Thread: Drink drivers being targetted this Christmas

A fantastic use of emoticons there digger.

Careful Digger.
You could have pulled yourself over and booked yourself.
Good job you were in no fit state to perform your duties.

I think if you are too drunk you'd never work out which is the correct key to open and start a series 3.

At least we series drivers are safe from speeding fines

Originally Posted by digger

Guys,

As we probably all know, again this year Police will be heavily targetting drink drivers, if caught it means your licence and your car gets impounded...

Quite frankly, I'd like to see the cars of drink drivers impounded - especially those of recidivist drink drivers who have lost their licences but continue to drive.

We impound cars for so-called hooning or even breaking traction but we continue to let drink drivers loose on our roads. I know which of those I'm more afraid of.

Originally Posted by p38arover

Quite frankly, I'd like to see the cars of drink drivers impounded - especially those of recidivist drink drivers who have lost their licences but continue to drive.

We impound cars for so-called hooning or even breaking traction but we continue to let drink drivers loose on our roads. I know which of those I'm more afraid of.

Somewhat agree Ron. However take an example of a one car family. One person drink drives, has the car impounded, what of the other person and their need for the vehicle. It isn't really fair to expect them to cop it sweet and lose their car for a week or whatever the impound time is, particularly if they need to transport children etc. If anything, specifically punish the person involved. I know this will somewhat effect their family but not as much as taking away a family's form of transport especially when the partner is not responsible for the crime. Set up longer term drunk tanks for repeat offenders, shove them in a cell for 48 hours at their cost, ther have to be better ways.

In qld over the last few months AFAIK they have been trialling enforced interlock devices fitted to the cars of repeat drink drivers. Blow anything above 0 and the car won't start. I also believe it logs all readings and can randomly request a sample while driving as well, just in case you decide to get someone else to blow in to start the car. Great idea as long as only the drink driver uses that car and as long as they don't use any other vehicles. Principle is sound though.

Great it might get a few more of those bozos of the roads, Hope they target those with mobile phones glued to the ear and texters, as they are causing havoc on roads as well.

I worked with a driver who had one of those devices fitted. He was caught over the limit,he was aloud it as is wife didn't drive,cost him $3000 through.It can recognize only one's breath,bit like finger prints,you blow in it if ok the car will start and it beeps at random times so you blow in it to keep going.I think it gives you about 10 seconds to do it.Every 28 days he went somewhere to down load it any problems you are on your feet.It fixed him.
Cheers Will

Originally Posted by It'sNotWorthComplaining!

.....Hope they target those with mobile phones glued to the ear and texters, as they are causing havoc on roads as well.

Problem I have is that if mobile phone use is as dangerous as claimed -

1. Why has the number of road deaths continued to decline over the period since mobile phones have gone from rare to ubiquitous (and routinely used by many drivers)?

2. Why is it that accident rates and road death rates in the United States show no difference in the continued decline between those states that allow mobile phone use and those that don't?

The first could be explained by assuming that mobile phone use by drivers is rare - I don't know what your experience is, but my observation is that it is very common. And I think I am the only person I know who does not routinely use the phone while driving!

The second could be explained, at least as far as the lack of difference goes by assuming everyone in the states that ban it ignore the ban (which may be right!). But that does not explain the continued decline in the statistics.

John