MySwag.org The Off-road Camper Trailer Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bird on May 13, 2016, 12:58:35 PM
-
Must be a slow news day to dig out this old one again..
Victorian motorists could be busted for driving with a single drink in their system under a radical road safety shake-up likely to be considered by the Andrews Government.
Road's Minister Luke Donnellan has confirmed the Government will consider cutting the legal blood alcohol limit from 0.05 to 0.02 if evidence finds it would cut road trauma.
"If the figures indicate that it would improve behaviour we'd look at it, absolutely," Mr Donnellan said. "I'm sure some would think it's inappropriate and some wouldn't think it's appropriate. But let's be very clear, we make no apologies for wanting to drive the death toll down."
Interlocks are expensive, and previously had only been used for drivers blowing 0.07 or more, repeat offenders and those on probationary licences or learners.
...
New laws will mean anyone who blows over the legal limit of .05 will be forced to install an interlock in their car.
Interlocks cost $170 to install, plus another $150 a month to operate. To remove them is another $100. Mr Donnellan said the system would involve "full cost recovery", meaning offenders will bear the entire cost, in additional to any fines.
Victoria Police assistant commissioner Doug Fryer strongly backed the change, saying it would make roads safer and cut the level of trauma.
He also backed lowering the legal blood alcohol limit for younger drivers, with people aged between 21 and 25 particularly over-represented in drink-driving statistics.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorias-drink-driving-limit-could-be-cut-to-002-20160513-goua21.html (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorias-drink-driving-limit-could-be-cut-to-002-20160513-goua21.html)
-
State pollies getting jealous that all the media coverage is on their ferral piers and making silly statements to get into the news?
-
State pollies getting jealous that all the media coverage is on their ferral piers and making silly statements to get into the news?
I reckon country areas will make Centillions out of fines if it happens.
-
Would be done for a cash grab. Soon they will fine us for just driving a car.
-
That's the end of pubs in country towns unless you can walk there >:D l if fact can do just that ;D ;D :cheers:
-
Way back when....
If I recall correctly [subject to correction by greater minds], NSW had 0.08 when the breath testing first came in, so they must have been happy for that level. (In New York and some other US states it is 0.10)
NSW changed down to 0.05 to fit in with Vic.....???
Now they want 0.02.....That is just revenue raising..... :police: :police: :police:
-
You are correct
-
From VicRoads
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-to-z-of-road-rules/alcohol-and-other-drugs (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-to-z-of-road-rules/alcohol-and-other-drugs)
Alcohol
You cannot drive if you are affected by alcohol or by both illicit drugs and alcohol over the legal limit.
Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) is a measure of how much alcohol is in your body.
If you are a learner, P1, P2, restricted motorcycle rider or a professional driver (e.g., a truck, bus or taxi driver), you must drive with a zero BAC.
Other drivers and those supervising learner drivers, must drive with a BAC under .05.
These rules apply if you are on a public road or on private property
That last bit is interesting for campers.
KB
-
Way back when....
If I recall correctly [subject to correction by greater minds], NSW had 0.08 when the breath testing first came in, so they must have been happy for that level. (In New York and some other US states it is 0.10)
NSW changed down to 0.05 to fit in with Vic.....???
Now they want 0.02.....That is just revenue raising..... :police: :police: :police:
NY is .05 for driving while ability impaired and if you blow .10 your driving drunk.
I had 3 of the .05 and 4 of the 1.0 before I finally stopped drinking.
Most states don't like the limits but they will be the same if they want federal funding for their roads.
Bill
-
I'd love to see where they could get this data from. Considering the data they would collect now could only relate to offences over 0.05 or serious accident data where drivers (at fault) were between 0.02 and 0.05. I doubt they would have enough data to make any reliable statements.
-
I'd love to see where they could get this data from. Considering the data they would collect now could only relate to offences over 0.05 or serious accident data where drivers (at fault) were between 0.02 and 0.05. I doubt they would have enough data to make any reliable statements.
I think police breath test the driver's for all serious crashes so I wouldn't be surprised if that information is in a database somewhere but am unsure whether they record the level if it's under 0.05
-
That's what I said. Only serous crashes would have data. That makes it a skewed set of data.
-
Just my take on it of course, but the drivers who cause the most pain are statistically way over .05 (the current limit) already.
They are also way over the last limit of .08
In fact, they probably would blow over the .10 limit mentioned in NY.
Lowering the limit really only affects those of us who are already law abiding. It DOES NOT change the road toll IMO. The road toll is shocking, even though the BAL has been dropped to lower levels.
The bastards who drive while pissed to the eyeballs will continue to do so, regardless of the limit that is set. They are the ones the coppers & the govt should be chasing!
-
Would be done for a cash grab. Soon they will fine us for just driving a car.
I thought they already were.
Import tax
Luxury car tax
GST
Transfer duty
Registration
Licence renewal
Third Party Insurance
No fault Disability Insurance
Traffic Infringement fines
Indexed Fuel excise
Parking and Parking Infringements
Tolls
Did I miss any??
-
That's what I said. Only serous crashes would have data. That makes it a skewed set of data.
In Victoria the first treating hospital is obliged to take blood or breath test the person identified in writing by the ambulance or police as the driver of a vehicle involved in a collision.
If there is no person identified as driver the obligation is to take blood or breath test all occupants of the vehicle over the age of 16yrs.
In the event of a fatality my recollection is all occupants must be tested........its almost 4 years since I left work in an emergency department so am a little foggy on that one.
The data set is actually pretty comprehensive,
-
From VicRoads
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-to-z-of-road-rules/alcohol-and-other-drugs (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-to-z-of-road-rules/alcohol-and-other-drugs)
Alcohol
You cannot drive if you are affected by alcohol or by both illicit drugs and alcohol over the legal limit.
Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) is a measure of how much alcohol is in your body.
If you are a learner, P1, P2, restricted motorcycle rider or a professional driver (e.g., a truck, bus or taxi driver), you must drive with a zero BAC.
Other drivers and those supervising learner drivers, must drive with a BAC under .05.
These rules apply if you are on a public road or on private property
That last bit is interesting for campers.
KB
The offence of drink driving can happen anywhere and is not confined to roads only😃
-
I'd love to see where they could get this data from. Considering the data they would collect now could only relate to offences over 0.05 or serious accident data where drivers (at fault) were between 0.02 and 0.05. I doubt they would have enough data to make any reliable statements.
All data is collected for any drink or drug driving offence includinding no offence
W.
-
These rules apply if you are on a public road or on private property
That last bit is interesting for campers.
KB
You might be surprised, that where you go camping and 4 wheel driving are still roads (highways) and all the usual road rules apply. There is no "what happens in the bush stays in the bush"
As for the data being skewed, maybe so but it is worse case scenario which is what we all want to avoid.
-
Read somewhere that 20% of serious collisions involve alcohol.
So does that mean 80% don't?
If so doesn't that mean you got less chance of being in a serious accident if you've been drinking?
Just saying.........
-
Must a Vic thing. >:D
Vic:
"however, close to one in four drivers and riders killed in the last five years had a BAC greater than 0.05.
http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/drink-driving-statistics (http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/drink-driving-statistics)
NSW:
"The contributing causes to accidents has also changed. Alcohol as a contributing cause to an accident has declined from 7.1% in 1990 to 4.0% in 2005. Speed as a contributing cause increased over the same period from 13.4% to 17.3%, while fatigue as a contributing cause has remained steady."
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/1338.1.55.001Main%20Features82007?opendocument&tabname=Summa (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/1338.1.55.001Main%20Features82007?opendocument&tabname=Summa)
-
We freedom loving smokers warned you scolds, puritans and nanny-staters they won't just rest with us-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-15/cancer-council-call-for-age-ban-on-smoking-prevent-youth/7416054?pfm=ms (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-15/cancer-council-call-for-age-ban-on-smoking-prevent-youth/7416054?pfm=ms)
Have to issue the police with tape measures soon for the fat and sugar fines too if you're over the limit. It's all for your own good ;)
-
These rules apply if you are on a public road or on private property
That last bit is interesting for campers.
I think you'll find the application of these rules 'on private property' came about directly as the result of a loophole in the law that previously meant unlincensed and/or drug/alcohol affected drivers couldn't be charged when an incident/accident occurred on private property - see Deaths of teens run over in paddock prompts law change (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/deaths-of-teens-eliza-wannan-and-william-daltonbrown-run-over-in-paddock-prompts-law-change-20151124-gl6pup.html).
-
This has been the case in Victoria for many years. At least 20+
-
I think you'll find the application of these rules 'on private property' came about directly as the result of a loophole in the law that previously meant unlincensed and/or drug/alcohol affected drivers couldn't be charged when an incident/accident occurred on private property - see Deaths of teens run over in paddock prompts law change (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/deaths-of-teens-eliza-wannan-and-william-daltonbrown-run-over-in-paddock-prompts-law-change-20151124-gl6pup.html).
Wasn't a case of could not be charged but for some unknown reason was not charged. Driver has committed offenses that he should have been charged with under the Crimes Act. Just because it happened on private property, that was not open to and used by the public, may mean the Road Transport Act does not apply, but there are definitely other Acts that the person should have been charged under.
-
There's only one answer-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/philippine-president-elect-rodrigo-duterte-plans-to-eliminate-antisocial-behavior-1463400016 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/philippine-president-elect-rodrigo-duterte-plans-to-eliminate-antisocial-behavior-1463400016)
-
There's only one answer-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/philippine-president-elect-rodrigo-duterte-plans-to-eliminate-antisocial-behavior-1463400016 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/philippine-president-elect-rodrigo-duterte-plans-to-eliminate-antisocial-behavior-1463400016)
Won't be long now....
-
NY is .05 for driving while ability impaired and if you blow .10 your driving drunk.
I had 3 of the .05 and 4 of the 1.0 before I finally stopped drinking.
Most states don't like the limits but they will be the same if they want federal funding for their roads.
Bill
Thanks for the correction, Bill. the few reports I saw only listed those above 0.10..
PS, I am glad you saw the light, I would not like to meet you coming the other way in a 4WD.......
-
Lowering the limit really only affects those of us who are already law abiding. It DOES NOT change the road toll IMO. The road toll is shocking, even though the BAL has been dropped to lower levels.
that would be true if a .05 BAL affected one person in EXACTLY the same way as it affected another person with an identical .05 BAL...
the same amount of alcohol affects everybody differently. but because the law requires it, there has to be a number and .05 is it, at the moment.
if it is lowered to .02, for example, perhaps that will be sufficient of a drop to avoid more accidents, because it removes the people who are adversely affected by the .03 increase...
just because the law says you are right to drive at .05 or below, it doesn't mean to say that you should. accidents can also be caused by alcohol, even if the offender is under .05
IMO, it's a simple answer:
if you have been drinking, then don't drive.
why take the risk?
The bastards who drive while pissed to the eyeballs will continue to do so, regardless of the limit that is set. They are the ones the coppers & the govt should be chasing!
agree. unfortunately, you can't cure 'stupid'...
-
The bastards who drive while pissed to the eyeballs will continue to do so, regardless of the limit that is set.
Agree 12002389075432987958734958743987%
-
Agree 12002389075432987958734958743987%
There are still people out there who drive when disqualified.
Whether drink or drugs was the cause in the first place, they seem to think they're untouchable.
-
I don't like the idea of a reduced limit to .02% from my own social perspective. I like to think I'm a resposible drinker and if I know I'm driving, I will limit my drinks to one or 2. If this comes into effect, it will be a bit dissapointing but no real hardship.
On the other hand, I also see what happens when the drink driving thing goes horribly wrong and I am in complete favour of anything that has a reasonable chance of reducing the incidents of serious road crashes.
The balance is difficult to achieve especially in our risk averse society.
One thing I can assure you all of. There is no element of revenue raising involved in a decision like this. The money spent policing it would almost certainly outweigh any additional funds it would raise. It also wouldn't put a dent in the cost of emergency services, hospital care and rehabilitation of victims of road crashed caused by alcohol consumption on any level.
Like every law in our society, we have to put our faith in the elected decision makers to base their decisions on sound science and fact, not anecdotes or knee jerk reactions. That may be a tough ask....!
-
Like every law in our society, we have to put our faith in the elected decision makers
WE ARE ****ED!
-
I don't like the idea of a reduced limit to .02% from my own social perspective. I like to think I'm a resposible drinker and if I know I'm driving, I will limit my drinks to one or 2. If this comes into effect, it will be a bit dissapointing but no real hardship.
On the other hand, I also see what happens when the drink driving thing goes horribly wrong and I am in complete favour of anything that has a reasonable chance of reducing the incidents of serious road crashes.
The balance is difficult to achieve especially in our risk averse society.
One thing I can assure you all of. There is no element of revenue raising involved in a decision like this. The money spent policing it would almost certainly outweigh any additional funds it would raise. It also wouldn't put a dent in the cost of emergency services, hospital care and rehabilitation of victims of road crashed caused by alcohol consumption on any level.
Like every law in our society, we have to put our faith in the elected decision makers to base their decisions on sound science and fact, not anecdotes or knee jerk reactions. That may be a tough ask....!
I don't drink and drive. Unfortunately we have picked all the low hanging fruit when it comes to reducing serious accidents. Car safety, driving under the influence, driving on drugs, compulsory seat belts, and to a lesser extent driver public education programmes have all had a positive effect on the reduction of the incidence of serious crashes. The question is what to target next if we believe that we can push it lower. Alcohol is a soft and easier target because we already have the technology and programmes in place. The real question is whether that 0.02 reduction will have the desired effect or are we at the point of diminishing returns with impaired driving due to alcohol? Better roads, better training, self driving cars or cars with collision avoidance systems may all be a much more effective option but no where near as easy or cheap to implement. Personally, I think it is important not to take too simplistic a viewpoint on these public policy issues. Sadly Politicians like to look like they are doing something...sometimes even if it isn't the best policy option.
-
IMO 0.05 seems to work fine, like others have said we won't stop the high range drink drivers, they don't care about 0.05, why would 0.02 make any difference.
Now we need to get rid of the crotch watchers with their phones in their laps and get better at testing drug driving. These are the new problems causing danger on the roads.
-
IMO 0.05 seems to work fine, like others have said we won't stop the high range drink drivers, they don't care about 0.05, why would 0.02 make any difference.
They don't care - they "APPEAR" to be doing something
Now we need to get rid of the crotch watchers with their phones in their laps and get better at testing drug driving. These are the new problems causing danger on the roads.
in the too hard basket. They just cant stop them... How can they?? make cars block out the signals as soon as the engine starts? Imagine the uproar...
-
There are still people out there who drive when disqualified.
Whether drink or drugs was the cause in the first place, they seem to think they're untouchable.
Pretty sure your right on this one.
Personally speaking 5 or maybe even 6 of my DWIs were also with driving disqualified attached.
I didn't care. For every 1 time I was caught there were literally hundreds of times I got away with it.
Tougher penaltys would not go astray either.
As long as it was just a fine I had to pay I kept it up. Even when they decided to throw my butt in jail every weekend for a year it didn't bother me. Heck I would ruck up for jail on a Friday so drunk I barely knew my name and just sleep all weekend. And I drove myself to jail every weekend.
I' am not bragging nor am I proud of how I once was, just giving my personal experience.
And all those DWIs, fines and jail time had nothing to do with my finally quitting drinking.
I must say that I Am proud of not having had a drink in many many years.
Bill
-
I must say that I Am proud of not having had a drink in many many years.
Bill
As you should be... :cup:
-
You are all starting to focus on that one pissed idiot at 0.20 (because it's not "me") and ignoring the dozens at 0.04 at the same time (because it might include "me")
What poses more danger? 1 extreme reading or a few dozen lower "normal" readings?
-
You are all starting to focus on that one pissed idiot at 0.20 (because it's not "me") and ignoring the dozens at 0.04 at the same time (because it might include "me")
What poses more danger? 1 extreme reading or a few dozen lower "normal" readings?
I've got mates dads that can drive real well pissed to the eyeballs and have done for decades.
I've seen people who have had a few and struggle to walk. I remember a "test" they did on Current Affair or similar years ago.. some people at <~.05 crashed on their test track (Oran Park if I remember) as though they were legless.. others were fine. Some actually made it around the track without running off at all >.05 much to their shock and surprise.
My issue is - what difference will changing the law make in reality? People who will drive pissed will still drive pissed. People who go to a BBQ and have 2 beers will get ****ed up. just fill the coffers and if people will be forced to fit interlocks, I bet someone from the decision makers cousin/uncle/brother will own the company that supplies them and clean up from it handing out backhanders..
So in reality - Nothing will change - except the Gov will *appear* to be doing something.
-
I've got mates dads that can drive real well pissed to the eyeballs and have done for decades.
I've seen people who have had a few and struggle to walk. I remember a "test" they did on Current Affair or similar years ago.. some people at <~.05 crashed on their test track (Oran Park if I remember) as though they were legless.. others were fine. Some actually made it around the track without running off at all >.05 much to their shock and surprise.
My issue is - what difference will changing the law make in reality? People who will drive pissed will still drive pissed. People who go to a BBQ and have 2 beers will get ****ed up. just fill the coffers and if people will be forced to fit interlocks, I bet someone from the decision makers cousin/uncle/brother will own the company that supplies them and clean up from it handing out backhanders..
So in reality - Nothing will change - except the Gov will *appear* to be doing something.
So what do you suggest be done if anything?
Bill
-
It's already catered for, with "Drive under the influence of Alcohol or Drug or other deleterious substance".
The BAC reading would just be part of the evidence required, as well as observations of the drivers ability/conduct at the time
It's amazing how many laws duplicate the same offence time and again.
Just because some bright spark thinks their idea of how to describe the offence is better.
Mr. Plod will take the easy way out if he can, just like the rest of us.
-
So what do you suggest be done if anything?
To be honest bill I cant think of anything that WILL work...
Education and message aint getting across... "it will never happen to me" attitude is engrained in society now from deadShits, poor, immigrants, right to rich/judges/politicians the whole lot of em...
The only way to bullet proof fix it is ban grog all together and ban cars.. does that work?
-
Yeah let's go back to the horse and cart, just like the Amish.
At least the horse will still be able to get you home.
All you have to do is get into the cart. For some that could still be a problem.
-
So what do you suggest be done if anything?
Bill
Changes have and are being made, and appear to be working.
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html (http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html)
-
To be honest bill I cant think of anything that WILL work...
Education and message aint getting across... "it will never happen to me" attitude is engrained in society now from deadShits, poor, immigrants, right to rich/judges/politicians the whole lot of em...
The only way to bullet proof fix it is ban grog all together and ban cars.. does that work?
I've no idea what the answer is either...
Bill
-
Changes have and are being made, and appear to be working.
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html (http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html)
It's a good article.
But it doesn't say whether drink driving has been curbed, if it is on the rise or the same as years ago which is what Iam wondering.
From personal experience I know most of the younger adults that I know wouldn't dare drive drunk.
But I don't know many younger adults.
When I first arrived here and learned of random breath testing I thought it was a great thing and every country should implement it..
Bill
-
So what do you suggest be done if anything?
Bill
Forget about lowering limits for drink driving. People are still going to blow high range, no matter the limit.
Let's focus on Fatigue & Inattention. Probably the biggest 2 x killers on country roads.
Have you ever seen a set of skid marks on a dead straight bit of road & thought, why did this car cross the white line & slam head on into another car or truck or a tree.
The answer is generally because at least 1 x driver, (if not both) were asleep, tired, or distracted.
I know from my own experience, I have driven whilst extremely tired, and have had many near misses at high speed.
The govt can't measure fatigue, therefore, it isn't really a recognised issue for them to target & measure & enforce.
I don't normally drink drive, as my wife drives as soon as I've been drinking.
-
I know from my own experience, I have driven whilst extremely tired, and have had many near misses at high speed.
Never would admit to SWMBO, But I plead guilty to that one, also...On one or two occasions, not many...
-
IMO 0.05 seems to work fine, like others have said we won't stop the high range drink drivers, they don't care about 0.05, why would 0.02 make any difference.
Now we need to get rid of the crotch watchers with their phones in their laps and get better at testing drug driving. These are the new problems causing danger on the roads.
Agree totally.
I'm a tradie who does a lot of driving in Sh17ney and all I see all day is (mostly women) ftards on the phone. Obviously the f{kbook update is more important than me getting home to my family.
Raise the fine to using a phone while driving to $25,000.
Then anyone who has an accident due to it, should automatically be disqualified for life.
(disclaimer - Yep, I'm no angel, a few speeding tickets in my earlier days and a couple of parking fines, but I watch the road when driving and value human life)
Brian