Under the affluence of incahol

[JC]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

I voted 0.02, I don't see the need to be able to have a couple of drinks and drive, if you know your having a couple or more, walk, cab it or organise another way home, there is no excuses in my book. ........

Agree with this, and something I practice (I know, I know, good for me!) If you choose to buy a drink and you also want to drive, make it a case/slab/6 pack/bottle of spirit, and take it home, then consume it.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Yeah all nice and fluffy but not the point. Why do we have any laws?

That little gang you mentioned, they are subject to limits on their actions and choices. They cant for example take your car, or hit you over the head. This happens, but we have laws that limit the action of individuals where they cross over into someone elses life. Funny thing, some of those groups of youths, wouldnt hit you over the head or steal your car. They are still subject to the limits.

We have a law - .05. Black and White. Stick to it, or don't.

We have laws to set limits. These limits are the controls.

However, I see no merit in lowering the BAC to .02 because the biggest problem with drinkers are the ones that go out and get hammered and have a massively high BAC.

You don't hear of the people 'Only a little bit over' because they either get nabbed, or they make it home. I would love to see what percentage of drink-drivers involved in accidents are .05.

.05 is a safe level. It allows for people to exercise caution and also maintain some level of control. The rest is up to the individual.

The government should not have to tell us how to manage every aspect of our lives.

If people at driving under the BAC allowance of .05 cannot ensure that that they are under when they do drink, then they should make the choice themselves and either drink less, or not drink at all. The government should not have to tell me to monitor my own behaviour. That is what being responsible is all about.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by fmc351

You mean those interlocks they had in the 70's and 80's?

Interlocks in Aus are a new thing. Oh, and the interlocks will likely be a privatised thing. Unlike fines, there would be little justification for governments to claim a piece of that action considering the costs associated would be the installers.

70s? Was there even random breath testing back then? How would they know you where a "drink driver" unless you where seriously affected? It was common to sink a few at a pub then go driving back then, Dad tells me about it all the time.

If it was OK back then, why isn't it OK now?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

We have a law - .05. Black and White. Stick to it, or don't.

We also have a law about killing people.... but some of us just take the pis with that one too.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

However, I see no merit in lowering the BAC to .02 because the biggest problem with drinkers are the ones that go out and get hammered and have a massively high BAC.

Read my other posts, I never said lower it. I also stated Ive blown .02 without a touching a drop for months. I would not support 00.

I was referring to the notion we make choices, and govco shouldnt be involved. Yes, I paraphrased it. I gave the reasons why govco needs to be involved, BAC is definitely one of those places.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

70s? Was there even random breath testing back then? How would they know you where a "drink driver" unless you where seriously affected? It was common to sink a few at a pub then go driving back then, Dad tells me about it all the time.

If it was OK back then, why isn't it OK now?

It used to be a plastic bag with a tube on it that turned ??green??? in the presence of alcohol, not the wang fangled thing I was asked to count into.


Hey, what? You want me to what? I was looking for the part to blow into it.


It used to be OK to dump a potty full of the nights **** and turds in the gutter. If it was OK then why isnt it now?

[ThaFlash]

Originally Posted by flappist

There seems to be a small but very vocal group pushing the 0 agenda.....

Bit scary that idea as there is also a small but very vocal mob that want all performance cars banned outright as they are not needed and are always on the new in crashes.
Of course I thank that THEY are narrow minded do-gooders as they do not really understand the big picture and just want to save whole world and I like driving performance cars.

flappist at the start of your own thread you said attack the concept or similar and not the person...

i would ask you to do the same, follow your own rules within your own limited paramaters...

perhaps we should lower the bac for keyboard typing...

i am signing out of this thread....

[flappist]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

flappist at the start of your own thread you said attack the concept or similar and not the person...

i would ask you to do the same, follow your own rules within your own limited paramaters...

perhaps we should lower the bac for keyboard typing...

i am signing out of this thread....

Interesting that you edited out the line where I asked for any evidence.

The concept I was attacking was that a small yet vocal group trying to push their agenda without any actual evidence to support it can be a dangerous thing and used a metaphor to help illustrate my point.

Are you signing out because you have reassessed your position or because you have no evidence and therefore cannot support it?

[ThaFlash]

I am signing out because I have done my dash, as I usually do.

I don't want to stray off topic, you proved to me and everyone else you can't follow the rules or if you like your own LAW about attacking people rather than the concept.

I know 2 people that have killed 4.5 people due to drink driving, whether that is evidence or not I don't know, you can decide that, after all it's your thread and you rule it with an iron fist and manipulate it anyway you like by editing your own posts.

As I said earlier I am open minded and I enjoy everyone's oponion an input.

I believe (judging by the vote) the .05 limit seems to be a case of, if aint broke don't fix it.

I have no complaints, apart from the ops corruption, it's a pretty good thread....

FINAL NOTE: No one is pushing agendas here, you invited us here to vote, we did and gave our opinions and you insult a small minority....

[fordman302]

I don't belive there is anything wrong with .05, like others i have also lost a relative that was well and truly over the limit and at no stage did i think "gee, if we had .00 that wouldnt have happened"
Taking the limit down to .00 just removes the desision from responsible adults who like to have a drink with thier meal at the pub.
As others have posted there are so many other factors that could improve the road toll, defensive/more thourough driver training and compusary yearly roadworthy inspections should be at the top of the list.
I bet the woman driving down the wrong side of a 50km/h street in a country town today wouldnt blow .05 but i reckon she really could have benefitted from some better training........

[Silver Ghia]

Yep, 0.05 is a realistic limit with a conservative margin (judging by the fact some other locations worldwide have a 0.08 limit). If you're over the limit, your judgement can be impaired to an unreasonable extent, below and you should be OK to drive still. 0.05 has been established over many years now as the reasonable limit.

Drunk drivers who have killed due to alcohol in their blood system (as opposed to those where other factors that may have been the primary cause of the collision) would most likely have been well over the 0.05 limit, how is going to 0.02 prevent these drunks from driving when they cant comply with 0.05? Whats the point of lowering the blood alcohol level to 0.02 then?

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

So, if brewers or winemakers are unable to get to and from work, who makes the alcohol you drink?

No one said they can't get to or from work, they just can't drive while over the limit like everyone else.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

I am signing out because I have done my dash, as I usually do.

I don't want to stray off topic, you proved to me and everyone else you can't follow the rules or if you like your own LAW about attacking people rather than the concept.

I know 2 people that have killed 4.5 people due to drink driving, whether that is evidence or not I don't know, you can decide that, after all it's your thread and you rule it with an iron fist and manipulate it anyway you like by editing your own posts.

As I said earlier I am open minded and I enjoy everyone's oponion an input.

I believe (judging by the vote) the .05 limit seems to be a case of, if aint broke don't fix it.

I have no complaints, apart from the ops corruption, it's a pretty good thread....

FINAL NOTE: No one is pushing agendas here, you invited us here to vote, we did and gave our opinions and you insult a small minority....

Getting a bit wound up here.

Manipulate by editing posts? What does that mean?

Oh you are referring to my changing a line immediately after typing it to make it a bit more clear as the majority here are not familiar with aviation practices and law.

You have made several rather flippant and unsubstantiated points and now when I have made a general observation about a position taken by several different presenters you take it as a personal attack and have a little dummy spit.

No one supporting the 0 argument has come up with any evidence to support that position other than emotion while several have proffered evidence that it would be unworkable.

The most amusing argument in favour of 0 is that truck drivers and P platers are coping with it without issue.
Well truck drivers have a 100 limiter and P platers are not allowed powerful cars so using that logic if EVERYONE was limited to 100 and turbos/V8 prohibited outright for all drivers then the roads would be much safer.

Is that your position too?

Just to make it more obvious:

My personal position is I would like 0.08 but realise that this is probably a bit high for some so 0.05 may be a better choice.
0 is completely unworkable as has been found almost everywhere it has been applied.
0.02 is a bit low as in Australia we have a social history that includes alcohol as an integral part and there is far too much isolation and community dissolution already.

Now I am sure others disagree and I am quite open to any actual evidence to support a differing position.

e.g. Saying that 0 works for truck drivers is like saying that every house in Switzerland has a machine gun...... Does not automatically apply to all situations or places.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by flappist

My personal position is I would like 0.08 but realise that this is probably a bit high for some so 0.05 may be a better choice.

So, 0.05% becomes the limit and anything over that has some repercussions - be they a fine, some measure of loss of driving rights or loss of liberty.

If the range is between 0.05% & 0.08%, the driver is subjected to a FST (field sobriety test) and sent on his way if he passes and his BAC is determined to be diminishing - albeit with some sort of reprimand (perhaps a probation, fine or point loss).

Fail the FST, have a rising BAC or be over 0.08% - cop some severe punishment.

I'll take that, I invented it and I'll stand by it when I'm in charge.

[Yellow_Festiva]

I voted for .08

Why?? If it was like that here at one stage as well as overseas then I don't see why it needs to get lowered.

Having said that, I would like to see any studdies showing the difference in accidents between the .05 and .08 limits?

I'm very much against 0 tolerance. Too many factors out of the control of the driver may create a false positive reading. (bit like making speed limits the law with no tolerance for manufacturer / mechanical error).

Also, there is no escaping the fact that we are generally a nation of recreational drinkers. Having a 0.0 limit will create more trouble than it's worth in terms of tieing up police time etc.

We already drive on egg shells in fear of getting done for going a few kays over the speed limit!

Perhaps a tiered system??? .08 if on full licence with more than 10 years experience and then .05 if you have been a naughty driver and have been caught over .08?

[SSD-85]

0.05 was my choice. Its been effective in maintaining a safe level of orientation whilst driving that works for practically everyone (unless your unlucky enough to become disorientated off less than 0.05). It easily facilitates the "accidental" presence of alcohol at a level thats deemed to be neglible consumption (eg: 0.02 is such a finite presence, its almost like 0.00).

I used the word accidental specificallly referring to the following:

Someone who has had 1 standard drink, no more. Anything beyond that I deem to be irresponsible in light of the person being aware they need to drive within that timeframe.
Or as Flappist has pointed out, people in positions of being indirectly exposed to situations that cause a positive BAC reading.

However I do agree with the idea of severe treatment of those who dont get the message and insist on driving over 0.05.

[kezzer]

zero level is plain stupid. It means I'd have to wait 2 or so hours till i could leave from work. 6am-7pm would be ******** lol.

People that want to drink drive will drink drive. Lowering the limit will do nothing but fill the governments coffers.

Fatigue has a much higher impact on driving. Fix that first, then come back to alco

[Ben73]

Alcoholics and idiots have no regard for the law. Doesn't matter if the law is 00 02 05 or 08. Either way they will still polish off a entrie bottle of vodka then drive. Lowering the limit is just making it harder for normal responsible people.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Lowering the limit will do nothing but fill the governments coffers.

Probably...

In my case, I get paid to eat and drink. My cabs are all paid for whenever I want them entirely at my discretion. If 0.02% was introduced, I would more regularly use cabs so therefore they would miss out on my petrol excise. Given that I have never been booked for DUI, they would make a nett loss on me.

If that meant two or three times a week I used a cab, they would miss out on the taxes of around 18l of juice (and any speeding/parking fines I may acrue). That translates into approximately $10 of taxes they miss from me every week or $500pa. I guess an upside is that I would be more likely to drink a little more when I'm entertaining and they could pick up a little of their losses there.... but they will pay for my liver transplant when I need it.

[ThaFlash]

we can go tit for tat all day and night, you obviously can't remain true to your own words, so i will.

I voted zero based on my reasons in earlier posts, i have 4.5 dead people as my evidence caused by 2 people that i know intimately.

you have the casa the sky police and way too much time on hands hehehe....

Originally Posted by flappist

The idea is to DISCUSS it, please if you disagree, attack the point not the presenter.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

There seems to be a small but very vocal group pushing the 0 agenda.

How about some evidence showing that drivers with BAC 0.01-0.049 have ACTUALLY been involved in a significant number of fatal accidents.......

Or should it be so just because you think it should?

Bit scary that idea as there is also a small but very vocal mob that want all performance cars banned outright as they are not needed and are always on the new in crashes.
Of course I thank that THEY are narrow minded do-gooders as they do not really understand the big picture and just want to save whole world and I like driving performance cars.

Some really good points there.

I guess I have an advantage in this discussion from the end user point of view as I have two alcohol limits that apply to me.

At work I have a zero limit as all emergency services workers in QLD do and in my day to day personal driving of course my limit is 0.05.

To be honest I am dead against lowering the limit below 0.05 and strongly believe it should remain as it is, even more against raising it. I drink very rarely and with my work it is even more difficult for me to have an opportunity to have "a good night". I have had many occasions where I have been out to a function or party and even though I am not driving I can not have more than a few as I have to work the next day. I am not complaining about that at all, it is part of my job and I agree with the reasoning, in our job we have to make life threatening/saving decisions and we have to drive vehicles far outside the conditions of the normal road user.

Having said all that, on the rare occasion that Tori and I get to go out for dinner with friends, I would like to have a beer when I do. Tori and I are pretty traditional, the male drives when we are in the car together. Tori also likes to have a few drinks that involve bright colours and little umbrella's, although it is only a few it may nudge her over 0.05. I like to have a beer but I am very responsible about it, over the 3-4 hrs we are out I usually have 2 premium light beers and a couple of softies. I don't have the beers because I want to feel the effects of the alcohol, I have them because I like the taste and it is a treat for me. If the alcohol limit was lowered to 0.02 I would lose that ability, but for what gain?

The simple fact is that it has been proven that at a BAC below 0.05 the effect on driving ability is negligible. In my experience, although this is purely anecdotal, all crashes involving alcohol occur at BAC's much higher than 0.05. Once you get to BAC's of 0.08 and higher that is where the dumb choices start being made such as running the red, overtaking on bends, overtaking on the left etc. In the lower BAC's the crashes appear to be caused more from inattention than anything else, the same popular reason for crashes when no BAC is involved.

I strongly believe those that drive with BAC's of 0.05 and higher have a disregard for the law, lowering the limit to 0.02 is not going to change that as they will just disregard a lower limit. I see absolutely no point in punishing those that are doing the right thing (like myself and many of my friends), when the true culprits will take no notice anyway.

I strongly support stiffer penalties for alcohol offences, penalties that are more effective at making the offender take notice and remember the experience.

Now I have not thought too much about this and my ideas may not be too well thought out but I will throw them out there anyway. How about first offence any BAC over 0.05 results in 12 month loss of license. Second offence results in a 3 year ban and subsequent fitting of alcohol lock outs to their car as a condition on their license when they get it back. 3rd offence results in custodial sentence of 2-3 years but 2 years minimum. Any person caught driving on a suspended license automatically gets a custodial sentence of 2-3 years. Any offender that has done a custodial sentence for drink driving offences and subsequently offends again, is again gaoled and on their release are then prohibited from consuming or purchasing alcohol and subject to random alcohol screens.

My point is, why should the responsible road users be punished for the actions of irresponsible users, when the offenders will not abide by the new rules anyway. Punish the offenders, not the rest.

[302 XC]

Saying "0" will work due to some deaths ???
Lets ban anything that has caused a death then
100% Smoking
100% Drinking
100% Drugs
100% driver fatigue (we check this how ???)
Asbestos,The Sun,Guns whatever

If a speeding car caused a death,what was the speed it was doin,then ban all cars that can do that speed
A mate is now a quadraplegic due a non attentive driver (drove into him)
So what then ban non attentive drivers ???
There has to be a happy medium ,and 0.05 is it
People can be under that limit and show an inability to control a car
Even be a tad over 0.05 , then get to sit for a while or be taken to the cop shop for a 2nd test,yep you can ask for a 2nd test
So the first test is 0.052 ,but the second test is 0.048 your under
Does that make it any better ???

[TS50]

The argument is that alchaol is too much of a factor in our road toll
The problem being is that those accidents occur where the driver is over the .05 limit and shouldnt be driving
Therefore by dropping it to .02 will not stop these people
All it will do is make it hard for someone like me, and you, and you to have a beer and drive home legally
Again a law being touted for the lowest common denominator, but his law will not stop those same lowest common denominator from drink driving
Meanwhile all people that sensible and dont flout the law now, will be penalised even more

[MAD]

Almost the exact same argument could be had about speeding and the allowance before being pinged.
The majority of deaths due to speed are due to speeds a long way over the posted limit. Yet the majority of fines handed out are for minor infringements (5-10km over) yet the representation of these people in crash statistics are next to nothing.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by MAD

Almost the exact same argument could be had about speeding and the allowance before being pinged.
The majority of deaths due to speed are due to speeds a long way over the posted limit. Yet the majority of fines handed out are for minor infringements (5-10km over) yet the representation of these people in crash statistics are next to nothing.

But that is about having a clearly defined line in the sand.

To suggest having a speed allowance of 5-10 km/h over the limit is like saying the BAC limit is 0.05 but you will not get fined or lose your license at 0.07 because it is just a couple over. The end result is people will start treating 0.07 as the limit, just like they used to treat 70 km/h as the true limit in a 60 km/h zone.

People will not look at the figure outlined in the law, they look at what they can get away with.

[TS50]

Originally Posted by MAD

Almost the exact same argument could be had about speeding and the allowance before being pinged.
The majority of deaths due to speed are due to speeds a long way over the posted limit. Yet the majority of fines handed out are for minor infringements (5-10km over) yet the representation of these people in crash statistics are next to nothing.

Again its about making a rule for the lowest common denominator, and again those who are the problem continually flout that rule, while the rest of us get penalised

[RedHotGT]

I would still like to know how anyone can logically justify increasing the risk of driving on the road???

Disclaimer - This is NOT based on stastiscs - but hypothetical...

If you knew that you were more likely to have an accident (lets say 25% more likely) would you have 1 drinks and drive??
If you knew that you were more likely to have an accident by 40% would you have 2 drinks and drive??
If you knew that you were more likely to have an accident by 60% would you have 3 drinks and drive??

What part would you say that having that one drink, or one drink extra - was worth that risk?

I know i'd rather not increase the chances of a crash - and stay alive/injury free... for the sake of 1 drink...

Maybe you don't value your life as much as I do??

[ThaFlash]

I just got off the phone to the 2 people I know intimately that killed 4.5 persons while driving drunk.....

I ask them both the follwing question:

If the BAC was zero, would you have still drank alcohol at the party (both were leaving parties) and drove home that fateful night?

Person 1 (Male). Would have caught a cab to the party and then cab home.
Person 2 (Female). Would have just stayed the night.

Neither of these people are notorious drinkers but count their drinks, no criminal records, good driving records bar a couple of speeding fines and parking fines and for the most part law abiding citizens, with significanlty awsome jobs/careers.

Both were over 35 years of age at the time.

I have got irrefutable evidence and proof that those 2 would have adjusted their drinking habbits had there been a 0 BAC law.

I rest my case!

[sarrge2001]

In the NT the limit is .05. But between .05 & .08, it's a fine and a couple of demerit points (at least for the first offence).

This came about because those in power in the NT objected to being told by the Australian Government to reduce their limits from .08 to .05 or they would miss out on road funding.

I don't actually think that's a bad way of doing it - exceed .05 inadvertantly and you get the slap on the wrist the first time and hopefully learn your lesson. After that or over .08 and all bets are off!!!

[TS50]

By using that logic, you would never leave the house
If you knew by leaving the house you were 25% more likely of picking up someone elses germs
would you leave?
etc etc
Every part of life is a risk, and yes we all determine how we evaluate and take those risks, but it dosnt mean we value our life any less than you