Lower alcohol limit to 0.02

[JohnF]

NRMA do want the limit reduced to 0.02, for drink driving, to reduce road toll.

The NSW government is backing away fom that idea according to TV news.

[Tote]

NRMA are, as usual completely out of touch with what their members want. There is very little evidence that reducing BAC below .02 has any real effect on the road toll especially when most accidents that involve alcohol are high readings.
But it does make a lobbiest looklike they are doing something if they "Get Tough" By introducing a 0 limit.

Regards,
Tote

[d@rk51d3]

Better off dealing properly with the ones that break .05

Anything else is just a money spinner.

[Jedimastermat]

0.05/0.02/0.00 wouldnt stop that unlicenced idiot that slammed into two houses today. he was 4 times over and driving with his 1yo in the back.

Agree with dork. Get the ones that cant get the 0.05 bit right and you might find that works a bit better.
cheers
mat

[d@rk51d3]

Agree with dork. ...............



:mad: You been talkin to my missus?

it's an "A" not an "O". :D:D:D

[UncleHo]

It's an "at" =@ :D

[d@rk51d3]

It's an "at" =@ :D

Also an "each". ;)

[UncleHo]

G'day Folks :)

Couldn't help that!, BTW,the person that hit those houses whilst carrying his child and was 4 times over HAS NEVER HELD a LICENSE :eek: or so it was stated on the TV news that I saw.


0.05 or 0.02 it does not matter there will always be the fool that will try to drive/ride with a skin full, and risk the lives of others, as usually the drunker they are the less injuries they recieve :(

It is the same as those that were on that current affairs show about the drag racing, in the confrontation with the police officers, what needs to be done with some of those blokes(including the very vocal one) is to have them travel by police car/ambulance to fatal accidents, and to inspect the vehicles for the living and the dead and to see if it is one of their "real good driver mates" and I would assure you that after seeing a few bodies with missing limbs,crushed heads, internal organs external,and or hips torn out of the body(feet on dashboard) they then would get a much more real idea of what speed CAN do :mad:

Yes, I have had to deal with these things,and at an age of 23-25,professionally, also attended funerals of friends that were "real good drivers"


cheers

[d@rk51d3]

Agreed. Drive them out there, then get them to pick "John Doe's" brain up out of the footwell, and pop it back in his head, and tape the top back down so he can be carted away in one piece.

[steve_35]

I think they should lower the limit to 00

Everyone does the same thing they think because they feel fine after 2 beers so does everyone else

Thats not the case i hardly ever drink alcohol and 2 beers gets me buzzing

And i assume it has the same effect on other people that dont drink much

But i can keep drinking as the laws stand until i am either noticeably drunk or over the limit

And dont be fooled you dont need to over .05 to get done for drunk driving as most people believe

If your noticeably drunk it called driving under the influence and you will be nabbed


When something has a different effect on each user then you cant just pick a number and say that's it

[Ausfree]

Apparently if you're a footballer like Allan Langer in Brisbane who went DUI 0.156 or Ben Tupou from the Newcastle Knights, who went on an assault charge you can get off with no criminal conviction and a fine. So the Police can do their job and put these clowns before the court and they are let off because, "a criminal conviction will seriously jeopidise their football careers". Allan Langer did have his licence suspended for a few months but its obvious there is one law for the Rich or Famous and one law for the rest of us poor sods!!:mad:

[F4Phantom]

0.05 is designed for you to have a few beers and safely drive leaving it up to the average punter to try and work out how many standard drinks he has had over how much time etc and then establish if it is worth the risk driving.

The 0.02 limit is effectively 0.00. The 0.02 is so that you are not going to be booked for having some food cooked with alcohol which is unfair.

the 0.02 system is actually correct. It leaves no margin for error. If you have had a drink, your over the limit. The decision to drink and drive a very easy one to make, dont.

[Bundalene]

There was a licenced driver stopped, breath tested and recorded a high range reading, 3 times in the one night, in the same car in Dubbo last weekend.

And the NRMA want to reduce the limit. Obviously the current system isn't working and should be fixed first.

Erich

[Tote]

I think they should lower the limit to 00

Everyone does the same thing they think because they feel fine after 2 beers so does everyone else

Thats not the case i hardly ever drink alcohol and 2 beers gets me buzzing

And i assume it has the same effect on other people that dont drink much

But i can keep drinking as the laws stand until i am either noticeably drunk or over the limit

And dont be fooled you dont need to over .05 to get done for drunk driving as most people believe

If your noticeably drunk it called driving under the influence and you will be nabbed


When something has a different effect on each user then you cant just pick a number and say that's it


So if you go and have 2 beers and are drunk and then drive the police can charge you with drink driving anyway... explain again why the limit needs to be dropped?

Regards,
Tote

[steve_35]

So that its not left up to an individuals discretion to judge if your drunk

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It is simple get the Highway Patrol fully staffed and with enough money to pay for fuel every day of the year, not just at the beginning of the month.

Then have them out on the road doing their job instead of sitting in the station doing paper work.

Then tipple the fine if the offence is challenged in court so people will think twice about challenging the minor offence they were charged with so the officers can be out doing their job instead of being in court.

Insist that the Highway Patrol pull people over for offences like fog lights in fine weather, broken stop lights and clear globes where amber globes should be fitted.

More use of ANPR cameras and link the database to licensed drivers at the same address. If the car/address does not have a licensed driver of the correct sex as the driver of the car, pull it over.

Everything that makes the chance of an unlicensed or over the 0.05 limit driver getting pulled over being almost guaranteed instead of the chance of being pulled over almost negligible.

When was the last time you saw a Highway Patrol car out doing it's job?

Daily, weekly, monthly?

It should be frequently every day!

[steve_35]

When was the last time you saw a Highway Patrol car out doing it's job?





I take you must live in a City

I live in the country and i see them every day almost trust me they are there even if you dont see them

Just ask a Truckee if there are cops on the highways

[BigJon]

Just ask a Truckee if there are cops on the highways

Ask the truck driver that ran my wife off the road two days ago (overtook and pulled back to the left while alongside), then drove at speeds of up to 120 kph while weaving over the centre and left lines of the lane. Then tailgated another truck so closely that he followed it off the left side of the road when the leading truck pulled over to let him past.

I live in a country town in Victoria and I drive to Adelaide and back at least once or twice a month (430 km each way). The sort of driving I witnessed is not uncommon. There is nowhere near enough visible Police presence on the roads to have a deterrent effect. I am not having a jab at the Police either, it isn't their fault.

[JohnF]

Apparently if you're a footballer like Allan Langer in Brisbane who went DUI 0.156 or Ben Tupou from the Newcastle Knights, who went on an assault charge you can get off with no criminal conviction and a fine. So the Police can do their job and put these clowns before the court and they are let off because, "a criminal conviction will seriously jeopidise their football careers". Allan Langer did have his licence suspended for a few months but its obvious there is one law for the Rich or Famous and one law for the rest of us poor sods!!:mad:

Perhaps kids do it because their sporting heros get away with it. If the law came down heavy on those in the public eye, perhaps less kids would copy their heros.

just my two cents worth.

[akelly]

I'll second (or third) the motion about the highway patrol. We travel between Sydney and Canberra quite a lot - if there are cops out, which is rare, the patrol cars are always parked in the same places and seem to be just a mobile camera platform. I've been tailgated and flashed by trucks at 110kph only to have them slow to 80kph on the next hill where I pass them again - they fall back out of sight but somehow manage to catch me again before the next hill, even though I'm sitting on 110 with the cruise control on. I've never seen a police car on that stretch of road after 9pm - which is when the trucks from Melbourne are hitting the Cbr-Syd area it seems.

I will say that the booze bus is very good around my area (Syd Nth beaches) - they have a couple of areas where you cant dodge them and they are there almost every Thur, Fri and Sat night. Amazingly enough, they still catch people. They seem to be doing a good job in that regard. I even had one police woman come over to the cab I was in to check if the driver had paused the meter - very nice of her! Now if they could stop people getting stabbed with broken glass in the pubs at Manly we'd be right...:angel:

Cheers,

Adam

[steve_35]

Ask the truck driver that ran my wife off the road two days ago (overtook and pulled back to the left while alongside), then drove at speeds of up to 120 kph while weaving over the centre and left lines of the lane. Then tailgated another truck so closely that he followed it off the left side of the road when the leading truck pulled over to let him past.

I live in a country town in Victoria and I drive to Adelaide and back at least once or twice a month (430 km each way). The sort of driving I witnessed is not uncommon. There is nowhere near enough visible Police presence on the roads to have a deterrent effect. I am not having a jab at the Police either, it isn't their fault.


Is this subject about the limit for booze or how dumb truck drivers are

[slippery]

A few years ago they got a few people out on a track gave em a few beers and let em drive around, testing driver reaction etc and came to the conclusion that .05 was a fair limit, however mrs bligh in reveue mode wants to drop it even lower, fancy a common criminal drink driver giving her a vote, she'd be insulted.

[loanrangie]

I read a report recently that said after numerous testing that the highest risk was between .08 and .12 which blows away the need to lower the BAC to .02 (which may as well be nil). No matter what the limit is set too there will always be those that will drink to excess then jump in their car, its human nature (of stupidity) and nothing will stop it.

Its the same as the firearm situation, crooks will always get guns if they want them, they dont go to a gun shop, show their licence then walk out with a gun and 1000 rounds of ammo.

[steve_35]

Between .08 and .12

Is that for someone that drinks every day or someone that drinks one every 3 months

funny how these reports dont mention that
do they just assume we all drink every day

Im pretty sure over .12 you do get worse not better so how can they say that

[BMKal]

I think they should lower the limit to 00

Everyone does the same thing they think because they feel fine after 2 beers so does everyone else

Thats not the case i hardly ever drink alcohol and 2 beers gets me buzzing

And i assume it has the same effect on other people that dont drink much

But i can keep drinking as the laws stand until i am either noticeably drunk or over the limit

And dont be fooled you dont need to over .05 to get done for drunk driving as most people believe

If your noticeably drunk it called driving under the influence and you will be nabbed

When something has a different effect on each user then you cant just pick a number and say that's it

And when it gets to court - unless the cops can provide evidence that you were in excess of 0.05 (or whatever the limit is in the particular area), the charge will be thrown out of court.

[steve_35]

You dont need to be over .05 to be charged with driving under the influence




trust me:D

[BigJon]

Is this subject about the limit for booze or how dumb truck drivers are

It was in relation to your comment about asking truck drivers about Police presence on highways.

In the case I cite, I actually rang 000 to try to get Police to intercept the truck. None available. I was told the highway patrol could have been as far away as Stawell (well over 100 km from the scene of the incident). That is a lot of heavily trafficked highway with no Police presence.

[akelly]

I'm certain I read somewhere that the reason they dont go to .02 is that its too hard to enforce - your toothpaste will make you blow more than that, so will a breath mint. If every second person had to be given a second test after a wait time it would be a fiasco.

I may be wrong, I'm sure someone will tell me if I am!

This is a favourite topic of the pollies when they are trying to appear tough on crime, or deflect attention from another pork-barrelling somewhere.

Cheers,

Adam

[Mudsloth]

It is simple get the Highway Patrol fully staffed and with enough money to pay for fuel every day of the year, not just at the beginning of the month.

Then have them out on the road doing their job instead of sitting in the station doing paper work.

Then tipple the fine if the offence is challenged in court so people will think twice about challenging the minor offence they were charged with so the officers can be out doing their job instead of being in court.

Insist that the Highway Patrol pull people over for offences like fog lights in fine weather, broken stop lights and clear globes where amber globes should be fitted.

More use of ANPR cameras and link the database to licensed drivers at the same address. If the car/address does not have a licensed driver of the correct sex as the driver of the car, pull it over.

Everything that makes the chance of an unlicensed or over the 0.05 limit driver getting pulled over being almost guaranteed instead of the chance of being pulled over almost negligible.

When was the last time you saw a Highway Patrol car out doing it's job?

Daily, weekly, monthly?

It should be frequently every day!

The problem with your ideas are fairly obvious. The courts can already apply any size fine the like when you go to court, making a mandatory tripling of the fine is coming very close to denying someone their right of appeal. As far as more cameras our society is already big brothered enough. There are ALOT of coppers on the freeways, most of them are unmarked or well concealed. The problem with traffic cops is they are far more interested in revenue and quotas than safety and spend most of there time pulling over trucks. You will never stop people drink driving no matter how high the fines or how low the threshold just as you will never stop people speeding or driving unlicensed. The problem isn't with the system the problem is the human condition known as free will.

[mudmouse]

I'm certain I read somewhere that the reason they dont go to .02 is that its too hard to enforce - your toothpaste will make you blow more than that, so will a breath mint. If every second person had to be given a second test after a wait time it would be a fiasco.

I may be wrong, I'm sure someone will tell me if I am!

This is a favourite topic of the pollies when they are trying to appear tough on crime, or deflect attention from another pork-barrelling somewhere.

Cheers,

Adam

Any presence of alcohol such as in some toothpaste, ventolin inhalers, aftershave/perfume and so on will be registered in a passive screening test - thats where you speak toward the device. The second test is via a tube and yes, the presence of alcohol in your mouth will register, which is why you should be asked if you have consumed alcohol within 15 minutes of being stopped.

A reading of 0.05 or above gives Police the power to arrest for the purpose of a Breath Analysis which provides an evidentiary reading that will be considered by the Court.

DUI is different and does not require a reading on a device, but relies upon a persons actions and the Police observations. A blood sample analysis may also be produced to support the prosecution.

I reckon a drop to 0.02 or lower would only choke the Courts and stick people in a queue with all the break and enter merchants, junkies and other drop kicks. The law is in place (as it is for many other offences) and needs to be effected. You start sending low range PCA (Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol) convictions to gaol for 3 months and see what happens. If the threat of going before a Court isn't enough, have think about being inside....


Matt.

[steve_35]

Crush the car unless its stolen first offense

so if its your mates car or someone elses they either let you drive or you stole it so you cop it both ways

and crush it not sell it

jail for the second offense

[MacMan]

Crush the car unless its stolen first offense

so if its your mates car or someone elses they either let you drive or you stole it so you cop it both ways

and crush it not sell it

jail for the second offense

I'm glad you're not PM, Premier or Police Commissioner then.

[BMKal]

You dont need to be over .05 to be charged with driving under the influence




trust me:D

Ahh yeah ............ afraid I'm a bit sceptical of claims like these.

I suppose that you can be charged with anything. Making it stick and recording a conviction is a different matter.

I don't even think I'd need legal representation to beat a charge like that one. ;)

[akelly]

This DUI stuff is true:
From http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~952 .htm

DRINK DRIVING

The offence of Drink Driving is created under the Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) Act 1999 "The Act". It is an offence to do either of the following, while there is present in a persons blood either the "low" (more than 0.05 but less than 0.08), "mid" (more than 0.08 but less than 0.15), or "high" (more than 0.15) range prescribed concentration of alcohol:

* Drive a motor vehicle.
* Occupy the driving seat of a motor vehicle and attempt to put the motor vehicle in motion.
* Be the holder of a driver's licence and occupy the seat in a motor vehicle next to holder of a learner licence, who is driving the vehicle.

It is also an offence to drive under the influence of alcohol or under the influence of a drug being a prohibited drug or drug for the purposes of The Act. For the offence of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol the Police do not need to prove that a person was driving with any of the prescribed concentrations of alcohol in their blood.

Food for thought...

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The problem with your ideas are fairly obvious. The courts can already apply any size fine the like when you go to court, making a mandatory tripling of the fine is coming very close to denying someone their right of appeal. As far as more cameras our society is already big brothered enough. There are ALOT of coppers on the freeways, most of them are unmarked or well concealed. The problem with traffic cops is they are far more interested in revenue and quotas than safety and spend most of there time pulling over trucks. You will never stop people drink driving no matter how high the fines or how low the threshold just as you will never stop people speeding or driving unlicensed. The problem isn't with the system the problem is the human condition known as free will.Sorry I don't agree with you.

Courts: Yes the courts can apply any fine they want. However if people knew that if they challenge a charge in court and lose, the fine will be 3 times what what it was at the side of the road, it will make people think do they want to challenge the charge. If they were in the right and have the evidence to prove it, it will only cost them the time spent in court and a Lawyer if they use one. For the others, disputing a charge results in the Police having to waste a large portion of a day waiting for a charge to be heard. When they are in court they are not out on the road policing the highways.

Cameras: I don't agree, ANPR cameras are a means where people who are driving registered vehicles and those who have no disqualifications or criminal warrants can be left alone by the Police. The system is already in use in Highway Patrol cars and at RBT "stations" in NSW. Having Police out on the road in their ANPR cars instead of in court is a good thing for honest/legal drivers.

Police Patrolling the roads: There are not a lot of Police in marked or unmarked cars. I regularly drive 160 KM down the coast and other areas out of the Sydney Metro Area, and I will frequently do these trips without seeing a single Highway Partol car - marked or unmarked. Don't pretend that unmarked cars are indistinguishable to other cars. Take the window tinting and the additional antennae for a start.

I don't believe the quotas are real and I don't believe that coppers are at all interested in revenue. They are interested in doing their job, but they have to deal with fuel usage and they, or their seniors, have to maintain their fuel use within their assigned budget every month. That results in a higher use of stationary tactics like RBT stations rather than mobile patrolling. Also when a driver can appeal a charge, say for a broken tail-lamp, the coppers get fed up in wasting their time appearing in court to give evidence so they get to a point where they say "it may be illegal, but there isn't a ticket in it". If the Police and Courts time weren't being wasted by these minor offences, then perhaps the Police would be out doing their job.

As I said before if Police were out patrolling, instead of being in the station or in predictable locations with RBT stations then perhaps many of the drink/drug and unlicenced drivers would be caught and some locked up.

Free Will: People will always have free will, but until the chances of actually being caught when drink/drug driving or driving without a licence are greater than the chance of not being caught while offending. Then people will take the risk.

[BMKal]

This DUI stuff is true:
From AussieLegal - Free Australian legal information, useful DIY legal kits and recommended law firm referral service (http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~952 .htm)

DRINK DRIVING

The offence of Drink Driving is created under the Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) Act 1999 "The Act". It is an offence to do either of the following, while there is present in a persons blood either the "low" (more than 0.05 but less than 0.08), "mid" (more than 0.08 but less than 0.15), or "high" (more than 0.15) range prescribed concentration of alcohol:

* Drive a motor vehicle.
* Occupy the driving seat of a motor vehicle and attempt to put the motor vehicle in motion.
* Be the holder of a driver's licence and occupy the seat in a motor vehicle next to holder of a learner licence, who is driving the vehicle.

It is also an offence to drive under the influence of alcohol or under the influence of a drug being a prohibited drug or drug for the purposes of The Act. For the offence of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol the Police do not need to prove that a person was driving with any of the prescribed concentrations of alcohol in their blood.

Food for thought...

Maybe you've got different laws in NSW - and they call US a Police State over here. :p

I still reckon you wouldn't have to try too hard to defend a charge where no "proof" of exceeding the prescribed limit exists. The basic premise of the law in all of Australia as far as I am aware is still "innocent until proven guilty" with the emphasis on the word "proven". Generally a coppers word against yours with no "proof" is not enough.

Not that I'm an advocate of drink driving an any way - I reckon the penalties should be much harsher than they currently are. But reducing the "limits" as proposed here is, IMHO, a complete waste of time. The problem does not lie with those with between 0.00 and 0.05% BAC. A far more productive result would be achieved by dealing correctly with those who are caught seriously over the limit, whether licenced or not. This is not a policing issue, but an issue of poor lawmaking and even poorer application of the existing laws and penalties by the courts.

[steve_35]

I still reckon you wouldn't have to try too hard to defend a charge where no "proof" of exceeding the prescribed limit exists. The basic premise of the law in all of Australia as far as I am aware is still "innocent until proven guilty" with the emphasis on the word "proven". Generally a coppers word against yours with no "proof" is not enough.

The offense is not exceeding the limit its being under the influence of anything drugs or Alcohol

[Hardchina]

I still reckon you wouldn't have to try too hard to defend a charge where no "proof" of exceeding the prescribed limit exists. The basic premise of the law in all of Australia as far as I am aware is still "innocent until proven guilty" with the emphasis on the word "proven". Generally a coppers word against yours with no "proof" is not enough.

The offense is not exceeding the limit its being under the influence of anything drugs or Alcohol

I can understand that - I've got an asian mate who is troppo after 1 pot, I think its a genetic thing, My GF is the same :D. Me on the other hand with my scottish anglo genes can throw down quite a few. Maybe the limits should be lowered for girls and asians and raised for boof head bogan white blokes. But yeah I can see how you can be under the influance yet also under .05. The same logic also means I can be fine at .08 - wouldn't want to push that line in court though :)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Apparently if you're a footballer like XXXXXXXXXX in Brisbane who went DUI 0.156 or <snip>Actually I don't believe the charge is DUI 0.156.

I think you will find the offence is driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.156 in excess of the Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol (PCA)

The offence of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) is an older offence that existed prior to readily available technology to test for BAL and the requisite legislation to allow it. Therefore DUI is a charge that is made by Police based upon the observations of the accused by Police who are considered expert witnesses. It may be unfortunate but BM Kal's assertion that it would be pretty easy a charge to get off is wrong, as in this case the defence would have to prove that the Police were not experts or that they were lying. In this situation it would be up to the defendant to prove that he had not had any alcohol, even unintentional, which is almost "Code civil" guilty unless proven innocent.

[steve_35]

sorry read that wrong

[JDNSW]

Coming into this discussion a bit late, but as with some of the others - in my view, lowering the limit is pretty pointless. Have a look at the figures from any random breath testing campaign. Two points stand out - one is that the vast majority of those over the limit are well over. And that the proportion of those tested actually above the limit is actually very small, usually way under 1%; compare the figures for drivers involved in fatal accidents - 20-30% are above the limit, again, the vast majority well above.

As a non-drinker, I obviously have little concern what the limit is, although it need to be borne in mind that if set too low, accidental ingestion can cause you to exceed the limit - and if zero is ever enshrined in law, remember that the minimum detectable is continually getting lower!

John

[loanrangie]

Between .08 and .12

Is that for someone that drinks every day or someone that drinks one every 3 months

funny how these reports dont mention that
do they just assume we all drink every day

Im pretty sure over .12 you do get worse not better so how can they say that

Yes of course higher than .12 means higher risk, but of those accidents where alcohol was a contributing factor most were in that bracket not between 0- .05 .

[one_iota]

Call me a cynic this is marginal insurance... after all that is what the NRMA trades in.

The NRMA has a vested interest in this.

The difference between .02 and .05 can't be measured in road deaths and injuries but will be measured in convictions and non payouts in the event of an accident.

Might as well make 0.0 the rule.

[Landy Smurf]

they should just change the drinking age to 21