Printable View
What has been quoted here for a long time is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
As a general rule, men can have two standard drinks in the first hour and one every hour after that. Generally women can have one standard drink in the first hour and one every hour after that.
Victoria Police - Alcohol and drugs
But standard drinks are rarely standard.... (particularly wine)
What a fun world it would be with a zero BAC threshold as some seem to be advocating on here...would certainly change the nightlife scene a bit and the hospitality industry...although I guess it would be a boon for taxis and uber...
Speeding and BAC are things that can be relatively easily detected and measured in an objective quantitative way, so they get a disproportionate amount of attention, enforcement and blame relative to other road safety issues that are difficult to enforce, such as:
. mobile phone use, which often results in people driving slower than normal, but too bad they struggle to stay in their lane...just a minor issue...I personally know someone that took out some roadworks and her car while texting... Think I'd prefer to be on the roads with someone with BAC of .05 who might have slightly slower reaction time c.f. someone using their phone who has no reaction time because they don't see obstacles in the first place!
. other forms of distraction such as kids, applying make-up etc...I see the latter every morning on my way to work...it's an impressive feat to apply your make-up while driving, but also an alarming one when you're a motorcyclist...
. tiredness...which is a state many new parents would constantly be in
. ineptitude...give me a skilled driver with BAC of .05 any day c.f. an inept driver with BAC of 0
. poorly maintained vehicles including non-functional brake lights.
Of course, all else being equal, .049 BAC is better than .051 BAC, but there's much more to the road safety equation than the things that are easily measured...
Of course, if you can stomach mid-strength mass-produced beer, then maybe it would be better to abstain altogether and have a BAC limit of zero...and you can ignore my above post... [bigwhistle]
Well..... I didn’t expect this thread to have legs this long LOL.
Just one final point on the actual subject:
If a magistrate has absolutely no discretion on DUI, why have an option to go to court? There is simply no point.
To survive, I’ve booked myself in to get a forklift operators licence. I hope I can find some work doing this within a bus/train distance. Also looking at a few other things I might be able to do but this one is the quickest.
Wish me luck and thanks for a great discussion
Yeah you are absolutely rightQuote:
Originally Posted by feraldisco
Start with zero BAC and apply the rest
Surely you know the BAC limit for driving public or heavy vehicles or commercial vessels, machinery is zero,
Do you really want to relax it to 0.05?
What is the difference between these vehicle and passenger vehicle? We are better drivers than those who do it for a living?
What is the difference between these vehicle and passenger vehicle? We are better drivers than those who do it for a living?
Well in the burbs with the larger majority being cars they do seem to think they can drive better than those that do it professionally :bat:
Well they do have discretion just not as to the minimum penalty - they could give a much higher penalty based on driving history - having said that, in most jurisdictions the magistrate does have the capacity of recording no conviction, no suspension and no fine in some cases - but I guess Vic being the nanny State is keen on introducing a more draconian enforcement regime for road safety but their road accident statistics are rising faster than anywhere else - so working really well [thumbsupbig].Quote:
Originally Posted by wardy1
Garry
I don't recall my post referring to a relaxing of existing standards...it was referring to the proposed tightening of existing standards by some in this thread. As for then 'applying the rest'...well yes, good luck with that...as per my post, those other things are difficult to enforce so the focus will continue to remain disproportionately on BAC and speeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by martnH
Anyhoo, fortunately we live in a democracy and the majority of Australians wouldn't want a further tightening of BAC and politically it's unlikely to happen before we're all in autonomous vehicles anyway...so the purists on this site (who are no doubt exemplary drivers in every way) probably won't get their way :whistling:
The reason why DD and speeding are targeted by the Police is because the Vast majority of Australians are sick and tired of the knob heads that have No regard for the safety of others on our roads by driving drunk and speeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by feraldisco
A minimum penalty is just that and if someone is found guilty of DD then the minimum penalty or a harsher penalty MUST be applied.Quote:
Well they do have discretion just not as to the minimum penalty - they could give a much higher penalty based on driving history - having said that, in most jurisdictions the magistrate does have the capacity of recording no conviction, no suspension and no fine in some cases - but I guess Vic being the nanny State is keen on introducing a more draconian enforcement regime for road safety but their road accident
Any judge that awards a "no conviction, no suspension and no fine" for someone found guilty of DD is breaking the law.
Well Trout, in Vic they can’t apply any of those things. And BTW, I WASNT SPEEDING.