Thread: Lower alcohol limit to 0.02

Originally Posted by steve_35

Crush the car unless its stolen first offense

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

and crush it not sell it

jail for the second offense

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

Originally Posted by steve_35

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




trust me

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

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

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

This DUI stuff is true:
From http://www.aussielegal.com.au/inform...ailsID~952.htm

DRINK DRIVING

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

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

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

Food for thought...

Originally Posted by Mudsloth

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

Sorry I don't agree with you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by akelly

This DUI stuff is true:
From AussieLegal - Free Australian legal information, useful DIY legal kits and recommended law firm referral service

DRINK DRIVING

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

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

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

Food for thought...

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by steve_35

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Ausfree

Apparently if you're a footballer like XXXXXXXXXX in Brisbane who went DUI 0.156 or <snip>

Actually I don't believe the charge is DUI 0.156.

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

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