12 months loss of licence & $500 for drunk driving

**HenryDorsetCase** · 20th May 2015, 09:45

Originally Posted by Ender EnZed

The moral of the story here is that when something goes wrong while drinking with the boys; everyone needs to tell a consistent lie to avoid liability.

Same as when we're running a finance company? Gotcha!

**Banditbandit** · 20th May 2015, 14:17

Originally Posted by Oakie

If he were drunk on a horse on the road (horse can't be registered, no licence required), would he lose his drivers licence?

Possibly - that's up to the judge ..

Originally Posted by Oakie

But would they take your car driver's licence off you?

Quite possibly

And if they did, you could still ride your bike.

Strangely enough - yes .. if it was a bicycle - not a motorcycle.

**neels** · 20th May 2015, 20:52

One would have to assume the area was deemed a public road, regardless of the fact that access was restricted due to construction in progress.

Probably lucky he didn't get done for operating an unregistered vehicle not up to WOF standard as well, the moral is doing dumb shit in public places when you're pissed is all good fun until someone loses an eye, or ends up in hospital with concussion.

**FJRider** · 20th May 2015, 21:20

Originally Posted by neels

One would have to assume the area was deemed a public road, regardless of the fact that access was restricted due to construction in progress.

The law says you must not drive if the amount of alcohol in your blood or breath exceeds these limits. No mention it only applies only if you are on a public road.

Just as the wearing of a helmet is required by law ... if you ride a motorcycle/bicycle. ON or OFF road ... private/restricted property or not.

Originally Posted by neels

Probably lucky he didn't get done for operating an unregistered vehicle not up to WOF standard as well, the moral is doing dumb shit in public places when you're pissed is all good fun until someone loses an eye, or ends up in hospital with concussion.

On private property with no demonstrated use ... or intention to use ... on the public roads .... ???

Such charges would be laughed out of court.

**neels** · 20th May 2015, 21:34

Originally Posted by FJRider

The law says you must not drive if the amount of alcohol in your blood or breath exceeds these limits. No mention it only applies only if you are on a public road.

Really?

56 Contravention of specified breath or blood-alcohol limit
(1) A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person's breath, as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69, exceeds 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath

Originally Posted by FJRider

Just as the wearing of a helmet is required by law ... if you ride a motorcycle/bicycle. ON or OFF road ... private/restricted property or not.

Again, really?

7.12 Safety helmets for all terrain vehicles, motorcycles, and mopeds
(1) A person must not drive or ride on an all terrain vehicle, on a motorcycle, in a sidecar, or on a moped on a road unless the person is wearing a safety helmet of an approved standard that is securely fastened

So really, one can only assume the area where the incident occurred is gazetted as a legal road, otherwise there would have been no case to answer, or it went to court and FJRider was the lawyer for the defence

**Smifffy** · 20th May 2015, 22:09

Originally Posted by neels

Really?

56 Contravention of specified breath or blood-alcohol limit
(1) A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person's breath, as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69, exceeds 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath

Again, really?

7.12 Safety helmets for all terrain vehicles, motorcycles, and mopeds
(1) A person must not drive or ride on an all terrain vehicle, on a motorcycle, in a sidecar, or on a moped on a road unless the person is wearing a safety helmet of an approved standard that is securely fastened

So really, one can only assume the area where the incident occurred is gazetted as a legal road, otherwise there would have been no case to answer, or it went to court and FJRider was the lawyer for the defence

As you point it, it refers to a road, not specifically a public road. A private road, or paper road would also qualify if they wanted to get picky.

**FJRider** · 20th May 2015, 22:12

Originally Posted by Smifffy

As you point it, it refers to a road, not specifically a public road. A private road, or paper road would also qualify if they wanted to get picky.

Even actually ... Anywhere public have access.

**neels** · 20th May 2015, 22:21

Originally Posted by FJRider

Even actually ... Anywhere public have access.

Assuming you refer to this...

road includes—
(a)a street; and
(b)a motorway; and
(c)a beach; and
(d)a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not; and
(e)all bridges, culverts, ferries, and fords forming part of a road or street or motorway, or a place referred to in paragraph (d); and
(f)all sites at which vehicles may be weighed for the purposes of this Act or any other enactment
road c

In which case you can hoon about pissed to your hearts content on your mate's farm as long as you close the gate, but a legal road which is temporarily fenced off will still meet the legal definition of a road.

Not withstanding if you injure someone on private land being a dick there is bound to be something you can be charged with, if someone bothered to look hard enough.

If it was me I'd be pissed off that it made the news so everyone knew about it, and even more pissed off that they'd used such a shit photo.

**skippa1** · 20th May 2015, 22:24

Originally Posted by neels

Assuming you refer to this...

road includes—
(a)a street; and
(b)a motorway; and
(c)a beach; and
(d)a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not; and
(e)all bridges, culverts, ferries, and fords forming part of a road or street or motorway, or a place referred to in paragraph (d); and
(f)all sites at which vehicles may be weighed for the purposes of this Act or any other enactment
road c

In which case you can hoon about pissed to your hearts content on your mate's farm as long as you close the gate, but a legal road which is temporarily fenced off will still meet the legal definition of a road.

Not withstanding if you injure someone on private land being a dick there is bound to be something you can be charged with, if someone bothered to look hard enough.

If it was me I'd be pissed off that it made the news so everyone knew about it, and even more pissed off that they'd used such a shit photo.

Paragraph (d)

**FJRider** · 20th May 2015, 22:48

Originally Posted by neels

(d)a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not ...

True ...

Originally Posted by neels

In which case you can hoon about pissed to your hearts content on your mate's farm as long as you close the gate, but a legal road which is temporarily fenced off will still meet the legal definition of a road.

As long as you close and LOCK the gate. Plus install signs that state KEEP OUT.

I've worked on farms ... and had issues with unwanted visitors ... Liability issues/dangers to unwanted/unexpected visitors on private land are still a sore point with farm owners.

Originally Posted by neels

Not withstanding if you injure someone on private land being a dick there is bound to be something you can be charged with, if someone bothered to look hard enough.

If it was me I'd be pissed off that it made the news so everyone knew about it, and even more pissed off that they'd used such a shit photo.

If they injure themselves without you warning them of the dangers ... you might also be liable ... (even if you didn't know they were coming)

Workplaces are now required to list all site dangers at the entrances .. And farms are now workplaces.

**FJRider** · 20th May 2015, 22:57

Originally Posted by skippa1

Paragraph (d)

Guilty as charged then ... and he injured a mate.

**skippa1** · 21st May 2015, 06:54

Originally Posted by FJRider

Guilty as charged then ... and he injured a mate.

Yes......

i dont like paragraph's like that though, its another "cover all" phrase, just like "all reasonable steps" or no discernable odour"

subjective and put in place to allow lawmakers/enforcers to take action against anyone for anything