I don't think drink driving penalties are harsh enough.

[Feathers]

I won't drink AT ALL if I know I have to drive in the next 24 hours.

I'm 26 and on a full licence, so according to the calculations I could have 1-2 drinks during a night out and be "ok", but it's not worth the risk to me.

I drive for a living, and it's a 0.02 limit for me in a heavy vehicle, so I live by that whenever I have to drive.

I've never been drunk, and even when I do have the opportunity to have a drink, I rarely do, because it just doesn't interest me. Last alcoholic beverage I had was a glass of wine with Christmas Day lunch!

[SM1DY]

I've read the post from 'NeverSayNever' and the response arising from it and no-one here can honestly say they're a saint. I'm not a ****head, but I enjoy a drink every Saturday at the TAB. On one occasion I was so intoxicated and desperate to get home I tried to drive, which it was fortunate that I couldn't find my keys, or my phone, or my wallet, or my pants.

The next morning feeling the effects I reflected on my actions, I couldn't believe I'd tried to drive, I didn't even think about what I was doing at the time and just tried to drive home.

I recall when my sister was nabbed for drink driving a second time blowing .228 that I gave her such a hard time for the weeks afters it, and her insisting that she didn't even remember getting in the car. Once I had a close experience to hers I came to understand what she was saying, and also what 'NeverSayNever' has said. When your intoxicated you make bad desicions, when your as sozzelled as Carl Stefanovic you make worse ones.

People can have their opinions, but don't write the guy off. He made a big mistake an is now paying the price. I don't agree that 'NeverSayNever' should do community service, I think a license suspension is a much more fitting punishment, but cut the guy some slack, people ripping on him now isn't going to encourage him to make better desicions in the future.

[flappist]

Something for all you evangelists and do gooders to ponder.

The vast majority of accidents, fatal or otherwise are not alcohol related on any way.

Every week hundreds, sometimes thousands of people are CAUGHT drink driving so there are many many more drink drivers who are not caught.

None of these are dead or even injured. How can that be?

Millions of speeding fines are given out each year. How can that be if speeding kills, there are only a few million drivers in total.

0.05 is a magic number like 100km/h, exceed it and the world will end, it must be true it was on TV and everything.

Many accidents are caused by inattentive driving where the driver is smoking, playing doof doof, fiddling with phones, satnavs and other gizmos and many more accidents are caused by over powered under engineered modified cars missoperating .

If raising the penalties for drink driving is a solution to the perceived problem of road deaths the raising the penalty for all these other terrible crimes must surely do the same. Stereo to loud, cut off your ears maybe? Texting in a car, cut of your fingers? Smoking in a car, horrible death by cancer or emphysema (oops, that one is already in)

The real problem is that too many "experts" have a theory and in theory, theory and reality are the same but in reality they are always different.......

* crash stats & drink driving stats from various road safety and abs sources.

[fos408]

sorry flappist I dont consider myself a do gooder. I dont know how many are accidents are drink related but i am sure it would represent a high figure and throw in under the effects of other drugs and I think the law makers need to look at all deterents to cut this figure. I am like the vast number of people who consume a moderate amount of alcohol and drive. If I want to drink to excess i make sure my parnter knows she will be driving or we make other arrangement . My brother who drinks alot on week ends doesnt turn up to events and finally admitted he does not as he wants to be able to drink with out the risk. It is called taking responsibilty for your own actions . Unfortunately we seem to have adopted the attitude over the last decade that it is always some body elses responsiblity. I dont like the hoon laws as like the rest of you who drive a modified car we are more closely scrutinized but when the idiots take it to the enth degree something had to give so now we have laws that take care of the lowest common denominator and we are all effected. If we have laws for drink driving and we continue to drive and cause death the government will look at making them harsher. If we keep using mobile phones and killing people they will make these harsher. The police will target as many actions as possible to reduce death and if that infringes on our lives so be it . Some of these things will suck but least some innocent would be victim of somebody elses stupidity might get to go home to their kids tonight

[Wally]

I have never had even a sip of alcohol and subsequently driven. I just drink coke if I have to drive. I have had zip demerits for nearly 30 years. I drive like Mr McGoo and sit on the speed limit.

But I still get miffed when I see speed traps, speed cameras, etc. I'm not motivated to obey the law because of punitive actions and I'm sure most people who are civic minded aren't either, but I bet the majority of fines and demerits are against them as opposed to the reckless idiots we see daily who seem to have a sixth sense of where the men in uniform are.

Policing is hard enough, without encouraging the uniforms to become sneeky and beligerant with the public at large, because of the transgressions of the few. Give Police more powers of arrest and detention, as is being considered by the QLD Govt as we speak, and you actually put more pressure on them to fix an in insolvable problem, while filling up the jails with petty criminals.

[alecrain]

I never drink (more than one light beer) if I'm to drive (full license) later and just can't understand people who think they're ok to drive- it's hard to know and why would you risk getting caught with 0.06?

In some European countries if you cause an accident (person gets hurt) under influence of alcohol you are immediately charged with an attempted murder, if person dies you're charged with a murder as you chose to operate 2 tonne weapon in a public space, period!

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Feathers

I won't drink AT ALL if I know I have to drive in the next 24 hours.

I'm 26 and on a full licence, so according to the calculations I could have 1-2 drinks during a night out and be "ok", but it's not worth the risk to me.

I dont think there is any accurate way of calculating how much you can drink and still be under the limit (I have seen a girl have one drink (might have been classed as 1.5) and blew over 0.15 and thats on two different breatho's) over an an hour later she was still over 0.1.

[flappist]

My niece just got done a couple of days ago for 0.14 at 10 in the morning. She says she had waited 8 hours (as per the advise on the govt web site) after having had a couple of drinks after work (barmaid) and did not even remotely feel drunk as she knew the RBT was in the street in which she was driving.

She was not drink driving on purpose but now will have to wear the penalty which will cause her to lose her job and have to move to a new house if she is to get another one.

So in this case should she be banned for life, her car crushed, burned at the stake and shot twice?

[jcxr]

I honestly think we should have the yankee sobriety test.......... walk the line type thing. I know some blokes that could drive home safer at an illegal limit than a young frail female that will be ga ga and not over .05

[Feathers]

Originally Posted by SB076

I dont think there is any accurate way of calculating how much you can drink and still be under the limit (I have seen a girl have one drink (might have been classed as 1.5) and blew over 0.15 and thats on two different breatho's) over an an hour later she was still over 0.1.

That's just it - there isn't. Every person is different and will metabolise the alcohol differently, but according to the govt. guidelines my friend who is probably 45kg, and generally eats one meal a day, could have one standard drink an hour for a couple of hours, and still think she's ok to drive because the pamphlets say so.

That's why I just won't drink if I have to drive that night or the next day.

[xls3v]

theres a major difference between low level and high level offense tho

most people would have driven at 0.05-0.08ish without out even thinking but people caught over 0.1 should have much harsher penalty and even worse for repeat offenders

[schnoods]

I gotta admit, I am guilty of being the ones that try to stay near the limit but will sometimes have a couple and take the risk.

I am a big bloke and i often do have a couple (whether it be a mates or pub/club), then stop for an hour or 2, then get behind of the wheel. Quite a few times i have been tested and almost everytime it is under .05, if not zero, if it isnt i'll generally wait another hour.

I think as most drink driving incidents happen at night/early hours in the morning, fatigue and alcohol does multiply the risk of being in an incident..

DD is one of the few criminal offences where the punishment doesnt fit the crime remotely though, especially when a life is taken. I do feel the suspension and jail times should be looked at alot harder...

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by flappist

My niece just got done a couple of days ago for 0.14 at 10 in the morning. She says she had waited 8 hours (as per the advise on the govt web site) after having had a couple of drinks after work (barmaid) and did not even remotely feel drunk as she knew the RBT was in the street in which she was driving.

She was not drink driving on purpose but now will have to wear the penalty which will cause her to lose her job and have to move to a new house if she is to get another one.

So in this case should she be banned for life, her car crushed, burned at the stake and shot twice?

See, not really wanting to start a mud slinging match as I know neither you or your sister...but driving after you have been drinking any amount of alcohol increases the risk of impaired judgement and slow reaction times. It can take a long time to metabolize out of your system. By the admissions on this forum - everybody reacts differently and metabolizes differently: in your sisters case, she metabolized slower than other people and still went 0.14, that's still a lot.

The Gummint in it's infinite wisdom (LOL) is trying to reduce the risk of harm, what's wrong with that? You like to believe your self to be an astute and perceptive person and I do not mean any disrespect when I say this but do you take it as a challenge to see if you can drive after drinking and not kill anyone? Do you condone others who collide with pedestrians (after they have been drinking) who may very well have avoided the collision if they had been more 'environmentally aware' whilst driving? I* could go on and on but I will not, I think you get the point I am trying to make.

Seems a bit black and white and simplistic to me I know but next time you drink, drive and collide with some kid or jogger, try explaining to their family how good you can drive when you've had a few drinks but 'felt' ok.

[GT450]

I quite agree platinumXR we all know the rules and WE need to be responible for OUR own actions. We can't blame it on the alcohol , alcohol does not make decisions we do and it sometimes aids us to make decisions that have terrible consequences , but in the end it's us who are to blame. By the way 0.14 after 8 hours abstinence is not just a couple of drinks after work that's a bloody good session and would be regarded as pi$$ed and just because you feel fine doesn't mean your still not at fault. Ask any copper who's had to knock on someone's door and relay bad news what they feel like. As they say if you feel drunk you probably are and when in doubt DONT. Just my opinion.
Cheers
GT450

[flappist]

Originally Posted by platinumXR

See, not really wanting to start a mud slinging match as I know neither you or your sister...but driving after you have been drinking any amount of alcohol increases the risk of impaired judgement and slow reaction times. It can take a long time to metabolize out of your system. By the admissions on this forum - everybody reacts differently and metabolizes differently: in your sisters case, she metabolized slower than other people and still went 0.14, that's still a lot.

The Gummint in it's infinite wisdom (LOL) is trying to reduce the risk of harm, what's wrong with that? You like to believe your self to be an astute and perceptive person and I do not mean any disrespect when I say this but do you take it as a challenge to see if you can drive after drinking and not kill anyone? Do you condone others who collide with pedestrians (after they have been drinking) who may very well have avoided the collision if they had been more 'environmentally aware' whilst driving? I* could go on and on but I will not, I think you get the point I am trying to make.

Seems a bit black and white and simplistic to me I know but next time you drink, drive and collide with some kid or jogger, try explaining to their family how good you can drive when you've had a few drinks but 'felt' ok.

Actually it is my brother's daughter and the point I was making was that she did not realise that she was over the limit and would not have driven if she had. SHE KNEW THE RBT WAS THERE.
Most of learning is from experience not teaching and I am fairly confident that she will not do it again.

So how would a huge penalty that could ruin her life (prison/permanent ban/car loss) help in this case? Or it the penalty just to make others feel good, some sort of proxy revenge over something complete unrelated. This is the scruby way and the road to the dark side.

In the city a drivers license is a luxury that is convenient as there is a lot of public transport and nothing is very far away so to most loss of license is just a pain not a disaster.

In the country it is the opposite so as with all things, each case must be judged on its merits which is probably why we have magistrates.

[cant]

I agree with Flappist, and many others here, everyones tolerance varies.

Its wrong to do it, YOU know how much youve had, if you intend to drink leave your keys at home, simple!

This post is about the penalties, and if your a good law abiding citizen on your first offence they throw the book at you, trying to scare you into not re-offending.

WHAT ****ES ME OFF is the no job, no life, drug problem loosers that re-offend and get off with a suspended licence and brief community service!!!!!!!! WRONG WRONG WRONG hit people where it hurts, in the pocket or lock em up, apart from the interlock device SOME re-offenders get off lightly.


FIRST OFFENCE (EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES), DO IT AGAIN (WITHIN 7 YEARS) YOU SHOULD HAVE THE BOOK BASHED AROUND YOUR HEAD ,
NO, THE PENALTIES FOR RE-OFFENDING ARE NO WHERE NEAR HARSH ENOUGH !

[russellw]

An emotive topic and one that is always going to be difficult solve.

As has been pointed out the limit currently set is an arbitrary one based on the research that is current at the moment - let's remember that it used to be 60% higher based on the beliefs at that time.

I doubt anyone would disagree that there is some impairment in driving ability at the 0.05 level but this will vary from person to person and in the absence of any other method the current drink driving laws seem to be about the only workable system we have.

The statistics for the last year I have (2007) seem to indicate that alcohol is deemed to be a factor in quite a high percentage of accidents but not the highest percentage of fatalities - that award goes to speed but even those statistics are impaired as I discussed once before because all they indicate is that higher speed accidents result in more deaths. The actual correlation between speed and speeding is not clear in the figures and nor would our revenue raisers want it to be.

As we have seen from some of the scenarios presented in this thread there is a need for the presiding magistrate to have discretionary powers - not all circumstances are the same and taking away the discretion (as the speed camera system does) will always be a step backward.

The maximum penalties in Victoria for repeat offenders are severe enough at 48 months suspension and/or 18 months imprisonment although it would be interesting to see what is actually handed out.

Cheers
Russ

[flappist]

Some years ago a friend of mine was a repeat offender drink driver, he just did not car about the law. He was rolled 3 times in 2 years and the third time got 2 weeks in Boggo Rd (yes it was a while ago).

He never even LOOKED at a beer if he was going to drive after that.....

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by russellw

The maximum penalties in Victoria for repeat offenders are severe enough at 48 months suspension and/or 18 months imprisonment although it would be interesting to see what is actually handed out.

Presto! Legislated maximums are rarely directed at an offender, people need to better appreciate judicial sentencing guidelines as to why it is so.

[XR6_661]

I another who is guilty of having one or two then driving .

I'm a small bloke too (55ish & 21 years old, open license) so no doubt I would blow more then a bigger bloke who's had the same as me.

Now, in saying that, if I do have a drink when I know I'm gonna drive, I'll have something like a XXXX stubbie (1.0 Standard)...Have one or two of those, then I'll go off the rule (Does it hold any cred?) 1 Hour after for every 1 standard drink.

Like last night for instance, My Girlfriend and I went to dinner, I was driving. Ordered a single XXXX stubbie, drank that over the course of dinner, nice relaxed dinner, probably there 45 to and 1 hour. Girlfriend said, 'Alright, let's get our bill.' Fair enough, checked the time, saw that it's probably only been 30 mins since I had the drink...so I grabbed my girlfriends hand and took her for a walk along the esplanade for at least another 30 mins. Then drove home. Would I have blown over? 50/50 chance I guess, who knows?

I think there is a fine line between drink drivers and people who drink then drive.

For instance, my mate who insisted on driving a buddies car when he KNEW he had been drinking and would have blown over (This mate did not tell his buddie who owned the car, nor did he tell anyone else), turned out in front of a cop car, got done for not giving way, then got breath tested. You can fill in the rest. 'Were you drinking sir?', 'no, not at all' *blows in bag* 'you sure you werent drinking?', 'Oh maybe one or two'....'Come with us.'

No sooner he got his license back after 3 months, the same guy went clubbing in town, drove his car in KNOWING he was going to drink drive. Got done at an RBT, lost his license for 6 months.

Are penalties tough enough? No. Still to this day, I have very little respect for my 'mate'. He is a drink driver.
I could go on and say, what if this, what if that. But I won't. Simple fact of the matter is, what he did was wrong, but the fact he knowingly did it, hoping he wouldnt get booked is worse in my mind. These people are the problem.

Me (and what seems like a lot of us) on the other hand, I consider myself someone who drinks (in moderation) and then drives, and I see no wrong in that. Because it is controlled.


Hope some of what I said makes sense.

[castellan]

If you have car keys on you, and also if.
Sleeping in a car over 0.05 is technically in charge. what is the go!

Laws made for the lowest common denominator.

In QLD we have been losing our freedoms ever since Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen was set up!

A 48 year old dude i know did not have a licence for 5 years. (did not need it then) now has to have a learners for a year now. he had been driving for 25 years before. and he is not happy!

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by flappist

Actually it is my brother's daughter and the point I was making was that she did not realise that she was over the limit and would not have driven if she had. SHE KNEW THE RBT WAS THERE.
Most of learning is from experience not teaching and I am fairly confident that she will not do it again.

So how would a huge penalty that could ruin her life (prison/permanent ban/car loss) help in this case? Or it the penalty just to make others feel good, some sort of proxy revenge over something complete unrelated. This is the scruby way and the road to the dark side.

In the city a drivers license is a luxury that is convenient as there is a lot of public transport and nothing is very far away so to most loss of license is just a pain not a disaster.

In the country it is the opposite so as with all things, each case must be judged on its merits which is probably why we have magistrates.

Ok: Niece, my mistake sorry I was skimming.

I empathize and I do understand your point but perhaps, just perhaps: if she know she would be driving the next day and or knew the RBT was there...maybe she could have made the conscious choice not to drink as much as she evidently did or; in fact drive at all, and risk getting caught?

I guess the Legislation put in play makes the assumption that we all know it is there and that being articulate and responsible adults as part of a wider community we are able to make choices with that legislation in mind and not affect anyone elses life in a detrimental way because of a poor decision.

As I said before, I am not trying to get personal, but I just believe that everyone does know the law and what the consequences are yet we all deliberately introduce variable after variable in a seeming attempt to tempt fate and I for one do not understand why.

[chief]

I was done drink driving and I never even drove my car.

I was out with my mates for a social beer and decided to stay the night at my mates. I went to my car and grabbed my bag and left some production notes in the car and walked to my mates car waiting to give me a lift. I was in a carpark and was approached by two officers who said they saw me in the vehicle and that I had to blow into the bag. 0.06 is what I blew. Did not drive, just unlocked and then relocked my car. That was enough to be tested. The judge saw he facts and no conviction, no fine, no demerit points, nothing.

[zetec]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I remember a few years ago a friend had been drinking in a pub and wasnt sure how close to .05 he was, outside up the road there was a booze bus, he walked up to them and asked if they could breathalyze him, they bluntly refused to and told him it was upto him to asses his own level of intoxication and "roll the dice" as to weather he was over the limit...
I think there should be more facilities for people to check their BAC at licensed venues.

I disagree.

If in doubt, don't bloody drive. Period.

The known issue with breathalyzers machines at pub is that they rely on the user having judgement... defeating the whole point of them. If you've just polished off 2 beers 5 minutes earlier and then had a glass of coke for example, your breath may not register the alcohol straight away until all the alcohol reaches your blood stream. Wouldn't take an idiot (and there's plenty of them) to then assume they're safe because the machine told them so. That's why they always recommend at least 15 minutes wait before using one of those machines. So again, all it does is add another level for people with impaired judgement to "think" they ok. They may even act like ABS brakes on cars and increase incidents due to user error...

It's honestly not hard for anonye with more than a single functional brain cell to judge. Any time I go out, I don't drive if I've had a drink. Ever. As a result, I have a pretty simple policy. If I've left home driving the car, I won't have a 1st drink or a 2nd, I'll just stick to coke. Trying to draw the line with fatigue, number of drinks, number of hours, blah blah blah. It's a recipe for disaster.

It's not worth the risk, especially when my entire ability to live, eat, pay rent and enjy life depends on me having my licence. I find it more enjoyable driving home sober than I do "enjoying" that first drink.

If I want to drink I simply ask the Mrs to drive, catch a tram or I stay home and have a few beers. It's really not hard.

[pottsy44]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I remember a few years ago a friend had been drinking in a pub and wasnt sure how close to .05 he was, outside up the road there was a booze bus, he walked up to them and asked if they could breathalyze him, they bluntly refused to and told him it was upto him to asses his own level of intoxication and "roll the dice" as to weather he was over the limit...
I think there should be more facilities for people to check their BAC at licensed venues.

i have had exactly the same thing happen to me. after asking a couple of different cops nicely i got fed up and an arguement ensued with one of them. mind you about 20 other people were watching, and they started to join in too.

was freaken i tell you.

[Zed7fiddy]

New years eve this year

Went to a party after work, forgetting to have dinner, had approx 4-6 whiskeys, probably a little on the strong side

But im a little on the big side, and have always managed to recover well.

So 11 o'clock rolls around and we walk to the beach passing a bottle of beer amongst us, then i dotn have any more beverages.

waited for 12 and the fireworks, everyone else wanted to hit the clubs, i didnt, so i walked 30 minutes back to mates apt, had a loaf of cheese and bacon bread (Way to late for food, had no dinner at the start of the night!)

then i walked ANOTHER 1.5 hrs back to my car lugging a backpack., so three horus after my last drink

now, NYE bad move to start with, but i know my limits, and have tested them before

but not havign dinner this time around screwed with my system, and i blew .1, im now on 8 monts suspension (qld laws allow me to travel to and from work and thats it, this needs to be applied for too btw, and it doubles the time of suspension)

I have definately learnt my lesson!

But a msitake a LOT of people make (as my solicitor pointed out, most of her cases are based aroudn this) is that they do NOT have dinner at the start of the night!

I agree, i did a bad thing, i wasnt impressed about it, my boss's mum got killed by a drunk driver, so this definately effected my work life.

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I remember a few years ago a friend had been drinking in a pub and wasnt sure how close to .05 he was, outside up the road there was a booze bus, he walked up to them and asked if they could breathalyze him, they bluntly refused to and told him it was upto him to asses his own level of intoxication and "roll the dice" as to weather he was over the limit...
I think there should be more facilities for people to check their BAC at licensed venues.

I think that's quite a responsible move on your mates part there, and he should be commended. However to provide a test in these circumstances could be setting a precedent that could result in everyone in the pub lining up to get a breath test and the cops not having enough time to do what they're supposed to be doing there , that is the random breath testing of motorists.

There should be machines in pubs to check this, by inserting a $1 coin like there are at gyms to check weight and BMI . In fact I recollect there used to be breath testing machines in pub foyers years ago, or maybe that was when I was living in NZ.

Although I'm not an advocate for drink driving, and will always cab it if I'm going to a party or a work function, it can be difficult to judge consumption when at, say, a local Thai restaurant with wife and kids and you may have a beer and one or two wines. This contrasts with those fools who get into their car after having a bender with a few of the mates involving hours of drinking who should be jailed if caught.

I sympathise with the chap above who lost his girlfriend and her sister. I lost 3 school friends in an accident, all teenagers. The car, a VF Valiant Pacer, with 5 occupants, hit a power pole just north of Wellington NZ in wet conditions one Saturday night in Winter 1981. The driver was , according to police reports, well over the limit (as were the others according to rumour) ) and died in hospital.

[russellw]

From the latest set of statistics I can find we see some interesting results as shown in the two tables below. These come from NSW where about 6,000 people each year are convicted of drink driving offences.



The first looks at the repeat offenders over a 7 year period (including after stiffer penalties were introduced) which shows that:

1. There were somewhat more repeat offenders than one might imagine with the percentage of repeat offenders stable at around 23% of the convicted total.

2. The number of repeat offenders remained fairly stable across the period although there was a slight dip across 2001-2.

3. There is a significant drop in the number of third offenders when compared to second offenders - something in the order of 85% of second offenders learn their lesson.



The second looks at the penalties handed down for offenders from first through to 4+ - the chart is in percentages and from this we can see that:

1. While 1.5% of first offenders are given jail terms, this rises steadily to be 67% by the 4th offence but overall only 4.5% are punished by this method. Interestingly the 1.5% amounts to about 60 first offenders each year while the 67% is about 40!

2. Just under 10% of first offenders are issued with no penalty - this is usually by way of a s10 order or similar that results in no conviction being recorded. Somewhat surprisingly 0.3 % of 4th offenders earn the same fate - although this is probably only one actual case.

Cheers
Russ

[russellw]

Not that there is a lot of uniformity around this wide and sun drenched land of ours - the range of penalties across the States is staggering as shown in the table below:

Please note that Queensland doesn't seem to want us to know as there is little information readily available!



WA and SA are the cheapest places to get done for a low range offence (0.05-0.08) and both issue demerits rather than automatic disqualifications for first offenders. Conversely Victoria has the most expensive fixed penalty and the longest standard disqualification.

WA evens the sheet a bit by being the only state to mandate lifetime disqualification for a 3rd offence.

Makes you wonder what happened to uniform road laws?

Cheers
Russ

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by russellw

1. While 1.5% of first offenders are given jail terms, this rises steadily to be 67% by the 4th offence but overall only 4.5% are punished by this method. Interestingly the 1.5% amounts to about 60 first offenders each year while the 67% is about 40!

Would you think that the 1.5% of jail terms would be from the driver actually killing someone, or something that would not allow anything less then a jail term?