Queensland to consider.02 blood alcohol limit

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

If you can't go somewhere without being forced to drive, don't drink? seems pretty simple to me. Or get a taxi/bus. If that's not viable, then drinking isn't either.

This is where the problem lies.. If there was some decent public transport infrastructure (in qld alone im not sure of other states) I reckon alot less people would drink and drive. The simple fact of the matter is up here after a football game or a night out in the valley / city its a nightmare to get a Taxi / Bus, Buses after a certain hour only service a handful of routes, thats why we have so many young people driving around when really they shouldn't be.

You will never stop drink driving.. People take risks unfortunately and that is that, and 90% of the time they get away with it so dont understand or think about the consequences, thats the greedy socity we live in.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

in the case of medications and foods:

1) medications can be justified after the fact, as long as you have a prescription or doctor's cert stating what you were taking and why

2) you have to use your noodle regarding food. Most savoury dishes using alcohol involve the alcohol content burning off while cooking, leafing sfa left as far as consumption goes. With desserts that involve alcohol, eg brandy, sherry etc, well use common sense.

I HIGHLY doubt any dish would put you over .02 or even anywhere near it.

I am all for the limit, in fact i'd prefer to see it a zero blood alcohol limit to put driving a car in line with flying an aircraft. Being highly involved in aviation and piloting, i see a great deal of merit in the situation.

Yes idiocy will still cause accidents, but why are you allowed to consume something which is proven to reduce awareness, and slow your reflexes, increasing the risk of injury or worse to yourself and those around you? The laws need reform. Pilots require .00 - why not drivers?

If you can't go somewhere without being forced to drive, don't drink? seems pretty simple to me. Or get a taxi/bus. If that's not viable, then drinking isn't either.

I've seen a lot of carnage caused by alcohol, and it's all completely pointless.

anyway i'll eagerly await the comedic hilarity of replies from the usuals

I showed link earlier of an actual case in Australia of a food creating a reading causing a huge amout of grief for the innocent victim.

With regard to pilots, the permitted level is NOT zero.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/aod/do...et_alcohol.pdf

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...9/099_amdt.pdf

[gtfpv]

c'mon guys . stop talking about problems and such .
there is absolutely no reason at all to drink and drive at all . no body forces a drink down your guzzler.
however , the issue is can we have a drink and drive responsibly . ?? i really think 2 drinks isnt going to distort responsible driving . i'm with the .05 brigade . because i think .05 is where you are quite safe. up to .05 i would think ( well so some studies i am sure have shown) that doesnt over diminish driving skills .
1 beer may diminish a drivers reflexes . but so would tiredness , a cigarette , a full stomach. music .having a head ache , sore knee, ictchy eye.
any drink and drive at all is a choice . nobody has to do it . the question is . are we deminished responsibility under .05 .
my belief is yes we are , but not enough to be irresponsible .

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by flappist

I showed link earlier of an actual case in Australia of a food creating a reading causing a huge amout of grief for the innocent victim.

With regard to pilots, the permitted level is NOT zero.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/aod/do...et_alcohol.pdf

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...9/099_amdt.pdf

err ok? well back in the mid 90's when i was flying the enforced limit where i flew was zero, no drinks. Sure they weren't random testing but it was widely known amongst the pilots. I'm pretty sure in the US at least you can't touch alcohol for a minimum of 8 hours before operating an aircraft.

Even with the 'ammendment' you posted ammending the 1998 legislation, it still states less than 0.02 which is far less than drivers are allowed, and in line with this new proposal in QLD.

I'd be interested to hunt out individual alcohol limits for each airline, i'll update here when i find.

[bingoTE50]

Not a big fan of .02 . It is a bit like kissing your sister , its a kiss , but you know it not the real thing !
If you going to change it, make it zero , then everyone knows where we stand. No guesswork involved .
For those who drive with hangovers,the rule of thumb is usually if you are hungover you are more than likely still over .
At the end of the day , it is attitude and lack of skill that cause smashes, I really do not blame roads , you drive to the conditions and the ability of yourself and your machine,and ultimately ( unfortunately) the speed limit.
You know my son just got his P's , and not once did the instructer we paid for, get him to do a emergency braking maneouvre , talk about spacial awareness, awareness of the surroundings ,ie footy grounds and kids crossing roads unexpectantly etc.
The little things that experience brings. Disappointing really , just enough knowledge to pass the test. Luckily I have done advanced driver training and am able to pass on information and practicle advice, but many parents cannot and that is the scary bit.
In saying this he will still be doing a advanced driving course in the very near future.

Who is best in SE QLD ?

[SLO AU XR8]

Originally Posted by Zoink

The Queensland Government have made a statement that infers that reducing BAC to 0.02 as per Sweden and Norway we would see a reduction in road trauma.

They didn't mention Poland and Estonia, doesn't fit the agenda ????


Countries that have Zero BAC / Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year.
Romania = 12.7
Saudi Arabia = 29
Slovakia = 15.1
United Arab Emirates = 37.1
Brazil = 18.3
Bangladesh = 12.6
Czech Republic = 10.4
Hungary = 9.9

Countries that have 0.02 BAC / Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year.
Estonia = 14.7
Poland = 14.7
Norway = 5.4
Sweden = 4.3

Countries that have 0.05 BAC / Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year.
Australia = 6.8
Denmark = 7.4
Finland = 6.5
France = 6.9
Germany = 5.5
Switzerland = 4.7

Countries that have 0.08 BAC / Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year.
Ireland = 7.8
Malta = 3.4
New Zealand = 8.6
UK = 4.3
USA = 12.3

Source
http://internationaltransportforum.org/irtad/about.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

all well and good for the government to use figures that are better than ours, but why can't they tell the complete story, rather than watering it down to suit their needs? Why do they feel the need to screw the majority for what the minority do inadequately!

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

err ok? well back in the mid 90's when i was flying the enforced limit where i flew was zero, no drinks. Sure they weren't random testing but it was widely known amongst the pilots. I'm pretty sure in the US at least you can't touch alcohol for a minimum of 8 hours before operating an aircraft.

Even with the 'ammendment' you posted ammending the 1998 legislation, it still states less than 0.02 which is far less than drivers are allowed, and in line with this new proposal in QLD.

I'd be interested to hunt out individual alcohol limits for each airline, i'll update here when i find.

We are all forgetting truck drivers need to be 0.0 and so do taxi drivers.. Whats so special about them if it doesnt make a huge difference...

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

We are all forgetting truck drivers need to be 0.0 and so do taxi drivers.. Whats so special about them if it doesnt make a huge difference...

can you make the question more clear?

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

can you make the question more clear?

That if .02 makes no difference then why do Taxi and truck drivers have to have a 0.0 BAC?

[Professor Farnsworth]

i never said that? i've just said i'm in favour of 0.00? 'less than 0.02' IS a big difference from 0.05

[irlewy86]

To ensure I don't speed, I have a speedometer.

To ensure I have a roadworthy car, I have wear indicators.

But how does the state government presume I am going to ensure I have a BAC below .02? Do I need a liver biopsy once a week so I know what the capacity of alcohol it can process. Do I need to get a a blood test before I go for a drive?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

err ok? well back in the mid 90's when i was flying the enforced limit where i flew was zero, no drinks. Sure they weren't random testing but it was widely known amongst the pilots. I'm pretty sure in the US at least you can't touch alcohol for a minimum of 8 hours before operating an aircraft.

Even with the 'ammendment' you posted ammending the 1998 legislation, it still states less than 0.02 which is far less than drivers are allowed, and in line with this new proposal in QLD.

I'd be interested to hunt out individual alcohol limits for each airline, i'll update here when i find.

The 0 BAC for pilots are company rules not CASA law. If you were flying in the 90s in Australia, the regs limit then was actually 0.15. I suspect it was just left over from when all driving BACs were 0.15 and as it was Federal not State law it just never got looked at. I can't find a link on the CASA site but I do have the old regs somewhere at home.
When I was doing abinitio my instructor took me out to do circuits while I was very hung over to demonstrate just how dangerous it was. I NEVER went near an aircraft after a night on the turps after that.

Remember it was only a couple of years ago that Air France stopped serving wine with the meals to the tech crew.

[flappist]

The bottom line is that the "non drinkers" support this idea because they think it does not affect THEM.

In the last few weeks the following comments have been made by many members here.

1) It is much safer for P platers to be 0 BAC so it must be OK for everyone else.

2) It is OK for heavy vehicles to be limited to 100km/h so it must be OK for everyone else.

3) Pilots have a very low BAC so it must be OK for everyone else.

Well then, using the same logic.

V8s and turbos are not safe for P platers so therefore they CANNOT be safe for anyone else and should be banned outright.

This will have no direct effect what so ever on the MAJORITY of road users, that is the ones who do not drive V8s or turbos, so making a minority group who after all are just anti-social hoons really (I saw it on TV it must be true) suffer for the greater good is quite forgivable.

Pilots must redo their license exam every 2 years (1 year for IFR) and if they are not up to scratch are not allowed to fly until they pass. They also need a current medical and must BY LAW report any illness or injury to a doctor who will decide if they are allowed to fly.

This idea if introduced to road transport must reduce road deaths significantly. Particularly as most people will fail the test and require re-training and there will be no driving with the flu etc.

Do you believe these safety changes should implemented?

Or just the ones that effect OTHER people........

[saber]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No the sad fact is people who make those sorts of comments dont understand or care to understand what alcoholism is or drink driving.

And before you say im a "wowser" or "Un-Australian" or what ever else people like to throw at each whenever going agaisnt the norm is socially unacceptable (Even when its morally the right thing to do), why even make such a comment?

The debate is about drink driving....

If you cant live ONE day with out craving a beer then something is wrong with you... And yea i even put smokers on there too.

"A" beer... oh well thats ok... maybe ill have two beers... oh wait... three.. ill be ok... ill have another... yes its all good.

I think you’re missing point the about having a beer at lunch. People like to drink a beer at lunch with their meal because the beer accompanies their meal. Much like tomato sauce goes with snags and hamburgers.

As other posters have stated, I think we are sliding as a society if somebody is classified as a drink drive who has a beer/glass of wine during lunch.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by DJM83

That if .02 makes no difference then why do Taxi and truck drivers have to have a 0.0 BAC?

Yet taxi and truck drivers still get caught well over 0.05. So does the 0.00 limit stop them from being dangerously drunk behind the wheel?

[TUF_302]

I dont see the problem here, drink driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do on the road if not the most dangerous, but i think this might just create more drink drivers, than scare people off having one drink

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

No probs here either.

However, if .05 isn't stopping people, .02, won't make any difference to those who reguarly drive drunk.

A zero limit is foolish. Cough medicines, cherry ripes and some ice creams (Bubbl-o-bills I think), will even give a reading.

I had to be careful at a family gathering yesterday, I went to eat some deserts and the bloody pav had vanilla essence so I didn't have any for fears of showing up tiny amount of alcohol in a breath test, then we ended up leaving a few hours later anyway :'(.

I reckon, go the whole hog, 0.00 like P platers, you did it when you where 18, you can do it again I reckon.

[jpd80]

If alcohol is playing a major part in serious road injuries, wouldn't it be smarter to go back to good
old fashioned target testing of known hot spots and nab those stewed to the eyeballs drivers...

I'm all for letting the police work out where the drunks lurk and go get them
that includes dummies that booze up at home, get the munchies and go for a drive...

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

err ok? well back in the mid 90's when i was flying the enforced limit where i flew was zero, no drinks. Sure they weren't random testing but it was widely known amongst the pilots. I'm pretty sure in the US at least you can't touch alcohol for a minimum of 8 hours before operating an aircraft.

Even with the 'ammendment' you posted ammending the 1998 legislation, it still states less than 0.02 which is far less than drivers are allowed, and in line with this new proposal in QLD.

I'd be interested to hunt out individual alcohol limits for each airline, i'll update here when i find.

I agree IF we were all driving around at 300kph

[v gate]

NO beer no burnouts no this no that . You can preach all you want but every one here knows that we ALL!! have done some stuff we should not have done. If you honestly think .05 is to high of a reading then sell your car and stay at home. I promise you there are worse things than that going on in this happy happy joy joy world.

[ROBO332]

Yeah MY dad was right what he said to me when i was 14, That as i get older our government will dictate the laws to us and we will be no better of than a communist country... It' s true the older i get the quiker the laws are being passed through government without so much as our votes.... Next we wont be able to own or drive our vehicles of choice as they are not up to scratch with current government and greene pollisies' let alone if you are 0.05 or 0.02..... It is time to voice our opinion's before it is too late......

[mick457]

Originally Posted by PHATXR8

What a crock of do-gooder rubbish!

Next you will moaning about the terrible V8, speeding, petrol guzzling, pot smoking, 4wd environmental vandaling, heterosexual culture that is so obvious in Australia...... outrageous indeed!

Bring in zero BAC and make all road speed limits 40 km/h!

Would that make you happy?

well said i cant agree more mate

[mick457]

Originally Posted by .OZZY.

So how can they justify giving P platers a zero BAC limit then?

because your still ment to be learning how to drive
thats why u go on yours ps for 3 years

[mick457]

Originally Posted by BOSHOG

what i was trying to get at before i was called a teenage binge drinker was this, does a beer or wine really taste so much better than a coke, water or juice thats its worth pushing the law to the limit?

i know if i had one or 2 beers and decided to drive home id be worried about going over the limit, so i personally dont see the point.

i think some people drink alcohol in these situations because its the socially acceptable thing to do

idk ill ask my dad who drinks 5 or 6 beers every day after he gets home from work
if u cant tell coz its the internet i was being sarcastic

[mick457]

Originally Posted by vztrt

I'm against it as its another step in this country becoming a more soft then it already is. Should start looking at moving to NZ....

dont do that, i hurd on the radio today that the NZ becoming part of aus thing is sticking its ugly head up again

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I agree IF we were all driving around at 300kph

you'd have to be travelling vertically to hit that in the planes i was involved with

[Flaming Mo]

Gee, our governments are really cracking down on those who actually create the problems and trauma.

http://www.news.com.au/national/p-pl...-1225841617748

Serial offender 19 times over limit fined a whopping $600. I suspect her night out on the drink cost more than that.

[GT450]

I wonder how many here who are all for this idea currently never drink at all or alternatively never drink and drive, i would bet the vast majority. I have a beer and drive because i have a fair idea ( due to the various campaigns we have in Vic) what will put me over the limit. If i go over that i get picked up and the car gets picked up too. If i know i am going to have more i walk or get dropped off.You would have me believe i am a criminal for having a beer and driving but the current law says i am not and until it does i will continue to do so.
I am not an idiot , i obey the law, am responsible and i don't need do-gooders on this forum telling me what i should do when it comes to drinking and driving. I did not vote for you and believe me i will not vote for the party that thinks this stupid idea will lead to a lower road toll. You are probably in agreement with those that think 3kms over the 100 kmh limit makes me worse than Julian Knight in Hoddle street with a loaded gun. Lets start dealing in facts not money raising fiction.
Cheers
GT450

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Flaming Mo

Gee, our governments are really cracking down on those who actually create the problems and trauma.

http://www.news.com.au/national/p-pl...-1225841617748

Serial offender 19 times over limit fined a whopping $600. I suspect her night out on the drink cost more than that.

Thats where the problem lay, that really annoys me to read stories like that. If anyone can tell that punishment fits the crime ill eat my hat, $600 and 18mths suspension what a joke. IMO the fines are way to low, and i think its the money that would be the biggest deterrent i got a fine on my green P's that was north of $1500, not for drink driving but speeding and a 6mth suspension. The thought of having to fork out that much again makes me think twice about doing it again. Yeah yeah i know everyone isnt the same you will always get the serial offenders that will always re offend so that almost makes these new .02 BAC laws null and void to these people, they need something more substantial. Death penalty :

[EB 2 XR8]

This whole thing is just silly. Bligh has no idea as it is.