About to lose my licence

[wardy1]

In October last year I was caught at an RBT. I Blew 0.086. I had enjoyed 3 glasses of white wine 2 hours before. A warning to all, when we drink at home (according to the officer), the drinks we drink are substantially larger than those we may be served at a licensed establishment. Most he says are nearly double a standard drink. So effectively I may have had 6 standard drinks...... over the period of time, most of us would say we’re ok right?

WRONG

Now I’m prepared to cop what is coming to me, which will be a 6mth cancellation plus a fine. I’m not denying the charge. The reason for posting this is totally separate from this.

As a consequence of a conviction/cancellation I will lose my job. In Victoria there is no “licence to work”, which means I lose my job immediately. This in turn means zero income which in turn means that I will lose the place I live. Many here know that I’m single these days so there is no other income to pay the bills. Hence, I lose my home and whatever else.

I see people who have committed crimes against others or property and they get good behaviour bonds etc. I commit a Minor offence and stand to lose the lot!

Is this fair? Is it justice?

BTW, I’ve been driving almost 44 years and never had more than a speeding fine <10k over.

Until it happens to you, you don’t think too much about it I guess, but the penalty I now face seems way outside the crime.
Interested to hear your opinions

[rar110]

Work licence?

[Tins]

In October last year I was caught at an RBT. I Blew 0.086. I had enjoyed 3 glasses of white wine 2 hours before. A warning to all, when we drink at home (according to the officer), the drinks we drink are substantially larger than those we may be served at a licensed establishment. Most he says are nearly double a standard drink. So effectively I may have had 6 standard drinks...... over the period of time, most of us would say we’re ok right?

WRONG

Now I’m prepared to cop what is coming to me, which will be a 6mth cancellation plus a fine. I’m not denying the charge. The reason for posting this is totally separate from this.

As a consequence of a conviction/cancellation I will lose my job. In Victoria there is no “licence to work”, which means I lose my job immediately. This in turn means zero income which in turn means that I will lose the place I live. Many here know that I’m single these days so there is no other income to pay the bills. Hence, I lose my home and whatever else.

I see people who have committed crimes against others or property and they get good behaviour bonds etc. I commit a Minor offence and stand to lose the lot!

Is this fair? Is it justice?

BTW, I’ve been driving almost 44 years and never had more than a speeding fine <10k over.

Until it happens to you, you don’t think too much about it I guess, but the penalty I now face seems way outside the crime.
Interested to hear your opinions

I'm hearing ya, Wardy. Even the fine system is inequitable. A $300 fine is nothing to a company CEO in his Benz, especially if he gets someone to "buy" his points. To someone like me, currently on a carer's pension, it is huge.

I am curious; what industry are you in that means a loss of DL means a loss of employment? Also, what skillsets do you have? Maybe a little AULRO magic could find you a job? Heck, we have a couple of precedents of AULRO magic.

[weeds]

Work licence?

I believe some time ago in QLD you could apply for a licence to get yourself to work and back only.

Not sure how factual is was.

[DiscoMick]

He said there is no work licence in Victoria. Is that right?

Edit: appears it is.
Applying for a work licence in Victoria (http://trafficlaw.com.au/work.licences.html)

Is public transport an option? Uber?

[weeds]

Hard done by.....nope it’s what it is, hard to compare.

Although in my younger years I probably should have lost my licence 10 times over.....my current job I have a car as part of my package, the day I took on the role I have never thought about driving after the first sip.......mainly because company policy is 0.00 whether it be work or private trip.

[Tins]

I believe some time ago in QLD you could apply for a licence to get yourself to work and back only.

Not sure how factual is was.

Same in Vic, but I don't know about now.

[Tins]

I am not recommending this bloke. I have never even met him. But, I suggest that you read his various pages. There ARE ways to defend against this.

Motor Traffic Law in Victoria (http://trafficlaw.com.au/index.html)

[weeds]

Actually I lost my licence in 91.....for accumulated points (speeding and defects) and I was gobbed smacked that they gave me my full 12 points back. The ARMY wasn’t happy and thought sending a WO2 was going influence the outcome....the WO2 wasn’t allowed in the front door which I thought was funny as he tried arguing with the police.

I was interviewed by a policemen and he said slow down before you end up dead.

[rar110]

Same in Vic, but I don't know about now.

In Qld a work licence also allows driving at work.

[Tins]

I was gobbed smacked that they gave me my full 12 points back.

Why? You lost your licence. That was the penalty for accruing the points. Penalty served, a clean slate ensues. Standard practice in all jurisdictions I have encountered.

As for the WO, you would have been better off with a Sgt. WOs are usually way to up themselves, especially if they are aa CSM, or worse, RSM. You would have been even better off if the Army hadn't got involved at all; well, that's how it was in my day.

[pop058]

I believe some time ago in QLD you could apply for a licence to get yourself to work and back only.

Not sure how factual is was.

IIRC there was/is an option for loss of licence for X amount of time or go on to the very restrictive work licence for double that amount of time. It wasn't a given but on a case by case basis.

[mekon76]

So since I moved to Melbourne I accumulated 11 demerits within 2 months due to not knowing cameras were under the bridge (my fault) all in the 110 not one fine on my motorbike R1. I got one more point and have opted for double or nothing. Only got myself to blame, but yes disproportionate.
I was run over on my motorbike at a red light by a truck. He got 6 month ban and $500 fine for dangerous driving. He got 6 months jail for something else (drug/thieving).

In Perth I lost my bike for a month and got a 6 month ban but could apply after a month for an 'extraordinary' license. I'm in the CFA also so if I lost my license I'd likely lose my job or have to use my long service at half pay and wouldn't be able to turn out to jobs.

That's my feelings on the matter, but hey my fault. Still don't like seeing some ****bag beat and assault someone and get off with a small fine whereas speed and accumulate demerits and you get treated worse than a junkie conducting a home invasion.

So moral of the story commit serious crime, keep your license. Speed a little bit often enough and get your livelihood taken away.

[Tins]

That's my feelings on the matter, but hey my fault. Still don't like seeing some ****bag beat and assault someone and get off with a small fine whereas speed and accumulate demerits and you get treated worse than a junkie conducting a home invasion.



That particular statement resonates in Victoria at the moment. It could, and should, bring down a Government.

[weeds]

Why? You lost your licence. That was the penalty for accruing the points. Penalty served, a clean slate ensues. Standard practice in all jurisdictions I have encountered.

As for the WO, you would have been better off with a Sgt. WOs are usually way to up themselves, especially if they are aa CSM, or worse, RSM. You would have been even better off if the Army hadn't got involved at all; well, that's how it was in my day.

I only lost my licence for 1hr.....handed it in when I arrived and 1hr later I was walking out with full points.

Re: army sending somebody along, I didn’t have a say.....well I tried to explain I didn’t want any assistance but as always they know better. He was GE WO although the CSM made the call, he did assist me with a military charge around the same time ((five of us charged, one spent 14 days Jail, one CPL had a strip removed, the other CPL lost seniority (served him self right for dobbing us in), me and the other crafty found not guilty))

I would have been happy with a fellow crafty to drive me in, wait in the car park, than we could have goofed off in the city before heading back to the barracks.

[101RRS]

Wardy - A friend of mine got busted mid year - good driving record and over .05 - but less than you. Was expecting a criminal record, $750 fine and 2 months suspension. However in some cases of good driving records magistrates can record a no conviction, no fine and no disqualification. Still goes on your driving record though.

My friend was lucky enough to receive the the no conviction etc but it did cost him $1500 for the solicitor - I suggest you get one and discuss options before court etc and ask for mercy on the basis of your good driving record - possibly even a recorded conviction and a good behaviour bond.

garry

[Tins]

I only lost my licence for 1hr.....handed it in when I arrived and 1hr later I was walking out with full points.



OK, that is a bit weird.

[Pickles2]

In October last year I was caught at an RBT. I Blew 0.086. I had enjoyed 3 glasses of white wine 2 hours before. A warning to all, when we drink at home (according to the officer), the drinks we drink are substantially larger than those we may be served at a licensed establishment. Most he says are nearly double a standard drink. So effectively I may have had 6 standard drinks...... over the period of time, most of us would say we’re ok right?

WRONG

Now I’m prepared to cop what is coming to me, which will be a 6mth cancellation plus a fine. I’m not denying the charge. The reason for posting this is totally separate from this.

As a consequence of a conviction/cancellation I will lose my job. In Victoria there is no “licence to work”, which means I lose my job immediately. This in turn means zero income which in turn means that I will lose the place I live. Many here know that I’m single these days so there is no other income to pay the bills. Hence, I lose my home and whatever else.

I see people who have committed crimes against others or property and they get good behaviour bonds etc. I commit a Minor offence and stand to lose the lot!

Is this fair? Is it justice?

BTW, I’ve been driving almost 44 years and never had more than a speeding fine <10k over.

Until it happens to you, you don’t think too much about it I guess, but the penalty I now face seems way outside the crime.
Interested to hear your opinions
Thank you for your post, could be a wake up call for some, particularly your comment re the larger glasses at home.
The punishment & subsequent ramifications you are expecting are, IMHO, way over the top, particularly when looking at the "punishment" (is that what you call it?) being handed out in Vic courts these days for assaults, home invasions, hoon traffic offenses etc...as I have continually mentioned in my "Law & Order" thread.
I believe you good driving, & nil other "history" over a long period, should be taken into account.
I've heard of Sean Hardy, and I know that He specializes in these matters....his father was also a barrister.
I know nothing about the law, but I would DEFINITELY advise you to see this man.
Thank you for your post, your honesty, and I hope that you will have a better ending to this matter than what you are expecting.
Pickles.

[Tins]

I'm with a few others. Get some help, and go to court. Around 3 years ago I got caught up in Victoria's annual crack down on trucks. After an hour and a half, the Police involved found 6 Work Diary breaches. Not DUI, I know, but carrying severe fines, as they were summons offences, not on the spot. I had a potential of over $10K hanging over me. Nearly 12 months later I went to Dandenong Magistrate's Court. I didn't have a Lawyer, but I'm pretty good in those situations for some reason. Before court I spoke with the prosecutor, who is NOT the charging officer. I got one charge dropped. When the Court sat, I explained my situation to the Magistrate, and pointed out that making mistakes in Diary entries did not put anyone at risk. I got fined $1,000, as he said I had to cop something. I paid on the spot and skedaddled.

I know the offences are different, but my point is, Magistrates are human. If you present well and show contrition, point out your good record it may go well for you. Seek legal advice ASAP.

I wish you luck with it.

[kreecha]

If I may (add $0.02)
I accidentally blew 0.056 in about '06.
I spoke bluntly (albeit respectfully) with the judge.
The guy in front of me (same charge - same range) was a disrespecting tool.
Outcome - 3mth suspension in NsW. Him - 9 mth disqual.
(Difference was I got P's back after 90days, he started back on L's)

Anyway; positively/hopefully/wishfully, maybe you could present a P&L statement to accompany your driving record and request a good behaviour bond to accompany a fine that will match the financial burden you are about to experience. In addition you might articulate how you retaining your current employment is good for queen and country ( employer/government/economy etc)

Sincerely, Adam

[AK83]

....

Now I’m prepared to cop what is coming to me, which will be a 6mth cancellation plus a fine. I’m not denying the charge. The reason for posting this is totally separate from this.

......

First of all, I feel for 'ya.
While I don't symapthise(personally, I'm inherently biased against any drinking and driving!) I stil feel for 'ya in now facing the ensuing prospects.

As other's have said, try and get it to court and plead leniency based on a pretty good long record. I'm sure it'll help.

As a precaution, call all the possible debtors you may have(mortgage, utilities and so on) and tell them the situation, and explain you may be 6months out of work).
At the least apply for Newstart allowance .. the income it brings in is pitiful, but when you're in the system, and they allocate you to a half decent employment provider, they can easily find you a temp job role to help.

Guess how I know this ;)

Didn't lose my job due to license loss, but simply made redundant out of the blue(the only problem with being a subbie .. easy and swift loss of employment possibility).
Found a much better paying driving job about a month later tho .. so in the end it worked for the better(still a subbie tho).

But the first thing I did was to cal all my debtors and explain to them the situation .. and made provisions for potentially being out of work for 6 months.

Oh! .. and even if you do the Centrelink/Employment provider thing above .. also apply at various Employment agencies that specialise in your area(both geographical and industry.
While the Centrelink provided employment providers can be OK to assist you, many of them are totally useless, and only in it for the easy $s they get from the Govt!!!

As an example, I'm with an employment agency called APS. Very good people to work with.
They have very good contacts around the place to get you into temp job roles, and once in their system, you can easily migrate into a 'preferred' job role if you need too.

[DiscoMick]

Is there any way you can get to work without a licence? Could you move closer to work? Do you need your licence for work? Can you travel with another driver? I don't remember these questions being answered previously, unless I missed it.

[VladTepes]

Applying for a work licence in Victoria (http://trafficlaw.com.au/work.licences.html) states that:


Work Driving Licences and Daytime Driving Licences
There has never been any such thing as a "work licence" or "day time licence" in Victoria. They have never existed under any circumstances or for any reason whatsoever. So you can never get one. Everyone who tells you they had one in Victoria is lying. They were actually driving while disqualified but were too shy to tell you the truth.

Conditional licence
There is no such thing as a conditional driver's licence in Victoria. You can never apply for one. You either have a drivers licence or you don't. If you have a driver's licence there is no point in asking a court to place restrictions on it. You should be asking the court not to interfere with it at all.



Drink driving charges
If you are facing mandatory licence cancellation for drink driving, the courts have no power to let you drive a motor vehicle for any purpose whatsoever during your term of licence cancellation.
If you have been served with a s.51 Notice of Immediate licence suspension, it is possible to appeal against that suspension and for the court to take into account your exceptional circumstances to let you have your licence back pending the hearing of your charges.

Some people can plead guilty to drink driving and still keep their driver's licence. See the Drink Driving (http://trafficlaw.com.au/drink.driving/drink.driving.penalties.html) page which sets out the criteria when that can apply.


links to:

Drink Driving Penalties in Victoria (http://trafficlaw.com.au/drink.driving/drink.driving.penalties.html)


Licence Cancellation
The table below sets out the minimum periods of licence cancellation for all drivers found guilty of a drink driving offence in Victoria. There are no better alternatives except for those who plead not guilty and are acquitted. The only way to avoid licence loss for drink driving offences is to plead not guilty and be acquitted. The penalties for subsequent offences apply to people who have been found guilty or convicted of a drink driving or drug driving offence during the period of 10 years prior to the date of the current offence.



A reading of 0.086 puts you into the category of Reading: 0.08% or more but less than 0.09
Loss of Licence, for first offence: 6 months as you said.

There is also a potential fine of 'up to' $3,000 (though very unlikely you'd get a large fine) which is obviously going to be excessively onerous in your situation, likely a lawyer could het that reduced to a minimum or nil.

Given the consequences to you that's pretty ****ed up, for sure and a MUCH bigger impact than would be the case for 99% of people.

WORTH TAKING TO A SPECIALIST LAWYER.

There may be some technicality they can get you acquitted under. That would be your only hope.


Pleading Not Guilty to save your licence:
Every accused is entitled to plead not guilty. This does not mean the accused must prove they are innocent. The court already presumes that to be the case so an accused has absolutely nothing they need to prove. What it means is the police need to prove all facts and other matters necessary to support a finding of guilt. In most drink driving cases, the police case needs to be put to the test if you wish to avoid licence loss. All the accused needs to do is turn up to put the police case to the test. In mandatory licence loss cases, if you do not want to test the prosecution case and you have no defence of your own, there is almost no chance of avoiding licence loss. So if you want to avoid mandatory license loss you must go to court and in most cases you must plead not guilty.

[wardy1]

Well, 6 mths + $500. About what I expected.
To answer a couple of questions, I’m a sales consultant. I drive to peoples houses to go through property investment options. No way I can do that now. My work also involved a lot of interstate stuff with hire cars. Even if Vic DID have a work licence, I wouldn’t be able to use it to hire a car. In other words, my job is gone as of yesterday.
I got the feeling that the magistrate WOULD have changed things if he could. He agreed that the impact of a single error of judgement shouldn’t be as harsh as it could be for me.
Oh well, need to find something else. I don’t care what I do, long as I get paid enough to support myself

[loanrangie]

Well that's crap Alan, I bet if you said you had an ice problem it would have been a different outcome. Any room for an appeal ?

[wardy1]

Nope

[trout1105]

I am sorry Wardy1 I can't find anywhere in my heart to feel sorry for you Mate.

0.086 is a pretty high reading and you Must have been feeling the effects and your driving would undoubtedly have been impaired.

$500 and 6 months suspension (which I think is the minimum allowed) is a far better result than if you had injured/killed yourself or some innocent on the road.
As you say your job was dependant on holding your drivers licence then you shouldn't have taken any chances with it.
There is NO excuse these days for drink driving.
You say this is your first offence drink driving But is this the first time you have dank and drove or is it the first time you have been caught?

Sorry Mate but as the saying goes " Drink and drive and you are a Bloody Idiot"

[101RRS]

He knows all that - we all know that - I dont think your post is helpful.

[loanrangie]

I think Mr Trout is only saying what most of us are thinking, if it was some one i didn't know i would just say do the crime do the time. There should be some kind of warning system for those that aren't repeat offenders and have an otherwise good driving record.
I have a desk job where there is a zero tolerance policy even thought legally elsewhere its .05 as stupid as it is, so i will lose my job for .001 yet i'm hardly a menace to society and the worst i can do is get a paper cut.

[Mick_Marsh]

I have a desk job where there is a zero tolerance policy even thought legally elsewhere its .05 as stupid as it is, so i will lose my job for .001 yet i'm hardly a menace to society and the worst i can do is get a paper cut.
Ditto.
We an be drug an alcohol tested at any time, without notice, on site. Subject to instant dismissal.

[Vern]

Why should it make any difference if it is someone you know or not?
I did the crime once, then did the time. My boss was even going to employ someone to drive me around. Knowing i stuffed up, i chose to quit my job, then went and did something completely different where i didn't need a car for work. Did that for a while then went back to my old job once i had my license back.

[loanrangie]

Why should it make any difference if it is someone you know or not?
I did tue crime once, then did the time. My boss was even going to employ someone to drive me around. Knowing i stuffed up, i chose to quit my job, then went and did something completely different where i didn't need a car for work. Did that for a while then went back to my old job once i had my license back.
Because we know he's not some drongo who repeatedly offends and drives like a lunatic, I don't sympathies on the offence but what he will loose is far more than is warranted.

[Gordie]

Sounds like the OP knows he has cocked up and is taking it on the chin.

The lesson he has learned is, that any of us can cock up. Unfortunately, those of us who strive to do well in life, get a property, have some toys, work for our living....We pay a much higher price when we cock up. We have something to lose.

The average feral, just carries on with their daily lives, they care not if they lose their licence, they either don't have a job to lose or just keep driving anyway. They don't have a house or chattels to lose, don't pay the fine etc.

That's life in the society we have made unfortunately.

[AllTerr]

Not knowing the laws on that here (asked the wife and she wasn't sure either) did you go on suspension the date of the offence? So in other words, if you did, would it count towards the penalty in a "time served" sense?( I.E., Oct - now = 3 months toward the 6 month penalty), or did you keep it until court?

[John_D4]

On the plus side, your Land Rover should be travelling less km so less chance of it breaking down. See, there’s always a silver lining!

[Tins]

I am sorry Wardy1 I can't find anywhere in my heart to feel sorry for you Mate.

0.086 is a pretty high reading and you Must have been feeling the effects and your driving would undoubtedly have been impaired.

$500 and 6 months suspension (which I think is the minimum allowed) is a far better result than if you had injured/killed yourself or some innocent on the road.
As you say your job was dependant on holding your drivers licence then you shouldn't have taken any chances with it.
There is NO excuse these days for drink driving.
You say this is your first offence drink driving But is this the first time you have dank and drove or is it the first time you have been caught?

Sorry Mate but as the saying goes " Drink and drive and you are a Bloody Idiot"

I have to ask: was that also your opinion when Victoria was .05, and WA was .08? .086 would not have even registered then. I'll bet you know people, perhaps even yourself, who sailed close to the wind, who would have been illegal here in Vic. Please note: I am NOt having a go at you personally, I am just illustrating a point.

The .05 thing is a line in the sand. Many, many people operate quite well at levels far above .05. This is demonstrated by the fact that very many jurisdictions, including WA until a little while ago, accepted .08 as being the limit. .05 was popularised by Peter Brock, but it is merely an arbitrary number chosen to maximise the revenue from the fines. Most people can be .05+ without realising it, which is why it suits legislators, apart from the mathematical symmetry of it.

Now, before you all jump down my throat, consider this: In my professional life, I have always had to be .00 ( well, not all my professional life. BCA tests came in long after I started driving, but you get my drift, I hope ). .00 is easy to work out. So, why not make the test for everyone .00? If I have had a drink in, let's say, 8 hours, then I am not .00. There are no grey areas. It is quite easy to work out, and people, like poor Wardy here, would know that they can't drive. No? I'll tell you why. The Police would not need to spend massive $$$ on big fancy vans, the Politicians would have nothing to talk about ( I wish ), and there would be no hotels, apart from places like Balmain. The whole concept is unpalatable to the plebs who watch ACA.

I want to tell a story to illustrate how silly it is to jump on someone for a mistake. Because we can all make them.

Here we go: when my first wife and I got divorced, some time ago, we, that is my girlfriend, my then former wife and I, decided to go from 570 Bourke St up to the Windsor Hotel for a celebratory drink. ( Best not to ask about the girlfriend/former wife thing ) When we left, separately, I was pulled in for a RBT. Sure, things were different then, but I was passed, did not register. What I did not know was, the girlfriend, who had pretty much what I had to drink, had been pulled in as well. She registered .17, and in Vic in those days that meant she lost her licence for 17 months. We had drunk similar amounts. It is likely I had more than her..

Now, you can make of that story what you will. You can believe it or not. I put it up here to point out that blood alcohol levels vary from person to person, per drink consumed, by body weight and sex. Women are more likely to register a high reading than men, and it's not just about body weight. The fact that women menstruate plays a part.

My size ( 100 kg currently ), my metabolism ( quick ) all have a bearing on my ability to deal with alcohol. I am sure you are different. That is precisely why you should not judge someone who has at least had the courage to tell his story. Wardy's story is a "there but the grace of God" situation, and I encourage you all to reflect on that. Are YOU perfect?

[trout1105]

I have to ask: was that also your opinion when Victoria was .05, and WA was .08? .086 would not have even registered then. I'll bet you know people, perhaps even yourself, who sailed close to the wind, who would have been illegal here in Vic. Please note: I am NOt having a go at you personally, I am just illustrating a point.

The .05 thing is a line in the sand. Many, many people operate quite well at levels far above .05. This is demonstrated by the fact that very many jurisdictions, including WA until a little while ago, accepted .08 as being the limit. .05 was popularised by Peter Brock, but it is merely an arbitrary number chosen to maximise the revenue from the fines. Most people can be .05+ without realising it, which is why it suits legislators, apart from the mathematical symmetry of it.

Now, before you all jump down my throat, consider this: In my professional life, I have always had to be .00 ( well, not all my professional life. BCA tests came in long after I started driving, but you get my drift, I hope ). .00 is easy to work out. So, why not make the test for everyone .00? If I have had a drink in, let's say, 8 hours, then I am not .00. There are no grey areas. It is quite easy to work out, and people, like poor Wardy here, would know that they can't drive. No? I'll tell you why. The Police would not need to spend massive $$$ on big fancy vans, the Politicians would have nothing to talk about ( I wish ), and there would be no hotels, apart from places like Balmain. The whole concept is unpalatable to the plebs who watch ACA.

I want to tell a story to illustrate how silly it is to jump on someone for a mistake. Because we can all make them.

Here we go: when my first wife and I got divorced, some time ago, we, that is my girlfriend, my then former wife and I, decided to go from 570 Bourke St up to the Windsor Hotel for a celebratory drink. ( Best not to ask about the girlfriend/former wife thing ) When we left, separately, I was pulled in for a RBT. Sure, things were different then, but I was passed, did not register. What I did not know was, the girlfriend, who had pretty much what I had to drink, had been pulled in as well. She registered .17, and in Vic in those days that meant she lost her licence for 17 months. We had drunk similar amounts. It is likely I had more than her..

Now, you can make of that story what you will. You can believe it or not. I put it up here to point out that blood alcohol levels vary from person to person, per drink consumed, by body weight and sex. Women are more likely to register a high reading than men, and it's not just about body weight. The fact that women menstruate plays a part.

My size ( 100 kg currently ), my metabolism ( quick ) all have a bearing on my ability to deal with alcohol. I am sure you are different. That is precisely why you should not judge someone who has at least had the courage to tell his story. Wardy's story is a "there but the grace of God" situation, and I encourage you all to reflect on that. Are YOU perfect?


The alcohol limits in WA are;
Over 0.05 to under 0.08 is driving whilst under the influence and anything over 0.08 is drunken driving, Wardy was 0.086 So he was Drunk and Not just a little bit "Tipsy"
Am I "Perfect" ?
NO I have been busted for D.D. in the past which cost me my licence and a hefty fine at the time.
Did I consider the fine and the 6 Month suspension to be too harsh? Of course I did But it had the effect that I haven't had an illegal B.A.C in over 20 odd years since
I am pretty sure that just about everyone is aware how a persons sex, weight and metabolism will affect their B.A.C. so pulling the "I'm only a skinny guy/girl officer " is NO excuse.

[John_D4]

Guys...he was over the limit, DUI, whatever the term. Does it really matter what the limit is? He was over it! Not only is DUI dangerous but what everyone forgets is that if you crash whilst DUI your insurance is void.

I work in emergency services & have been to a young lady that crashed into a very new Mercedes. The whole time we were with her she kept saying ‘thank goodness for insurance, I couldn’t afford this’. Later after she got physically restrained at hospital and her blood alcohol test done I told her about DUI & insurance bring void. It was quite pleasing to watch the colour drain from her face!

Glad your not in her shoes?

[Homestar]

Sorry to hear Wardy. Minimum sentencing for anything has never worked as a deterrent and it just catches out those that make one small error in judgement unfortunately. ☹️

[DiscoMick]

Good on you for taking it on the chin, which isn't easy. It's a warning to us all.

[wardy1]

Not knowing the laws on that here (asked the wife and she wasn't sure either) did you go on suspension the date of the offence? So in other words, if you did, would it count towards the penalty in a "time served" sense?( I.E., Oct - now = 3 months toward the 6 month penalty), or did you keep it until court?

Good question.
I could have (and on reflection, SHOULD have) taken 28 days from the date I was caught to get my affairs in order and then handed in my licence to VicRoads. Had I done this I still would have lost my job, but I’d be 3 months into my disqualification by now.

Many people told me that I should go to court as I may get off a little lighter so that is what I did.

I spoke to several lawyers who all told me that this would not be the case, that magistrates have no discretion in DUI. Unfortunately I found this out AFTER the 28 days had elapsed.

Thanks for all the posts of support guys, they are appreciated.

I was dumb and now have to pay the price, but my original point still remains, why can someone who carries out a criminal offence such as assault or robbery get a good behaviour bond or similar yet a traffic offence gets an arbitrary sentence?

Sitting in court waiting for my case to come up there was an Asian guy with poor English who had been pulled up doing more than 25k over the limit. This gets you an automatic 1 mth suspension in Vic. He got caught again at a similar speed and was driving whilst suspended this time........ poor English your honour...... 6 mths good behaviour and NO fine! This probably illustrates my point better than any anecdote.

Anyway, it is what it is. At least I avoided a bloody interlock!

A warning to everyone now:

As of 1st Jan 2018, the rules have changed. No longer do you have to be OVER .05. The rule now is .05 AND ABOVE. Also, ALL people convicted will have to have an interlock fitted for a period equivalent to the cancellation.

[DiscoMick]

Good question.
I could have (and on reflection, SHOULD have) taken 28 days from the date I was caught to get my affairs in order and then handed in my licence to VicRoads. Had I done this I still would have lost my job, but I’d be 3 months into my disqualification by now.

Many people told me that I should go to court as I may get off a little lighter so that is what I did.

I spoke to several lawyers who all told me that this would not be the case, that magistrates have no discretion in DUI. Unfortunately I found this out AFTER the 28 days had elapsed.

Thanks for all the posts of support guys, they are appreciated.

I was dumb and now have to pay the price, but my original point still remains, why can someone who carries out a criminal offence such as assault or robbery get a good behaviour bond or similar yet a traffic offence gets an arbitrary sentence?

Sitting in court waiting for my case to come up there was an Asian guy with poor English who had been pulled up doing more than 25k over the limit. This gets you an automatic 1 mth suspension in Vic. He got caught again at a similar speed and was driving whilst suspended this time........ poor English your honour...... 6 mths good behaviour and NO fine! This probably illustrates my point better than any anecdote.

Anyway, it is what it is. At least I avoided a bloody interlock!

A warning to everyone now:

As of 1st Jan 2018, the rules have changed. No longer do you have to be OVER .05. The rule now is .05 AND ABOVE. Also, ALL people convicted will have to have an interlock fitted for a period equivalent to the cancellation.

If the interlock is fitted at the same time as the disqualification, that would assume the person is expected to try to drive while disqualified.

[wardy1]

If the interlock is fitted at the same time as the disqualification, that would assume the person is expected to try to drive while disqualified.

It gets fitted when you get your licence back

[JohnboyLandy]

Similar experience in QLD, with my daughter being charged with "Driving with undue care and attention".

The experience taught us one thing, GET A SOLICITOR.

I say that because there's a whole theory about what to say and what not to say in court, the solicitor can advise you on that.

I know they will cost $1500 ish, but GET A SOLICITOR

Cheers,
John

[wardy1]

Similar experience in QLD, with my daughter being charged with "Driving with undue care and attention".

The experience taught us one thing, GET A SOLICITOR.

I say that because there's a whole theory about what to say and what not to say in court, the solicitor can advise you on that.

I know they will cost $1500 ish, but GET A SOLICITOR

Cheers,
John

I spoke to 4 different lawyers. They all told me the same, that the disqualification is mandatory. The only thing they said they MIGHT achieve was to get the fine reduced. I did this myself. It would have cost me about $1100 to save $350.

[JohnboyLandy]

Bummer, must differ between the states.

All the best
John

[Stanleysteamer]

I spoke to 4 different lawyers. They all told me the same, that the disqualification is mandatory. The only thing they said they MIGHT achieve was to get the fine reduced. I did this myself. It would have cost me about $1100 to save $350.

Hi, here in the UK the minimum ban is 12 months. I know 2 people who got caught, set up by others. One deserved it, but still got his father in law to drive him around. He, like you, was a sales rep. The other got set up by a recently dumped boyfriend. She got her mother over from Poland to drive her. Recently I lost my licence for 6 months due to a medical problem. I could in fact drive but was not allowed to. So, until I got my licence back colleagues very kindly gave me lifts, and I paid towards fuel.

Do you not know someone you could pay to drive you? Even if you had to take out a loan to do it, at least you would keep your job, home etc. What about a young unemployed person? A loan is a pain but job loss is worse. Do hope you sort yourself out. As others have said, there but for the grace of God go so many of us.

[niobe]

In October last year I was caught at an RBT. I Blew 0.086. I had enjoyed 3 glasses of white wine 2 hours before. A warning to all, when we drink at home (according to the officer), the drinks we drink are substantially larger than those we may be served at a licensed establishment. Most he says are nearly double a standard drink. So effectively I may have had 6 standard drinks...... over the period of time, most of us would say we’re ok right?

WRONG

Now I’m prepared to cop what is coming to me, which will be a 6mth cancellation plus a fine. I’m not denying the charge. The reason for posting this is totally separate from this.

As a consequence of a conviction/cancellation I will lose my job. In Victoria there is no “licence to work”, which means I lose my job immediately. This in turn means zero income which in turn means that I will lose the place I live. Many here know that I’m single these days so there is no other income to pay the bills. Hence, I lose my home and whatever else.

I see people who have committed crimes against others or property and they get good behaviour bonds etc. I commit a Minor offence and stand to lose the lot!

Is this fair? Is it justice?

BTW, I’ve been driving almost 44 years and never had more than a speeding fine <10k over.

Until it happens to you, you don’t think too much about it I guess, but the penalty I now face seems way outside the crime.
Interested to hear your opinions

A lawyer once told me to always avoid court if possible, because "only criminals get justice".

[feraldisco]

Totally agree with the below post. SA was also .08 for many years. And the metabolism thing is obviously more complicated than just size. Myself and three similarly sized and aged mates drank exactly the same rounds one night and then tested our BACs...VERY different results. There's a little bit of science in .05 but it is also arbitrary in that it needs to try to account for the 'average' person and in a fairly conservative way. I'm sure we all know people who are completely coherent after 10 drinks and those who are tipsy after one.

I agree that a limit has to be set in some form but am also amazed that there is no option to use your licence for work purposes - certainly that has been in the case in other jurisdictions and I know someone who had this arrangement.

The distraction of mobile phone use can be worse than low-level drink driving, but more difficult to enforce and so it continues to occur, largely unabated...


I have to ask: was that also your opinion when Victoria was .05, and WA was .08? .086 would not have even registered then. I'll bet you know people, perhaps even yourself, who sailed close to the wind, who would have been illegal here in Vic. Please note: I am NOt having a go at you personally, I am just illustrating a point.

The .05 thing is a line in the sand. Many, many people operate quite well at levels far above .05. This is demonstrated by the fact that very many jurisdictions, including WA until a little while ago, accepted .08 as being the limit. .05 was popularised by Peter Brock, but it is merely an arbitrary number chosen to maximise the revenue from the fines. Most people can be .05+ without realising it, which is why it suits legislators, apart from the mathematical symmetry of it.

Now, before you all jump down my throat, consider this: In my professional life, I have always had to be .00 ( well, not all my professional life. BCA tests came in long after I started driving, but you get my drift, I hope ). .00 is easy to work out. So, why not make the test for everyone .00? If I have had a drink in, let's say, 8 hours, then I am not .00. There are no grey areas. It is quite easy to work out, and people, like poor Wardy here, would know that they can't drive. No? I'll tell you why. The Police would not need to spend massive $$$ on big fancy vans, the Politicians would have nothing to talk about ( I wish ), and there would be no hotels, apart from places like Balmain. The whole concept is unpalatable to the plebs who watch ACA.

I want to tell a story to illustrate how silly it is to jump on someone for a mistake. Because we can all make them.

Here we go: when my first wife and I got divorced, some time ago, we, that is my girlfriend, my then former wife and I, decided to go from 570 Bourke St up to the Windsor Hotel for a celebratory drink. ( Best not to ask about the girlfriend/former wife thing ) When we left, separately, I was pulled in for a RBT. Sure, things were different then, but I was passed, did not register. What I did not know was, the girlfriend, who had pretty much what I had to drink, had been pulled in as well. She registered .17, and in Vic in those days that meant she lost her licence for 17 months. We had drunk similar amounts. It is likely I had more than her..

Now, you can make of that story what you will. You can believe it or not. I put it up here to point out that blood alcohol levels vary from person to person, per drink consumed, by body weight and sex. Women are more likely to register a high reading than men, and it's not just about body weight. The fact that women menstruate plays a part.

My size ( 100 kg currently ), my metabolism ( quick ) all have a bearing on my ability to deal with alcohol. I am sure you are different. That is precisely why you should not judge someone who has at least had the courage to tell his story. Wardy's story is a "there but the grace of God" situation, and I encourage you all to reflect on that. Are YOU perfect?

[Craigb]

I empathise with Wardy and I don't think you were looking for sympathy but raising what had happened for discussion. You certainly triggered some thoughts and emotion in me. 35 plus years ago and pre random breath tests, me and my mates would consistently drink and drive. We had the theory then that if you drove perfectly then they couldn't pull you over - young, naive and stupid! Luckily none of us came unstuck - worst story I remember was a mate turning up at my place next morning after a party we had, looking for fuel - he left the night before, pulled over he was so drunk and then fell asleep - forgot to turn car off and ran out of fuel. Random breath tests saw me be very particular from then on and right to today I have a one light beer limit - I just won't risk my licence.

I do remember though SA being .08 and holding out when there was pressure from the Feds, connected to road funding, to drop it to .05. At the time they had research from Flinders University that there was no correlation between the numbers of accidents with those in that range - something like that - but the argument was not to change. But as suggested you make a lot more money if you make it .05 - whether it is the correct limit or not. Similarly I keep hearing mates getting pinged for speeding with lower and lower margins, despite manufacturers only needing to produce a car that is accurate to 10%.

I had a tenant who i later discovered her partner was an ice addict. I gave her/them the place over others because she was heavily pregnant, their previous lease had ended beyond their control - previous landlord and referree confirming - only later to discover it was his mother and it was all bull****. It was a very stressful few years, in constant fear of my families safety and no help from authorities in getting them out and they knew all the loopholes to keep stringing me along to the tune of about $10k in rent not to mention damage. He had long lost his licence by his own admission - 'I had some rent but don't have a licence' - and yet i would constantly see him driving ( I lived in the same area) and often doing burnouts, bald tyres etc. He would seem to constantly get locked up and released - the last few times with gps ankle band and would need to provide urine samples when checking in (his mother later telling me he would buy urine over the internet or get his sons). Each time he would have a court order releasing him to my house with no checks from court that he didn't have a lease or own the place. One of the last times he knocked off a music store and he argued it wasn't him to police despite them placing him by gps in the music store. Neighbours told me the police needed two vans to get all the instruments out of the house. At some stage after that he tried to give me a guitar with a $15,000 tag on it - told me the police had to give it back to him because it wasn't on the music store inventory but had their tag. He told me it wasn't so bad going back to prison, lots of worries go away and caught up with old mates and then would always say, but not anymore, I'm going straight now. Each time he got locked up the house would get trashed - word goes out he is in and the boys come around and search for cash and drugs. The torture finally ended when alerted from a neighbour that nobody was home for days and the pitbull in the backyard was barking and looking hungry. I called his mother who said he was locked up and really gone this time. She agreed to clear his stuff - which means take anything of value and leave a mess for me to clean up - a clearly wealthy woman and i can't complain too much because she did help me to break the chain. As it happened, I had just been made redundant - talked to the accountant and he said pull it down (was pretty stuffed by then anyway) sell the land and cop the capital gain while my income was low. Without being able to find a demo firm that would salvage all this Oregon and Jarrah in the house, i decided to demolish it myself by hand. And there I was a few months later, unemployed, chucking roof tiles down by hand and he turns up proudly announcing he had a chefs apprenticeship, something he always wanted to do and the same old line.... 'I'm going straight now"!

Our family survived and of course it could be worse. We tried to shield our young kids as much as we could but we tried to explain it to them that the tenants were doing the wrong thing but all our actions, even the bad judgements were made trying to do the right things by others, trying to help them. I'm not even looking for empathy, let alone sympathy and just used this to explain my experience where Wardy was querying what are appropriate penalties. And I don't need anyone to tell me all would have been solved if i had an agent - can give examples of mates where that hasn't worked either with these sorts of people. I did have over 10 years with varying good tennants and then it was my caring for others that saw me come unstuck. But it left me with the conclusion that it is only money that drives the whole system. If you have money and can pay fines, then you will be targeted and with ever increasing fines. If you don't have money then you can continue to drive and offend and they will do everything in their power to keep you out of prison because that will cost them money. Speed cameras are efficient in collecting money and can't be disputed, blood alcohol similar and you can always defend it because we all know that really drunk drivers and speeders kill innocent people. Yet everyday I see people distracted and on mobile phones, but that takes more effort.

And the original question - does the penalty match the crime. I'm not saying breaking laws is a good thing or should go unpunished but surely the main point of the punishment is to prevent a repeat of the offence. Cut someones hands off and they are unlikely to steal again but maybe something less would also have that same effect. First offence and would the shock of it all, a fine and some licence restriction see Wardy never do it again. Just introducing random breath tests was enough to never see me drink drive again. My tenant.... I don't need a licence to drive and I can do anything i like and get away with it - what would actually take to change his behaviour now? I think the solution is judges that can make decent decisions and not mandatory sentencing. The mandatory stuff just makes their job easy. Judges that understand people and can work out what it takes to change behaviour - not that i am saying that is easy and make the grade and you should be paid a good salary for that. Fine Wardy and probably could say to him zero tolerance and even zero alcohol - but keep your job and house and I am guessing from what has been said and he would say thankyou and never do it again. But keep releasing repeat offenders and obviously that don't work and blind freddy could work that out.

Glad i got that off my chest!

[mick88]

In some countries it's lower than .05 and even .00

Not all recalcitrants escape unscathed:

This one got caught up with.
I wonder if it will stop her, 2061 is a long way away.

Buronga driver disqualified until 2061 | Sunraysia Daily (http://www.sunraysiadaily.com.au/story/5092752/buronga-driver-disqualified-until-2061/)

Cheers, Mick.

[Tins]

The alcohol limits in WA are;
Over 0.05 to under 0.08 is driving whilst under the influence and anything over 0.08 is drunken driving, Wardy was 0.086 So he was Drunk and Not just a little bit "Tipsy"
Am I "Perfect" ?
NO I have been busted for D.D. in the past which cost me my licence and a hefty fine at the time.
Did I consider the fine and the 6 Month suspension to be too harsh? Of course I did But it had the effect that I haven't had an illegal B.A.C in over 20 odd years since
I am pretty sure that just about everyone is aware how a persons sex, weight and metabolism will affect their B.A.C. so pulling the "I'm only a skinny guy/girl officer " is NO excuse.



I guess that you completely missed the point. BAC in MANY jurisdictions in the world is still .08. NSW changed, as did WA, some time ago. Has changing it down had an appreciable affect on the road toll? Going by reports in the last month I would argue that it hasn't.

You also missed my point about .00. If they are serious about the road toll issue then .00 is really the only way, as nobody knows when they reach .05. I tried to point that out in my little story, but I guess you missed that too.

I find it very strange that people accept the totally arbitrary nature of a BAC legislation that does not accept, not at all, that different people are affected differently by alcohol intake, and yet being impaired by alcohol or, for example, amphetamines, is used often in a defence of a homicide.

I'm sure your driving record makes you feel proud, Trout. I will tell you that I beat you by 30 years, and I have NEVER been done for DUI. Perhaps I have been lucky, as a drinking culture is very definitely a result of 4 years in the Army in the '70s, and a life in construction in Qld, and in many and varied occupations since then. Drinks on Friday after work were the stuff of legends.

I have posted on here before, and I will do it again now. .00 is the only answer to this, and, as I have said before also, there is no politician in the country who will advocate that. So, I challenge anyone, you included Trout, to tell me the Governments and the Police are seriously trying to contain the road toll through their "efforts". I will bet that you cannot demonstrate that they are.

Wardy got done. He's copped to that, and I for one thank him for sharing. His point about serves is something all of us should take note of. My daughter, who used to manage a Hotel, tells me all the time about the RSA laws now. Bar staff MUST count drinks being served here in Vic. That is an incredibly big ask for someone serving drinks in a busy bar, especially one with live music. But, they have liability. As does nearly everyone else.

I am not disagreeing with your position, Trout. I am merely pointing out that an arbitrary line in the sand position is not necessarily the right way to go. I feel for Wardy, as the penalty he faces is far worse than his crime. Some fancy lawyer in his Beemer would find a way around it, or just pay. Wardy can't do that. So, the law is iniquitous. Of course, all laws are.

We need laws. I am in no way an anarchist ( Jan would have argued with me about that, but she is no longer here ), but I believe laws should be fair, and I also believe every person should be given the right to speak in their defence and get a hearing. That is NOT what happens in Victoria.

You say"I am pretty sure that just about everyone is aware how a persons sex, weight and metabolism will affect their B.A.C. so pulling the "I'm only a skinny guy/girl officer " is NO excuse."

Sure, but who offered it as one? I was merely pointing out that EVERYONE is different, and the law does not recognise that. There have been Formula One drivers that drove after drinking ( James Hunt comes to mind ). BAC is not as arbitrary as 60 KMh, for example. and yet nearly all jurisdictions apply a % leeway on speeding fines. Except Victoria, of course, who changed the % thing to a 3 K leeway. Dunno who on here is good at maths, but 3 k in a 40 zone is NOT the same as 3 K in a 110 zone.

Everything about the laws here in Vic are about revenue. The former Treasurer of Vic, who became Premier by default, John Brumby ( disclaimer: I was at school with John, and his brother was my best friend in those days ), bragged openly about his measures to help "balance" the budget. Not once in his speech did he mention the 'lowering' of the road toll. Yes, he mentioned the road toll, but it was purely emotive jargon. Things have not changed here.

If you insist on your views, I would suggest that you look at how the UK deal with the road toll. I would then suggest that you look at their toll compared to ours. Then I would suggest you look at the size of the place, and the population, and the number of vehicular movements they experience, and consider that they are where many of us came from, and come back and tell us what you think.

[trout1105]

I have spent Many years in the Mining game and if you don't blow 0.00 at the start of your shift then that is the end of your job, I agree that 0.00 WORKS.
All we now have to do is to convince the government to change the law, Good luck with that.
Even IF 0.00 was the limit there would Still be people that would "Run the Gauntlet".
It NOT about changing the Law it's More about changing peoples attitudes that will help to stop drunks killing/injuring themselves and others on the road.
BTW I too spent time in the Army in the 70's and then went professional fishing and working on the Mines all these occupations promote a drinking culture.
Yes I still love to have a few beers with my Mates But I am not stupid enough to drive even if I have only had 1 or 3 beers.
I may or may not be over the legal limit after 1-3 beers But I can most definitely say that my driving ability is far better when I have had Zero beers.

[knares]

it used to be .008 in wa Those in charge didn’t want to change it, didn’t think it necessary
It was the feds that made them change it to .005

[Tins]

I have spent Many years in the Mining game and if you don't blow 0.00 at the start of your shift then that is the end of your job, I agree that 0.00 WORKS.
All we now have to do is to convince the government to change the law, Good luck with that.

I made the point about government in this thread, and in many others..


Even IF 0.00 was the limit there would Still be people that would "Run the Gauntlet".
It NOT about changing the Law it's More about changing peoples attitudes that will help to stop drunks killing/injuring themselves and others on the road..

Indeed. But .00 takes ANY doubt out of the equation, does it not? If I drove right now, in my grief and lonelieness, I would bet I could pass a RBT. Here, in Vic. My situation would be that I have had a drink, I am emotionally ****ed up, my driving would not be ok, bur my experience of RBTs is that I would pass. This is by no way definitive, but it is my experience. I would addd that I have not been counting 'standard drinks' even a little bit, and I have had a very emotional day.



Yes I still love to have a few beers with my Mates But I am not stupid enough to drive even if I have only had 1 or 3 beers.
I may or may not be over the legal limit after 1-3 beers But I can most definitely say that my driving ability is far better when I have had Zero beers.

Is it one, or is it three, beers, Trout? When do you call it? Do you know what your BAC is at that point? Do you understand that you are not the best person to judge?

As for an individual's driving, I have met Wardy. Legal or not ( can of worms right there ), I would rather be in the car with him at .08 than in the car with my daughter with just one drink, when she would be about .001.

This could go on and on. Go for it if you wish. I don't care. I would hope I could open some people's eyes, but I doubt it.

[trout1105]

Is it one, or is it three, beers, Trout? When do
you
call it? Do you know what your BAC is at that point? Do you understand that you are not the best person to judge?

1, 3, 5 or ten beers it doesn't matter, I won't drive even after only 1 beer.
I do know that after 3 Carlton Mids in an hour I am just under 0.05 as I have self tested myself Many times just out of curiosity But I still won't drive.
All minesites have a self testing machine available, Maybe it would be a good idea if EVERY Pub had one to it could help.
Having NO drinks before driving is the BEST method of knowing what my BAC is Exactly , So yes I am the best person to judge my BAC before I drive.



As for an individual's driving, I have met Wardy. Legal or not ( can of worms right there ), I would rather be in the car with him at .08 than in the car with my daughter with just one drink (https://www.aulro.com/afvb/#)
, when she would be about .001.
Have you ever been severely injured in an MVA because of another drivers irresponsibility?
I Have.
Taking chances driving drunk, dangerously or even tired is irresponsible, selfish and thoughtless behaviour behind the wheel that can cost people their lives and their health.
It can also cost innocent people their jobs and livelihood also a lifetime of disfigurement and pain, Ask me how I know this.

This is why I have NO compassion for people that get busted for DD, speeding or dangerous driving OK.

[vnx205]

... ....
Indeed. But .00 takes ANY doubt out of the equation, does it not?
.. .... ...


I'm not sure it removes all doubt.

I know there are guidelines about how quickly alcohol is removed from the body, but it varies.

There is still the potential for doubt. If you have one beer, how long do you wait until you know you are 0.0? If you have a glass of wine with dinner, do you wait 30 minutes before you know you will blow zero, or one hour or the next day?

Even if the limit was 0.0, even with the best will in the world people could still miscalculate.

I'm not arguing about whether 0.0 is a good idea; just pointing out that it is still possible to unintentionally get it wrong.

[dirvine]

My view on all of this has two fronts. If we want to stop drink driving why not make manufacturers put an interlock device in all cars and the driver has to blow into each time the car is started. Its a pain but then the police would not have to patrol booze buses as much. Also we hear speed kills. Why not have all cars made with navigation communicating with a governor to restrict the car to the speed limit for the road they are on or the time of day (ie school times and zones). Then we would not have speeding fines and police and others could concentrate on other serious crime. Oh I forgot, the government needs the revenue to support their perks and retirement packages! I am as guilty as anyone here. I have driven past booze buses clearly over the limit. As I live in inner city it seems the cops set the booze buses to catch people leaving the city not coming in!

[Disco_Rob]

In October last year I was caught at an RBT. I Blew 0.086. I had enjoyed 3 glasses of white wine 2 hours before. A warning to all, when we drink at home (according to the officer), the drinks we drink are substantially larger than those we may be served at a licensed establishment. Most he says are nearly double a standard drink. So effectively I may have had 6 standard drinks...... over the period of time, most of us would say we’re ok right?

WRONG

Now I’m prepared to cop what is coming to me, which will be a 6mth cancellation plus a fine. I’m not denying the charge. The reason for posting this is totally separate from this.

As a consequence of a conviction/cancellation I will lose my job. In Victoria there is no “licence to work”, which means I lose my job immediately. This in turn means zero income which in turn means that I will lose the place I live. Many here know that I’m single these days so there is no other income to pay the bills. Hence, I lose my home and whatever else.

I see people who have committed crimes against others or property and they get good behaviour bonds etc. I commit a Minor offence and stand to lose the lot!

Is this fair? Is it justice?

BTW, I’ve been driving almost 44 years and never had more than a speeding fine <10k over.

Until it happens to you, you don’t think too much about it I guess, but the penalty I now face seems way outside the crime.
Interested to hear your opinions

MINOR OFFENCE?

Most people don't see drinking and driving a MINOR OFFENCE!
You may not have felt drunk, but your reactions will have been dulled.
NO SYMPATHY WHAT SO EVER!
Maybe next time you decide to have a couple of glasses of wine you WON'T decide to drive!

[VladTepes]

Should I be concerned that my missus doesn't like me driving her around in the car unless SHE is tanked?
(which is never).


I see criminal histories on a daily basis and something that is evident is that many disqualified drivers just continue to drive anyway. And when they are caught they so often just get their DQ period extended ! Laughable. Because they just go out an drive again.... and again, and again....

[JDNSW]

While this case seems to hinge on 0.05 or 0.08, there would be very few cases such as this - as far as I can ascertain from published results of breath test campaigns, there are very few that fall between these figure - nearly all drivers tested are way under 0.05 or way over 0.08.

A possible issue with setting the limit at zero is that as detection equipment improves, it is likely that readings above 0.0 will appear where the driver may have inadvertently breathed in small quantities of ethanol used as a solvent in various toiletries and external medication, or other incidental occurrences. For this reason, as specific non-zero threshold, for example 0.0001 would be preferred.

If you compare the statistics for over the limit drivers between those involved in accidents and those measured in random breath tests, it is clear that being over 0.05 means the driver is anywhere from twenty to fifty times more likely to have an accident. This is by far the most important known risk factor, way above experience, age, vehicle type etc, even whether disqualified, although I suspect that as drug detection methods improve, similar risk factors will show up for other drugs.

[trout1105]

Should I be concerned that my missus doesn't like me driving her around in the car unless SHE is tanked?
(which is never).


I see criminal histories on a daily basis and something that is evident is that many disqualified drivers just continue to drive anyway. And when they are caught they so often just get their DQ period extended ! Laughable. Because they just go out an drive again.... and again, and again....

Maybe a Mandatory Jail term for driving when disqualified would sort these Tossers out, After all it is Contempt of court.

[DiscoMick]

Mouthwashes usually contain ethanol, so it could raise a reading if taken soon after using the mouthwash, but it would dissipate over time. Better to rinse the mouth with water before a breath test. That won't change the blood alcohol reading, of course.

[trout1105]

Mouthwashes usually contain ethanol, so it could raise a reading if taken soon after using the mouthwash, but it would dissipate over time.

Lots of blokes have tried to use that BS excuse on Minesites after a Big night at the boozer, It doesn't stop them getting a window seat on the next plane out [bigwhistle]

[Vern]

Lots of blokes have tried to use that BS excuse on Minesites after a Big night at the boozer, It doesn't stop them getting a window seat on the next plane out [bigwhistle]Have seen this on the site i am currently on.
Coff medicine gave a reading of .071.
Aerogaurd .246!!!!!!
Standing next to a guy who just sprayed himself (not down his throat), walked in and blew that number.
2 minutes later .000.

[trout1105]

Have seen this on the site i am currently on.
Coff medicine gave a reading of .071.
Aerogaurd .246!!!!!!
Standing next to a guy who just sprayed himself (not down his throat), walked in and blew that number.
2 minutes later .000.

If they blew zero's on the second reading then fair enough But many of the people that use this type of excuse fail the second test.

[Gordie]

Have seen this on the site i am currently on.
Coff medicine gave a reading of .071.
Aerogaurd .246!!!!!!
Standing next to a guy who just sprayed himself (not down his throat), walked in and blew that number.
2 minutes later .000.Which is why, if you job depends on it, I would get a blood test if recording a positive reading on the screening device. The screening device most workplaces seem to use, is the same as the police use for roadside breath tests...but for police they are not admissible evidence in court. They can be inexact. That screening device gives the indication that you are over the limit and then the police must take you to and use a certified calibrated breath analysis instrument, either in the booze bus or at the station and submit that reading as evidence.

[trout1105]

Which is why, if you job depends on it, I would get a blood test if recording a positive reading on the screening device. The screening device most workplaces seem to use, is the same as the police use for roadside breath tests...but for police they are not admissible evidence in court. They can be inexact. That screening device gives the indication that you are over the limit and then the police must take you to and use a certified calibrated breath analysis instrument, either in the booze bus or at the station and submit that reading as evidence.

On the vast majority of sites this is not available and normally when a test device is faulty it usually under reads a sample.
I have seen blokes that reek of booze pass a breatho on site.

[Gordie]

I have seen blokes that reek of booze pass a breatho on site.All good....party on! [wink11]

[Vern]

If they blew zero's on the second reading then fair enough But many of the people that use this type of excuse fail the second test.Cough medicine didn't, blew .04 about 40min later, but was told to go home.

[trout1105]

Cough medicine didn't, blew .04 about 40min later, but was told to go home.

Old Mate "May" have taken some cough medicine But after 40min the underlying alcohol level has shown up on the breathalyser.
0.071 is a very high reading so Old Mate must have drank a couple of large bottles of cough medicine to achieve that high level which is equivalent to about 6-8 beers in a couple of hours.
Lots of people self test before a breatho and will try anything to beat the reading, A good breakfast and plenty of water will bring a low level reading down to zero's in under an hour But many try to "Mask" the reading by using cough medicine and other things.
I call BS on this particular "Cough Medicine" excuse.

[DiscoMick]

Blood alcohol is the only thing that counts legally. That's why when a breath test is positive the cops have to take the person to the station for a blood test.

What would happen if you challenged the breath result for being legally invalid and demanded a blood alcohol test? Does the work enterprise agreement cover that and require a blood alcohol test?
If a person was denied the chance to work on the basis of a legally invalid breath test, could they sue the employer for compensation?
The unions should be on to this and defending the human rights of their members.

[Eevo]

i'm curious what made the OP think 3 drinks in 2 hours was a long enough time.

all the govt adverting since i was a kid says 1 drink, wait 1 hour.

edit: not trying to criticize.

[trout1105]

What would happen if you challenged the breath result for being legally invalid and demanded a blood alcohol test? Does the work enterprise agreement cover that and require a blood alcohol test?


No.
There are very rarely the facilities to conduct a blood test on site and every workplace agreement I have seen states that BAC tests are to be conducted by breath tests only.
After EVERY site induction I have done ( I have done hundreds of these) you sign off agreeing to this as a condition of employment.



If a person was denied the chance to work on the basis of a legally invalid breath test, could they sue the employer for compensation?
The unions should be on to this and defending the human rights of their members.

What Unions?
Most minesites do Not have ANY Union representation any more.

[Gordie]

The unions should be on to this and defending the human rights of their members.Phhh, when I was a union rep I brought this up with the union...their attitude was...you do the wrong thing...we won't defend you.....

[101RRS]

That's why when a breath test is positive the cops have to take the person to the station for a blood test.

I cannot speak for Qld but I do not know of any other jurisdiction that actually does a blood test - they use the accurate breath tester that gives a reading that correlates to the blood level - there is no direct testing of blood.

In cases of accidents etc the required drug and alcohol testing may include blood testing at a hospital but not the police station test.

If a person was of the belief that they were under the limit when stopped but blew positive at the police station then going straight to a medical facility and getting a blood test may assist when the case is held at court as a qualified medical type can use that blood test to calculate actual blood level at the actual time when stopped. But most don't.

Garry

[donh54]

Last I heard, if you refused a breath test in Qld they could take you to a medical facility for a blood test, or you are charged with high range BAC. No breath or blood test, no defence.

[Eevo]

Last I heard, if you refused a breath test in Qld they could take you to a medical facility for a blood test, or you are charged with high range BAC. No breath or blood test, no defence.
yeah, its a case of guilty until proven innocent.

[martnH]

I have no problem taxing guys drink driving. Fine for drink driving should be around $20,000, allowing payment plans or from tax return

[Tombie]

In Thailand the difference between DUI (and immediate deportation) and OK to drive is about 3000thb...

[Bytemrk]

i'm curious what made the OP think 3 drinks in 2 hours was a long enough time.

all the govt adverting since i was a kid says 1 drink, wait 1 hour.

edit: not trying to criticize.

What has been quoted here for a long time is:

As a general rule, men can have two standard drinks in the first hour and one every hour after that. Generally women can have one standard drink in the first hour and one every hour after that.

Victoria Police - Alcohol and drugs (http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp'document_id=9568)

But standard drinks are rarely standard.... (particularly wine)

[feraldisco]

What a fun world it would be with a zero BAC threshold as some seem to be advocating on here...would certainly change the nightlife scene a bit and the hospitality industry...although I guess it would be a boon for taxis and uber...

Speeding and BAC are things that can be relatively easily detected and measured in an objective quantitative way, so they get a disproportionate amount of attention, enforcement and blame relative to other road safety issues that are difficult to enforce, such as:

. mobile phone use, which often results in people driving slower than normal, but too bad they struggle to stay in their lane...just a minor issue...I personally know someone that took out some roadworks and her car while texting... Think I'd prefer to be on the roads with someone with BAC of .05 who might have slightly slower reaction time c.f. someone using their phone who has no reaction time because they don't see obstacles in the first place!

. other forms of distraction such as kids, applying make-up etc...I see the latter every morning on my way to work...it's an impressive feat to apply your make-up while driving, but also an alarming one when you're a motorcyclist...

. tiredness...which is a state many new parents would constantly be in

. ineptitude...give me a skilled driver with BAC of .05 any day c.f. an inept driver with BAC of 0

. poorly maintained vehicles including non-functional brake lights.

Of course, all else being equal, .049 BAC is better than .051 BAC, but there's much more to the road safety equation than the things that are easily measured...

[feraldisco]

Of course, if you can stomach mid-strength mass-produced beer, then maybe it would be better to abstain altogether and have a BAC limit of zero...and you can ignore my above post... [bigwhistle]

[wardy1]

Well..... I didn’t expect this thread to have legs this long LOL.
Just one final point on the actual subject:
If a magistrate has absolutely no discretion on DUI, why have an option to go to court? There is simply no point.

To survive, I’ve booked myself in to get a forklift operators licence. I hope I can find some work doing this within a bus/train distance. Also looking at a few other things I might be able to do but this one is the quickest.

Wish me luck and thanks for a great discussion

[martnH]

What a fun world it would be with a zero BAC threshold as some seem to be advocating on here...would certainly change the nightlife scene a bit and the hospitality industry...although I guess it would be a boon for taxis and uber...

Speeding and BAC are things that can be relatively easily detected and measured in an objective quantitative way, so they get a disproportionate amount of attention, enforcement and blame relative to other road safety issues that are difficult to enforce, such as:

. mobile phone use, which often results in people driving slower than normal, but too bad they struggle to stay in their lane...just a minor issue...I personally know someone that took out some roadworks and her car while texting... Think I'd prefer to be on the roads with someone with BAC of .05 who might have slightly slower reaction time c.f. someone using their phone who has no reaction time because they don't see obstacles in the first place!

. other forms of distraction such as kids, applying make-up etc...I see the latter every morning on my way to work...it's an impressive feat to apply your make-up while driving, but also an alarming one when you're a motorcyclist...

. tiredness...which is a state many new parents would constantly be in

. ineptitude...give me a skilled driver with BAC of .05 any day c.f. an inept driver with BAC of 0

. poorly maintained vehicles including non-functional brake lights.

Of course, all else being equal, .049 BAC is better than .051 BAC, but there's much more to the road safety equation than the things that are easily measured...Yeah you are absolutely right
Start with zero BAC and apply the rest

Surely you know the BAC limit for driving public or heavy vehicles or commercial vessels, machinery is zero,
Do you really want to relax it to 0.05?

What is the difference between these vehicle and passenger vehicle? We are better drivers than those who do it for a living?

[rangieman]

What is the difference between these vehicle and passenger vehicle? We are better drivers than those who do it for a living?

Well in the burbs with the larger majority being cars they do seem to think they can drive better than those that do it professionally :bat:

[101RRS]

If a magistrate has absolutely no discretion on DUI, why have an option to go to court? There is simply no point.

Well they do have discretion just not as to the minimum penalty - they could give a much higher penalty based on driving history - having said that, in most jurisdictions the magistrate does have the capacity of recording no conviction, no suspension and no fine in some cases - but I guess Vic being the nanny State is keen on introducing a more draconian enforcement regime for road safety but their road accident statistics are rising faster than anywhere else - so working really well [thumbsupbig].

Garry

[feraldisco]

Yeah you are absolutely right
Start with zero BAC and apply the rest

Surely you know the BAC limit for driving public or heavy vehicles or commercial vessels, machinery is zero,
Do you really want to relax it to 0.05?

What is the difference between these vehicle and passenger vehicle? We are better drivers than those who do it for a living?

I don't recall my post referring to a relaxing of existing standards...it was referring to the proposed tightening of existing standards by some in this thread. As for then 'applying the rest'...well yes, good luck with that...as per my post, those other things are difficult to enforce so the focus will continue to remain disproportionately on BAC and speeding.

Anyhoo, fortunately we live in a democracy and the majority of Australians wouldn't want a further tightening of BAC and politically it's unlikely to happen before we're all in autonomous vehicles anyway...so the purists on this site (who are no doubt exemplary drivers in every way) probably won't get their way :whistling:

[trout1105]

I don't recall my post referring to a relaxing of existing standards...it was referring to the proposed tightening of existing standards by some in this thread. As for then 'applying the rest'...well yes, good luck with that...as per my post, those other things are difficult to enforce so the focus will continue to remain disproportionately on BAC and speeding.

Anyhoo, fortunately we live in a democracy and the majority of Australians wouldn't want a further tightening of BAC and politically it's unlikely to happen before we're all in autonomous vehicles anyway...so the purists on this site (who are no doubt exemplary drivers in every way) probably won't get their way :whistling:

The reason why DD and speeding are targeted by the Police is because the Vast majority of Australians are sick and tired of the knob heads that have No regard for the safety of others on our roads by driving drunk and speeding.



Well they do have discretion just not as to the minimum penalty - they could give a much higher penalty based on driving history - having said that, in most jurisdictions the magistrate does have the capacity of recording no conviction, no suspension and no fine in some cases - but I guess Vic being the nanny State is keen on introducing a more draconian enforcement regime for road safety but their road accident

A minimum penalty is just that and if someone is found guilty of DD then the minimum penalty or a harsher penalty MUST be applied.
Any judge that awards a "
no conviction, no suspension and no fine" for someone found guilty of DD is breaking the law.

[wardy1]

Well Trout, in Vic they can’t apply any of those things. And BTW, I WASNT SPEEDING.

[trout1105]

Well Trout, in Vic they can’t apply any of those things. And BTW, I WASNT SPEEDING.

Are you saying that there is NO mandatory sentencing for driving under the influence in VIC? and BTW I didn't say YOU were speeding.

[101RRS]

Any judge that awards a "
no conviction, no suspension and no fine" for someone found guilty of DD is breaking the law.


What a lot of crap - if the law allows it then no law is broken - magistrates can only give decisions that are within the law.

[trout1105]

What a lot of crap - if the law allows it then no law is broken - magistrates can only give decisions that are within the law.

With Mandatory sentencing there is a minimum sentence that HAS to be applied Judges are NOT allowed to hand out a lesser sentence than the minimum allowable by Law.
So its NOT "A load of Crap"

[101RRS]

You said "Any judge that awards a "no conviction, no suspension and no fine" for someone found guilty of DD is breaking the law."

You made no mention of mandatory sentencing.

Sorry but that is statement is crap - in the ACT and in many other jurisdiction you can be found guilty of DUI and not have a conviction recorded, no suspension and no fine and the Judge is not breaking the law. Generally occurs with a first offence, very low range, good driving record, good attitude and pleading guilty in court.

[feraldisco]

[QUOTE=trout1105;2764518]The reason why DD and speeding are targeted by the Police is because the Vast majority of Australians are sick and tired of the knob heads that have No regard for the safety of others on our roads by driving drunk and speeding.

You're missing my point and I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree in this debate as well as tastes in beer [thumbsupbig]

I wasn't suggesting there shouldn't be any focus on speeding or drink driving. My point is that there is very little enforcement of other things that 'the vast majority of Australians are sick and tired of', because they're more difficult to enforce. As per my previous posts, I'd prefer to be on the roads with someone who is driving 10kph over the speed limit or driving at 0.05 BAC if they're concentrating than with someone who isn't even watching the road. Would have been a very different outcome for the person I know of if she had hit a kid crossing the road rather than cleaning up roadworks whilst texting... As a motorcyclist, this sort of inattention is alarming. One thing I like about fixed speed cameras is that they can catch out inattentive people, so I guess that's one way that inattention is enforced... Having said that, distracted people are often under the speed limit...but 'directionally challenged'...and even 55kph in the wrong direction and with no attention to do much braking is pretty dangerous!

[trout1105]

[QUOTE=trout1105;2764518]The reason why DD and speeding are targeted by the Police is because the Vast majority of Australians are sick and tired of the knob heads that have No regard for the safety of others on our roads by driving drunk and speeding.

You're missing my point and I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree in this debate as well as tastes in beer [thumbsupbig]

I wasn't suggesting there shouldn't be any focus on speeding or drink driving. My point is that there is very little enforcement of other things that 'the vast majority of Australians are sick and tired of', because they're more difficult to enforce. As per my previous posts, I'd prefer to be on the roads with someone who is driving 10kph over the speed limit or driving at 0.05 BAC if they're concentrating than with someone who isn't even watching the road. Would have been a very different outcome for the person I know of if she had hit a kid crossing the road rather than cleaning up roadworks whilst texting... As a motorcyclist, this sort of inattention is alarming. One thing I like about fixed speed cameras is that they can catch out inattentive people, so I guess that's one way that inattention is enforced... Having said that, distracted people are often under the speed limit...but 'directionally challenged'...and even 55kph in the wrong direction and with no attention to do much braking is pretty dangerous!

I agree with you about the other actions other than speeding and drink driving that add to the carnage on our roads
not being as high a profile and just as dangerous but that doesn't mean that these other issues are being ignored by the police.

Phone usage, inattention, and hooning are also major contributors to the road carnage But they are a lot more difficult to police so the vast majority of offenders evade prosecution.
It is much easier to charge and successfully prosecute drink drivers and speeding drivers because of the tools available (Speed camera's, radar and breathalysers) than it is to say charge and prosecute someone for using their phone whilst driving at the moment.
The proliferation of dashcam usage is helping to address some of these other problems But I agree that More has to be done to stop this behaviour.