The same situation exists if the car is impounded for 'hooning'. I, like Ron, believe drunken drivers are a far greater risk than a driver who accidently breaks traction momentarily on a gravel shoulder.Quote:
Originally Posted by pfillery
Printable View
The same situation exists if the car is impounded for 'hooning'. I, like Ron, believe drunken drivers are a far greater risk than a driver who accidently breaks traction momentarily on a gravel shoulder.Quote:
Originally Posted by pfillery
Victoria has had interlock devices for years. They allow the car to start at .02 or below. And yes it does request a reading every 15 to 20 minutes, in case the driver starts drinking after the initial start. The info is downloaded regularly, and if you have tried to drive over .02, you have some explaining to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by pfillery
I know a girl who has one and she over did it with hair spray and her car would not start.
Dave.
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by V8Ian
Believe it or not, some hoons have families in the same way as some drunk drivers have families.
The law should be applied equally. Either the car is impounded in both cases or the car is not impounded in both cases.
I agree that the cars should be impounded, and likewise, especially those of repeat offenders.Quote:
Originally Posted by p38arover
However, it should be noted that cars are NOT impounded for simply breaking traction. I am fairly sure that it has to be a sustained loss of traction. Simply taking off from the lights on a wet road, and briefly spinning the wheels wouldn't qualify. You simply lift your foot.
However, if you keep your foot planted to the floor, and make NO attempt to stop the spin, then THAT is when the cars should be impounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Sorry John, but I can't agree.
Any statistics can be manipulated to show what someone wants. You cite that there has been no increase in death rates, and this may be so. However, what about the amount of accidents that have been caused by drivers using mobile phones?
To get this number, the driver involved would have to actually admit they were breaking the law when they were involved....
And on that point, it is illegal to use a hand-held mobile phone, just as it is illegal to drive over .05. Agree or not, it is the law.
They should be shot.
no innuendo here Mick?:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
It started as a christmas joke.. with a message...
anyway,
In SA
anything .05 and over car is impounded 28 days (usually immediately),lic is suspended (6 months .05 --> .149, 12 months .15 --> up ) these suspensions are until court and can be varied (shortened/extended) by court but usually are continued.
28 days impound fees and tow fees are starting at about $900.. and can be higher depending on the court and on when they are collected.
our "hoon laws" have same conditions, (impound 28 days) and fees. Sustained wheel spin,organised or any street racing, 'unreasonable' engine or tyre noise emitting from private premises but audible from any other or a public place... etc sustained wheel spin usually is about 2 secs or more (that is a rough rule of thumb), but there is an expiation fee for "fail to maintain effective control of a vehicle" that covers a lot of other stuff.
Mobile phones are responsible for some of the worst driving Ive seen, but then again those without phones just were lousy drivers!! (eg just an excuse?)
We have alcohol interlock, your lic is endorsed with the rego number of the fitted vehicle (fitted at your expense) and you are limited to that vehicle only. same stuff applies (downloads, random breaths and in transit etc).
We have found the rate of drink drivers we are seeing is dropping dramatically.
If caught "hooning" or drink driving the vehicle used can be siezed reguardless, but another vehicle can be substituted (that they own) at the officer or sgts discretion. - the owner is issued with an order prohibiting, sale, damage or alteration until court is completed as every impounded car is eligible for siezure to be sold (profits to Victims of crime) or crushed (booyeah!!! ).
anyway, have a nice Christmas break, slow down (speeding and drinking) and be alive for the new year)
I lost my mother just because a drunken driver did not stop on the traffic lights.
I do not have any kind of regards for irresponsible people that do not care to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
The car becomes a weapon, they should have the car confiscated and sold to rise money for the victims of this kinfd of accidents.
Also forget a about a DL for 5 years or more. If they are do it again, then apply the Malaysia solution.........for life
Much of the great reduction in the road toll over the last 50 years has been due to not only savage enforcement and penalties for drink driving but to a complete turn around in community attitude to drink driving.
Before the breathalyser and the publicity campaigns most people, at least the ones in my acquaintance, had a laissez faire attitude to drink driving.Any one who drank, drank what they wished and drove. I once heard a Senior Sergeant of Qld. police say that you had to be pretty damn full before you couldn't drive a motor car.
Random breath testing and "booze buses" were the nails in the coffin for most drink drivers. These really smartened up driver's attitudes.
Some uniformity in penalties would be an improvement. These now vary greatly between states and even between individual courts.
A rellie was arrested after being found asleep behind the wheel with his car's nose down in a drain, lights on, engine running on a country road. He blew .286 which would have been at least two hours after his last drink. He had been at a football match and had driven around 50 k's towards home at that point. He actually thought the local copper who found him was driving him home. He was most surprised to find that he was going to Warwick watchouse to be tested.
I asked a couple of coppers I knew and a court officer how much he was likely to get. They were unanimous in informing me that the courts had instructions about such high readings and were to hand out a minimum of $1,000 and twelve months cancellation. Conditional licences were not to be issued for readings over.15. He went before Warwick Magistrate's Court, got $300 and three months, and a conditional licence.
The level at which one is considered to be legally impaired varies from country to country, and even from state to state in the USA. In most of Scandinavia no blood alcohol is permitted, whilst other places in the world vary through .02, .05, .08, .10. Some places do not bother with drink driving at all, others only if you do something out of order or have an accident. Some don't bother with a breathalyser but still rely on observations.
It is not a matter of agreement. And it is not a matter of manipulating statistics. The statistics I commented on are readily available, in the Australian case from the ABS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil135
Can you come up with any explanation that covers the simple fact that despite the increase in mobile phone use, the number of road deaths continues to decrease? And don't tell me that it is because the law stops people from using mobile phones while driving, because anyone with eyes can see them being used by many drivers every day. This was not the case fifteen years ago, when few drivers had mobile phones.
I am not querying the law, but the reason for the law. Real data does not appear to support it.
As to why mobile phone use does not appear to be a major risk factor, I suggest that the most likely reason is that drivers who allow their use to distract them from driving are also going to let other activities distract them from driving, and those who do not allow it don't let other activities distract them either.
Using your comparison of driving over 0.05, the statistics strongly support this; drivers over the limit invariably represent less than 1% in random test campaigns, where drivers over the limit in fatal accidents represent 25-40% of all drivers in fatal accidents. If there was any substantial basis for the idea that phone use causes accidents, you would expect the steady decrease in road deaths to have shown some signs of this effect as phones became widely used, and in particular, the US case where they are banned in some states but not others, you should see the effect. But neither of these show up.
Just to repeat what I said before - I do not use or answer the phone when driving - but I don't think I know anyone else that is as strict about it as I am!
John