it is getting harder to be responsible - Page 3

geckoGT · 30-05-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nang3

haha i find it quite ironic that in order for the cops to successfully do their job - which involves breath testing and catching drink drivers - they are not supposed to breath test someone who is requesting a test in order to help them achieve thier goal of keeping Drink drivers off the road in the 1st place.....
maybe this policy is because if they arent tested, then drive then get done it means more $$$ revenue than if they were tested and decided not to drive due to their reading and therefore there was no offence to extact revenue from??
but that could just be the cynic in me talking because we all know that safety is a distant second behind revenue in all things govt related.

Or it could be because due to the way the body clears alcohol and the fact that a low reading at one time may increase to a high reading at another time, such testing would give motorists a false sense of security.

Such testing causes too many complications such as false sense of security, corruption opportunities and liability issues for the police. All this when responsibility and caution on behalf of the driver is much more effective.

A vast majority of the driving public is able to work out when they are safe to drive or not without having to be checked by the police, anyone that can't achieve this skill should not be driving, simple.

If you can't, what are you going to do when there are no cops around?

gtxb67 · 30-05-2010, 11:10 AM

it is all about road safety in this instance
a copper cannot let his drunk mate off and blame the positive test on a caring drunk pedestrian
his mate then is taken off the road and therefore cannot cause any carnage due to his condition

geckoGT · 30-05-2010, 11:14 AM

The simple fact is, according to QLD legislation the cops are not allowed to do such testing (not sure of other states), at least that is what I have been told by QLD police.

If this is the case, how can you lot criticise them for not doing something they have no right to do? If some want to bend the rules and do this testing, then that is up to them but you can not expect all of them to do this.

dave289 · 30-05-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

Bucky - spot on; couldn't agree more. For me the BAC should be 0. The current limit is based on all drivers (or drinkers) starting off with equal driving ability, and we all know that's true, don't we! Any alcohol in the system impairs ability in some way, and for some people who are already poor drivers, even a readin of 0.01 would impair them too much to be an effective driver.

jees theres some whingers on this forum.its not 0 its stay under 0.05. sad fact is I can have a few beers and IM STILL A MUCH SAFER DRIVER THAN A LOT OF THE MORONS i HAVE TO PUT UP WITH ON THE ROAD WHO HAVE HAD NOTHING TO DRINK ,WHINGE ALL YOU LIKE BUT THAT IS THE SAD FACT , BUT WE DONT GET THESE MORONS OFF THE ROAD DO WE.

THE GUY WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE IS SAFE, THEN BREATH TEST HIM, COULD NOT BE A MORE RESPONSIBLE REQUEST, 2 BEERS MIGHT NOT PUT ME OVER THE LIMIT BUT IT MIGHT PUT A 60 KILO WOMAN OVER.

4Vman · 30-05-2010, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave289

jees theres some whingers on this forum.its not 0 its stay under 0.05. sad fact is I can have a few beers and IM STILL A MUCH SAFER DRIVER THAN A LOT OF THE MORONS i HAVE TO PUT UP WITH ON THE ROAD WHO HAVE HAD NOTHING TO DRINK ,WHINGE ALL YOU LIKE BUT THAT IS THE SAD FACT , BUT WE DONT GET THESE MORONS OFF THE ROAD DO WE.

THE GUY WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE IS SAFE, THEN BREATH TEST HIM, COULD NOT BE A MORE RESPONSIBLE REQUEST, 2 BEERS MIGHT NOT PUT ME OVER THE LIMIT BUT IT MIGHT PUT A 60 KILO WOMAN OVER.

You've just totally contradicted yourself, are people trying to work to a limit or drive responsibly?
First and foremost if you can feel the effects of alcohol, then more than likely you shouldnt be driving.. even with the beer goggles impairing your judgement.
You may think you've just become a superhero driver due to the effects of alcohol but the reality is quite the opposite has happened.

There is more than enough info on how much puts you over the number that we're told gets us into trouble, so on 2 separate levels you're able to make a decision about your capacity to drive without the need to be breathalysed...

4Vman · 30-05-2010, 12:05 PM

Here's a simple check measure for those who find it all too hard to work out;

You've had a few drinks and want to drive, ask yourself this;

Step 1) Do i feel sober enough and fully alert to drive safely? Yes? go to step 2), No? DONT DRIVE.

Step 2) Based on your consumption of std drinks have you stayed within the guidelines for safe compliance with 0.05? Yes? Drive, No? DONT DRIVE.

If you cant confidently answer yes to both questions DONT DRIVE.

Pretty simple really....

dave289 · 30-05-2010, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

You've just totally contradicted yourself, are people trying to work to a limit or drive responsibly?
First and foremost if you can feel the effects of alcohol, then more than likely you shouldnt be driving.. even with the beer goggles impairing your judgement.
You may think you've just become a superhero driver due to the effects of alcohol but the reality is quite the opposite has happened.

There is more than enough info on how much puts you over the number that we're told gets us into trouble, so on 2 separate levels you're able to make a decision about your capacity to drive without the need to be breathalysed...

contradict? the guy talked about how you should not drive with any alcohol in your system, I was having a go at that and then stated some facts regarding this, and at no time referred to myself as being over the limit but as just having had a few beers.I then gave my opinion about the fellow requesting a breath test. he should maybe remind these people who puts food in their kids mouth. I thought you would have been on the other side of the table on this one Norm. apparently its all about safely , yet a simple request by a member of the public gets told to get in his car first and drive and then we will see, to many nanny rules once again reside over common sense.

4Vman · 30-05-2010, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave289

contradict? the guy talked about how you should not drive with any alcohol in your system, I was having a go at that and then stated some facts regarding this, and at no time referred to myself as being over the limit but as just having had a few beers.I then gave my opinion about the fellow requesting a breath test. he should maybe remind these people who puts food in their kids mouth. I thought you would have been on the other side of the table on this one Norm. apparently its all about safely , yet a simple request by a member of the public gets told to get in his car first and drive and then we will see, to many nanny rules once again reside over common sense.

Dave, by asking to be brealalyzed you are giving power to the "nanny state" mentality where laws are made to protect us from ourselves...

Regardless of all the legal ramifications that the Police face by doing it the Police are actually forcing this bloke to use his brain and make a decision for himself.

The whole argument about resisting a "nanny state" environment is to encourage people to make responsible decisions without having to check with others or letting them think for us.. See where im coming from?

IMO asking to be breathalysed is like saying "you make the decision for me.."

dave289 · 30-05-2010, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Dave, by asking to be brealalyzed you are giving power to the "nanny state" mentality where laws are made to protect us from ourselves...

Regardless of all the legal ramifications that the Police face by doing it the Police are actually forcing this bloke to use his brain and make a decision for himself.

The whole argument about resisting a "nanny state" environment is to encourage people to make responsible decisions without having to check with others or letting them think for us.. See where im coming from?

IMO asking to be breathalysed is like saying "you make the decision for me.."

there can be a fine line between over the limit and under the limit, its not about wheather the bloke thinks hes right to drive or not ,its about wheather he might loose his licence or not, it is the nanny rules that have for some reason prevented them from breath testing him, so I dont really see where your coming from. why the hell do they put breathalisers in pubs then , yet yoy say they want us to make our own decisions. I am not a human BAC and thats why I would ask to be tested.

4Vman · 30-05-2010, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave289

there can be a fine line between over the limit and under the limit, its not about wheather the bloke thinks hes right to drive or not ,its about wheather he might loose his licence or not, it is the nanny rules that have for some reason prevented them from breath testing him, so I dont really see where your coming from. why the hell do they put breathalisers in pubs then , yet yoy say they want us to make our own decisions. I am not a human BAC and thats why I would ask to be tested.

AHHH..! that's the problem, it SHOULD be about weather he thinks he's safe to drive or not, first and foremost.

Then, as a secondary but compulsary consideration weather he's under 0.05, to be honest even if he thinks he might be borderline DONT drive, just wait an hr, its not that hard to count drinks......

JC · 30-05-2010, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave289

jees theres some whingers on this forum.its not 0 its stay under 0.05. sad fact is I can have a few beers and IM STILL A MUCH SAFER DRIVER THAN A LOT OF THE MORONS i HAVE TO PUT UP WITH ON THE ROAD WHO HAVE HAD NOTHING TO DRINK ,WHINGE ALL YOU LIKE BUT THAT IS THE SAD FACT , BUT WE DONT GET THESE MORONS OFF THE ROAD DO WE.

THE GUY WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE IS SAFE, THEN BREATH TEST HIM, COULD NOT BE A MORE RESPONSIBLE REQUEST, 2 BEERS MIGHT NOT PUT ME OVER THE LIMIT BUT IT MIGHT PUT A 60 KILO WOMAN OVER.

How is expressing my opinion on the BAC a whinge? It isn't. I said for me, that's what it should be. I am a smoker and also feel that smokes should not be sold due to the damage they cause. Am I hypocritical? I don't think so - I wouldn't smoke if they weren't sold (I don't take drugs, so I think I can safely say I wouldn't smoke).

I recognise the limit is 0.05 and your yelled point (caps on) about the morons on the road is exactly my point - imagine these idiots with 0.05 under their skin; how much worse will they be? Assuming 0.05 is no impairment, some might say they're no worse, but 0.05 is recognised as a safe level of impairment.

Do I drive if I've had a few drinks - yes. I work out how many drinks I've had, and how many hours, and how I feel. If I'm the only one in the car, or I'm giving a lift to a mate who has also been drinking, I will drive if the counting drinks vs time thing says I should be right. I'm a big bloke, so the theory is the safe levels (2 per first hour, and one every hour after that) should be well and truly safe for me. If I have my family in the car, or I am with a mate who hasn't been drinking, then my sober wife (or mate) drives. Simple. If I go out with the intention of having a few, and I have a lot, I leave the car, cab it home, and pick up the car (assuming it's still there) the next day (usually in the afternoon).

Drink driving, and the choice not to, is all about personal responibility. It would be great to get a RBT before you drive, but I can understand why they police won't/can't do it. Apart from anything else, the "education" (ad) campaign is supposed to teach us how to be responsible, and the police are there to get us when we're not - that's their job. The fact that people still drive drunk (and that means over 0.05 for most, or 0.02 for pro drivers, or 0 for Learners etc) means the education campaigns are less than effective. Or maybe it just means some people don't care about what they do, or they are just complete idiots.

ToCo · 30-05-2010, 12:49 PM

Coming from a P-platers point of view, being able to check my Blood alcohol level before I drive, say the morning after a few drinks or maybe driving after having one drink is great, its peace of mind.
I have never driven directly after I have had a drink, or driven when I think I still have alcohol in my system, my job relies on my license, its not worth the risk.
Answer this. Would you rather someone get there blood alcohol level checked before they drive just to be safe? ( I know they should be %100 sure but we all know that some people don't think like that) Or... would you rather have someone take the risk (being denied getting there Blood Alcohol level checked) and end up causing an incident and possible death? Surely out of these 2 situation you would rather someone check there blood alcohol and find out that they can or can't drive...

TheInterceptor · 30-05-2010, 12:57 PM

So whats stopping people going to the shops and buying themsleves their own breathalyser?

gtxb67 · 30-05-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackBoss

Answer this. Would you rather someone get there blood alcohol level checked before they drive just to be safe? ( I know they should be %100 sure but we all know that some people don't think like that) Or... would you rather have someone take the risk (being denied getting there Blood Alcohol level checked) and end up causing an incident and possible death? Surely out of these 2 situation you would rather someone check there blood alcohol and find out that they can or can't drive...

you can check - buy yourself a tester and hope it is accurate. seriously, how would the average person get to an official breathalyser by walking up to it anyway. or should we make coppers stand out the front of every pub as a free service

it is not getting harder to be responsible. it is getting too easy to be irresponsible. the mean, nasty copper didn't give me a breath test before i started driving - it is his fault i crashed while under the influence

dave289 · 30-05-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

AHHH..! that's the problem, it SHOULD be about weather he thinks he's safe to drive or not, first and foremost.

Then, as a secondary but compulsary consideration weather he's under 0.05, to be honest even if he thinks he might be borderline DONT drive, just wait an hr, its not that hard to count drinks......

If you think you might be borderline ,when you might still be under might be the difference in paying a cabi $50 and then having to pay another $50 to go and have to pick it up the next day, when legally I could have driven, If they could have done a simple test within seconds for a tax paying, law abiding member of the public trying to do the right thing.do you see where I am coming from? and you say count drinks, like I said earlier a few beers might not put me over but someone 60 kilo may be a complete different story.

just another example for you ,I remember when my brothers mate went to the pub with us for the first time, he had never drank alcohol before, he had one beer and was ****ed, jumping around climing under the table, you would never have got in the car with him but legally he was safe to drive,yet I could have been over the limit and would have been a safer driver ,but thats the law ,one for all, allthough we all know when it comes to men and women there is one law for them and ANOTHER for us.

dave289 · 30-05-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

So whats stopping people going to the shops and buying themsleves their own breathalyser?

why should I go and buy one when there is one in the police station for which I HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR?

ToCo · 30-05-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxb67

you can check - buy yourself a tester and hope it is accurate. seriously, how would the average person get to an official breathalyser by walking up to it anyway. or should we make coppers stand out the front of every pub as a free service

it is not getting harder to be responsible. it is getting too easy to be irresponsible. the mean, nasty copper didn't give me a breath test before i started driving - it is his fault i crashed while under the influence

I am not saying there should be police out the front of clubs and pubs at all..
IF police happen to be there I don't see why people have a problem with others checking their Blood alcohol...

As for your last sentence about "The mean, nasty copper didn't give me a breath test before i started driving - it is his fault i crashed while under the influence." Thats just being facetious.

TheInterceptor · 30-05-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave289

why should I go and buy one when theRE is one in the police station for which I HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR?

So if the nearest station is 10kms away from where you are, what are you going to do?
A brethalyser will tell you then and there on the spot.

gtxb67 · 30-05-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackBoss

As for your last sentence about "The mean, nasty copper didn't give me a breath test before i started driving - it is his fault i crashed while under the influence." Thats just being facetious.

yes it was - it was not aimed at you, which is why there were extra returns in there
however, the way society is going although facetious, it is not far from the truth - if not the truth

there have been two very good reasons as to why the police cannot do it. that does not include the fact that to my knowledge, it is illegal in queensland and new south wales and probably all of the states. i do not see what the problem with being responsible while drinking or driving is

getting a breath test before driving is not responsible. making sure you are under the limit before driving is

dave289 · 30-05-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

So if the nearest station is 10kms away from where you are, what are you going to do?
A brethalyser will tell you then and there on the spot.

GET A BUS IF YOU HAVE TOO ,ITS A LOT CHEAPER THAN ONE THOSE TESTERS THAT MAY NOT BE ACCURATE AND THEN HAVE TO CALIBRATE EVERY SECOND MONTH.

dave289 · 30-05-2010, 01:29 PM

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.

ToCo · 30-05-2010, 01:32 PM

I didn't believe it was aimed at me, but I really don't think its right to be using that type of humour on such a serious issue... You seem to have slightly dim view of society, seeing as you 'almost' class all of us together with the people in society that clearly don't give a damn about their and others safety, while MOST of us try to and do the right thing.
I have twice asked for a breath test once leaving a club (the station only 100m away) I believe I did the right thing by doing this, and I don't know how people can have a problem with me making sure that my friends and myself were safe while driving home. I am sure that the police would argue the same point, they would much rather give someone a free breath test (If able to) than to see that person in a serious accident because they thought they were ok to drive but weren't.
Todd.

gtxb67 · 30-05-2010, 01:33 PM

not knowing what you have had to drink and what time frame is stupidity to me - pushing the limits is even more stupid in my opinion
i would think any smart person would know how long they have before driving and judge from there
or they would know how much they have had to drink and count the hours from there

either way, to drive right on the limit is a pretty stupid thing to do. it may cost you your job, and a whole lot of money and freedom. but that is the policemans fault because . . . .

ToCo · 30-05-2010, 01:35 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

ToCo · 30-05-2010, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxb67

not knowing what you have had to drink and what time frame is stupidity to me - pushing the limits is even more stupid in my opinion
i would think any smart person would know how long they have before driving and judge from there
or they would know how much they have had to drink and count the hours from there

either way, to drive right on the limit is a pretty stupid thing to do. it may cost you your job, and a whole lot of money and freedom. but that is the policemans fault because . . . .

You're right it is stupid in some cases. I only had 1 drink in the space of 3 hours, I believe it was responsible of me to check, especially when I have a 0 Blood Alcohol limit.
I think pushing the limit is wrong on this subject too, in no way am I condoning drink driving, all I am saying is that its great that these people want to check and be responsible.

uranium_death · 30-05-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave289

GET A BUS IF YOU HAVE TOO ,ITS A LOT CHEAPER THAN ONE THOSE TESTERS THAT MAY NOT BE ACCURATE AND THEN HAVE TO CALIBRATE EVERY SECOND MONTH.

Yep, and recalibration isn't cheap either, otherwise we'd all have one.

I cannot believe the responses here. People arguing and whining.

Fact remains that whether you drink and how much you drink is your own personal responsibility.

You need to know your own limits. If you don't, then don't take the risk.

If you're under the influence, it is not the policeperson's fault they did not test you. It is your fault that you got behind the wheel after exceeding your own limits, as well as the law's.

People are always looking for a way to legitimise passing on responsibility to other people, but that is how we created this litigious society we live in today. How many of you people are happy about that?

BOSHOG · 30-05-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackBoss

You're right it is stupid in some cases. I only had 1 drink in the space of 3 hours, I believe it was responsible of me to check, especially when I have a 0 Blood Alcohol limit.
I think pushing the limit is wrong on this subject too, in no way am I condoning drink driving, all I am saying is that its great that these people want to check and be responsible.

i dont see the point in having 1 drink, its not like alcohol tastes good. if youre worried about driving home, just drink coke

uranium_death · 30-05-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOSHOG

i dont see the point in having 1 drink, its not like alcohol tastes good. if youre worried about driving home, just drink coke

One drink is healthy.
When I have a drink at home, I have one drink with my dinner, which I enjoy immensely.
Last night I had my first scotch for ages...really enjoyed it.

For some, one drink is enough. It is appreciated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackBoss

I think pushing the limit is wrong on this subject too, in no way am I condoning drink driving, all I am saying is that its great that these people want to check and be responsible.

It's just passing the buck. If the police allow people just to talk in and test to make sure, what happens when somebody goes over the limit and in court says, 'there were no police around to allow me to test my BAC.'

The complications that may arise are simply not worth it.

The only solution is to take personal responsiblity. It is that simple. That is not negotiable.

ToCo · 30-05-2010, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOSHOG

i dont see the point in having 1 drink, its not like alcohol tastes good. if youre worried about driving home, just drink coke

I had planned to keep drinking but something came up during the night so I decided to stop....

@ Uranium. I don't think you quite understand what I am saying, I am not supporting people that try to "pass the buck." I am simply saying that IF you have the chance there is no problem with checking, as I said before I don't condone drink driving, I have lost a close friend to a drink driving incident, that in itself made me never want to risk it.
I am also not condoning people that can't find a police officer willing to test them trying to wiggle out of not being responsible and drink driving.

Isn't checking your BAC responsible??

flooded one · 30-05-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP owner

I still think that it is a service and an opportunity for education to test someone who is not driving.
If you are under - they can say it was great that you erred on the side of caution, but to remember that just 1 more drink could put you over.
If you are over - they can say it was great that you were not driving, and a walk is great to work off the effects, and it always pay to err on the side of caution.
This could only build rapport, and it is providing education and safety measures.

I agree. it would also help people get more of an idea when they are over the limit. there has been times when i have had a 2 - 3 beers in an hr and questioned wether i am alright too drive. i might feel fine at the time but theres always that possibllity i could be over. so i end up not driving just too be safe.

I dont see the harm in it (breath testing people who want too know there BAC)