Drink Driving

[chappo555]

Is that like when they are unsure of or dont 100% know the reason behind the accident, so it goes under "speed related"

It's a lot more complicated than that to tag any incident with an associated factor of speed or alcohol. The only factor that IS really subjective is fatigue related as unless there are admissions by driver it is an assumption albeit backed by anecdotal evidence.

It would take pages to describe how something is tagged with an associated factor of speed or alcohol related and it is subject to multiple levels of scrutiny and requires evidence i.e, a post mortem toxicology report with a BAC is a pretty good example. It isn't made up but feel free to argue with the doctor, the pathologist and the coroner. Just remove your tin foil hat prior to entering the coroners office.

[JU5T1N]

Slightly off topic but my sister in law died last week from smoking related cancer.....she was bed ridden for the last couple of weeks at home and it amazed me how many of her friends and family smoked in the same room as her as they told her how unfair it is that she is dieing so young..... the idiots just don't get it and then they get cranky when you tell them to piss off outside with there cigarettes. ....it is just ignorance and the same mentality as drink drivers and unlicensed drivers

A few years back I was getting treatment for "C" on a daily basis. My kids would come with me some of the days. I pointed out the designated smoking area wasn't the hospital doorway to an ever growing group of smokers on a few of these occasions. Each day they would still be there. On Thursday's was my Chemo day so I asked to go last one week as I needed to do something quickly. I ducked back out and asked the group of smokers if I could get a photo. They smiled and said it was fine. Some of them would only come in to get their Chemo bags changed or a toilet run. At the end of the day I showed my handy work to a few of the nurses for a laugh and then a few patients that were part of the group smoking complete with their chemo and trolley at the time of the photo. I had knocked them up a poster for the Chemo room wall on the laptop. These smoking patients suddenly were the ones protesting. I simply said well keep out of the door ways or I would make sure it was to happen. The nurses new it was only to move them on or to wake them up....both really

No it didn't stop them smoking....but it did get them into the smoking area from that day on
No I'm not a smoking grinch, just don't wish for my kids to be innocently subjected to it and don't like the risk of them getting burnt by these irresponsible twits holding them down at kids head height in a major doorway.

As for DUI
Rules are rules .050 is just that .050
Not .060, 0.55 or even 0.51
As a truck driver I have to stay under 0.00 and I do. Surly people can organise other alternatives when knowing they are going to go for a drink. I love a drink and when I get the opportunity I usually make up for lost time.

I'm sure there not a single father or mother on here who wouldn't want anything less then blood if it was their child hit by the 0.51 driver of any vehicle.
Yes some can handle more drinks then others blar...blar...blar...I know this and seen this at plenty of socials.
If your thinking your unlucky and get caught for 0.051 and taken off the road someones family has been spared the heart ship and possible loss of loved ones.

As for "FISHFINFINDER," that really sux! With the taxi driver clarifying your case they could of dismissed it at that point with his own judgment.
All pubs/clubs should have a undercover safe zone complete with security where taxis can pick you or your child up from.

[nbd73]

As for DUI
Rules are rules .050 is just that .050
Not .060, 0.055 or even 0.051

As for "FISHFINFINDER," that really sux! With the taxi driver clarifying your case they should of dismissed it at that point.

Not sure about other states but in Qld if you are in possession of keys to a motor vehicle whilst in the driver's seat its bad luck I'm afraid. Does not matter what your "intentions" are or were, the point is you have the capacity to drive a vehicle and if you have been drinking your judgement could be impaired. You may well have called a taxi, but in the eyes of the law this does not change the fact that you could change your mind, start the car & drive off. In the quoted case maybe not, but as you said the law is the law. A technicality? Really so is the difference between a driver who blows 0.049 & one who blows 0.05. One goes home, the other gets a fine and 3 months licence suspension.
So much of our judgement on things is based on perception relative to a framework of law. How about the states where there is a different limit? Are the people living there more capable of driving under the influence? Yet the law says a driver at say 0.079 in a 0.08 limit state is under so can go home and no one says anything yet in Qld for eg that driver is condemned by a court of law and the general public. See my point?

[dazzler]

Is that like when they are unsure of or dont 100% know the reason behind the accident, so it goes under "speed related"

Thats BS Lost.

I have worked with the serious crash investigators and they absolutely know there stuff.  Yaw marks and braking coefficients and crumple zone impacts and airbag deflation rates etc.  Way above my IQ level 

There was always an argument between the traffic cops and SCI's about moving cars.  They treated the scene exactly as a homocide (as best they could) and would not let vehicles be moved until they had done their preliminary scene inspection.  And I never EVER heard or saw them blame any factor without evidence.

(thats not to say the police media and hieracrchy are not quick to point before the evidence is in but never the investigators)

cheers

[krisandkev]

Horse poo mate. Alcohol crash stats require a crash and an alcohol/drug reading. That can be through arrest and breath analysis or post mortem exam. Hardly making it up.

Each to their own opinion.  Maybe to you I talk a load of 'Horse poo'. I do know a little as I use to collate and interrogate these stats and prepare briefings.  I use to put up regular arguments to senior management about the problems with how the data is required to be entered onto the system.  I was also not only a serious incident investigator I was also a trainer in the recording system in Qld.  But like I said, each to their own opinion and I respect others opinions without calling their opinion a name.  And of cause we all know, stats don't lie.      Kevin

[chappo555]

Krisandkev. Can't speak for QLD. I can speak for NSW having done the job for 21 yrs. and KNOWING how the data is input, verified, quality reviewed, collated and disseminated.
My comments are based on fact and first hand experience not opinion.
Like I said can't speak for QLD or other states but in NSW alcohol related states require evidence not opinions.
Just my 2 cents.
Chappo555

[UIZ733]

This thread should have the title 'Road Rules'. Why are so many people such selfish jerks that think they are so special that they should be exempt from rules? We supposedly live in a democracy, not some lawless back water. Adherence to road rules is so obviously rare in Qld, one often scratches their head in shame with being a resident. DUI is just one example!

[dazzler]

I have lost my license for 6 months for having 4 beers at a pub over a space of 2 hours those days there were no mobile phones stumps where called at the pub i was not sure if i was over or under so I decided to leave the car on the street and got the bar maid to call a taxi. Waiting for a taxi it started to rain so my girlfriend and myself jumped in my car for shelter, the mistake I made was instead of listening to my girlfriend complain about how long the taxi is taking I decided to turn on the radio, to do so the keys needed to be in the ignition. Sure enough the cops spotted us in the car I explained we were waiting for a taxi they made me blow in the bag and read .081, whilst i was being hand cuffed, yes I got a little hot headed after the cops did not care about my girlfriend having to wait on her own for a taxi, they just needed to get me back to the cop shop ASAP for a proper reading. Fortunately the taxi rolled up the cops asked the driver if he was called and under what name, the driver gave them my name. I still dont know why they bothered asking as it still cost me my license and about $1000 first offence.

So how do I fit into this discussion

You asked how you fit into this discussion so here goes.

Firstly, you could not have had four std drinks over two hours and gone over .08.  The four std drinks over two hours would add up to .08 however you go down .02 every hour so this would put you at .08 less .02 x 2 which is .04.  Still with me?

By the time you got back to the cop shop you will have dropped further not gone up.  You have not said what you blew back at the shop however if it were over .08 then obviously you have had more than 4 std drinks.  At this stage you are looking at having consumed a minimum of 6 std drinks just to be at .08 after 2 hours.

Nasa - we have a problem.  (was it the old breath analysis system where you had an operator that moved a small thumbwheel or one where you blew and it printed out the result.  I can explain why this is important later)

Secondly, traffic offences, other than culpable driving (from memory) are strict and absolute so once the offence is committed there is not a 'defence' as such.  So lawfully once you had the keys in the ignition you were deemed to be in control of the vehicle and so have committed the offence.  Whether you had arranged a taxi is irrelevant at law.  At common law there is the last act rule which refers to the last thing that you would have done prior to committing the offence.  So this plays a bearing as well as the last thing before driving would be putting the key in the ignition.  The rule actually dates back to a block standing on a box behind a horse with his pants down - I kid you not.

Thirdly, how did  you go at court?  What did the magistrate say in summation.  This is important because it is what a third party thought of the overall evidence presented.  This would be the best indicator of who did what.

NB - Dont read into this that I am saying you are untruthful.  Something is not quite right.  Nor am I saying what the cops did was correct or not.

[Bunyip]

It's one subject that gets my blood boiling.

Never would have guessed that John 

My best friend lost her father to a drunk truck driver (He was in an MGB and never had a chance) when she was only a couple of months old. The effect on the families remaining is never ending.

Bunyip

[olddigger]

Be interesting to know how many single vehicle crashes are caused by the idiot generation who cannot go five minutes without texting or making/receiving a phone call.
If they want to die for the privilege of sending a text, that's fine. Improves the gene pool. But don't involve me.
I see it nearly every day. On the freeway at 100kmh. Makes me wish the police carried crushing devices into which they could put the offending phones on the spot.

[fishfinder]

You asked how you fit into this discussion so here goes.

Firstly, you could not have had four std drinks over two hours and gone over .08.  The four std drinks over two hours would add up to .08 however you go down .02 every hour so this would put you at .08 less .02 x 2 which is .04.  Still with me?

By the time you got back to the cop shop you will have dropped further not gone up.  You have not said what you blew back at the shop however if it were over .08 then obviously you have had more than 4 std drinks.  At this stage you are looking at having consumed a minimum of 6 std drinks just to be at .08 after 2 hours.

Nasa - we have a problem.  (was it the old breath analysis system where you had an operator that moved a small thumbwheel or one where you blew and it printed out the result.  I can explain why this is important later)

Secondly, traffic offences, other than culpable driving (from memory) are strict and absolute so once the offence is committed there is not a 'defence' as such.  So lawfully once you had the keys in the ignition you were deemed to be in control of the vehicle and so have committed the offence.  Whether you had arranged a taxi is irrelevant at law.  At common law there is the last act rule which refers to the last thing that you would have done prior to committing the offence.  So this plays a bearing as well as the last thing before driving would be putting the key in the ignition.  The rule actually dates back to a block standing on a box behind a horse with his pants down - I kid you not.

Thirdly, how did  you go at court?  What did the magistrate say in summation.  This is important because it is what a third party thought of the overall evidence presented.  This would be the best indicator of who did what.

NB - Dont read into this that I am saying you are untruthful.  Something is not quite right.  Nor am I saying what the cops did was correct or not.

agree with what you are saying i was in the wrong by placing the keys in the ignition - those days only drank pints this was going back 23 years ago so how long i was at the pub and what i consumed  is a guestimate now but I was charged for .081, and as far as getting a little hot headed the dui charge was not the only thing i faced the magistrate for.
But should I be tared with the same brush as first time or repeat offenders for drink driving where these people were actually driving the vehicles and my intentions was not to drive a vehicle at all in which I strongly stood firm in not doing so after those few beers, is the question I was trying to ask..

[dazzler]

I dont think anyone should be tarred with anything.  If you get caught you get caught.  Yours sounds somewhat unreasonable to me and I doubt anyone would think ill of you.

[Jenko67]

I have been to many crashes over the years involving drunk drivers... some fatal themselves and others killing other people..... heartbreaking when you have to tell the families that their family member was killed in a crash by a drunk driver...... many are etched into my memory....any amount of alcohol in your system affects your driving....

[doogs01]

Just my two bob's worth. A few years ago I got a HR truck Licence to advance a bit in my job. All of a sudden I had to be zero to drive.
I used to play roulette and have a couple and drive (in my car) always thinking I would be under 05. But you never really know do you?
After driving the truck for a few years around Oz the notion of no alcohol before driving sort of carried into driving my car as well. I haven't driven a truck for a while now but just don't have alcohol at all if I have to drive. I love a beer or five otherwise.
My point is, the law for P plate drivers is zero so hopefully it is already ingrained in them so why not make it zero for all types of driving?
The day will come that this will happen. It has to to stop the carnage these idiots cause. Anyone caught DUI should lose their right to drive
forever. If caught again throw 'em in the slammer until they grow a brain.
Sounds harsh and over the top but nothing else we've tried has ever worked.
Cheers Garry

[nab]

You asked how you fit into this discussion so here goes.

Firstly, you could not have had four std drinks over two hours and gone over .08.  The four std drinks over two hours would add up to .08 however you go down .02 every hour so this would put you at .08 less .02 x 2 which is .04.  Still with me?

Just noticed that the original poster said he had 4 beers, not 4 standard drinks. May have been pints? Maybe that's where the mixup is.

A few weeks ago, a mate had quite a few drinks at my place, he wasn't blind drunk but he was over the limit for sure. My other mate and I had to physically stop him from driving home and we had a nice (re: colourful) conversation at the time. He ended up getting a lift home.

Next day he apologised to us profusely and thanked us for stopping him. He had some other crap happen at work that was bugging him and combined with the drinks made him really agro.

You never know the reasons why some people drink and drive, if you can stop them in any way do it.

[SteveandViv]

Will try to clarify what I am trying to say. 

The penalties for the Drink Driving offences need to be different, a higher minimum penalty for High Range with lesser penalties for Low Range. 
 
For the people that drink drive they are a drunk driver regardless if they go High Range or Low Range.  The people are the same, the penalty is different.  If they feel remorse for what they did?  Some do, some will never get it. 


I think where we do differ is "Despite what you may think, there is a difference between the person who misjudged and the filth that don't care. Both are over the limit, but only one feels true remorse and shame for their actions."    I can see your point where the is a difference in the intention of the driver at the time.  My attitude is if you intend to drive, don't drink.  Don't try to make out you didn't think you were over the limit. 

You have indicated you got drunk and they drove and have done jail time as a result.  You also so you have learnt from it and changed you ways, I tip my hat to you.  Does that really make you any different to someone that repeatedly has "one or two drinks too many" and continues to drive home over the legal limit. 

Drink Driving is an offence, therefore it is a Crime.  Whether that makes you a criminal or not, doesn't matter.  What does matter is if you change your ways or continue to commit the crime.

Drink Driving is an offence, therefore it is a Crime.  Whether that makes you a criminal or not, doesn't matter.  What does matter is if you change your ways or continue to commit the crime. 

No it's not.. Drink driving over the LEGAL limit is a crime and unlike many other countries we are to rigid to use our brain in how we deal with it. Just because some one has one drink that tips them over the limit does not make the a criminal IMO. In the US you are meant to be .05 but can be .08. The .08 allows you to be fined on the spot. You must drive home but yo are not considered pissed or a criminal unlike those that are sh1t faced. It's not the same.

[Bill]

No it's not.. Drink driving over the LEGAL limit is a crime and unlike many other countries we are to rigid to use our brain in how we deal with it. Just because some one has one drink that tips them over the limit does not make the a criminal IMO. In the US you are meant to be .05 but can be .08. The .08 allows you to be fined on the spot. You must drive home but yo are not considered pissed or a criminal unlike those that are sh1t faced. It's not the same.

You don't mean to say if you blow .08 or less then you must drive straight home do you?
I do not understand what your saying.
Bill

[Mumof3]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone over the limit is breaking the law. My Grandfather was knocked down and killed on a pedestrian crossing by a drunk driver. The jerk got off as pleaded he was low range and was very remorse full. The law is a joke.

[nbd73]

There are a lot of posts on here that seem to take a "holier than thou" approach & envisage zero tolerance to people over the limit. The previous post suggested a low range conviction as being a "drunk" driver, how much of this is terminology or language use? At 0.051 there are plenty of people who are under the influence, but certainly not "drunk'" by any sane person's definition. I wonder how many of the posters who imply zero tolerance are saints on the road. It's a fair bet some of them have speeding tickets on their record and have used a mobile phone whilst driving. These practices can be just as deadly as being on the road at 0.051, yet to apply the attitude of these people would suggest locking up people who commit these other traffic offences.
With regard to a previous post, in Qld DD only becomes a criminal offence for readings of 0.15 and above, below this it is a traffic offence.

[fuji]

You asked how you fit into this discussion so here goes.

Firstly, you could not have had four std drinks over two hours and gone over .08.  The four std drinks over two hours would add up to .08 however you go down .02 every hour so this would put you at .08 less .02 x 2 which is .04.  Still with me?

By the time you got back to the cop shop you will have dropped further not gone up.  You have not said what you blew back at the shop however if it were over .08 then obviously you have had more than 4 std drinks.  At this stage you are looking at having consumed a minimum of 6 std drinks just to be at .08 after 2 hours.

Nasa - we have a problem.  (was it the old breath analysis system where you had an operator that moved a small thumbwheel or one where you blew and it printed out the result.  I can explain why this is important later)

Secondly, traffic offences, other than culpable driving (from memory) are strict and absolute so once the offence is committed there is not a 'defence' as such.  So lawfully once you had the keys in the ignition you were deemed to be in control of the vehicle and so have committed the offence.  Whether you had arranged a taxi is irrelevant at law.  At common law there is the last act rule which refers to the last thing that you would have done prior to committing the offence.  So this plays a bearing as well as the last thing before driving would be putting the key in the ignition.  The rule actually dates back to a block standing on a box behind a horse with his pants down - I kid you not.

Thirdly, how did  you go at court?  What did the magistrate say in summation.  This is important because it is what a third party thought of the overall evidence presented.  This would be the best indicator of who did what.

NB - Dont read into this that I am saying you are untruthful.  Something is not quite right.  Nor am I saying what the cops did was correct or not.

Sorry Dazzler it's .01 for every hour. And everybody's metabolism is different so there is always a possibility of being .08 after 4 drinks. My ex boss wrote the bible on drink driving and His word is gospel in Oz. But I am not going to argue about it.IF YOU DRINK AND DRIVE YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE ^}*#*head.
Plus when you finish drinking your blood alcohol level goes up before it starts to come down. I have been a Breath test operator for over 15 years.

[SteveandViv]

You don't mean to say if you blow .08 or less then you must drive straight home do you?
I do not understand what your saying.
Bill

 The limit is still .05. They give you the space between .05 and .08. This allows for the fact you may have just gone over. You still get a fine but you don't get treated like and ax murder which many seem to think low range drink drivers are. Why should you be shat on just because you were .052? This is were they use the buffer of .08. NZ did the same for a long time, not sure if they still do.

I don't condone people pissed and driving but I do not think .01 over is that bad as to loose your licence which this rule helps address.

[fuji]

The limit is still .05. They give you the space between .05 and .08. This allows for the fact you may have just gone over. You still get a fine but you don't get treated like and ax murder which many seem to think low range drink drivers are. Why should you be shat on just because you were .052? This is were they use the buffer of .08. NZ did the same for a long time, not sure if they still do.

I don't condone people pissed and driving but I do not think .01 over is that bad as to loose your licence which this rule helps address.

In Vic if you're b/w .05 - .07 u lose 10 points and if u don't have ten points you get a notice, Have your licence suspended or take a 1 point option.

[Bill]

In NY if you blow between .05 - .09 it is at least a $500.00 fine and loss of licence for mandatory 30 days. This is classed as driving under the influence.
Blow .10 or higher it is at least a $1000.00 fine and loss of licence for 60 days. This is classed as driving while intoxicated.
A DUI  and DWI are on your license for 10 years.
You can only have one of either of  these convictions on your licence during this 10 year period.
 Any more and you are not allowed to hold a licence until one of the charges has expired. You then must take a defensive driving course and take the road test all over again.
More that 1 DWI within 10 years is an automatic felony incurring higher fines and longer loss of licence and possible jail time (but usually probation for 1 year). Which is a joke as I had 2 DUI's and 2 DWI's and never did a bit of jail time and still drove everyday.
Now to be honest I haven't been back home since 2006 so these laws may have changed. But these were the laws when I was a habitual drunk driver...
Bill

[grafy82]

It's extremely simple really. If you know you have to, or may soon have to drive, DO NOT DRINK AT ALL! There is NO argument in your favour. Is it really worth having just a couple of drinks so you think you'll still be right? Here's the tip; buy a coke instead, its cheaper and tastes better.

Wes

[BLKWDW]

Dont burn me for saying but i'm guilty for drink driving numerous times when i was on my p's. I never got picked up luckily i out it down to just pot luck and am i proud of it now definitely not but back then i was a young nieve teenager who only cared for himself. It took my now wife and her daughter for me to wake up to myself and since getting together never have.

I did make the mistake once though a few yrs ago i got a night away from her and went into town to meet up with some mates who were already there. Figured i'd have a beer stay a couple of hrs and drive home. Well alot of beers later i decided to leave and knowing i drove in i walked most of the way home. Prob close to 50k's. For those who know the area I walked from wollongong to shellharbour and went and got my car back the next afternoon. I can tell you i was well and truly sober when i got home.

The justice system is what lets the police and us citizens down all the time. Until they step up and make examples out of people who blow over or at least give a fitting punishment to each dui it will never stop.