it is getting harder to be responsible

[JC]

Originally Posted by BlackBoss

Sorry but that exactly what police are there for, to serve the public and keep them safe, why else are they there????
But yes, you can't always keep the stupid people safe, especially when they do something that the Police cannot help prevent.

Actually, police are for making sure we comply with the law. Safety happens to be a secondary benefit of this. The chance of being caught DUI will actually deter most people from doing it, so the more police doing RBT, the more chance you have of being caught, and therefore the more chance that most people won't do Drink and drive. Of course, this doesn't account for people who have no idea, but the hope is that they will be caught by an RBT, hopefully before killing or maiming anyone lese (I couldn't care if they kill themselves - that's their problem).

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by dave289

The bottom line on this thread is that common sense should win out over stupidity but unfortunately thats not the case. Is it not the job of the police to serve the public and make people safe. but no stupidy wins once again. if you think otherwise then you must be on the stupity side of things, plain and SIMPLE.

I see your point about the public service of the police and agree with you on that one.

I would put more belief in your argument if for one moment you took the "we put food in their kids mouths" blinkers off and thought about it in a much broader scale.

Here are some thoughts for you.

How do we cover the legal issues of such a service to cover the police from both liability issues and corruption issues?

Breathalyzers require frequent service and calibration, which probably has to be done more frequently the more tests that are done, by your own words this is expensive. How do we as a community cover the added expense of this free service?

These community service breath tests all consume time, lets say for example only it is 10 minutes per test accounting for test time and paperwork time (yes there will need to be some form of documentation for liability and corruption issues). Now lets say that each police unit does on average 4 of these tests in a 8 hr shift (some will do more, some will do less, but lets use this as a service average). That is 40 minutes of each shift that they are not doing their other duties. That means that in each 8 hour shift, to cover the same work load in other duties, for every 12 crews, an extra crew is required to absorb the extra role and maintain coverage, plus an extra breathalyzer crew to equip them. Where does the budget for these extra cops and breathalyzer units come from? Don't say from the RBT units as these will still be required, remember they are after the irresponsible which are unlikely to have a voluntary test.

How do we provide adequate ease of access for such services that is sufficient enough that people will actually use it, without build ing new stations, buying new cars or removing police personnel from other key responsibilities.

Like I said, I think you have some valid points but I think you need to expand the scope of your thinking in order to appreciate the size of this problem.

Here is a little example of how "free community safety services" can blow out budgets. Queensland Ambulance used to charge $14.50 for baby capsule fitting, during which time the fitting/hire service was cost neutral to the service. Then one day someone wants their capsule fitted but can not afford the $14.50 so can not use the service. That person then goes to the local papers and complains that Queensland ambulance is risking the safety of their child because they will not fit that capsule for free. There is big public backlash as they apparently should be doing this for free due to public safety. The Queensland Ambulance as a result makes a determination that all fittings will now be free of charge, awesome, public safety is number 1. The problem is that this now means that the capsule fitting /hire service cosst the ambulance $700-900,000 per year. Where does that money come from? It comes from other core responsibilities and services because the same public that want the free service also do not want to pay a higher contribution to the service every year.

My point, there is no such thing as a free service.

[Streets]

Gecko's posts always make me feel warm and fuzzy because it proves that there are still people running their brains daily rather than just starting them up for 10 minutes on the weekends just to make sure they still kick over.

My opinion is that there should be no need to ever drink and drive. Drink-driving is the result of poor preparation. And if you have to ask whether you're OK to drive, then you are not OK to drive.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Streets

Gecko's posts always make me feel warm and fuzzy because it proves that there are still people running their brains daily rather than just starting them up for 10 minutes on the weekends just to make sure they still kick over.

My opinion is that there should be no need to ever drink and drive. Drink-driving is the result of poor preparation. And if you have to ask whether you're OK to drive, then you are not OK to drive.

BINGO...

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I see your point about the public service of the police and agree with you on that one.

I would put more belief in your argument if for one moment you took the "we put food in their kids mouths" blinkers off and thought about it in a much broader scale.

Here are some thoughts for you.

How do we cover the legal issues of such a service to cover the police from both liability issues and corruption issues?

Breathalyzers require frequent service and calibration, which probably has to be done more frequently the more tests that are done, by your own words this is expensive. How do we as a community cover the added expense of this free service?

These community service breath tests all consume time, lets say for example only it is 10 minutes per test accounting for test time and paperwork time (yes there will need to be some form of documentation for liability and corruption issues). Now lets say that each police unit does on average 4 of these tests in a 8 hr shift (some will do more, some will do less, but lets use this as a service average). That is 40 minutes of each shift that they are not doing their other duties. That means that in each 8 hour shift, to cover the same work load in other duties, for every 12 crews, an extra crew is required to absorb the extra role and maintain coverage, plus an extra breathalyzer crew to equip them. Where does the budget for these extra cops and breathalyzer units come from? Don't say from the RBT units as these will still be required, remember they are after the irresponsible which are unlikely to have a voluntary test.

How do we provide adequate ease of access for such services that is sufficient enough that people will actually use it, without build ing new stations, buying new cars or removing police personnel from other key responsibilities.

Like I said, I think you have some valid points but I think you need to expand the scope of your thinking in order to appreciate the size of this problem.

Here is a little example of how "free community safety services" can blow out budgets. Queensland Ambulance used to charge $14.50 for baby capsule fitting, during which time the fitting/hire service was cost neutral to the service. Then one day someone wants their capsule fitted but can not afford the $14.50 so can not use the service. That person then goes to the local papers and complains that Queensland ambulance is risking the safety of their child because they will not fit that capsule for free. There is big public backlash as they apparently should be doing this for free due to public safety. The Queensland Ambulance as a result makes a determination that all fittings will now be free of charge, awesome, public safety is number 1. The problem is that this now means that the capsule fitting /hire service cosst the ambulance $700-900,000 per year. Where does that money come from? It comes from other core responsibilities and services because the same public that want the free service also do not want to pay a higher contribution to the service every year.

My point, there is no such thing as a free service.

I can see where you are coming from, and respect that you have not formed an opinion without consideration. But I do disagree with you on a number of grounds.
The notion of liability is an easy copout, and is often used as a wildcard. In this instance if the officer did not test and the person drove and crashed while over the limit, the same argument can be applied but in reverse. The duty of care was breached because the officer did not protect him from committing the crime. If an officer believes that a crime may occur, he has a duty to protect the public and prevent that crime from occurring. A breathaliser would fit the description.
The idea that if you test a person while thier BAC is rising, so it was legal at the point of testing, but went over at a later time is irrelevant. You can only be responsible for the test result you see now, not what may be seen in the near future. (I was going to say that the moment we start prosecuting crimes that may occur is a dark day, but we already have that with the terrorism crimes act).

As for it being free or costing a certain amount, it surely is not going to send the department bankrupt on 1 disposable tube for an unusual occurrence. If the police decided to take a statewide approach and start advertising that they were doing this, then that is a different matter.

As for good promotion and rapport with the public - that is a part of the job. Why else do they go and speak to kids in primary school. Why do they do the road safety lessons with teenagers. Why do we have the TV programs like "The Force"? They are a promotional tool to try and prevent crimes and to protect the public. This instance was an opportunity to do that.

In terms of personal responsibility, I think that the OP was actually doing the right thing by asking the question. They were not looking to be babied or have someone else make decisions for them. This extends to the wowsers and the prohibitionists out there. The zero tolerance mentality does not work. Doesn't work with the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on alcohol, or the war on speeding.
It reminds me of a story of 100 people in a community. They make laws to condemn the drug users - all 11 of them. This is to keep the majority safe from the good people. They then institute laws against the racists - all 25 of them. Then they make laws against those who put others at risk - speeding, dangerous driving, hooning etc - all 14 of them. Then the ones that have criminal records need to be kept out of society because they must be the bad eggs - 12 more gone. Then the people who happen to smack their kids, because the kids will grow up to become violent criminals - 37 gone. This was a great society as they had managed to weed out all of the possible corrosive individuals that would make it a bad place to live....for the one person left. I would not want to be left alone in the society with that last pathetic self-rightious but good individual.

[BOSHOG]

Originally Posted by Streets

Gecko's posts always make me feel warm and fuzzy because it proves that there are still people running their brains daily rather than just starting them up for 10 minutes on the weekends just to make sure they still kick over.

My opinion is that there should be no need to ever drink and drive. Drink-driving is the result of poor preparation. And if you have to ask whether you're OK to drive, then you are not OK to drive.

too true

[geckoGT]

The notion of liability is an easy copout, and is often used as a wildcard. In this instance if the officer did not test and the person drove and crashed while over the limit, the same argument can be applied but in reverse. The duty of care was breached because the officer did not protect him from committing the crime. If an officer believes that a crime may occur, he has a duty to protect the public and prevent that crime from occurring. A breathaliser would fit the description.

See what you are saying, but no. If a cop is asked to do a breath test of a pedestrian but declines, instead advises the person that if they are in doubt they should not drive, he has done his job. He has no obligation to do the breath test without service policy covering that test.

If the person ignores his advice, he has done his job and the other person has broken the law if they are found over the limit. There is no legislation stating the police officer has a duty of care if requested to conduct a breath test.

I have asked a police officer if they can breath test an injured person that is intoxicated and declining transport to hospital. I asked this as I have to be satisfied the injured person has the capacity to refuse treatment and intoxication could reduce that capacity. The cop told me they can't as they can not breath test someone they have not seen in control of a vehicle and that I have to use my judgement regarding their level of intoxication. By your reasoning, if I got that decision wrong, that would be the cops fault as he has a breathalyzer but refused to use it and he is therefore liable.

As for it being free or costing a certain amount, it surely is not going to send the department bankrupt on 1 disposable tube for an unusual occurrence. If the police decided to take a statewide approach and start advertising that they were doing this, then that is a different matter.

That is true if it remains a one off occurrence but it is likely that it will not remain that way. Word will get around and people will take advantage of it, people always take advantage of it when it is "free". Who pays for it when it becomes more frequent?

Try and tell me that a cop being asked by one person outside a busy pub to do a breath test will not have a dozen other people make the same request.

[GT450]

I would imagine the police have better things to do than entertain fools. If you are in any doubt whatsoever as to your sobriety and the legal limit then DONT drive. The onus is on you . I acnnot uderstand what all this fuss is about.
GT450

[ToCo]

Originally Posted by GT450

I would imagine the police have better things to do than entertain fools. If you are in any doubt whatsoever as to your sobriety and the legal limit then DONT drive. The onus is on you . I acnnot uderstand what all this fuss is about.
GT450

Not everyone that wants a BAC test done is an idiot...
The onus is on you, so wouldn't you do whatever you could to make sure you're under the limit, to clear that doubt? If the chance is there why wouldn't you at least ask...?

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by BlackBoss

Not everyone that wants a BAC test done is an idiot...
The onus is on you, so wouldn't you do whatever you could to make sure you're under the limit, to clear that doubt? If the chance is there why wouldn't you at least ask...?

as has been suggested, how much money would be spent to allow someone who should know what they have been drinking to have their hand held to confirm it. how many people would be lining up just to see, once we all knew we could be tested
as has also been suggested, how accurate can they be. it seems the body continues to absorb acohol in which case after the initial test, you may actually have a higher reading. when picked up for drink driving, the initial puff bag is just a guide. you are then given a blood test to give the accurate reading
you also have the possibility of the police abusing the system if they can test any tom, dick or harry. as has also been suggested, if their mate was pulled over and blew a higher reading, then the copper in question could just pretend that it was a caring citizen on foot. then everyone would be complaining that police are showing favours


again, i believe it is illegal for the police to test anyone but the driver in at least queensland and new south wales. i would be confident the rest of the country has that rule too


if you drink, be responsible for how much you drink. anyone that aims to be at .049 on a consistent basis is a fool. if they are serious about road safety and their licence, either drink less or wait longer. and for the record, when on p plates i did not drink - but that was over 20 years ago and things were different - general attitudes for one, or maybe it was just me

[LazyBrennan]

Originally Posted by krt10

ok so a little rant here.

last Friday night me and a few mates went out for a few drinks. had a good night and we went to drive home. my mate only had a couple drinks over a few hours (full license too) so he said he would drive. on the walk back to the car we walked past a RBT that was set up.

my mate although 99% sure he was fine to drive ( like i said 2 beers in 4 odd hours) thought that he would check just in case. he is wanting to become a police officer himself and doesn't need any driving record against his name.

anyway we walked up to the RBT (which was deserted) and he asked if he could be checked. the officer replied that she couldn't check him but if he liked he could "drive around to the RBT and get checked in the car"
now who would do that, i mean he was trying to be responsibe and got told that he could drive thru where if he was over (he clearley wasnt) i bet they would have thrown the book at him.

in the end he drove home as he would have been fine but i just thought it was utterly ridiculous

Doesn't this just prove that the cops are only there for revenue? I thought the idea of police was to help save lives and protect the peace, What if he was drunk ( just saying ) and he ran over someone, That could of been avoided of the officer just gave the breath test when asked. Its a load of crap!

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by LazyBrennan

Doesn't this just prove that the cops are only there for revenue? I thought the idea of police was to help save lives and protect the peace, What if he was drunk ( just saying ) and he ran over someone, That could of been avoided of the officer just gave the breath test when asked. Its a load of crap!

Then he'd be in prison for manslaughter.
Of course, the person can avoid all that just by monitoring their drinking and taking responsibility for their own behaviour.

The nice policeman is not your mother.

When people get their license, they insist that they're responsible adults. So show it.

If people are concerned about being over, catch a cab, crash at a mate's place or don't drink at all.

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by LazyBrennan

Doesn't this just prove that the cops are only there for revenue? I thought the idea of police was to help save lives and protect the peace, What if he was drunk ( just saying ) and he ran over someone, That could of been avoided of the officer just gave the breath test when asked. Its a load of crap!

[LazyBrennan]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

Then he'd be in prison for manslaughter.
Of course, the person can avoid all that just by monitoring their drinking and taking responsibility for their own behaviour.

The nice policeman is not your mother.

When people get their license, they insist that they're responsible adults. So show it.

If people are concerned about being over, catch a cab, crash at a mate's place or don't drink at all.

Yes you do need to be responsible for your own actions, But there is no harm in the cop doing a quick check either, And saying drive around and find out, what the hell is that? I can understand the guy be concerned seeing he wants to be a cop.

[GK]

Originally Posted by ohzone

So the system should be that if the guy blows over the officer gets a commendation for keeping a possible drunk driver off the road
isn't it about road safety ?

Keeping drunk drivers off the street in the first place should be a priority.

Have one unit with coppers patroling the nightclub or pub district offering a free service to help people work out if they've had too much. Good for people not sure, and good for public relations.

Have the usual booze buses to catch those who actually are drink driving.

GK

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by LazyBrennan

Doesn't this just prove that the cops are only there for revenue? I thought the idea of police was to help save lives and protect the peace, What if he was drunk ( just saying ) and he ran over someone, That could of been avoided of the officer just gave the breath test when asked. Its a load of crap!

Sometimes I wish people would read the whole thread instead of the OP and the last couple. The answer to your points have already been given many times and we really are going around and around in circles.


Better yet. All those that do not like the situation should write a letter to their state's police commissioner asking what the ruling is regarding this and if there is none put forward the idea of the police service providing such testing. That will get a lot more result than jumping on here calling all cops revenue raisers.

Personally I don't really believe too many commissioners will receive letters, if any.

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by Streets

Gecko's posts always make me feel warm and fuzzy because it proves that there are still people running their brains daily rather than just starting them up for 10 minutes on the weekends just to make sure they still kick over.

Definitely!

Unfortunately I can't give Gecko more Karma, because I need to "spread it around" before giving him some more, annoying because I think there's been 10 or more times I've gone to give him more but can't.

[GT450]

Not everyone that wants a BAC test done is an idiot...
The onus is on you, so wouldn't you do whatever you could to make sure you're under the limit, to clear that doubt? If the chance is there why wouldn't you at least ask...?
__________________
No i wouldn't ask , because as i said if you need to ask don't drive.Why is it that no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions any more. It's not a policemans job to check you unless you are driving and he is doing his job for RBT. The same people on this forum who are saying the police should do this would be the first to complain if you were wandering around clubs and pubs and the police came up to you and asked you to take a test.
if you don't have an idea by now what you can drink before you drive then you should not be drinking at all.
GT450

[zdcol71]

"if you don't have an idea by now what you can drink before you drive then you should not be drinking at all."
GT450
And certainly not driving at all,which is where this inevitably all leads

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GK

Keeping drunk drivers off the street in the first place should be a priority.

Have one unit with coppers patroling the nightclub or pub district offering a free service to help people work out if they've had too much. Good for people not sure, and good for public relations.

Have the usual booze buses to catch those who actually are drink driving.

GK

Without being rude, do you get out to the nightclub districts much?

I work in areas like that whenever I am on night shift on Friday and Saturday night and I have noticed a couple of things.

One is that you have a sea of drunken people moving around the streets and it would take many more than one car providing this form of service.

The Police are also way too occupied dealing with drunken violence and assisting ambo's to spare units for this service.

The majority of patrons in this sort of district actually do not drive, they bus, train or cab as they know they are going to be drinking. Added to that most of these districts have very limited parking.

It is actually the suburban pubs that are more of an issue than night club districts when it comes to drink driving. To provide one police car at every suburban pub for this service would certainly cost the tax payer a lot of money.

It would be nice if the answer was simple, cheap and effective but the simple truth is it is not.

I think a better option is breathalyzer units inside the pubs and nightclubs. I remember when I was a 19 year old soldier that had more than the odd bender on a friday or saturday night in Singleton NSW and Sydney, there used to be wall mounted breathalyzer units that cost you $1 for a test (this was back in 1991). Do these units still exist? If not, why not?

I bet the reason they do not exist now (if they don't) is because not enough people used them to fund them.

Can anyone confirm my theory?

[jimmyxr6t04]

There used to be test units at most clubs in canberra, this was a free service. Unfortunately a lot of them were taken away as most people only ever used them to see who had the highest BAC.

To the people saying that cops should provide it as a service: With all respect, there are barely enough cops to do the current work they are assigned to do. Whilst it might be a good PR stunt in a small country town, it would never work elsewhere.

Can you imagine how many drunks would want to be tested even if they had no intention of driving? It would be a pointless exercise. Responsible adults should know if they're ok to drive or not, they don't need the police to hold their hand and tell them it's ok. If you're not sure, then don't drive... Wait another hour or so and you'll be fine.

On the one hand people whinge that all our freedom and rights are taken away, then on the other we want the police to hold our hand and assure us we're ok to drive?

Perhaps a better solution is a personal breathalyzer, then you can make the decision yourself, whether you're under, over or smack on!

It is not up to the police to start making our decisions, we have to be responsible for our own actions. With actions, come reactions. People need to start being responsible for both.

[3vXT]

Yeah, testing yourself on a wall mounted machine for a dollar is probably not as fun as having a no consequence rbt and getting to hassle a cop for a minute or two for free.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by jimmyxr6t04

There used to be test units at most clubs in canberra, this was a free service. Unfortunately a lot of them were taken away as most people only ever used them to see who had the highest BAC.

To the people saying that cops should provide it as a service: With all respect, there are barely enough cops to do the current work they are assigned to do. Whilst it might be a good PR stunt in a small country town, it would never work elsewhere.

Can you imagine how many drunks would want to be tested even if they had no intention of driving? It would be a pointless exercise. Responsible adults should know if they're ok to drive or not, they don't need the police to hold their hand and tell them it's ok. If you're not sure, then don't drive... Wait another hour or so and you'll be fine.

On the one hand people whinge that all our freedom and rights are taken away, then on the other we want the police to hold our hand and assure us we're ok to drive?

Perhaps a better solution is a personal breathalyzer, then you can make the decision yourself, whether you're under, over or smack on!

It is not up to the police to start making our decisions, we have to be responsible for our own actions. With actions, come reactions. People need to start being responsible for both.

Excellent post.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Yeah, testing yourself on a wall mounted machine for a dollar is probably not as fun as having a no consequence rbt and getting to hassle a cop for a minute or two for free.

A very real and valid point.

I could definitely see a free service of breath testing in the interests of road safety being abused by drunken morons just for kicks.

[GT450]

I was extremely lucky to have a corporate gig at this years Grand Prix and as usual it was all free. They had a machine set up at the rear of the stand for patrons to use. Now whilst i saw at least 2 gents in front of me imbibe a lot of Johnnie black the only people i saw use the machine where younger blokes trying to see who had the highest reading. As the police will tell you these machines give you an indication of your BAC but are not necessarily accurate and as such should just be used as a guide. It wont stand up in court when it's a private machine versus the official police unit.
It all boils down to the old adage when in doubt dont. If you get caught , and now .05 is over the limit when it used to actually be the limit,then you have to shoulder the responsibility not the officer who politely declined your request. I am sure Gecko has seen too many times the end results of being on the wrong side of the limit. I have a couple of beers and drive and i have a fair idea where my limit is. If i feel like 3rd, 4th or 5th then the car stays and i walk and the car gets picked up later by someone else . If i am too far from home then it's minimum drinks or often none at all. If you are old enough to drink you shoul not need anyone to hold your hand.
Cheers
GT450

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GT450

I am sure Gecko has seen too many times the end results of being on the wrong side of the limit.

Just a couple of times, or os that a couple of thousand?

One thing I have observed after 6 years of being on the frontline of management of alcohol fueled road trauma and violence, is the people that have the sense of responsibility to request a test are not the ones causing the problems. It is the intoxicated person without the sense of responsibility to give their BAC a second thought that causes the problems.

In my opinion and in my experience, such free testing by police would be safety inspired window dressing and nothing more than a publicity stunt. It would have virtually no effect on road trauma statistics and certainly not worth the expense to the law enforcement or road safety budgets.

We would be better off using that money to put more police patrols in problem areas, that way we have more of a deterrent against both drink driving and alcohol fueled violence. I have a few suggestions for the south side of Brisbane, lets start with Acacia Ridge Hotel, Calamvale Hotel, Alexandra Hills Hotel and Dicey Riley's.

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

In my opinion and in my experience, such free testing by police would be safety inspired window dressing and nothing more than a publicity stunt. It would have virtually no effect on road trauma statistics and certainly not worth the expense to the law enforcement or road safety budgets.

and then the same people whinging that this doesn't exist, would whinge about tax payer dollars being wasted

[LTDHO]

It's not about accident prevention, It's about fining the guilty.
Just like speed cameras.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

and then the same people whinging that this doesn't exist, would whinge about tax payer dollars being wasted

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

It's not about accident prevention, It's about fining the guilty.
Just like speed cameras.

Well, make some suggestions on how to deal with the problem that at least addresses issues such as how it will be funded and how it will be implemented.

I am very interested in this as although I am against the notion of a free police service under the present system, with the right system in place I would be an avid supporter of it.

The only truly effective system would be the fitting of breathalyzer ignition locks to all vehicles. I am not against this idea, how about those that support the notion of a free police service, will you consent to the fitting of one of these?

When will we get past this largely meaningless cliche of "it's revenue raising" and move onto some ideas and opinions that are a little more constructive?

So far in this debate, not one person who claims the idea is a good one and the police should be doing it has made even the slightest suggestion on how it could be funded or implemented.