"Travellers"

[Kid Eager]

greater than 2 standard drinks in the first hour to exceed 0.05, then one per hour thereafter to maintain that level. (of course your mileage may vary according to your body mass..)

 

[sadhatter]

I nearly let this very important question slip. Ockers have at least some redeeming features. Think Paul Hogan before he became a tax-dodging scumbag. In addition, I can't think of a female Ocker. Pauline Hanson is definitely a Bogan, but not an Ocker.

Lol, around my social circles " Meeting Paul Hogan" is slang for having to take a bad crap. It is a derivative of our other piece of internal slang " Meet the duke.". Reason being, at one point for fun an artist friend drew a " Meet the duke" poster for the bathroom door, but in a rush it ended up looking like a very angry paul hogan instead of john wayne.

 

[sadhatter]

Actually I think the average Australian is that enarmored to alcohol, which is kind of the reason behind this law. Both New Zealand and Australia have a huge binge-drinking culture and flagrant disregard for drink-driving laws.

It is a massive, massive problem in both countries, and governments and police in both countries have tried various ways to tackle the problem over the years. This is just one more example.

One thing worth considering is that, where a person is still consuming alcohol, a breathalyser test will not return an accurate reading because alcohol levels in the body do not reach equilibrium until a short time after consumption ends.

Thus a driver consuming alcohol while driving may read under the legal limit on a breathalyser, but actually be over the limit. The banning of alcohol consumption while driving allows police a reason for arresting such people at a check point and detaining them until alcohol equilibrium is reached at which time an accurate reading can be taken. Without this law they would have no choice but to let a potentially intoxicated driver continue on the road.

It would be interesting to see if any studies have been done on whether an open-container type ban has any effect on drink-driving incidents or alcohol-related traffic accidents.

In all fairness , until recently we were pretty bad ourselves in Canada.

I remember in my earlier 20's getting pulled over with a friend who was drunk driving, ( i hate drunk driving, he didn't tell me, and in fact said he was drinking soda after his third drink, and not until we were in a situation where i couldn't walk , did he tell me.) , the cop pulled him over, gave him the breathalizer , he was drunk, and not only this , but being obnoxious. The cop scared him a bit, then said " Okay, so i am going to take a left at this street up here, your going to go straight, avoid me, and if you get pulled over again, you didn't talk to me."

Same guy, was actually sober on another ride home after the bar ( he needed to work, so he legitimately didn't drink.) but we had a glass of whiskey in the car from my friend earlier in the day ( didn't tell the first gent, and we only noticed when we were driving and could smell it.). Cop pulls us over and my friend, not exactly panicking decides to dump the whiskey, getting it on himself and cranking up the smell to 11.

Cop smells, mentions how we were partying, and the driver was obviously drunk ( as per the smell.) , but if he took a certain way home, it wouldn't be a big deal. Now i was **** faced, and actually a little angry about this, and told the cop that he was sober, but had to ditch the glass of whiskey which was the reason for the smell. ( my thought was to , you know, tell the truth , the driver wasn't drunk.) The officer told me something to the nature of " Nice try, but there is no need to lie, your not in any trouble." and we were on our way.

In the past 2 years or so there has been a crack down, but it astounds me the police attitude to drunk driving it is like they just don't want the hassle.

 

[Damien Evans]

In all fairness , until recently we were pretty bad ourselves in Canada.

I remember in my earlier 20's getting pulled over with a friend who was drunk driving, ( i hate drunk driving, he didn't tell me, and in fact said he was drinking soda after his third drink, and not until we were in a situation where i couldn't walk , did he tell me.) , the cop pulled him over, gave him the breathalizer , he was drunk, and not only this , but being obnoxious. The cop scared him a bit, then said " Okay, so i am going to take a left at this street up here, your going to go straight, avoid me, and if you get pulled over again, you didn't talk to me."

Same guy, was actually sober on another ride home after the bar ( he needed to work, so he legitimately didn't drink.) but we had a glass of whiskey in the car from my friend earlier in the day ( didn't tell the first gent, and we only noticed when we were driving and could smell it.). Cop pulls us over and my friend, not exactly panicking decides to dump the whiskey, getting it on himself and cranking up the smell to 11.

Cop smells, mentions how we were partying, and the driver was obviously drunk ( as per the smell.) , but if he took a certain way home, it wouldn't be a big deal. Now i was **** faced, and actually a little angry about this, and told the cop that he was sober, but had to ditch the glass of whiskey which was the reason for the smell. ( my thought was to , you know, tell the truth , the driver wasn't drunk.) The officer told me something to the nature of " Nice try, but there is no need to lie, your not in any trouble." and we were on our way.

In the past 2 years or so there has been a crack down, but it astounds me the police attitude to drunk driving it is like they just don't want the hassle.

The police in Victoria (which is where the proposed law change is) already tend to the draconian side when it comes to being over 0.05. There are many police out on the streets either in patrols or at set booze buses who, unlike in many other countries, do not need a reason to pull you over and brethalyse you.Indeed, at booze buses they have it set up so that they block the road and can test anyone who comes that way.

 

[sadhatter]

The police in Victoria (which is where the proposed law change is) already tend to the draconian side when it comes to being over 0.05. There are many police out on the streets either in patrols or at set booze buses who, unlike in many other countries, do not need a reason to pull you over and brethalyse you.Indeed, at booze buses they have it set up so that they block the road and can test anyone who comes that way.

We recently introduced the "ride" program here as well, same kind of thing. And i say, good for them. If your not drunk, or reeking of dope it is 2 minutes out of your day, and they actually sometimes give out prizes ( about 50% of the time or so.), for not being inebriated, some cool stuff too, like free pizza, movie rentals or movie tickets, 10 dollars in goods at Tim Hortons ( a canadian coffee shop.) not a " Don't drink and drive" pen, or anything lame like that. And a couple of times, they have given out really cool stuff for folks who are driving drunk yet safe knobs like myself around.

I am perfectly willing to give up 2 minutes of my time for the possibility some drunk driver gets caught for taking peoples lives in their own hands. Heck, even without the cool prizes. ( i actually purposely find these programs if i happen to be out around bar time on a weekend. As a low cash college student, 10 bucks in pizza or coffee is awesome. Heck even at a slightly less than 50% chance , its like a lottery you can't lose money playing.)

 

[NewtonTrino]

I continue to be amazed at how acceptable living in a police state is to the average person.

People here actually support the idea that the cops can setup random checkpoints and stop every driver and check them for drinking? Wow, talk about not being on the same page with respect to freedom. The fact that people think that's a good idea literally blows my mind.

Everyone seems to want to trade as much security and freedom as they can for an ever diminishing returns on safety.

Driving cars is inherently unsafe. If you want to fix idiots on the road (e.g. drunks, people on their phones, people eating burgers, idiots who are too dumb to drive, rage roaders etc) then make driving illegal. Trying to crack down ever harder on drunks isn't going to do it people.

May I suggest that instead of making it illegal to drive while drinking that we simply make it illegal to be at fault in an accident? E.g. I don't care if it's lack of attention, talking on the phone or a poorly maintained car. Screwing up in a way that's your fault can get you criminally charges with reckless driving. Why do we need any other law other than that?

 

[Gods Big Toe]

I\'d assume that none of these would do you any good to find out if you are still under the legal limit. (I\'d be shocked if it were otherwise - the legal limit should keep you driving safely; if you are intoxicated enough to notice any effects you\'d be way over the limit.)

You do not seem to understand cost-benefit and risk analysis. The risk is that a driver consuming alcohol will have a difficult time gauging his level of impairment while stuck in the cage.

Consistent laws.

That is not a benefit of drinking alcohol while driving. It is a cost of making it illegal. This cost, which so far is merely an unsupported assertion, can be handled by changing other laws to be consistent with this one.

Not at all. If the act of drinking (anything) was considered dangerous (whilst driving), drivers could simply pull over and take a break. Having a soda while driving is a pure luxury, too.

So, no, it would not be foolish. (Just like it works with cell phones. Right or not, it is deemed dangerous to use them whilst driving, so many places have made the practice illegal.)

The physical act of putting a liquid into the mouth and swallowing it is not a consideration. Nobody has argued that this is the issue. The issue is impairment of mental and physical ability that is the result of consuming alcohol.

Again, look at benefits and costs. The benefit of drinking a non-alcoholic liquid it satisfies a basic need of the body. Sugary drinks can prevent low blood sugar. Caffeinated drinks can increase alertness. These are benefits. At best one could argue that alcohol can satisfy low blood sugar, but at the same time if one\'s blood sugar is low, chances are good the BAC will spike as a result - a cost.

You might want to think that over.

I thought it over before I posted it, but thank you for the suggestion.

 

[Gods Big Toe]

May I suggest that instead of making it illegal to drive while drinking that we simply make it illegal to be at fault in an accident? E.g. I don\'t care if it\'s lack of attention, talking on the phone or a poorly maintained car. Screwing up in a way that\'s your fault can get you criminally charges with reckless driving. Why do we need any other law other than that?

Prevention. Impaired people (all of us) overestimate our mental and physical abilities. If the question we ask ourselves is whether we will get into an accident or not, then we will typically believe that no, we will not. However, if we ask ourselves whether or not we might get pulled over and face a hefty penalty, the answer is well, maybe.

I am against DUI checkpoints. On the continuum of balancing risk against freedom, I find that one to go too far because people who present zero risk of impairment (the majority) are affected negatively. Those who consume alcohol while driving are presenting a non-zero risk of impairment.

Rather than a DUI checkpoint where everyone is stopped, I would rather see something similar where the driver is required to do something that requires a bit of skill, such as a minor detour with cones. The police could watch drivers as they go through it and pull over those who exhibit signs of impairment to their driving. Drivers who handle it just fine never have to engage the police. This would have the added benefit of catching other forms of impairment, sleep deprivation being a big one.

 

[Xero]

Time honoured tradition? Never ever heard of it until reading this. Must be a Victorian thing. Weird mob there.

 

[carlitos]

On a related note, I recall when the mandatory seatbelt law was passed in my state. We were assured that it would never be used a reason to stop someone, only an add-on violation in addition to whatever caused the traffic stop. 25 years later, now cops can write you a ticket if they see you don't have your belt on. It is a gradual erosion of freedom in that sense. DUI checkpoints, while undeniably effective in reducing drunk driving, are along the same lines. Tired, distracted, emotionally upset people can skate right through a checkpoint, but they might be just as dangerous on the road.

 

[lionking]

On a related note, I recall when the mandatory seatbelt law was passed in my state. We were assured that it would never be used a reason to stop someone, only an add-on violation in addition to whatever caused the traffic stop. 25 years later, now cops can write you a ticket if they see you don't have your belt on. It is a gradual erosion of freedom in that sense. DUI checkpoints, while undeniably effective in reducing drunk driving, are along the same lines. Tired, distracted, emotionally upset people can skate right through a checkpoint, but they might be just as dangerous on the road.

Now this is where I disagree. In the early 1970s Victoria had over 1,000 road deaths a year. Now it's down to around 300, despite there being twice the number of cars. Yes engineering and road design played a part, but not as much as more strictly enforced speed limits (speed cameras everywhere), random DUI checks, compulsory seat belt laws and harder driving tests. It is extremely difficult to find anyone who disagrees with these laws, and as I have said often, I totally oppose driving over the limit.

 

[carlitos]

Now this is where I disagree. In the early 1970s Victoria had over 1,000 road deaths a year. Now it's down to around 300, despite there being twice the number of cars. Yes engineering and road design played a part, but not as much as more strictly enforced speed limits (speed cameras everywhere), random DUI checks, compulsory seat belt laws and harder driving tests. It is extremely difficult to find anyone who disagrees with these laws, and as I have said often, I totally oppose driving over the limit.

I used the phrase "undeniably effective in reducing drunk driving," so I'm not sure what you and I disagree about. You can't deny that police stopping cars for no obvious violation is a reduction of personal freedom, can you? It's a trade-off of a little freedom for increased safety, just like seat belt laws and mandatory vaccination.

My point (probably not made very clearly) was that the same folks who assured me that the seat belt law would never get me pulled over just for not wearing a seat belt are now running billboards that say "click it or ticket." That happened over about 25 years.

Is it a far reach to say that the folks who support DUI random checks today, in 25 years might succeed in installing a breathalyzer in every car? Will they assure us that it's calibrated to 0.05, only to have it set to zero for safety? That's the sort of thing I'm wondering about. I actually support the random checks.

 

[lionking]

Fair enough. Sorry I misinterpreted you.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I continue to be amazed at how acceptable living in a police state is to the average person.

Police state?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
A police state is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

I don't think so.

People here actually support the idea that the cops can setup random checkpoints and stop every driver and check them for drinking? Wow, talk about not being on the same page with respect to freedom.

Freedom? I honestly fail to see how police running random tests somehow impinges on freedom. It is simply a measure to ensure road users are as safe as can be (including the drunk driver)

The fact that people think that's a good idea literally blows my mind.

Um.. No. It doesn't.

Everyone seems to want to trade as much security and freedom as they can for an ever diminishing returns on safety.

Not really - personally I oppose a nanny state where people are deprived of their personal choices. The boundary around that is when someone else's freedoms adversely impact on the next persons. eg. If you want to get drunk - knock yourself out. If you want to get drunk and drive you have crossed a boundary that has the potential to negatively affect others.

Driving cars is inherently unsafe. If you want to fix idiots on the road (e.g. drunks, people on their phones, people eating burgers, idiots who are too dumb to drive, rage roaders etc) then make driving illegal. Trying to crack down ever harder on drunks isn't going to do it people.

Have you some evidence to show how this abject nonsense might be true?

 

[Gazpacho]

Is it a far reach to say that the folks who support DUI random checks today, in 25 years might succeed in installing a breathalyzer in every car?

Yes it is a far reach.

 

[carlitos]

Yes it is a far reach.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/2716/

In one of the most bizarre legislative moves ever seriously contemplated, a New York Assemblyman has proposed that every driver in New York should pass an alcohol breath test every time they start their car - anyplace, anytime and regardless of whether they drink at all, let alone responsibly.

The legislation would require the retro-fitting of breathalyser ignition locks to every car in New York - the cost to install such devices has been estimated to be up to US$1,000 per automobile, and would require New Yorkers to re-perform the test every 20 to 40 minutes while driving.

Here's the state-by-state laws on ignition interlocks. Currently, they are only required of convicted drunk drivers.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13558

ETA - Here's the "Roads Safe" bill that is currently researching the idea of placing breathalyzer ignition interlocks in all cars sold in the USA.

Freedom? I honestly fail to see how police running random tests somehow impinges on freedom.

You don't see how being stopped by the police for no reason impinges on freedom?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You don't see how being stopped by the police for no reason impinges on freedom?

I'm not sure why you would change my name but anyway.

There is a reason to stop people - it is to help ensure the safety of all other road users. Everyone deserves to be safe on the road. Most accept this as normal practice that causes a minute amount of inconvenience.

(As a little aside here - how many times have you been pulled over and breath tested in (say) the past 12 months?)

Your response does not address the benefits of the inconvenience. The pros outweigh the cons in the eyes of the law abiding majority.

I very briefly looked up some statistics on this last night, but random breath tests in Australia found 111,000 people (in 2009) were over the limit - our population is say 22m.

I reckon having them off the road is a pretty good thing, don't you?

 

[carlitos]

I'm not sure why you would change my name but anyway.

(Oh, on edit, I see it's an f. Sorry. I hadn't used the multi-quote thing.)

There is a reason to stop people - it is to help ensure the safety of all other road users. Everyone deserves to be safe on the road. Most accept this as normal practice that causes a minute amount of inconvenience.

There is a reason to stop impaired drivers. There is not a reason to stop all drivers. Police stopping people without a reason is kind of a big deal to some people. It has been used to harass minorities for instance - ever hear the American slang "driving while black?"

(As a little aside here - how many times have you been pulled over and breath tested in (say) the past 12 months?)

None. But do they actually breath test everyone at these checkpoints? I thought they only breath tested drivers that seemed impaired, after they had failed a field sobriety test (like touching your nose, walking a line, saying the alphabet backwards, etc.)

Your response does not address the benefits of the inconvenience. The pros outweigh the cons in the eyes of the law abiding majority.

My reponse replied to your assertion that being stopped by police for no reason to prove your innocence vs. a would-be drunk driving charge doesn't impinge upon freedom. Of course it does. Whether the majority wants it or not.

I very briefly looked up some statistics on this last night, but random breath tests in Australia found 111,000 people (in 2009) were over the limit - our population is say 22m.

I reckon having them off the road is a pretty good thing, don't you?

Uh, yes?

 

[mikeyx]

I thought I would have an eye-catching title.

In Aussie speak, "travellers" refers to the beer you get at a drive through to drink as you drive home, to a party, whatever. It's a time honoured tradition, and has been quite legal as long as you don't get over the legal blood alcohol limit of 0.05%. The government is now making it illegal:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/travellers-told-to-hit-the-road-as-drink-driving-ban-pushed-through/story-fn7x8me2-1226215799111



Now what gets me is that it is quite legal to drink a coke while driving. It's also legal to drive after drinking provided you are under 0.05%. Why on earth should it be illegal to have a beer while driving? (and for the purposes of full disclosure, yes, I've done it). If it distracts you, fine, ban coke as well.

Stupid, sanctimonious government. Thoughts?

Are you admitting to being a booze hag who drives drunk? Thats commie talk.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

(Oh, on edit, I see it's an f. Sorry. I hadn't used the multi-quote thing.)

No probs. I was just wondering and take no offense.

There is a reason to stop impaired drivers. There is not a reason to stop all drivers.

All drivers are not stopped.

Police stopping people without a reason is kind of a big deal to some people. It has been used to harass minorities for instance - ever hear the American slang "driving while black?"

Firstly, how that relates to an Australian law is beyond me.
Secondly - on discussing random breath tests in Australia - how a minorities would be selected and "harassed" is also beyond me.
Third: Strawman.

None. But do they actually breath test everyone at these checkpoints?

No they don't test everyone: depending on the size of the unit they might have a rolling number of (say) "six drivers blowing on the bag" with other users waved through.

I thought they only breath tested drivers that seemed impaired, after they had failed a field sobriety test (like touching your nose, walking a line, saying the alphabet backwards, etc.)

Nope. We have no tests like that whatsoever. As I understand it you are pulled over for a preliminary breath test. If you fail you wait 10 minutes and give another while they might check your licence, history and the like. If you fail again, you will be taken into the van and processed further including submitting to a more formal and accurate test and any charges.

If you are doing the right thing (driving sober) the inconvenience of (my estimate) less than a minute is nothing. Pros and cons, remember?

My reponse replied to your assertion that being stopped by police for no reason to prove your innocence vs. a would-be drunk driving charge doesn't impinge upon freedom. Of course it does. Whether the majority wants it or not.

t seems you have limited understanding of any societal contracts and/or why we have laws. Laws are put in place for two reasons: first to protect you from yourself, second to protect others from you. Random breath tests do both and the price of inconvenience is minute, insignificant, barely worth mentioning, when compared to the benefits.

It is tantamount to waiting in a queue with a ticket prior to entry, or standing in line at the local market waiting to complete your purchase with the shopkeeper. I guess you would consider these impingements on your freedoms too?

Uh, yes?

Excellent - these people were captured in the net of random breath tests. They were not allowed to continue their journey that night and in many cases would have been removed from the roads for a period of time.

Hooray for random breath tests, we are all just a little safer for the removal of these drivers and also the deterrent effect they have.

Any lives saved far outweigh your nebulous loss of freedom, in my opinion.