https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6107735/all-drink-dri…
Now low range .05 offences will result in automatic 3 month suspension & $560 fine. I know they say drink driving caused 68 deaths. I wonder if the have a range breakdown.
Am I too cynical that this is simply about revenue and a ‘tough look’?
Adding a poll: (first poll, so sorry if I stuff it up)
What’s a bigger deterrent for first time low range DUI:
@pegaxs: It kind of reminds me if the lockout laws. Instead of dealing with the causes, they shut down a city. My friend who lives in Newtown hates the laws because he says Newtown has become much worse since everyone has shifted their partying there.
But the apartments now going up in Kings Cross must’ve been worth it.
Here’s the thing, I agree drink driving MUST be punished. What I’m suggesting is that this was a nice ‘announceable’ for a Government to look tough (and help the budget bottom line) without using a fact evidence based approach. Because if they had facts the specific change would fix things, they would’ve been plastered all over the media.
@pegaxs: Better analysis of the stats first before reacting. Redlight camera for example are know to actually increase rear collision accidents.
Another example is speeding, its always a factor but speeding is "not driving to conditions". you can be under the speed limit and still be speeding when it comes to an accident. The reason can be worn rubbish tyres on a wet road but still chalked down to "speeding". A lot of deaths at 60kph range, how many of those are old cars(?) Other is crap roads, again accident not driving to conditions.
Not representative of what happened, dumb policies will cause more injuries. until the data is properly analyzed nothing will change.
@Bid Sniper: If they were to properly analyze data:
Someone in TAC has to do an honest day's work.
They'll be unable to make frivolous claims. (There's a big vinyl sign that reads "Speeding is the biggest killer" and it's sponsored by Maccas. I shit you not).
The finger may point back at them or an affiliated organization because of poor road conditions.
@[Deactivated]: LOL pretty much, cant see RMS doing anything productive to solve the issue. Roads in Sydney are terrible and they keep piling in more people with a infrastructure that cant cope. Instead charge people more to go to work. What happenes when you have ex-bankers running the shitshow
@Bid Sniper: Cost of road construction in Australia is also ridiculously high.
When lollipop operators get paid sick figure salaries, you know the cost isn't competitive to other developed nations.
So we have to cut back on the spending somehow. Can't cut back on the length of road (for obvious reasons).
Can't cut back on width of roads (due to code).
Can't cut back on staff (due to unions).
I guess quality will have to go. Ex-bankers running the show or not.
@[Deactivated]: True I think part of the issue though I think there are cheap easy wins that can help if that data analysis was done correctly.
This one for example today "Tradie killed in ten-vehicle crash on Sydney's M4"
https://www.9news.com.au/national/sydney-news-fatal-crash-on…
I hate following utes because the tray backs dont have a third brake lights. usually the brake lights are pretty dim anyway. Then there is the issue of safety standards of commercial vehicles vs normal passenger cars. Even if the ute wasn't at fault, if he was driving a modern car he would of survived like that other 10 cars in that accident.
So all drivers are carted away for drug and alcohol testing, but root cause in the death isn't investigated. Just another day, its stupid and sad waste of life and nothing changes.
What is it changing from though? I don't think low range offences currently involve an immediate loss of license - you go to court on a set date and then the magistrate will determine how long you lose it for from 3-9 months, as well as a range for the penalty. They are just changing it to an up front suspension and immediate fine.
Or am I wrong?
I believe it’s not an immediate suspension but a court date. The magistrate then decides the penalty based on the evidence presented. It may or may not involve $$$ and suspension.
Wonder if you still have to go to Court? This could potentially be a lower fine.
It will affect people's ability to work though if they lose their license immediately. The few times I've seen driving offences in court people regularly argue that they need their license for work and get to keep it or have a lesser suspension.
I actually believe anyone drink driving is a moron and should be punished.
Where my comments come about is this being marketed as saving lives. What’s the evidence?
Gut feeling is this is about saving money at courts while having an instant penalty that raises revenue. The 3 month suspension was tacked on to look tough (and so it doesn’t look like it's just a cash grab). I really think this is about revenue.
@Vote for Pedro: Marketing is marketing. It's designed as a deterrent and it's probably impossible to quantify the effect because there's too many variables.
It doesn't really increase revenue though. The penalty was there regardless, you just had a court date and a magistrate determining it on a scale. Now you have an immediate penalty and can challenge it in court.
Anything that reduces the load on the court system is a good thing.
@one man clan: I guess we’ll see if it reduces drink driving.
Kind of reminds me when police introduced Field Court Attendance Notices. They were instantly able to announce an increase of people being ‘arrested, charged and sent to court’. In reality, it was a piece of paper being issued.
It's about bypassing bleeding-heart magistrates who up to now have a record of letting low-range first offenders off with a warning in more than 50% of cases.
You mean by taking into consideration all facts (including past behaviour) and then making a decision? Nuance is missed in mandatory penalties.
Our drinking culture needs to change. Our ‘she’ll be right’ blokey attitude needs to change.
Mandatory sentencing and mandatory penalties don’t change culture.
This change is not really that significant. It just moves what is currently a process that requires a court appearance where the usual penalty for low range PCA ranges from a bond/fine (but with no conviction recorded/licence suspension) to about a 6 month suspension with a fine getting to around the $600 mark to a fixed "on the spot" suspension and fine.
Clearly what they are trying to do is "ensure" low range PCA gets a suspension by making it an automatic penalty that you then have to challenge in court, rather than the current situation where you're going to court anyway, so you may as well fight it.
So less than 10-15% of the fatality causing factor is alcohol, what about the stupid drivers? I bet thats more than 20% lol
https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/interacti…
When it is you or someone in your family in the 10-15% you'd soon start to care about it.
Good step, also mobile phone use should get you DQ.
I wonder… if a year after introducing this new law deaths go up, will the Government reverse the change or will they say ‘we need to double the penalties’?
What I’m hoping they say is ‘We think it’s time to do something about our drinking culture’
Coz as a deterrent current ‘Stop it or Cop it’ advertising sounds like it’s from the mid eighties
I think it's too harsh for a first time, low range offence. Anything mid-range or higher, should be a suspension.
The difficulty with an on the spot suspension is it doesn't take into account other factors, perhaps a good driving history, a persons character, any remorse for the offence, etc.
About half the people that I work with have been charged with drink driving at some point in their life. The thing is that I still see them driving after having too much to drink regularly. I've spoken to them and gotten replies like "I don't have far to drive', 'I can handle it, I know my limits', and 'there are never any RBTs on this road.'
Now that I've got kids it scares me even more that these people are sharing the road with me.
That’s why I believe the drinking culture needs to be addressed. Penalties don’t do this. It’s a broader community issue - that blokey aussie she’ Be right attitude.
Completely for the new laws considering most drivers have enough trouble on the road sober. Harsh for the minority of skilled drivers
I would rather be on the road with a good driver who is drunk than an elderly driver, foreign driver (won't mention specific nationalities that shouldn't be allowed licenses in this country!), L/P plate driver or just plain bad driver. I would gladly pit my skills at a .05 BAC reading against any of these drivers.
With all the problems Alcohol gives society, I look forward for the day that it's removed from society or classified within within the same context as smoking.
Yeah alcohol has some benefits, but the harms outway it. Thankfully, I'm starting to see the new generation significantly reducing consumption, both in stats and through talking with uni students.
You can't blame everything on Alcohol, it is those dimwits who drinks irresponsibly that gives alcohol a bad name.
Yes, Al Capone is just what the world needs right now… :roll:
I will also take the unpopular opinion here. I think the limit should be 0. If you want to go and drink that's up to you - just find a safe way home.
There is a problem with Australia's alcohol culture. I sure hope that there is a younger generation who are going down a different path but being a uni student myself, a lot of the social activity I see still relies on drinking/parties/pubs and seems to be continuing and perpetuating the problem. And to confirm, no, I don't drink.
So if I'm a driver and I decided I'd treat myself to a couple of drinks, I need to take a day off the next day? I may not be reading at a flat 0.
There is not doubt that as a society, we have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. Making unrealistic laws and increasing legislation isn't the solution.
Legislation is a last resort and with every law passed, an avenue to exploit is made. (See trapper's comment on Al Capone.)
(unpopular opinion again) If you need to go to work the next day, don't drink alcohol?
I understand my view is probably unrealistic as these rules have no impact on me anyway. So maybe a 0 policy for offenders is reasonable (and it allows responsible people to still enjoy themselves?)
Japan's system is quite interesting too. Their limit is 0.03 (effectively 1 drink will put you about the limit) and anyone else in the car is also liable for fines if the driver is DUI. Venues can also be fined for providing alcohol for people who have to drive (no idea how that is enforced though)
@j05h: Removing ones privilege to drive for having a drink is going to do one of several things
At the very least, it will significantly affect the hospitality industry. The loss of jobs is going to be horrific.
Now, I get it, is it worth the lives lost?
If you isolated the cases where drink driving meant a not at fault driver had alcohol, or disqualified drivers who were driving regardless, the numbers reduce.
More over, just because a rule is in place doesn't mean it would result in an absolute fix. In all likeliness, it will just increase the number of disqualified drivers and not have any effect on the death toll (which was the entire premise for justifying more legislation).
Also, someone referenced this earlier. The number of road deaths has increased since last year. Did the laws become more relaxed since then? Of course not. It just means that rules have a finite effectiveness. After a certain point, it's beating a dead horse except in this case, it's like a cash filled pinata of a horse.
Summary - draconian over legislation will result in job losses and would not have any positive intended effect.
So if I'm a driver and I decided I'd treat myself to a couple of drinks, I need to take a day off the next day? I may not be reading at a flat 0.
There are certain industries such as Railways where this is the case. Absolutely zero tolerance for alcohol and drugs. If you have a heavy night and not completely sober in the morning, don't come in to work.
@Hybroid: Oh yeah. I'm in the same category.
I wouldn't expect everyone to be held to the same standard for no good reason though.
Driving home after one or two beers is a 'safe way home'.
The law should not just made up arbitrarily without reasoning. ie, driving restrictions should be based on an actual demonstrated impairment issue.
Is there any impairment that occurs at 0.01 BAC? No there is not.
Even at 0.05 there is barely any measurable effect, you would be more impaired by a poor nights sleep for example.
-
The drug driving laws are equally flakey.
Someone driving while on drugs? Yes this could obviously be demonstrated as impairment issue.
But detecting some metabolites (ie, not even detecting an actual psychoactive drug at all) a few days after the drug was actually taken and is not impairing anyone.
The problem (if you watch and believe RBT show on TV), is people who are willing to drive while drunk are also the same people who are willing to drive while disqualified.
There are plenty of drivers pulled over on RBT which are drunk and disqualified.
I know it is hard for people in a small country towns but in a Metropolitan city, with Uber and Taxis now and no issues with supply or Taxi's ripping people off and rejecting trips. There is no excuse.
Alcohol should be illegal
It's toxic, a waste of money and causes more harm than people think
Look up prohibition. Watch a couple of the Hollywood movies loosely based on reality. If you want to give criminal organizations a great new revenue stream, your idea is brilliant.
Yes cause everything in movies is real
When is Thanos coming?
Not sure if sarcasm?
@Nick939: … and NASA spends all those resources to study black holes when it clearly isn't even the densest substance.
I can point you at books, articles, research papers and documentaries but I've never had a positive response to that. The fiction is based on reality - prohibition really did bolster organized crime. And the fiction is entertaining and does a good enough job explaining how organized crime uses supply of prohibited substances to profit and fund more crime.
There's also the fact that illegal recreational drugs fund a lot of crime right now.
But you knew all that, so your reductio ad absurdum argument referencing possibly the silliest super villain in superhero history contributes nothing to the conversation.
Alcohol should be illegal
Sure.
Let me just shut down this hospital. There are no medications, disinfectants or solvents to operate anyway.
Oh, you mean to the general public. Let me just build a backdoor in this hospital to sell my controlled substance and build an empire from it.
Oh, that only happens in movies? I guess bulk pseudoephedrine has never made its way out of a pharmacy. Those pharmacists, always telling tales.
Pseudo comes through poorly manned post and ports than through pharmacies. That there are still bikies going up and down the coast picking up box after box is just lies the Pharmacy Guild spreads around to justify their invasion of privacy and unrealistic restrictions on pseudo.
Alocohol, on the other hand, is an economic necessity which is far too utilised in society to be fully removed, ever. It has uses in medicine, electronics, and general cleaning. It could be managed differently by government, but it could never be successfully banned.
I don't drink and no one in my family has ever been convicted of drink driving so this isn't an issue for me personally.
However it is worth noting that from what I understand the fine isn't just what you pay the government. The fine is up to 5 years of ridiculously priced insurance.
This is before you consider whether someone with a reading of 0.06 should lose their job over it.
I'd be much happier to see people slapped with community service than having the event potentially derail them and their family. I say that as someone who firmly believes anyone getting on the road impaired by alcohol in their system is an idiot and probably shouldn't have their license in the first place. But this is the real world and there are real consequences to zero tolerance that affect everyone, not just the ding bat that got behind the wheel slightly over.
I think the only reasonable response to this is to have a zero alcohol limit in the 24 hours before you drive. 48 if you drink more than a couple of drinks in a day. That's easy for someone like me to say. I don't like the taste of alcohol and I find the thought of getting drunk repugnant. But I know most people do have at least an occasional drink, so as far as I'm concerned this change is insane.
umm not ridiculously priced.
Once you have been convicted your deemed a much higher risk from your insurance company. So they charge you more. Cause and effect
I'm sorry but if you think 0.05 is safe but 0.06 is "much higher risk", I don't think you understand how alcohol works. It use to be you had to be mid range before you were disqualified and that was reasonable because it meant you weren't just a little bit over. But now the difference between safe and license gone is less than the reference accuracy of the instrument measuring your BAC since it is literally zero.
0.05… you're cool bro.
0.06?
0.06?
insurance is about risk. simple if you have ever been convicted of drink driving higher risk thank if you haven't. that's not a long bow to draw. The academics of if .05 and .06 are different aren't relevant to this discussion. There is an arbitrary measure and a line gets drawn. I personally couldn't care less if someone who has lost their license from drink driving has to pay more for insurance. Everybody has choices and takes risks. Personal responsibility is in short supply in today's society
insurance is about risk. simple if you have ever been convicted of drink driving higher risk
Higher risk of being fined. Insurance doesn't cover cost of fines.
It's certainly shows lack of responsibility but if what we consume is going to be used as a factor, I'd say obese people should also pay higher car insurance.
@hikaru78: So you're saying if you blow 0.06 today you're not high risk and don't get suspended, and your insurance is unaffected, but if you do it on 20 May you are high risk and you do get suspended and you're up for a few thousand dollars over the next few YEARS? Try again.
@syousef: Insurance companies look at statistics and assign premiums based on risk period. If you have ever been convicted of something you fall into a different category than if you didnt. From a purely statistical point of view one category is more high risk than another. Don't like it. Don't get convicted. Don't take insurance. People have choices. When you roll the dice when drink driving you make a choice. People who whinge about known outcomes when the have the ability to avoid them smacks a total lack of personal responsibility. They have to draw the line somewhere.
How do i delete a post?
I'm not much of a drinker so I've never really understood how many drinks contribute to a certain BAC level.
Usually people tell me a rule of thumb that you wait an hour after standard drink, or two hours to be safe. Is this no longer the case?
Two in the first hour and one every hour after that for males.
That was the rule back in the 0.08 limit days, I would not trust that to keep you under 0.05.
Also be aware a 'standard drink' is not the same as a beer, most beers will be more than 1 standard drink depending on strength.
As I said above, I think the only reasonable response to this is not to drink at all for 24-48 hours. If 1 drink could push someone over, just don't. The trouble is people who enjoy drinking generally don't want to exercise that level of restraint, and since this isn't a flat out ban, people are going to end up making a genuine mistake and have their lives ruined over it. (By that I mean lost job, unable to take the kids to school and bills they can't afford)
@syousef: BAC drops naturally by about 0.01 per hour, so if you do get caught in the 0.05 - 0.06 range just mess about a bit to drag it out before they do the evidential test and you will be under by then ;)
@trapper: You say this as if the police don't know that too. It's an offence not to cooperate. How do you propose dragging it out?
@syousef: It's not an offence to cooperate slowly and with great difficulty though haha Have you watched RBT?
You can get an extra 20mins at the start if you say you just had the last sip one minute ago. They need to wait for your 'mouth alcohol' to dissipate to get valid reading on the initial road side test.
It's not an offence to cooperate slowly and with great difficulty though haha Have you watched RBT?
I suspect a magistrate would disagree.
What would you recommend as a rule of thumb now? Or as other posters mentioned, just don't drink at all?
@Hogg: If I am driving I wouldn't have more than a couple of beers with dinner now.
Also be very careful the morning after a big night, the limit is so low you can easily blow over.
@trapper: Lucky I'm not much of a drinker. Best to avoid it now just in case if I'm driving. Yikes. A licence suspension is a death knell for anyone with a job.
Good, wish this applied to mobile phones too…
Sadly though mobile phones is less black and white, plenty of cops may think you were on your phone and it just ends up your words vs their's…
I am not condoning drink driving in the slightest, but its the same thing with the speed cameras. Honestly for revenue. Fine does not matter as much if you already have a 3 month suspension. Lets be real here, 3 month instant suspension im sure is enough for most people. Add a $300 fine? Done. But more than that, and its clear its not just for safety IMO.
e.g with speed cameras, I know areas of Europe or UK have speed cameras in bright yellow, so people see them and everyone slows down. But here in aus theyre hidden, people get fined but few slow down. Furthermore, i forget the exact term, but the design of roads would say recommend the safest efficient speed to be say, 70, but they purposely lower it to 60 (so if "feels" like you are going too slow for the road). They get easy revenue from things like this. If going 5-10 over the limit causes an accident, then the problem is the shit driver. Literally everywhere I drive the traffic is going 10 over the limit (when not locked anyway).
Went off on a tangent there but you get the point.
Once your license has been suspended your fine is much higher by way of increased insurance. It's more like several thousand dollars over 5 years.
My problem is that they put a limit on BAC but you have no way of identifying whether you are above or below.
Speed limits are fine, and you can control it by glancing at your speedo. That's not possible for BAC.
For some its 2 beers, some 3 beers, some more and as someone previously mentioned, at 0.05 you dont feel drunk.
A friend walked past a RBT setup after the pub once (walking home) and asked to be tested to give him an idea. They refused. He had 3 beers.
If their intention is if you drink, don't drive, make the BAC 0.00 and get on with it.
Neg away!
Interesting poll choice.
It depends how you look at the scenario …
If the outcome either way is a 3 month suspension and $560 fine, then the deterrent is higher if I have to go to court. This costs me a day's income, solicitor's costs, etc. on top of the legal penalty.
If there is a good possibility that I will not have my licence suspended by the court, then the on the spot penalty is a greater deterrent. This approach is basically designed that people will simply accept the penalty and move on. It will be very interesting to see how many of these are challenged in court (not many I'm betting … and even fewer will see any reduction in penalty).
That’s the thing though, I can’t describe a court penalty as a magistrate has the ability to take into consideration the whole picture and determine a penalty based on the hearing. It could be more, it could be less, it could be the same.
Yes, I acknowledge I did add ‘lose a days work’ and that may not apply to everyone.
If you follow the logic:
Have no accurate way to determine BAC -> might as well not drink -> might as well make the legal limit 0.0
Having that bit of leeway, eg 0.051 is just a big fine vs losing your licence is what makes the system of having a BAC limit actually work. Imagine if you lost your licence for doing 1km/h over? No one would do the speed limit as it's too risky, so then everyone is doing 90 in a 100 zone, why not make it a 90 zone?
Having a low allowed limit of up to 0.05 covers anyone who has had some cough medicine or cherry ripe or similar, which will record a reading.
There is no problem with the existing speed limits; the problem is that drivers see it as a target, not as a maximum limit. There is no problem with driving at 90 in a 100 zone, in the left lane is ideal, apart from the idiots who can't wait a couple of minutes.
The speed limit is seen as a minimum not a maximum by way too many people. Not a target. A minimum.
I've been involved in 3 car accidents in the past 5 years. None were under the influence of drug or alcohol.
1 was caused by an elderly man who reversed into my parked , brand new car and then had a panic attack and the mrs had to sit with him until the paramedics arrived. The other one was caused by an 18 year-old p-plater in a beat-up corolla trying to race me at the lights🙄 He lost control of his vehicle and hit a tree and somehow managed to gouge my car in the process. I had to help him and his mate get out of their car. They were shaken but fine.They both cried like babies when they realised the cops were on their way.
The 3rd one was malicious.
So, while the Powers-That-Be are at it, could they also get the elderly with failing eyesight and poor reflexes ,the young and dumb, and the crazies off the road, please?
all i know is other countries have a 0 tolerance law. the problem is, people get blackout drunk and drive anyway
What do you mean 0 tolerance. Where?
i know japan does. limit is 0%. massive fines if you get caught (can be $10000) iirc
There is a lot of bull being spoken here.
Factors in all Australian fatal road crashes, from 2014 to 2016 (inclusive, not actual title)
Alcohol fail involvement (any driver) increases the risk of fatality by 192% in a crash (so 2x more like to die).
Heavy vehicle involvement increases the risk of fatality by 480% (5x)
A head on crash increased the risk of fatality by 678% (7x)
While a intersection crash reduced the risk of fatality by 10% and (-.1x)
A single vehicle crash increased the risk of fatality by 64% (.6x)
Posted speed limit above 60kmph increased the risk of fatality by 25% while (.25x increased risk of death with crashes on faster roads)
Crashing at dusk or at night increase the risk of fatality by 38% and 55% (.4x and .5x)
Lack of restraint had by far the biggest impact (increases (restraint/no restraint): front driver 0%/1102%; back 73%/839%; front passenger 50%/595; passenger other 95%/1209%)(yes, driving without a seat belt increased the risk of death by 11x)
Driving while male increased the risk of death in a crash by 28%, driving under 15 decreased the risk of death in a crash by 29% while driving over 64 increased the risk of death by 268% (more than drunk driving).
The linked report uses odds ratio, where I have used % change from a risk of 1. 1 was the overall 0.12% risk of fatality from crashes with complete information from 2014 to 2016 .
Now theses numbers are not infallible, so here is NSW's limited take (these aren't odds, just of fatalities with a factor)
Factors in NSW crashes involving a fatality or serious injury from 2013 to 2017 (Fatality/Serious Injury)
Speeding ~42%/23.5%
Fatigue ~18%/11.5%
Alcohol ~15%/7%
These are percentages crashes involving a fatality or serious injury, not crashes over all. I used NSW as it is out most populated state.
So while speeding is a major factor in serious and fatal crashes, the speed limit is not. A head on crash, a crash with a heavy vehicle or an older driver is more likely to result in a fatality than a crash with someone over 0.05. Riding on a bike or motor bike is also more likely to result in death than having one party over 0.05.
This data is very incomplete as it ignores distractions completely (talking in cabin/on phone, music/number of passengers, relationships of passengers) which have been shown to be potential major factors in other studies.
This data only accounts for alcohol fail's, so any amount above the legal limit. This could be as little mouth wash or a cherry ripe for a provisional driver. Other studies have shown low range drink driving to be a similar impairment to many other distractions, mid range drink driving to increase risk by a large factor and high range drink driving to increase risk by an extreme factor.
These data sets ignore behavioral trends other than driving. These do not give an indication of the actual increase risk from a behavior, just it's factor in crashes over a given time
The nation data set does not differentiate between pedestrians and single vehicle crashes
The national data set excludes self harm when detected, where as the NSW set dose not.
Sorry for any mistakes, speeling, gramatical or otherwise. I just wanted to quickly give some numbers as most replies seem to be basically 'Any alcohol while driving is bad and should potentially destroy the offender's career'.
@Bid Sniper: What is the "actual problem" and how is it "solved"??
InB4: