Thread: Drink drivers being targetted this Christmas

I would love to see some stats to back this up. I doubt that .0499 or below has caused any accidents.

Dave.

Originally Posted by Yorkshire_Jon

Drink driving is just wrong, period.

Allowable limit should be 0.0 for all. Those caught over the limit should loose their license for 5years.

You guys here are far too soft with it and the problem appears much worse here than in other parts of the world.

Sent using Forum Runner

Well I am not sure about other parts in the world, back in 2008, Brazil introduced a "dry law" indicating a nearly zero alcohol tolerance law regarding driving. The tolerated blood alcohol limit is 0.2g/l to allow for alcoholic mouthwashes or certain medicines.

This means that consuming a beer or small glass of wine before driving is now a serious offense. A driver found to have more than the legal limit of alcohol is fined based on the blood alcohol level - the higher the level, the larger the fine. In some cases the driver faces suspension, and a driver that causes an accident, injury or death may also face jail.

Since it's introduction, the law has reduced alcohol related driving incidents considerably in a short period of time. Previously, an estimated 20,000 deaths per year on Brazil’s roads were alcohol related.

Read something interesting recently, in preparation for a trip to NZ in Jan., been boning up on the rules etc., as some driving may be done, the blood alcohol limit was said to be 0 for drivers under 20, and .08 for those over. We in Qld have lost a number of young drivers in the last month through accidents, alcohol wasn't mentioned as a cause, of course, but I would be very surprised to hear it wasn't in some cases at least. 0 limit for drivers under 20 might not be a bad idea. Bob

In Victoria it is 0.0 until you are 22 at the earliest. I think this is a good idea.

Dave.

I somehow doubt that the actual figure makes a lot of difference - if you look at the figures occasionally published for the results of random tests, it is clear that most (but not all) "over the limit" readings are well over, and most "under the limit" are zero or pretty close to.

This is not really surprising when you think about it - anyone concerned about their blood alcohol level is likely to try and be well on the safe side, but those unconcerned are unlikely to stop close to the legal limit.

However, setting a limit so low that it is impossible to comply if you have even one drink is likely to reduce drink driving slightly, because it makes a clear either/or decision between drinking or driving.

A potential problem with setting a zero level however, is that as technology improves it will become possible to detect levels as low as 0.0000000001% (or any other ridiculously low non-zero number you care to pick). In other words, it will be possible to convict almost anyone at any time, as traces of alcohol are present in all sorts of places - for example, did you get a whiff of that 10% ethanol petrol? For this reason, I have to oppose a zero level, but would have no problem with a level close to zero. This problem may not have surfaced yet in a court case, but I predict it will before many years have passed with current laws setting zero for some drivers.

Zero sends a message perhaps, but it also is laying a legal minefield for the future!

John

As I said in an earlier post, .02 or below .02, not sure which, is actually allowed for drivers who are on 0.0, to allow for cough mixtures or that piece of cake that was eaten that had alcohol used in it.

Dave.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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

I said havoc on roads not death on roads.

Mobile phone users are to involved in their conversations to really realise what is happening around them.
I say when you use your phone whilst driving you would have driven kms and not even noticed what had gone on in your surroundings as you play less attention than if you where only concentrating on driving.

Have you never pulled up at the traffic lights and the car in front is doing texting, the lights change green and the driver ahead is still too involved in their own little world of playing with their toy the mobile phone.

Have you never nearly been side swiped by a car that is diving erratically in the lane next to you, unable to drive straight and wanders over from lane to lane, almost as it they were drunk, only that they are texting and looking at their phone and not looking at the road ahead.

Then we have the oblivious to their surroundings jay walkers, they walk whilst they frig around with their mobiles and walk straight into oncoming traffic.
statistic show road tolls, they don't show injuries or near misses.
I suppose it depends on how long one is on the road for, you start to see more and more people and their mobile phone antics

Every body has an excuse for justifying what is not allowed.

Mrs Whippy was almost involved in a head on a few years ago on a 100 kph road. The other driver was texting and had drifted onto the wrong side of the road.

I reckon that texting is worse than driving at .08 Bac.

Dave.