Thread: Zero alchohol?

Originally Posted by djhampson

I agree but you are assuming that the Government are suggesting this idea with the aim of lowering the road toll or being seen to do something to lower the road toll.

What it will do is give the Government a great opportunity to grand stand about how tough they are on reducing the road toll by implementing this measure just long enough to win the next election.

Meanwhile the road toll won't change because the root cause of our road toll isn't drink driving... I'm not sure what is but I reckon the sorry state of our road network must contribute. Both in terms of poor road conditions (Gateway Motorway for one!) requiring greater driver concentration \ skill and congestion increasing people's frustration levels and prompting risk taking.

However for the government, its better to appear to be doing something when you are actually doing nothing rather doing something that costs money and doesn't come with that Instant Media Opportunity.

Lowering the BAC limit is a ridiculous suggestions because it further lowers the Personal Responsibility associated with driving. It encourages the idea that if I drive with a BAC of 0, maintain a safe following distance, don't drive tired, don't take red lights, don't weave in and out of lanes, don't exceed the speed limit, look out for cyclists, indicate etc etc then its not my fault if I crash into someone.

Reality is I could do all of the above and still crash and kill someone if I don't first assess the road, the situation, the weather conditions, my abilities, what that guy in the other car might do, where that pedestrian might step out onto the road etc etc to decide if what I was about to do could end in a collision.

Just my opinion...but spending a fair whack of time driving the roads.....and in general over time....in my book the main cause of the road toll....is not drinking, drugs, roads or speed....it is stupidity and carelessness when it comes to driver skill. Absolutely some people will die due to some of the reasons I have mentioned....which ultimately.....bar road conditions...comes back to stupidity.

The sad thing is that innocents die due to the stupidity of others. I almost got collected at a round about...........again..........cause some stupid **** didn't know what lane to be in. Or someone on the hwy who changed lanes without looking.....and you can almost predict some of these things.....and caused a semi to have to swerve all over the place to avoid another useless **** on our roads. In my book....in the majority this is what causes the bulk of road trauma. Also note that many of the people are victims due to other peoples stupidity and in many cases themselves. Is Darwins Law at play in some of these situations....possibly.

It ceases to amaze me that idiots who drive like maniacs on the road....think that getting somewhere an extra couple of minutes earlier is going to make an extraordinary difference to their life. What they fail to see is by trying to achieve said goal.....they could lose their own life or that of someone elses. Bottom line....don't as has become common place....shackle the majority due to the minority...but as someone has stated.....make the punishments ever more severe.....make it really, really hurt. Let them suffer...who ever they maybe,

Regards

Stevo

Originally Posted by djhampson

I agree but you are assuming that the Government are suggesting this idea with the aim of lowering the road toll or being seen to do something to lower the road toll.

What it will do is give the Government a great opportunity to grand stand about how tough they are on reducing the road toll by implementing this measure just long enough to win the next election.

Meanwhile the road toll won't change because the root cause of our road toll isn't drink driving... I'm not sure what is but I reckon the sorry state of our road network must contribute. Both in terms of poor road conditions (Gateway Motorway for one!) requiring greater driver concentration \ skill and congestion increasing people's frustration levels and prompting risk taking.

However for the government, its better to appear to be doing something when you are actually doing nothing rather doing something that costs money and doesn't come with that Instant Media Opportunity.

Lowering the BAC limit is a ridiculous suggestions because it further lowers the Personal Responsibility associated with driving. It encourages the idea that if I drive with a BAC of 0, maintain a safe following distance, don't drive tired, don't take red lights, don't weave in and out of lanes, don't exceed the speed limit, look out for cyclists, indicate etc etc then its not my fault if I crash into someone.

Reality is I could do all of the above and still crash and kill someone if I don't first assess the road, the situation, the weather conditions, my abilities, what that guy in the other car might do, where that pedestrian might step out onto the road etc etc to decide if what I was about to do could end in a collision.

Bligh has already dug her grave, by introducing this garbage she's merely filling it in.

BTW I've had less than 23 cans of beer since Christmas, so my views are not protectionist.

only one way to stop people drink driving. the law is too lenient on repeat offenders.
remember the old days when if you got caught you'd lose your license for a year and fork out $1000? The average wage was about $300 back then and it was a real deterrent.
I reckon if you get caught (pretty slim chance with the number of cops on the road in NSW and the predictability of the RBT locations and times), you really need to take note not to do it again. If you get caught a second time, no losing licenses, they just drive without the license, shot on sight!
It's the only sure-fire way of stopping drink drivers.

Going to be a well debated thread.
Personaly 0 tolerance to drinking and driving is fine by me.
Alcohol affects people in different ways does'nt it , we have all seen a one pot screamer....not capable of acting , speaking , or behaving like themselves after one drink but still legally not over the blood alcohol limit.

I see it as a good thing, if it just saves one life its done its job.
No one wants that call saying a love one was killed in a car accident, let alone the cause being drink driving.

I know accidents are,nt just alcohol related , just believe there is know need for alcohol related deaths.

A question for anyone who is interested. Do you think having one or two drinks affects your driving skills at all ?

Why dont you all stop whingeing and wake up to yourselves? Its not about revenue raising, its about social responsibility when driving. Most workplaces are becoming zero intolerant...mine is....I can drive to work under .05 but if I turn up to work with any alcahol reading I am sent home so whats the point? Workplace safety authorities have deemed that it is not acceptable in any circumstance to be at work with alcahol in your system so why should it be any different in a car? I take responsibility and dont drive at all after drinking any qty of alcahol and so should all of you. It is a proven fact that even small amounts of alcahol affect people......EVERYONE...YOU ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK.... so I fully support and endorse all moves to bring zero tolerance to driving .

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

Why dont you all stop whingeing and wake up to yourselves? Its not about revenue raising, its about social responsibility when driving. Most workplaces are becoming zero intolerant...mine is....I can drive to work under .05 but if I turn up to work with any alcahol reading I am sent home so whats the point? Workplace safety authorities have deemed that it is not acceptable in any circumstance to be at work with alcahol in your system so why should it be any different in a car? I take responsibility and dont drive at all after drinking any qty of alcahol and so should all of you. It is a proven fact that even small amounts of alcahol affect people......EVERYONE...YOU ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK.... so I fully support and endorse all moves to bring zero tolerance to driving .

Agree...

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

Why dont you all stop whingeing and wake up to yourselves? Its not about revenue raising, its about social responsibility when driving. Most workplaces are becoming zero intolerant...mine is....I can drive to work under .05 but if I turn up to work with any alcahol reading I am sent home so whats the point? Workplace safety authorities have deemed that it is not acceptable in any circumstance to be at work with alcahol in your system so why should it be any different in a car? I take responsibility and dont drive at all after drinking any qty of alcahol and so should all of you. It is a proven fact that even small amounts of alcahol affect people......EVERYONE...YOU ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK.... so I fully support and endorse all moves to bring zero tolerance to driving .

I agree........I drive heavy trucks,and I have to be zero..and so do all the other truck drivers,bus drivers,why not the rest of the motorists.....car drivers can kill people if there over the limit same as truck drivers....one in all in........if you drink don,t drive......bring in zero not .05

Originally Posted by longing4alandy

I already am limited to a 0.00 BAC. Its called being a P Plater in NSW. It has affected me by making me drink less frequently, and I have to plan when I do want to drink. But it doesn't worry me.
-Mark

Mark, good input from a driver having to adhere to "Zero BAC".

Here’s an article, dated 5 November 2009, on the subject:

Zero tolerance not zero BAC

Fiona Simpson MP
Shadow Minister for Transport and Main Roads
Member for Maroochydore

http://lnp.org.au/media-centre/media-release/1737-zero-tolerance-not-zero-bac.html

Zero BAC removes any guess work on the part of the driver. If you have a drink - you simply DO NOT drive. It cannot be any simpler.

The Jury is still out….