Under the affluence of incahol

[flappist]

With all the discussion going on in the mainstearm media about BAC levels as to whether they should be lowered, stay the same or raised I thought I would start a thread to discuss all the options.

Please though, if you choose to contribute can you take the following into consideration:

1) Just because YOU think something is right does not make it so or even the general consensus.
2) What affects you directly may not be the same as for others. We all live in different places and social/economic environments.
3) If you have been personally affected by a drink driving tragedy remember that the culprit was ALREADY breaking the law so a reduced limit would have made no difference to that event. Also you are not the only one on here who has been in that situation.

I would hope that most would look at the big picture. Remember BAC is NOT that you have been drinking and very low BAC reading has been demonstrated from various foods, confectionary, medicines and exposure to vapours in various construction and industrial situations so a 0 BAC means that many people will be prevented from driving purely due to their job, transient minor medical condition or even their religeous practices.

Also the middle of Sydney at peak hour requires a different driving skill base than wandering down a lonely rural road.

The idea is to DISCUSS it, please if you disagree, attack the point not the presenter.

And of course, what would this be without a poll

[irlewy86]

.05

Mainly because they've spent so much time educating everyone on the suggested intake. i.e 2 standard drinks in the first hour 1 after that. Going up or down would be a little confusing and counter productive.

[sarrge2001]

Let's face it - whatever the BAC is, those idiots that are determined to drive home from the pub after a skinful, will still drive.

Dropping it from .05 to .02 or zero will have a negligible effect on the road toll, a major effect on fines and licence suspensions and no effect on those who will drive now no matter how much they have had to drink!!

[b2tf]

Originally Posted by sarrge2001

Let's face it - whatever the BAC is, those idiots that are determined to drive home from the pub after a skinful, will still drive.

Dropping it from .05 to .02 or zero will have a negligible effect on the road toll, a major effect on fines and licence suspensions and no effect on those who will drive now no matter how much they have had to drink!!

Unfortunately I think you are right but I also agree that there's not really any reason that I can see to change it from 0.05.

I support the 0.00 limit for P platers though - not because I am a discriminatory loon with a hate for P platers, but rather because I have seen too many teenage morons who do get on the sauce try and do something dumb with the car.

[Mr Brooksy]

Regardless of the BAC levels, in my uneducated (in such matters) opinion, would suggest they stop debating over levels and start being serious about consequences.

Flappist, you mentioned this "the culprit was ALREADY breaking the law so a reduced limit would have made no difference to that event"
If the consequences for being caught or being in an accident were significantly more harsh, then wouldn't more people think twice about having the extra few drinks BEFORE they hit the town? Have people thinking about the consequences before they get to the point where they cant string together a sentence?

I know that I'm talking about the extreme few here, that more often than not will do it anyway. But with any luck they get caught (before they kill anyone), loose their license for an extended period of time with no chance of appeal... Think twice next time, considering their inconvenience of not being able to drive for a long period.

But again, I'm not an expert. Just an armchair critic without all the data. And happy to be wrong.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Mr Brooksy

Regardless of the BAC levels, in my uneducated (in such matters) opinion, would suggest they stop debating over levels and start being serious about consequences.

Flappist, you mentioned this "the culprit was ALREADY breaking the law so a reduced limit would have made no difference to that event"
If the consequences for being caught or being in an accident were significantly more harsh, then wouldn't more people think twice about having the extra few drinks BEFORE they hit the town? Have people thinking about the consequences before they get to the point where they cant string together a sentence?

I know that I'm talking about the extreme few here, that more often than not will do it anyway. But with any luck they get caught (before they kill anyone), loose their license for an extended period of time with no chance of appeal... Think twice next time, considering their inconvenience of not being able to drive for a long period.

But again, I'm not an expert. Just an armchair critic without all the data. And happy to be wrong.

The increasing of consequences seem to be a constant failure.

Hoon laws; crush car and possible jail.......well that worked....apart from the daily mega-splats.
Drug laws; even mandatory life did not make any difference.
Murder? Rape? Armed robbery? Glassings at pubs etc. etc. ?

And here is the VERY scary flip side, if the penalties are extremely high the drivers will not stop and just do a runner. Not logical thinking but they have been drinking remember and fight/flight is a primary instinct so when the 60km/h drinker hits a full school bus at 200km/h because they have done a runner when they realised that they are about to go to jail or be shot or whatever will it be comforting to all the parents that at least there is one less drink driver on the road?
And then the coroner discovers that the driver was in fact just under the limit.............

[LTDHO]

This is hard to measure as one person would be effected by .05 differently to another.

I suppose there is no way to accurately determine whether you are effected by alcohol. Unless each person is tested first.

[ThaFlash]

I voted for 0.0000 & zero tolerance.

And now my reasoning....

I know 2 people that have personally killed 4 people and made 1 a quadriplegic.

Person 1: Friend of the family, shared many fun times together. Drove home drunk one night, went through a red light killed 2 young people instantly. Jail 4 years.

Person 2: My uncles wife drove home drunk killed 2 young boys parked on the side of the road and paralised the third. 2 years jail and got out after 6 months.

Naturally they both claim they weren't that drunk.

Had the limit been zero perhaps these young guys would be here today.

On a personal note, I hope the families of the victims take revenge.... well, nuff said...

[PHATXR8]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

Had the limit been zero perhaps these young guys would be here today.

What a crock!

You stated that both drivers were drunk and I fail to see how any change of the legal BAC limit would have made any difference to their levels of intoxication....

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

I voted for 0.0000 & zero tolerance.

And now my reasoning....

I know 2 people that have personally killed 4 people and made 1 a quadriplegic.

Person 1: Friend of the family, shared many fun times together. Drove home drunk one night, went through a red light killed 2 young people instantly. Jail 4 years.

Person 2: My uncles wife drove home drunk killed 2 young boys parked on the side of the road and paralised the third. 2 years jail and got out after 6 months.

Naturally they both claim they weren't that drunk.

Had the limit been zero perhaps these young guys would be here today.

On a personal note, I hope the families of the victims take revenge.... well, nuff said...

I understand where you are coming from, but you sid they were drunk.
So obviosuly ovver 0.05
If both those drivers were on 0.04 they probably would of not crashed.

So even if the limit is 0.000000 people will STILL drive drunk. It's not going to have an affect on the road toll to lower the limit, just will result in more fines.

[irish2]

Voted .05.

A huge number of studies have proved there to be no change in reaction times until about .07 and even then it is fractional. I think the law should be changed so that people who blow .05 aren't disqualified, when 1 minute later they would be .049.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by irish2

Voted .05.

A huge number of studies have proved there to be no change in reaction times until about .07 and even then it is fractional. I think the law should be changed so that people who blow .05 aren't disqualified, when 1 minute later they would be .049.

And you call yourself an Irishman.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by fmc351

And you call yourself an Irishman.

Haha, all is not what it seems.

Did a test many years ago involving "beer goggles". Had to complete a course, market out by cones, and at a set speed whilst wearing these goggles. The goggles ranged from .05 up to .2. I was given the .2 goggles being the smart **** I am and proceded to complete the course no worries. Collected a few cones with the .05 goggles however.

I have driven well over the limit on occasion only concerned about seeing a cop car. I have also been pulled after drinking and blown under, even on my P's. This then brings into question the equipment being used for the testing procedure. Who says the Irish have no luck!

[Scott]

I am of the reasonably uneducated opinion that:

1. Drink Driving is a relatively minor contributor to the number of accidents on our roads - much like speeding;
2. Where Alcohol is a factor in an accident, it is more likely that the accident would be more severe than those where it is not prevalent;
3. Many reports of accidents blame alcohol entirely simply because it is present, much like speed. The reality is that a percentage of those accidents would be caused by the exact same reasons that every other accident happens;
4. Our society is conditioned to the point of being drones - if we are told something often enough, it HAS to be true. What possible motive would a Govt have in scaring us? Start a new thread on Global Warming >here<;
5. The FST has no home in Australia, and I think it should;
6. Personally, I can drink to excess and still blow quite small numbers - on the other hand, I can have one beer (at say 0.01% BAC) and feel a little woozy sometimes;
7. Numbers are just numbers - why magically are we deemed to be a danger on the roads because an aggregated number says we are?

Ultimately, the limit should be where you are well in control of your faculties. How you find that limit, who knows. What I do know is that .01, .05, .10 are irrelevant figures plucked from the backside of a focus group who were told to find an all encompassing answer.

Limits are good, but they are flawed.

[ebxr8240]

.05 for Brocky...

[Fireblade]

I voted 0.02, I don't see the need to be able to have a couple of drinks and drive, if you know your having a couple or more, walk, cab it or organise another way home, there is no excuses in my book. Now to my big problem in all of this is, it is easy to pick a "Hoon" because all the people with nice cars are ones, and is easy to pick because of this, not so easy to pick the drunk driver in his/her camry. More people get picked up and have their cars impounded through Drink/drug driving than Hoons, but all they say is we have impounded so many Hoon cars and not give out the vital statistics here, the public would be up in arms if they new how many people were really killed by DUI drivers than people going sideways, this doesn't condone the behaviour just the consequences of it all.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

I voted 0.02, I don't see the need to be able to have a couple of drinks and drive,

I can understand why you might take that stance, but for the guy who blows .15, do you think he was concerned with a limit?

Flappist, if you want to get to the crux of DUI, a good question to ask would be "when you are about to leave the pub, are you more worried about finding an RBT or having a crash". Most will not have the courage to answer honestly.

[Fireblade]

Originally Posted by GTP006

I can understand why you might take that stance, but for the guy who blows .15, do you think he was concerned with a limit?

Flappist, if you want to get to the crux of DUI, a good question to ask would be "when you are about to leave the pub, are you more worried about finding an RBT or having a crash". Most will not have the courage to answer honestly.

No helping people who flout the law regardless of limits, making the penalties much harsher than they are would. In regards to Road Rules though, you get much harsher penalties for these crimes than say assault or rape. Alcohol related assaults seem to be on the rise but they don't seem to get much penalty for this either. I am a little perplexed to our guvments knee jerk reactions to some crimes but lack of to others.

[JC]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

I voted 0.02, I don't see the need to be able to have a couple of drinks and drive, if you know your having a couple or more, walk, cab it or organise another way home, there is no excuses in my book. ........

Agree with this, and something I practice (I know, I know, good for me!) If you choose to buy a drink and you also want to drive, make it a case/slab/6 pack/bottle of spirit, and take it home, then consume it.

[302 XC]

So how is drink driving any different to say influence of drugs ???
Fatigue ???

Mate will still have a drink before driving even have a traveller and still think its fine for a drive home
But wont have grass/pot/weed at all if he has to drive ???
Why
The penalties are harsher for drugs than the drink
Wether its 0.00 or 0.10 we have to start somewhere
Drugs,Alcohol,Fatigue ALL effect us in different ways

It seems no matter what we do,fines, licence disqualified,ignition locks,jail time
Some people will NEVER learn

[Smoke Pursuit]

0.02 is a rediculous idea? 1 drink and you would be over.

Make it 0... People still dont comply with 0.05, the amount of people who think they are under but actually just over is a joke.

Ban drinking an driving all together!!

[Scott]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

Ban drinking an driving all together!!

And only impact the people who are committed to doing the right thing

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by GTP006

And only impact the people who are committed to doing the right thing

well do you have a breath test device?? how can anyone be sure they are doing the right thing without one of these devices??

Im not game to drink and drive, i need my licence and i care about other people on the roads.

If its good enough for truck drivers, its good enough for the rest of the population.

[Redrum]

I do not think that the BAC needs to be lowered. I personally think the issue is repeat offenders who do not give a stuff about what the BAC is. They need to be locked up for a long time, then maybe it might sink in.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

well do you have a breath test device?? how can anyone be sure they are doing the right thing without one of these devices??

Ohh maaate!! I know you're better than that!!

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by GTP006

Ohh maaate!! I know you're better than that!!

Dont take it personal mate, im just saying theres alot of people who drink and think they are under the limit when infact they arent, there no concise way of measuring by standard drinks either, different people bear different levels of alcohol in their system based on their size, drinking habits etc.

Anyone who reguarly drinks and drives needs to have a breath testing device on them if you ask me.

[fmc351]

Why have a limit. People will make reasoned decisions like with roads with an open speed limit.


What ever limit you want to set for yourself.

[fmc351]

Serious post

.05 will be fine for some people
.08 would be fine for others

Im pretty sure a mate of mine would be fine at over .1, he seems to function better when hes had a few.

A limit needs to be set for a population, not individuals.

[MAD]

I like the premise behind setting a 0.00, that way you dont have people accidentally driving while over the limit because they thought they were ok.
But... I dont think the statistical representation, in road trauma, of this group would be anything worth counting, if anything at all.

The ones that cause problems are the big drinkers and nothing will change that.

[ThaFlash]

PHATXR8, what I was trying to say was to take the guess work out of the equation. Obviously they thought the were under the limit of the allowable .05

If it was zero they may have gotten drunk and rang a cab, stay the night or not even drink.

I don't hold a strong view of over the BAC laws one way or the other.

My original post was for the sake of discussion and I thought I could offer realistic perspective, less stats and the usual frivolous information.

I am open minded and interested in people's view in this particular thread.