.02 Bac Proposal

[tcraig20]

I think the real issue here is 'acceptable risk'. How much risk are we willing to accept, and how much liberty are we willing to sacrifice to accept those risks?

To believe that we can elimate risk is entirely unreasonable - risk is more or less our whole lives. In the case of our roads, banning private vehicles entirely would dramatically reduce our road tolls, but Im sure that almost all of us would agree that this is unreasonable. For blood alcohol content, obviously the safest thing would be zero, but what is the level of reasonable risk? If we were all to get in our cars and drive around right now, what are the chances that any of us would be involved in an accident with a driver with a BAC above 0.05? I dont know, but quite low would be my guess (of course, that might not be the best assumption at 10pm on a forum dedicated to those who produce and consume alcohol as a recreation!). Perhaps we are twice as likely to be involved in an accident if someone has been drinking, but if that means that the risk is increased from one in 100,000,000 to one in 50,000,000, would we be willing to accept that risk?

The idea that we can live without risk, and that the government can be used as a tool to insure us against risk is a fantasy. The logical conclusion of that train of thought would place us all under a form of house arrest for our own protection, something that noone would find palatable.

What is interesting is that our attitude to risk has slowly become less and less tolerant over time. My dad has told me stories of how he used to have to drive out of town on Sundays to drink (the Eltham Hotel outside of Lismore - still does a top lunch today), then drive home drunk because there were archaic prohibitions on drinking on Sundays at the time. Eventually, someone decided that this was an unacceptable risk and we ended up with BAC testing. Now, some are talking about further tightening these restrictions. Alcohol and driving is by no means unique, similar trajectories can be traced for many aspects of our society and government.

I could go on, but Ive ranted enough for now.

 

[smudge]

Well said James.

The way causes of accidents and the statistics that inevitably flow from them are collected is haphazard. Ask any copper. If
someone could prove to me that accidents were being caused because drivers were 0.02-0.05 instead of the myriad other
variables in any accident, I would seriously rethink my opposition to these sorts of bureaucratic rantings.

30% of fatalities on the road were wearing black shoes (or no shoes etc) so the cause of the accident was the shoes??

Reminds me of a study in the 80's when I was in the pharmaceutical game. It showed that women on the pill had a far higher
chance of contracting cervical cancer. So everyone concluded (including many medicos) that the pill caused cervical cancer.

Eventually it was discovered that the real risk factors were the number of sexual partners and the age of first intercourse,
because penile wart virus was the main cause of this cancer. It just happened that women on the pill were likely to be in this
demographic. I haven't kept up with the literature on this and don't know what the current thinking is but it illustrates a point.

Whenever a government, a politician, a police commissioner or a bureaucrat put forward something like this, look behind the
news. There's politics in there somewhere.

Cheers,
smudge

 

[Wortgames]

So Bum, is anyone that challenges your position a 'batshit crazy dickhead' or just me?

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

Well, your post looked a lot like you were advocating any move which 'may' save lives, regardless of any evidence (or lack thereof). So if you are ruling out civil rights and claiming there's no valid argument AGAINST moving to .02, then there can also be no valid argument AGAINST moving to .00, and there can also be no valid argument AGAINST total prohibition since it would 'probably' save lives. Civil liberties are important, because 'saving lives' could easily see us deprived of the right to drive, to drink alcohol, to eat hamburgers, play sport, have electricity in our homes or decline giving blood. People die, and you can't stop that happening by legislating away every personal freedom that could 'possibly' contribute.

going by your implication, if you believe your driving is no worse pissed than sober you should hand in your licence immediately.

That isn't what I said. I said that at .05 (ok, .0499999 if you prefer) I don't believe I am more dangerous than at .00. You might be 'pissed' at .05, but I'm not.

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"!'

Ahem. We're not talking about the CURRENT BAC levels, Bum, we're talking about PROPOSED BAC levels. Show me the evidence for those and all of a sudden your argument might grow some legs.

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

Once again, you might be a mess at .05 but I'm not. Now take a chill pill, stop running around like Helen Lovejoy wailing "won't somebody think of the children" and try to keep up with the grown-ups. This is serious stuff.

 

[Darren]

Bum,

My point is partially that there seems to a political motive to outlaw alcohol (at present in cars) but I suspect it wont be long before we see this extended to the street then the house (whilst embracing pharmaceutical sedatives which are far better at silencing the masses )

cheers

Darren

 

[bum]

More people do need to think of the children.

I suspect that you're one of them, WortGames.

[EDIT: crosspost. sorry, Darren]

 

[bum]

Bum,

My point is partially that there seems to a political motive to outlaw alcohol (at present in cars) but I suspect it wont be long before we see this extended to the street then the house (whilst embracing pharmaceutical sedatives which are far better at silencing the masses )

cheers

Darren

I don't think there will ever be a move to ban alcohol outright, at least in the short to medium term (medium ending extending somewhat past my lifetime) - even if only for economical reasons. There may be a move to ban it outright for drivers in that time, but I would not be too upset by such a move, personally. As for your final point, I suspect there will be a backlash there before there will be one aimed at alcohol. The damages there may end up proving undeniable given enough time.

 

[Count Vorlauf]

I don't think there will ever be a move to ban alcohol outright, at least in the short to medium term (medium ending extending somewhat past my lifetime) - even if only for economical reasons. There may be a move to ban it outright for drivers in that time, but I would not be too upset by such a move, personally. As for your final point, I suspect there will be a backlash there before there will be one aimed at alcohol. The damages there may end up proving undeniable given enough time.

No need to ban alcohol outright. Just keep making it unfeasible and unaffordable to buy and consume it. Like a .02 limit will do. Like increasing the excise rates have been doing and will continue to do. This will eventually do the job without something as messy as prohibition. And we will all be happy little carrot juice drinkers and live to one hundred and fifty miserable years old. In the meantime can I interest you in a prescription drug to help your anxiety? Paid for by Medicare, of course.

 

[bum]

No need to ban alcohol outright. Just keep making it unfeasible and unaffordable to buy and consume it. Like a .02 limit will do. Like increasing the excise rates have been doing and will continue to do. This will eventually do the job without something as messy as prohibition.

I understand your position and it is a valid opinion but I think you're severely underestimating peoples' dependance on alcohol. If the (proposed) changes don't work all they'll do is give people more reason to call all traffic penalties "revenue raising" and make the poor spend an even higher percentage of their income on alcohol (not in any way having a stab at the poor (I grew up in public housing) just repeating what must be considered fact in this day and age).

 

[Wisey]

Im also of the position that I dont like our freedoms being removed, regardless of what they are or how we achieved them. Internet Filtering Anyone?. How about our social motorcycle club that is raising funds for Childflight at the moment? Last year we worked hard and raised $2500 for Westpac rescue helicopter - But the government doesn't like us riding together, we might start robbing trains. If one of our riders by chance has any sort of dodgy background, I am now guilty by association.

Lowering the limit wont stop footballers punching their missus' in the face.

Anyways Bum, I'm only 25 and I can see the overall state of affairs are going down hill, how can we enjoy one of the best countries in the world when we are told what we are allowed read, drink (and smoke for those that like it).

 

[technocat]

We could eliminate all road accidents if we had a ZERO speed limit, but the country would grind to a halt.

The question is "how far are we prepared to let these ignorant clowns go to ruin our lives?"

Or disinvent the wheel. <_<

 

[pbrosnan]

I don't appreciate having my civil liberties snipped away

I don't think drinking and driving could be defined as a civil liberty, in fact driving couldn't properly be regarded as a civil liberty as it's an activity licensed by the government. Many people would regard the presence on the road of drivers affected by alcohol as a greater threat to their civil liberties as it is a potential threat to their quality of life. It could be argued that the consumption of any alcohol and driving should be banned on the basis that it has been shown to impair activity on those parts of the brain used whilst driving.

 

[QldKev]

I would like to see the stats of accidents caused by people in the 0.02 to 0.05 range; I don't think it would be that high. As already mentioned the issue also becomes the morning after, driving home. The morning after at 0.02 I think most people could still be easily over the limit; then you can get the issue of people thinking, well I'm still going to be over in the morning I might as well drive home now....

QldKev

 

[WarmBeer]

To paraphrase, with apologies, Pastor Martin Niemller.:

First they came for the Alco-Pops, and I didnt speak up, because I didn't drink Alco-Pops.
Then they came for the 0.05% BAC drivers, and I didnt speak up, because I wasnt a drink driver.
Then they came for the Home Brewers, and I didnt speak up, because I was not a Home Brewer.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.​

The erosion of civil liberties is a slippery, slippery slope.

Myself, I love living in a country where, for the most part, I can make my own decisions as a rational adult.

I plan on voicing my opinion with my local MP if this begins to get any traction.

 

[brettprevans]

from today's media Brumby has rejected proposal for 0.02.

wow im going to have to read the last few pages. seems there's been some heated debate.

 

[Maple]

Well isn't this just one of the most active threads, and not surprisingly. As many before me have said, dropping the limit will have very little deterrent for those that offend already, it will only limit those of us that respect the limit and not push the boundaries. I agree that certainly something needs to be done, so why not hit the offenders with something likely to actually affect the stats. I'd suggest something to the effect of a fine that would be in the neighbourhood of 10 to 15% of their annual income (pre-tax) and also set a minimun fine of 10K or there-abouts. Also, remove their license for a period of no less than 3 years, and require the license to be re-done from the beginning (L's and P's). Hard line, but a serious problem.
In my mind this would certainly limit the pushing of boundaries, those who respected that limit would be unaffected, those that offend would be hit hard, and those who might offend who are bright enough to understand the repercussions would likely play by the rules.

On a side note, this .02 would definately affect my cricket playing interests, and I would likely have to work from home

 

[marlow_coates]

I wasn't sure about weighing in on this discussion, but figured 'why not'.

I agree with warmbeer's last post, regarding the slippery slope of civil liberties.

It is easy (and traditional) for the government to enforce tighter and tighter control of an area once they have started. Obviously they have controlled the drink driving arena for some time, and as far as I know restrictions have only gotten tighter. Possibly for the better? It is difficult for the lay person to understand figures thrown into the media regarding rates dropping or rising, and their relation to population and other factors. For example speed, road status, car status, lighting, weather conditions, alertness of driver etc... all play a role in every fatality on our roads. Driving after drinking is an obvious and quantifiable factor, that the government can impose regular control over, and the BAC measure makes it easy to write laws in relation too.

I believe their should be powers in place to prevent and stop those too intoxicated to drive, and I think those powers are in place. People will always break the law, and the tighter the laws get, the worse it makes the population look, as more people are breaking it.

I don't think a road toll of zero will ever be acheived, but that will not stop, and should not stop, people attempting to reach this admirable goal. It seems that there are so many other areas that could be looked at in order to reduce the road toll, and politicians only seem interested in alcohol and speeding.

Why not put their efforts into getting more funding for road improvements? Better town planning (in brisbane especially) could go a long way to reducing road deaths.

Thats a bit of my rant anyway.

 

[pbrosnan]

I'd say it's a good thing that we don't have the majority of AHB members making the laws otherwise we'd have open speed limits, driving whilst para and probably guns for all. Why? because they're all "civil liberties" of course. Bring on gay marriage and decriminalisation of abortion in Queensland.

 

[tcraig20]

I'd say it's a good thing that we don't have the majority of AHB members making the laws otherwise we'd have open speed limits, driving whilst para and probably guns for all. Why? because they're all "civil liberties" of course. Bring on gay marriage and decriminalisation of abortion in Queensland.

We'd also legalise beastiality just so we could come over and interfere with your dog too!

Seriously, resorting to hyperbole is a bad way to argue.

 

[brettprevans]

love how people are talking about civil liberties like they are in the USA. we have a constition people not a bill of rights. our constituion provides for machinary of government etc not civil liberties. by virtue of being a free democratic nation and signatory to many a human rights treaty we are afforded certain 'rights' which are protected by government. only recently with the introduction of the human rights bill etc are certain rights enshrined in legislation.

 

[tcraig20]

love how people are talking about civil liberties like they are in the USA. we have a constition people not a bill of rights. our constituion provides for machinary of government etc not civil liberties. by virtue of being a free democratic nation and signatory to many a human rights treaty we are afforded certain 'rights' which are protected by government. only recently with the introduction of the human rights bill etc are certain rights enshrined in legislation.

'Rights' can be spoken about in American terms, because they are essentially the same. Many people make the mistake that government exists, and government defines the rights that we can and cannot have. Our rights only exist because the government has granted them to us. That is also how many interpret the US Bill of Rights: rights granted to the people by the government, through the mechanism of the constitution.

That is not the case. Rights are natural and inherent. The idea that we have personal liberties is based on the idea that each of us owns our own lives, and we are free to do as we please with our own lives, and the products of our lives, as we see fit. However, there will always be those who wish to infringe on our lives and property, through theft and violence, so we consent to have a mechanism to ensure that our natural rights are protected. That is the relationship: rights are held by the citizen, and ensured by the government. Rights are not decided as the government sees fit and handed down to the citizen. It doesnt matter whether these supposed 'rights' come from our state or federal governments, or some supra-national agreement such as the UN declaration, rights are natural and inherent, not the whim of government.

I feel that those who founded the US made a mistake calling their ammendments the 'bill of rights'. It should have been called the bill of limitations, because that was its intent. It was designed specifically to limit (or eliminate) the power of government to interfere in the rights that it describes, rights that the citizen already possessed with or without government. It was not a tool by which government 'granted' anything.

We are all human, and have the same natural rights whether we live in the US, Australia, Zimbabwe or Turkmenistan. Colonial and post-colonial America produced those who most clearly and eloquently expressed and defended those rights, and they still live with their legacy today. So I dont think we should be too startled to find similarities in ideas and argument.