Random breath tests

Its not the time. Its the principle of being stopped with out cause.

bgreeni,
How if they don't pull you over are they to know if you are or are not inebriated.
Get over it.Short time loss for you long time gain for every one.

Cheers,



Bob.

Why don't we just let all the drink drivers do what they want - Get real! - I dont drink and I do not mind .

Not attack against the person, just the point of view.

Excellent point Daza, even if you're not injured, a crash will always be more inconvenient than a simple breath test.

I do not think an answer like that is needed Dunco, all the others are justified, but yours a bit over the top.
ps I do not drive under the influence

Do not have a problem with it. There should be a lot more random breath testing, the Police are just doing there job.
Duke

I do not have a problem with it and I did not say that...the guy can have his say with out being flogged to death can't he.

Isuzumu...can't you say what you want to say in one message ?

I don't think it was over the top...the original message was though.

ps. I hope you don't drive under the influence.

And I suppose you have never had one drink and drove hey (if you don't drink this means sfa) And read what I say before having a shot to

A bit touchy there Isuzumu. Fancy responsible 4WDrivers debating on a site that advocates responsible driving whether one should be pulled up and random breath tested. God help us.
Duke

Yep your right there Duke should all have a drink and go to bed lol pity it's a week day and I don't have one till Friday hahahaha

Memorable question Ali G asked a US Govt Official:

What do you think is suitable punishment for a suicide bomber....?

In a Terrorist training camp during lessons on suicide bombing, instructor says:

Now I'm only going to show you this once.....

Boom Boom !!!!!

:)

Jack

It's a good excuse for a stop and a bit of a chat.
And I always thank them for a job well done.
cheers

Bills of Rights aren't always what they are cracked up to be. The main beneficiaries in the uSA seem to be the legal profession who make squillions arguing about them. The never ending arguments over the exact meaning of "The Right to Bear Arms" is a case in point. Our system is based on the British Common Law that has eveolved over a thousand or so years. Many people argue that it actually protects individuals better than trying to codify a Bill of Rights. The United Nations approach to defining human Rights has always looked more useful to me than the USA model. In theory, we are signatories to the UN Charter.

Robin

Oddly enough, a Bill of Rights, debated in the lead-up to Federation, was rejected. Many believed that the constitutional entrenchments of the doctrines of responsible parliamentary government and separation of powers would itself provide the best protection for human rights.

But importantly, there were also fears that express provisions to protect human rights, such as an equal protection clause, would prevent the operation of the existing racial discriminatory laws aimed at aboriginal people.

The recent debate on the rights of (all) Australians to visit Ayers Rock, Uluru as it is now known to many, would be totally different, and most likely favour indigenous aborigines, if we had a Bill of Rights…… Of itself, not necessarily a bad thing.

Cheers….

Hi Guys

The bill of rights was less necessary once , I believe , when common law was more dominant.

Its been significantly down graded with the rule of regulation these days.

Things like right to bear arms have been argued a lot but remain virtually untouched and a practical guarantee of a bill of rights value.

Despite popular myth, due to arms restrications pre-WW11 I know my father in law had to face the bombing of Darwin with just 3 bullets issued to every 3rd soldier in the trenches. a shortage of rifles meant the other 2 soldiers had nothing.

On the access issue , we have a small minority who seek to impose thereviews on the rest of us and this has not happened to any of the American natural assets as it has in Australia.

Robin

A Bill of Rights has as part of its foundation the protection of the rights of minorities; you would be hard pressed to find any aboriginal group that would not support one.

And….the relationship between the American Indians and the US Government is very different to the relationship between our indigenous Aboriginal population and the Australian Government. Especially with respect to how land was acquired….

Not my intention to enter a Bill of Right debate (no strong view), simply to highlight that the introduction of a Bill of Rights in Australia has many implications…..

Cheers

Robin, I would oppose a Bill of Rights at every opportunity, not because I'm not concerned with human rights, but for the following reasons:
1/ A Bill of Rights would shift the decisions about particular rights to an unelected judiciary, removing them from our elected politicians. Politicians can be voted out for unpopular rights decisions while a judiciary is immune from this.
2/ Similarly, a Bill of Rights would provide opportunities for 'rights' to be instituted/enforced even though they may not be politically acceptable (ie. the rights given to the noisy minority at the expense of the opinion of a democratic majority).
3/ A Bill of Rights is unbalanced in that it focuses on 'give me my rights' without the respective emphasis on he responsibilities that may go with those rights (eg. while a licence may give you a 'right' to drive on public roads, there are many responsibilities that go along with that, such as driving safely, etc.)
4/ With regards to religion, each religion professes to be the only right one and therefore implies (or may even clearly state) that all others are wrong. Any one person from any religion could insist on their 'right' not to have their religion spoken against by anyone, and that would effectively outlaw all other religions - even the observance of no religion.
5/ Finally, our rights are already very well protected under our existing legislation/constitution - in fact, better than almost all other countries in the world.

Hi GUys

Tim rights are inalienable and can be deduced from first principles, on the basis that you should be as free as possible without impinging on others and not decided by other people.

Most conflict in the world comes from someone trying to impose their will on someone else.

Have a good look as this non-afiliated site, it deduces almost all things from basic first principles from why you should be decent to other people to the fundamental basis for freedom.

http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosophy/

"...rights are inalienable and can be deduced from first principles, on the basis that you should be as free as possible without impinging on others and not decided by other people." I agree wholeheartedly - but to be as free as possible without impinging on others would imply laws like we already have that simply state you can't do this or that (because those things would impinge on others). In other words, you can do anything other than what is specifically excluded by the law. Unfortunately, the emphasis of 'Rights' legislation is the other way around, you have a right to do this and that without without someone else impinging on you (never mind that exercising your rights may impinge on others). It is far easier (and gives greater freedom) to signpost a couple of streets "No Entry" than it would be to signpost all the streets where entry is permitted!
Consider which one will give you the most freedom: legislating what you can't/shouldn't do, or legislating what you have a right to do?
Which would give the most freedom to everyone else: Legislating that they must uphold my rights, or legislating that I must not trample theirs?

"Most conflict in the world comes from someone trying to impose their will on someone else." - Again, I would agree, but I don't believe a Bill of Rights will prevent this - if anything, it will cause it: see my third point (above). 'Rights' legislation is inherently seflish: concerned primarily with MY rights and everyone else must live in such a way as to give me MY rights. Meanwhile, our existing legislation is focussed more on our responsibility not to impinge on others, which gives us all great freedom.

When people become too concerned with their own rights to do this and that and not be called into question, that is when they forget about their responsibility to protect other people's rights, including the right of other people to voice opinions that may differ from their own. There are already cases in Victoria (yes, Australia) where groups have enforced their 'right' to have no one speak against them. Consider the implications of this: A religious group enforced its right to have no one speak against them (ie. simply s[eaking a view which is contrary). Effectively, this means no one can practice any other religion because by doing that, they are implying that the first is wrong (and that, by the way, includes the popular view that anyone who follows a religion is wrong). Our judiciary has begun to impose one religion which we must all follow - which is exactly what our constitution specifically states must not happen.

Tim....

An argument against a Bill of Rights, is that the more you define something, such as rights, the more limiting it becomes by virtue of a definition...

In the context of a comment I made earlier with respect to the recent discussion on access to Ayers Rock; under a Bill of Rights the incumbents will have a far greater opportunity to argue their case. (Another debate altogether..)

Under our current democratic system of government, and the powers of the Constitution, the majority have a far greater opportunity of arguing against the interest of minority groups....essentially politicians are more likely to sway to popular opinion, otherwise they will be voted out at the next election, potentially.

A Bill of Rights guarantees that minority groups can argue against unjust/unfair laws, no matter how small the minority.

No strong view either way, but it could be a case of be careful for what you wish for.....

Cheers

Thanks Landy: "An argument against a Bill of Rights, is that the more you define something, such as rights, the more limiting it becomes by virtue of a definition... " That's one of the points I was trying to make.

As for Ayers Rock, I completely agree that the 'Right to be Climb-Free' would most likely win over the 'Right to Climb'.

"Under our current democratic system of government, and the powers of the Constitution, the majority have a far greater opportunity of arguing against the interest of minority groups....essentially politicians are more likely to sway to popular opinion, otherwise they will be voted out at the next election, potentially."
This is the strength of our current system - the majority can remove someone from power if they are not representing the opinions of the majority while the judiciary (which would determine our rights under a Bill of Rights) is not elected by the people. And of greater concern: there is no [legitimate] way to remove a corrupt judiciary - where is their accountability? Obviously the problem with a democratic system is that the majority is not always right (although it is harder to corrupt a larger group than a small/minority group)

"A Bill of Rights guarantees that minority groups can argue against unjust/unfair laws, no matter how small the minority."
I hear what you're saying, but unfortunately it also guarantees a platform for corrupt minority groups to argue against laws that they perceive to be unjust/unfair (even though the converse may be more unfair to a greater number of people). Having read accounts of how 'Rights' legislation has already been used in a number of countries (including Australia), it is too often ABused by minority groups to gain a right to impose their opinion without dissent, disagreement or question from others, effectively silencing all potential opposition - is that giving freedom or taking it?

Some of those points are why its important to be able to derive the answers from the basics and why , from what I have seen that realism philosophy comes as close as I have even seen as a guide to all important questions in life - well except why Nissan's are the best car and shall remain that way until I buy something else.

Good point Graham H.

"catching" drivers with readings above the limit is what its all about.

Stopping them getting to that limit in the first place, is not what it is all about.

Drivers with a 0.005 over the limit reading are no different to drivers getting caught out at 2kph over the posted speed limit ...... cash cows.

I used to think they probably wouldn't pull over a coach (and most of them don't), and I was a bit surprised to be pulled up for RBT on the way home from the snow one evening. Only a couple of weeks, later a coach driver (another company) was pulled up in the same town an returned a positive reading...

The most notable thing when I got pulled up was the number of seatbelts I heard being fastened as we slowed to a stop! :)

Maybe bgreeni would have a new rule brought in whereby if you get RBT'd (say) 5 times and pass each one with a zero reading, you should be issued with a big windscreen sticker that says "POLICE: DON'T RBT THIS CAR HE'S ALWAYS SOBER"

Yeh!!! That'd work!!!! (tongue firmly in cheek!!!!! hahahahaha)

"....shows just how manipulative advertising is"

Hit the nail on the head there.....................

Can one say "brain washing"??

;-))

Well it certainly looks like I came to the wrong place here to have anyone defend my rights. Most of you seem to think that it is great to hand over your rights to the government, and note I realise that the police are doing there job as defined by the govt., so am not having a go at them.

When I made the same complaint to my wife she said I should be glad I did not come from her home - she is Russian - said that there they take you out of your car, examine all your papers, and it can take up to an hour to test you. But isn't that just a step further down the slippery slope we have here?

Loss of civil rights is an important subject, I'm not demeaning your concern.

Example. IF i was stopped for random breath test and passed OK - BUT, if my fingerprints or dna, were gathered during that stop - then that would be a different thing.

There are a few civil rights I'd be prepared to fight to protect.

Getting stopped for a "random breath test" isn't one of them.

Yes - its the thin edge of the wedge, I agree - any erosion of civil rights is a worry.

Tell me another/better way to defeat drink driving?

Whats the worst case scenario if we lose civil rights?....do people die because of that?

People are already dieing from drink driving accidents, innocents, women and kids etc...and in large numbers every year.

Losing a civil right like the ability to not be stopped without cauise for a random breath test MIGHT change peoples behaviour pattterns.

Multinova speed cameras HAVE changed community attitudes to speeding and peoples driving habits.

Booze Buss' and random breath testing are altering peoples drink driving behavior for the better.

There's a price to pay for social change that saves lives.

That price is in this case is minimal IMHO.

There was another choice - people could have voluntarily changed their behavior.

Only one problem with that "self regulation" route to solving the road death / trauma issue.

Thats this:-

Alcoholism is a disease of addiction.

Alcoholics don't STOP drinking & driving, on their own, without help/treatment for their disease of addiciton, they CAN'T - just the same as crack heads and heroin addicts don;t stop without treatment / help.

Without the interdiction of police on the road to identify those who are addicted to transport & alcohol - meaning they WILL Drink & Drive, you cannot stop the problem.

It's that simple.

Alcoholics have a disease - that's fatal to others as well as themselves.

They won't be cured by making laws that aren't enforced harshly.

They can be cured with special medical and support intervention.

In order to end up in that treatment, they first need to be identified, and put into involuntary treatement if necessary.

The police and courts system can do that!

The main thing is - they MUST be kept off our roads at all costs because teir illness causes death to other innocent people.

That takes booze buss' and random breath tests & loss of a civil liberty.

I don't think the tossup between loss of a minor civil liberty & deaths of innocents including kids and women is a debate worth at all - because it is a no brainer.

IF one doesn't drink and drive, please tell me what one has to fear from a random breath test stop?.

If your precious "civil liberty's" have to come at the expense of innocent women and kids lives on our roads, then there's something wrong with your value system that you need to take a good long hard look at.

Its very simple.

Don't drink and drive and you have nothing to fear - those with the disease of alcoholism in our society who insist on the right to drive while drunk or under the influence of alcohol will be rounded up by the random stop breath tests and booze buss' and to my mind - that's as it should be.

Sorry but the rationale of "personal freedoms verses dead innocents" as a debate worthy of discussion ticks me off a little.

Cheers

Lots of rubbish gets talked about our rights and not nearly enough about our responsibilities. Nobody has a natural right to drive on roadas, or fly planes etc etc. It is the community that gives you the rights, in return for the responsibilities. And that means the community is able to establish conditions for the safety of the community as well.

bgreeni

You can't loose something you never had.Australia doesn't have a bill of rights. The USA does. We are not the USA.

Our government is elected by the people to represent their views. From the responses on this thread it appears that the governments' stance on this issue truly represents the will of the people. That's democracy at work. So what's the problem?

bgreeni,
I would prefer to look at it this way; We don't actually have a lot of rights, we have a lot of privileges and driving on the public roads is one of them IF YOU STICK TO THE RULES !
Many large businesses (mines) have regular drug tests ? Would you jump up and down and refuse to take a drug test if it's part of your employment contract ? Well, you have a social contract with the other road users so take your alcohol test just like everyone else does.

KK

Bucky, with any job we can be discouraged by seemingly unnecessary work which is brought about by someone else's foolishness and/or selfishness. Probably this isn't felt more strongly anywhere other than by the road trauma crews who have to perform those heart-wrenching tasks you describe - and probably so often: unnecessarily. I certainly don't envy those who carry out these tasks - are you one of them?

I beg to differ .....

It has "become" a licensed privelege .... check history.

If we do not have the right to drive .... then it might be best for the govt to:

Provide proper and effective, alternative transportation ... IN ALL AREAS OF AUSTRALIA to all locations.

I would happily relinquish my right to drive once I am provided with housing and employment in the same locale - and the means to travel ANYWHERE I want using provided transport.

Driving is a right .... but not at the expense of other drivers rights.

So Oztroopy ,by your reconing the govt owes YOU transportation to where ever you wish to go ? Driving a motor vehicle has NEVER been a right , check history ?? Nowhere anywhere is driving a motorised vehicle a right ,, show us all where driving is a RIGHT , cant can you,

No Alloyct ....

By my reckoning ... it is my right to use a motorvehicle for transportation.

The govt endorses this right by charging fees in the form of licenses, registration etc., claiming saletaxes and providing roads and what should be - a simple, set standard of rules to abide.

If poor management by govt has created a situation where the roads are no longer safe to be on .... or they wish to make it as inconvenient as possible with constantly changing rules, duplication of existing rules etc., varying existing rules to facilitate revenue .... maybe its time they provided an alternative ...


My comment was actually ... "It has "become" a licensed privelege .... check history." .... not as you misinterpretated - a constitutional item.

I'll let you search for yourself when licensing and fees were introduced in Australia.

"a simple, set standard of rules to abide " Exactly your words ; and 1 simple rule and standard involves .05 / .02 and .00 and the enforcement of such, now if driving a vehicle is as you term a "right" then you have no objection to a drunken unlicensed 12yr old driving a unregistered stolen car on the footpath do you ? After all ,you state it is a "right' to use a motor vehicle for transportation.

baahaahaahaahaa .... goodonya alloyct

For a reread of EXACTLY my words ... please refer to WHOLE contents of Followup ID: 642692

" .05 / .02 and .00 and the enforcement of such " ..... makes 4 rules ... doesnt it ???

Maybe you could explain for me, how a child UNDER the legal drinking/driving age has a "right" to be drinking and driving ?

Think about what "rights" are alloyct ... in an australian context ... and forget the yank hype about the right to arm bears and so forth. LOL

BTW ... got some dates for when money started changing hands to hold a drivers license in various aust. states, yet ??

png62 ... get over it ....

Random breath tests are not a road safety initiative .... They are just a publicized method of "road safety".

Staistics of actual "drunk drivers" and those drivers with alcholic content fractionally over lowered minimums compared to the amount of public funds spent on manpower and resources would make interesting reading I am sure.

My example of the ignored information about a definitive "drink driver" proves that breath testing itself ... is more important than catching drunk drivers.

Driving is a very simple matter .... you get in the vehicle and safely move it from point A to point B .... without causing issues to other drivers.

If alchohol is such a problem .... ban it.

Your example of a definitive "Drink Driver" could also be one who is suffering diabetes.

I would love to see the BAC level for all driver dropped to 0.0 as well

Combating Drink driving is a complex issue and the use of RBT is one method that is currently being used.

Yeah Oztroopy, it really is ok, I might be able to get over it, thank you for your advice. lovl.

You have confused me though - "Random breath tests are not a road safety initiative .... They are just a publicised method of "road safety". " What do you mean, I thought publicising "road safety" in any form was a road safety initiative, just as the discussion on this post is healthy.

It appears that the majority of people are happy to accept the RBTs as a minor inconvenience but as a step towards prevention of drink driving problems. It is very interesting to note the amount of drink driving that continues despite the publicity. There are obviously some not so bright people about.

As SK&D above states, "Combating Drink driving is a complex issue and the use of RBT is one method that is currently being used."

May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face, etc

OzTroopy

“If alchohol is such a problem .... ban it.”

That leaves a bit of a conundrum surely.

If you were a politician with the ability to create laws, which would you choose?

Ban alcohol at the risk of impinging the civil rights of all those that enjoy a drink, responsibly and possibly the rights of those ‘drinkers’ that don’t even drive…..

Or would you risk offending a far less number of the general population through impinging their civil liberties by forcing a random breath test on them?

png62 ... you answered your question.

The advertising of breathtesting and the ineffective quantity of breathtesting activities means it is not a deterrent.

Thats why as you stated "It is very interesting to note the amount of drink driving that continues despite the publicity"

Enough is done to convince the general public that all is in order ... but not so much is done - to reduce revenue from such "illegal" activities.

4 trips from central west NSW to Sydney recently and the only police presence seen was one roving patrol unit and a booze bus set-up in Sydney.

Considering the mileage covered ... the lack of police presence and its deterrent value had me thinking I could have driven fast enough to take an hour off each leg of the trip.

If as advertised ... "Every police car is a mobile RBT" ....
it would be a good idea if there were a few of them out there.

If as advertised ... "There are more Police on the roads" ....
it would be a good idea if there were a few of them out there.


Landy ... as for that "conundrum" ........

If its all right for one very large section of the public to treated as criminals until proven innocent ... surely the rest of the population would readily agree to the same situation - in the interests of public safety ???

A side benefit may even be a reduction in all the non-driving, related issues.

I for one would miss my occasional rum at the camp fire tho.


As Sir Kev said .... complex to solve ... but thats why our civic leaders draw the big pay packets and get free travel on retirement.

OzTroopy...are you arguing for the protection of everyones' rights, or no-ones? You can't have your cake and it eat!

I don't accept the notion that RBTs are ineffectual, in fact, the removal of RBTs would eventually encourage people to err on the side of driving..... human nature being what it is.

It is a complex issue, and the interests of a few, needs to be balanced off against the interest of many. Sounds easy, but if it was that easy, we'd have any number of people lining up to join the parliament, make popular laws, enjoy the perks of office and live happily ever after. Funny thing is that doesn't happen.

If this thread is indicative of the broader community view on the matter, and that is strongly in favour of RBTs, how would you deal with the problem of drink driving if you were making laws?

Hey Landy ....

I wasnt actually argueing for anybodies rights ... I was only echoing the original posters comment. That and the fact I dont like being treated like a criminal UNTIL proven innocent.

And then there is "expected rights" and U.S. style, constitutionally enshrined rights ... the two seem too have been blurred on this thread depending on who wanted to make a point.

The removal of RBTs would definitely make the situation worse ... Then everybody would KNOW, there was no likelihood of being caught - rather than just having a high chance of not getting caught.

As someone else posted ... why arent RBTs at the places of most benefit ... Clubs, Hotels ... the all night suburban party the roving Police patrol found etc.... why indeed ?

Complex Issue ... It certainly is ... How to deal with it today ... Probably impossible now that such stupidity as "schoolies week" behaviour and similiar occurrences are actively encouraged.

The issue of drink drivers has always been around ... what needs to be addressed today is ... Why is it so prevalent ?

Could it be the constant availability of any quantity of alcohol from any number of locations at any time ?

Could it be that drivers are "legally" able to commence drinking ... and commence driving at an earlier age than before and a trend has formed ?

Could it be the virtually unrestricted advertising - aimed particulary at the young - of alcoholic products ?

Could it be that as community mindedness has dwindled, The large number of volunteers that used to do the tasks, now performed by a minimum number govt employees only - no longer get to take the message of vehicle accident carnage home, to warn of the dangers.

Could it be that state and federal misuse of police for revenue raising, has diminished the public respect the police deserve and once held ?

Who knows .... but there are certain individuals paying themselves a goodly amount of wage and benefits on a yearly basis - that should have it sorted out by now.

Hi OzTroopy

Yes, it has become a bit blurred....and you make some very valid points in your recent post.

cheers...

Hi Landy, tend to agree with your comments above. OzTroopy, I suspect you don't really believe that banning alcohol altogether is really the answer, though you've touched on a far deeper issue and closer to the root of the problem, but of course, much more difficult to fix...

Along similar lines to your arguments though, you could argue that you're being treated as a criminal everytime a constable points his radar gun at your car, or everytime your rego sticker is checked/verified, or everytime your car has to go over the pits, everytime you have to go through a security check (eg. at airport) or everytime you have to present ID for anything (incl. passport for overseas travel) - why can't they just take your word for it when you tell them who you are? Because although the majority of people are content to simply go about their lives, there are enough sinister people that we all have to go through a few checks from time to time. Obviously, there is a balance between these checks being too intrusive, or letting a few 'bad guys' through the net...

by the reckoning here, when I buy or sell a car, and refuse to accept a cheque or pay before ensuring he is legit-then I am assuming he could be a criminal and "infringing on his rights?

G'Day Tim .... yes, the banning of alcohol was more a question ... hence my not demanding it in my post.

Radar Guns and Cameras .... After the debacle of organising a pass for all motorways in sydney recently and getting fines in the mail because their electronics dont work properly .... I'll leave the legitimacy of using failure prone electronic equipment to make criminals out of motorists - alone ... LOL

Not that I condone mixing drinking and driving ... quite happy to side with Sir Kev in regard to a 0.0 level for all drivers as ..... how can it be right that different drivers can have different legal limits ? A bus driver with passengers must be 0.0 but the cardriver who slams into the bus can have 0.05 or whatever ???

Its quite simple .... If you sell both your milking cows ... you get no further income from the milk .... Keep one cow and income keeps rolling in.

Theres a big difference between proving your identity for travel or purchases - and being pulled up like fish in a trawler net in a RBT and being thrown back because your not a prize catch.

To add insult to injury ... you'er not even "tagged" to show what a good driver you are ... for not registering on the test.

"A bus driver with passengers must be 0.0 but the cardriver who slams into the bus can have 0.05 or whatever ??? "

Consequences and responsibilities.

One is being PAID to carry out his duties and therefore a PAYING passenger has the right to expect a driver in a fit state. carrying up to 60 people.

The other is NOT ALLOWED to carry paying passengers, therefore his passengers have some responsibility to assess the driver. Of course another driver on the road is unable to do this until he is clobbered by the drunk-hence RANDOM BREATH TESTS.

Not sure about other states but I know WA Gov didnt want .05 laws but these were forced by Canberra under threat of loss of road and blackspot funding

fisho ... the reality is ... its not about ones employment requirements ... its about drivers with a blood alcohol level, in vehicles, on public roads.

As the govt has decreed 0.05 is a safe level ... then passengers of any vehicle can be assured that, if that is the drivers reading .... they are in safe hands.

If its all right for some drivers to have a 0.05 reading ... then it should be all right for ALL drivers .... As I dont see how an average motorist with 0.05 could be a better driver than a professional, trade driver limited to 0.00.

Or perhaps we all should all go for specialised alcohol affected, driving tests so our licenses can be endorsed with the actual limit, we as individuals succumb to the effects of alcohol ?

why stop at those examples Troopy?
why should ride-on lawn mower operators, power tool users, hairdressers, skateboarders, parachutists, mothers etc etc be allowed free rein when all have the potential for hurting themselves and others if over .05?

Ridiculous examples of course which demonstrate that your argument is losing credibility.

Fact is also that a P-plate driver has far less tolerance of alcohol while inexperienced-that should be obvious to anyone.

hey fisho,

Why stop at those examples ? ..............
Quite simply because the issue of RBTs is about motorvehicle users, I guess ???

Ridiculous examples from you ? ... Well ... not really - when you consider further issues like domestic violence, street brawls, etc., ... btw, you're not alluding an agreeance to my earlier, tongue in cheek comment, about banning alcohol and the general benefits of that action to society are you ???

There is no arguement ... the govt states that it is legal (safe ?) for the "average" motorist to have a higher blood alcohol content than "professional" drivers .... And I have a credibility problem ???

Everybodys' alcohol tolerances are different - if you have seen or read any studies on the matter. Mine as an example is quite low - the reason for my self imposed drink/no drive rule, regardless of govt requirements. .......... Almost any kid on L-Plates could drive better than me after a few beers.

HaHaHa! So if you have an issue with being stopped for an RBT, how would you feel if it happened also while mowing the lawn, chopping vegetables, using whipper-snipper etc!

Everybodies alcohol tolerance is different-too true. So would you prefer the US style where each sobriety test takes 10 minutes of standing on one leg touching nose with left hand etc? Then you would be really squealing, in a line of 50 cars while each is tested for their"tolerance".

Somehow I think this works better.

However you wont change the law whining on Exploroz-maybe you should direct your efforts where a change would be possible. However judging by most of the responses, democratically it wouldnt go far.

HaHaHa! ??????????????????

I suspect the U.S style test as you describe, is probably more effective at judging a persons sobriety - than noting whether they drive the family station wagon or a bus and applying an alcohol limit based on revenue.

I think also, that that U.S. test comes about after the police have ascertained that the driver, after being followed for a distance, appears not to be in control of the vehicle ... which of course, is much different to being herded off the road for bulk testing.

I dont think that I have stated I want laws changed ..... as I dont care what the levels are. Any "whining" I am doing is to highlight the fallacies perpetrated about the the current laws ... and believed by so many.

However if you wish to believe that "average" motorists with a 0.05 level are safer drivers than a "professional" drivers with a lower limit .... thats your "right" I guess ...

OzTroopy, the lower limit for professional drivers reflects the greater responsibility that they have, generally driving larger/heavier vehicles which potentially do more damage and inflict more casualties when things go awry.

There are a number of additional requirements that heavy vehicle drivers must meet to obtain (& hold) those licences, even though the average motorist doesn't have to fulfil those requirements. These include medical check-ups (every year in ACT, every 3 years in NSW) and a load securing test (wouldn't hurt the average driver to have to do this.

There are also some anomalies in the system eg. the coach company I work for used to have a couple of Toyota Coaster minibuses. Now, because these things were accredited as public passenger carrying vehicles and driven by professional coach drivers, they were speed limited to 100km/h, speed monitoring devices had to be retrofitted and the drivers had to keep logbook hours. Meanwhile, any man off the street could go and hire an identical vehicle from Thrifty/Hertz/Budget/etc. and cruise down the highway at 110km/h all day without any speed monitoring and without having to take the prescribed 'logbook' breaks. Is that because the driver who hires a minibus once in his lifetime is a safer driver than the driver who competently drives full-size coaches for most of the week?

Once again, these things are all compromises depending on a large number of factors (in my example, it would be a lot of administration required for small/isolated risks - the effort is focussed on the every day risks rather than the once a year risk). As for BAC limits, I'd suggest it's a compromise with what is acceptable to the general public eg. I'd imagine there might be some strong opposition to mandating a 0.02% limit for all drivers (though not from this one!).

Afternoon Tim ....

My point is ... that there is either an acceptable scientific BAC or there isnt.

Varying BAC levels to suit public opinion doesnt make for road safety initiatives just pandering.

Any vehicle driver, has a responsibilty to other road users. Passenger safety comes about naturally - as a direct result of driving responsibly.

We all have to drive on the LH side of the road .... We should all have the same BAC limit ... whatever level it may be set at.

Tim_C-ditto, as I said before, consequences and responsibilities.

Trucks and Buses etc take a lot further to stop, as do inexperienced (P-plate) drivers. Hence require longer response times. Most large businesses have at least a policy of breath testing, and actively pursue it.
Certainly over here in Australias engineroom it is an everyday occurrence on minesites etc.

Me-Im just happy to know that the bloke driving my kids to school and home everyday has a deterrent to NOT get on the p+ss til 4 am or go for a counterlunch and arvo session at the TAB on the turps.
As he owns the business he'd be foolish to.

If there wasnt the odd morning RBT there would be virtually no deterrent.
Anyhow, if this is your ownly plan for getting it changed I can tell you it isnt going to work!

With rights go responsibilities.

Too many folk are unable/incapable/unwilling to "do the right thing" when it comes to being responsible to one's fellow beings.

Australians don't have rights? Really? Compared to who?

"We were all classed as criminals and had to hand in our possessions regardless of how law abiding we were. "

and now that these laws have been shown to be ineffective , there is no going back. Ditto Wild Dog

I could bring up the speed restrictions in the NT.....and how the road toll has gone up since its introduction.
Na that might just start another debate LOL

A few years ago in Sid Knee, I was pulled over by NSW finest in a Patrol car for an RBT on a Saturday morning. As per normal I blew 0.0 and continued on over the hill only to be pulled over again by a RBT Blitz team who were pulling everyone over in both directions for an RBT.
The female copper told me I couldn't use the same straw that I had used about 500m prior LOL

Gotta love the RBT's :)) There should be more of them


Cheers Kev

Caz, you might find it odd (I assume Matt was never 8 months pregnant!) but many people drink enough the night before (or come home late enough) that they will still be over the legal BAC limit the following morning on their way to work (and perhaps they couldn't have seen you were pregnant when they first signalled you to pull over)

Hey Tim,

No Matt has never been pregnant!! LOL Just thought it was odd - and I was 31yrs old at the time and it was the first time I had been pulled over for RBT!!!

Cheers
Caz

bgreeni, next time you are out driving, count the next 100 cars coming towards you. One of them will be a drunk driver and will pass within a metre of your car at a closing speed of 200 km/h. Another will be drug affected. And you're worried about your civil rights.

And Ferris, around 10 of those cars will be driven by an unlicenced driver, some of those cars will be unregistered and therefore no third-party insurance, and who knows how many of them will be unroadworthy...

good point Tim, which I agree with wholeheartedly-there should be MUCH more random stopping.

On the subject of "rights". You do have the right to refuse a breath test altogether, but you must also face the consequences of your right to refuse a breath test.

Cheers

krakka

The refusal of a pre driving test would be due to the digital test unit , record above the limit and the reading is recorded in the unit , action then would have been required in the form of a retest effectively tieing up the testing unit for x amount of time.

A pragmatic cop working to operational parameters; his duty on that day was to test as many drivers as possible in the shortest possible time

He may have observed the woman in the distance and decided that she looked reasonably OK and made a simple risk management decision. He may have thought that if you had asked this question (and being a fine upstanding gentleman that you are) you had already made an assessment that she OK to drive. He may have thought that the fact that the question had been asked proved that she was quite aware of her alcohol intake and would drive accordingly (as compared to someone off their face and acting like they’re Schumacher)

I have no problems with the cop’s actions; after all, they are random breath tests, and he has the discretion as to whether to test someone at random.

I have more concerns about the woman; she had driven and then drunk alcohol. She had commenced drinking before the nominated driver had showed up; it is not the rest of the community’s fault that they didn’t front. She either didn’t know how much she had drunk or had no idea of levels of alcohol consumption which would start to have physiological affects. Responsible drinking?

In spite of that, she requested someone to test her so she wouldn’t lose her licence if she was over the limit. She could have carried a personal breath test monitor with her but chose to ask the police to test her.

She could have made a call to get someone to pick up her car.

Personal responsibility or asking the State to take responsibility for your actions?

She was hardley expecting the state to take responsibility for our actions?????
I would have thought if the "State" made the rules they might make it a little easier to abide by them in unforseen circumstances?
I dont know any one who can acurately judge their blood alcohol level......maybe carying one might be the way to go these days.
I wonder how well his simple "risk management" decision would have stood up in court if there were an acident or another cop decided it WAS her tun for a random?

You stated "I don't know any one who can accurately judge their blood alcohol level"

There's one simple way. Don't drink. (Although there are enough publications out there to give an indication of alcohol consumption vs time to calculate "safe" limits)

She didn't take the responsibility for planning her drinking and/or driving and expected the cop to tell her whether she was legally able to drive. She should have KNOWN this

The cop's action may not stand up in Court if he was sued, (duty of care possibly ?) but that doesn't hide the fact that she shouldn't have been drinking if there was a chance she could be required to drive.

The "State" did take responsibility for unforeseen circumstances; the cop used his discretion; he could have just waited until she got in the car and then breath tested her.

Look at the legislation though; cops may only be able to breath test drivers under the relevant legislation under which he had the power to conduct a breath test

Sorry about quoteing everything but its just quicker.

You stated "I don't know any one who can accurately judge their blood alcohol level"

"There's one simple way. Don't drink. (Although there are enough publications out there to give an indication of alcohol consumption vs time to calculate "safe" limits) "

Yes an indication but its not acurate..............I wouldnt like to bet my licence on it. And dont drink...That always an option, Pretty pathetic when it comes down to that though if your someone who enjoys a drink?

"She didn't take the responsibility for planning her drinking and/or driving and expected the cop to tell her whether she was legally able to drive. She should have KNOWN this "

I thought she was being resposible be thinking of the implications before she drove , not just got behind the wheel because she felt alright? And if the cops are the ones who are are going to tell you when you cant drive, surely they are the ones who can tell you if you can? Not just after the fact?

"The cop's action may not stand up in Court if he was sued, (duty of care possibly ?) but that doesn't hide the fact that she shouldn't have been drinking if there was a chance she could be required to drive. "

There is always a chance something un predicted happens?

The "State" did take responsibility for unforeseen circumstances; the cop used his discretion; he could have just waited until she got in the car and then breath tested her.

I would call that being a Ba$tard!

Look at the legislation though; cops may only be able to breath test drivers under the relevant legislation under which he had the power to conduct a breath test

I doubt it says anywhere in the legislation that the moral thing to do would be warn you were the other cops are????
Personaly I think If legislation says you cant test someone until they are behind the wheel its morally wrong and should be changed?
And if thats the case It points more towards the revenue side of the argument than safety?

Im all for this cop.... he was quite polite and offered information way out of his legal line of duty.

Are you a cop?

I obviously didn’t explain myself clearly. I’m all for the cop too! As I said, a pragmatic cop doing his duty as required by his superiors

I was just trying to bring the point that the cop may have not legally been able to offer to breath test this woman. Without knowing the legislation, I would suggest that an invasive procedure such as this could only be conducted under certain strict parameters, such as being in control of a vehicle

To breath test the woman might have been outside the law or outside his legal powers. It is a bit unfair that the cop was asked to break the law so that she wouldn’t get booked.

It’s not the cop’s responsibility that she might be over the limit, it is hers.

Of course, if the law was broad enough and covered intent drive, taking the test could have resulted in her being booked when being nowhere near the car.

I understand what your saying, but just look at it from another perspective. If people aren’t willing to take responsibility for their actions it’s a bit hard when you read someone slam the cops for not doing what the individual should have done in the 1st place. If the car was there, she should have enough intelligence to drink responsibly until such time as she was sure that she would not have to drive

PS: I’m not a cop, but never drink more than 1 standard drink every 2 hours…

An RBT unit is simply an indicator to your breath containing alcohol, and does not give a ‘blood alcohol reading’. Only the prescribed devices at the police station or booze bus can do that.

In effect, the lady was endeavouring to transfer the responsibility to the police officer to determine whether she was either safe or legal to drive. The RBT equipment will not tell him much more than whether she needs to be tested further at that point of time. He'd be on a hiding to nothing either way it goes...

Seems like a catch-22 situation, but in reality, the responsibility lay with her to determine whether she should or shouldn’t drive, and if it was that close to call that she needed to be tested then the answer should have been obvious to her.

I still find it hard to abide by a law which has very determined parameters when the average citizen cant gauge themselves using the same technology?
Its the old case of" I know some people Id rather drive with even after having a couple of drinks than others when they have none"
The problem I see is, Its not about capability to drive, rather being able to meet the requirement of law. If the requirements aren't based on a personal thing ,but a one rule suits all....shouldn't there be a better way of trying to meet the requirements?
So if its all gauged on the result of a certain system.....shouldn't we have access to it?