Lower alcohol limit to 0.02

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJon

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

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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




trust me:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_35

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.