"Travellers"

[Jeff Corey]

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

AN ocker, according to Australia's Macquarie Dictionary is "a male displaying qualities to be typically Australian".

The dictionary might not specify as much but the typical ocker is also usually found in a blue singlet and rubber flip-flops with a tinnie in his hand propping up a bar. Until now urban, middle class Australia also thought the ocker was an endangered species.

From some site I googled. Sounds like some slackers I know, without the doobie tucked behind the ear.

Some of them tend to gather multiple "impaired" infractions.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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.

This ^^^ - among other things already mentioned.

 

[Rasmus]

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.

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.)

What is the benefit of allowing a driver to drink alcohol while driving?

Consistent laws.

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.

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.)

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.

You might want to think that over.

 

[epepke]

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.)

Somebody asked a question about this. I know whether I'm over the legal limit because I calibrated myself using a breathalizer.

I know that people are saying that the law against travelers is good for symbolic reasons, and I can groove with that to some extent. In this country (US), most States have had open container laws for some time. However, I've seen incidents where people were arrested for taking empties to the recycling plant. Is this also good?

 

[This is The End]

You know exactly what I'm talking about, and the fact that you won't address it speaks volumes. Nobody here has shown that driving with an blood alcohol level of less than 0.05% is dangerous. If this is the case, drinking a beer while driving is no more dangerous than drinking a coke.

I'm open to evidence rather than sanctimonious assertions.

Highlighting mine.
You were shown that, and you specifically.

Way back in post #21

 

[Gazpacho]

Consistent laws.

Where do you get the idea that this principle exists, that laws should be "consistent" rather than clear and predictable?

If there is a minimum drinking age, it does not matter that a person is as responsible on the day of reaching the age as the day before. If there is an age of sexual consent, it does not matter that someone understands sexual activity as much on the day of legal consent as on the day before. The law establishes a rule. That is what laws do.

 

[lionking]

Highlighting mine.
You were shown that, and you specifically.

Way back in post #21

I did see that, but it is contradicted by other research I'm aware of, and which is why the government set the 0.05% standard, which was reduced from the original 0.08%. I'll look it up, but it's Friday evening and I can't be bothered at the moment.

I'm still at a loss as to why a coke is okay and a beer is not, particularly as it is generally accepted that a small amount of alcohol, under 0.05%, does not degrade driving ability.

 

[gumboot]

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.

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.

 

[This is The End]

I did see that, but it is contradicted by other research I'm aware of, and which is why the government set the 0.05% standard, which was reduced from the original 0.08%. I'll look it up, but it's Friday evening and I can't be bothered at the moment.

I'm still at a loss as to why a coke is okay and a beer is not, particularly as it is generally accepted that a small amount of alcohol, under 0.05%, does not degrade driving ability.

Fair enough. I just thought you might have missed it since you said "nobody has shown". So you meant "nobody has shown sufficiently"? (I'm not saying that I back up that study either (whether I do or do not agree that .01 or .02 can have an effect.)

Also I would not say "generally" accepted that under .05 does not degrade driving ability, since that study, at least, disagreed. It showed that some skills were impaired at .01 and .02. So even if it is contradicted by the research you find, it still would have to be proven incorrect in and of itself.

In other words, that study may have used different variables than the studies you found.

-----


I would not agree with you on the whole Coca Cola analogy. You can see the difference between drinking a bunch of soda pop and drinking a bunch of beer. So clearly there must still be a bit of difference if the "bunch" is only "some". They must have some effect.

2 beers cannot equal 2 soda pops exactly, because then 10 beers would also equal 10 soda pops.

The question then lies with what we just discussed: What exactly are the effects of .01 and .02 percent BAC.

 

[gumboot]

I did see that, but it is contradicted by other research I'm aware of, and which is why the government set the 0.05% standard, which was reduced from the original 0.08%. I'll look it up, but it's Friday evening and I can't be bothered at the moment.

I'm still at a loss as to why a coke is okay and a beer is not, particularly as it is generally accepted that a small amount of alcohol, under 0.05%, does not degrade driving ability.

Are you sure you saw the link? Despite what is "generally accepted", scientific research indicates that driving impairment occurs at levels well below 0.05%.

Not such a scientific study, but a TV series here conducted a live test where a selection of individuals were tested on practical driving skills, as well as how they perceived their performance, at increasing alcohol levels.

What was truly remarkable was not only how quickly driving performance downgraded, but how rapidly the gap between driver performance and driver perception widened.

After only one standard drink, all of the participants performed notably worse on the driving test, yet all participants rated their performance higher than in the sober control test.

This is one of the reasons I support a zero BAC for all drivers. Having a legal limit encourages a culture whereby drivers attempt to assess if they are still "okay to drive" or not, but assessment of driving ability is the very first impairment alcohol causes.

Allowing any level of BAC is asking impaired people to judge if they're impaired or not, and it's a disaster waiting to happen, as we learn every single day on our roads.

 

[lionking]

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.

What? Where's the evidence for this? There are random breath tests everywhere and only a very number are picked up. The message about driving while drunk has hit home big time in Australia, although I don't know about NZ.

Can I say, yet again, that I do not condone driving when over the limit. I nevertheless find it irrational to allow a driver to drink a coke, but not a beer (even a light alcohol one, which will not get you over the limit even if you have ten of them).

 

[lionking]

This is one of the reasons I support a zero BAC for all drivers.

Your argument is at least consistent, even though I don't agree with it. There are others in this thread who are saying that there shouldn't be zero BAC, but that nevertheless you can't drink a beer while driving, while a coke is okay.

 

[This is The End]

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.

I believe ZirconBlue did link to such a study back in post #113. Though I think it could have been claimed inconclusive. Surely there are more studies since so many countries (and states) have imposed such a ban in recent years.

 

[This is The End]

Your argument is at least consistent, even though I don't agree with it. There are others in this thread who are saying that there shouldn't be zero BAC, but that nevertheless you can't drink a beer while driving, while a coke is okay.

I just addressed that analogy a few posts up. Could you respond?

 

[Kid Eager]

What? Where's the evidence for this? There are random breath tests everywhere and only a very number are picked up. The message about driving while drunk has hit home big time in Australia, although I don't know about NZ.

Can I say, yet again, that I do not condone driving when over the limit. I nevertheless find it irrational to allow a driver to drink a coke, but not a beer (even a light alcohol one, which will not get you over the limit even if you have ten of them).

actually, less than 3 of them. unless it's a really long drive and you continue drinking them at the rate of a bit more than 1 can per hour thereafter...

 

[lionking]

actually, three of them. unless it's a really long drive and you continue drinking them at the rate of a bit less than 2 cans per hour thereafter...

Do you have a link for that? I worked for Victoria Police and the Assistant Commissioner for Traffic, the revered and now deceased, Frank Green (who introduced speed cameras and random breath tests BTW) conducted a test on himself and others, and couldn't drink enough low alcohol beer to blow over the limit. It may be possible, but I'm dubious.

 

[lionking]

The question then lies with what we just discussed: What exactly are the effects of .01 and .02 percent BAC.

What I can say with certainty is that it is perfectly legal to drive with these levels.

What about low alcohol beer? Can you drink that while driving? If not, why not?

 

[Kid Eager]

Do you have a link for that? I worked for Victoria Police and the Assistant Commissioner for Traffic, the revered and now deceased, Frank Green (who introduced speed cameras and random breath tests BTW) conducted a test on himself and others, and couldn't drink enough low alcohol beer to blow over the limit. It may be possible, but I'm dubious.

There are several, but this one is pretty straightforward:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/alcohol/publishing.nsf/Content/drinksguide-cnt

 

[lionking]

There are several, but this one is pretty straightforward:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/alcohol/publishing.nsf/Content/drinksguide-cnt

Where's the relationship between standard drinks and BAC?

 

[This is The End]

Where's the relationship between standard drinks and BAC?

AFAIK it scales up fairly closely if you are asking about the same alcohol amount per hour (even though they have different percentages in the specific drink).

The higher water to alcohol ratio of the lower percentage drinks does have a small effect on reducing inebriation.

Though, if you are asking about the same number of drinks per hour (and not the same alcohol amount per hour) then, yes, there is a big difference.