QLD to consider lowering the BAC to 0.02...

[Blitzen]

This from Capt Bligh...

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland-considers-02-drink-driving-limit-to-reduce-toll/story-e6frfkvr-1225840481621

My thoughts...

North Queenslands roads are a ****ing disgrace...Instead of lowering the
blood alcohol limit to 0.02, to curb the road toll, how about investing
some of the speeding fine revenue back into the road network so that I
don't have to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid pot holes that are
over 2ft long that would literally destroy my tyres and wheels (as they have done before.....)

[pixl]

0.02? Why bother, just make it 0 and be done with it. **** me.

[Preen59]

Yeah as much as I want to say "Just don't drink, simple!", this is a complete wank. They keep avoiding the real problems over and over again. ****ing ridiculous really.

[Blitzen]

Our politicians have there heads so far up their arses, they wear themselves as hats...Queenslands roads are the worst in Australia (especially up north here), and they are getting worse....Far worse. Lowering the BAC will not do anything insofar as lowering drinking related accidents...All we will see is a rise in low range drink driving charges, our courts overloaded hearing the cases, and a whole new generation of people unfairly loosing their licences...

[gregozedobe]

Warning ! [start of long law and order rant]


Usually when alcohol is a significant factor in a crash the driver is well over the existing limit, so reducing the legal limit is unlikely to change this. Same deal with speeding, the driver is usually going way over any sensible speed for the conditions before the crash, regardless of what the official speed limit is.

Unless they believe there is a significant increase in the chances of their being caught then the "problem" drivers are unlikely to change their behaviour. There needs to be a pretty good chance of being caught AND serious consequences when you do to make drivers like this think about what they are doing before they do something stupid (after the event is too late).

Most of what we see is "window dressing" by politicians wanting to look good and win votes by being seen to "do something about the road toll".

Actually reducing the road toll is much harder to achieve, and some of the measures would be unpopular, and would take a lot of resources to carry out. I would support:

1 Much greater police presence on the road = much greater chance of getting caught if you do something really dangerous. Both marked and unmarked cars (we should be doing the right thing all the time, not just when we can see a marked police car)

2 More use of number plate recognition devices. Many bad crashes are caused by unlicensed drivers, driving unregistered/uninsured cars. These "scoff-laws" seem to drive much worse than the average, and cause trouble for the rest of us.

3 Mandatory sentencing. Why should you get a lighter penalty just because you can afford a fancy lawyer who can spin a good yarn ?

4 Confiscating cars for a short period for a first serious offence - stupidly dangerous speeds, falling down drunk driving. The punshment has to be meaningful enough to deter drivers. Obviously there needs to be some exceptions eg where the car was stolen (and the driver was charged with theft) or the driver was an employee of a dealership/repairer (in which case the driver's own car would be confiscated instead)

5 Crushing cars for a second serious offence - take away the means and make it more difficult to do it again. More deterrence.

6 Jail time for a 3rd serious offence - if a driver won't learn and continues to endanger other drivers then remove them from the arena so they can't do it again.

7 More enforcement and stiffer penalties for not wearing seatbelts. I seem to read a lot of reports about bad crashes where one or more occupants were "thrown from the car", and further reading reveals the injured/killed weren't wearing a seatbelt. Modern cars are fairly safe, but you need to be wearing a seat belt to remain inside the safety cage.


I know not every one will agree with me, but I'm talking about targetting the serious serial offenders here - the ones who end up killing and maiming their passengers and/or other road users; not someone who is doing 117 on a 110 limit freeeway.

[end rant]

[Preen59]

Doesn't happen very often but i do have to agree with you, Greg.

However I believe that more of a solution lies in prevention rather than a cure. Teach people right and wrong both graphically (real pictures and information about what can and does happen) and practically (hands on) before they go out and do it, rather than penalising them when they do.

I'm talking driver education courses for new applicants (paid for by the individual) and if someone is caught doing something wrong, they too will have to attend mandatory driver education courses (once again, out of their own pocket in their own time). If you don't like it, don't drive. Driving is a privilege and not a right, so they keep preaching.. So how about backing that up?

[JustCruisn]

Just remember that the original studies found that 0.08 was the point at which people start to become under the influence. 0.05 was introduced to add a safe buffer. So what is 0.02 going to do ?
Breath test machines are not accurate enough at .02. At work our drug and alcohol policy had to be amended to allow 0.02 as a pass for zero - the wall mounted and held held machines could not get it right.

[maca]

It's almost as if they want to introduce the 0.02 limit so anyone that gets caught with a 0.1 BAC cops a bigger fine and resulting in higher revenue raising for the goverment.

Ps. I love Bligh.