Under .02 or under arrest ???

[Bird]

Must be a slow news day to dig out this old one again..

Victorian motorists could be busted for driving with a single drink in their system under a radical road safety shake-up likely to be considered by the Andrews Government.

Road's Minister Luke Donnellan has confirmed the Government will consider cutting the legal blood alcohol limit from 0.05 to 0.02 if evidence finds it would cut road trauma.

"If the figures indicate that it would improve behaviour we'd look at it, absolutely," Mr Donnellan said. "I'm sure some would think it's inappropriate and some wouldn't think it's appropriate. But let's be very clear, we make no apologies for wanting to drive the death toll down."

Interlocks are expensive, and previously had only been used for drivers blowing 0.07 or more, repeat offenders and those on probationary licences or learners.



...
New laws will mean anyone who blows over the legal limit of .05 will be forced to install an interlock in their car.

Interlocks cost $170 to install, plus another $150 a month to operate. To remove them is another $100. Mr Donnellan said the system would involve "full cost recovery", meaning offenders will bear the entire cost, in additional to any fines.

Victoria Police assistant commissioner Doug Fryer strongly backed the change, saying it would make roads safer and cut the level of trauma.

He also backed lowering the legal blood alcohol limit for younger drivers, with people aged between 21 and 25 particularly over-represented in drink-driving statistics.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorias-drink-driving-limit-could-be-cut-to-002-20160513-goua21.html

[Ben.Archer]

State pollies getting jealous that all the media coverage is on their ferral piers and making silly statements to get into the news?

[Bird]

State pollies getting jealous that all the media coverage is on their ferral piers and making silly statements to get into the news?

I reckon country areas will make Centillions out of fines if it happens.

[corndog]

Would be done for a cash grab. Soon they will fine us for just driving a car.

[speewa158]

That's the end of pubs in country towns unless you can walk there    l if fact can do just that               

[jw2170]

Way back when....

If I recall correctly [subject to correction by greater minds], NSW had 0.08 when the breath testing first came in, so they must have been happy for that level. (In New York and some other US states it is 0.10)

NSW changed down to 0.05 to fit in with Vic.....

Now they want 0.02.....That is just revenue raising.....       

[plusnq]

You are correct

[KingBilly]

From VicRoads
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-to-z-of-road-rules/alcohol-and-other-drugs

Alcohol

You cannot drive if you are affected by alcohol or by both illicit drugs and alcohol over the legal limit.

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) is a measure of how much alcohol is in your body.

If you are a learner, P1, P2, restricted motorcycle rider or a professional driver (e.g., a truck, bus or taxi driver), you must drive with a zero BAC.

Other drivers and those supervising learner drivers, must drive with a BAC under .05.

These rules apply if you are on a public road or on private property

That last bit is interesting for campers.

KB

[Bill]

Way back when....

If I recall correctly [subject to correction by greater minds], NSW had 0.08 when the breath testing first came in, so they must have been happy for that level. (In New York and some other US states it is 0.10)

NSW changed down to 0.05 to fit in with Vic.....

Now they want 0.02.....That is just revenue raising.....       

NY is .05 for driving while ability impaired and if you blow .10 your driving drunk.
I had 3 of the .05 and 4 of the 1.0 before I finally stopped drinking.
Most states don't like the limits but they will be the same if they want federal funding for their roads.
Bill

[plusnq]

I'd love to see where they could get this data from. Considering the data they would collect now could only relate to offences over 0.05 or serious accident data where drivers (at fault) were between 0.02 and 0.05. I doubt they would have enough data to make any reliable statements.

[tryagain]

I'd love to see where they could get this data from. Considering the data they would collect now could only relate to offences over 0.05 or serious accident data where drivers (at fault) were between 0.02 and 0.05. I doubt they would have enough data to make any reliable statements.

I think police breath test the driver's for all serious crashes so I wouldn't be surprised if that information is in a database somewhere but am unsure whether they record the level if it's under 0.05

[plusnq]

That's what I said. Only serous crashes would have data. That makes it a skewed set of data.

[Me]

Just my take on it of course, but the drivers who cause the most pain are statistically way over .05 (the current limit) already.

They are also way over the last limit of .08

In fact, they probably would blow over the .10 limit mentioned in NY.

Lowering the limit really only affects those of us who are already law abiding. It DOES NOT change the road toll IMO.  The road toll is shocking, even though the BAL has been dropped to lower levels.

The bastards who drive while pissed to the eyeballs will continue to do so, regardless of the limit that is set. They are the ones the coppers & the govt should be chasing!

[Mr Man]

Would be done for a cash grab. Soon they will fine us for just driving a car.

I thought they already were.
Import tax
Luxury car tax
GST
Transfer duty
Registration
Licence renewal
Third Party Insurance
No fault Disability Insurance
Traffic Infringement fines
Indexed Fuel excise
Parking and Parking Infringements
Tolls

Did I miss any??

[GanG]

That's what I said. Only serous crashes would have data. That makes it a skewed set of data.

In Victoria the first treating hospital is obliged to take blood or breath test the person identified in writing by the ambulance or police as the driver of a vehicle involved in a collision.

If there is no person identified as driver the obligation is to take blood or breath test all occupants of the vehicle over the age of 16yrs.

In the event of a fatality my recollection is all occupants must be tested........its almost 4 years since I left work in an emergency department so am a little foggy on that one.

The data set is actually pretty comprehensive,

[fuji]

From VicRoads
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-to-z-of-road-rules/alcohol-and-other-drugs

Alcohol

You cannot drive if you are affected by alcohol or by both illicit drugs and alcohol over the legal limit.

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) is a measure of how much alcohol is in your body.

If you are a learner, P1, P2, restricted motorcycle rider or a professional driver (e.g., a truck, bus or taxi driver), you must drive with a zero BAC.

Other drivers and those supervising learner drivers, must drive with a BAC under .05.

These rules apply if you are on a public road or on private property

That last bit is interesting for campers.

KB

The offence of drink driving can happen anywhere and is not confined to roads only😃

[fuji]

I'd love to see where they could get this data from. Considering the data they would collect now could only relate to offences over 0.05 or serious accident data where drivers (at fault) were between 0.02 and 0.05. I doubt they would have enough data to make any reliable statements.

All data is collected for any drink or drug driving offence includinding no offence
W.

[#jonesy]

These rules apply if you are on a public road or on private property

That last bit is interesting for campers.

KB

You might be surprised, that where you go camping and 4 wheel driving are still roads (highways) and all the usual road rules apply. There is no "what happens in the bush stays in the bush"

As for the data being skewed, maybe so but it is worse case scenario which is what we all want to avoid.

[feisty]

Read somewhere that 20% of serious collisions involve alcohol.

So does that mean 80% don't? 
If so doesn't that mean you got less chance of being in a serious accident if you've been drinking?
Just saying.........

[tk421]

Must a Vic thing. 


Vic:
"however, close to one in four drivers and riders killed in the last five years had a BAC greater than 0.05.

http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/drink-driving-statistics

NSW:
"The contributing causes to accidents has also changed. Alcohol as a contributing cause to an accident has declined from 7.1% in 1990 to 4.0% in 2005. Speed as a contributing cause increased over the same period from 13.4% to 17.3%, while fatigue as a contributing cause has remained steady."

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/1338.1.55.001Main%20Features82007?opendocument&tabname=Summa

[prodigyrf]

We freedom loving smokers warned you scolds, puritans and nanny-staters they won't just rest with us-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-15/cancer-council-call-for-age-ban-on-smoking-prevent-youth/7416054?pfm=ms
Have to issue the police with tape measures soon for the fat and sugar fines too if you're over the limit. It's all for your own good

[KathyL]

These rules apply if you are on a public road or on private property

That last bit is interesting for campers.

I think you'll find the application of these rules 'on private property' came about directly as the result of a loophole in the law that previously meant unlincensed and/or drug/alcohol affected drivers couldn't be charged when an incident/accident occurred on private property - see Deaths of teens run over in paddock prompts law change.

[#jonesy]

This has been the case in Victoria for many years. At least 20+

[alnjan]

I think you'll find the application of these rules 'on private property' came about directly as the result of a loophole in the law that previously meant unlincensed and/or drug/alcohol affected drivers couldn't be charged when an incident/accident occurred on private property - see Deaths of teens run over in paddock prompts law change.

Wasn't a case of could not be charged but for some unknown reason was not charged.  Driver has committed offenses that he should have been charged with under the Crimes Act.  Just because it happened on private property, that was not open to and used by the public,  may mean the Road Transport Act does not apply, but there are definitely other Acts that the person should have been charged under.   

[prodigyrf]

There's only one answer-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/philippine-president-elect-rodrigo-duterte-plans-to-eliminate-antisocial-behavior-1463400016