Thread: Zero alchohol?

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

I'm vehemently anti - alcohol in an automotive situation. However this is just silly. Did he say how many accidents occur where the driver has an alcohol reading of less than the limit?

This will just penalise people taking various medications and get people having a drink at lunch or the night before with a reading of .01. That's good business.

I'd suggest that they could get their boys out of their camera vans and try and check more people and keep those off the road who have been caught before.

I'm going on a rant but I've had my speed checked probably 100 times this year, and the last RBT for me was 2007. That's road safety for you...

I wonder how many people get their photo taken by speed/red light cameras whilst over 0.05?

I can't see it doing a lot to reduce the road toll -

Mind you, according to the statistics, about thirty percent of drivers involved in fatal accidents are above 0.05, compared to less than 1% taken at random. This means that they are more than thirty times as likely to be involved in fatal accidents than those below 0.05. Considering that up to half the drivers involved in fatal accidents were not at fault, it is quite clear that alcohol is almost certainly by far the most important factor in fatal accidents.

But this does not mean that reducing the limit would improve matters - in fact, from the figures I have seen, there is very little evidence that dropping the figure from 0.08 to 0.05 made much difference. And all the results I have heard from random breath testing suggest that the vast majority of those over the limit are way over, and those below are well below. I would like to see some evidence to support the idea, specifically the proportion of fatal accidents involving drivers between 0.00 and 0.05, compared to the proportions seen in random tests.

John

Mandatory prison time for repeat drink drivers plus losing their cars, 3 months loss of licence each time is nothing because they keep driving.

Everybody here knows at least one person that gets repeatedly done for dui and then drives away from the court room - why they dont have police set up to catch them has me beat.

Alcohol is a major cause of fatal accidents and if you couple that with stupidity, other drugs and lack of experience (in case of young drivers) and unroadworthy vehicles you can account for many accidents that put people in a box.

Its a sad fact that at many of these accidents the scenes are littered with empty alcohol cans.

The present BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) is just a number. It has little bearing on the effect it has on any one persons ability to drive, fly, shoot etc because alcohol tolerance depends on the individual. I've seen blokes register 0.105 and appear right as rain, however another 0.040 and a real worry.

We each process alcohol at different rates with varying effects.

So the Pollies say, 'Well, if some is good, more is better' and vice versa. They're reacting to a problem they can't fix and in a way that seems decisive....so what's the answer..?

By the way, no potion or pill will effectively 'mask' the presence of alcohol on your breath. If you're breathing it, then it's already leaching its way through your blood, into your lungs and out in your breath. You'll be asked to wait 15 minutes between a roadside breath test and evidentiary breath analysis to allow for 'mouth alcohol' to dissipate. So the 'pills' available might as well be Tic Tacs.

As for revenue raising... The revenue raised from penalties for PCA (Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol) offences wouldn't even be a poofteenth of the cost of conducting RBT's, purchasing equipment, prosecutions, advertising, crash investigation and court time, amongst everything else.... let alone any contribution to victim compensation funds.

Anyway, I haven't got the answer but the song remains the same, 'If you're going to drink, don't drive'.

Exit soap box.

Matt

Shut the pubs at 10.00pm, park the coppers outside the pubs and start testing. Fine and loss of licence for first low level offence any offence after that requires a public flogging.
cheers
blaze
ps
dont mind a ale or 2 either and will add that leave the limit where it is

It is an interesting topic, but I think more about justifying additional revenue raising as you can be fairly certain it will only result in a fine and demerit points.
If they were serious about it it would be immediate loss of licence which is how it should be for .050-.080. At present often it is a fine for this only and people just do not care. It amazes me how many people are in court here on a weekly basis for DD or DUI.
I do not agree with it even in principle for a zero limit as there are to many variables and 80% of the population would be likely to get done.

All it will do is turn a person who has one beer with a counter meal, at a BBQ et al, into a criminal. It will do nothing to stop the irresponsable idiots who have no respect for the currant 0.05 limit.

If implimented many people will be caught out at 0.005 or similar ultra low readings the following morning. Politicians will then be crying about the high number of drunken drivers, giving them an excuse to raise the tax on alchohol, ala alchopop revenue, in order that drivers are discouraged from drinking.

It's all about raising revenue ... NSW changed the speeding laws recently ... used to be exceed the limit by 5-15kmhr, loose 3 points and get a fine.

Now, it's exceed the speed limit by 0-10kmhr, loose 1 point and get a fine ... so no more 0-5kmhr grace period ... exceed = fined !

So previously, you could offend only 4 times, and loose your 12 points, and pay 4 fines ...

... whereas now, you can offend 12 times to loose your 12 points ... and pay 12 fines !! ... which equals 3x the revenue !

How does that work ?? ... they let you back onto the roads to re-offend because they're gonna make more money out of more people.

What a crock!