Thoughts on DUI?

[manticle]

Run over me, my lady or one of my cats and you deserve everything you get.
Extrapolate from that to drive pissed and hurt someone or something you shouldn't and could have avoided.

No need for 0.00 - hate to see people criminalised for eating a liqueur chocolate

 

[Cocko]

Thoughts on repeat offences Mants?

 

[Clutch]

My mrs got done at 0.052 (picking me up from a night out) and she is the most risk-averse person I know. There is no way she would get behind the wheel if she thought she was even close to being over. Got a fine and a suspension, and now will not drive even after one wine hours before.
Having Said all that, I think 0.05 is about right because its enough to catch you out after having a couple and well before you're actual intoxicated. Above 0.08 the suspension is immediate and penalties much harsher because you're legally defined as intoxicated, and to paraphrase Donske when you're 0.08 you know you're under the effect and should definitely not get behind the wheel.

.052? Shiiiiit, that is what I call unlucky.
Would've been a disqualification, not a suspension, and it's over .100 that you get an immediate roadside suspension, and that ends when you get disqualified.

Suspensions are from DTMR, for demerit points, or a high-speed (40kmh+) infringement.
Disqualifications are from the courts, for DUI, unlicensed driving, dangerous driving, and a few other things.
If you get suspended, then you simply start driving again after it ends.
If it's a disqualification, you need to renew your licence before you start driving again, even if you've got 4 years or so before it expires.

Try explaining that to someone who's been pinged for driving on an expired licence, been given a notice to appear, and straight away dropped $148.80 on a 5 year licence before going to court and getting a 1 month disqualification... Fun times.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Repeat high range or repeat low range?

 

[Liam_snorkel]

@ Clutch haha yeah sorry I'm not up with the lingo but you got the idea.

I made the mistake myself when I got booked in my early 20s. They didn't physically take my license off me so I thought that after my three months were up I could just go back to driving around with it. Fast forward a couple of years I went to get it renewed and the lass behind the desk informed me that I'd been driving unlicensed for over two years. Whoops. 6 months longer and I would have had to sit another test.

 

[manticle]

Thoughts on repeat offences Mants?

You get caught once - lose licence, 0.0 restricted licence when you receive it back for x months
Caught twice - some kind of training program and extended 0.0 or 0.0 forever. 3 times =no licence ever.

Kill or maim person or animal while dui - same punishment plus community service or jail term depending on seriousness of offence.

Off the cuff suggestions but roughly my line of thinking

 

[Clutch]

If you blow .100 at any time, it's an immediate roadside suspension.
If you blow .150 or higher, it's that, plus the ultimate bolt-on modification for your car, on return from the disqualification.
As I said earlier, two over the no alcohol, general, or mid-range limits within 5 years will get you the interlock as well.
$3,000 is a lot of cash to burn on something that doesn't make your car go faster or sound better.

 

[Clutch]

@ Clutch haha yeah sorry I'm not up with the lingo but you got the idea.

I made the mistake myself when I got booked in my early 20s. They didn't physically take my license off me so I thought that after my three months were up I could just go back to driving around with it. Fast forward a couple of years I went to get it renewed and the lass behind the desk informed me that I'd been driving unlicensed for over two years. Whoops. 6 months longer and I would have had to sit another test.

Happens more than you'd think. The courts don't tell people ****, and then 6 weeks before they finish the disqual, they get the interlock letter....

 

[Camo6]

You get caught once - lose licence, 0.0 restricted licence when you receive it back for x months
Caught twice - some kind of training program and extended 0.0 or 0.0 forever. 3 times =no licence ever.

Kill or maim person or animal while dui - same punishment plus community service or jail term depending on seriousness of offence.

Off the cuff suggestions but roughly my line of thinking

I agree along these lines also but think the punishment should be meted out with heavy fines. I would rather see repeat offenders slapped with a permanent interlock device instead of being banned from driving permanently. I imagine a lot of banned drivers would continue to run the gauntlet and keep driving with a 'to hell with it' attitude. I've worked on a couple of cars with interlocks and those things are a pain in the ass and not easily overcome.

 

[simplefisherman]

Norfolk Island rules could be adopted on the mainland; no RBT, but if you have an accident you get tested / charged.Speed limit on the entire island is 50kph ( 25 past the school... ) and the cows have right of way. And its practically mandatory to wave when you pass another vehicle.
To be fair though it only takes 5 min to go from one side of the island to the other, so maybe not so practical.

Must admit I have been lucky on the few occasions ( content removed ), but definitely not worth the risk to others, livelihood etc.. a couple of my mates have lost parents through drunk drivers, I think that's what brought it home for me, bad enough to lose family through natural causes let alone some drunken **** thinking ' she'll be right '.
Now I let the wife take care of the evening driving and I do the driving with the camptrailer attached.

Repeat offenders? I guess harsher penalties, and maybe some kind of extreme aversion therapy.

 

[manticle]

Happy to chuck interlock or vehicle confiscation in as well as fines consistent with seriousness of offence. 100 dollars for every point over?

Also offenders caught driving with suspended licence accelerated to next level. Dui while suspended = permanent loss.
Hey I could be a legislator.

 

[Proffs]

DUI is just the tip of the iceberg. Magistrates need to start getting tough with all criminals; not just drink drivers. It's becoming more and more of a joke everyday. Why bother working and being honest when you can rob and assault all you like and continue to get suspended sentences.

 

[Northside Novice]

its all a bit of a joke, those people that starved their kids to death get the choice/chance to plea bargain down to manslaughter for a better life .

makes me sick.


uk are well stricker on dui , and the locals treat it as a very serious, shameful offence , unlike us, its a bit of a boys club macho rite of passage ' how much did you blow ? .126, is that all? ya pussy "

 

[pk.sax]

I'm a little slower and gradual when drunk. It might just be safer than sober me...

Seriously though, people should not be getting behind the wheel impaired, sleep, alcohol, tired, it should be treated just the same. I know from my experience that it does the exact same thing to my driving ability. The best thing I've done when drunk is to sit on it till I'm good and sober. If I'm 0.04 and not sober, it's not good enough. Neither do I give a **** if I happen to be 0.06 but in a good condition (haven't tested that theory, I climb down fast from a high - tested). If you can sit up straight and concentrate on someone saying something to you for 15 minutes or so and be able to pass a quiz on it, you're sober I'd think.

 

[goomboogo]

If you can sit up straight and concentrate on someone saying something to you for 15 minutes or so and be able to pass a quiz on it, you're sober I'd think.

Even without having a drink, I would never be able to drive.

 

[Clutch]

Even without having a drink, I would never be able to drive.

Yeah, way to pick on the ADD kids.

 

[pk.sax]

My worst moments on the road have been due to a deficit of attention, and I squarely blame myself. Oh, and the GPS on occasion.

 

[komodo]

Having been pulled into the booze bus for a secondary reading after the primary was over 0.05 and blowing under I have to say anyone that gets caught over 0.05 KNOWS they're over. I was dead set positive when I saw the van that I'd run out of luck and wasn't surprised when the initial test came back over how ever was absolutely surprised when the secondary reading came back under.

Whilst since then I've been a lot more cautious about how much I've had to drink before getting behind the steerer, I'll be honest there were times in my younger days where I don't really know how I got home without an accident - and I'm not talking 5 minutes down the road either.

I think more education on the affects of alcohol on drives needs to be available. I would even like to see the better personal bretholizers come with an accreditation and be some what subsidised.

I still think 0.05 is a good level. Its high enough that the average person can have a drink or two with a meal and still be fine yet low enough that the risk, statistically, is still quite low.

 

[bum]

In an ideal situation, yes. But in all practicality, how would/could it be policed?

In exactly the same way 0.5 is.

Or any other law, for that matter - you get caught, you're in the ****.

 

[Parks]

.052? Shiiiiit, that is what I call unlucky.

Except she would have most likely blown 0.06 - 0.07 at the car.

I got done about 10 years ago and I blew 0.102 or something at the car yet offically charged at 0.09. I was another of these "I know better" young ins so thank fk I never had an accident...