Under .02 or under arrest ???

[tk421]

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

Won't be long now....

[jw2170]

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

Thanks for the correction, Bill.   the few reports I saw only listed those above 0.10..

PS, I am glad you saw the light, I would not like to meet you coming the other way in a 4WD.......

[paceman]

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.

that would be true if a .05 BAL affected one person in EXACTLY the same way as it affected another person with an identical .05 BAL...

the same amount of alcohol affects everybody differently.  but because the law requires it, there has to be a number and .05 is it, at the moment.

if it is lowered to .02, for example, perhaps that will be sufficient of a drop to avoid more accidents, because it removes the people who are adversely affected by the .03 increase...

just because the law says you are right to drive at .05 or below, it doesn't mean to say that you should.  accidents can also be caused by alcohol, even if the offender is under .05

IMO, it's a simple answer:

if you have been drinking, then don't drive.

why take the risk?

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!

agree.  unfortunately, you can't cure 'stupid'...

[Bird]

The bastards who drive while pissed to the eyeballs will continue to do so, regardless of the limit that is set.

Agree 12002389075432987958734958743987%

[Cruiser 105Tvan]

Agree 12002389075432987958734958743987%

There are still people out there who drive when disqualified.
Whether drink or drugs was the cause in the first place, they seem to think they're untouchable.

[Darcy7]

I don't like the idea of a reduced limit to .02% from my own social perspective.  I like to think I'm a resposible drinker and if I know I'm driving, I will limit my drinks to one or 2.  If this comes into effect, it will be a bit dissapointing but no real hardship.

On the other hand, I also see what happens when the drink driving thing goes horribly wrong and I am in complete favour of anything that has a reasonable chance of reducing the incidents of serious road crashes. 

The balance is difficult to achieve especially in our risk averse society.

One thing I can assure you all of.  There is no element of revenue raising involved in a decision like this.  The money spent policing it would almost certainly outweigh any additional funds it would raise.  It also wouldn't put a dent in the cost of emergency services, hospital care and rehabilitation of victims of road crashed caused by alcohol consumption on any level. 

Like every law in our society, we have to put our faith in the elected decision makers to base their decisions on sound science and fact, not anecdotes or knee jerk reactions.  That may be a tough ask....!

[Bird]

Like every law in our society, we have to put our faith in the elected decision makers

WE ARE ****ED!

[plusnq]

I don't like the idea of a reduced limit to .02% from my own social perspective.  I like to think I'm a resposible drinker and if I know I'm driving, I will limit my drinks to one or 2.  If this comes into effect, it will be a bit dissapointing but no real hardship.

On the other hand, I also see what happens when the drink driving thing goes horribly wrong and I am in complete favour of anything that has a reasonable chance of reducing the incidents of serious road crashes. 

The balance is difficult to achieve especially in our risk averse society.

One thing I can assure you all of.  There is no element of revenue raising involved in a decision like this.  The money spent policing it would almost certainly outweigh any additional funds it would raise.  It also wouldn't put a dent in the cost of emergency services, hospital care and rehabilitation of victims of road crashed caused by alcohol consumption on any level. 

Like every law in our society, we have to put our faith in the elected decision makers to base their decisions on sound science and fact, not anecdotes or knee jerk reactions.  That may be a tough ask....!

I don't drink and drive. Unfortunately we have picked all the low hanging fruit when it comes to reducing serious accidents. Car safety, driving under the influence, driving on drugs, compulsory seat belts, and to a lesser extent driver public education programmes have all had a positive effect on the reduction of the incidence of serious crashes. The question is what to target next if we believe that we can push it lower. Alcohol is a soft and easier target because we already have the technology and programmes in place. The real question is whether that 0.02 reduction will have the desired effect or are we at the point of diminishing returns with impaired driving due to alcohol? Better roads, better training, self driving cars or cars with collision avoidance systems may all be a much more effective option but no where near as easy or cheap to implement. Personally, I think it is important not to take too simplistic a viewpoint on these public policy issues. Sadly Politicians like to look like they are doing something...sometimes even if it isn't the best policy option.

[NewieCamper]

IMO 0.05 seems to work fine, like others have said we won't stop the high range drink drivers, they don't care about 0.05, why would 0.02 make any difference.

Now we need to get rid of the crotch watchers with their phones in their laps and get better at testing drug driving. These are the new problems causing danger on the roads.

[Bird]

IMO 0.05 seems to work fine, like others have said we won't stop the high range drink drivers, they don't care about 0.05, why would 0.02 make any difference.

They don't care - they "APPEAR" to be doing something

Now we need to get rid of the crotch watchers with their phones in their laps and get better at testing drug driving. These are the new problems causing danger on the roads.

in the too hard basket. They just cant stop them... How can they?? make cars block out the signals as soon as the engine starts? Imagine the uproar...

[Bill]

There are still people out there who drive when disqualified.
Whether drink or drugs was the cause in the first place, they seem to think they're untouchable.

Pretty sure your right on this one.
Personally speaking 5 or maybe even 6 of my DWIs were also with driving disqualified attached.
I didn't care. For every 1 time I was caught there were literally hundreds of times I got away with it.
Tougher penaltys would not go astray either.
As long as it was just a fine I had to pay I kept it up. Even when they decided to throw my butt in jail every weekend for a year it didn't bother me. Heck I would ruck up for jail on a Friday so drunk I barely knew my name and just sleep all weekend. And I drove myself to jail every weekend.
I' am not bragging nor am I proud of how I once was, just giving my personal experience.
And all those DWIs, fines and jail time had nothing to do with my finally quitting drinking.
I must say that I Am proud of not having had a drink in many many years.
Bill

[paceman]

I must say that I Am proud of not having had a drink in many many years.
Bill

As you should be... 

[#jonesy]

You are all starting to focus on that one pissed idiot at 0.20 (because it's not "me") and ignoring the dozens at 0.04 at the same time (because it might include "me")

What poses more danger?  1 extreme reading or a few dozen lower "normal" readings?

[Bird]

You are all starting to focus on that one pissed idiot at 0.20 (because it's not "me") and ignoring the dozens at 0.04 at the same time (because it might include "me")

What poses more danger?  1 extreme reading or a few dozen lower "normal" readings?

I've got mates dads that can drive real well pissed to the eyeballs and have done for decades.

I've seen people who have had a few and struggle to walk. I remember a "test" they did on Current Affair or similar years ago.. some people at <~.05 crashed on their test track (Oran Park if I remember) as though they were legless.. others were fine. Some actually made it around the track without running off at all >.05 much to their shock and surprise.

My issue is - what difference will changing the law make in reality? People who will drive pissed will still drive pissed. People who go to a BBQ and have 2 beers will get ****ed up. just fill the coffers and if people will be forced to fit interlocks, I bet someone from the decision makers cousin/uncle/brother will own the company that supplies them and clean up from it handing out backhanders..

So in reality - Nothing will change - except the Gov will *appear* to be doing something.

[Bill]

I've got mates dads that can drive real well pissed to the eyeballs and have done for decades.

I've seen people who have had a few and struggle to walk. I remember a "test" they did on Current Affair or similar years ago.. some people at <~.05 crashed on their test track (Oran Park if I remember) as though they were legless.. others were fine. Some actually made it around the track without running off at all >.05 much to their shock and surprise.

My issue is - what difference will changing the law make in reality? People who will drive pissed will still drive pissed. People who go to a BBQ and have 2 beers will get ****ed up. just fill the coffers and if people will be forced to fit interlocks, I bet someone from the decision makers cousin/uncle/brother will own the company that supplies them and clean up from it handing out backhanders..

So in reality - Nothing will change - except the Gov will *appear* to be doing something.

So what do you suggest be done if anything?
Bill

[Cruiser 105Tvan]

It's already catered for, with "Drive under the influence of Alcohol or Drug or other deleterious substance".
The BAC reading would just be part of the evidence required, as well as observations of the drivers ability/conduct at the time
It's amazing how many laws duplicate the same offence time and again.
Just because some bright spark thinks their idea of how to describe the offence is better.
Mr. Plod will take the easy way out if he can, just like the rest of us.

[Bird]

So what do you suggest be done if anything?

To be honest bill I cant think of anything that WILL work...

Education and message aint getting across...  "it will never happen to me" attitude is engrained in society now from deadShits, poor, immigrants, right to rich/judges/politicians the whole lot of em...

The only way to bullet proof fix it is ban grog all together and ban cars.. does that work?

[Cruiser 105Tvan]

Yeah let's go back to the horse and cart, just like the Amish.
At least the horse will still be able to get you home.
All you have to do is get into the cart.  For some that could still be a problem.

[UIZ733]

So what do you suggest be done if anything?
Bill

Changes have and are being made, and appear to be working.
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html

[Bill]

To be honest bill I cant think of anything that WILL work...

Education and message aint getting across...  "it will never happen to me" attitude is engrained in society now from deadShits, poor, immigrants, right to rich/judges/politicians the whole lot of em...

The only way to bullet proof fix it is ban grog all together and ban cars.. does that work?

I've no idea what the answer is either...
Bill

[Bill]

Changes have and are being made, and appear to be working.
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html

It's a good article.
But it doesn't say whether drink driving has been curbed, if it is on the rise or the same as years ago which is what Iam wondering.
From personal experience I know most of the younger adults that I know wouldn't dare drive drunk.
But I don't know many younger adults.
When I first arrived here and learned of random breath testing I thought it was a great thing and every country should implement it..
Bill

[Pog]

So what do you suggest be done if anything?
Bill

Forget about lowering limits for drink driving. People are still going to blow high range, no matter the limit.

Let's focus on Fatigue & Inattention. Probably the biggest 2 x killers on country roads.
Have you ever seen a set of skid marks on a dead straight bit of road & thought, why did this car cross the white line & slam head on into another car or truck or a tree.

The answer is generally because at least 1 x driver, (if not both) were asleep, tired, or distracted.

I know from my own experience, I have driven whilst extremely tired, and have had many near misses at high speed.

The govt can't measure fatigue, therefore, it isn't really a recognised issue for them to target & measure & enforce.

I don't normally drink drive, as my wife drives as soon as I've been drinking.

[jw2170]

I know from my own experience, I have driven whilst extremely tired, and have had many near misses at high speed.


Never would admit to SWMBO, But I plead guilty to that one, also...On one or two occasions, not many...

[briann532]

IMO 0.05 seems to work fine, like others have said we won't stop the high range drink drivers, they don't care about 0.05, why would 0.02 make any difference.

Now we need to get rid of the crotch watchers with their phones in their laps and get better at testing drug driving. These are the new problems causing danger on the roads.

Agree totally.
I'm a tradie who does a lot of driving in Sh17ney and all I see all day is (mostly women) ftards on the phone. Obviously the f{kbook update is more important than me getting home to my family.
Raise the fine to using a phone while driving to $25,000.
Then anyone who has an accident due to it, should automatically be disqualified for life.

(disclaimer - Yep, I'm no angel, a few speeding tickets in my earlier days and a couple of parking fines, but I watch the road when driving and value human life)
Brian