"Travellers"

[lionking]

you didn't point out a fault, you just issued an insult. I'm not particularly in the mood to have people call me sanctimonious so I don't think I'll bother coming back to this thread.

Jeez I called your post sanctimonious, not you. If you somehow interpreted that as an attack on you, you are wrong, but I apologize if you feel it is.

 

[The Don]

Are Australians so desperate for a drink they can't wait until they get home after work?

Given that everything in Australia can kill you I think it's a case of a bit of Dutch courage before going home to face the spiders, snakes and drop bears.

 

[Complexity]

New Orleans used to have drive-through frozen daquairi stands. The cup sizes varied, but some were over a quart.

There was one on the street that I lived on. Visiting friends loved it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Evidence?

You brought up ' logical ' ..


Do you think it's illogical to imagine that someone who drinks in a pub, is more likely to drink in their vehicle, than someone who doesn't ( drink in a pub ) ?

 

[sadhatter]

And that's a fair argument. It's not the government's one though because it's legal to drink a coke. And in the article I attached to the OP, they are not concerned about any possible danger, it's because it "sends the wrong message"

Here is the issue, and yes i am going to undust this old chestnut again.

" the rules apply to 95% of people, you know what the other 5% need to do? Follow the rules, because everybody thinks they are in that 5%."

If you allow people to have one drink in the car, people who want to are going to rationalize 2, and if they don't get in an accident , they will rationalize 3 ( and hell even having an accident may not stop them.) because hey, that sissy one drink rule is just for people who can't hold their liquor, right?

Once you say " it is okay to drink in the car." then everyone thinks they are in that 5% that can have an extra one on the way. Human nature needs to be taken into consideration as much as human actions when considering law.

 

[Rasmus]

Here is the issue, and yes i am going to undust this old chestnut again.

" the rules apply to 95% of people, you know what the other 5% need to do? Follow the rules, because everybody thinks they are in that 5%."

If you allow people to have one drink in the car, people who want to are going to rationalize 2, and if they don't get in an accident , they will rationalize 3 ( and hell even having an accident may not stop them.) because hey, that sissy one drink rule is just for people who can't hold their liquor, right?

Once you say " it is okay to drink in the car." then everyone thinks they are in that 5% that can have an extra one on the way. Human nature needs to be taken into consideration as much as human actions when considering law.

So why does the law allow me to have *any* alcohol in my blood and still drive?

The law right now doesn't allow you "one extra no matter what", it is just indifferent to where you drink what you are allowed to drink. You are not allowed to drink up to the legal limit and then have one more in the car, are you?

 

[sadhatter]

Are Australians so desperate for a drink they can't wait until they get home after work?

This seems to be a pretty big point in the argument to me. How likely is it that a person who cannot wait to get home to crack open the 6 pack, is the same type of person who is not going to be driving around drunk? Sure, i am sure there are some folks who fit in the catagory, but common sense would state, if the beer is calling to you that hard, your probably more enamored with alcohol than the average person, to put it nicely.

And what real freedom is it stepping on? The freedom to get drunk slightly quicker while driving? If not drinking on your way somewhere impacts you enough to get in an uproar about it, maybe you should think about reducing your alcohol consumption.

 

[sadhatter]

So why does the law allow me to have *any* alcohol in my blood and still drive?

The law right now doesn't allow you "one extra no matter what", it is just indifferent to where you drink what you are allowed to drink. You are not allowed to drink up to the legal limit and then have one more in the car, are you?

You prove my point with your post.

The law currently does not take into consideration human nature. By saying you can have X number of drinks , a good portion of people think they are in the category of X+1 or X+2 etc. If not we wouldn't have as many drunk drivers, and we certainly wouldn't have otherwise non alcoholic folks drunk driving.

The law is flawed, and we can see that by the evidence, how many otherwise good people have thought " I can handle my liquor, bring on a couple more beers before we go home." because of the fact that the law, as written, does not take into account the human tendency to think rules apply to everyone but them.

I mean hell, another great example, is the fact that places have to be very specific with any signage for any rule. How many times do you see "...and no exceptions." or something of that nature on parking signs, information posted when coming into buildings ( at my college, the biggest part of the "don't come to school with the flu." sign is the "With no exceptions." bit.) . Doing this, and even making it illegal to drive with any blood alcohol content, is the legal equivalent of saying " and no exceptions." because as we can see, people just don't get that part of it as it stands.

 

[Furcifer]

I can't think of a definition of "responsible people" that includes "people who drink while driving"

Well according to the law people can and do. The fact that it's pretty much legal to pound a beer and then drive but not drive while consuming the same beer seems to fall short of the mark. For me at least I don't care where you consume the beer so long as you stay within the legal limit.

The bigger concern for me is littering. There's no shortage of beer cans and bottles throw from moving cars because of this law. I hope Australia is prepared for that.

 

[Rasmus]

You prove my point with your post.

The law currently does not take into consideration human nature. By saying you can have X number of drinks , a good portion of people think they are in the category of X+1 or X+2 etc. If not we wouldn't have as many drunk drivers, and we certainly wouldn't have otherwise non alcoholic folks drunk driving.

The law is flawed, and we can see that by the evidence, how many otherwise good people have thought " I can handle my liquor, bring on a couple more beers before we go home." because of the fact that the law, as written, does not take into account the human tendency to think rules apply to everyone but them.

I mean hell, another great example, is the fact that places have to be very specific with any signage for any rule. How many times do you see "...and no exceptions." or something of that nature on parking signs, information posted when coming into buildings ( at my college, the biggest part of the "don't come to school with the flu." sign is the "With no exceptions." bit.) . Doing this, and even making it illegal to drive with any blood alcohol content, is the legal equivalent of saying " and no exceptions." because as we can see, people just don't get that part of it as it stands.

All that I agree with. As for drunk driving, I think the only way around this is a strict 0.0 policy. In my experience, people who drive drunk (or after drinking) don't care about alcohol blood levels or even the number of drinks they've had: They think they are still fine and very capable of driving.

 

[carlitos]

An easily enforcable way to discourage someone from operating a motor vehicle if they have been drinking is to ban drinking while operating a motor vehicle.

Unlike blood alcohol levels, the presence of a beer bottle in someone's hand or car can be a good way of stopping someone driving who may later prove to be a danger to themselves.

You seem to be imagining the police having a view of what folks are drinking on the highway? Unless a policeman just happens to be driving parallel with a vehicle, and happens to glance over, and the guy has an obvious beer, it's not "easily enforceable" or "a good way of stopping someone." Conjecture.

While I do not have statistics for this, I would be very surprised if there were not a strong correlation between arrests for drinking while driving and blood alcohol levels higher than the legal limit.

Your opinion without evidence has been noted.

Banning the consumption of alcohol while driving is a fairly simple, easily enforcable, well defined way of putting a barrier between alcohol consumption and motor vehicle operation.

Barrier? Unless you are going to ban parking lots from bars and restaurants, I have no idea what "barrier" you speak of.

Unless you're speaking as a representative of drunk drivers, I'm not quite sure what your point is.

I;'ll rephrase my conjecture: If you were to divide drivers into the people who are drinking a beer while driving and the people who aren't drinking a beer while driving, I would wager that the first group have considerably higher blood alcohol. Thus, stopping people for drinking whilst driving is a decent way of flagging people who are driving while impaired.

You seem to think that folks who drink while driving casually wave the can at cops so they can see it? How in the world is this a "decent way of flagging people?" You may as well tell police to stop motorists who aren't wearing shoes; it's just as visible from outside a car doing 50mph.

Your analogy doesn't work for two reasons: first of all, my point was about enforcability. A ban on spirits is no more enforcable than a ban on beer. There is no difference whatsoever in how you would enforce them. On the other hand, a ban on drinking while driving is very easy to enforce, or at least it's very easy to catch people who are doing it.

Secondly, if your intention is to stop people driving while drunk, there is a direct connection between consuming alcohol while operating a motor vehicle and being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle. Choice of alcohol consumed is not a factor.

(Crap - as I scroll down on edit, I see that Lamuella has flounced already. Figures)

Just a thought - and I reckon the numbers would be pretty small.

Of the habitual drink drivers (and specifically those who drink excessively and in the car),

I suppose that there is such a population, but have no idea what it is. Sounds like a small subset of hardcore drunk drivers.

New Orleans used to have drive-through frozen daquairi stands. The cup sizes varied, but some were over a quart.

There was one on the street that I lived on. Visiting friends loved it.

Drive-thru daiquiris in NO were the awesome. It's true.

You brought up ' logical ' ..


Do you think it's illogical to imagine that someone who drinks in a pub, is more likely to drink in their vehicle, than someone who doesn't ( drink in a pub ) ?

It's not illogical to imagine it, no. Do you have any evidence, though? You said:

Also if b were legal, Bogan is more likely to drink 2 in the pub, then 2 more during the commute.

Why is he more likely to do so? I can't even imagine myself having a drink in a car, and I have lots of drinks in bars (pubs). I think there is something to lionking's class argument.

 

[sadhatter]

All that I agree with. As for drunk driving, I think the only way around this is a strict 0.0 policy. In my experience, people who drive drunk (or after drinking) don't care about alcohol blood levels or even the number of drinks they've had: They think they are still fine and very capable of driving.

Well... exactly. Which is why the law needs to be changed in order to take away the insinuation of " If you can hold your liquor you can drive." because a huge portion of folks, expecially after a few drinks , think they are holding said liquor better than they are, and that the rules are only for those idiots that don't know hot to drive when they are buzzed.

To me the current drunk driving laws would be like if you were allowed to punch someone, but not in the face, and have it not considered assault. They are simply silly, and encourage folks to drink and drive.

And don't get me wrong, i love me some drinking, ( not lately due to health issues, admittedly. But the second i am healthy i am going out and getting **** faced.) i have ended up many a friday night well into my cups, but i also always, 100% of the time, get a cab, walk, get a ride, or stay. And if i can't i don't drink. Not when i am out having a meal, not when i drove over to a friends house, if i am drinking, i am not driving. (In the interest of honesty, if i had one beer, and was somewhere for 8+ hours, and it wasn't late enough that i was tired, yes i would drive home. But this is the only exception to the rule, in my case. 7 hours, nope, 10 hours and 3 am, nope. )

 

[ZirconBlue]

Having open containers of alcohol in a moving vehicle has been illegal in the states where I've lived for decades, so I'm surprised to hear that "travelers" are still legal elsewhere. That said, I'm curious as to what data might be available as to the effectiveness of open container laws in reducing drunk driving accidents. A quick google turned up this:

The analysis of data from the first four states that enacted Open Container laws in 1999 in response to the TEA-21 Restoration Act, found that measures of alcohol-involvement in crashes appeared to decline during the six-month periods following the beginning of enforcement, compared to the same six-month periods one year earlier. The changes were in the direction expected if the laws have an impact; however, the differences were not statistically significant.

Comparisons of crash data showed that states that lacked Open Container laws had significantly greater percentages of alcohol-involved fatal and single-vehicle crashes than the states with partially or fully-conforming laws. Although the differences cannot be attributed with certainty to the presence or absence of Open Container laws, the results of the analyses suggest that conformance with some or all of the six elements of the Federal requirements contributes measurably to traffic safety.

Further, states that enacted conforming laws in 1999 and 2000 experienced the lowest proportion of alcohol-involved fatal crashes of the four categories of states, suggesting that public consideration and subsequent adoption of proposed laws may increase awareness of the issues and lead to safety benefits. Perhaps equally important when considering whether such laws should be enacted, the national survey found that a substantial majority of the driving-age public support Open Container laws, and thus, appears to recognize their value in contributing to traffic safety.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I suppose that there is such a population, but have no idea what it is. Sounds like a small subset of hardcore drunk drivers.

But to throw a bigger net and catch these types would be a good idea, surely. For mine, the benefit far outweighs any cost:
The main benefit is that dangerous people are put off the road and lives are saved. A second benefit is a culture change that removes any sort of "it's OK to drink and drive" thoughts.
The downside is that {STRIKE]bogans[/STRIKE] people have to wait a few more minutes to have a beer. If they are that thirsty they could always have a drink of water instead.

 

[lionking]

Now I'm confused. What's the difference between a bogan and an ocker? Is there overlap, or is one a subset of the other? Are there other categories in the spectrum of working class Australians?

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.

 

[Rat]

So Bogans are chavs, and Ockers are rednecks? No, that can't be right, since I'm told Alf on Home & Away is an Ocker, and he's not a redneck. I guess class systems don't translate across countries even with the same language.

 

[lionking]

Yes, Bogans are chavs, but Ockers are not really rednecks. Unsophisticated but likable would be my description.

 

[Gods Big Toe]

What are some the best ways to learn you have had a bit too much?

1) Standing up after sitting for a while.

2) Walking.

3) Talking and noticing a slur or difficulty forming words.

4) Somebody else pointing out to you how much you have been drinking.

None of that is really feasible when driving a vehicle.

What is the benefit of allowing a driver to drink alcohol while driving? It is purely recreation. Drinking soda/water is different. We *need* to drink fluids, so it would be foolish to make drinking anything against the law. I think those who are bothered at the loss of being able to drink alcohol while driving may want to reconsider their relationship with alcohol. I like booze, but there is a time and a place. Controlling several thousand rolling pounds is not one of them.

 

[lionking]

What are some the best ways to learn you have had a bit too much?

1) Standing up after sitting for a while.

2) Walking.

3) Talking and noticing a slur or difficulty forming words.

4) Somebody else pointing out to you how much you have been drinking.

None of that is really feasible when driving a vehicle.

What is the benefit of allowing a driver to drink alcohol while driving? It is
purely recreation. Drinking soda/water is different. We *need* to drink fluids, so it would be foolish to make drinking anything against the law. I think those who are bothered at the loss of being able to drink alcohol while driving may want to reconsider their relationship with alcohol. I like booze, but there is a time and a place. Controlling several thousand rolling pounds is not one of them.

So you are advocating zero blood alcohol content then?

 

[Gods Big Toe]

So you are advocating zero blood alcohol content then?

If I were advocating that, I would have just come out and said it.

What I described was a reason for prohibiting the consumption of alcohol while driving a vehicle: The most common ways of self-assessing intoxication level are unavailable to the driver. Therefore, the risk of intoxication increases when a driver is imbibing.

You seem to have this vision in your head of some jovial chap having a single beer on his 20 minute drive home (why a person feels a loss at not being able to do that is beyond me). There are other scenarios, like a bottle of bourbon or a Long Island iced tea in the hands of an alcoholic. We also have the tired driver at 3:00 AM consuming a depressant.

Drinking alcohol while driving offers no benefit to the driver except for the fact that he can some pleasure doing something he can do when he gets home (or gets to the bar). The burden of actual and potential harm to justify banning this practice is thus very low. I believe I have met that burden.

It seems you do not agree. Believe me, I truly feel sadness for those poor chaps forced to take taxis so they can drink during the ride home. I am nearly in tears thinking about those who cannot afford taxis. Oh, the pangs they must feel knowing they have to wait until they get home to have their next drink.