.02 limit in Victoria in the news

[Franco Cozzo]

Alarming number of drink-drivers allowed to stay on road as .02 limit mooted

ANTI-booze campaigners have backed a renewed push to reduce Victoria’s legal blood alcohol limit to help save lives.

A coalition of drug and alcohol educators say it’s time Victoria reviewed its drink-driving regulations to help curb offences and end the carnage on our roads.

It comes a day after Victoria Police suggested there should be a debate about dropping the legal limit to .02

It also follows revelations that more than 14,000 drink drivers caught with a blood alcohol level of up to .069 have kept their licenses in the past five years.

Shane Varcoe, chief executive at Victoria’s Dalgarno Institute, said it was time for a new clamp down on blood-alcohol rules.

Should the legal limit be reduced to .02? Have your say below.

“It’s now time to make the change,” Mr Varcoe said.

“The public are ready for it.”

This week Acting Superintendent Martin Boorman said there needed to be a balance in how police dealt with people who miscalculated how many drinks they’d had.

He warned the bar was set at .05, where drivers so affected were considered to present an ``unacceptable risk’’.

``It’s something that needs to be debated and the community needs to think about it,” Supt Boorman said. ``If there is evidence to support that, then maybe, it’s something we should do.’’

Mr Varcoe said changes to the drink-driving rules was no longer a ``radical’’ idea.

``The evidence already shows that the risk of accident increases the higher the blood alcohol limit,” he said.

``There is strong evidence that someone’s ability to drive is affected if they have any alcohol in their blood.’’

He said drivers with a blood-alcohol reading of between .02 and .05 had at least a three times greater risk of dying in a car crash. ``This risk increases to at least six times with a reading between .05 and .08, and to 11 times with a between .08 and .10.’’

``There is good evidence already collected through studies that show lowering the blood-alcohol concentration will certainly be a key contributor to reducing the road toll.’’

Queensland’s Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety professor Barry Watson is among others to back the concept.

``I think that the move to .02 is certainly something that we need to consider,” he said previously. ``It’s certainly something that we need to encourage public discussion about.’’

Victoria Police conduct four million breath tests a year.

Police have praised the changing attitudes of drivers that has seen those caught dropping from 16,373 in 2009 to 10,345 last year.

The figures show that 65,735 drink drivers were caught in the last five years, including 11,963 repeat offenders.

Supt Boorman said the bar was set at .05, where drivers so affected were considered to present an “unacceptable risk” on the road, but changing it, even dropping it to .02, could be re-examined.

“It’s something that needs to be debated and the community need to think about it,” he said.

“If there is evidence to support that, then maybe it’s something we should do.”

Supt Boorman said 20 per cent of fatal crashes in Victoria were alcohol-related.

“If you do drink and drive, we will catch you and you will pay the price,” he said.

“That’s the best outcome, because if you continue to drink-drive and we don’t catch you, the penalties will be much, much more — serious injury, death, killing a loved one,” he said.

“I think in today’s community, drink-drivers are very much frowned upon and there is also a social stigma.

“The community has decided as a whole not to tolerate drink-driving. It has taken 50-odd years to get to that stage.”

From October, drink-drivers who are P-platers or are over .07 will have to install an interlock device on their cars. The cars of those with a reading of more than .01 will be impounded.

DRIVERS CAUGHT BETWEEN .05 and- .069

2009: 4190

2010: 3735

2011: 3345

2012: 2987

2013: 2445

DRINK DRIVE TOTAL

2009: 16,373 (3296 repeat offenders)

2010: 14,763 (2658 repeat offenders)

2011: 12,582 (2226 repeat offenders)

2012: 11,672 (2027 repeat offenders)

2013: 10,345 (1756 repeat offenders)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law...0e84a9b6f3e878

I think thats not a bad idea, maybe even .00 like we all had to do on our Ls and Ps? We managed then why couldn't you manage now?

Or make it .02 limit, if you get caught between .02 and .05 just make it a $500 fine and 3 points but you keep your license, .05+ the normal loss of license/fine scenario.

That way the state has more revenue coming in and people will still be able to get to work for what we see as "acceptable" today, while still having your "crackdown" and raising $$$ at the same time.

What do you guys think?

[marty351]

Seems to be the obvious decline in catching drink drivers and subsequent revenue loss is the main
catalyst for a push in lowering the limit.
Even light beer would push most people over .02, so now you cant even have that with a nice restaruant
meal, not to mention how many lost licences/loss of jobs would come as a result. Bad idea IMO.

[Dash_XR]

Why focus on a problem that the statistics show is clearly reducing?
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-0...e-rise/5417380

[Yellow_Festiva]

Don't like the idea.

It will be 0.0 soon enough as I'm sure there is evidence to say that a person at .02 has x times more chance of crashing than someone that's dry.

[lucas2]

Make it .00 or leave it as is. For some reason I doubt low range drink drivers are the biggest catalysts in fatal accidents, more-so the idiots that drink to the point of being incapacitated and choose to drive. Make it .00 or leave as is and improve the policing. I'd much rather see more HWP and resources focusing on drink driving than hiding with a radar or cameras.

[tranquilized]

0.05 seems appropriate to me, it's lower than some other countries. 0.07 in New Zealand isn't it?

Rules, tightening or rules, and more rules - it's getting beyond a joke.

Australia, New Zealand, and the UK are 3 countries that seem to have a big binge drinking culture and the associated problems, particularly among young people. They also happen to be the 3 countries that have among the strictest alcohol restrictions (in terms of accessibility) in the western world. Coincidence?

[Adamz Ghia]

Too many people with too many opinions...

[XR6Runner]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Australia, New Zealand, and the UK are 3 countries that seem to have a big binge drinking culture and the associated problems, particularly among young people. They also happen to be the 3 countries that have among the strictest alcohol restrictions (in terms of accessibility) in the western world. Coincidence?

I'd say that the usa has a worse binge drinking problem, and they also have a more strict restriction on alcohole than the 3 countries you mentioned. Their legal age of buying alcohol is 21.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by XR6Runner

I'd say that the usa has a worse binge drinking problem, and they also have a more strict restriction on alcohole than the 3 countries you mentioned. Their legal age of buying alcohol is 21.

That's true, although you can buy beer from service stations and virtually anywhere in the US...

Regardless, your point backs my point up anyway.

[GASWAGON]

This is getting beyond the joke.....How many people are going to loose their jobs because of these crazy BAC limits. 0.05 is not that bad to be driving on???

[Ford_The_Win]

Originally Posted by XR6Runner

I'd say that the usa has a worse binge drinking problem, and they also have a more strict restriction on alcohole than the 3 countries you mentioned. Their legal age of buying alcohol is 21.

Research has shown that binge drinking is actually a lot less prevalent in the USA...but they have much higher use of cannabis to compensate.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Ford_The_Win

Research has shown that binge drinking is actually a lot less prevalent in the USA...but they have much higher use of cannabis to compensate.

2 states (maybe more?) and counting have made recreational use of weed legal. Will be interesting to see how the other countries who blindly followed the US lead in making it illegal in the first place will react.

[tut0r]

I have to say 0.0 to me would **** men, I don't drink excessivly like I used to as a teen mainly because of stomach issues but I enjoy a beer/wine or two with a meal when I am out, just feels like you'd have to end up not drinking or spending money on a taxi.

I can't really see someone 0.05 being a meance on the road compared to those that are blowing over .1....

[timetaker]

People will drink and drive regardless of the limit.I'm a non drinker but this is a farcical suggestion by the police.I suppose the police have been a little tardy in delivering their occasional "big solution" announcement

[marty351]

The way we're heading it wont be long before we're fined for littering in the toilet.

[timetaker]

The suggested new limit would be probably see a rise in off duty cops being caught drink driving.

[CoupeKing]

Used to be share a Cab, now it will be share a Pot.

[ultvict]

They can't be serious. Being on my P's I can't have a drop, I'm not saying I'd like to get smashed and drive, but a beer or two over a dinner would be nice sometimes - I know I would be more than aware to drive a short distance home.

Just coming back from a holiday, there were multiple times I could have enjoyed a sip of alcohol (day trip to the Barossa, or Coopers samplers) but couldn't as both my girlfriend and I are on our P's.

[EBII Fairmont]

This is beyond a joke. Another cash grab by the government. If they want to sort something out, then make the licensing harder as there are way too many people out there who aren't fit to drive sober let alone after a drink or two. Also, about getting the road toll down to zero, I find it highly doubtful unfortunately. As humans we all make mistakes at times even when we have done something a thousand times. Just apart of human nature.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

It will be 0.0 soon enough as I'm sure there is evidence to say that a person at .02 has x times more chance of crashing than someone that's dry.

The trouble with the 'x times more likely' line of thinking is that the probability of a crash is already so exceedingly low, that even if it were ten times more likely, it would still be less likely than scoring a date with Miranda Kerr.

[karj]

If I wanted to drink any amount of alcohol, I wouldn't drive.

From my perspective, it makes no sense to make a conscious choice to lessen my ability to drive by reducing my awareness or reflexes... by any amount, whether I thought the impact was negligible or not. There is more than enough stuff to worry about on the road, stuff that I have limited control over...

If the evidence indicates that lowering the legal BAC to .02 or zero would decrease accidents, then I would support it. If it's evidence-based policy and people are still riled about it, then perhaps they should take a look at their dependence on alcohol in order for them to have a good time.

[Polyal]

If I cant have a beer or a glass of wine with my lunch on a sunday arvo and drive home Id be pretty annoyed.

Is it the end of the world or against some "rights" etc..no, but there is a pretty large difference between having a drink with a meal and have one to many at the pub on the way home from work.

I wonder what the EU countries do since in general they have a culture of a longer lunch and more often than not a drink to go with it.

[XD 351 Ute]

Interesting that those who drive tired, drive without due attention to the task, or simply cannot drive properly, are not being dealt with to the degree that drink drivers are......
They all pose a similar hazard to other road users.

Ed

[LTDHO]

What a load of BS.

Seriously .02??? That is beyond ridiculous. OK, this has been posted before but clearly this is a grab for more cash.

They are catching less people but the road toll has remained the same. Do you think maybe drink driving isn't the issue?+

Shane Varcoe you are an idiot with your own objectives and it's not road fatalities.

If you want a safer road then this is not the way to go about it.

[CoupeKing]

After this they`ll ban salt from Fish n chip shops.

[SumoDog68]

USA is 0.08 in most states .

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by XD 351 Ute

Interesting that those who drive tired, drive without due attention to the task, or simply cannot drive properly, are not being dealt with to the degree that drink drivers are......
They all pose a similar hazard to other road users.

Ed

I'm on holidays and doing a lot of running around in the car during business hours.

In 3 days I observed almost a dozen clowns doing the most stupid stuff. I really need to get a dash cam as some stuff you just wouldn't bloody believe.

Busses pulling in front of me at a round about, cars swerving around stopped cars to run a red light, turing from the wrong lane, people reading the paper / shaving / talking on their phone / reading a book while driving.

Yesterday I saw a beaut - a (B-double??) truck almost killed 2 guys in a light truck who were stuck behind a car that had stalled at the lights.

This truck was doing like 60 - was cruising through the intersection and the dope in the smaller truck just decided to turn left and got side swiped by the B double.. had the larger truck been a fraction slower, or had the smaller truck been a second faster to pull out there would have been a few families missing members at the dinner table that evening....

Sick to watch when you see it first hand...

But no. 2km over the limit or possibly .03 BAC and you are a danger to the cosmos.

Actually - I think I will look into that dash cam thread and finally get one installed - professional drivers must tear their hair out if this is the norm!

[The Monty]

Im all for it, and I think the idea posted above about the .03-0.5 being a fine a demerits.

[wranger]

The people who cause crashes because of alcohol are the ones who drink so much that they choose to drive anyway. Vic clearly just aren't getting enough revenue at .5.

[Hulsty]

I'm not in for this change at all especially when the reporting and government all warp the stats to say what they want.

What % of accidents are attributed to alcohol below 0.05% BAC ? If the majority of accidents are attributed to over 0.05% BAC ie 0.069 or something how is lowering the limit going to help? The people that are high range drink drivers always will be regardless of the limit.