MySwag.org The Off-road Camper Trailer Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bird on January 02, 2013, 08:45:12 AM
-
Bit of a rant.
What is it in this day and age that people don't get the message about drink driving. Have people not heard how being really pist affects your reactions and makes you a ****ing danger to everyone else?
I don't mean people who are .04999999999999999999 (rounded up to nearest whole #)but people who are smashed - 0.1+ and north of 0.2 etc.. I mean thats not just a couple of beers at a BBQ..
What does it take to get through to these people? This year alone theres been some horror stories of pissed women picking up kids at school, and their defence is Shit like "they were stressed or under pressure".. FFS - that defence = FAIL 100% FAIL..
Things like from todays paper:
It was one case among a litany of stupid behaviour on the roads during new-year celebrations, including a P-plater in Bright who blew .204...
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/come-on-mate-its-new-years-eve-20130102-2c4oj.html (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/come-on-mate-its-new-years-eve-20130102-2c4oj.html)
Having been in RFS and involved in scraping up a bodies that were killed it isnt something that you forget in a hurry. It isnt fun or make these people awesome, its ****ed. I still remember one where a kid they think suicided by burying the loud pedal into the tar down the road, and not taking the uphill bend and going airborne into few dozen coral trees (Note: huge trees full of thorns). The car was actually obliterated then the crew had to climb down to the wreckage and do their bit.. took hours to get there. There was only 1 road in and out of town, and it was blocked for 1/2 the day.. Then there was the family that was left behind.
What can the Gov do differently to get the message across? What would you do? Is it a lost cause?
-
The thing that amazes me is that P platers (in NSW anyway) are not allowed to have any alcohol in their system yet you always see reports of them being busted. How many don't get busted.
-
The thing that amazes me is that P platers (in NSW anyway) are not allowed to have any alcohol in their system yet you always see reports of them being busted. How many don't get busted.
agree.
but whats he say to the bacon?
You're 16, you're driving a car around a roundabout the wrong way and police pull you over with a blood-alcohol limit of almost three times the legal limit.
And your first response to police?
“Come on mate. It's New Year's Eve.” :o :o :o :o
-
You'll never stop it. We're talking about scum who don't give a damn about others.
Anything above .1 or a second offence deserves gaol time, don't pass go, don't collect a Section 10 or whatever, go directly to gaol. I don't care if it ruins your career, parts you from your family or favourite pet. Get stuffed, go to gaol and either wake up to yourself or spend the rest of your life there.
ps My opinion may offend others. Guess what, I DON'T CARE ;D
-
Idiot people will do what they do, regardless of any education or stigma imposed by society. Drink driving is no different to cigarette smoking in that people still do it, despite overwhelming and conclusive proof that both practices ate detrimental to both personal safety and that of others. It's why idiots still commit crimes even though they know they will go to jail.
Sorry, but some people are just idiots, just pray that you aren't on the road when they are.
-
A lot just don't get the 'residual' alcohol. I've lost count of the number of P platers picked up the next morning/afternoon.
A VERY basic way (everyone is different) of working residual alcohol out is 0.01 per hour. If you're at 0.049 then it is roughly 5 hours to be 0.00. Some youngsters hit the pubs and clubs easily getting to 0.200 - they don't drive but are well and truly pickled getting home at 7am. They may not be back to zero until 3am the following day (20hrs later).
Another group, low readings but over, are the mature tradies. A lot have two or three drinks on Friday after work, then drive home. On the way they get stopped and tested - 0.075 and get charged - the two or three drinks were actually two or three stubbies/pre-mix which is usually 1.4 standard drinks. They've actually had three to four and a half drinks.
.....and then there are the bloody idiots - they'll never get it! They drive drunk, get caught, lose their licence/car and keep driving. Get out of gaol.....keep driving drunk, fortunately they are a dwindling number....Darwins law.
Fuji - your comments? ;D
-
Ignorance is the problem...... :police:
People seem to think it's ok for them, but it's other people who need to follow the rules.
Sitting in the van park restaurant the other night, old mate at the table next to us lights up a fag.
Hangs his arm out over the balcony so he's not smoking in the restaurant. Idiot. Obviously doesnt care about the family's around him.
Can't wait till he's in the pool. I'll swim over and squirm a bit, pretending to pee, then I'll tell him it's all ok I'm in the peeing section......
I don't reckon there is an answer. Stupid people meet other stupid people and breed even stupider children.
Having kids is one of the few things you dont need a license for.
With the government trying to eliminate Darwin's ability to protect humanity, were a sinking ship.
-
Give 'em a jar of vasolene & six months.
-
Honestly, Put Lost in front of a camera! put it on TV and then make sure Fuji is the one who arrests anyone over the limit! Its CARP!
I was at the Hume Weir on new years eve, There was a group to the right drinking and carrying on. Thats fine, there was only one car and one driver who was well and truly sober.
On the left was another group of P'platers. They were all smashed, two cars and 5 or 6 people. Then they figured that it was OK to hoon around the reserve drunk because it wasn't a ROAD.
FFS. Ironically as soon as we turned our patrols and lights on the group they moved. What is it with these people. I don't give a dam if its new years or your birthday. Putting other peoples lives in danger because your a Kn*b is not OK and you should be thrown in Jail.
Cheers
Evo
-
Give 'em a jar of vasolene & six months.
I don't think they should get the Vaseline. >:(
-
What really frustrates me is that repeat offenders lose their licence again, with no other real penalty. I agree that jail time is required. I am in the CFS and went to a fatal, where a drunk and drugged, unlicenced driver was the cause. The driver was known to police, he had lost his licence 30 years ago for DUI while on probation, he received subsequent suspensions for DUI with out a licence! Why suspend their licence for a further peior, they were driving without it anyway FFS! Jail is the answer for these reprobates.
Rant over
:cheers: Cracka
-
Human stupidity, or poor decision making, cannot be legislated against.
There are other crimes for which there are much more severe penalties, but they still occur.
I don't think we can expect to live in a world where everyone respects all the rules and does the right thing all the time. It's just not going to happen.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not excusing drink driving or any other foolish or illegal behaviour, I am simply stating that I doubt there is a way to eliminate it.
-
You'll never stop it. We're talking about scum who don't give a damn about others.
Anything above .1 or a second offence deserves gaol time, don't pass go, don't collect a Section 10 or whatever, go directly to gaol. I don't care if it ruins your career, parts you from your family or favourite pet. Get stuffed, go to gaol and either wake up to yourself or spend the rest of your life there.
ps My opinion may offend others. Guess what, I DON'T CARE ;D
Couldn't agree more
-
You'll never stop it. We're talking about scum who don't give a damn about others.
Anything above .1 or a second offence deserves gaol time, don't pass go, don't collect a Section 10 or whatever, go directly to gaol. I don't care if it ruins your career, parts you from your family or favourite pet. Get stuffed, go to gaol and either wake up to yourself or spend the rest of your life there.
ps My opinion may offend others. Guess what, I DON'T CARE ;D
I am afraid we are not talking about scum when it comes to drink drivers.
The vast majority of drink drivers are your normal Joe Citizen type person, probably not too different to a lot of people on this forum actually. People that have a few drinks, no different to what they may normally otherwise drink and not realise just how much over the limit they actually are and falsely believe they are okay to drive or in their intoxicated state believe they are right to drive. People just do not want to accept the fact that Alcohol is a drug, not too different to cannabis, it is just that alcohol is unfortunately too readily accepted by they community to get fair dinkum and place restrictions on the amount of alcohol one person can have in a 24hr period.
but that is another issue all together.
-
There are systems available that can make it almost impossible for a person under the influence to drive a motor vehicle.
Last year a group of us hired a mini bus (14 seater) and driver in Turkey. That bus was fitted with a trip computer that the driver had to insert his license into every time he started the motor.Take the license out, the motor would stop. The computer recorded the length of time he drove, the speed,the distance, etc., even the license number.If you inserted a license without the correct endorsement, the number was recorded but the bus wouldn't start.
So how simple would it be to have this sort of system amalgamated with a breath alcohol interlock fitted to every vehicle ?
How would this work?
If a ''p" plater inserts his license the computer registers this and the "p" plater has to blow "0" in interlock, if any alcohol is detected the car is automatically disabled for 30 minutes.
If a full license is inserted the same thing would happen, but the limit would be .05.
The license holders DNA would be recorded in the license chip which would have to correlate to the interlock system (yeah I know, "big brother")
If this sort of system was implemented the cost each unit would be minimal due to the scale of the operation.
And yes there will always be some smart arse that can circumvent the system, but when they are at .15 or higher they probably can't work that out anyway
That's my 2 cents worth
-
I am afraid we are not talking about scum when it comes to drink drivers.
The vast majority of drink drivers are your normal Joe Citizen type person, probably not too different to a lot of people on this forum actually. People that have a few drinks, no different to what they may normally otherwise drink and not realise just how much over the limit they actually are and falsely believe they are okay to drive or in their intoxicated state believe they are right to drive. People just do not want to accept the fact that Alcohol is a drug, not too different to cannabis, it is just that alcohol is unfortunately too readily accepted by they community to get fair dinkum and place restrictions on the amount of alcohol one person can have in a 24hr period.
but that is another issue all together.
I am sorry, but not all of your statement is true. There is a difference between the average person who may blow 0.07 after 1 too many at an afternoon bbq and the f*&$wit who gets in his/her vehicle after a half bottle/carton. These morons get one chance in society (I am one of them FYI) and that's it. Repeat offence should follow the monopoly board game when you get the dreaded community chest card "go directly to jail, do not pass go,.."
-
I am afraid we are not talking about scum when it comes to drink drivers.
The vast majority of drink drivers are your normal Joe Citizen type person, probably not too different to a lot of people on this forum actually. People that have a few drinks, no different to what they may normally otherwise drink and not realise just how much over the limit they actually are and falsely believe they are okay to drive or in their intoxicated state believe they are right to drive. People just do not want to accept the fact that Alcohol is a drug, not too different to cannabis, it is just that alcohol is unfortunately too readily accepted by they community to get fair dinkum and place restrictions on the amount of alcohol one person can have in a 24hr period.
but that is another issue all together.
BS mate anyone who drink drives has a license to kill , I don't consider anyone who drink drives normal, they need to be locked up.
-
BS mate anyone who drink drives has a license to kill , I don't consider anyone who drink drives normal, they need to be locked up.
I won't disagree with that, a stint in jail may well have helped me. But then again, I don't do it any more, it was a long time ago and on reflection I realise what a disgusting human I was. This line of discussion eventually leads back to the theory of capital punishment and who makes those decisions?
Society may well have locked me up under other laws, is that fair given that I have not repeat offended and am better off for the experience? Maybe not, its a question I can't answer.
Not all criminal acts are performed by "criminals". Then again, define a criminal as society generally perceives one to be.
-
BS mate anyone who drink drives has a license to kill , I don't consider anyone who drink drives normal, they need to be locked up.
That is the point I was trying to make. Some people only look at the high PCA readings and want to label them as being different, when everyone that goes over the limit regardless of the reading should all be treated the same, NO special cases.
-
That is the point I was trying to make. Some people only look at the high PCA readings and want to label them as being different, when everyone that goes over the limit regardless of the reading should all be treated the same, NO special cases.
By that inference you imply a lot of things. Social law in Australia has long had a tiered system of punishment for offences. Are you also suggesting the driver who gets caught doing 71 in a 60 zone where the limit has just been lowered from 70 only a few months ago with no change in road conditions should get the same penalty as someone who gets caught at 150 on the highway?
-
Not at all. But it still does not make it okay to go Low Range PCA either.
Reading through the thread there appears to be some that only wish to target the High Range PCA drivers. A HRPCA should have a higher minimum penalty then a LRPCA, but if your HRPCA or LRPCA you are still a drunk driver regardless of you reading and still a danger on the roads
-
I looked at an interlock device but at the time was told they could not be fitted without a court order.
I have never driven drunk but want to make sure that my kids do the same. The slight inconvenience of having to blow each time you start the car is a small price to pay IMHO.
Not sure what the current rules are but will now go and find out.
Bunyip
-
Not at all. But it still does not make it okay to go Low Range PCA either.
Reading through the thread there appears to be some that only wish to target the High Range PCA drivers. A HRPCA should have a higher minimum penalty then a LRPCA, but if your HRPCA or LRPCA you are still a drunk driver regardless of you reading and still a danger on the roads
This statement is a total contradiction. Your previous post said all cases should be treated the same. This post you say not at all, but you are still a drunk driver regardless of the level you blow. What does this then mean? Applied to my comment, you are still a speeder whether you do 10 or 50 over the limit. Different penalty, but branded the same? Please explain your point. Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning DD in any way, but merely curious to your attitude. Despite what you may think, there is a difference between the person who misjudged and the filth that don't care. Both are over the limit, but only one feels true remorse and shame for their actions.
-
And 1 can be an accident, ( pardon the pun)
-
P plater E plater any driver it should be any alcohol in the system and min 3 months (if not more just get them out of society ) imprisonment and loss of licence for 3 years ( I'm not against drinking alcohol just against combining it with driving folks know what's right and know what's wrong., no excuses)
It's good enough overseas for stif penalties in a few European countries its good enough here.
Also I'm a big believer in compulsory third party insurance being brought in for motorist... In WA it's only compulsory as part of vehicle licence for injury not property damage.
E plates should Never be given to those convicted of drink driveing... I'm sorry but drink drivers only rate slightly higher than cockroaches.. It's one subject that gets my blood boiling. John
John
-
P plater E plater any driver it should be any alcohol in the system and min 3 months (if not more just get them out of society ) imprisonment and loss of licence for 3 years ( I'm not against drinking alcohol just against combining it with driving folks know what's right and know what's wrong., no excuses)
It's good enough overseas for stif penalties in a few European countries its good enough here.
Also I'm a big believer in compulsory third party insurance being brought in for motorist... In WA it's only compulsory as part of vehicle licence for injury not property damage.
E plates should Never be given to those convicted of drink driveing... I'm sorry but drink drivers only rate slightly higher than cockroaches.. It's one subject that gets my blood boiling. John
John
Attitudes like this sent starving people to this country for stealing a loaf of bread.
Agreed stealing bread does not directly place another life in jeopardy, but the point being made here is one punishment fits all crime. Reflect on your own life, find a time when a higher authority disagreed with your actions, and ask yourself whether you deserved worse...
-
I will admit I have done it once many years ago. Got home safely but never, ever again.
At the end of the day if you drink ....then dont drive.
Mark
-
Certainly don't condone drink driving, but th bloke who gets done for .053 should't be tarred with the same brush as the high range repeat offender.
Th punishment needs to fit the crime. I understand the risk and danger to lives and as such they should be highly penalised. Perhaps raise the fines and have mandatory community sentences.
As for the repeat offender..........
Has anyone does the maths as to how much it costs to hold an inmate for a year?
I know how cheap a bullet is...........
Fickle position for the magistrates unfortunately.
Bet they wouldnt have a tough time deciding if their daughter was hit by drunk driver......
-
This statement is a total contradiction. Your previous post said all cases should be treated the same. This post you say not at all, but you are still a drunk driver regardless of the level you blow. What does this then mean? Applied to my comment, you are still a speeder whether you do 10 or 50 over the limit. Different penalty, but branded the same? Please explain your point. Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning DD in any way, but merely curious to your attitude. Despite what you may think, there is a difference between the person who misjudged and the filth that don't care. Both are over the limit, but only one feels true remorse and shame for their actions.
Will try to clarify what I am trying to say.
The penalties for the Drink Driving offences need to be different, a higher minimum penalty for High Range with lesser penalties for Low Range.
For the people that drink drive they are a drunk driver regardless if they go High Range or Low Range. The people are the same, the penalty is different. If they feel remorse for what they did? Some do, some will never get it.
I think where we do differ is "Despite what you may think, there is a difference between the person who misjudged and the filth that don't care. Both are over the limit, but only one feels true remorse and shame for their actions." I can see your point where the is a difference in the intention of the driver at the time. My attitude is if you intend to drive, don't drink. Don't try to make out you didn't think you were over the limit.
You have indicated you got drunk and they drove and have done jail time as a result. You also so you have learnt from it and changed you ways, I tip my hat to you. Does that really make you any different to someone that repeatedly has "one or two drinks too many" and continues to drive home over the legal limit.
Drink Driving is an offence, therefore it is a Crime. Whether that makes you a criminal or not, doesn't matter. What does matter is if you change your ways or continue to commit the crime.
-
This is how you FIX the problem
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8eb_1269138010 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8eb_1269138010)
WARNING AO AND GRAPHIC
He apparently was a drink drive repeat offender
-
I have lost my license for 6 months for having 4 beers at a pub over a space of 2 hours those days there were no mobile phones stumps where called at the pub i was not sure if i was over or under so I decided to leave the car on the street and got the bar maid to call a taxi. Waiting for a taxi it started to rain so my girlfriend and myself jumped in my car for shelter, the mistake I made was instead of listening to my girlfriend complain about how long the taxi is taking I decided to turn on the radio, to do so the keys needed to be in the ignition. Sure enough the cops spotted us in the car I explained we were waiting for a taxi they made me blow in the bag and read .081, whilst i was being hand cuffed, yes I got a little hot headed after the cops did not care about my girlfriend having to wait on her own for a taxi, they just needed to get me back to the cop shop ASAP for a proper reading. Fortunately the taxi rolled up the cops asked the driver if he was called and under what name, the driver gave them my name. I still dont know why they bothered asking as it still cost me my license and about $1000 first offence.
So how do I fit into this discussion ???
-
Have a mate who used to be a copper and he was so traumatized from the death of five kids he knew in a drink drive accident that he is now working in aquaculture in sth tassie. His belief matches mine in that a 0 or 0.02 should be the limit. The amount of people he booked for having one glass of wine with tea and then driving was amazing. Now I am not saying everyone is the same but some people with any alcohol are a danger whilst some may be okay to say 0.08 bit how do you disseminate the two? Simple 0.00 is the answer, if you have a few the night before then think twice about driving the next morning. It's time a few took responsibility for there actions and not just say oh I thought I would have been right.
And to those repeat offenders, enjoy watching your car (or bosses) get crushed on the side of the road :police:
-
Honestly, Put Lost in front of a camera! put it on TV and then make sure Fuji is the one who arrests anyone over the limit! Its CARP!
I was at the Hume Weir on new years eve, There was a group to the right drinking and carrying on. Thats fine, there was only one car and one driver who was well and truly sober.
On the left was another group of P'platers. They were all smashed, two cars and 5 or 6 people. Then they figured that it was OK to hoon around the reserve drunk because it wasn't a ROAD.
FFS. Ironically as soon as we turned our patrols and lights on the group they moved. What is it with these people. I don't give a dam if its new years or your birthday. Putting other peoples lives in danger because your a Kn*b is not OK and you should be thrown in Jail.
Cheers
Evo
I believe the car park at Hume Weir is a public area so therefore it becomes a road so therefore it is illegal to drink and drive there. :cheers:
-
I think you will find the answer in our justice system. Many years ago magistrates started getting soft on drink drivers. (Well, soft on every criminal) In Queensland it was mandatory for repeat drink drivers (basically 3 high readings in 5 years) to get jail. That changed and it is now rare for someone to get jail. I have seen many people who are habitual high end drink drivers go to court, plead guilty, their solicitor tells the court how sorry they are, valued member of the community, etc etc, and the magistrate sentences them to jail, but immediately suspends the time. No deterrent at all.
Having been a cop for over 30 years, (now retired) investigated countless fatal collisions, charged hundreds of drink drivers, there is a huge difference between people who are accidently just over the limit and others who are way over and deliberately drove knowing they were way over.
There are different penalties for the different readings and so it should be. We all are not perfect and we all make mistakes. Hopefully our mistakes do not cause harm to anyone else.
And believe me, there are more dangers out there then drink drivers. I know!
And be careful of the statistics about the number of crashes where alcohol is a contributing factor. If you saw how the stats are gathered, you would know what I mean.
How about we make people more accountable for their actions? Bring back penalties that should be a deterrent to all of us. That is for all offences.
Sorry to carry on, but I do speak from experience. And I could say a lot more.
Kevin
-
You would all be surprised at how often it happens
I know one guy that has driven home everyday of his working life (same company 36 years) with 6 + stubbies under his belt
One eye shut so he can't see double
Called the police , they might get around to it one day
-
I'm not an angel by any means.
However I'am an alcoholic.
I haven't had a drink in 10 years or more.
But before that I drove drunk almost as often as I drove sober.
4 driving drunk convictions ( 3 of which were also driving without a lisence convictions) , 2 crashed cars and thousands of dollars in fines did NOT even slow me down.
I was a drunk, I knew exactly what I was doing I just didn't care.
Am I proud of it?
Not at all.
But I do not make excuses either.
It's just the way I was back then and nothing can change it now.
I'am so glad I never injured or "heaven forbid" killed someone.
And I have absolutly NO sympathy for drunk drivers.
Bill
-
I believe the car park at Hume Weir is a public area so therefore it becomes a road so therefore it is illegal to drink and drive there. :cheers:
Everyone is missing the point here.
Drink Driving - there is no such offence.
The offence is being over .05.
Some can drink 10 pots no worries, but they are over .05
.05 can be committed anywhere, does not have to be on a "highway" as defined. - can be committed on private property.
You only have to be 'in control' to commit the offense.
If that is in your driveway changing a wheel, the offense is complete.
-
Its not taken seriously by the legislators. First offence should be 5 yrs cancellation. Second is 10yrs. Third is for life.
No special licences. If you have a few spare hours grab a book and go to court and watch the traffic mentions. One after the other getting sweet diddly squat and special licences handed out.
-
Too many loopholes, .05 in Vic is easy to get off, you just have to know how.
Just ask Sir Henry Botle, he was guided by experts.
-
On the water, i can be at anchor, nightlight on and even rafted up to another boat, but the skipper or skippers still has to be under .05.
So only 2 drinkie poo's for me when we're boating.
However, when we are camping, i just get fall down on ya face, poop ya pants in a chair and upchuck during the night drunk.
As for the guy in the film clip, i reckon the marks will buff out.
-
I'm not an angel by any means.
However I'am an alcoholic.
I haven't had a drink in 10 years or more.
But before that I drove drunk almost as often as I drove sober.
4 driving drunk convictions ( 3 of which were also driving without a lisence convictions) , 2 crashed cars and thousands of dollars in fines did NOT even slow me down.
I was a drunk, I knew exactly what I was doing I just didn't care.
Am I proud of it?
Not at all.
But I do not make excuses either.
It's just the way I was back then and nothing can change it now.
I'am so glad I never injured or "heaven forbid" killed someone.
And I have absolutly NO sympathy for drunk drivers.
Bill
:cup: for admitting your issue, and dry for 10 yrs, I'd say you learnt.
Bloke back home was exactly the same, but would never admit he had problems... even after jail terms for DUI more than once... He was suspended from driving for that long it didnt matter, he wasnt going to live that long.. he was only in his 30's...
-
I'm not an angel by any means.
However I'am an alcoholic.
I haven't had a drink in 10 years or more.
But before that I drove drunk almost as often as I drove sober.
4 driving drunk convictions ( 3 of which were also driving without a lisence convictions) , 2 crashed cars and thousands of dollars in fines did NOT even slow me down.
I was a drunk, I knew exactly what I was doing I just didn't care.
Am I proud of it?
Not at all.
But I do not make excuses either.
It's just the way I was back then and nothing can change it now.
I'am so glad I never injured or "heaven forbid" killed someone.
And I have absolutly NO sympathy for drunk drivers.
Bill
This is a big admission by and insight from the other side so to speak. I take my hat off to you. ;)
Foo
-
Bring back Prohabition!!!
Just kiddin!!!! Really!!!!! Just kidding!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Bring back Prohabition!!!
Just kiddin!!!! Really!!!!! Just kidding!! ;D ;D ;D
I'll give you Prohabition, with a baseball bat to the cods! :cheers: ;D
Foo
-
Bit of a rant.
What is it in this day and age that people don't get the message about drink driving. Have people not heard how being really pist affects your reactions and makes you a ****ing danger to everyone else?
I don't mean people who are .04999999999999999999 (rounded up to nearest whole #)but people who are smashed - 0.1+ and north of 0.2 etc.. I mean thats not just a couple of beers at a BBQ..
What does it take to get through to these people? This year alone theres been some horror stories of pissed women picking up kids at school, and their defence is **** like "they were stressed or under pressure".. FFS - that defence = FAIL 100% FAIL..
Things like from todays paper:
Having been in RFS and involved in scraping up a bodies that were killed it isnt something that you forget in a hurry. It isnt fun or make these people awesome, its ****ed. I still remember one where a kid they think suicided by burying the loud pedal into the tar down the road, and not taking the uphill bend and going airborne into few dozen coral trees (Note: huge trees full of thorns). The car was actually obliterated then the crew had to climb down to the wreckage and do their bit.. took hours to get there. There was only 1 road in and out of town, and it was blocked for 1/2 the day.. Then there was the family that was left behind.
What can the Gov do differently to get the message across? What would you do? Is it a lost cause?
Introduce minimum disqualification period of 12 months for any DUI offence, and no work licences. In Queensland if you blow 0.15 or over which is the high range offence, you get (drum roll) 6 months disqualification...
You can get a work licence for anything up to 0.15 What kind of message does that send? Any the politicians and Magistrates wonder why no one takes drink driving seriously!
-
Slightly off topic but my sister in law died last week from smoking related cancer.....she was bed ridden for the last couple of weeks at home and it amazed me how many of her friends and family smoked in the same room as her as they told her how unfair it is that she is dieing so young..... the idiots just don't get it and then they get cranky when you tell them to piss off outside with there cigarettes. ....it is just ignorance and the same mentality as drink drivers and unlicensed drivers
-
Having been in RFS and involved in scraping up a bodies that were killed it isnt something that you forget in a hurry. It isnt fun or make these people awesome, its ****ed. I still remember one where a kid they think suicided by burying the loud pedal into the tar down the road, and not taking the uphill bend and going airborne into few dozen coral trees (Note: huge trees full of thorns). The car was actually obliterated then the crew had to climb down to the wreckage and do their bit.. took hours to get there. There was only 1 road in and out of town, and it was blocked for 1/2 the day.. Then there was the family that was left behind.
What can the Gov do differently to get the message across? What would you do? Is it a lost cause?
Lost,
Sorry you went through this (and those that do it day in day out). I can't even get a very rough idea of what it would be like to do the sort of job you did. My brother did it for a few years with the RTA investigating truck accidents. Definitely a changed man because of it.
What to do about it? Wouldn't it be nice to have the answer! Lost cause? I think so, but I really hope not. They do feel bullet proof :-(
-
I think you will find the answer in our justice system. Many years ago magistrates started getting soft on drink drivers. (Well, soft on every criminal) In Queensland it was mandatory for repeat drink drivers (basically 3 high readings in 5 years) to get jail. That changed and it is now rare for someone to get jail. I have seen many people who are habitual high end drink drivers go to court, plead guilty, their solicitor tells the court how sorry they are, valued member of the community, etc etc, and the magistrate sentences them to jail, but immediately suspends the time. No deterrent at all.
Having been a cop for over 30 years, (now retired) investigated countless fatal collisions, charged hundreds of drink drivers, there is a huge difference between people who are accidently just over the limit and others who are way over and deliberately drove knowing they were way over.
There are different penalties for the different readings and so it should be. We all are not perfect and we all make mistakes. Hopefully our mistakes do not cause harm to anyone else.
And believe me, there are more dangers out there then drink drivers. I know!
And be careful of the statistics about the number of crashes where alcohol is a contributing factor. If you saw how the stats are gathered, you would know what I mean.
How about we make people more accountable for their actions? Bring back penalties that should be a deterrent to all of us. That is for all offences.
Sorry to carry on, but I do speak from experience. And I could say a lot more.
Kevin
Horse poo mate. Alcohol crash stats require a crash and an alcohol/drug reading. That can be through arrest and breath analysis or post mortem exam. Hardly making it up.
-
Everyone is missing the point here.
Drink Driving - there is no such offence.
The offence is being over .05.
Some can drink 10 pots no worries, but they are over .05
.05 can be committed anywhere, does not have to be on a "highway" as defined. - can be committed on private property.
You only have to be 'in control' to commit the offense.
If that is in your driveway changing a wheel, the offense is complete.
Not the case in NSW. A driveway changing a wheel is not a PCA offence ever.
PCA offences can only be committed on a "road" or "road related area" as defined under the ARR.
an aggregated dangerous driving charge can occur on private property but must involve the death or grevious bodily harm " a serious injury" of at least one party and driver must be DUI. DUI is a completely different offence and different proofs required compared to PCA.
-
Horse poo mate. Alcohol crash stats require a crash and an alcohol/drug reading. That can be through arrest and breath analysis or post mortem exam. Hardly making it up.
Is that like when they are unsure of or dont 100% know the reason behind the accident, so it goes under "speed related"
-
Is that like when they are unsure of or dont 100% know the reason behind the accident, so it goes under "speed related"
It's a lot more complicated than that to tag any incident with an associated factor of speed or alcohol. The only factor that IS really subjective is fatigue related as unless there are admissions by driver it is an assumption albeit backed by anecdotal evidence.
It would take pages to describe how something is tagged with an associated factor of speed or alcohol related and it is subject to multiple levels of scrutiny and requires evidence i.e, a post mortem toxicology report with a BAC is a pretty good example. It isn't made up but feel free to argue with the doctor, the pathologist and the coroner. Just remove your tin foil hat prior to entering the coroners office.
-
Slightly off topic but my sister in law died last week from smoking related cancer.....she was bed ridden for the last couple of weeks at home and it amazed me how many of her friends and family smoked in the same room as her as they told her how unfair it is that she is dieing so young..... the idiots just don't get it and then they get cranky when you tell them to piss off outside with there cigarettes. ....it is just ignorance and the same mentality as drink drivers and unlicensed drivers
A few years back I was getting treatment for "C" on a daily basis. My kids would come with me some of the days. I pointed out the designated smoking area wasn't the hospital doorway to an ever growing group of smokers on a few of these occasions. Each day they would still be there. On Thursday's was my Chemo day so I asked to go last one week as I needed to do something quickly. I ducked back out and asked the group of smokers if I could get a photo. They smiled and said it was fine. Some of them would only come in to get their Chemo bags changed or a toilet run. At the end of the day I showed my handy work to a few of the nurses for a laugh and then a few patients that were part of the group smoking complete with their chemo and trolley at the time of the photo. I had knocked them up a poster for the Chemo room wall on the laptop. These smoking patients suddenly were the ones protesting. I simply said well keep out of the door ways or I would make sure it was to happen. The nurses new it was only to move them on or to wake them up....both really
No it didn't stop them smoking....but it did get them into the smoking area from that day on
No I'm not a smoking grinch, just don't wish for my kids to be innocently subjected to it and don't like the risk of them getting burnt by these irresponsible twits holding them down at kids head height in a major doorway.
As for DUI
Rules are rules .050 is just that .050
Not .060, 0.55 or even 0.51
As a truck driver I have to stay under 0.00 and I do. Surly people can organise other alternatives when knowing they are going to go for a drink. I love a drink and when I get the opportunity I usually make up for lost time.
I'm sure there not a single father or mother on here who wouldn't want anything less then blood if it was their child hit by the 0.51 driver of any vehicle.
Yes some can handle more drinks then others blar...blar...blar...I know this and seen this at plenty of socials.
If your thinking your unlucky and get caught for 0.051 and taken off the road someones family has been spared the heart ship and possible loss of loved ones.
As for "FISHFINFINDER," that really sux! With the taxi driver clarifying your case they could of dismissed it at that point with his own judgment.
All pubs/clubs should have a undercover safe zone complete with security where taxis can pick you or your child up from.
-
As for DUI
Rules are rules .050 is just that .050
Not .060, 0.055 or even 0.051
As for "FISHFINFINDER," that really sux! With the taxi driver clarifying your case they should of dismissed it at that point.
Not sure about other states but in Qld if you are in possession of keys to a motor vehicle whilst in the driver's seat its bad luck I'm afraid. Does not matter what your "intentions" are or were, the point is you have the capacity to drive a vehicle and if you have been drinking your judgement could be impaired. You may well have called a taxi, but in the eyes of the law this does not change the fact that you could change your mind, start the car & drive off. In the quoted case maybe not, but as you said the law is the law. A technicality? Really so is the difference between a driver who blows 0.049 & one who blows 0.05. One goes home, the other gets a fine and 3 months licence suspension.
So much of our judgement on things is based on perception relative to a framework of law. How about the states where there is a different limit? Are the people living there more capable of driving under the influence? Yet the law says a driver at say 0.079 in a 0.08 limit state is under so can go home and no one says anything yet in Qld for eg that driver is condemned by a court of law and the general public. See my point?
-
Is that like when they are unsure of or dont 100% know the reason behind the accident, so it goes under "speed related"
Thats BS Lost.
I have worked with the serious crash investigators and they absolutely know there stuff. Yaw marks and braking coefficients and crumple zone impacts and airbag deflation rates etc. Way above my IQ level ;D
There was always an argument between the traffic cops and SCI's about moving cars. They treated the scene exactly as a homocide (as best they could) and would not let vehicles be moved until they had done their preliminary scene inspection. And I never EVER heard or saw them blame any factor without evidence.
(thats not to say the police media and hieracrchy are not quick to point before the evidence is in but never the investigators)
cheers
-
Horse poo mate. Alcohol crash stats require a crash and an alcohol/drug reading. That can be through arrest and breath analysis or post mortem exam. Hardly making it up.
Each to their own opinion. Maybe to you I talk a load of 'Horse poo'. I do know a little as I use to collate and interrogate these stats and prepare briefings. I use to put up regular arguments to senior management about the problems with how the data is required to be entered onto the system. I was also not only a serious incident investigator I was also a trainer in the recording system in Qld. But like I said, each to their own opinion and I respect others opinions without calling their opinion a name. And of cause we all know, stats don't lie. >:D Kevin
-
Krisandkev. Can't speak for QLD. I can speak for NSW having done the job for 21 yrs. and KNOWING how the data is input, verified, quality reviewed, collated and disseminated.
My comments are based on fact and first hand experience not opinion.
Like I said can't speak for QLD or other states but in NSW alcohol related states require evidence not opinions.
Just my 2 cents.
Chappo555
-
This thread should have the title 'Road Rules'. Why are so many people such selfish jerks that think they are so special that they should be exempt from rules? We supposedly live in a democracy, not some lawless back water. Adherence to road rules is so obviously rare in Qld, one often scratches their head in shame with being a resident. DUI is just one example!
-
I have lost my license for 6 months for having 4 beers at a pub over a space of 2 hours those days there were no mobile phones stumps where called at the pub i was not sure if i was over or under so I decided to leave the car on the street and got the bar maid to call a taxi. Waiting for a taxi it started to rain so my girlfriend and myself jumped in my car for shelter, the mistake I made was instead of listening to my girlfriend complain about how long the taxi is taking I decided to turn on the radio, to do so the keys needed to be in the ignition. Sure enough the cops spotted us in the car I explained we were waiting for a taxi they made me blow in the bag and read .081, whilst i was being hand cuffed, yes I got a little hot headed after the cops did not care about my girlfriend having to wait on her own for a taxi, they just needed to get me back to the cop shop ASAP for a proper reading. Fortunately the taxi rolled up the cops asked the driver if he was called and under what name, the driver gave them my name. I still dont know why they bothered asking as it still cost me my license and about $1000 first offence.
So how do I fit into this discussion ???
You asked how you fit into this discussion so here goes.
Firstly, you could not have had four std drinks over two hours and gone over .08. The four std drinks over two hours would add up to .08 however you go down .02 every hour so this would put you at .08 less .02 x 2 which is .04. Still with me?
By the time you got back to the cop shop you will have dropped further not gone up. You have not said what you blew back at the shop however if it were over .08 then obviously you have had more than 4 std drinks. At this stage you are looking at having consumed a minimum of 6 std drinks just to be at .08 after 2 hours.
Nasa - we have a problem. (was it the old breath analysis system where you had an operator that moved a small thumbwheel or one where you blew and it printed out the result. I can explain why this is important later)
Secondly, traffic offences, other than culpable driving (from memory) are strict and absolute so once the offence is committed there is not a 'defence' as such. So lawfully once you had the keys in the ignition you were deemed to be in control of the vehicle and so have committed the offence. Whether you had arranged a taxi is irrelevant at law. At common law there is the last act rule which refers to the last thing that you would have done prior to committing the offence. So this plays a bearing as well as the last thing before driving would be putting the key in the ignition. The rule actually dates back to a block standing on a box behind a horse with his pants down - I kid you not.
Thirdly, how did you go at court? What did the magistrate say in summation. This is important because it is what a third party thought of the overall evidence presented. This would be the best indicator of who did what.
NB - Dont read into this that I am saying you are untruthful. Something is not quite right. Nor am I saying what the cops did was correct or not.
-
It's one subject that gets my blood boiling.
Never would have guessed that John ;D
My best friend lost her father to a drunk truck driver (He was in an MGB and never had a chance) when she was only a couple of months old. The effect on the families remaining is never ending.
Bunyip
-
Be interesting to know how many single vehicle crashes are caused by the idiot generation who cannot go five minutes without texting or making/receiving a phone call.
If they want to die for the privilege of sending a text, that's fine. Improves the gene pool. But don't involve me.
I see it nearly every day. On the freeway at 100kmh. Makes me wish the police carried crushing devices into which they could put the offending phones on the spot.
-
You asked how you fit into this discussion so here goes.
Firstly, you could not have had four std drinks over two hours and gone over .08. The four std drinks over two hours would add up to .08 however you go down .02 every hour so this would put you at .08 less .02 x 2 which is .04. Still with me?
By the time you got back to the cop shop you will have dropped further not gone up. You have not said what you blew back at the shop however if it were over .08 then obviously you have had more than 4 std drinks. At this stage you are looking at having consumed a minimum of 6 std drinks just to be at .08 after 2 hours.
Nasa - we have a problem. (was it the old breath analysis system where you had an operator that moved a small thumbwheel or one where you blew and it printed out the result. I can explain why this is important later)
Secondly, traffic offences, other than culpable driving (from memory) are strict and absolute so once the offence is committed there is not a 'defence' as such. So lawfully once you had the keys in the ignition you were deemed to be in control of the vehicle and so have committed the offence. Whether you had arranged a taxi is irrelevant at law. At common law there is the last act rule which refers to the last thing that you would have done prior to committing the offence. So this plays a bearing as well as the last thing before driving would be putting the key in the ignition. The rule actually dates back to a block standing on a box behind a horse with his pants down - I kid you not.
Thirdly, how did you go at court? What did the magistrate say in summation. This is important because it is what a third party thought of the overall evidence presented. This would be the best indicator of who did what.
NB - Dont read into this that I am saying you are untruthful. Something is not quite right. Nor am I saying what the cops did was correct or not.
agree with what you are saying i was in the wrong by placing the keys in the ignition - those days only drank pints this was going back 23 years ago so how long i was at the pub and what i consumed is a guestimate now but I was charged for .081, and as far as getting a little hot headed the dui charge was not the only thing i faced the magistrate for.
But should I be tared with the same brush as first time or repeat offenders for drink driving where these people were actually driving the vehicles and my intentions was not to drive a vehicle at all in which I strongly stood firm in not doing so after those few beers, is the question I was trying to ask..
-
I dont think anyone should be tarred with anything. If you get caught you get caught. Yours sounds somewhat unreasonable to me and I doubt anyone would think ill of you.
-
I have been to many crashes over the years involving drunk drivers... some fatal themselves and others killing other people..... heartbreaking when you have to tell the families that their family member was killed in a crash by a drunk driver...... many are etched into my memory....any amount of alcohol in your system affects your driving....
-
Just my two bob's worth. A few years ago I got a HR truck Licence to advance a bit in my job. All of a sudden I had to be zero to drive.
I used to play roulette and have a couple and drive (in my car) always thinking I would be under 05. But you never really know do you?
After driving the truck for a few years around Oz the notion of no alcohol before driving sort of carried into driving my car as well. I haven't driven a truck for a while now but just don't have alcohol at all if I have to drive. I love a beer or five otherwise.
My point is, the law for P plate drivers is zero so hopefully it is already ingrained in them so why not make it zero for all types of driving?
The day will come that this will happen. It has to to stop the carnage these idiots cause. Anyone caught DUI should lose their right to drive
forever. If caught again throw 'em in the slammer until they grow a brain.
Sounds harsh and over the top but nothing else we've tried has ever worked.
Cheers Garry
-
You asked how you fit into this discussion so here goes.
Firstly, you could not have had four std drinks over two hours and gone over .08. The four std drinks over two hours would add up to .08 however you go down .02 every hour so this would put you at .08 less .02 x 2 which is .04. Still with me?
Just noticed that the original poster said he had 4 beers, not 4 standard drinks. May have been pints? Maybe that's where the mixup is.
A few weeks ago, a mate had quite a few drinks at my place, he wasn't blind drunk but he was over the limit for sure. My other mate and I had to physically stop him from driving home and we had a nice (re: colourful) conversation at the time. He ended up getting a lift home.
Next day he apologised to us profusely and thanked us for stopping him. He had some other crap happen at work that was bugging him and combined with the drinks made him really agro.
You never know the reasons why some people drink and drive, if you can stop them in any way do it.
-
Will try to clarify what I am trying to say.
The penalties for the Drink Driving offences need to be different, a higher minimum penalty for High Range with lesser penalties for Low Range.
For the people that drink drive they are a drunk driver regardless if they go High Range or Low Range. The people are the same, the penalty is different. If they feel remorse for what they did? Some do, some will never get it.
I think where we do differ is "Despite what you may think, there is a difference between the person who misjudged and the filth that don't care. Both are over the limit, but only one feels true remorse and shame for their actions." I can see your point where the is a difference in the intention of the driver at the time. My attitude is if you intend to drive, don't drink. Don't try to make out you didn't think you were over the limit.
You have indicated you got drunk and they drove and have done jail time as a result. You also so you have learnt from it and changed you ways, I tip my hat to you. Does that really make you any different to someone that repeatedly has "one or two drinks too many" and continues to drive home over the legal limit.
Drink Driving is an offence, therefore it is a Crime. Whether that makes you a criminal or not, doesn't matter. What does matter is if you change your ways or continue to commit the crime.
Drink Driving is an offence, therefore it is a Crime. Whether that makes you a criminal or not, doesn't matter. What does matter is if you change your ways or continue to commit the crime.
No it's not.. Drink driving over the LEGAL limit is a crime and unlike many other countries we are to rigid to use our brain in how we deal with it. Just because some one has one drink that tips them over the limit does not make the a criminal IMO. In the US you are meant to be .05 but can be .08. The .08 allows you to be fined on the spot. You must drive home but yo are not considered pissed or a criminal unlike those that are sh1t faced. It's not the same.
-
No it's not.. Drink driving over the LEGAL limit is a crime and unlike many other countries we are to rigid to use our brain in how we deal with it. Just because some one has one drink that tips them over the limit does not make the a criminal IMO. In the US you are meant to be .05 but can be .08. The .08 allows you to be fined on the spot. You must drive home but yo are not considered pissed or a criminal unlike those that are sh1t faced. It's not the same.
You don't mean to say if you blow .08 or less then you must drive straight home do you?
I do not understand what your saying.
Bill
-
As far as I'm concerned, anyone over the limit is breaking the law. My Grandfather was knocked down and killed on a pedestrian crossing by a drunk driver. The jerk got off as pleaded he was low range and was very remorse full. The law is a joke.
-
There are a lot of posts on here that seem to take a "holier than thou" approach & envisage zero tolerance to people over the limit. The previous post suggested a low range conviction as being a "drunk" driver, how much of this is terminology or language use? At 0.051 there are plenty of people who are under the influence, but certainly not "drunk'" by any sane person's definition. I wonder how many of the posters who imply zero tolerance are saints on the road. It's a fair bet some of them have speeding tickets on their record and have used a mobile phone whilst driving. These practices can be just as deadly as being on the road at 0.051, yet to apply the attitude of these people would suggest locking up people who commit these other traffic offences.
With regard to a previous post, in Qld DD only becomes a criminal offence for readings of 0.15 and above, below this it is a traffic offence.
-
You asked how you fit into this discussion so here goes.
Firstly, you could not have had four std drinks over two hours and gone over .08. The four std drinks over two hours would add up to .08 however you go down .02 every hour so this would put you at .08 less .02 x 2 which is .04. Still with me?
By the time you got back to the cop shop you will have dropped further not gone up. You have not said what you blew back at the shop however if it were over .08 then obviously you have had more than 4 std drinks. At this stage you are looking at having consumed a minimum of 6 std drinks just to be at .08 after 2 hours.
Nasa - we have a problem. (was it the old breath analysis system where you had an operator that moved a small thumbwheel or one where you blew and it printed out the result. I can explain why this is important later)
Secondly, traffic offences, other than culpable driving (from memory) are strict and absolute so once the offence is committed there is not a 'defence' as such. So lawfully once you had the keys in the ignition you were deemed to be in control of the vehicle and so have committed the offence. Whether you had arranged a taxi is irrelevant at law. At common law there is the last act rule which refers to the last thing that you would have done prior to committing the offence. So this plays a bearing as well as the last thing before driving would be putting the key in the ignition. The rule actually dates back to a block standing on a box behind a horse with his pants down - I kid you not.
Thirdly, how did you go at court? What did the magistrate say in summation. This is important because it is what a third party thought of the overall evidence presented. This would be the best indicator of who did what.
NB - Dont read into this that I am saying you are untruthful. Something is not quite right. Nor am I saying what the cops did was correct or not.
Sorry Dazzler it's .01 for every hour. And everybody's metabolism is different so there is always a possibility of being .08 after 4 drinks. My ex boss wrote the bible on drink driving and His word is gospel in Oz. But I am not going to argue about it.IF YOU DRINK AND DRIVE YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE ^}*#*head.
Plus when you finish drinking your blood alcohol level goes up before it starts to come down. I have been a Breath test operator for over 15 years.
-
You don't mean to say if you blow .08 or less then you must drive straight home do you?
I do not understand what your saying.
Bill
The limit is still .05. They give you the space between .05 and .08. This allows for the fact you may have just gone over. You still get a fine but you don't get treated like and ax murder which many seem to think low range drink drivers are. Why should you be shat on just because you were .052? This is were they use the buffer of .08. NZ did the same for a long time, not sure if they still do.
I don't condone people pissed and driving but I do not think .01 over is that bad as to loose your licence which this rule helps address.
-
The limit is still .05. They give you the space between .05 and .08. This allows for the fact you may have just gone over. You still get a fine but you don't get treated like and ax murder which many seem to think low range drink drivers are. Why should you be shat on just because you were .052? This is were they use the buffer of .08. NZ did the same for a long time, not sure if they still do.
I don't condone people pissed and driving but I do not think .01 over is that bad as to loose your licence which this rule helps address.
In Vic if you're b/w .05 - .07 u lose 10 points and if u don't have ten points you get a notice, Have your licence suspended or take a 1 point option.
-
In NY if you blow between .05 - .09 it is at least a $500.00 fine and loss of licence for mandatory 30 days. This is classed as driving under the influence.
Blow .10 or higher it is at least a $1000.00 fine and loss of licence for 60 days. This is classed as driving while intoxicated.
A DUI and DWI are on your license for 10 years.
You can only have one of either of these convictions on your licence during this 10 year period.
Any more and you are not allowed to hold a licence until one of the charges has expired. You then must take a defensive driving course and take the road test all over again.
More that 1 DWI within 10 years is an automatic felony incurring higher fines and longer loss of licence and possible jail time (but usually probation for 1 year). Which is a joke as I had 2 DUI's and 2 DWI's and never did a bit of jail time and still drove everyday.
Now to be honest I haven't been back home since 2006 so these laws may have changed. But these were the laws when I was a habitual drunk driver...
Bill
-
It's extremely simple really. If you know you have to, or may soon have to drive, DO NOT DRINK AT ALL! There is NO argument in your favour. Is it really worth having just a couple of drinks so you think you'll still be right? Here's the tip; buy a coke instead, its cheaper and tastes better.
Wes
-
Dont burn me for saying but i'm guilty for drink driving numerous times when i was on my p's. I never got picked up luckily i out it down to just pot luck and am i proud of it now definitely not but back then i was a young nieve teenager who only cared for himself. It took my now wife and her daughter for me to wake up to myself and since getting together never have.
I did make the mistake once though a few yrs ago i got a night away from her and went into town to meet up with some mates who were already there. Figured i'd have a beer stay a couple of hrs and drive home. Well alot of beers later i decided to leave and knowing i drove in i walked most of the way home. Prob close to 50k's. For those who know the area I walked from wollongong to shellharbour and went and got my car back the next afternoon. I can tell you i was well and truly sober when i got home.
The justice system is what lets the police and us citizens down all the time. Until they step up and make examples out of people who blow over or at least give a fitting punishment to each dui it will never stop.
-
Interesting...
Prosecutor James Tierney accused the couple of concocting a story so Allcorn could keep his driver's licence - which he needed to keep his job.
He said there would be a conflict about who turned the car on - but it didn't matter because Allcorn was in the driver's seat and had "control" of the vehicle.
But defence lawyer Peter Maley said, under the relevant Territory legislation, Allcorn had to physically start the car to be found guilty of the crime.
Magistrate Michael Carey agreed, saying there was "inconsistency" between two definitions - with only one including the word "control" - in the legislation.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2013/01/08/316501_ntnews.html (http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2013/01/08/316501_ntnews.html)
-
Can see a Crown appeal coming real quick on that one.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
-
Can see a Crown appeal coming real quick on that one.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
sounds like the bloke in USA this week that got off Rape for some law from 1892 that said its not illegal to impersonate the persons partner..
http://muckrack.com/link/H7EZ/court-overturns-rape-conviction-because-1872-law-says-unmarried-women-cant-get-raped (http://muckrack.com/link/H7EZ/court-overturns-rape-conviction-because-1872-law-says-unmarried-women-cant-get-raped)
-
The following is from today’s local newspaper, Fraser Coast Chronicle. You will see why the courts are no deterrent for habitual offenders!
A MAN has received a prison sentence for drink driving in Hervey Bay.
Troy John Fletcher, 40, pleaded guilty to three offences in Hervey Bay Magistrates Court, including drink driving, obstructing police and public nuisance.
"It is plainly obvious you and alcohol don't mix," said Magistrate Graeme Tatnell, who has sentenced Fletcher numerous times in the past for similar alcohol-related offences.
Finally, Mr Tatnell had enough, and ordered a prison sentence of four months this time around.
Police prosecutor Senior Constable Jeanette Grigoris said Fletcher returned a blood alcohol content of 0.146 after being intercepted in his car on Freshwater St in Scarness on December 8.
His public nuisance and obstructing police charges then followed after he was taken to the police station on Torquay Rd.
Mr Tatnell fined Fletcher a combined total of $850 for the public nuisance and obstruct police charges.
Due to his history of drink driving offences, however, Mr Tatnell felt a fine would not be enough for that charge.
This resulted in the prison sentence, although it was suspended immediately.
Mr Tatnell also ordered a licence disqualification of 18 months for Fletcher.
As he left the court with the suspended sentence hanging over his head, Fletcher assured Mr Tatnell that would be the last time the magistrate would see him in court.
And I hate it when the headline is 'A MAN has received a prison sentence for drink driving in Hervey Bay.' In my books he was not sent to prison. Kevin
-
The following is from today’s local newspaper, Fraser Coast Chronicle. You will see why the courts are no deterrent for habitual offenders!
A MAN has received a prison sentence for drink driving in Hervey Bay.
Troy John Fletcher, 40, pleaded guilty to three offences in Hervey Bay Magistrates Court, including drink driving, obstructing police and public nuisance.
"It is plainly obvious you and alcohol don't mix," said Magistrate Graeme Tatnell, who has sentenced Fletcher numerous times in the past for similar alcohol-related offences.
Finally, Mr Tatnell had enough, and ordered a prison sentence of four months this time around.
Police prosecutor Senior Constable Jeanette Grigoris said Fletcher returned a blood alcohol content of 0.146 after being intercepted in his car on Freshwater St in Scarness on December 8.
His public nuisance and obstructing police charges then followed after he was taken to the police station on Torquay Rd.
Mr Tatnell fined Fletcher a combined total of $850 for the public nuisance and obstruct police charges.
Due to his history of drink driving offences, however, Mr Tatnell felt a fine would not be enough for that charge.
This resulted in the prison sentence, although it was suspended immediately.
Mr Tatnell also ordered a licence disqualification of 18 months for Fletcher.
As he left the court with the suspended sentence hanging over his head, Fletcher assured Mr Tatnell that would be the last time the magistrate would see him in court.
And I hate it when the headline is 'A MAN has received a prison sentence for drink driving in Hervey Bay.' In my books he was not sent to prison. Kevin
They beat him with the wet celery.. what a farce.
-
Yep, people take it serious.
A MOTHER has been caught driving more than six times over the legal blood alcohol limit after police spotted her five-year-old child hanging out of the back window of her car as she travelled along a West Australian road.
Manjimup police, in the state's south, were alerted by several members of the public after they complained about the woman's erratic driving on Friday afternoon.
Officers then spotted the 32-year-old driving on Rutherford Road, with an unrestrained boy in the back seat.
After police pulled the vehicle over, the boy ran from the car, with the woman then refusing to supply the child's details.
It will be alleged a breath test then showed the woman was more than six times over the legal limit.
Her licence was cancelled, a surrender notice served on her Holden Commodore, and the woman was charged with driving under the influence and failing to ensure a passenger aged between four to seven years was restrained.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/mum-with-child-passenger-six-times-over-limit-say-police/story-e6frg6nf-1226553449242 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/mum-with-child-passenger-six-times-over-limit-say-police/story-e6frg6nf-1226553449242)