SA mid range DUI punishments - what the?

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by Top_Ghia

He may have issues with the drink. 5 beers before dinner isn't a great sign.

5 beers in 4-5hrs means you're an alco??
Anyone have AA's number handy??
Look, the OPs done the wrongy... Let's leave it at that rather than crucifying him further?
(He also should've known better than to "advertise" his stuffup on here!)

[Ansimp]

I am still trying to figure out how 5 drinks in 3 hours generated a .082 reading?

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Ansimp

I am still trying to figure out how 5 drinks in 3 hours generated a .082 reading?

Too high or too low?

[Brazen]

I actually kind of agree with the OP. The driving charges are very hard, especially as no one was hurt. But I understand the counter argument.

[Mechan1k]

"rule of thumb" ... but it doesn't go for everyone I guess.

For an "average" male it was listed as 3 standard drinks in the first hour and 2 for every hour after ... with be within limit.

Depends on the strength and size you drink at the time I guess.

or someone mis-counted what was consumed in the time frame.

[Ansimp]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Too high or too low?

Too high :(
Then again I am 120kgs

[rst2000]

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

"rule of thumb" ... but it doesn't go for everyone I guess.

For an "average" male it was listed as 3 standard drinks in the first hour and 2 for every hour after ... with be within limit.

I've always known the ratio as : 2 standard drinks in the first hour and one per hour thereafter........

[Mowdit]

I feel for the OP.
A few people here have got up him, yet he admitted to the error and claims full responsibility, and described his circumstances.
HIS POINT, AS I READ IT, IS WHY ARE OTHER OFFENCES SO OUT OF KILTER WITH THE PUNISHMENTS BY COMPARISON ?

I was done years ago, 0.051, in court, they guy before me is up on his 6th DUI, unlicensed, he lost it on a corner, thru the local car yard fence writing off 7 new cars, does a runner, reports his car stolen later that morning, cops show at his house, he folds, still blows over ! (that's DUI, leaving the scene of an accident, False report to police, criminal damage)
He gets 18 months loss of licence, and that's it, no restitution, nothing.
I got 6 months loss of license and $500, WTF !

THE ANSWER ( apart from sucking it up)

Is, mostly IF you are a hard working law abiding citizen with something to lose, and stuff up you get the whole encyclopaedia thrown at you !
If you are a dole bludger with little regard for the law as a "repeat offender" the law gives up and you get a slap on the wrist

I agree with the OP, at some point we have been lucky, others we get caught and have to respect the law and do the time,
BUT, compared to a lot of other offences the punishment DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME...........

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by rst2000

I've always known the ratio as : 2 standard drinks in the first hour and one per hour thereafter........

That's the Female equivalent.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by ea90gl

I consumed approximately 5 standard strength beers over a 3-4 hour period after work.

Originally Posted by Ansimp

I am still trying to figure out how 5 drinks in 3 hours generated a .082 reading?

Originally Posted by rst2000

I've always known the ratio as : 2 standard drinks in the first hour and one per hour thereafter........

What is "standard strength", Do you mean Full strength, or mid strength?

If full strength and if they were say 375ml Cans you could be up around the 7.5 standard drinks mark.

You may all be well aware already but i'll just say it anyway incase someone isn't aware. With rules like "2 drinks in the first hour" it is referring to 250ml of beer, not to a full bottle or can.


As for what to do about your job, well a work colleague has been busted numerous times for drink driving, most recently destroying a light pole and having to pay $10k for its replacement, as well as no insurance cover on his car which was trashed.
He had a court ordered breathalyzer fitted to his car which requires a clean breath sample to start the car, this is only so he car drive to and from work. In NSW, so your state may be different.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by ea90gl

Basically what occurred that night could of happened to any one whether or not you were straight, drunk, high on coke, a person who has never touched any form of brain altering substances etc but what happened did happen so as mentioned it was what it was.

Incorrect. This situation (crashing while drunk) could only happen to someone who is drunk. Without there being dashcam proof of what happened, i'd bet that your slow reaction time added to the bad situation of an animal jumping out in front of you.

Originally Posted by ea90gl

obviously the time does not suit the crime committed. It is obviously the do-gooder attitude that allows these laws and penalties to be put in place

The time absolutely does fit the crime (but i agree, some of the others you listed are too lenient). You drove drunk (whether or not you crashed into another car is irrelevant). Your view of this situation needs a hard rethink. Someone you know did the same thing and 'only' crashed into a car of low value. That was someones car, that they used to get to and from work, and now they've been inconvenienced because that person was irresponsible. Both off you should be off the road for much longer if your attitude is 'it wasn't a BMW so who cares'.

The message they're conveying to you, is if you want to drink, DONT drive. Then you have absolutely no chance of losing your license.

Personally, i think the laws are too soft. It should be changed to 0.00 for all drivers. Want to drink? Get a taxi! Or better yet, understand you dont need alcohol to have a good time!

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

you dont need alcohol to have a good time!

I agreed with everything except this. I'm too boring to have fun without it haha
I'd have suggested that "you dont need alcohol to have a good time" sounds like something they'd say in church groups, but even churches serve alcohol

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by rst2000

I've always known the ratio as : 2 standard drinks in the first hour and one per hour thereafter........

That's the rule of thumb I know of and use.

For girls it was 1 drink each hr.

[BENT_8]

Back in the day of .08 the slogan was '4 men and women 2' as in men could consume 4 in the first hour and one every hour after that, with women, two and one every hour and that would keep you at the limit.

The OP blew .08 after finishing his last beer, driving home, deciding to get takeaway, driving down to get it, having a stack, being tested at the scene and then taken back to the station for a subsequesnt test.
It would be impossible to still blow .082 after all that time if only 5 drinks had been consumed in 4 hours.

I think the OP had downed more than he's admitting to.
If i can work that out the bloke with the wig would be all over it.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

I agreed with everything except this. I'm too boring to have fun without it haha
I'd have suggested that "you dont need alcohol to have a good time" sounds like something they'd say in church groups, but even churches serve alcohol

Dont be so boring then ;)

[Blem]

Mate for what it's worth I feel for your pain but it is what it is.
Why is .082 DUI ?
Things may have changed in relation to DUI & PCA.
DUI being driving while under the influence & PCA being driving while over the prescribed concentration of alcohol.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Mowdit

BUT, compared to a lot of other offences the punishment DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME...........

i wonder if you would feel that way if a person under the influence, destroyed property of yours, or worse, killed a family member? DUI is a serious thing. the punishments are there to act as a deterrent and the fact that people still do it, seems to suggest the deterrent isn't big enough.

perhaps all the OP has pointed out is that many laws (punishments) are way too lenient, not that some are too strict.

[arronm]

Who decided to get behind the wheel after drinking?????

Did you think of other road users before you drove off...

After 6 months maybe you will think twice next time!!!!!!

I don't want to be on the road with guys like you...

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by ea90gl

So basically I will most likely be losing my licence for a 6 months period shortly.

If it was me who wanted to whinge about any court imposed fines and penalties I would have waited until the case was heard.

[LG17]

I grew up in a time when drinking and driving was commonplace.
The standard was how will I get home if I can't drive?
Traffic was a hell of a lot less than what it is now.
You could drive the 2 or 3 miles home from the pub and not see another car.
We all knew we were "impaired" but did our best to be careful.
Mostly it worked...
These days it's VERY different.
I will not drive even if I've only had one drink.

I agree with what Mowdit is saying in that the punishment doesn't fit the crime BY COMPARISON to the scum who seem to regularly bash, break in and cause untold damage in particular. I also think that is what the OP is getting at.

He is entitled to his day in court to try to explain his actions just as other accused folk are. He is entitled to try to get the most lenient sentence possible. There seems to be no rhyme nor reason as to what judges hand out for sentences and fines these days. There's certainly no logic applied. He can only hope he gets a "sympathetic" judge and scores a minimal fine and licence suspension.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by LG17

I grew up in a time when drinking and driving was commonplace.
The standard was how will I get home if I can't drive?
Traffic was a hell of a lot less than what it is now.
You could drive the 2 or 3 miles home from the pub and not see another car.
We all knew we were "impaired" but did our best to be careful.
Mostly it worked...
These days it's VERY different.
I will not drive even if I've only had one drink.

I agree with what Mowdit is saying in that the punishment doesn't fit the crime BY COMPARISON to the scum who seem to regularly bash, break in and cause untold damage in particular. I also think that is what the OP is getting at.

He is entitled to his day in court to try to explain his actions just as other accused folk are. He is entitled to try to get the most lenient sentence possible. There seems to be no rhyme nor reason as to what judges hand out for sentences and fines these days. There's certainly no logic applied. He can only hope he gets a "sympathetic" judge and scores a minimal fine and licence suspension.

Beautifully put!
Now can we close it before the wowsers start their usual prohibition campaigning?

[Nanoraptor]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

Incorrect. This situation (crashing while drunk) could only happen to someone who is drunk. Without there being dashcam proof of what happened, i'd bet that your slow reaction time added to the bad situation of an animal jumping out in front of you.

On top of slower reaction times, the ability to recognise a moving object as moving and track it goes right down the tubes before anything else, with even low levels of alcohol - and when you're the one moving, that means *everything* around you. That parked car that suddenly came out of nowhere until the impaired driver is just a few feet away and still travelling at 60? That's tracking impairment. Running off the side of a straight highway while doing only 40? Tracking impairment too. Add in something genuinely moving differently to the vehicle you're in and it's going to look impossible to miss; the alcohol just didn't let you notice it beforehand at all, or instantly gauge where it's going if you did.

And then like you said, slow reaction times on top and you're running on nothing but luck.

Impairment of tracking can happen at levels well under half the legal limit, and it's one of the reasons some places set limits to 0.00%

[kazawaki]

In regards to penalties there is one thing people seem to forget .They keep changing the goal posts then demonize people that would have been legal previously. Previous limit in S.A .08. Speed zones continuously being lowered sometimes with cause and sometimes just because they can.Example I was speeding doing 73 in a 60 zone a matter of months before that and for the last 30 years it was a 70 zone there are examples of this all over Australia .The same thing applies to cholesterol levels and a whole lot of other medical benchmarks 5 years ago you were health now your not .THIS IS A KEY POINT in society that is far to often overlooked.In reverse Criminals get away with heaps and its always the same bull**** excuses hard life, drug affected blah blah blah.Maybe just think about these reality's before spitting out the old line do the crime do the time as often major offenders do not do the time its more often than not the little guy gets hammered.

[ea90gl]

Wow, what a can of worms I have obviously opened. I did of course expect some sort of negative backlash which is understandable and some other's definitely do see the point I was trying to make and both question.

To the typical responses such as "you do the crime, you do the time", "suck it up princess" and what ever else that went along those lines, thank you greatly for the very informative and well thought out replies which have definitely contributed greatly to this thread. I have now been given a world of both knowledge and fresh ideals from these replies and am now happy to also become brain washed and live inside my own little box and agree with the general conforming population who only take note of things written in the papers and spread across the news and current affairs programs. I can be just like you guys soon, whoopie!

To the other arm chair experts who have supposedly put through a well thought out and informative reply, it makes me laugh how some of you think that you were there on the day and are able to make such a precise and conclusive judgement based on me giving a very low amount of information in regards to my accident (oh but we are smart enough to put two and two together I hear?). Tell me these things, what car was I driving at the time? What type and size of roo did I end up hitting? What sort of road was I on and at what time of day/night did the accident occur? What was the speed limit of the road which I was travelling on? What direction was I travelling in comparison to what direction the Kangaroo was heading? How much distance was there between the lane I was travelling in and the side of the road was there? How close was the dense scrub that the Kangaroo emerged from out of no where? If you can answer any one of these questions only then would I take your arm chair expert opinions with any grain of salt.

Once again without going into too much details, if a family/child/dog/goat/wombat or whatever else emerged from the side of the road much like the Kangaroo did at the time of my accident then it would of most definitely ended up colliding with the car I was travelling in end of story, no ifs or buts. Please do not sit back and tell me that the accident I caused was due to me being "drunk". Going by this brain-dead assumption, I suppose every body else that has had any other accident of any sort must of also been intoxicated or under the influence of some other mind altering drug.

And also it is quite sad that only a few members of this forum ACTUALLY read and comprehended my initial post. Judging by the replies it seems (with the exception of a few who seem to have actively working brain cells) that many think I am out to blame someone else for my actions, are not willing to accept any form of punishment for my actions, have blatant disregard for the law and am crying out for leniency in regards to the crime that was committed.

As mentioned in my first post, I do understand that an offence was committed by myself and there should most definitely be some form of punishment served which I am most definitely able to accept and deal with. Of course there has to be laws put in place and lines drawn to certain extents other wise things would be out of control which could possibly result in chaos. To repeat myself, my original point was how does the penalty fit the crime committed?

Now I also have some other questions which I would would like answered from the more knowledgeable/experienced and less brain-washed/dead out there;

Since when was a BAC of 0.08 classed as a person being blatantly "drunk" like so many people think is the case due to being told so? Your young daughters/wives may be quite drunk from the whiff of a Brandy but that is not exactly the norm and it is scientifically proven that each and every person is effected differently by certain amounts of alcohol consumption. The only thing that is scientifically proven and is more standard is the rate at which the body eliminates and breaks down the alcohol content in the body

To all those people who unfortunately have had to endure hardship due to drunk drivers blatantly disregarding the law and causing accidents, may I ask what the convicted driver's actual BAC was at the time of the accident?

Can somebody please explain why some other 1st world established countries currently see a BAC content of 0.08 as the minimum legal limit (which once upon a time was the case in Australia and was only reduced due to political pressure)?

Out of ALL serious accidents that have occurred over time since things have been recorded, can somebody please let me know how many of these have been a result of the convicted driver having a BAC of 0.08?

Can somebody please also explain to me why if you are involved in an accident with a BAC of 0.79 (low range offence) that you only just receive a fine in SA where as if you are convicted of a mid range offence (with a minimum BAC of 0.08) the ultimate punishment basically increases ten-fold?

Can someone also explain to me that if I perform a break and enter onto your precious property, perform theft and assault to your own family etc it is more accepted and I am able to get off much more easily than being convicted of a mid-range DUI?

At the end of the day, I have been convicted of the crime I have committed and will ultimately cop the punishment and it is most definitely a hard lesson learned which I will have to deal with. I suppose "guys like me who are low-life scum" should be dealt the full force of a flawed law system and just accept things as they are.

I would also like to point out it's quite strange to me how the replies to my original post differ in this thread considerably compared to the general replies and discussions that have come about in the recent WA Hooning thread. To me it's basically the same issue of punishment versus the crime committed between the threads however for some reason over punishment for the hooning side of things are more argued against (maybe because the majority have actually committed hooning offences in the past as opposed to drink driving?). However each type offence that is committed is apparently portrayed as the same amount of evil?

[b0son]

Originally Posted by ea90gl

Out of ALL serious accidents that have occurred over time since things have been recorded, can somebody please let me know how many of these have been a result of the convicted driver having a BAC of 0.08?

RTA says crash risk doubles at BAC 0.05, crash risk is 7-fold at 0.08, 25-fold at 0.15.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by b0son

RTA says crash risk doubles at BAC 0.05, crash risk is 7-fold at 0.08, 25-fold at 0.15.

Often the "stats" are simply used to scare people. They take the reaction time difference for a certain blood alcohol, and decree that it increases the risk of a crash by "x". If you look at proper scientific testing, the reaction time change from 0 BAC to .05 BAC is almost nil. In fact some tests have shown that drivers are better in the 0.02 range, than at 0 BAC due to the slight relaxation of the brain.

[tonys6550]

I don't understand your last post.

Are you asking a question or just venting your frustrations into cybersphere again?

There are so many tangents one can pursue through this post that it makes it argumentative. Are you the Hulk incarnate?

Objection, Argumentantive your honor!

Like I said in my first post mate, move on.

[4vxc]

Regardless of your incredibly long response which I read in full, you were driving impaired regardless of how you felt at the time.
The penalties are harsh but they need to be to be effective, that's why it's not worth the risk to drink and drive.Simple as that.

[ea90gl]

Originally Posted by b0son

RTA says crash risk doubles at BAC 0.05, crash risk is 7-fold at 0.08, 25-fold at 0.15.

RTA says to jump off a cliff, you jump off a cliff?

[Top_Ghia]

Get real buddy. You haven't been sent to prison for 6 months. You blew mid range bac and are copping a pretty lenient sentence imo. My real issue is you don't seem to get it. You don't think you've done anything wrong which probably means you've done it before and are possibly likely to do it again.