Bill slashing drink-drive limit before Parliament (down to 0.05g per 100ml of blood)

[Katman]

Who doesn't enjoy a quiet after work before riding home? Or are you teetotal when on the bike?

A quiet after work shouldn't get you in any trouble.

[sil3nt]

Limit should be zero. Anyone above 0.05/100ml should be shot.

[onearmedbandit]

How's about, you've been caught more than once, therefore before you can drive off in your car you must pay ??$300?? to have a bloke fit a breathaliser unit and a light to your car. Your car will not start without the breathaliser being blown into, but instead of it stopping the car from starting, it merely pops on a light to let others know that there's a piss'ead behind the wheel.

At least that way you will give everyone a chance of spotting the moron's that the cops can't catch because they're having a psychic day off.

You're fucking taking the piss I hope. Either that or that is the stupidest idea I've ever fucking read on KB.

[Ocean1]

that is the stupidest idea I've ever fucking read on KB.

So, you've not been reading much of Mashie's work, then?

[Road kill]

Nice try... everyone's an import at some point Spent more than half my life here anyway...

Oh, and I vote, so yes, my opinion counts

Chill out Frances.

He was talking about good fuckers like you.

Just that other nasty thing.

[Road kill]

Limit should be zero. Anyone above 0.05/100ml should be shot.

They could do that,but the courts would still just give them a stern talking to anyway.

So why fucking bother if it's not even an election year.

[mashman]

You're fucking taking the piss I hope. Either that or that is the stupidest idea I've ever fucking read on KB.

So the cops are gonna catch 'em all eh? I guess you find it more fun for people to be surprised when a boozed up fucknugget appears from nowhere and kills someone? You wouldn't want to know that the cunt approaching you is pissed behind the wheel? yeah, let'spass another law coz that's realy proactive. Ain't you got a cave to dwell in.

[scumdog]

Ban the shit all together, If weed is illegal then alcohol should be too. Stupid fuckin humans.

I agree

[Berg]

As a drinker but not a drink driver I'm OK with the lowered limit. We sat at home with a breathalyzer and (OK, I was way out of practice) I was shocked at how pissed I felt before finally blowing over the limit.
I think we as a country need to stigmatize drink driving the same way smoking has been. Only then will we make headway towards reducing the rate of people driving under the influence. Between that and courts growing a pair and imposing some realistic penalties to repeat offenders.

[James Deuce]

The two interfaces my family has had with drunk drivers, neither of them were grossly intoxicated. The person who nearly killed me and broke my neck and back blew 0.081. The person who ran my brother-in-law over on the footpath and lacerated his abdominal wall and liver blew 0.09. No one needs to drink and drive. From talking to my wife and her colleagues it's not the grossly intoxicated having most of the so-called drink drive accidents in vehicles, most "drunk" drivers are mildly intoxicated at best.

It's bullshit that we've allowed the practice of altering cognitive function with toxic chemicals and then letting people in that state pilot vehicles that they aren't very good at piloting sober to continue for so long.

After doing the Steinlager Experiment in 1989 with the Survivors Motorcycle Club I CAN'T drink and drive or ride. I know what one beer does to me. I k now what one beer does to most people. I think it was F5Dave who managed 6 Steinies before he started falling off things, but we all know he's a freak anyway. There is no argument you can make that will convince me that you need alcohol before you drive. That's just borderline alcoholic whining. The sooner the limit is zero, the better.

[Brett]

Should be zero tolerance. 0.00ml. That way there is no confusion. Having a drink? Don't drive. At all. Won't stop those who don't give a flying fuck about the law to begin with, but it's a start in my book. I sometimes have a couple (being 2 drinks) and then drive or ride, would be MORE than happy to cut this out. But as we know, just making something legislation isn't going to fix a problem.

[neels]

After doing the Steinlager Experiment in 1989.

There's your first mistake, drinking that shit.

I don't see zero alcohol limits as a solution, far too much of a restriction on otherwise law abiding people, why can't I have a glass of wine with my wife when we go out for dinner without having to stump up an extra $100 in taxi fares for the privilege.

I do see that lowering the limit would raise awareness, I understand it has been studied and our current limit of 0.08 is around when people can no longer make reasoned decisions around whether they should drive or not, so a drop to 0.05 (or effectively one drink less) doesn't seem that bad.

None of the above will stop the old fella heading home from the RSA with the attitude of 'I've been driving for years, I'll be fine as long as none of these young hoons kill me on the way home'. These are the people my 18 year old son who is very responsible about drinking and driving is scared of sharing the road with.

[scissorhands]

If 0.08 is too high, and 0.00 too unrealistic, as well as too unfair, probably 0.02 to 0.035 would be my pick.

One thing I've found is the presence of others in a car, to lower my concentration and safety. A bit like texting. Especially if those others have been drinking, and/or are wildly socialising the driver and distracting him/her.

One day drunk passengers may be in the firing line too

[mashman]

None of the above will stop the old fella heading home from the RSA with the attitude of 'I've been driving for years, I'll be fine as long as none of these young hoons kill me on the way home'. These are the people my 18 year old son who is very responsible about drinking and driving is scared of sharing the road with.

You've also got the, how often do I get pulled for a random test issue.

It's a big country to "police", and the above is why I suggest what I have suggested. I care not that it is unpopular as a potential solution, but if you aren't going to mitigate what is inevitably going to happen, then what changes? People will always work around any anti-driving device. So what do you do?

[Ocean1]

The two interfaces my family has had with drunk drivers, neither of them were grossly intoxicated. The person who nearly killed me and broke my neck and back blew 0.081. The person who ran my brother-in-law over on the footpath and lacerated his abdominal wall and liver blew 0.09. No one needs to drink and drive. From talking to my wife and her colleagues it's not the grossly intoxicated having most of the so-called drink drive accidents in vehicles, most "drunk" drivers are mildly intoxicated at best.

It's bullshit that we've allowed the practice of altering cognitive function with toxic chemicals and then letting people in that state pilot vehicles that they aren't very good at piloting sober to continue for so long.

After doing the Steinlager Experiment in 1989 with the Survivors Motorcycle Club I CAN'T drink and drive or ride. I know what one beer does to me. I k now what one beer does to most people. I think it was F5Dave who managed 6 Steinies before he started falling off things, but we all know he's a freak anyway. There is no argument you can make that will convince me that you need alcohol before you drive. That's just borderline alcoholic whining. The sooner the limit is zero, the better.

From personal experience I gota agree. Post up the details of that test, eh?

Just one problem: there's no such thing as zero. By all means run a study to find out what a sensible minimum should be, but that won't be zero.