Sidnoi

A kid I work with at work ( I say kid, He's about 45) has got a life ban from the home secretary no less. No..I am not bragging he's my pal, and it's not me either!

He was on D/D ban and got caught TWICE more whilst on the ban.

Thats one less goon off the roads then.

Zambia

I think you are all over looking the question I asked earlier which is pertinent.

If a Average size guy drank 4 Bottles of lets say VB between 21.00 and 23.00. We all know he is over the limit at 23.00 but when is he at alcohol level 0.0?

Because if he went to work the next day at 7.00 he could be at level 0.2 or 0.1. But in reality we all know he would be fine to drive after 7 hours in bed. Its one thing calculating what you had that night its another trying to calculate its effects 7-10 hours ahead.

Also I have to say in Victoria the booze bus does come out most recently I passed it on Springvale Rd,Nunawading, Melbourne last weekend. I would see it because I drive at night a lot.

Zambia

I fail to see how he is off the roads as he will just drive anyway , the bans never stopped him.

Personally I would have it that if you drive on a ban you get a days jail for ever mile you are found from your place of residence.

Wol

Speaking as an "irresponsible moron" I venture that many have been brainwashed over the last few years.

Authorities have to (or should) work out, and publish, what is an acceptable death rate on the roads. (And don't make me laugh and say zero.)

Zero tolerance on any road law might make people feel good and that "something is being done", but the reduction in deaths might be very small.

For example, giving driving bans to anyone 1Km over the 50Km/hr limit would be the logical outcome - but it would do nothing to stop the hoons who drive around in residential areas racing one another. It would make criminals out of everyone who crept over the limit.

Let's talk about physiological effects since we are talking about a total ban on alcohol levels in the blood. Hypoxia - the lowering of oxygen levels in the blood - doesn't start at 10,000 feet - it begins as soon as you leave your "natural" level. Drive from Sydney to where I live and you ascend 200 ft. Your blood oxygen level goes down and this affects your mental processes by a small amount. So - on the zero tolerance principle - do you stop people driving past Campbelltown? From Circular Quay up Philip street? Of course not - but the principle is the same.

Most people who drink at all will have a level of alcohol in their blood - a small amount remains a very long time. So there has to be some sort of tolerable level set.

Again, stopping driving with *any* level in the blood might have almost no effect on the real problem - those who drive with several times the present legal limit.

Whether we like it or not, alcohol is a permanent part of our society. Responsible use of it is one thing, but making huge changes to the social scene without considering the unintended consequences is never wise.

lapin_windstar

Well, yeah - if we could pass a law that said "for Christ's sake, just be responsible behind the wheel or you're gonna get it", we'd be able to dispense with all traffic rules. But in its absence, you're going to have more specific laws.

Lord_Farquar

[QUOTE=Wol;8017099]

Let's talk about physiological effects since we are talking about a total ban on alcohol levels in the blood. Hypoxia - the lowering of oxygen levels in the blood - doesn't start at 10,000 feet - it begins as soon as you leave your "natural" level. Drive from Sydney to where I live and you ascend 200 ft. Your blood oxygen level goes down and this affects your mental processes by a small amount. So - on the zero tolerance principle - do you stop people driving past Campbelltown? From Circular Quay up Philip street? Of course not - but the principle is the same.

QUOTE]

Not really the same as having 5 schooners and driving though is it.

4500 Times

Looks like your trying to justify your own stupidity.

Try telling that crap to someone who has been affected by D/D.

Cheetah7

When my husband had his crash he had a zero reading of alcohol in his blood.

I can see what you are saying about the problems with a zero tolerance of alcohol in the eyes of the law as it wont stop people.

What is needed are harsher punishments when someone gets caught, better education as well.

We are going for a meal this Saturday and Mr PP is going to leave the car at home as he wants a couple of beers. 'Oh but you can have one or two' someone said to him.

Mr PP is zero tolerant on drinking and driving. Fair enough he is a P plater but he would not do it anyway.

To him it is no big deal to drink soft drinks if he is driving - no big deal at all.

Educating people that they can have a good time without drinking - IF they are driving is the key, educating them about the limits and if they choose to disregard that then they pay the consequences which really do need to be alot harsher than what they are.

It is easy to justify drinking and driving however people want to, but nothing and I mean nothing can make up for hitting/injuring/killing another person - all because that couple of glasses of wine perhaps affected ones judgement - maybe due to tiredness, hunger, illness etc.

I was talking to a young girl at the hospital whose Mum had 4 glasses of wine, got in the car with her two young kids, lost control of the car and all 3 were killed. This poor 17 year old girl now has no Mum and has lost her siblings. The hatred she felt for people that CHOOSE to D/D, was so strong.

'Why can't they just not drink if they want to drive home?' She asked me, almost tearful.

Now theres a question that begs to be answered.

Wol

You could be right.

But look at the mess that was left behind in the States by a few years of prohibition.
And look at the billions and billions being spent worldwide on the less-than-successful "war on drugs". And the carnage that illegal drugs cost society as a whole, including all those people innocent of any involvement except as victims of drug-related crime. Making drugs illegal has done absolutely nothing IMO except perhaps induce some to try them and many to get caught up in the collateral damage.

Being holier-than-thou makes one feel righteous but doesn't actually achieve anything.

It's an old cliche but if you banned all traffic from the roads, including bikes, and stopped all forms of transport as well the death rate would come right down. There has to be, in the real world, a balance.

Wol

[quote=Lord_Farquar;8017233] No, but that remark shows what I am getting at: equating a relatively tiny imbibing with what to me would lay me out flat.

It's not - or IMO shouldn't be - a black and white issue.

Deutschmaster

I'm playing around with the vicroad crashstats. Seems complicated so forgive me if my numbers are wrong.

For 2008:

Total number of people killed on road 278 .

of those 138 had 'high alcohol level'

That would imply (278-138) 140 fatalities didn't have high alcohol levels (or perhaps not measured after crash). Therefore I wonder where is the 39 Victorian fatalities in the past 5 years coming from?

ABCDiamond

Herald Sun October 11, 2009
Maybe the rest were OVER .05 ?

Lord_Farquar

[QUOTE=Wol;8017413] I don't think a rise in altitude of 200 feet is anywhere as bad as being under the influence of drink.

Lord_Farquar

I wonder how many people have been killed as a result of push bike accidents (not involving cars)?

4500 Times

You will never justify D/D to me, never. If i have plenty of drink i wont even drive the next day.....now i don't deem myself as anything special, just responsible. I will not drink if i have to use the car the following day, no exceptions

As regards the drugs issues you have mentioned, now thats a different story.
I honestly think its a far bigger problem. If for example the law was changed to say that if you are caught "dealing" no matter what, its a minimum of 15 yrs jail time, no if's, buts or maybe's. Do you think you'd see a reduction in drug use ???
I don't know the answer to that, but if its there in black and white, "this is what will happen if your caught" and you still do it, then do we really want people of this mentallity walking around in our society ??

Th bottom line is, sentences need to be harsh and brutal....with no exceptions, maybe then idiots that D/D, do drugs, sell drugs or are just general scumbags will maybe stop and think. And you never know it may stop one or two of them, and lets be honest, the current system / sentences certainly ain't.