Alchol interlocks in every victorian car WTF????

[Boza]

just heard on the news they want the interlocks built into all new cars,
What about all the junkies and meth heads driving around out there like the guy that caused the accident in oakleigh a few months back even managed to kill a pedestrian and a husband and wife.
Or the woman in carlton that killed 2 people going to the footy cause she had a history of heroin abuse yet she still had her license.
Or all the people of their heads medicated on prescription pills opiates, anti-depressants you name it people pop it these days cause its legal then get behind the wheel and kill someone but are let off cause they were doing nothing illegal.
I take opiate painkillers when i need to and let me tell you they mess with ypur head and if I need to go somewhere I get A lift or take a cab I couldnt live with myself if I killed someone knowing I was in pain popping hardcore pain killers then driving. I see plenty of people at the pain clinic I go to get high as a kite and drive home and the doctor can''t do squat about iy all he has to say is I don't reccomend you driving or operating machinery.

So why not put a **** tube in every car as well so all the junkies are off the road

[Boza]

Geez didn't realize pi$$ was such an offensive word example of political correctness gone mad right here on the forum

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Boza

Geez didn't realize pi$$ was such an offensive word example of political correctness gone mad right here on the forum

If you don't agree with it you know the alternative.

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Damo, I started typing a mammoth post about the differences between a young guy with 3 months driving experience compared to a 25 or 30 years onroad etc etc etc but I have a better idea!
Lets debate it over 1 or 10 beers around the fire at Heathcote Friday night week?
My shout buddy!

All that means is someone who's older should bloody know better

[Focused]

Originally Posted by Boza

just heard on the news they want the interlocks built into all new cars,
What about all the junkies and meth heads driving around out there like the guy that caused the accident in oakleigh a few months back even managed to kill a pedestrian and a husband and wife.
Or the woman in carlton that killed 2 people going to the footy cause she had a history of heroin abuse yet she still had her license.
Or all the people of their heads medicated on prescription pills opiates, anti-depressants you name it people pop it these days cause its legal then get behind the wheel and kill someone but are let off cause they were doing nothing illegal.
I take opiate painkillers when i need to and let me tell you they mess with ypur head and if I need to go somewhere I get A lift or take a cab I couldnt live with myself if I killed someone knowing I was in pain popping hardcore pain killers then driving. I see plenty of people at the pain clinic I go to get high as a kite and drive home and the doctor can''t do squat about iy all he has to say is I don't reccomend you driving or operating machinery.

So why not put a **** tube in every car as well so all the junkies are off the road

No one is saying that the "junkies and meth heads" shouldn't be off the road. But I thought we were discussion drink driving?

As far as I'm concerned, driving whilst intoxicated with etoh, THC or meth is all the same. You should forfeit your licence (I'd go as far as Australian citizenship but I'm sure that the feel-good opposition wouldn't be huge fans of that).

[Whitey-AMG]

Will this work on motorbikes as well, cos I swear half of em must be pizzed to not realise how dangerous lane splitting at 100 klmh in stationary traffic must be.

[simon varley]

^^^^ troll.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Focused

I'm amazed at how easily people jump on the whinge bandwagon and this thread demonstrates perfectly the problem with the internet and social media (giving a voice to people that probably shouldn't have one...)

This statement is borderline abhorrent. Where do you get off writing people off and denying them free speech simply because their ideas and opinions don't correlate with yours??? Chuck them in re-education camps all because they show a sliver of opposition and dissent hey?

Originally Posted by Focused

Seriously, have a look at the article linked to where it clearly states in the first sentence that this will only affect drink drivers. Further down it says that the law will be extended to low-range drink drivers... But I wonder how many people read the first post and are now going to spend the rest of the day telling all their friends that the government are going to put these in EVERY car and spying on us...blah blah.

Don't believe everything you read people. If something sounds unjust, stop and think about it before jumping on the standard bandwagon whinging about the government. Gee, even google it and see if there's any articles which may shed some light on the topic.

You preach the don't believe everything you read mantra yet you believe the government spiel completely... Does decades of precedent from deceitful politicians not mean anything?

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by simon varley

^^^^ troll.

How so ?

Was a genuine question. How will offenders that ride motorbikes be managed. Will there be an interlock device made for bikes as well , with cameras fitted etc ?

[burnz]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I'm not sure how it's revenue raising as the Drink driving offender is going to get fined anyway.

The only ones that I can see profiting from this would be the Interlock makers, not the Gov.

Oh and burnz, I think you meant 'ulterior' motive

spellcheckers what can you do.

interlock,,,, mac bank runs the toll roads NSW, from that is fmr premier bob carr is the head of such division.
there's a lot of private companys doing govco contracts for retired ministers that end up on the board and or part owner/share's.

Originally Posted by Focused

Arterial hey?
All laws? So murder is illegal because locking people up in prison for years makes the government money? Or are they secretly harvesting their arteries and selling them on the black market.


Yes they were great times. The road toll was >3 times what it was now. Young people, families... all killed on the road at the hands of drunk idiots.


I'd tend to agree that this is OTT for first offenders and those with a low range DUI charge.

car forums talk about cars and road related topics.
try and keep up.

ps: it's called subject context.

[GASWAGON]

0.05 and lower isnt that bad for you really.....Nothing to worry about overnight until the next morning while driving too work.

[Focused]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

This statement is borderline abhorrent. Where do you get off writing people off and denying them free speech simply because their ideas and opinions don't correlate with yours??? Chuck them in re-education camps all because they show a sliver of opposition and dissent hey?

I'm sorry but who's opinion is different from mine? My issue has nothing to do with differing views but ill-informed views. In fact, if what the original poster said was true, I'd agree with him. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't even though a little bit of research could have set the record straight.
Anyway, I hope you not trying to "write off and deny" my free speech because before you know it you'll be wanting to chuck people who disagree with you into re-education camps ...and whatever else you said.

You preach the don't believe everything you read mantra yet you believe the government spiel completely... Does decades of precedent from deceitful politicians not mean anything?

The government said that taking drink drivers off the road saves lives? Call me naive (maybe your reeducation camp could educate me ;) ) but I'll accept that that's probably true.

[commonrails]

I don't condone drink driving but I will say one thing after watching RBT. WTF is with giving people that are just over the limit and first time offenders getting more time off the road then someone that has tested positive to driving under the influence of an "elicit" drug????

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Focused

I'm sorry but who's opinion is different from mine? My issue has nothing to do with differing views but ill-informed views. In fact, if what the original poster said was true, I'd agree with him. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't even though a little bit of research could have set the record straight.
Anyway, I hope you not trying to "write off and deny" my free speech because before you know it you'll be wanting to chuck people who disagree with you into re-education camps ...and whatever else you said.

The government said that taking drink drivers off the road saves lives? Call me naive (maybe your reeducation camp could educate me ;) ) but I'll accept that that's probably true.

so what is the current "alcohol" related road toll?

[wozman]

Storm in a tea cup

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Focused

I'm sorry but who's opinion is different from mine? My issue has nothing to do with differing views but ill-informed views. In fact, if what the original poster said was true, I'd agree with him. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't even though a little bit of research could have set the record straight.

Those you labelled ill-informed. Their skepticism of the talking heads that are the mouth pieces of the government is totally justified knowing full well that when govco says one thing, they do something completely different and almost always to the detriment of the nation. Have we forgotten what happened two weeks ago on budget night?

Originally Posted by Focused

Anyway, I hope you not trying to "write off and deny" my free speech because before you know it you'll be wanting to chuck people who disagree with you into re-education camps ...and whatever else you said.

I respect everyone's opinion and more importantly their right to air it.

Originally Posted by Focused

The government said that taking drink drivers off the road saves lives? Call me naive (maybe your reeducation camp could educate me ;) ) but I'll accept that that's probably true.

Inebriated people shouldn't be on the roads, but I don't believe for a second that govco has the best interests of the electorate in mind when they propose interlocking for all drink drivers. Too many vested interests are involved and stand to make a hell of a lot of money for the proposed action to be seen as a purely selfless and safety driven idea.

[Guzz226]

it will save lives so I am all for it

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by burnz

so what is the current "alcohol" related road toll?

Drivers and motorcyclists
http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safet...ing-statistics

Total stats including pedestrian deaths
http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/__data/***...20014-RSSS.doc

[Focused]

Originally Posted by burnz

so what is the current "alcohol" related road toll?

I don't have the figures off the top of my head but I'd guess that more than 50% of major accidents would involve alcohol affected drivers. Sure, there's a lot of bingles where bumpers are broken and cars are written off for insurance purposes but when it comes to crashes where people are seriously injured, alcohol is often involved.
There's been many occasions were a trauma comes in to work (yes, I work in the health field so I see drunk idiots every day) and we're met with a strong wiff of booze.

Those you labelled ill-informed. Their skepticism of the talking heads that are the mouth pieces of the government is totally justified knowing full well that when govco says one thing, they do something completely different and almost always to the detriment of the nation. Have we forgotten what happened two weeks ago on budget night?

The original poster incorrectly stated that a politician announced that breathalyzers were going into all cars. That is incorrect and that's what I was concerned about. I'm not talking about the merits of such an idea, just the fact that it was announced as a fact when it was actually not true. The definition of ill-informed is not knowing the facts of a case (I'm simplifying) and not stating a point of view different from someone else (which seems to be what your definition of it is). Please look that up. Clearly you have a bee in your bonnet about the government and that's a discussion for elsewhere. If you think you'd do a better job, feel free to join a party and/or run at the next election.

I respect everyone's opinion and more importantly their right to air it.

Yes Voltaire thank you, very romantic.

Inebriated people shouldn't be on the roads, but I don't believe for a second that govco has the best interests of the electorate in mind when they propose interlocking for all drink drivers. Too many vested interests are involved and stand to make a hell of a lot of money for the proposed action to be seen as a purely selfless and safety driven idea.

Great, we both agree that drunk people should be off the road. There's no doubt some (maybe a lot of) politicians are self-seeking fools, but to write-all off all is quite naive. There's a lot of silly people in the Central Coast of NSW (I know as I live there) but I'm not going to say that everyone from there is inherently selfish and wrong.
In the end of the day, we need to get drink drivers off the road and I can't think of many better ways than by introducing these interlocking devices. Even if they're expensive, they'll be cheaper than the cost of the health care dealing with the aftermath of these crashes. If you have a better suggestion, please post it up.

[Focused]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Drivers and motorcyclists
http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safet...ing-statistics

Total stats including pedestrian deaths
http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/__data/***...20014-RSSS.doc

Thanks for those figures. I'm assuming they're based off the number of people killed with an elevated BAC. Unfortunately those figures don't include those injured whilst drunk or the innocent parties who were killed or injured.
But I must admit that I'm surprised that the figures weren't higher for drivers >0.05.
I believe the term is the "hidden road toll" where people's lives are destroyed but they're not actually killed.

[burnz]

0.3% that's 40 people out of 2000 pa.

[Itsme]

Don't drink & drive then you won't have any thing to worry about, as for new cars being fitted....yeah right don't think that will be happening for a long long time.

[DBourne]

Good move, enforcing it for those who have been done.

Drink driving is about the most selfish thing you can do IMO.

It's a complete dog act, and shows that you're a complete knob.

[|Nate]

Originally Posted by Boza

Geez didn't realize pi$$ was such an offensive word example of political correctness gone mad right here on the forum

I suppose you're also worried about Chemtrails and the radiowaves from wireless antennas too?


If the device didn't have to be screwed into my car and wreck my interior/electronics, I'd be all for having an interlock device in my car, even though I've never drove while intoxicated.

The fact that they just want to use it on previous offenders is just as good. As Bourne said, it's an incredibly selfish thing to do, actually, it a disgusting thing to do. You not only put yourself at risk but everybody around you.

"Oh that's not fair, I only had 2 schooners at the pub before driving home, why do I have to be punished for a lapse in judgement?"
Because you had a lapse in judgement, that's why.

You make the specific choice to consume alcohol, knowing perfectly well what alcohol is, then proceed to sit in your vehicle, turn it on and drive it.

There shouldn't be any leniency, they should just either reduce the limit to nothing or .02

[Boza]

I'm more concerned about the one pot screamers or whatever there called I don't drink so don't know the terminology.

I have seen people get wasted off one glass of champagne at weddings but they are within the legal limit so are ok to drive. we have a bloke at work that has maybe 1.5-2 stubbies at our end of month bbq's and goes and sleeps it off in his car cause he gets really drunk.

The boss has a breathalyzer cause he's been pinched for .08 before he tested this bloke and he blew .02 but was so smashed could hardly stand

[Morexbs]

The channel 9 news report I saw last night definitely said they wanted interlocks for all Victorian drivers within the next few years but all the reports this morning only say drink drivers.Compulsory interlocks for all would be political suicide.
As far as interlocks being fitted to cars as original equipment,as Mr Mulder wants,how would that possibly work?They have no tolerance for different levels of alcohol so one sip means you can't start your car.And as if a car maker would introduce this feature in their cars just for the Victorian market.Another well thought out idea.

[Franco Cozzo]

We're up for an election in November anyway

[Superzero]

let me start off by saying that I do think these are a good idea for repeat offenders. personally I think it makes a lot of sense.

but I have always seen 1 fatal flaw in these things. with modern cars I would assume these things would be wired into the ECU so how do they do it to classic cars?

I have never, nor will I ever drink and drive but for arguments sake, lets say I've just been caught and they fit one to my car, and I intend on drink driving again. I only own one car and that's my XB.
I cant help but think that if they fit one to my car it would take me all of 5 minutes to bypass it. I don't have a fancy ECU I only have 2 wires that make that car run so what's to stop me (or more to the point an actual drunk idiot) bypassing it?

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Morexbs

The channel 9 news report I saw last night definitely said they wanted interlocks for all Victorian drivers within the next few years but all the reports this morning only say drink drivers.Compulsory interlocks for all would be political suicide.
As far as interlocks being fitted to cars as original equipment,as Mr Mulder wants,how would that possibly work?They have no tolerance for different levels of alcohol so one sip means you can't start your car.And as if a car maker would introduce this feature in their cars just for the Victorian market.Another well thought out idea.

I saw this as well, but this:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...rlocks-by-2016

contradicts the talking heads on TV.

[GASWAGON]

And who is going to pay for all these interlocks? And then all the recalibrations etc etc???