Under the affluence of incahol - Page 2

ThaFlash · 09-12-2010, 03:53 PM

excelent and in your favour there is also a model for the .02 and based on those practical reasons and including the fact you can't be pulled over in the sky and breath tested

jamesson1980 · 09-12-2010, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HP4ME

...you can't be pulled over in the sky and breath tested

almost TOO valid

Sizey · 09-12-2010, 04:00 PM

.05 should stay. The amount of time effort and $$$ that have gone into the education process will be lost if it is changed. Besides 0.05 allows full licensed drivers to have the drink or two and still be under the limit as it has been proven that this will not affect judgement.

This is a fair BAC and if anyone breaks it, they deserve the consequences as they have been given lenient leeway yet have endangered themselves and others by not abiding by it.

flappist · 09-12-2010, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HP4ME

excelent and in your favour there is also a model for the .02 and based on those practical reasons and including the fact you can't be pulled over in the sky and breath tested

Actually that is not really true.
In large aircraft CASA and company catchems often ride along and in both small and large aircraft CASA reasonably often just turn up out of the blue and do a "ramp check".

# CASA = "sky police".

ThaFlash · 09-12-2010, 04:07 PM

why not? that's why, because... hehehe...

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Aviation safety is not controlled by media driven cash chasing state politicians though....

comon on now dear flapmeister

BTW which way did you vote?

fmc351 · 09-12-2010, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HP4ME

for the sake of the discussion i will oblige...

there already is a zero alcohol model for p platers and i dare say some of them go to church, take alchol based meds and work in an environment where they are exposed to alcoholic/hydrocarbon fumes. (though i am taking your word for the fact that they register a low bac in those occupations)

also worth pointing out some of those P platers are mature age citizens too.

There is truth to the statements the tests pick up things other than drinking alcohol.

I have been tested at an RBT and blew .02, I was stunned because I hadnt had a drop in months. I dont drink much, never have, and when I do it is only one or two drinks. No, not 3 or 4, genuinely 1 or 2.

I still have no idea what gave the reading. I mentioned that to the officer, and wasnt concerned as I was full licenced anyway, he didnt want to know, gruffly told to me I was free to leave.

Smoke Pursuit · 09-12-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

To repeat a couple of points:

Drink driving DOES NOT MEAN going to a pub and driving home.

BAC of 0 will mean that all the church goers on Sunday morning will have to wait several hours before driving home.

Anyone who is taking medication that contains some form of alcohol cannot drive e.g. cough medicine etc. And which is more dangerous a BAC of 0.01 or a coughing fit while driving?

Anyone who works in a place where they are exposed to alcohol or hydocarbon fumes e.g. brewery/distillery, food processing, paint shop or painter, dry cleaner etc. etc. will not be able to drive home from work as they often have a very low BAC.

How does the 0 scheme work for them?

What about truck drivers?? They have to be 0... You saying none of them ever have to take medication??

0 would solve alot of the countries problems.

There would be alot less people taking the gamble, alot less people in our court system trying to defend drink driving charges (oh but i only had 2 drinks and didnt think id be over .05) and we would probably have lot less binge drinking due to the fact that people would be fearful of being over the 0 limit the next day.

Im not against drinking, I drink myself but theres a time and a place...

ThaFlash · 09-12-2010, 04:09 PM

you edited your post on me mate

edit: not fair i aint playing with you anymore.

Smoke Pursuit · 09-12-2010, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP006

Ohh maaate!! I know you're better than that!!

Dont take it personal mate, im just saying theres alot of people who drink and think they are under the limit when infact they arent, there no concise way of measuring by standard drinks either, different people bear different levels of alcohol in their system based on their size, drinking habits etc.

Anyone who reguarly drinks and drives needs to have a breath testing device on them if you ask me.

sgt_doofey · 09-12-2010, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DASH GT

There would be alot less people taking the gamble, alot less people in our court system trying to defend drink driving charges (oh but i only had 2 drinks and didnt think id be over .05) and we would probably have lot less binge drinking due to the fact that people would be fearful of being over the 0 limit the next day.

Im not against drinking, I drink myself but theres a time and a place...

There are also a large number of people who ingest alcohol for a living. My wife is a winemaker, how does the 0 BAC work for her when she's been tasting* wine all day? What about brewers at a brewery?

* - Tasting implies putting the wine in your mouth and then spitting it out, not drinking it. An alcoholic residue is then left in the mouth and alcohol does get in to the blood stream.

XB GS 351 Coupe · 09-12-2010, 04:50 PM

Easy dont drive or change jobs.

XB GS 351 Coupe · 09-12-2010, 04:55 PM

0.02 for me for all drivers across the board, it means you can't actually have a drink at all and drive, but it allows for medications, and covers you if you had a few drinks the night before, and drive the following morning.

It will however not cover you of you had a BIG night the night before.

Really if you plan on driving don't have any drinks at all, as it ensures you stay on the good side of 0.02 or even the current 0.05.

PS I believe a large percentage of drink drivers full well know they are over the limit when they get behind the wheel of the car, they just hope to get away with it.

sgt_doofey · 09-12-2010, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Easy dont drive or change jobs.

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

fmc351 · 09-12-2010, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

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

WooHoo, problem solved.

Ben73 · 09-12-2010, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HP4ME

I voted for 0.0000 & zero tolerance.

And now my reasoning....

I know 2 people that have personally killed 4 people and made 1 a quadriplegic.

Person 1: Friend of the family, shared many fun times together. Drove home drunk one night, went through a red light killed 2 young people instantly. Jail 4 years.

Person 2: My uncles wife drove home drunk killed 2 young boys parked on the side of the road and paralised the third. 2 years jail and got out after 6 months.

Naturally they both claim they weren't that drunk.

Had the limit been zero perhaps these young guys would be here today.

On a personal note, I hope the families of the victims take revenge.... well, nuff said...

I understand where you are coming from, but you sid they were drunk.
So obviosuly ovver 0.05
If both those drivers were on 0.04 they probably would of not crashed.

So even if the limit is 0.000000 people will STILL drive drunk. It's not going to have an affect on the road toll to lower the limit, just will result in more fines.

XC GXL · 09-12-2010, 05:43 PM

I voted 0.0 even though I don't live back home in Aus anymore every time I go back the risks are higher and higher i.e. the population is getting bigger and bigger and the amount of vehicles on the already congested highways makes the risks even greater along with more and more inexperienced drivers per capita now with cars with a greater power to weight ratio. I have also found that people seem to be less patient these days and have to get to their destination before they have even left their starting point and road etiquette has also gone out the window in my opinion.

Also I was a passenger (a long time ago mid '80's) in a car driven by a mate who was DUI and we wrote off an XC Sedan (wrapped it around a pole) blØØdy lucky to be still here I can tell you so I say zero and zero tolerance especially as most of the victims to DUI are the innocent ones.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Wayne

irish2 · 09-12-2010, 05:44 PM

Voted .05.

A huge number of studies have proved there to be no change in reaction times until about .07 and even then it is fractional. I think the law should be changed so that people who blow .05 aren't disqualified, when 1 minute later they would be .049.

fmc351 · 09-12-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irish2

Voted .05.

A huge number of studies have proved there to be no change in reaction times until about .07 and even then it is fractional. I think the law should be changed so that people who blow .05 aren't disqualified, when 1 minute later they would be .049.

And you call yourself an Irishman.

**Tucool** · 09-12-2010, 06:04 PM

BAC only slows down the responsible people who don't get smashed and drive, it makes no difference to the brain dead ones who don't give a **** about anyone but themselves. bring back the 0.08 for the good guys.

irish2 · 09-12-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

And you call yourself an Irishman.

Haha, all is not what it seems.

Did a test many years ago involving "beer goggles". Had to complete a course, market out by cones, and at a set speed whilst wearing these goggles. The goggles ranged from .05 up to .2. I was given the .2 goggles being the smart **** I am and proceded to complete the course no worries. Collected a few cones with the .05 goggles however.

I have driven well over the limit on occasion only concerned about seeing a cop car. I have also been pulled after drinking and blown under, even on my P's. This then brings into question the equipment being used for the testing procedure. Who says the Irish have no luck!

uranium_death · 09-12-2010, 06:47 PM

Lowering the BAC allowance to .02 or .00 will do nothing in reducing the idiots that go out and get plastered at drive at .15.

As mentioned prior, 0.00 is a must for P-Platers. Everybody I know my age and above had the same parameters I did.

If I know I am going to drive, I have one drink per hour max and I drink water, and also make sure I eat.

People need to be responsible. I know that's wishful, but I thought the entire point of being an adult was having the capacity to make responsible and pragmatic decisions.

If people plan to drive, then it is their responsibility to monitor their drinking. If they are irresponsible, intentionally or not, they they must be prepared to bear the consequences.

If people are THAT concerned about being over the limit, then do not drink at all. Be responsible and make that decision yourself.

I think it's crap that the government must interevene in every aspect of our lives.

Everybody makes choices, and the choices we make dictate the life we lead.

FPV8U · 09-12-2010, 06:58 PM

0.00 For Me..

Cuts a Clean line either drink or don't if your having a night out, no more confusion over how many Std drinks in a can of xx when last week i had 3 cans of YY and i blew under .05.

Or lower it to .02 but i have been in the car with people that blew under .05 where i felt their driving was being affected.

fmc351 · 09-12-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uranium_death

Everybody makes choices, and the choices we make dictate the life we lead.

I dont disagree with what you said, except this part is not right in the context of a society. It is true in respect of your own life, but not in a societal sense.

The choices we make, often effect the lives of others. It is reasonable in situations where the potential for your choices to increase the risk you can impact other members of society, that government may need to step in and ATTEMPT to minimise that additional risk to someone elses right to make choices like not be killed or injured. Or if that attempt fails, give avenues for redress or penalty through laws which clearly define where a line has been crossed.

You can still get as ****ed as you like, but not drive. The aspect of choice that limits itself to your life still remains, the part that impacts others is subject to attempts to limit it.

Franco Cozzo · 09-12-2010, 07:12 PM

I reckon raise it to .08, its like that in many other countries, why not here?

Regardless what the limit is, you are still going to have people drink driving, just because something is made a law, doesn't stop someone from going against it.

If the government was so against drink driving, why do they give us our licenses and at the same time, the right to go into a store and buy alcohol? They want you to drink drive, so they can fit interlocks into your car, which you have to pay service fees on.

flappist · 09-12-2010, 07:14 PM

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.

uranium_death · 09-12-2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

I dont disagree with what you said, except this part is not right in the context of a society. It is true in respect of your own life, but not in a societal sense.

The choices we make, often effect the lives of others. It is reasonable in situations where the potential for your choices to increase the risk you can impact other members of society, that government may need to step in and ATTEMPT to minimise that additional risk to someone elses right to make choices like not be killed or injured. Or if that attempt fails, give avenues for redress or penalty through laws which clearly define where a line has been crossed.

You can still get as ****ed as you like, but not drive. The aspect of choice that limits itself to your life still remains, the part that impacts others is subject to attempts to limit it.

Yes, and the life we lead has many variables. Other people being one of them.
That little phrase is not just about ourselves. It is all-encompassing.

Also, society is made up of individuals. Each individual though makes choices. A gang of youths are a micro-society, but each of them made a decision to be like that.

Now, that phrase is not about how other people affect you. You as an individual cannot control that.

All you can do is control what you do. If everybody did and behaved responsibly, the world might be a little better...

Many of life's handy little phrases are idealistic but if we were only realistic, we'd have to keep lowering the bar to the point where you don't even have to jump over it anymore...

fmc351 · 09-12-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

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.

My take has been that by having an 05 limit people who have had two or three drinks are unsure if they are under or over but the info they hear about 1-2 in the first hour, and 1 every hour after that seems to say they should be OK. 00, would eliminate that problem and some may not drive at all if they have one drink. An 02 limit would simply become have 1 drink in the first hour then wait another hour to drive.

So the figures for study would need to be .05- say .08. Fatal shouldnt be the only issue either, there are physical injuries and financial damage too.

fmc351 · 09-12-2010, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I reckon raise it to .08, its like that in many other countries, why not here?

Regardless what the limit is, you are still going to have people drink driving, just because something is made a law, doesn't stop someone from going against it.

If the government was so against drink driving, why do they give us our licenses and at the same time, the right to go into a store and buy alcohol? They want you to drink drive, so they can fit interlocks into your car, which you have to pay service fees on.

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.

||| · 09-12-2010, 07:29 PM

a blanket limit is a stupid idea. alcohol affects different people in different ways. an alcoholic can polish off a six pack over lunch and not notice it. a kid on his 18th birthday may be unable to drive after half a shandy.

arrest people for unsafe driving not some arbitrary limit.

fmc351 · 09-12-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uranium_death

Yes, and the life we lead has many variables. Other people being one of them.
That little phrase is not just about ourselves. It is all-encompassing.

Also, society is made up of individuals. Each individual though makes choices. A gang of youths are a micro-society, but each of them made a decision to be like that.

Now, that phrase is not about how other people affect you. You as an individual cannot control that.

All you can do is control what you do. If everybody did and behaved responsibly, the world might be a little better...

Many of life's handy little phrases are idealistic but if we were only realistic, we'd have to keep lowering the bar to the point where you don't even have to jump over it anymore...

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.

View Poll Results: What should the BAC for Australia be
0.08 as it was for may years and is still so overseas	45	20.27%
0.08 in the bush, 0.05 in the city and on highways	4	1.80%
0.05 seems to be working well, leave it there	105	47.30%
0.05 in the bush, 0.02 in the city and on highways	1	0.45%
0.02 across the board	21	9.46%
0.00000 as well as ZERO tolerance	30	13.51%
Sliding scale, e.g. 0.08 first offence, 0.05 after that etc.	13	5.86%
Something else, please detail	3	1.35%
Voters: 222. You may not vote on this poll