stop them. I know I personally have not seen a Garda checkpoint in over 2 years!
Its not yet proven this would be the case.. i hazard a guess the stats will be up again next year.. its what happens when u get 2 billion individual events and such microscopic outcomes.. Yes we have the idiot 5 pinters and legislation hasn’t deterred them yet..
@Anto Curran: I agree but will it apply to politicians, gardai or other untouchables that are not breathalysed on the spot and brought to the nearest station miles away to do the test hours later when they are sober? hmmmm
Unfortunately, Jayo, they do need to be watched like hawks. Sometimes people give out about the Nanny State because they feel it impacts on their own freedoms. What these people fail to realise is that their SENSE of freedoms can, and often do, impact on other people’s ACTUAL freedoms, i.e. the right to life or the right to live without severe disabilities/injuries caused by another driver who thinks it’s his/her right to have a drink and drive. While I agree with increasing the penalty, I think a better idea would be to increase the Garda presence on our roads. I said before that I haven’t seen a checkpoint in 2 years. On top of that, I have been driving for 17 years and have only been stopped once at a checkpoint. And that was for a random drug test. In 17 years!!! I’d be happy to be stopped more often if it meant someone’s life was saved.
Anto all the points and change in law has managed to change nothing it in the last 20 years so I wouldn’t be holding your breath
An excellent move. I can’ fault this decision. There is no excuse for drink driving in this day and age.
It should be 3 months ban for phone use and a year for drink driving and 5 for a second offence !
Sledge hammer to crack a peanut.
I’ll have to pass on the Baileys cheese cake… next time I can a fford to go out.
What about those who drive after taking drugs. Surely that’s worse than driving after a few pints not that I think driving after a few is right either.
Virtually every other EU country – including the UK – has had an automatic ban for drink driving, for years…
Alanine, where do you read ‘your facts’.
In the UK, driving or attempting to drive whilst above the legal limit or unfit through drink carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to £5,000 and a minimum 12 months’ disqualification. For a second offence committed within ten years of conviction, the minimum ban is three years. Being in charge of a vehicle whilst over the legal limit or unfit through drink could result in three months’ imprisonment plus a fine of up to £2,500 and a driving ban. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of alcohol or other drugs carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison, a minimum two-year driving ban and a requirement to pass an extended driving test before the offender is able to drive legally again.
I stand corrected Winston – but think my point was factually correct. The same legislation should be in place here.
@Alanine Pipeline: I was in most of these countries and I could not find any evidence of it. I always pretest to be drunk just to test the system. Drove 20,000 miles in the USA and 5,000 in UK Europe and could never get breathalyzed. The only place you will be breathalyzed in Ireland North and South. I was breathalyzed about 6 times in Northern Ireland after taking wrong turnings and had the van dipped for red diesel about 5 times.
In Poland the police syphen fuel out of your car.
no more white powder val
3 months !!! , Are these clowns for real or what. A minimum of 3-5 years should be automatic. 3 months is an insult to those families that lost loved ones and a kick in the teeth to the majority of responsible drivers that don’t drink & drive. Like everything else in this country it’s farcical.
The ban length should simply depend on the alcohol reading – as well as previous record – like the UK, and everywhere else…
Absolutely agree, a sliding scale is definitely the best approach.
The law already does. This is proposal is to replace the existing minium penalty of a fine and penalty points. The rest of the penalties will remain intact.
No matter how much alcohol is taken, drink driving is drink driving. …which can and does kill. A long term ban on driving for drink drivers is the only way to go.
Judging by the amount of “Red thumbs” it would seem that a lot of drink drivers are upset that their little boozey trips might be curtailed. Maybe if one of theirs was killed by one of their ilk the tune would change. Either way I couldn’t give a **** and will still report them when I see them. And heaven help anyone that crashes into me if they have drink taken , they will be sued for everything they have and ever will have.
@Michael Clinton: That may be , but its not enforced at all. I was never in Portugal, so I cant comment on it
Typical Shane Ross. Populist, headline grabbing proposal that distracts from the real issues in his department and does nothing to address the underlying problem.
Absolutely no excuse for drink driving. This sends the right message, zero tolerance
Where can you buy an accurate breathalyser?
Try any local garda barracks….
@eoin carroll: The Gardai and UK police use a fuel cell technology breathalyzer made by Draeger for roadside testing. The exact model is about £700 GBP. You can get decent fuel cell breathalyzers for £200-£250 for example AlcoDigital Lifeguard model.
What!!I can’t have 6 pints during a game and drive home ,what a disaster,,,,,,,,this automatic ban is 100% right!!!!
Great news. If you are stupid enough to drink and drive you don’t deserve the Licence.
For this to work, people need to actually be breathalysed. I’m driving for 20 years and I’ve never been breathalysed.
@Thommos Big Nose: You’re an ex professional soccer player. You won’t be breathalysed.
Touché
Good .
What a fn stupid country full of law.. none being monitored. .where I live every single weekend the boy racers can be heard doin doughnuts for hours on end. No cops to be seen .The engine roaring can be heard for miles is this no a serious offince is this not going to cause a serious injury or death
I’ve never heard of someone getting 3 penalty points for drink driving. Sounds a tad lenient!
Actually it seems that would not be lenient at all, with 60% of all those charged not convicted, which compared with 3% in the U.K. It is nit just our Garda that needs root and branch reform, our justice system does too.
Sorry, here is a link for that:
A populist move from a spoofing incompetent minister. Of course there are degrees of culpability.
Drink driving?Immediately banned from driving and should be made sit the driving test again.This carry on of being handed back your licence after 3 months .?no way. It should be 6 months and a re- test.
Dublin ponces.
Good move on the govt. I’m amazed and appalled at the various arguments used to justify drink driving. The Healy-Raes protest about the impact such a ban would have on rural life. By using that premise, they are saying that a certain number of road deaths is an acceptable price to pay for Tom in Ballygobackwards to be able to have his five pints and drive home. such as living in a rural area. Another hum-dinger is the one about how different people supposedly having different tolerances to alcohol and its impact on awareness, attitudes to risk and reaction times. Other people have said “you’ll never catch everyone, and it won’t deter some people. ” Just because it won’t ban every drink driver doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to ban any. The smoking ban has proven that blanket bans can and do work when implemented correctly, with a corresponding positive effect on public health.
This proposed legislation, introduced by an out-of-touch Dublin 4 minister, is going to hurt rural Ireland particularly badly; someone like Shane Ross, the RSA quango and The Irish Times set would never understand this. While I do think that it should be against the law for somebody to be crazy drunk behind the wheel, such laws as proposed by Ross (and unquestioningly approved by a Fine Gael cabinet) will actually reduce the quality of life for people in Ireland.
Only in Ireland would people try to defend drink driving. This is the best thing that’s happened in q long time. Drink is NOT our culture. Now to hand our heavier punishment for mobile phone users while driving.
What if I have 4 pints tonight, walk home at 1am, get up tomorrow at 8am, driving to work and get breathalysed? I don’t know if I could be still over the limit, or not over the limit….
It wil not stop me having a few pints and. Slipping home the back road.
Coming from a driver, I’m delighted. It’s about time!!
The reporting and / or representations relating to the new proposed legislation is completely distorted and wrong designed, to cover up the inadequate and unnecessary new Act.
Everyone should Know following:
1 any person under present legislation caught and CONVICTED are subject to an automatic mandatory ban from DRIVING depending on level of Alcohol.
2. If convicted for the FIRST time for an offence,under PRESENT LAW!! you will receive an automatic mandatory ban from driving . A second offence is a higher penalty. I.e a first time offender convicted at top level will receive a mandatory 3 year ban and ( impsonment is also an option but rarely used ). A second time offender faces a mandatory 6 year ban for same limit. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO DETER REPEAT OFFENDERS!! Yet this is not explained . Mr Ross wants to remove this! This will fundamentally weekend present lawNO Need for more law. All about enforcement.
3. Mr Ross states he is introducing an immediate Automatic ban for Drivers caught DD.
He is Not! This is completely inaccurate and untrue!!
No person in this state can have any penalty imposed upon them on the basis of being ” caught”.
Any ban or penalty could never be imposed immediately or without conviction!!!
I assume what is preposed is perhaps to give the accused an option of admitting the offence ( conviction)and accepting a lesser ban if driver does not exercise his lawful right to plead not guilty and fight case in court.! He gets time ban in same way penalty points imposed I . e if and When the accused ACCEPTS the penalty!! ( pleads guilty)
All drivers stopped and suspected of DD will not be subject to immediate automatic ban if they plead Not Guilty.They go to court and may be acquitted in accordance with law.
This act utterly unnecessary / This is just a smokescreen to make Ross look good and gain popularity.
He knows will not have any effect ! If anything weakens present law!
Utterly dishonest political manoeuvre!!
No more mouthwash
Wont make a slight bit of difference. There no gardaí about to enforce it
have your say