Safe Speed Forums

In Victoria the penalties are graduated:

Learner drivers and "P" plate drivers (first 3 years) ZERO alcohol allowed:
Less than .05 = $258 + up to 6 months driving ban or 10 points
.05 to .07 = $322 + at least 6 months driving ban

Full licence (after 3 years) .05 limit:
.05 to .07 = $322 + up to 6 months driving ban or 10 points

ALL drivers:
.07 to .15 = $322 to $421 + between 6 and 14 months driving ban (6 months + 1 month for each .01 over the limit)
.15 and over or 2nd/subsequent offence = $2,620 + on the spot suspension and court appearance (options include 15 to 48 months driving ban, up to 18 months jail, interlock devices installed on car, driver education course, court appearance to get your licence back, zero alcohol for 3 years after getting licence back)

These seem far more appropriate that the blanket system you use!

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

My son went to a mate's 18th birthday party this evening, and I have just returned from picking him up. He is suitably merry (not pished!) and has mobile numbers for three girls and a bloke(!) that he met there.
Our return journey (at about 1am) took us through the joyous place that is Colchester town centre...
Apart from the comatose on the pavements, there were partly-clad girls chucking-up over drains, blokes doing that silly 'bitch-slap' fighting of the very drunk, a bloke peeing in a bank doorway, a girl peeing against a traffic light and some prat who decided that it would be very funny to 'moon' me as he used the pedestrian crossing I had stopped for...How proud I am of my fellow countrymen!
When you visit other countries, in general, the people you see making total tits of themselves are from this country. We, as a nation, have a problem with alcohol.
I do not know what the answer is, but I feel that more culpability should be apportioned to pissed pedestrians (and cyclists, for that matter) who are involved in RTA's.

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

We always have had! go to "Wiki" and look up Gin!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

You are being a little simplistic about the penalty system for DD.

The limit in the UK is far higher than most places, and the penalty is generally greater. They have a saying here, "Buzzed driving is drunk driving" and they are right. As the Police Officer said, those who say the penalty is too severe have never been directly and catastrophically affected by some drunk who would rather spend his last fiver on another 2 pints than a taxi.

And to think that the original person to berate the penalties used to drive a truck in the US. What he forgot to point out is that they allow you to return to service after 24 hours but then comes the court case, the DUI on the license, the fact that a DUI is a criminal offence, the vastly increased insurance costs (if anyone will insure you again) And I am talking $5000 or more! the fact that hardly any trucking firm will employ you again because A} you have a history of impaired driving, B} you have a criminal record and C} they have to submit random drug/alcohol tests to the government.

Drink driving is despicable- PERIOD! If you go for a drink then don't drive- end of story! The media, government, police and general public are all anti DD. The message is out there for all to see. It isn't one too many, it's one IS too many!

Before anyone rants, I enjoy a drink, beer and spirits, but I enjoy my privilage to drive. I don't mix the two up as they are oil and water.

I had a girlfriend when I was in my 20s. She was turned into a quadraplegic by a drunk driver. A pretty, fit, healthy 21 year old who was left a catheterized wreck by someone too selfish and stupid to realise the risks.

_________________
Once a Cornishman, always a Cornishman

I don't think there's anyone here who wouldn't like to 'solve' drink driving once and for all.



So what percentage of fatal crashes in Canada are 'alcohol related'?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I don't in any way agree with drink driving, but lets not go on a zero blood alcohol direction. As the person who always has to drive to any family meal out, where a taxi home wont cost £5 but £45.
And should you have half a bottle of wine how many hours exactly does it take to get to zero.
I still would like a glass of wine and a pint of shandy with my meal!

The horific accidents I have read about are usually 2-3 times the limit. Quite often repeat drink drive offenders. Lets concentrate the effort on the right targets.
Education, facts, repeat offenders and reducing this mad drink till your nearly dead, then stagger in front of a car culture.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Changing the limit won't make any difference and zero tolerance will be a complete nightmare.

Everyone knows that any more than 1 pint is potentially dodgy so leave it as is. The 'habitual' drink drivers will put away considerably more than that.

I too never drink at all if I have to drive. Only last staturday I refused my daughter a lift into town because I had had a glass of wine with dinner, even though I was pretty certainly under the limit.
She understood perfectly. 2 years ago she lost her best friend, a lovely bubbly 22 year old girl, who was in a car driven by a drunk driver who lost control and crashed into a tree. No other vehicle was involved.
I hardly ever drink at all unless I am within walking distance of home or have a lift arranged. It might take a little planning, but it means I can enjoy a drink without endangering others.
That being said, it is probably safer to be driven bu a good driver who is slightly over the limit than some of the ones I know cold sober!

I'll have a pint and that's it.

A pint for me is all I'll have if driving.
We have some close family friends whose 18 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver exactly 3 years ago (go to Google and enter 'Amy Gonzales') and the effects on her family have been dreadful. They will never recover - all because some young scroat drove whilst drunk, served a short prison term and shows absolutely no remorse even to this day.
I drove in the era well before the breathaliser and the quantities drunk then before driving were crazy (and yes, I was as guilty as most back then). It was nothing to have 5 or 6 pints, a couple of 'shorts', then drive home. It had to end and a sensible limit set somewhere, which is what happened.
Drink driving is on the increase because the reduction in trafpol has led to a reduction in the likelihood of being caught. So long as you don't speed and get caught on camera you'll probably be OK even if quite drunk - until you kill someone, that is.

is drink driving still illegal then?

I thought in the modern era of policing by automated PCN it didn't matter any more. certainally you're not likely to get caught, unless you crash into a police car or something dumb.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I read a report by a scandinavian researcher a while back - I've lost the cite for it unfortunately - but in essence he examined the difference in performance between having alcohol levels of 50mg/100ml and 80mg/100ml and found negligible difference, certainly nothing even remotely statistically significant. The conclusion that could be drawn is that reducing the limit would merely criminalise more drivers without making any contribution to safety.

Zero limits are nonsensical - there are too many things in normal use that contain enough alcohol to give a non-zero result. And once again, it's unlikely IMHO that going to a zero limit would actually make any difference to the crash stats.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I gave up my single bottle of lager with a meal ~20 years ago because I could detect the effect on my driving. I was doing a lot of 'maximum safe progress' driving at the time.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

"In 1999, 2,969 road users were killed in Canada and another 17,500 were seriously injured in traffic collisions. Alcohol was a factor in more than 1,200 of the fatalities (about 40%) and more than 3,600 of the serious injuries (about 21%)."

Source Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, Road Safety Vision 2010 – The 2000 Update
(Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 2002) at 10. Online: <http://
www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/vision/2000/menu.htm>.

I wonder what the %age is here. If it's more than about 5% then it's more than the %age caused by vehicles in excess of the speed limit. But with the reduction in manned traffic patrols, the effort expended on catching drunk drivers has reduced whilst the speed-detection efforts have virtually trebled by camera application, as has the cash from the fines.
Does this make any sense at all, or does it just prove that cash is more important than saving lives?
To be fair, I don't think cameras were originally introduced to save lives, rather that the camera manufacturers convinced the inept politicians that over 33% of crashes were related to the breaking of the speed limits and this figure was accepted without any further research. Now the cash has started to roll in and the natural reluctance to accept the basic flaws in camera-enforcement as a real safety tool exists, a more pragmatic and logical approach to road safety won't happen any time soon.
Personally cameras don't bother me quite so much as the abrogation of real safety policies which these cameras have caused, plus the breach of human rights caused by the requirement to self-incriminate without a caution being first given - the only time in UK law this has happened, so far as I know.

Ta.

Is there any country that's really got a grip on drink drive?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Sweden, maybe?

In 1999, eh?

Since then the penalties have become more severe and the limit is 0.8.

Moreover, there are 30 million people in Canada and the place is huge. You can fit the area of the UK into Manitoba two and a half times over and there are 1.5 million people in the entire province. The chances of being involved in an accident involving other vehicles is far lower than in Britain, and the chances of pedestrians on the road is similarly lower.

You are far more likely to be killed by hitting a moose or a bear here, and, sober, you would have a chance to maybe avoid it.

It isn't the countries that need to get a grip on drink driving, it's the idiots who do it!

_________________
Once a Cornishman, always a Cornishman

It's a combination of both I think. There needs to be a very hard stick, continually applied from the authorities, and then maybe people will learn. Certainly over here, I think they should maintain the same level of DD awareness and enforcement year round, not just Christmas.

You have to remember that to buy alcohol (over 2.5% strength) you have to go to a government run shop and often have to order it a few days or weeks in advance. And drinking on a night out is horrendously expensive.