Queensland to consider.02 blood alcohol limit

[drew`SEVNT5]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No the sad fact is people who make those sorts of comments dont understand or care to understand what alcoholism is or drink driving.

And before you say im a "wowser" or "Un-Australian" or what ever else people like to throw at each whenever going agaisnt the norm is socially unacceptable (Even when its morally the right thing to do), why even make such a comment?

The debate is about drink driving....

If you cant live ONE day with out craving a beer then something is wrong with you... And yea i even put smokers on there too.

"A" beer... oh well thats ok... maybe ill have two beers... oh wait... three.. ill be ok... ill have another... yes its all good.

Morals are a funny thing.... Everyone has a different idea of what is *good and moral*...

[burnz]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No the sad fact is people who make those sorts of comments dont understand or care to understand what alcoholism is or drink driving.

And before you say im a "wowser" or "Un-Australian" or what ever else people like to throw at each whenever going agaisnt the norm is socially unacceptable (Even when its morally the right thing to do), why even make such a comment?

The debate is about drink driving....

If you cant live ONE day with out craving a beer then something is wrong with you... And yea i even put smokers on there too.

"A" beer... oh well thats ok... maybe ill have two beers... oh wait... three.. ill be ok... ill have another... yes its all good.

a beer, two three four. sound like your grasping at straws.

maybe ppl should check their bubble wrap for correct fitment

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No the sad fact is people who make those sorts of comments dont understand or care to understand what alcoholism is or drink driving.

And before you say im a "wowser" or "Un-Australian" or what ever else people like to throw at each whenever going agaisnt the norm is socially unacceptable (Even when its morally the right thing to do), why even make such a comment?

The debate is about drink driving....

If you cant live ONE day with out craving a beer then something is wrong with you... And yea i even put smokers on there too.

"A" beer... oh well thats ok... maybe ill have two beers... oh wait... three.. ill be ok... ill have another... yes its all good.

I go about 180 days without a beer but would like one at a BBQ, better book myself into rehab.

Yes, that is right, I drink well under acceptable limits about twice a year. Why should I lose that right for no appreciable increase in road safety or reduction in injury that is secondary to alcohol consumption?

[DJR-351]

The only reason i don't have a problem with the proposed change is i haven't had a drink for 17 years, but i can certainly see why others would be upset....

[f1tzy]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No the sad fact is people who make those sorts of comments dont understand or care to understand what alcoholism is or drink driving.

And before you say im a "wowser" or "Un-Australian" or what ever else people like to throw at each whenever going agaisnt the norm is socially unacceptable (Even when its morally the right thing to do), why even make such a comment?

The debate is about drink driving....

If you cant live ONE day with out craving a beer then something is wrong with you... And yea i even put smokers on there too.

"A" beer... oh well thats ok... maybe ill have two beers... oh wait... three.. ill be ok... ill have another... yes its all good.

So everyone who drinks has no ability to stop at one? Ill tell you now i can easily stop at 1 because hangovers suck ***. so am i a massive danger on the road? I don't believe i am as backed up by the current 0.05 limit.

The issue is that the penalties aren't harsh enough for those repeat offenders and those who have well over the limit. Why if i turn my tyres will my car get crushed yet i can go drink driving and still have my car?

[f1tzy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

. Why should I lose that right for no appreciable increase in road safety or reduction in injury that is secondary to alcohol consumption?

Easy, for 'morals' :

[dallasv8]

i enjoy being able to pull up at a mates place and have a beer on my way home,this sort of thing should go on the election promises so we can vote it out

[XR Martin]

I said it earlier, but the reason its a good idea is that people will now know that they cant have any alcohol before going for a drive.
At the moment, you are allowed two standard drinks in the first hour, and one every hour after that.
Alot of 'low range' offences are commited by people who thought they were ok to drive, whether they lost count of the amount of drinks, thought they can handle an extra one or so an hour, or just thought one more wouldnt hurt (one for the road)

With is at .02, now these people have no excuse, they will know they cant drink anything, as they will be breaking the law. It works for truck drivers and bus drivers, where the limit is .02, so why not for car drivers?

You will never stop high range drink drivers with a BAC limit, because they know they are way over and dont care, and are only thinking of themselves.

[dannyhilton]

The truth of the matter is ANY amount of alcohol has some effect on the body and mind, and alcohol effects everyone differently. I can see the reasoning in reducing the limit, but you have to look at the big picture. Will reducing the limit be any more effective than all the other short term fixes? Probably not, but it requires minimal effort and investment so it's her short term fix of a problem that goes much deeper. At the end of the day, it is up to the individual to ensure they are in a fit manor to drive, they drive to conditions, follow road rules and concentrate. I find driving tired is much more dangerous than driving under the legal limit. The real issue here is Bligh, she needs to lighten up on the botox as it's going straight to her head...

[kezzer]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

If you cant live ONE day with out craving a beer then something is wrong with you...

Whats so bad about a beer everyday? If you have a problem with me having a beer afterwork, there is something terribly wrong with you.
You really are a goose.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Eaturbo

Yeah everybody that gets caught driving under the infulence has been eating Rum and Raisin. Get real, they check you again after an hour from the first reading. You would than be found 0. I suppose you are going to bring up cough medicine next. I am talking legit drink drivers mate

So you did not read the article....

It ACTUALLY happened. That is, IT WAS REAL, not some theory.

If the maximum reading is 0.0 then it will happen a whole lot more.

That is one of the interesting thing about LAW. It is a blood alcohol reading, not a how many beers have you had reading.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No the sad fact is people who make those sorts of comments dont understand or care to understand what alcoholism is or drink driving.

And before you say im a "wowser" or "Un-Australian" or what ever else people like to throw at each whenever going agaisnt the norm is socially unacceptable (Even when its morally the right thing to do), why even make such a comment?

The debate is about drink driving....

If you cant live ONE day with out craving a beer then something is wrong with you... And yea i even put smokers on there too.

"A" beer... oh well thats ok... maybe ill have two beers... oh wait... three.. ill be ok... ill have another... yes its all good.

You can try to reset the boundaries, but you are still sound like a wowser who wants to make everyone else share a boring tit life. How much of us sinners freedom of expression are you prepared to sacrifice before it's acceptable to your idea of an ordered and obediant society? How much mongrel is it that defines the essence of a man (and woman for that matter) before it's unacceptable and immoral to your values? How much diversity in human behaviour is repugnant to you... or should I be asking your mum what your thoughts are?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by burnz

if ppl consider "a" beer with lunch, a drink driver then we live in a sad country.

If you're at work it's grounds for dismissal with a lot of companies.
If you're on your own time, one standard drink will not put you over the 0.05 limit...

[SLO AU XR8]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No the sad fact is people who make those sorts of comments dont understand or care to understand what alcoholism is or drink driving.

And before you say im a "wowser" or "Un-Australian" or what ever else people like to throw at each whenever going agaisnt the norm is socially unacceptable (Even when its morally the right thing to do), why even make such a comment?

The debate is about drink driving....

If you cant live ONE day with out craving a beer then something is wrong with you... And yea i even put smokers on there too.

"A" beer... oh well thats ok... maybe ill have two beers... oh wait... three.. ill be ok... ill have another... yes its all good.

there are far more dangerous things than someone who can stop at one or two drinks. The problem isn't someone who has A drink them drives, it is those who have 5+ in a short space then drive. I enjoy a beer or two. I can stop after one easy. Hell, I've had 6 beers in 5 weeks, so how can you say people can't go days without having one?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

I said it earlier, but the reason its a good idea is that people will now know that they cant have any alcohol before going for a drive.
At the moment, you are allowed two standard drinks in the first hour, and one every hour after that.
A lot of 'low range' offences are commited by people who thought they were ok to drive, whether they lost count of the amount of drinks, thought they can handle an extra one or so an hour, or just thought one more wouldnt hurt (one for the road)

With is at .02, now these people have no excuse, they will know they cant drink anything, as they will be breaking the law. It works for truck drivers and bus drivers, where the limit is .02, so why not for car drivers?

You will never stop high range drink drivers with a BAC limit, because they know they are way over and dont care, and are only thinking of themselves.

You have clearly pointed out the volume of alcohol allowable under present legislation, you understand it, why can't others? This information is in most state road law guides, it is also available from any police station or department of transport, so it's not hard to get your hands on. I do not see their mistake as reason to punish everyone when the vast majority are responsible in the alcohol use. It would be like suggesting that because some break the speed limit, all cars must be speed limited to 60 km/h.

A very important point that needs to be made clear for this discussion to have any merit is we are not talking about all instances of DUI. This change in law will only affect those with a lower range BAC, i.e less than .05. With this point in mind, I would suggest that any discussion on this is a moot point unless someone can present any statistical data from crash research that gives proof that low range BAC is a major contributing factor. If this proof can not be presented, which I doubt it will from my experience, then a reduction in legal BAC to 0.02 is most likely another example of changes in legislation that is not guided out of a desire to reduce the road toll but is more likely an effort to increase revenue.

Something to think about, when WA lowered the legal limit from 0.08 down to 0.05 along with other states the reasoning from the government was that at levels below 0.05 they had evidence that driving ability was not affected, hence it being considered the safe limit. At that time QLD had already been through that change with the same reasons given. Are they now saying they got it wrong, their own claimed "clear evidence" was a mistake?

By the way, on the subject of legal limit of 0.02 versus a nil BAC limit. Queensland Ambulance, Queensland Fire and Rescue and I believe Queensland Police all have a limit of nil BAC whilst on duty. So why, if they want to go hardline on this could they not lower it to that level? I suggest the idea of 0.02 is not out of necessity, it is to give the illusion of the public retaining some freedom and not lose votes.

[cosmo20btt]

It all sounds moral, but it will not stop the person that is well over the limit that then becomes the same person that speeds recklessly through the speed camera on way to certain doom. This is just more laws to catch the good people. There was a time when driving was about common sense, now it is all about zero tolerance = more fines.
NASA did a study on how many mistakes an Astronaut makes, they came up with about 11 mistakes an hour, so what chance does Joe Average stand against an zero tolerance society

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by f1tzy

So everyone who drinks has no ability to stop at one? Ill tell you now i can easily stop at 1 because hangovers suck ***. so am i a massive danger on the road? I don't believe i am as backed up by the current 0.05 limit.

The issue is that the penalties aren't harsh enough for those repeat offenders and those who have well over the limit. Why if i turn my tyres will my car get crushed yet i can go drink driving and still have my car?

Spot on (Give that man a beer : ) make the punishment fit the crime. Doing a skid is as much endangering people as having a .05 BAC.

And its so easy to do the higher the person is above .05 increase the punnishment SIMPLE

[RG]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No the sad fact is people who make those sorts of comments dont understand or care to understand what alcoholism is or drink driving.

And before you say im a "wowser" or "Un-Australian" or what ever else people like to throw at each whenever going agaisnt the norm is socially unacceptable (Even when its morally the right thing to do), why even make such a comment?

The debate is about drink driving....

If you cant live ONE day with out craving a beer then something is wrong with you... And yea i even put smokers on there too.

"A" beer... oh well thats ok... maybe ill have two beers... oh wait... three.. ill be ok... ill have another... yes its all good.

Some people have this thing, it's like a super power.

It's called Self Control.

Obviously you unfortunately lack this superhuman power, as I can see so do a few other members who have posted in here. Remember that opinions are like rear ends, everyone has one and that is not a problem and you are welcome to yours. When you start pushing your opinion, as others have here, as fact then there is an issue. Especially when said opinion is backed up with nothing more than nonsensical bollocks, ranting, and the occasional slip of Caps Lock to add in just that little more emphasis.

To those saying that this is a good idea, do a bit of research. You'll soon find out why .02 is not used in the vast majority of developed countries.

[4Vman]

0.02 is unworkable, it leaves no margin for error what-so ever, 05 atleast allowed for the "morning after" or 1 or 2 beers after work, 02 will kill this for the people who clearly do the right thing to stay under 05.

As we know people who don't care will continue to flout the laws anyway, laws have no impact on these people.

[merlin]

I think I am against this but can see a positive side.

Firstly it nees to be re-iterated that Norway and Sweden's road tolls have very little to do with the Australian road toll. Our country has oodles more km's of highways and far more congestion. These are also countries that have hugely popular public transport networks - so I find the comparison to them false.

Secondly where is the evidence that multiple deaths a year are being caused by people who have a BAC of 0.02 to 0.05? How often do you see news stories of people who are 3 times the limit - these people are almost always repeat offenders who get a slap on the wrist. They are the big problem and they couldn't care less about the current law so why will they care about a 0.02 law? I see the courts as the problem here. If the courts keep handing out piddly fines and suspended sentences how will this solve anything? As said these people don't care about the law, confiscate their license and they just drive unlicensed.

Thirdly I am against this trend of increased government intervention in all aspects of our lives and the nanny state that Australia is becoming. The maxim that "if it saves one life, its worked" is a very dangerous one. This was applied to firearms laws (all over one nutcase is Tasmania) and it can be applied to anything to help make the sheep feel safe.

Fourthly I would be in the group of people most effected by this - i.e. like to drive myself around and not rely on other people when I go out. Never binge drink and most I would have if driving would be 2 (rarely 3) over many hours in a social situation. If riding I never drink (and think motorcycle BAC should be zero).

Then again on the positive side if it means more people off the road who have alcohol in their system then perhaps its a good thing - but as stated it should be backed up by evidence. Whilst a 0.02 limit won't stop a lot of repeat offenders what it will do is instill a culture in the new generations of drivers that if drinking you full stop cannot drive. This will prevent some people having a few too many, and thinking their OK when they are really a long way over as they wouldnt be drinking in the first place.

Overall I think its a bit of a band aid solution and would like to see far tougher mandatory court penalties applied to the current laws.

[castellan]

I think i may have to get some one to drive me home after work.
Because i am some times f en worn out at the end of the day.
Then i may have to drive an hour to get home.
0.02 what a lot of NAZI bull sh--.
Grow up! not everyone works in air con.
And Stop living in a fantasy world.
If only everyone could live in a nambe pambe world. :

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by merlin

Then again on the positive side if it means more people off the road who have alcohol in their system then perhaps its a good thing - but as stated it should be backed up by evidence. Whilst a 0.02 limit won't stop a lot of repeat offenders what it will do is instill a culture in the new generations of drivers that if drinking you full stop cannot drive. This will prevent some people having a few too many, and thinking their OK when they are really a long way over as they wouldnt be drinking in the first place.

Overall I think its a bit of a band aid solution and would like to see far tougher mandatory court penalties applied to the current laws.

A very valid point, but is lowering the limit to 0.02 really the answer? Will it really stop this and provide any tangible improvement? Does the average driver really learn anything about responsible alcohol use and motoring? I would suggest the answer to all those questions is a big fat no.

I think a better solution to the road safety problem and the associated non compliance with existing legislation is in education. I also believe that although new drivers represent a proportion of the problem in this respect, they are not the only demographic with responsibility in this issue. In fact, considering people of all ages and experience are having serious crashes, I would suggest that the younger drivers are probably not even the majority in this respect. My anecdotal evidence is the fact that I go to far more crashes that involved two or more drivers that all hold open licenses, the L and P platers are the vast minority group.

With this thought in mind, I am going to suggest that any education should not only be targeted at new drivers, but all drivers.

One suggestion I would put forward if I had any voice of power, is that there be a duration of nation wide publicity and education, lets say 6 months across all forms of media. Then after 6 months of the publicity campaign, all drivers are then given 12 months to report to a department of transport licensing centre (or police station in rural areas). At this time they are required to undertake a theory assessment (which would need to be a number of types, randomly selected and frequently changed to prevent answer sharing). The theory assessment should be aimed at known causes of road crashes and their prevention techniques. These would include but not limited to alcohol, fatigue, driver distraction, speed, following distances, stop signs/traffic lights, safety devices (seat belts, airbags, lighting etc) and possibly minor vehicle maintenance (tyre pressures, lighting checks etc).

Failure of this assessment will then require placement on a provisional license and the conduct of refresher training. At the completion of that training that person then re-sits an assessment and when they pass, the provisional license is lifted. Failure to comply with the requirement for the assessment in a 12 month period would result in the cancellation of their license until said assessment is conducted and passed.

I do see one issue though, that will cost the government money rather than make money.

[GS608]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No the sad fact is people who make those sorts of comments dont understand or care to understand what alcoholism is or drink driving.

And before you say im a "wowser" or "Un-Australian" or what ever else people like to throw at each whenever going agaisnt the norm is socially unacceptable (Even when its morally the right thing to do), why even make such a comment?

The debate is about drink driving....

If you cant live ONE day with out craving a beer then something is wrong with you... And yea i even put smokers on there too.

"A" beer... oh well thats ok... maybe ill have two beers... oh wait... three.. ill be ok... ill have another... yes its all good.

Mate get real, there are people out there that can have one or two beers over a 3-4 hour period while at a BBQ or dinner or whatever and not drink excessively, I like to enjoy just one beer after work but can't really because i have 0 tolerance (p plates) everybody is different, for me i find it relaxes and relieves stress.

like Gecko said, he has first hand evidence that not one out of 8 ambo paramedics have come across a crash/DUI where the BAC was under 0.08, so how is lowering it to .02 going to prevent more crashes? All it's going to do is make it seem like there are more DUI drivers more fines and more income for the Govt coffers.

[jpd80]

what annoys is the little traffic accidents that occur with people who have had a couple or ten..

A while back, we had a guy run up the back of us but he had comprehensive.
If we'd called the cops , his insurance would have wiped him and we would have to wear the claim...

I'm not the first or last person to discover this but isn't it strange that you
have to bend the law in order to avoid even more aggro after your car is bent...

[merlin]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I think a better solution to the road safety problem and the associated non compliance with existing legislation is in education.

I fully agree - like most problems in life I think education is the solution but as you said this will cost money and not make it.

[XR6_661]

Doesn't really worry me...I'll still have my friday arvo beer at work then drive home.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by jpd80

what annoys is the little traffic accidents that occur with people who have had a couple or ten..

A while back, we had a guy run up the back of us but he had comprehensive.
If we'd called the cops , his insurance would have wiped him and we would have to wear the claim...

I'm not the first or last person to discover this but isn't it strange that you
have to bend the law in order to avoid even more aggro after your car is bent...

I don't think so. The police investigation would show him at fault meaning your insurance will chase him for repairs. The fact that he was over the limit and not covered by his insurance is irrelevant, it just means your insurance company chases him and not his insurance company. A no fault claim on your insurance does not require him to be insured.

[Zoink]

The Queensland Government have made a statement that infers that reducing BAC to 0.02 as per Sweden and Norway we would see a reduction in road trauma.

They didn't mention Poland and Estonia, doesn't fit the agenda ????


Countries that have Zero BAC / Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year.
Romania = 12.7
Saudi Arabia = 29
Slovakia = 15.1
United Arab Emirates = 37.1
Brazil = 18.3
Bangladesh = 12.6
Czech Republic = 10.4
Hungary = 9.9

Countries that have 0.02 BAC / Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year.
Estonia = 14.7
Poland = 14.7
Norway = 5.4
Sweden = 4.3

Countries that have 0.05 BAC / Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year.
Australia = 6.8
Denmark = 7.4
Finland = 6.5
France = 6.9
Germany = 5.5
Switzerland = 4.7

Countries that have 0.08 BAC / Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year.
Ireland = 7.8
Malta = 3.4
New Zealand = 8.6
UK = 4.3
USA = 12.3

Source
http://internationaltransportforum.org/irtad/about.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

0.02 is unworkable, it leaves no margin for error what-so ever, 05 atleast allowed for the "morning after" or 1 or 2 beers after work, 02 will kill this for the people who clearly do the right thing to stay under 05.

As we know people who don't care will continue to flout the laws anyway, laws have no impact on these people.

Agreed...

Why doesnt the Queensland government put some money into fixing our roads and driver education...

I've had enough of living in Queensland, I wish I could move away from here, anyone who thinks about moving from Victoria / NSW to Queensland stay where you are, the place is turning into a ********** hole thanks to Anna...

All we do here is pay more for everything and get shitthouse infrastructure that doesnt work or is run into the ground. The place is starting to become 3rd world, people may think im over reacting but drive on some of QLDs main country highways, the amount of dips, pot holes im wondering why there arent more headons just because of the ruts in the road.. Then we have the public transport saga trying to get around brisbane in peek hour..

Then theres the issue of going out on the town on a Friday / Saturday night.. Anna where are the buses late at night / early morning?? The reason why so many people drink and drive in this shitthole is because you cant get home.. And no I dont drink and drive myself, i just refuse to go out now because its all too hard and costly, unless of course someone drives! :

I give up.. :

[Professor Farnsworth]

in the case of medications and foods:

1) medications can be justified after the fact, as long as you have a prescription or doctor's cert stating what you were taking and why

2) you have to use your noodle regarding food. Most savoury dishes using alcohol involve the alcohol content burning off while cooking, leafing sfa left as far as consumption goes. With desserts that involve alcohol, eg brandy, sherry etc, well use common sense.

I HIGHLY doubt any dish would put you over .02 or even anywhere near it.

I am all for the limit, in fact i'd prefer to see it a zero blood alcohol limit to put driving a car in line with flying an aircraft. Being highly involved in aviation and piloting, i see a great deal of merit in the situation.

Yes idiocy will still cause accidents, but why are you allowed to consume something which is proven to reduce awareness, and slow your reflexes, increasing the risk of injury or worse to yourself and those around you? The laws need reform. Pilots require .00 - why not drivers?

If you can't go somewhere without being forced to drive, don't drink? seems pretty simple to me. Or get a taxi/bus. If that's not viable, then drinking isn't either.

I've seen a lot of carnage caused by alcohol, and it's all completely pointless.

anyway i'll eagerly await the comedic hilarity of replies from the usuals