Under the affluence of incahol

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Your argument is also weakened by the fact that you have not disclosed what their actual BAC was. If it was 0.055 we could understand somewhat where you are coming from and maybe even agree with you as that would demonstrate that they made an error but with respect to the law it was a minor one. If they had a BAC of 0.09 for example, we are not likely to have the same opinion as they were considerably over and it was not just a small error. I know what my assumptions are but I think I will keep that to myself and allow you fair opportunity to consider this and reply. I am not saying I have a strong suspicion they were over by a lot, I am just saying that the lack of information leads to assumptions.

This is true. You need to tell the whole story otherwise we wont get where you are coming from.

HP4ME you asked these people you know if the limit was 0.00% would they still of drove. Well of course they are going to say no. They crashed and killed people, do you really think they would of said "Yeah I still would of drove" They probably regret that decision to drive, everyday
So ask them if the limit was still 0.05% and they could go back and do it again, would they? I bet they will answer NO, even if that thought they were under at the time.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by loftie

True - my hypotheticals were based on no statistics...

But using the above information - it is possible for someone between .03 and .05 (legally allowed to drive) to have a reduced level of judgement and control and have impaired sensory-motor skills...

Alcohol effects everyone differently... as we know there is no set 'forumula' that is 100% accurate... If I have 1 beer, and you have 1 beer chances are that our BAC will be different based on metabolism, weight, etc etc...

So again - why allow the risk? The roads are dangerous enough for day to day driving... So why do we - as a society - allow the increased risk to be acceptable?

We don't allow truck drivers or bus drivers the same allowance on the road...
We don't allow pilots or sailors the same allowance in the air or at sea...
We don't allow forklift drivers, machinery operators, etc the same allowance at the workplace/jobsite...

And in most cases - the above mentioned 'professional' operators have had extra training and more experience...

So why do we allow joe average take the extra risk??

Some good points there and some rep points to you.

Taking into account the reported effects of a BAC of >0.03 perhaps a change in laws of a low grade offence with a fine and points at greater than 0.03 would be acceptable and a higher grade punishment with loss of license at levels greater than 0.05 would be a good idea.

Just an idea and just throwing it out there. Personally I would not care as a level of 0.03 would still allow me to have my valued couple of light beers with friends, I could live with that and I feel that would be completely acceptable.

PS Change that, I wanted to give you rep points but I gave you some recently so I can't.

[302 XC]

Gecko,
Many of your comments are well worth reading
As has been the case on many occasions

What i cant and never will understand is this,
People make mistakes ,why we do well who knows
We just do
But it is all good to sit back after the fact ,say how easy it would have been to do different

How many people have a drink or two and still think "Nah im fine"

There are many people out there who drink and drive , even while driving the sip of liquor happens
Its only when they are caught would it maybe sink in
Till then they will continue on their bad habits

How many people seriously know they are over or close and still take the risk ???
Maybe a different way home perhaps

[ThaFlash]

gecko i apoligise to you i was out of line mate.

there are a lot of resourceful people here and I dont want anyone to figure out which incidents they were out of respect of the dead and their families, one of my married into family members and another a family friend.

Let's just say they both over the limit as far as the law goes, they were observing the 1 drink per hour guide as they had always done and had always obeyed the law.

I am sure and I believe them, had the law been 0 bac, they would not have driven and i base that on their characters. (but like gecko said my judgement maybe compromised becasue i know them.)

the zero limit for me in their case may have taken the guess work out of their 1 drink per hour guide, just a total miscalculation on their behalf.

i personally drive with 0 bac, i am unable to keep track of 1 drink per hour after about 5 or 6 hours, i just can't do it.

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Ok, I do see your point and actually agree to an extent.

Now lets consider this, if having a car stereo on provided enough of a distraction to increase your risk of crash more than a BAC of 0.03%, would you suggest car stereos be banned also?

What if having less than a documented and proven 8 hrs sleep prior to any driving was proven to increase your risk of crash more than a BAC >0.02%, would you support law enforcement monitoring of our sleep habits.

My question is, at what point does this all stop and the onus is put back on the public to behave with some responsibility?

I was going to write regarding your first reply to me about banning 'everything' but then i read this... ;)

I agree 100% that the onus SHOULD be on the public to behave, be responsible for their own lives, as well as everyone around them...

But as you yourself have witnessed dozens of times this year - it doesn't happen that way.

Sadly - we as a society are always looking for someone to blame when something goes wrong... Be it on the road, at work, at home, anywhere...

How did our society evolve that way? Is it because we've become lazy? Is it because we're too busy?? Is it because we're too selfish???

Interestingly - this thread was about one law - and even our most popular result at the moment only has 50% of the vote (much like our government)...

If we can't all agree on one simple law... no wonder we can't all behave acceptably as a group in society...

[fmc351]

One thing I havent noticed addressed, what are the changes in thinking process between .05 and .08 about how close to the limit you are. Not the obvious concerns about driving skills and reflexes. The simple notion of deciding if youre over the limit. Seems people struggle at .05, I cant imagine its gets better at .08. Remember society is a lot of people, laws need to cover all people as best it can, individual experience is hardly relevant when setting a legal standard.

We all know the concept of dutch courage, how and at what point does that kick in?

Originally Posted by geckoGT

...what we smell, taste, feel and sometimes our nightmares. ....

Say what?

[TS50]

Originally Posted by loftie

I agree 100% that the onus SHOULD be on the public to behave, be responsible for their own lives, as well as everyone around them...

But as you yourself have witnessed dozens of times this year - it doesn't happen that way.

Sadly - we as a society are always looking for someone to blame when something goes wrong... Be it on the road, at work, at home, anywhere...

How did our society evolve that way? Is it because we've become lazy? Is it because we're too busy?? Is it because we're too selfish???

Interestingly - this thread was about one law - and even our most popular result at the moment only has 50% of the vote (much like our government)...

If we can't all agree on one simple law... no wonder we can't all behave acceptably as a group in society...

I believe we came this way because as a society we are "very selfish"
No one wants to share, be that knowledge or whatever.
But this selfishness has come due to a lack of respect
The lack of respect for people, laws, property, you name it
My job makes me spend alot of time in supermakrkets, and to see the way 1 and 2 y.o. kids are spoken to by their parents, hos do we expect these kids to have any respect when they grow up?
Its a circle that is getting worse with each generation, I just wish there was an answer to it

But untill there is an answer, our politicians (god belss them) will keep making laws for the lowest common denominator

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by loftie

If we can't all agree on one simple law... no wonder we can't all behave acceptably as a group in society...

Awesome. Its this, we dont act as a society, everyone jumps on the "Im an individual" bandwagon, "its up to indivduals, therefore I should be allowed to do blah blah". 'We could be killed crossing the street", 'you may as well wrap in cotton wool" and on and on. Saying that in some circumstances have merit, but are usually incorrectly dragged out to defend ignoring personal responsibility, part of the social compact between citizens and government.

We are a society, and we impact others, they impact us. The law does not have the capacity to be flexible to suit everyones individual makeup, besides, over time that individual makeup changes, eye sight, hearing all the things that happen naturally as we age, and no Im not talking in your 80's.

The law must reflect the best fit for society, not individuals.


If we as individuals could grasp that, maybe there would be a different result for society.

Originally Posted by TS50

But untill there is an answer, our politicians (god belss them) will keep making laws for the lowest common denominator

Its closer to a middle denominator, and thats a good thing, because we dont have to depend on the very dregs of society to effect a positive change.

If we as individuals lift out game, then the governments can have some room to move on things. The Value of the middle denominator lifts.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by loftie

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 have a 1:1,000,000 chance of having an accident sober, and you increased that likliehood by 25%, you now have a 1:750,000 chance of having a crash. Percentages don't tell a real story because there is only 100 of them.

Originally Posted by HP4ME

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.

Of course they would.... now. What else would you expect them to say now?

[Yellow_Festiva]

lol...

I must have read the thread title a dozen times since starting and only just realised that alcohol is spelt incorrectly....

And I haven't had a drink.... honest!

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

lol...

I must have read the thread title a dozen times since starting and only just realised that alcohol is spelt incorrectly....

And I haven't had a drink.... honest!

If you look real close you might also notice influence spelt incorrectly as well

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

If you look real close you might also notice influence spelt incorrectly as well

Affluence was a play on words, while incahol was simply drunken twaddle. He could have used effluence too.

[SSD-85]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Affluence was a play on words, while incahol was simply drunken twaddle. He could have used effluence too.

Im as judge as a sober occifer, honest!

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

If you look real close you might also notice influence spelt incorrectly as well

Oh dear... My God man you are right!...

Under... check, the.. yup correct and of... ok the rest seem ok to me.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Affluence was a play on words, while incahol was simply drunken twaddle. He could have used effluence too.

Or I could have just used the traditional spoonerism that has appeared in various broadcast and written media for decades.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe...16621ab339de25

[kezzer]

As gecko said... less then 1% (in his opinion) of road accidents are attributed to alcohol. If this is the case (assume it is for a second), wouldn't it be much more worth our while to focus on the other 99%?? I doubt speeding would be the main attribute to anything over 10%. (again just assuming)

Alcohol and speeding recieve too much attention in relativity to it's effect on the road toll.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by flappist

Or I could have just used the traditional spoonerism that has appeared in various broadcast and written media for decades.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe...16621ab339de25

So it was effluence.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by kezzer

As gecko said... less then 1% (in his opinion) of road accidents are attributed to alcohol. If this is the case (assume it is for a second), wouldn't it be much more worth our while to focus on the other 99%?? I doubt speeding would be the main attribute to anything over 10%. (again just assuming)

Alcohol and speeding recieve too much attention in relativity to it's effect on the road toll.

That was my point, too much focus on what are now probably small contributors of the overall sum of crashes.

Speed and alcohol receive a lot of attention as they normally go together, resulting in large crashes with big results. The thing is big crashes with large results are actually a minute portion of the overall number of crashes.

Unfortunately it is the crashes that cause the most damage that get the most attention, resulting the public getting a false impression of what the problem is.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by fmc351

"This, is lucky Phil."

Phil's just won the lottery...
I"ll bet he's spewin nowadays that he sold that XU1.

I'm going to go for .02 as I believe when it comes to incahol and driving, never the twain shall meet.
I'll allow .02 as asides from above mentioned factors some quite unexpected things can ferment in the stomach and give you a BAC reading (a coconut Cherry Ripe and and a Buffalo Bill ice cream are two proven examples), but I'm disturbed to see some people thinking "well I can still have one drink every hour" as I think the point of the reduced limit is that it would discourage any amount of drinking and driving.
It might even help reduce the drinking culture we've got in this country.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

0.03 - 0.12 increased self-confidence; decreased inhibitions. Diminution of attention, judgment and control. Beginning of sensory-motor impairment. Loss of efficiency in finer performance tests.

I know it's a broad range going all the way up to .12, but it can start at a lowly .03 and I don't see any of the above qualities being of benefit when you put a ton and a half of steel on the freeway and get it moving at 100kph.
I think it should also be noted that the diminution of judgment also applies to your judgment regarding how affected by the alcohol you feel.

edit: I only just noticed the poll doesn't have a ".08+, but I'm only just going 'round the corner to the bottle shop for another six pack" option.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by WMD351

Phil's just won the lottery...
I"ll bet he's spewin nowadays that he sold that XU1.

Thats the one.

I recall he had to sell the car to pay the fines, and his legal fees. Lost his job, girlfriend is now shtuping his mate or something as he has no future etc. Maybe the GF wasnt part of it, I dont know. Be funnier if it was though.

Originally Posted by WMD351

I'll allow .02 as asides from above mentioned factors some quite unexpected things can ferment in the stomach and give you a BAC reading (a coconut Cherry Ripe and and a Buffalo Bill ice cream are two proven examples), ...

That may explain mine. Ive always been partial to a Cherry Ripe, and on road trips they are often part of the diet at servos. I know I was riding from Byron Bay to Melbourne so its likely.

Originally Posted by WMD351

I think it should also be noted that the diminution of judgment also applies to your judgment regarding how affected by the alcohol you feel.

I mentioned dutch courage and beer goggles as examples of that. If people who are at .06, and lets face it thats not ****ed, end up on the road genuinely believing they are under .05, then what hope do they have at a limit of .08 when they are actually .1 or a bit more? Decisions get worse the higher you go, not better. So now we have a more on the road at .09, or .1, those who would get done at .06 otherwise, or get away with it without really adding too much risk to other drivers. However, at .09, that safety buffer when not caught, is gone.

[MO]

We could adopt the N.T. law that is;0.05 to 0.08 is an on the spot fine,you blow above 0.08 and kiss your ticket to drive goodbye.

Or there is a Nordic country that has zero tolerance and if you get done for BAC its instant jail time no ifs,buts or maybe you go straight to jail. I'm not sure of the time inside but six months rings a bell for your first offence.

[Auturbo6]

It's illegal to drive wilst under the influence of drugs, but it's legal to drink drive, BUT ONLY TO A LIMIT!!! How anyone can actually be sure of how close or over the limit they actually are is not possible. Those over the counter breatherlisers are notoriously unreliable. So the only true indicator of blood alcohol content is in the hands of the local police. This .05 or .08 deal is ridiculous, 0.00 is the only fair way to go. The police will use personal judgement on cases that go say 0.01 or 02, as medical circumstances are a contributing factor.

[tex]

sobriety test should have some relevance imo.

I know a couple of people that are as useless as bat sheet on two drinks, and they would be under .05.

[StrokedXT]

should be zero tolerance and a zero blood alcohol level, it affects your ability to react to things in even low levels, and aussies are bad enough drivers straight.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by StrokedXT

should be zero tolerance and a zero blood alcohol level, it affects your ability to react to things in even low levels, and aussies are bad enough drivers straight.

Tests differ but most show no effect under 0.06 BAC.

[302 XC]

Cant ever see the BAC rising ,ever
It mite,mite go lower ,but there will be a public out cry
It effects too many in different ways
Peoples frame size has been prooven to have a different effect from the grog
So what do we do
People under 50 KG have a different BAC as those over 50KG
Then those 100KG have a different and higher BAC as a 50 KG person
That then stems the "Discrimination" rubbish
To skull say 3-4 jimmies,blow in BAC tester at the pub and readout is fine
But 30-45 mins later the effect kicks in
Does that say oh at the pub i was fine to drive ???

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

To skull say 3-4 jimmies,blow in BAC tester at the pub and readout is fine
But 30-45 mins later the effect kicks in
Does that say oh at the pub i was fine to drive ???

No, because what you were at the pub does not count, it is what you are while you are driving.

The charge is driving under the influence of alcohol, not walking out of the pub under the influence of alcohol.

[302 XC]

Yep,
Thats right gecko
But i wonder how many stagger to the BAC tester readout is fine (or close )
And go drive thinking they are fine

[geckoGT]

That is why in nearly all the guides, they explain that depending on when the last drink was and how many, the BAC reading may increase as alcohol is absorbed. Any one that skulls the last couple, has a glass of water and then does the test thinking it will remain accurate is a fool and deserves to lose their license.

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by tex

I know a couple of people that are as useless as bat sheet on two drinks, and they would be under .05.

Agreed Tex thats what i was trying to say in my earlier post, the affect a drink or two can have on some peoples driving ability/mindset while driving mindblowing.