Thread: About to lose my licence

Originally Posted by Vern

Why should it make any difference if it is someone you know or not?
I did tue crime once, then did the time. My boss was even going to employ someone to drive me around. Knowing i stuffed up, i chose to quit my job, then went and did something completely different where i didn't need a car for work. Did that for a while then went back to my old job once i had my license back.

Because we know he's not some drongo who repeatedly offends and drives like a lunatic, I don't sympathies on the offence but what he will loose is far more than is warranted.

Sounds like the OP knows he has cocked up and is taking it on the chin.

The lesson he has learned is, that any of us can cock up. Unfortunately, those of us who strive to do well in life, get a property, have some toys, work for our living....We pay a much higher price when we cock up. We have something to lose.

The average feral, just carries on with their daily lives, they care not if they lose their licence, they either don't have a job to lose or just keep driving anyway. They don't have a house or chattels to lose, don't pay the fine etc.

That's life in the society we have made unfortunately.

Not knowing the laws on that here (asked the wife and she wasn't sure either) did you go on suspension the date of the offence? So in other words, if you did, would it count towards the penalty in a "time served" sense?( I.E., Oct - now = 3 months toward the 6 month penalty), or did you keep it until court?

On the plus side, your Land Rover should be travelling less km so less chance of it breaking down. See, there’s always a silver lining!

Originally Posted by trout1105

I am sorry Wardy1 I can't find anywhere in my heart to feel sorry for you Mate.

0.086 is a pretty high reading and you Must have been feeling the effects and your driving would undoubtedly have been impaired.

$500 and 6 months suspension (which I think is the minimum allowed) is a far better result than if you had injured/killed yourself or some innocent on the road.
As you say your job was dependant on holding your drivers licence then you shouldn't have taken any chances with it.
There is NO excuse these days for drink driving.
You say this is your first offence drink driving But is this the first time you have dank and drove or is it the first time you have been caught?

Sorry Mate but as the saying goes " Drink and drive and you are a Bloody Idiot"

I have to ask: was that also your opinion when Victoria was .05, and WA was .08? .086 would not have even registered then. I'll bet you know people, perhaps even yourself, who sailed close to the wind, who would have been illegal here in Vic. Please note: I am NOt having a go at you personally, I am just illustrating a point.

The .05 thing is a line in the sand. Many, many people operate quite well at levels far above .05. This is demonstrated by the fact that very many jurisdictions, including WA until a little while ago, accepted .08 as being the limit. .05 was popularised by Peter Brock, but it is merely an arbitrary number chosen to maximise the revenue from the fines. Most people can be .05+ without realising it, which is why it suits legislators, apart from the mathematical symmetry of it.

Now, before you all jump down my throat, consider this: In my professional life, I have always had to be .00 ( well, not all my professional life. BCA tests came in long after I started driving, but you get my drift, I hope ). .00 is easy to work out. So, why not make the test for everyone .00? If I have had a drink in, let's say, 8 hours, then I am not .00. There are no grey areas. It is quite easy to work out, and people, like poor Wardy here, would know that they can't drive. No? I'll tell you why. The Police would not need to spend massive $$$ on big fancy vans, the Politicians would have nothing to talk about ( I wish ), and there would be no hotels, apart from places like Balmain. The whole concept is unpalatable to the plebs who watch ACA.

I want to tell a story to illustrate how silly it is to jump on someone for a mistake. Because we can all make them.

Here we go: when my first wife and I got divorced, some time ago, we, that is my girlfriend, my then former wife and I, decided to go from 570 Bourke St up to the Windsor Hotel for a celebratory drink. ( Best not to ask about the girlfriend/former wife thing ) When we left, separately, I was pulled in for a RBT. Sure, things were different then, but I was passed, did not register. What I did not know was, the girlfriend, who had pretty much what I had to drink, had been pulled in as well. She registered .17, and in Vic in those days that meant she lost her licence for 17 months. We had drunk similar amounts. It is likely I had more than her..

Now, you can make of that story what you will. You can believe it or not. I put it up here to point out that blood alcohol levels vary from person to person, per drink consumed, by body weight and sex. Women are more likely to register a high reading than men, and it's not just about body weight. The fact that women menstruate plays a part.

My size ( 100 kg currently ), my metabolism ( quick ) all have a bearing on my ability to deal with alcohol. I am sure you are different. That is precisely why you should not judge someone who has at least had the courage to tell his story. Wardy's story is a "there but the grace of God" situation, and I encourage you all to reflect on that. Are YOU perfect?

Originally Posted by johntins

I have to ask: was that also your opinion when Victoria was .05, and WA was .08? .086 would not have even registered then. I'll bet you know people, perhaps even yourself, who sailed close to the wind, who would have been illegal here in Vic. Please note: I am NOt having a go at you personally, I am just illustrating a point.

The .05 thing is a line in the sand. Many, many people operate quite well at levels far above .05. This is demonstrated by the fact that very many jurisdictions, including WA until a little while ago, accepted .08 as being the limit. .05 was popularised by Peter Brock, but it is merely an arbitrary number chosen to maximise the revenue from the fines. Most people can be .05+ without realising it, which is why it suits legislators, apart from the mathematical symmetry of it.

Now, before you all jump down my throat, consider this: In my professional life, I have always had to be .00 ( well, not all my professional life. BCA tests came in long after I started driving, but you get my drift, I hope ). .00 is easy to work out. So, why not make the test for everyone .00? If I have had a drink in, let's say, 8 hours, then I am not .00. There are no grey areas. It is quite easy to work out, and people, like poor Wardy here, would know that they can't drive. No? I'll tell you why. The Police would not need to spend massive $$$ on big fancy vans, the Politicians would have nothing to talk about ( I wish ), and there would be no hotels, apart from places like Balmain. The whole concept is unpalatable to the plebs who watch ACA.

I want to tell a story to illustrate how silly it is to jump on someone for a mistake. Because we can all make them.

Here we go: when my first wife and I got divorced, some time ago, we, that is my girlfriend, my then former wife and I, decided to go from 570 Bourke St up to the Windsor Hotel for a celebratory drink. ( Best not to ask about the girlfriend/former wife thing ) When we left, separately, I was pulled in for a RBT. Sure, things were different then, but I was passed, did not register. What I did not know was, the girlfriend, who had pretty much what I had to drink, had been pulled in as well. She registered .17, and in Vic in those days that meant she lost her licence for 17 months. We had drunk similar amounts. It is likely I had more than her..

Now, you can make of that story what you will. You can believe it or not. I put it up here to point out that blood alcohol levels vary from person to person, per drink consumed, by body weight and sex. Women are more likely to register a high reading than men, and it's not just about body weight. The fact that women menstruate plays a part.

My size ( 100 kg currently ), my metabolism ( quick ) all have a bearing on my ability to deal with alcohol. I am sure you are different. That is precisely why you should not judge someone who has at least had the courage to tell his story. Wardy's story is a "there but the grace of God" situation, and I encourage you all to reflect on that. Are YOU perfect?

The alcohol limits in WA are;
Over 0.05 to under 0.08 is driving whilst under the influence and anything over 0.08 is drunken driving, Wardy was 0.086 So he was Drunk and Not just a little bit "Tipsy"
Am I "Perfect" ?
NO I have been busted for D.D. in the past which cost me my licence and a hefty fine at the time.
Did I consider the fine and the 6 Month suspension to be too harsh? Of course I did But it had the effect that I haven't had an illegal B.A.C in over 20 odd years since
I am pretty sure that just about everyone is aware how a persons sex, weight and metabolism will affect their B.A.C. so pulling the "I'm only a skinny guy/girl officer " is NO excuse.

Guys...he was over the limit, DUI, whatever the term. Does it really matter what the limit is? He was over it! Not only is DUI dangerous but what everyone forgets is that if you crash whilst DUI your insurance is void.

I work in emergency services & have been to a young lady that crashed into a very new Mercedes. The whole time we were with her she kept saying ‘thank goodness for insurance, I couldn’t afford this’. Later after she got physically restrained at hospital and her blood alcohol test done I told her about DUI & insurance bring void. It was quite pleasing to watch the colour drain from her face!

Glad your not in her shoes?

Sorry to hear Wardy. Minimum sentencing for anything has never worked as a deterrent and it just catches out those that make one small error in judgement unfortunately. ☹️