.02 Bac Proposal

[white.grant]

I dont drive after having one drink but if they bring in 0.02 I could probably be booked on a lot of mornings going to work.

You and my both Mantis. Not sure I could tell if that vague morning after headache puts me over the limit.

 

[paul]

By lowering it to 0.02 it will only increase the revenue for the government. It wont stop people who drive home from their local drunk.

In my previous job we were randomly breathtested and it wasnt very hard to get a reading in the morning if you had a late night and were working an early shift. If the limit was 0.02 the police would set up booze buses in the morning and get people on their way to work.

 

[Wortgames]

of course knowing our government they'll only implement the reduced limit, find out it's not as effective as they were anticipating and sit around scratching their heads

...yet refusing to reverse their misguided actions on the basis that 'it would send the wrong message' <_<

If we accept (which I'm sure we all do) that alcohol can impair our ability to both drive and sometimes make reasonable decisions then what is the argument against lowering the limit? "My enjoyment will be reduced"? Stuff your enjoyment. If a beer is all that gets you through then have a think about necking yourself now because that's not much of a motivation to keep breathing in my book. We all know someone (if we aren't actually that someone ourselves) who has sworn they were fine to drive but ended up doing their brief. This story is common to the point of clich - so how many of these same stories end up in an accident where someone is hurt? If the answer is more than none then I see no problem whatsoever with the proposal (as described in this thread, didn't read the link).

Are you serious Bum? So you're all for banning alcohol from our lives altogether?

I don't think we all necessarily accept the notion that the merest sniff of a barman's apron affects our driving ability to the point where we're going to kill someone. I don't really believe I'm a safer driver at .02 than at .05, because I don't really believe I'm any safer at .00 than at .05. Until someone presents EVIDENCE that a legal limit of .02 actually results in less accidents than .05 it's just an assumption, and I don't appreciate having my civil liberties snipped away one by one because somebody 'guesses' that it will make the world a safer place.

 

[Sammus]

I started drink driving as soon as I was allowed. If they put it back to 0.02 I'd stop. I reckon good on em, it'll stop a lot of people like me from driving pissed. I don't see any problem with the proposal. Hell I reckon they should slap an instant irreversible loss of license and a $100000 fine on it too.

 

[Mantis]

Shit, If these pollies are serious then why not a blanket 10 year loss of licence if over .05.
Oh, I forgot, the loss of rego fees, licence fees, gst etc on fuel, ........................................................

 

[bum]

Are you serious Bum? So you're all for banning alcohol from our lives altogether?

I don't think we all necessarily accept the notion that the merest sniff of a barman's apron affects our driving ability to the point where we're going to kill someone. I don't really believe I'm a safer driver at .02 than at .05, because I don't really believe I'm any safer at .00 than at .05. Until someone presents EVIDENCE that a legal limit of .02 actually results in less accidents than .05 it's just an assumption, and I don't appreciate having my civil liberties snipped away one by one because somebody 'guesses' that it will make the world a safer place.

Oh good. Its not just the hop pellet issue. You're generally batshit crazy and just decide you position (and clearly that of others) based on nothing other than whim.

What have I said that even remotely suggests that I'd be happy to see prohibition come into effect?

Your logic regarding your safe driving at .00 or .05 id faulty for two reasons - the first is that .049 is still considered as a safe level to drive, .05 is where it gets shady; the second is that, going by your implication, if you believe your driving is no worse pissed than sober you should hand in your licence immediately.

There is PLENTY of evidence supporting the current BAC levels for driving. Look it up. You sound like one of those fundamentalist morons saying 'A-ha! But evolution is only a "theory"!'

Being able to drink and drive is not a civil liberty, dickhead.

 

[bum]

I apologise for the parts that seem a little personal, WortGames. It just shits me to tears when people winge about this stuff. I'm sure you're a top bloke and I will continue to read your brew posts with interest hoping to learn further.

 

[bconnery]

Under the current legislation it is accepted that a driver with a reading of just under .05 is okay to drive. The implication being that their judgement and skills are not sufficiently impared that they are a danger to others...
Under this someone driving at .05 would be 2.5 times over the legal limit. That just sounds a little crazy to me...

 

[bum]

Under the current legislation it is accepted that a driver with a reading of just under .05 is okay to drive. The implication being that their judgement and skills are not sufficiently impared that they are a danger to others...
Under this someone driving at .05 would be 2.5 times over the legal limit. That just sounds a little crazy to me...

Based purely on the mathematics, you have a fair point but you're neglecting two things: firstly, there is a possibility that the facts available at the time of the .05 decision might not have been entirely accurate - are you saying a law can't be changed if it is shown to be inadequate?; and secondly, fairly or unfairly, this law must apply equally to all of us even if the effects of alcohol might not - I'm sure we all know people that alcohol effects differently. If there is a (however small) segment of society that might be too impaired to drive at .21-ish then .02 should be the legal limit.

 

[Darren]

Bum,

As I posted earlier, a significant number of road fatalities occur WITHOUT the influence of alcohol. I agree that being "pissed as a fart" is the best way to have a crash but so is being "high as a kite" on prescription drugs (add a glass of wine if you wish).

I wonder how often the "crashees" have significant levels of these prescription drugs in their blood?

Speed cameras, crushing "hoons" cars, reduction to 50km/hr in urban areas, 0.05%ABV and random "illegal" drug tests have all failed as here in SA the road toll is almost double that of last year (I suspect reduction in road toll in the last 15 years is ONLY due to safety features such as ABS and airbags, NOT due to police intervention as they would like you to falsely believe).

To take this right off topic, did you know that more men successfully comitt suicide in Australia than people die from road crashes. Perhaps this should become a focus of government policy?

cheers

Darren

 

[Adamt]

To throw another spanner in the works, I think the concept of using blood alcohol concentration is not a great measure of how likely someone is to cause an accident. Some people are much better drivers than others. Some are more attentive. Some have better visual judgement. Some have better reflexes. Alcohol affects many of these, as does nicotine (to a much lesser extent, but still), caffeine, other drugs, legal medication, tiredness, mood, stress, peer pressure, and the list goes on.

0.05 is probably a fair limit for a skilled driver, but for many others I'm sure a much lower BAC would yield the same "increased risk".

 

[haysie]

To throw another spanner in the works, I think the concept of using blood alcohol concentration is not a great measure of how likely someone is to cause an accident. Some people are much better drivers than others. Some are more attentive. Some have better visual judgement. Some have better reflexes. Alcohol affects many of these, as does nicotine (to a much lesser extent, but still), caffeine, other drugs, legal medication, tiredness, mood, stress, peer pressure, and the list goes on.

0.05 is probably a fair limit for a skilled driver, but for many others I'm sure a much lower BAC would yield the same "increased risk".

"for sure"
But you need to be sensible about it. My state governments over the years have done such. Any situation requires a cutoff point.

 

[bum]

Bum,

As I posted earlier, a significant number of road fatalities occur WITHOUT the influence of alcohol.

Unless you're suggesting the banning of cars I'm not sure why you mention this.

I agree that being "pissed as a fart" is the best way to have a crash but so is being "high as a kite" on prescription drugs (add a glass of wine if you wish).

I wonder how often the "crashees" have significant levels of these prescription drugs in their blood?

Again, possibly a fair point but a completely different issue. But it does point out that substances DO effect people's driving and as such the use of ANY substance that will cause impairment to someone's driving needs to be regulated.

Speed cameras, crushing "hoons" cars, reduction to 50km/hr in urban areas, 0.05%ABV and random "illegal" drug tests have all failed as here in SA the road toll is almost double that of last year (I suspect reduction in road toll in the last 15 years is ONLY due to safety features such as ABS and airbags, NOT due to police intervention as they would like you to falsely believe).

Is your point that the Police should just turn a blind eye then? I really don't understand what you're getting at here. I understand that your claim is that all these regulations are having no effect but what is the follow on of that? Seriously.

[EDIT: should be a .02 on posting as well]

 

[Screwtop]

Shit, If these pollies are serious then why not a blanket 10 year loss of licence if over .05.
Oh, I forgot, the loss of rego fees, licence fees, gst etc on fuel, ........................................................

Under the current legislation it is accepted that a driver with a reading of just under .05 is okay to drive. The implication being that their judgement and skills are not sufficiently impared that they are a danger to others...
Under this someone driving at .05 would be 2.5 times over the legal limit. That just sounds a little crazy to me...

These two posts make the most sense to me. I still cant understand why in any country we drive on so called highways toward each other at 100kph passing only 1M apart.

Anyway on the BAC thing, people driving over .05 will still drive over .02. No matter what the limit we will still have people driving over the limit, loss of license does not stop some, have observed a spate of unlicensed drivers appearing in court here lately on DUI charges. A pro active Government would look to technology to assist in reducing road the road toll, all sorts of devices are available to immobilise a vehicle, some sense driver BAC.

In any case............looks like owning a pub will be much less attractive. Maybe visit a franchise lawyer and look at Pizza and Alcohol franchising possibilities and home deliver both......."a family Margarita, bottle of JD and a 2L coke please", "would you like a Bavarian Choc Dessert with that for only $2.95" :lol:

In any case there will be more home brewers/home drinkers :lol:

 

[Adamt]

EDIT: This is a reply to Haysie's post:

Yep, and that's the problem.

I guess I would support a better roadside testing procedure, throw those fecking breathalysers away. What's wrong with the old Cops (American TV show) style "sobriety test"? Maybe something not as primitive as walking in a straight line, but a series of short tests, reflexes, eyesight, hell, even road rule tests (I hate people that can't follow very simple road rules). Perhaps the same tests can also be done when getting a license. Each person will have their own "normal" scores for these tests (obviously they need to be above a certain score to pass a test) and these will be stored on their license. There could lower limits to how low drivers can score before they're done for a driving offence.

 

[mika]

Well i kind did... we are 0.05 and has being since Ive being in double UA. Which is 9 years this year.

Running well behind the play, but at least in WA there is a 0.05 and 0.08 limit. After 0.05 I believe you're 'Driving under the influence' after 0.08 I think you're officially 'Drink driving'. There's some legal definition between the two, which is probably why some people still think WA is working on a BAC of 0.08.
Either way, you get a hefty fine and lose some demerits. My brother got done about 2yrs ago. Because it was his first time offence and he was under 0.08 (but over 0.05) he got to keep his licence. If he does it again, automatic loss of license + the fine + demerit points + increased insurance premiums and all the rest.

Perth's a bit different though, public transport is generally either not available or not convenient. With everything being so spread out you're almost forced to drive and with the general lack of visible police presence I think it lulls people into thinking they can get away with it. And if you've gotten away with it once, why aren't you going to get away with it again ? I'm not justifying it in anyway, but I can see how a lax attitude can be born.

 

[haysie]

I still cant understand why in any country we drive on so called highways toward each other at 100kph passing only 1M apart.

Maybe because you are in AUSTRALIA Screwy. Hindsight comments.
If Europe is so good>>>>>>>>>>>>
Our roads are getting so much better , I havent seen QLD lately, here in Melbourne/Victoria, ALL our new freeways/.bypasses do not have a tree within 50mtrs, if so the road is guarded with rails. What a great move forward. In the past the same road would have people wrapped all around it.

 

[bum]

I guess I would support a better roadside testing procedure, throw those fecking breathalysers away.

Regardless of the BAC figure we're talking about I think the breatkalysers are alright. They'd be awful if they were what you were booked on but I do think they're a more reliable indicator than repeating the alphabet backwards or such.

 

[Darren]

Unless you're suggesting the banning of cars I'm not sure why you mention this.

Yes mentioned because alcohol is targeted without any scrutiny around legal drugs that equivalently impair driving ability.
Again, possibly a fair point but a completely different issue. But it does point out that substances DO effect people's driving and as such the use of ANY substance that will cause impairment to someone's driving needs to be regulated.

see above

Is your point that the Police should just turn a blind eye then? I really don't understand what you're getting at here. I understand that your claim is that all these regulations are having no effect but what is the follow on of that? Seriously.

Not police turn a blind-eye but apply the same stringency towards those "drugs" which also equally impair driving ability. But as I mentioned earlier, its not in the best inters of police commisioners or politicians wives to do that

cheers Darren

 

[bum]

I'm not sure you're being fair there, Darren. All drugs that will interact with alcohol are labelled with warnings. And I don't know that it is fair to label all wives of coppers or pollies as drivers who are constantly tripping balls.

I agree that this could be an issue that is not looked into deeply enough but I'm still unsure how any of this relates. It seems like a parallel issue rather than one presented as an argument against this one.