Lower BAC limits?

[cant]

You would be surprised how many things you can consume will give a possitive reading.

Maybe .02 would make more people think twice before they drive?

Ok, i accept that some people just dont give a sh#*, and that wont change.



One beer = OK to drive.

Two beers, at .02 = (cant drive) and am sobber enough to realise it

Three beers at .05 = (Ahhh, will get away with one more) its OK

Four beers = ( im ****ed ) (im OK) one for the road ???

Five beers = grab a six pack ( im driving!!! )

SOUND LIKE SOMEONE YOU KNOW ????
.
.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by flappist

What was said

I would love you to stand for Parliament. I'd vote for you. Great post.

[joolz]

Lower the tolerance on BAC just like Premier Bracks & Treasurer Brumby did on speed tolerance. Road toll was barely effected but revenue sky rocketed!!! Reducing the BAC limit will only lead to more people being caught = more revenue = more unlicenced/uninsured drivers = more revenue.... No change to road toll as last year they stated the 28 drivers were well over the .05 limit. None were stated as under .05. Find somthething else to police like the Governments waste of tax payers money.

[XR6Runner]

Originally Posted by paule11

I remember working in western Queensland and it wasnt that long ago really . When I asked distances between towns it was measured in stubbies I think Cloncurry to MtIsa was 3 stubbies

hehehehe that's gold!

Oh boy, how many years ago was that? Sometimes I wish things could be like they where back in the days...

[XR6Runner]

Originally Posted by flappist

So which car would you rather be in:

a) Driver with BAC of 0.06
b) Driver got license yesterday and it is pouring rain at night
c) Driver has an acute allergy to pollen and you are in a rural area in spring
d) Driver has not slept for 14 hours and has be driving for 10 hrs
e) Driver is from a LHD country and this is the first time they have ever driven a RHD vehicle
f) Driver has never been to a city before and although has a manual licence has not driven one for 3 years and then only for their license test and is about to drive in Sydney/Melbourne peak hour in a manual car with bad visibility

Only one of these is illegal........

One of the thing I find ammusing is how so many of the sub 30 year olds go off over 0.05 BAC and how it is end of the world. I like almost everone my age drove with a BAC of 0.08-0.15 almost every weekend for years and travelled huge distances. (we also used to drive very fast eveywhere but not so much after drinking) We are all still alive. How can this be?

Now before the arc up, if you have never driven with a BAC of over 0.05 you have no idea what it is like or if it ACTUALLY causes you to drive dangerously.

You only know what you have been told by the same people who have told you that 101km/h in a 100 zone is fatal, rolling through a stop sign at 1km/h is fatal, lowering a car by 51mm is fatal, pod filters are fatal, neons are fatal, exhausts over 90db are fatal, the last day of P plates you cannot handle the power of a V8 but the next morning you can, unregistered cars are fatal etc etc etc......

We are our own worst enemies becuase we just let the wowsers get away with it all the time...

I've been a viewer of these forums for years now, since 2004, but just decided to join up recently, to put in my own word.

Everything that has come out of you has been gold. And you probably already know it, because I am sure many have expressed it before, but you are a great role model for Australian society.

Who are you?



Sorry if I am a bit too forward, you can respond in PM, if that is better for you!

[ED Classic]

Originally Posted by AUlien

Make it 0 or leave it at 0.05.

And .05 It is. Why because Police drink 1 or 2 after work so do magistrates, and barristers and doctors not to mention the rest of us.. All the courts will be that full it will make the law seem wrong rather than the driver like it does with .05; and thats when theres a problem. If I got done for .05 I would be very dissapointed in myself but if they changed it to .02 and I got done I would say do what you have to do to me but i know in my head i probably drove at .02 or .03 millions of times very capably but this time i did it capably and got caught because a commisioner with no life outside work that should be working in china or russia felt the need to be the 1st to change something.

[ED Classic]

Originally Posted by joolz

Lower the tolerance on BAC just like Premier Bracks & Treasurer Brumby did on speed tolerance. Road toll was barely effected but revenue sky rocketed!!! Reducing the BAC limit will only lead to more people being caught = more revenue = more unlicenced/uninsured drivers = more revenue.... No change to road toll as last year they stated the 28 drivers were well over the .05 limit. None were stated as under .05. Find somthething else to police like the Governments waste of tax payers money.

Yes revenue is always top of the list..Not that I even go to clubs anymore much (though I have a couple of friends who own them) and I wont hi jack the thread too much but they are doing the exact same thing with the city violence (well not revenue but making someone else (innocent) pay).. In alot of cases the clubs do manage to keep out the bad trouble makers and therefore the troublemakers go to get their fix in the streets (this is where most serious incidents have been) so we need more police and therfore we will put the cost of liquor licences up by $19000 pa..All that means is that the innocent persons having a good time will pay more for their drinks or the clubs will close. Innocent people get screwed again.

[platinumXR]

It's got nothing to do with revenue at all. I used to be a member of a local Volunteer Rescue Association which had (has) primary rescue in a country location and I've seen first hand the effects of one or two drinks. And people on or just on or over the legal limit.

One, and one only such example (worst case scenario) is a woman who crossed to the wrong side of the road for "a split second" her words...and had a head on with some poor sod coming home from work at around midnight. The steering wheel impaled him and literally pushed his spine through the back of his body and it was protruding. She walked away.

She blew 0.045 roadside but it makes little difference to the mans family. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine how angry and hateful they must feel at this woman for killing their father, brother or whatever.

We (in general) as motorist's must accept responsibility for our actions and eliminate any potential variable when it comes to reducing road trauma whether it's alcohol, fatigue or just plain apathy or incompetence (as Flappist points out). AND that includes not driving after consuming judgement impairing alcohol. I'm not necessarily advocating a zero limit...but I can't remember how many people I have seen who "just wish they had never had anything to drink beforehand" at the site of a serious or fatal MVA at 2 o'clock in the morning.

Some people need to grow up and realize that driving on a public road is a privilege and comes with accepting responsibilities which include common courtesy and caution whilst driving. I'm not directing this to anyone specifically on this forum - before you go and give me warnings or flame me - and I do not profess to be an angel on the road, but come on.

You make a conscious decision to drive after consuming alcohol and yet some people still blame the police or the Government for getting caught? WTF? When YOU get in a car YOU have a responsibility NOT to crash into my sister, mum, girlfriend, brother or whatever and consuming ANY amount of alcohol adds another potential variable to increase that potential likelihood. Same goes for drugs, fatigue, incompmetence, dodgy engineering or The Red Mist. I'm not going to get into a semantic argument with anyone either about potential or likelihood either.

I musta got up on the wrong side of the coffin today...this really bug's me no end.

:

[z80]

How do you know you are at 0.05 ... BAC?

Just think of how ridiculous it seems when you are riding on the brake pedal on a 5 litre V8 in a 50km/h zone, then remember that the same law makers decided on what a "dangerous" BAC figure should be.

Then you know you're there.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by platinumXR

It's got nothing to do with revenue at all. I used to be a member of a local Volunteer Rescue Association which had (has) primary rescue in a country location and I've seen first hand the effects of one or two drinks. And people on or just on or over the legal limit.

One, and one only such example (worst case scenario) is a woman who crossed to the wrong side of the road for "a split second" her words...and had a head on with some poor sod coming home from work at around midnight. The steering wheel impaled him and literally pushed his spine through the back of his body and it was protruding. She walked away.

She blew 0.045 roadside but it makes little difference to the mans family. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine how angry and hateful they must feel at this woman for killing their father, brother or whatever.

We (in general) as motorist's must accept responsibility for our actions and eliminate any potential variable when it comes to reducing road trauma whether it's alcohol, fatigue or just plain apathy or incompetence (as Flappist points out). AND that includes not driving after consuming judgement impairing alcohol. I'm not necessarily advocating a zero limit...but I can't remember how many people I have seen who "just wish they had never had anything to drink beforehand" at the site of a serious or fatal MVA at 2 o'clock in the morning.

Some people need to grow up and realize that driving on a public road is a privilege and comes with accepting responsibilities which include common courtesy and caution whilst driving. I'm not directing this to anyone specifically on this forum - before you go and give me warnings or flame me - and I do not profess to be an angel on the road, but come on.

You make a conscious decision to drive after consuming alcohol and yet some people still blame the police or the Government for getting caught? WTF? When YOU get in a car YOU have a responsibility NOT to crash into my sister, mum, girlfriend, brother or whatever and consuming ANY amount of alcohol adds another potential variable to increase that potential likelihood. Same goes for drugs, fatigue, incompmetence, dodgy engineering or The Red Mist. I'm not going to get into a semantic argument with anyone either about potential or likelihood either.

I musta got up on the wrong side of the coffin today...this really bug's me no end.

:

My problem with the proposal to lower the BAC limit is that, once again, they're trying to cater for the lowest common denominator in aiming for the admirable but impossible goal of zero road toll. I can't help but think that other factors - such as revenue raising and the current anti-alcohol sentiment - play a part.

The woman in your example can still be charged under various offences, even though she was under the BAC limit.

All drugs, including alcohol, affect all of us differently. My housemate, for example, has one cup of instant coffee and is bouncing off the walls for hours, whereas I often have a double shot espresso before going to bed.

Many prescription drugs can affect a person's ability to drive. Should we make it illegal to drive whilst on prescription drugs? Of course not - I doubt anybody would argue yes we should. The fact that it is not illegal to drive on prescription medication does not absolve the driver of the responsibility to not drive if their driving ability is adversely affected. Why should alcohol be any different?

We probably all know at least one person that cannot handle alcohol - any amount of alcohol. After half a glass, they're stumbling around as if they've been drinking solidly for hours. For such a person, zero BAC makes sense, but should we all have to meet that standard?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by z80

How do you know you are at 0.05 ... BAC?

Just think of how ridiculous it seems when you are riding on the brake pedal on a 5 litre V8 in a 50km/h zone, then remember that the same law makers decided on what a "dangerous" BAC figure should be.

Then you know you're there.

I think you'll find there was a fair bit of research that went into the .05 figure... :

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

My problem with the proposal to lower the BAC limit is that, once again, they're trying to cater for the lowest common denominator

Probably correct. I's called damage control or Harm Minimization. It's going to happen so why not make an effort to try and reduce the amount of people who do it.

[russellw]

It's an interesting (albeit now rhetorical) question to ponder.

The table below shows the current state of play globally for acceptable BAC levels



It's interesting to note that beside the alcohol forbidden countries there are still 42 with zero tolerance levels (although none that you'd call mainstream) and a further 17 with levels below ours (notably China, Norway, Sweden and Poland) which means that 26% of the countries concerned have limits below ours.

83 countries (37%) have 0.05% levels the same as ours while 69 (31%) have levels between ours and 0.08% and 12 (5%) have either no limit or a limit of 0.10% - although none of the latter group are what you would call mainstream countries.

Research by the US FAA indicated that there was some small impairment even at 0.02% and noticeable impairment in co-ordination and judgement between 0.02-0.06% and although this research was conducted with commercial pilots in mind it probably still points to there being an issue for some people even at the 0.05% level.

You would reasonably expect that with a fairly even split between those countries endorsing 0.05 and those endorsing 0.08 and the experience of both Norway and Sweden in reducing the road toll at 0.02 that there will be continued pressure to lower the levels currently applicable on a global scale.

Whether this is right or not is a different question but we'd be seriously underestimating the desire of our political master to give the appearance of doing something if we thought that it won't raise it's head again.

Cheers
Russ

[PepeLePew]

The only sure way to lower the road toll to zero is for everyone to catch a train. Of course you'd get beat up at the train station instead of being safe(r) in your car.

I dont drink and drive, actually I barely drink AT ALL. But some valid points above.

Platinum I see your point, but its a easy target to see that blood reading and point the finger. Would it have happened without it? Tiredness, inattention, other substances, road glare, traffic conditions, haemorroids, did a sub .05 reading demonstratably contribute?

You guys have one of the worst jobs around and I'd likely take the same view if I was involved. But IMHO if you could legislate against stupidity you'd have a far greater impact on the actual toll.

As 4VMan said above, I dont believe the .05 limit was chosen arbitrarily. It IS a compromise, but how far are we prepared to go to protect ourselves from ourselves? When will the peanut butter ban spread to primary schools?

Russellw great stats, jesus there have been a ton of good stat postings lately.

Lets be serious, if we talk 0.02, we're really talking zero. You CANT afford to drink.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by russellw

...
Whether this is right or not is a different question but we'd be seriously underestimating the desire of our political master to give the appearance of doing something if we thought that it won't raise it's head again.

Cheers
Russ

And I thought we were the politicians' masters. :

Interesting graph, and interesting spread of BAC limits. Definitely agree that this issue will crop up again - all it will take is the next drunken fool deciding to get behind the wheel and injuring or killing someone.

[castellan]

I was talking to a mate about the .05 thing once. and said some people who don't drink are terrible drivers all the time. and pointed out, he would have to be blind to be as bad as some i know. and it's a fact. sadly but true.
So the nazi morons are ****ing into the wind.
We use to have rights in this country, and the cops had to make you walk the line ect. and if you past that you were ok. but you could be .02 and if you did not pass the test you could not drive.
Some one could be ****ed on 2 stubbies, and i have seen it.
I was done for 0.05 2 months after they dropped it from 0.08 and i don't believe the machine was accurate.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Would it have happened without it? Tiredness, inattention, other substances, road glare, traffic conditions, haemorroids, did a sub .05 reading demonstratably contribute?...if you could legislate against stupidity you'd have a far greater impact on the actual toll.

Yeah, that I suppose is the point I was trying to make...why exacerbate an already volatile situation with adding alcohol to the mix. She could very well have been a rubbish driver and tired and angry and whatever but it's that microsecond of impaired judgement that led her across that double line. Anyway...'nuff said from me on that I think.

The Gummint tries to legislate against stupidity as it is about all it can (read: is willing) to do about any given response. If they (Gummint) introduced mandatory driver training and annual competency testing half the people in Australia would lose their licenses overnight.

MY PERSONAL belief, albeit naive and simplistic; would be to work toward the following:

- Driver education classes as part of curriculum in years 7-10 at schools to get the theory out of the way with PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON ALCOHOL, DRUGS and FATIGUE.
- Complex (defensive, advanced...call it what you will but include car craft, dymanics, coutesy etc.) driver training BEFORE getting red "P"
- Complex driver training refresher AND competency assessment BEFORE getting off green "P"
- And 5 yearly regulation / practical assessments for all.

BUT, no one (least of all the Gummint) would be willing to pay for it and logistically it could be a bit of a challenge or near impossible.

But would it save lives? Could it hurt to try?