A dark dark time for Canberra

davo101 said :

IrishPete said :

pink little birdie said :

I fell off my bicycle near the little wooden bridge over the creek in John Knight park… I was taken to hospital and they had to do an alcohol blood test because I was in a public place. So it’s checked if something happens in a public place. Didn’t hear back but then I also hadn’t drunk any alcohol in a while before that.

hmmm… not so sure about this. who did the test, police or nurses?

Test must be done by the doctor or nurse that attends the patient (Section 15AA).

IrishPete said :

I have a feeling that tests done for medical reasons are not routinely accessible to the police. And sometimes it is not practical for police to test you (because you are receiving medical treatment).

Sample must be passed on to an analyst (section 15AA).

IrishPete said :

Also, really, would they breathalyse a child who had fallen off a bicycle? a teenager?

No, it’s a blood sample. If the child appears to at least 15 years old they are required to take a blood sample (Section 18A).

IrishPete said :

What would have happened if you had refused?

If you can’t convince a judge that your refusal was based on religious or other conscientious grounds or on medical grounds then you could be in for a fine up to $4200 (Section 23).

However, I don’t know what they do with the information if you were riding on a road related area because section 24A only applies to roads. That is, you can be as pissed as you like so long as you don’t ride on a road (at least they’ll have to get you with something other than section 24A).

Thanks but this legislation seems to relate to drivers. It doesn’t mention bicycle riders, which was the topic.

I didn’t read very far so maybe there’s another section for bicycle and sheep-riders?

IP

IrishPete said :

pink little birdie said :

I fell off my bicycle near the little wooden bridge over the creek in John Knight park… I was taken to hospital and they had to do an alcohol blood test because I was in a public place. So it’s checked if something happens in a public place. Didn’t hear back but then I also hadn’t drunk any alcohol in a while before that.

hmmm… not so sure about this. who did the test, police or nurses?

Test must be done by the doctor or nurse that attends the patient (Section 15AA).

IrishPete said :

I have a feeling that tests done for medical reasons are not routinely accessible to the police. And sometimes it is not practical for police to test you (because you are receiving medical treatment).

Sample must be passed on to an analyst (section 15AA).

IrishPete said :

Also, really, would they breathalyse a child who had fallen off a bicycle? a teenager?

No, it’s a blood sample. If the child appears to at least 15 years old they are required to take a blood sample (Section 18A).

IrishPete said :

What would have happened if you had refused?

If you can’t convince a judge that your refusal was based on religious or other conscientious grounds or on medical grounds then you could be in for a fine up to $4200 (Section 23).

However, I don’t know what they do with the information if you were riding on a road related area because section 24A only applies to roads. That is, you can be as pissed as you like so long as you don’t ride on a road (at least they’ll have to get you with something other than section 24A).

Tooks said :

Despite me taking the piss out of CraigT’s silly story, there are some cops who are morons, some who aren’t very bright, some who lie.

It happened exactly the way I told it. Classic case of denial there from Tooks.

The dumb copper radioed in that the bad guys were in the bag and every cop in Civic showed up, including a van to throw me into. Then she had to try to justify her stupidity by making things up, and I called her on every bit of bullshit I heard her say. The big copper stepping on my toes and poking me to try to make me push him away so they could do me for assault was called “Todd”, from memory.
The guy who turned up and told them all to get their $#@% together was an old guy with a silver moustache who asked the rest of them two questions, taking him about 10 seconds to figure out what was going on:
– Was this guy even at the Private Bin?
– Does this guy match the description of who we’re looking for?

So anyway, I know cops make stuff up, because I’ve seen them do it.

Back on topic though, does anyone else have a view on the equality aspect of punishment for this crime? If you happen to have a licence, you suffer the harsh penalty of losing it and potentially losing employment, relationships, custody of children, mental health etc. But if you have no licence, your punishment for the same exact crime is significantly less severe. Is that not unfair? Or do people believe that the sentencing would definitely take this into account and grant a gaol sentence for someone without a licence or a larger fine to try and make it more equitable? I doubt this is the case personally.

I think one view that some people on here have is that the law is equal to what should be allowed in society. If it’s legal then you have every right to do it and you should. If it’s illegal then you are a criminal if you do it. Whilst that may be accurate from a crime and punishment perspective, from a common sense perspective there’s only a correlation and not a causal relationship there. Many times there have been laws that were unnecessary or ineffective or do more harm than good or label people following common sense as criminals. Or allow people violating common sense to justify themselves by saying it’s legal.

To me, common sense and basic morality overrule legality. I think it’d be pretty easy to find extreme examples in the past where something has been legal but clearly wrong and vice versa, so accepting laws as the authority on morality seems clearly flawed.

Why? Are you one of these people who likes to annoy others for no reason other than for your own personal entertainment?

Yes he most certainly is one of those people who likes to annoy others. I haven’t worked out if he is doing so by trolling people on riotact or if he genuinely believes and acts on his idea that being in the right lane is his right and tailgating is more dangerous than skydiving without a parachute. He once told a story about how he slowed down to 40kph in an 80 zone because he was being tailgated and he believed that was far safer than just getting out of everyone else’s way. So he’s either trolling ultra hard or he’s dangerous and lacking common sense. Either way, there’s probably not much point in engaging him on it because i’m sure trolling is part of the pleasure he takes in it whether it’s true or not.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

voytek3 said :

Tooks said :

A post almost completely devoid of rational or intelligent thought. I must say, I’m surprised at you.

Great use of police resources there.

Well, police are paid to enforce the laws aren’t they? To catch someone breaking the law is to do exactly what they are paid to do and what 99% of the public expect them to do. Funny that later in your rant, you bag them for not catching people committing less serious offences (like driving in the right hand lane).

Busting a harmless kid in the depths of the night for doing nothing wrong.

Doing nothing wrong except breaking the law. I’ll tell you now, I’d be grateful he was his parent that he was stopped rather than allowed to continue on his journey and possibly end up with a busted skull. Ever visited somone in hospital with a head injury after falling of a pushie, voytek? Seen the bandage over their head with ‘no bone’ written on it? Seen them die as a result a couple of weeks later? I have. He probably would’ve made it home, but…maybe not.

What a joke. Meanwhile at any given second on every road throughout Canberra every single day and night two thirds of the people driving are doing it appallingly and getting away with it.

They are? Do you commute in a helicopter so you can see all roads, all vehicles at all times of the day? Police aren’t fining drivers but the thousands every year? Ohhh, you don’t see it so it’s not happening. Okay then.

Why are there not police on at least every road with a speed limit of 80km + busting people all the time?

Bwahahahaha. Police on every road with an 80 limit? That’s possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on this site and I’m not joking. How many cops do you think there are in Canberra? I’ll tell you now, on most days in most patrol zones, there’d be 3-6 patrol cars on, and maybe a handful of traffic police. They’re usually caught up with going to burglaries, attending domestics, deaths, prangs etc etc.

Ping these Canberra scum for being in the right lane for no reason, not indicating, staring at their iDrone devices.

Hang on. You were just getting up police for busting a harmless kid doing nothing wrong, now you want them to bust harmless people? After all, all the behaviours are harmless until they result in a prang aren’t they? Do you realise you’re allowed to sit in the right lane in pretty much any road in Canberra? I’m guessing not.

You want to raise enough revenue to run a small country? Have police patrolling from Conder to Civic up the Tuggeranong parkway every morning from 7 – 10 and every afternoon from 4 – 7 hitting people with an on the spot $700 fine and loss of three demerit points if they are in the right lane for no reason.

And you’ve just confirmed you don’t know the road rules with regard to driving in the right hand lane and you want police to make new laws and new punishments. You can drive from Conder to the end of Kambah in the right hand lane 100% legally.

Do something about the 80% of ACT drivers license holders that cant drive.

Says the guy who doesn’t even know the fundamental road rules. This is too easy…

I literally have never once gone out in the car and not witnessed terrible driving.

Neither have I. What’s your point?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha Keeping left at all times unless overtaking or in the last few seconds before you turn is arguably the most rudimentary aspect to driving on the road – Its one of the things that most people are taught from their very first times behind the wheel, you fool. The fact you don’t understand this is why you blatantly missed the point and started pulling out road rules. Did you know that it is still legal to take a flock of sheep across the Sydney Harbour Bridge? Just because it is “perfectly legal” doesn’t mean its common sense. You ask any cop their opinion on this and they’ll repeat my sentiment as they are actually properly taught to drive. Even when it isn’t signposted it is courteous and a basic nationwide practice to keep left allowing people moving faster than you to get past. It has always been like this but Ill forgive you as I have no doubt you’ve never been further than Batemans Bay.

Jesus Christ. A kid riding a pushbike in the middle of the night is about as serious as burning your toast. Especially when its compared to adults driving gigantic heavy objects at high speeds incorrectly. Your ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking. There surely is nothing worse than insular Canberra fools who think they are right when they are blatantly wrong.

Do me a favour – cut your license is half, sell your oversize monstrosity of a vehicle and go buy a myway card. One less of you jokes on the roads is at least a start. Get the f*** off our roads you idiot.

I enjoy driving in the right hand lane while doing the speed limit.

Why? Are you one of these people who likes to annoy others for no reason other than for your own personal entertainment?

pink little birdie said :

I fell off my bicycle near the little wooden bridge over the creek in John Knight park… I was taken to hospital and they had to do an alcohol blood test because I was in a public place. So it’s checked if something happens in a public place. Didn’t hear back but then I also hadn’t drunk any alcohol in a while before that.

hmmm… not so sure about this. who did the test, police or nurses? I have a feeling that tests done for medical reasons are not routinely accessible to the police. And sometimes it is not practical for police to test you (because you are receiving medical treatment).

Also, really, would they breathalyse a child who had fallen off a bicycle? a teenager?

What would have happened if you had refused?

If you are right, then it is very wrong, if you get what I mean.

IP

DrKoresh said :

Tooks said :

Cool story bro. Can you please bake me an umbrella for my upside down jelly pony?

Get over it Tooks, you can say he’s exaggerating, you can say YOU never did anything like that but you can’t say it never happens or that bullies aren’t drawn to a gun and a badge.

I’m with Tooks on this one. This dude should be locked up just for his attitude to “wogs”. Given that he writes like a Yank (sidewalk?) he sounds like a Johnny Foreigner himself. Who’s to say he wasn’t drunk and high on Ice and his recollection of events is somewhat hazy and inaccurate?

I’ll crticise any police officer who deserves it, but when the writer sounds like one of Mully’s mates, I’m going to take it with a sackful of salt (real salt, not Ice or Coke).

IP

VT3: Cops should be out busting people all over Canberra for driving in the right hand lane!
Tooks: But…but…the cops can’t bust those people for doing that because it isn’t illegal!
VT3: Nnnnnnngggggggaaaarrrrrghh….you’re a dumdum poopy head and you must drive a big car! Suck on that logic!!

Sometimes the discussions on RA are quite sublime, and sometimes they’re not. Almost always entertaining though. 🙂

voytek3 said :

Tooks said :

A post almost completely devoid of rational or intelligent thought. I must say, I’m surprised at you.

Great use of police resources there.

Well, police are paid to enforce the laws aren’t they? To catch someone breaking the law is to do exactly what they are paid to do and what 99% of the public expect them to do. Funny that later in your rant, you bag them for not catching people committing less serious offences (like driving in the right hand lane).

Busting a harmless kid in the depths of the night for doing nothing wrong.

Doing nothing wrong except breaking the law. I’ll tell you now, I’d be grateful he was his parent that he was stopped rather than allowed to continue on his journey and possibly end up with a busted skull. Ever visited somone in hospital with a head injury after falling of a pushie, voytek? Seen the bandage over their head with ‘no bone’ written on it? Seen them die as a result a couple of weeks later? I have. He probably would’ve made it home, but…maybe not.

What a joke. Meanwhile at any given second on every road throughout Canberra every single day and night two thirds of the people driving are doing it appallingly and getting away with it.

They are? Do you commute in a helicopter so you can see all roads, all vehicles at all times of the day? Police aren’t fining drivers but the thousands every year? Ohhh, you don’t see it so it’s not happening. Okay then.

Why are there not police on at least every road with a speed limit of 80km + busting people all the time?

Bwahahahaha. Police on every road with an 80 limit? That’s possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on this site and I’m not joking. How many cops do you think there are in Canberra? I’ll tell you now, on most days in most patrol zones, there’d be 3-6 patrol cars on, and maybe a handful of traffic police. They’re usually caught up with going to burglaries, attending domestics, deaths, prangs etc etc.

Ping these Canberra scum for being in the right lane for no reason, not indicating, staring at their iDrone devices.

Hang on. You were just getting up police for busting a harmless kid doing nothing wrong, now you want them to bust harmless people? After all, all the behaviours are harmless until they result in a prang aren’t they? Do you realise you’re allowed to sit in the right lane in pretty much any road in Canberra? I’m guessing not.

You want to raise enough revenue to run a small country? Have police patrolling from Conder to Civic up the Tuggeranong parkway every morning from 7 – 10 and every afternoon from 4 – 7 hitting people with an on the spot $700 fine and loss of three demerit points if they are in the right lane for no reason.

And you’ve just confirmed you don’t know the road rules with regard to driving in the right hand lane and you want police to make new laws and new punishments. You can drive from Conder to the end of Kambah in the right hand lane 100% legally.

Do something about the 80% of ACT drivers license holders that cant drive.

Says the guy who doesn’t even know the fundamental road rules. This is too easy…

I literally have never once gone out in the car and not witnessed terrible driving.

Neither have I. What’s your point?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha Keeping left at all times unless overtaking or in the last few seconds before you turn is arguably the most rudimentary aspect to driving on the road – Its one of the things that most people are taught from their very first times behind the wheel, you fool. The fact you don’t understand this is why you blatantly missed the point and started pulling out road rules. Did you know that it is still legal to take a flock of sheep across the Sydney Harbour Bridge? Just because it is “perfectly legal” doesn’t mean its common sense. You ask any cop their opinion on this and they’ll repeat my sentiment as they are actually properly taught to drive. Even when it isn’t signposted it is courteous and a basic nationwide practice to keep left allowing people moving faster than you to get past. It has always been like this but Ill forgive you as I have no doubt you’ve never been further than Batemans Bay.

Jesus Christ. A kid riding a pushbike in the middle of the night is about as serious as burning your toast. Especially when its compared to adults driving gigantic heavy objects at high speeds incorrectly. Your ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking. There surely is nothing worse than insular Canberra fools who think they are right when they are blatantly wrong.

Do me a favour – cut your license is half, sell your oversize monstrosity of a vehicle and go buy a myway card. One less of you jokes on the roads is at least a start. Get the f*** off our roads you idiot.

I enjoy driving in the right hand lane while doing the speed limit.

Tooks said :

A post almost completely devoid of rational or intelligent thought. I must say, I’m surprised at you.

Great use of police resources there.

Well, police are paid to enforce the laws aren’t they? To catch someone breaking the law is to do exactly what they are paid to do and what 99% of the public expect them to do. Funny that later in your rant, you bag them for not catching people committing less serious offences (like driving in the right hand lane).

Busting a harmless kid in the depths of the night for doing nothing wrong.

Doing nothing wrong except breaking the law. I’ll tell you now, I’d be grateful he was his parent that he was stopped rather than allowed to continue on his journey and possibly end up with a busted skull. Ever visited somone in hospital with a head injury after falling of a pushie, voytek? Seen the bandage over their head with ‘no bone’ written on it? Seen them die as a result a couple of weeks later? I have. He probably would’ve made it home, but…maybe not.

What a joke. Meanwhile at any given second on every road throughout Canberra every single day and night two thirds of the people driving are doing it appallingly and getting away with it.

They are? Do you commute in a helicopter so you can see all roads, all vehicles at all times of the day? Police aren’t fining drivers but the thousands every year? Ohhh, you don’t see it so it’s not happening. Okay then.

Why are there not police on at least every road with a speed limit of 80km + busting people all the time?

Bwahahahaha. Police on every road with an 80 limit? That’s possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on this site and I’m not joking. How many cops do you think there are in Canberra? I’ll tell you now, on most days in most patrol zones, there’d be 3-6 patrol cars on, and maybe a handful of traffic police. They’re usually caught up with going to burglaries, attending domestics, deaths, prangs etc etc.

Ping these Canberra scum for being in the right lane for no reason, not indicating, staring at their iDrone devices.

Hang on. You were just getting up police for busting a harmless kid doing nothing wrong, now you want them to bust harmless people? After all, all the behaviours are harmless until they result in a prang aren’t they? Do you realise you’re allowed to sit in the right lane in pretty much any road in Canberra? I’m guessing not.

You want to raise enough revenue to run a small country? Have police patrolling from Conder to Civic up the Tuggeranong parkway every morning from 7 – 10 and every afternoon from 4 – 7 hitting people with an on the spot $700 fine and loss of three demerit points if they are in the right lane for no reason.

And you’ve just confirmed you don’t know the road rules with regard to driving in the right hand lane and you want police to make new laws and new punishments. You can drive from Conder to the end of Kambah in the right hand lane 100% legally.

Do something about the 80% of ACT drivers license holders that cant drive.

Says the guy who doesn’t even know the fundamental road rules. This is too easy…

I literally have never once gone out in the car and not witnessed terrible driving.

Neither have I. What’s your point?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha Keeping left at all times unless overtaking or in the last few seconds before you turn is arguably the most rudimentary aspect to driving on the road – Its one of the things that most people are taught from their very first times behind the wheel, you fool. The fact you don’t understand this is why you blatantly missed the point and started pulling out road rules. Did you know that it is still legal to take a flock of sheep across the Sydney Harbour Bridge? Just because it is “perfectly legal” doesn’t mean its common sense. You ask any cop their opinion on this and they’ll repeat my sentiment as they are actually properly taught to drive. Even when it isn’t signposted it is courteous and a basic nationwide practice to keep left allowing people moving faster than you to get past. It has always been like this but Ill forgive you as I have no doubt you’ve never been further than Batemans Bay.

Jesus Christ. A kid riding a pushbike in the middle of the night is about as serious as burning your toast. Especially when its compared to adults driving gigantic heavy objects at high speeds incorrectly. Your ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking. There surely is nothing worse than insular Canberra fools who think they are right when they are blatantly wrong.

Do me a favour – cut your license is half, sell your oversize monstrosity of a vehicle and go buy a myway card. One less of you jokes on the roads is at least a start. Get the f*** off our roads you idiot.

A post almost completely devoid of rational or intelligent thought. I must say, I’m surprised at you.

Great use of police resources there.

Well, police are paid to enforce the laws aren’t they? To catch someone breaking the law is to do exactly what they are paid to do and what 99% of the public expect them to do. Funny that later in your rant, you bag them for not catching people committing less serious offences (like driving in the right hand lane).

Busting a harmless kid in the depths of the night for doing nothing wrong.

Doing nothing wrong except breaking the law. I’ll tell you now, I’d be grateful he was his parent that he was stopped rather than allowed to continue on his journey and possibly end up with a busted skull. Ever visited somone in hospital with a head injury after falling of a pushie, voytek? Seen the bandage over their head with ‘no bone’ written on it? Seen them die as a result a couple of weeks later? I have. He probably would’ve made it home, but…maybe not.

What a joke. Meanwhile at any given second on every road throughout Canberra every single day and night two thirds of the people driving are doing it appallingly and getting away with it.

They are? Do you commute in a helicopter so you can see all roads, all vehicles at all times of the day? Police aren’t fining drivers but the thousands every year? Ohhh, you don’t see it so it’s not happening. Okay then.

Why are there not police on at least every road with a speed limit of 80km + busting people all the time?

Bwahahahaha. Police on every road with an 80 limit? That’s possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on this site and I’m not joking. How many cops do you think there are in Canberra? I’ll tell you now, on most days in most patrol zones, there’d be 3-6 patrol cars on, and maybe a handful of traffic police. They’re usually caught up with going to burglaries, attending domestics, deaths, prangs etc etc.

Ping these Canberra scum for being in the right lane for no reason, not indicating, staring at their iDrone devices.

Hang on. You were just getting up police for busting a harmless kid doing nothing wrong, now you want them to bust harmless people? After all, all the behaviours are harmless until they result in a prang aren’t they? Do you realise you’re allowed to sit in the right lane in pretty much any road in Canberra? I’m guessing not.

You want to raise enough revenue to run a small country? Have police patrolling from Conder to Civic up the Tuggeranong parkway every morning from 7 – 10 and every afternoon from 4 – 7 hitting people with an on the spot $700 fine and loss of three demerit points if they are in the right lane for no reason.

And you’ve just confirmed you don’t know the road rules with regard to driving in the right hand lane and you want police to make new laws and new punishments. You can drive from Conder to the end of Kambah in the right hand lane 100% legally.

Do something about the 80% of ACT drivers license holders that cant drive.

Says the guy who doesn’t even know the fundamental road rules. This is too easy…

I literally have never once gone out in the car and not witnessed terrible driving.

Neither have I. What’s your point?

CraigT said :

Tooks said :

CraigT said :

bigfeet said :

And an experienced cop who has dealt with 100s of drunks and drink drivers would be considered an expert by the courts in this field.

In fact, courts are fairly wise to the fallability of coppers and they usually treat police witnesses with plenty of scepticism.

A mate of mine got done drink-driving a few weeks ago and the police notes are a work of utter fiction.

I was once bailed up by a cop in Civic (looking for some wogs that had just knifed some other wogs) who then proceeded to radio in a story that was entirely unrelated to anything that had just taken place. And I mean – bizarrely different to reality.
This copper had a whole story worked out that placed me at the scene of the crime (when I’d been at the Phoenix), somehow involved in the crime (though I don’t look anything like a wog and I was clearly at least a foot taller than whoever they were trying to catch), the story went on that I was “running away” (the story had me running in a direction that was more or less *towards* the scene of the crime) through a carpark. This last bit was interesting – I was in fact on the sidewalk when the copper called out to me, asking me to step into the carpark, an instruction I politely refused (meaning I never was in this carpark) at which point things started to kick off somewhat. Eventually the boss turned up to find out why the manhunt for his stabby wogs had fizzled out and discovered 4 vehicles with about 15 cops standing in a circle around me trying to get me to agree to enter their paddywagon.

He wasn’t impressed and he told them to get their $#@! together in no uncertain terms.

The moral of that story is that many cops really are abject morons. And I can tell you that these pricks were clearly trying to goad me into physical resistance so they could manufacture a charge.
(They started by telling me that saying “bullshit” was offensive language. I told them it wasn’t very offensive, but it was a very good description for the wrong information one of them was fabricating. At this point there was some chest-jabbing, shoulder-jostling and toe-stepping which I politely requested they stop fairly quickly).

So in addition to being stupid, there is also some malice at play there.

Cool story bro. Can you please bake me an umbrella for my upside down jelly pony?

Gosh, a defensive response from Tooks to a first-hand account of cops behaving terribly.

Who would have thought that would happen?

Want a hug? It’s okay, I believe you. Your story doesn’t sound embellished or – dare I say it – completely made up at all.

As for being defensive, I have first hand stories of bad cops that would put your made up one to shame. There are a few rotten apples out there, no doubt about it. Unlike you though I have the intelligence to differentiate between the bad ones and the majority who bust their arses on a daily basis.

Great use of police resources there. Busting a harmless kid in the depths of the night for doing nothing wrong. What a joke. Meanwhile at any given second on every road throughout Canberra every single day and night two thirds of the people driving are doing it appallingly and getting away with it. Why are there not police on at least every road with a speed limit of 80km + busting people all the time? Ping these Canberra scum for being in the right lane for no reason, not indicating, staring at their iDrone devices. You want to raise enough revenue to run a small country? Have police patrolling from Conder to Civic up the Tuggeranong parkway every morning from 7 – 10 and every afternoon from 4 – 7 hitting people with an on the spot $700 fine and loss of three demerit points if they are in the right lane for no reason. Do something about the 80% of ACT drivers license holders that cant drive. I literally have never once gone out in the car and not witnessed terrible driving.

Tooks said :

CraigT said :

bigfeet said :

And an experienced cop who has dealt with 100s of drunks and drink drivers would be considered an expert by the courts in this field.

In fact, courts are fairly wise to the fallability of coppers and they usually treat police witnesses with plenty of scepticism.

A mate of mine got done drink-driving a few weeks ago and the police notes are a work of utter fiction.

I was once bailed up by a cop in Civic (looking for some wogs that had just knifed some other wogs) who then proceeded to radio in a story that was entirely unrelated to anything that had just taken place. And I mean – bizarrely different to reality.
This copper had a whole story worked out that placed me at the scene of the crime (when I’d been at the Phoenix), somehow involved in the crime (though I don’t look anything like a wog and I was clearly at least a foot taller than whoever they were trying to catch), the story went on that I was “running away” (the story had me running in a direction that was more or less *towards* the scene of the crime) through a carpark. This last bit was interesting – I was in fact on the sidewalk when the copper called out to me, asking me to step into the carpark, an instruction I politely refused (meaning I never was in this carpark) at which point things started to kick off somewhat. Eventually the boss turned up to find out why the manhunt for his stabby wogs had fizzled out and discovered 4 vehicles with about 15 cops standing in a circle around me trying to get me to agree to enter their paddywagon.

He wasn’t impressed and he told them to get their $#@! together in no uncertain terms.

The moral of that story is that many cops really are abject morons. And I can tell you that these pricks were clearly trying to goad me into physical resistance so they could manufacture a charge.
(They started by telling me that saying “bullshit” was offensive language. I told them it wasn’t very offensive, but it was a very good description for the wrong information one of them was fabricating. At this point there was some chest-jabbing, shoulder-jostling and toe-stepping which I politely requested they stop fairly quickly).

So in addition to being stupid, there is also some malice at play there.

Cool story bro. Can you please bake me an umbrella for my upside down jelly pony?

Gosh, a defensive response from Tooks to a first-hand account of cops behaving terribly.

Who would have thought that would happen?

LSWCHP said :

CraigT said :

bigfeet said :

And an experienced cop who has dealt with 100s of drunks and drink drivers would be considered an expert by the courts in this field.

…Cop related war story…

Yep. Quite a few years ago now I was drinking beer and watching TV with some friends in a flat north of Civic when we heard an altercation in the street outside. We went out to see what was going on, and the cops showed up as we walked out the door. One of the cops came over and asked us if we’d seen anything, and we said no, we’d come out to see what was happening just as they’d arrived. I’ll never forget my shock and dismay when he said ‘Didn’t see anything hey? How would you lot like to spend the night locked up for being drunk and disorderly in public?” They aren’t the exact words, but they’re pretty close.

I have great respect for the cops in the ACT, they do a terrific job. But it only takes one bad apple like that turd who threatened us that night to really sour one’s view of the whole group. It certainly changed my ideas about how to deal with them from that point onwards.

Your last paragraph sums it up well. I know people who have similar experiences. It only takes one bad experience for someone to be wary of cops forever. Despite me taking the piss out of CraigT’s silly story, there are some cops who are morons, some who aren’t very bright, some who lie. In fact I heard a doozy of a story just this week of some disgraceful behaviour from a Senior Const.

Thankfully – at least in my experience – the bad ones are a minority.

CraigT said :

rhino said :

Robertson said :

Of course they get booked. You are confusing the offence with the penalty.

I think you’re missing the point. To be booked you have to be over the limit, right? Therefore there must be a definition of the limit. For cars, this is known to be 0.05 for full licences or 0 for Ls etc. For a bicycle, there is not licence directly linked to that activity. So does it go by your car licence limit? and if you have no car licence, what is your BAC limit?

If you have no licence, then by definition you cannot have any limit apply to you other than the 0.05 that applies to everybody operating a vehicle on a public road. The 0.05 limit is the standard limit and it isn’t tied to any licence.

That would be great, except if you are driving a car without a valid licence you are required to have a BAC of zero.

As several people have said though, for a bike there is no numerical value placed on the concept of intoxicated. seems to me that when breathalyzer technology became available and laws were changed to reflect their use, no one updated the pushy laws. Probably because there isn’t a licence to tie it too.

MY story is that 2 plain-clothes detectives from the AFP came to my door a week or so before the election to “enquire” about a drunken and possibly abusive email I had sent to Scott Morrison. It was the weirdest, scariest 5 minutes of my life. Luckily I had the presence of mind not to acquiesce to their request to come inside or they would surely have sniffed out my bong. As it was they spent 5 minutes with me on the doorstep telling me that I shouldn’t say nasty things (while at the same time vociferously affirming my right to say them) and telling me that I could get up to 4 years in prison for threatening someone over the internet.

The thing is, the closest I came to threatening anyone was saying that I hoped that the Honourable MP died (which is not a nice thing to say I readily admit but I was drunk and I had just seen him outline his immigration policy on the 7:30 report when I wrote it), and the closest I got to harassing anyone was calling him a piece of shit. I mean, come on, I only said it once, in one e-mail that I didn’t even remember writing until po-po showed up on my doorstep waving a copy of it in my face, along with a piece of paper detailing the law I had almost-but-not-quite broken and the penalties for such. I did point out that it was a bit of a stretch and they eased up on the scare tactics (though I imagine that’s mostly because I was visibly cacking myself) while basically telling me to watch myself and then they left.

I have no love for those two blokes but I can’t really blame them for doing their job. That being said, I am curious as to whether everyone who sends stupid emails to public figures gets a visit from the AFP bully squad or if it’s just when they’re sent to Cabinet Ministers? And the fact that I never actually committed any crime and yet still got a shakedown really rubs me the wrong way too. Whatever, they probably just wanted to make sure I wasn’t some nutjob with a gun and grudge. But they’ll soon see how sane I am, for the time is coming when I’ll show you all how not crazy I am!!!!!

So now when I deal with police I just try to be inconspicuous and if that fails, polite.

Tooks said :

Cool story bro. Can you please bake me an umbrella for my upside down jelly pony?

Get over it Tooks, you can say he’s exaggerating, you can say YOU never did anything like that but you can’t say it never happens or that bullies aren’t drawn to a gun and a badge.

CraigT said :

bigfeet said :

And an experienced cop who has dealt with 100s of drunks and drink drivers would be considered an expert by the courts in this field.

In fact, courts are fairly wise to the fallability of coppers and they usually treat police witnesses with plenty of scepticism.

A mate of mine got done drink-driving a few weeks ago and the police notes are a work of utter fiction.

I was once bailed up by a cop in Civic (looking for some wogs that had just knifed some other wogs) who then proceeded to radio in a story that was entirely unrelated to anything that had just taken place. And I mean – bizarrely different to reality.
This copper had a whole story worked out that placed me at the scene of the crime (when I’d been at the Phoenix), somehow involved in the crime (though I don’t look anything like a wog and I was clearly at least a foot taller than whoever they were trying to catch), the story went on that I was “running away” (the story had me running in a direction that was more or less *towards* the scene of the crime) through a carpark. This last bit was interesting – I was in fact on the sidewalk when the copper called out to me, asking me to step into the carpark, an instruction I politely refused (meaning I never was in this carpark) at which point things started to kick off somewhat. Eventually the boss turned up to find out why the manhunt for his stabby wogs had fizzled out and discovered 4 vehicles with about 15 cops standing in a circle around me trying to get me to agree to enter their paddywagon.

He wasn’t impressed and he told them to get their $#@! together in no uncertain terms.

The moral of that story is that many cops really are abject morons. And I can tell you that these pricks were clearly trying to goad me into physical resistance so they could manufacture a charge.
(They started by telling me that saying “bullshit” was offensive language. I told them it wasn’t very offensive, but it was a very good description for the wrong information one of them was fabricating. At this point there was some chest-jabbing, shoulder-jostling and toe-stepping which I politely requested they stop fairly quickly).

So in addition to being stupid, there is also some malice at play there.

Cool story bro. Can you please bake me an umbrella for my upside down jelly pony?

CraigT said :

bigfeet said :

And an experienced cop who has dealt with 100s of drunks and drink drivers would be considered an expert by the courts in this field.

…Cop related war story…

Yep. Quite a few years ago now I was drinking beer and watching TV with some friends in a flat north of Civic when we heard an altercation in the street outside. We went out to see what was going on, and the cops showed up as we walked out the door. One of the cops came over and asked us if we’d seen anything, and we said no, we’d come out to see what was happening just as they’d arrived. I’ll never forget my shock and dismay when he said ‘Didn’t see anything hey? How would you lot like to spend the night locked up for being drunk and disorderly in public?” They aren’t the exact words, but they’re pretty close.

I have great respect for the cops in the ACT, they do a terrific job. But it only takes one bad apple like that turd who threatened us that night to really sour one’s view of the whole group. It certainly changed my ideas about how to deal with them from that point onwards.

bigfeet said :

And an experienced cop who has dealt with 100s of drunks and drink drivers would be considered an expert by the courts in this field.

In fact, courts are fairly wise to the fallability of coppers and they usually treat police witnesses with plenty of scepticism.

A mate of mine got done drink-driving a few weeks ago and the police notes are a work of utter fiction.

I was once bailed up by a cop in Civic (looking for some wogs that had just knifed some other wogs) who then proceeded to radio in a story that was entirely unrelated to anything that had just taken place. And I mean – bizarrely different to reality.
This copper had a whole story worked out that placed me at the scene of the crime (when I’d been at the Phoenix), somehow involved in the crime (though I don’t look anything like a wog and I was clearly at least a foot taller than whoever they were trying to catch), the story went on that I was “running away” (the story had me running in a direction that was more or less *towards* the scene of the crime) through a carpark. This last bit was interesting – I was in fact on the sidewalk when the copper called out to me, asking me to step into the carpark, an instruction I politely refused (meaning I never was in this carpark) at which point things started to kick off somewhat. Eventually the boss turned up to find out why the manhunt for his stabby wogs had fizzled out and discovered 4 vehicles with about 15 cops standing in a circle around me trying to get me to agree to enter their paddywagon.

He wasn’t impressed and he told them to get their $#@! together in no uncertain terms.

The moral of that story is that many cops really are abject morons. And I can tell you that these pricks were clearly trying to goad me into physical resistance so they could manufacture a charge.
(They started by telling me that saying “bullshit” was offensive language. I told them it wasn’t very offensive, but it was a very good description for the wrong information one of them was fabricating. At this point there was some chest-jabbing, shoulder-jostling and toe-stepping which I politely requested they stop fairly quickly).

So in addition to being stupid, there is also some malice at play there.

rhino said :

Robertson said :

Of course they get booked. You are confusing the offence with the penalty.

I think you’re missing the point. To be booked you have to be over the limit, right? Therefore there must be a definition of the limit. For cars, this is known to be 0.05 for full licences or 0 for Ls etc. For a bicycle, there is not licence directly linked to that activity. So does it go by your car licence limit? and if you have no car licence, what is your BAC limit?

If you have no licence, then by definition you cannot have any limit apply to you other than the 0.05 that applies to everybody operating a vehicle on a public road. The 0.05 limit is the standard limit and it isn’t tied to any licence.

rhino said :

So you reckon the cops can just charge you with being under the influence without any evidence to prove that? Surely the presumption of innocence would then lead to the case being dismissed due to lack of evidence? Or is there something else they’d use as evidence?

The ‘evidence’ is the observations of the police officer. The fact that the person was staggering, slurring words, smelling of alcohol,vomit, unable to stand unassisted, can’t string a sentence together, unable to drive/ride without being all over the road, can’t walk a straight line etc.

And an experienced cop who has dealt with 100s of drunks and drink drivers would be considered an expert by the courts in this field.

I actually think its fairer than an arbitrary limit. Some people shouldn’t drive at all after one drink, while others are probably fine after 5 or 6 (but technically over the limit).

rhino said :

dtc said :

rhino said :

I think you’re missing the point. To be booked you have to be over the limit, right? Therefore there must be a definition of the limit. For cars, this is known to be 0.05 for full licences or 0 for Ls etc. For a bicycle, there is not licence directly linked to that activity. So does it go by your car licence limit? and if you have no car licence, what is your BAC limit?

As pointed out above, for a bicycle the test is ‘under the influence of alcohol’, not ‘over the limit’. So its not related to your licence – it will be the same test regardless of whether you are on your Ls or have a full licence.

I agree its unclear how the penalty in this case was suspension of licence. There is a general catch all provision in the licencing act to suspend a licence if ‘the person has been convicted or found guilty of an offence that the road transport authority considers is relevant to the person’s suitability to hold the licence or the class or kind of licence’. You could hang your hat on that.

Hmm. That’s pretty vague though isn’t it? Because “under the influence” of alcohol could be anything above 0. There is certainly an influence however minor after any small amount of alcohol. Perhaps that’s the term they use to mean “drunk”? But if that’s the case then you could argue that having a BAC of 0.08 is still not drunk. That’s the legal limit for driving in most other western countries.

It just seems a very vague and inconsistent law to me.

And as Davo said, apparently you aren’t required to give them a sample of anything to give them evidence that you are under the influence of alcohol. So could you just say “no officer, i will not breathe into that breathalyzer or follow you to get a blood test” and they just have to let you go?

The other part of it that I find particularly silly is the inequality in the punishment for this. If you happen to have a licence, you get a massive penalty by losing it for potentially up to 3 years. That could cost you jobs, livelihood, relationships, custody of children, mental health etc. It’s a very severe punishment. And yet if you have no licence then no worries, it’s just a small fine and off you go riding around. Punishment for crimes is meant to be equitable.

Under the influence charge has nothing to do with breathylisers or blood tests. It is based on the police officer’s observations. I’d suggest this young bloke was pretty wobbly to be charged. The punishment sounds harsh because he doesn’t have a clean driving record.

davo101 said :

rhino said :

So could you just say “no officer, i will not breathe into that breathalyser or follow you to get a blood test” and they just have to let you go?

I’m guessing you find yourself in front of a magistrate who decides if you were under the influence or not (better remember to ask to be examined by a doctor).

rhino said :

it’s just a small fine

50 penalty units = $7000 so it may not be that small.

rhino said :

and off you go riding around.

After your possible six month prison term.

So you reckon the cops can just charge you with being under the influence without any evidence to prove that? Surely the presumption of innocence would then lead to the case being dismissed due to lack of evidence? Or is there something else they’d use as evidence?

Hmm so you reckon if you didn’t have a licence, they’d give you a larger fine and/or send you to gaol instead to try and make it equitable?

rhino said :

So could you just say “no officer, i will not breathe into that breathalyser or follow you to get a blood test” and they just have to let you go?

I’m guessing you find yourself in front of a magistrate who decides if you were under the influence or not (better remember to ask to be examined by a doctor).

rhino said :

it’s just a small fine

50 penalty units = $7000 so it may not be that small.

rhino said :

and off you go riding around.

After your possible six month prison term.

dtc said :

rhino said :

I think you’re missing the point. To be booked you have to be over the limit, right? Therefore there must be a definition of the limit. For cars, this is known to be 0.05 for full licences or 0 for Ls etc. For a bicycle, there is not licence directly linked to that activity. So does it go by your car licence limit? and if you have no car licence, what is your BAC limit?

As pointed out above, for a bicycle the test is ‘under the influence of alcohol’, not ‘over the limit’. So its not related to your licence – it will be the same test regardless of whether you are on your Ls or have a full licence.

I agree its unclear how the penalty in this case was suspension of licence. There is a general catch all provision in the licencing act to suspend a licence if ‘the person has been convicted or found guilty of an offence that the road transport authority considers is relevant to the person’s suitability to hold the licence or the class or kind of licence’. You could hang your hat on that.

Hmm. That’s pretty vague though isn’t it? Because “under the influence” of alcohol could be anything above 0. There is certainly an influence however minor after any small amount of alcohol. Perhaps that’s the term they use to mean “drunk”? But if that’s the case then you could argue that having a BAC of 0.08 is still not drunk. That’s the legal limit for driving in most other western countries.

It just seems a very vague and inconsistent law to me.

And as Davo said, apparently you aren’t required to give them a sample of anything to give them evidence that you are under the influence of alcohol. So could you just say “no officer, i will not breathe into that breathalyzer or follow you to get a blood test” and they just have to let you go?

The other part of it that I find particularly silly is the inequality in the punishment for this. If you happen to have a licence, you get a massive penalty by losing it for potentially up to 3 years. That could cost you jobs, livelihood, relationships, custody of children, mental health etc. It’s a very severe punishment. And yet if you have no licence then no worries, it’s just a small fine and off you go riding around. Punishment for crimes is meant to be equitable.

rhino said :

I think you’re missing the point. To be booked you have to be over the limit, right? Therefore there must be a definition of the limit. For cars, this is known to be 0.05 for full licences or 0 for Ls etc. For a bicycle, there is not licence directly linked to that activity. So does it go by your car licence limit? and if you have no car licence, what is your BAC limit?

As pointed out above, for a bicycle the test is ‘under the influence of alcohol’, not ‘over the limit’. So its not related to your licence – it will be the same test regardless of whether you are on your Ls or have a full licence.

I agree its unclear how the penalty in this case was suspension of licence. There is a general catch all provision in the licencing act to suspend a licence if ‘the person has been convicted or found guilty of an offence that the road transport authority considers is relevant to the person’s suitability to hold the licence or the class or kind of licence’. You could hang your hat on that.

Robertson said :

p1 said :

dtc said :

RadioVK said :

Pork Hunt said :

p1 said :

So, does your car licence dictate your legally acceptable BAC while on a pushy? If I am a 18 year old “L” plater do I have to blow 0.00 while on my BMX?

Best question ever.

And I’d bet that neither the Police or the Government would be able to come up with an answer that wasn’t pulled out of their proverbial…

If you are on the road on a bike, you are on the road on a vehicle. Thus you (in theory) have the same rights and responsibilities as a car. You can be charged with speeding (if you are particularly talented), going through a red light (pls do not use this to start an anti cyclist rant) and so forth.

Thus if you are on a bike on a road and drunk, I’m not sure why you think its an illogical and complicated law. A bike is a vehicle, you cannot be drunk in control of a vehicle while on a public road.

I dont know, but assume, that if you are soley on bike paths or footpaths then you are not on a public road and the law does not apply.

Of course, as very few treat bikes as having the same rights as a car (even though they do in theory), it follows that very few think being drunk on a bike should be treated the same was as being drunk in a car. And I suspect the lower risk associated with bike ridiing while drunk (hard to injure someone else, for example) means the police take it less seriously as well.

You didn’t answer the question though. I hold a full licence. If the cops catch me riding my pushy, breatho me, and I blow over 0.05, then fair enough.

But if you are unlicensed, on ‘L’s, or other special classes, then if driving a car you would be subject to 0.00 BAC. So if the cops pull over a person who doesn’t hold a car licence, and they blow 0.04, do they get booked?

Tooks, any chance you could give us a hint what the legislation says?

Of course they get booked. You are confusing the offence with the penalty.

I think you’re missing the point. To be booked you have to be over the limit, right? Therefore there must be a definition of the limit. For cars, this is known to be 0.05 for full licences or 0 for Ls etc. For a bicycle, there is not licence directly linked to that activity. So does it go by your car licence limit? and if you have no car licence, what is your BAC limit?

RadioVK said :

Pork Hunt said :

p1 said :

So, does your car licence dictate your legally acceptable BAC while on a pushy? If I am a 18 year old “L” plater do I have to blow 0.00 while on my BMX?

Best question ever.

And I’d bet that neither the Police or the Government would be able to come up with an answer that wasn’t pulled out of their proverbial…

Agreed. Good question and i doubt there’s any defined answer anywhere. Such inconsistent illogical law making.

I fell off my bicycle near the little wooden bridge over the creek in John Knight park… I was taken to hospital and they had to do an alcohol blood test because I was in a public place. So it’s checked if something happens in a public place. Didn’t hear back but then I also hadn’t drunk any alcohol in a while before that.

p1 said :

You didn’t answer the question though. I hold a full licence. If the cops catch me riding my pushy, breatho me, and I blow over 0.05, then fair enough.

No not fair enough. If you are riding a bicycle you are not required to partake in a alcohol screening test. Sections 8, 9, 9A, and 10 only apply to drivers of motor vehicles.

If you are riding a bicycle (or sheep) then you fall under section 24A which requires the police to prove that you were “under the influence of alcohol” (but they can’t force you to take a breath test and unless you’ve been admitted to hospital as a result of an accident give a blood sample [Section 18A]). You are entitled to be examined by a doctor or authorised nurse practitioner.

The bit I don’t understand is how they suspended his licence. The maximum penalty under section 24A is 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months or both but it’s not a “disqualifying offence”. The dictionary defines what a “disqualifying offence” is but this does not include section 24A. I’m not a lawyer so I am probably missing something here, and if it were me I’d rather have my licence suspended rather than spend six months in goal.

p1 said :

dtc said :

RadioVK said :

Pork Hunt said :

p1 said :

So, does your car licence dictate your legally acceptable BAC while on a pushy? If I am a 18 year old “L” plater do I have to blow 0.00 while on my BMX?

Best question ever.

And I’d bet that neither the Police or the Government would be able to come up with an answer that wasn’t pulled out of their proverbial…

If you are on the road on a bike, you are on the road on a vehicle. Thus you (in theory) have the same rights and responsibilities as a car. You can be charged with speeding (if you are particularly talented), going through a red light (pls do not use this to start an anti cyclist rant) and so forth.

Thus if you are on a bike on a road and drunk, I’m not sure why you think its an illogical and complicated law. A bike is a vehicle, you cannot be drunk in control of a vehicle while on a public road.

I dont know, but assume, that if you are soley on bike paths or footpaths then you are not on a public road and the law does not apply.

Of course, as very few treat bikes as having the same rights as a car (even though they do in theory), it follows that very few think being drunk on a bike should be treated the same was as being drunk in a car. And I suspect the lower risk associated with bike ridiing while drunk (hard to injure someone else, for example) means the police take it less seriously as well.

You didn’t answer the question though. I hold a full licence. If the cops catch me riding my pushy, breatho me, and I blow over 0.05, then fair enough.

But if you are unlicensed, on ‘L’s, or other special classes, then if driving a car you would be subject to 0.00 BAC. So if the cops pull over a person who doesn’t hold a car licence, and they blow 0.04, do they get booked?

Tooks, any chance you could give us a hint what the legislation says?

Of course they get booked. You are confusing the offence with the penalty.

dtc said :

RadioVK said :

Pork Hunt said :

p1 said :

So, does your car licence dictate your legally acceptable BAC while on a pushy? If I am a 18 year old “L” plater do I have to blow 0.00 while on my BMX?

Best question ever.

And I’d bet that neither the Police or the Government would be able to come up with an answer that wasn’t pulled out of their proverbial…

If you are on the road on a bike, you are on the road on a vehicle. Thus you (in theory) have the same rights and responsibilities as a car. You can be charged with speeding (if you are particularly talented), going through a red light (pls do not use this to start an anti cyclist rant) and so forth.

Thus if you are on a bike on a road and drunk, I’m not sure why you think its an illogical and complicated law. A bike is a vehicle, you cannot be drunk in control of a vehicle while on a public road.

I dont know, but assume, that if you are soley on bike paths or footpaths then you are not on a public road and the law does not apply.

Of course, as very few treat bikes as having the same rights as a car (even though they do in theory), it follows that very few think being drunk on a bike should be treated the same was as being drunk in a car. And I suspect the lower risk associated with bike ridiing while drunk (hard to injure someone else, for example) means the police take it less seriously as well.

You didn’t answer the question though. I hold a full licence. If the cops catch me riding my pushy, breatho me, and I blow over 0.05, then fair enough.

But if you are unlicensed, on ‘L’s, or other special classes, then if driving a car you would be subject to 0.00 BAC. So if the cops pull over a person who doesn’t hold a car licence, and they blow 0.04, do they get booked?

Tooks, any chance you could give us a hint what the legislation says?

RadioVK said :

Pork Hunt said :

p1 said :

So, does your car licence dictate your legally acceptable BAC while on a pushy? If I am a 18 year old “L” plater do I have to blow 0.00 while on my BMX?

Best question ever.

And I’d bet that neither the Police or the Government would be able to come up with an answer that wasn’t pulled out of their proverbial…

If you are on the road on a bike, you are on the road on a vehicle. Thus you (in theory) have the same rights and responsibilities as a car. You can be charged with speeding (if you are particularly talented), going through a red light (pls do not use this to start an anti cyclist rant) and so forth.

Thus if you are on a bike on a road and drunk, I’m not sure why you think its an illogical and complicated law. A bike is a vehicle, you cannot be drunk in control of a vehicle while on a public road.

I dont know, but assume, that if you are soley on bike paths or footpaths then you are not on a public road and the law does not apply.

Of course, as very few treat bikes as having the same rights as a car (even though they do in theory), it follows that very few think being drunk on a bike should be treated the same was as being drunk in a car. And I suspect the lower risk associated with bike ridiing while drunk (hard to injure someone else, for example) means the police take it less seriously as well.

RadioVK said :

Pork Hunt said :

p1 said :

So, does your car licence dictate your legally acceptable BAC while on a pushy? If I am a 18 year old “L” plater do I have to blow 0.00 while on my BMX?

Best question ever.

And I’d bet that neither the Police or the Government would be able to come up with an answer that wasn’t pulled out of their proverbial…

They don’t need to come up with an answer. The answer is in the legislation.

Pork Hunt said :

p1 said :

So, does your car licence dictate your legally acceptable BAC while on a pushy? If I am a 18 year old “L” plater do I have to blow 0.00 while on my BMX?

Best question ever.

And I’d bet that neither the Police or the Government would be able to come up with an answer that wasn’t pulled out of their proverbial…

Tooks said :

rhino said :

Alderney said :

rhino said :

Does anybody know if jogging home drunk is illegal? Say jogging alongside northbourne with a 0.15 BAC? And would that affect your driver’s licence too?

I think you’ll find it’s against the law to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place. Not that they enforce it very often.

That may be the case. Although thinking about that logically…I’m not sure how that could make sense when pubs and clubs exist. The purpose of those establishments is to drink alcohol in a public place. So unless you can teleport from the pub home, you have no option but to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place whilst drinking legally at a licenced venue.

That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is still a law despite the clear lack of logic and conflict.

It’s not illegal to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place.

I always thought that people who got picked up for drunk in public weren’t actually being arrested, so much as taken into custody “for their own protection”.

It was only the loud/agro/stupid ones that ended up getting charged with public nuisance or something similar. The quiet ones just spent the night in the drunk tank and got booted out in the morning.

rhino said :

Alderney said :

rhino said :

Does anybody know if jogging home drunk is illegal? Say jogging alongside northbourne with a 0.15 BAC? And would that affect your driver’s licence too?

I think you’ll find it’s against the law to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place. Not that they enforce it very often.

That may be the case. Although thinking about that logically…I’m not sure how that could make sense when pubs and clubs exist. The purpose of those establishments is to drink alcohol in a public place. So unless you can teleport from the pub home, you have no option but to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place whilst drinking legally at a licenced venue.

That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is still a law despite the clear lack of logic and conflict.

It’s not illegal to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place.

p1 said :

So, does your car licence dictate your legally acceptable BAC while on a pushy? If I am a 18 year old “L” plater do I have to blow 0.00 while on my BMX?

Best question ever.

So, does your car licence dictate your legally acceptable BAC while on a pushy? If I am a 18 year old “L” plater do I have to blow 0.00 while on my BMX?

Robertson said :

Alderney said :

Seriously though, it is possible to consume alcohol but not be under its influence.

I assume in that case, you can sue the publican.

And that, Robertson would ruin it for everybody else so don’t go there ffs.

Ah, I see where you’re falling down (pun intended). You’re surmising the law has anything to do with logic.

I think you have a point there haha. But I believe it should have some logic to it.

I think if you gave a high school classroom a day to plan out the laws and relevant sentences around this topic, they’d probably come to a slightly more logical and consistent approach than what we have today.

Alderney said :

rhino said :

That may be the case. Although thinking about that logically…I’m not sure how that could make sense when pubs and clubs exist. The purpose of those establishments is to drink alcohol in a public place. So unless you can teleport from the pub home, you have no option but to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place whilst drinking legally at a licenced venue.

That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is still a law despite the clear lack of logic and conflict.

Ah, I see where you’re falling down (pun intended). You’re surmising the law has anything to do with logic.

Seriously though, it is possible to consume alcohol but not be under its influence. Its just that many consume it with the sole intention of being under its influence.

I believe, at least in NSW, there is a separate offence of being intoxicated whilst on licensed premises, although that may have changed when they brought it the $550 fine for refusing to leave when asked.

Well not according to the TV advertisements about drink driving. They say that as soon as you start drinking it starts influencing your brain.

Stevian said :

rhino said :

Alderney said :

rhino said :

Does anybody know if jogging home drunk is illegal? Say jogging alongside northbourne with a 0.15 BAC? And would that affect your driver’s licence too?

I think you’ll find it’s against the law to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place. Not that they enforce it very often.

That may be the case. Although thinking about that logically…I’m not sure how that could make sense when pubs and clubs exist. The purpose of those establishments is to drink alcohol in a public place. So unless you can teleport from the pub home, you have no option but to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place whilst drinking legally at a licenced venue.

That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is still a law despite the clear lack of logic and conflict.

You labour under the misapprehension that the purpose of drinking is to get drunk. As such you are uneducable of any other modality

You labour under the misapprehension that I said the word drunk.

Alderney said :

Seriously though, it is possible to consume alcohol but not be under its influence.

I assume in that case, you can sue the publican.

rhino said :

They are just completely unrelated. Charge him for not wearing a helmet sure, but losing your car licence?

If you don’t pay your fine for not wearing a helmet they cancel your drivers license too.

rhino said :

That may be the case. Although thinking about that logically…I’m not sure how that could make sense when pubs and clubs exist. The purpose of those establishments is to drink alcohol in a public place. So unless you can teleport from the pub home, you have no option but to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place whilst drinking legally at a licenced venue.

That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is still a law despite the clear lack of logic and conflict.

Ah, I see where you’re falling down (pun intended). You’re surmising the law has anything to do with logic.

Seriously though, it is possible to consume alcohol but not be under its influence. Its just that many consume it with the sole intention of being under its influence.

I believe, at least in NSW, there is a separate offence of being intoxicated whilst on licensed premises, although that may have changed when they brought it the $550 fine for refusing to leave when asked.

rhino said :

Alderney said :

rhino said :

Does anybody know if jogging home drunk is illegal? Say jogging alongside northbourne with a 0.15 BAC? And would that affect your driver’s licence too?

I think you’ll find it’s against the law to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place. Not that they enforce it very often.

That may be the case. Although thinking about that logically…I’m not sure how that could make sense when pubs and clubs exist. The purpose of those establishments is to drink alcohol in a public place. So unless you can teleport from the pub home, you have no option but to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place whilst drinking legally at a licenced venue.

That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is still a law despite the clear lack of logic and conflict.

You labour under the misapprehension that the purpose of drinking is to get drunk. As such you are uneducable of any other modality

rhino said :

Yeah exactly. As someone said above, it’s like having your medical licence revoked because you went fishing without the correct licence. They are just completely unrelated. Charge him for not wearing a helmet sure, but losing your car licence? When he clearly made the tremendous extra effort to ride his bike so that he wouldn’t be drink driving? Clearly he was trying to do the right thing.

Was he riding his noble cyclomobile on the road?

poetix said :

I love that riding a sheep while drunk is an offence! As if anyone would do that while sober.

It’s different out in the country. Especially in New Zealand.

Alderney said :

rhino said :

Does anybody know if jogging home drunk is illegal? Say jogging alongside northbourne with a 0.15 BAC? And would that affect your driver’s licence too?

I think you’ll find it’s against the law to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place. Not that they enforce it very often.

That may be the case. Although thinking about that logically…I’m not sure how that could make sense when pubs and clubs exist. The purpose of those establishments is to drink alcohol in a public place. So unless you can teleport from the pub home, you have no option but to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place whilst drinking legally at a licenced venue.

That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is still a law despite the clear lack of logic and conflict.

poetix said :

I love that riding a sheep while drunk is an offence! As if anyone would do that while sober.

Huh? of course there are some peole who do it while sober. If your sheep is large enough it’s fun to play horsie. Mind you they’re wrigglier than a horse and they dump you pretty quickly.

Yeah exactly. As someone said above, it’s like having your medical licence revoked because you went fishing without the correct licence. They are just completely unrelated. Charge him for not wearing a helmet sure, but losing your car licence? When he clearly made the tremendous extra effort to ride his bike so that he wouldn’t be drink driving? Clearly he was trying to do the right thing.

rhino said :

Does anybody know if jogging home drunk is illegal? Say jogging alongside northbourne with a 0.15 BAC? And would that affect your driver’s licence too?

I think you’ll find it’s against the law to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place. Not that they enforce it very often.

poetix said :

Yes, I know someone who was done for wearing a horse costume while drunk!

His name was Troy.

It wasn’t a wooden horse costume, was it?

I don’t get how you can be banned from driving for 6 months when you were on a bike…hmmm…does that mean if you get caught for public intoxication (just wandering around), the same can apply? Not really sure if I understand that. But maybe some of the comments can elucidate (or convince me). I am a cyclist and I also didn’t know that something I did on a bike could affect my drivers licence (not that I do anything like that……..).

dkNigs said :

Looks to me like the ACT govt are telling us “if you’re thinking about riding your pushy and having a drink, don’t, you might as well drink and drive! It’s comfier, easier, and the same penalty!”

Yep. Exactly. You can get home way faster and be in danger for less time. And sit down and relax. The clear message is that drink driving is preferable to drink riding. There are plenty of cars driving around still going home but very few bicycles at that time of night so you’re more of a target for police if you ride home drunk compared to driving home drunk.

Does anybody know if jogging home drunk is illegal? Say jogging alongside northbourne with a 0.15 BAC? And would that affect your driver’s licence too?

Looks to me like the ACT govt are telling us “if you’re thinking about riding your pushy and having a drink, don’t, you might as well drink and drive! It’s comfier, easier, and the same penalty!”

Henry82 said :

gazket said :

That’s more that what most pissy car drivers get.

It appears he must have blown over .15 (or refused) and was given the first time minimum penalty.

http://www.legalaidact.org.au/pdf/publications_drinkdriving_and_restrictedlicence.pdf

If the limit for bikes is indeed .15 as opposed to .05 then it doesn’t seem that silly to me. At .15 you’re going to be pretty pissed at the very least, and as mentioned earlier, you usually have to bring it upon yourself to be busted for DUIing a bicycle.

poetix said :

Yes, I know someone who was done for wearing a horse costume while drunk!

His name was Troy.

Hooray for Troy,
Hooray at last,
He’s not a horse’s head,
He’s a horse’s arse…

Zan said :

Lots of people got booked for drink peddling.

That was during Prohibition.

IP

BimboGeek said :

I know someone who’s rumoured to have been done for DUI in a horse and carriage in Victoria. According to the story he drank away his drivers license and then decided to drive his wife’s horses instead.

I also seem to remember a bloke in NT who got done DUI on a Camel a few years ago.

Yes, I know someone who was done for wearing a horse costume while drunk!

His name was Troy.

I know someone who’s rumoured to have been done for DUI in a horse and carriage in Victoria. According to the story he drank away his drivers license and then decided to drive his wife’s horses instead.

Publicserpent said :

Another quirk of the ACT. In Victoria and NSW the legislation surrounding drink driving specifically relates to motor vehicles. It seems rediculous that in the ACT the government would rather you drive your car home while drunk than ride a bike. Obviously neither is preferable, but given the latter is significantly safer for the community than the former it shouldn’t attract the same penalty.

When did the govt say they would rather someone drive a car drunk than ride a bicycle drunk? Hint – they didn’t. Have a look at the bigger picture.

What if this idiot had smashed his skill and suffered severe brain damage needing care for the rest of his life?

What if he had driven in front of an unsuspecting driver and was killed as a result? Think of the poor driver. Think of his family and friends.

The bizarre line of thought that if he’d crashed his bike he’d probably only hurt himself, so that’s okay, is completely missing the point.

Another quirk of the ACT. In Victoria and NSW the legislation surrounding drink driving specifically relates to motor vehicles. It seems rediculous that in the ACT the government would rather you drive your car home while drunk than ride a bike. Obviously neither is preferable, but given the latter is significantly safer for the community than the former it shouldn’t attract the same penalty.

poetix said :

I love that riding a sheep while drunk is an offence! As if anyone would do that while sober.

Alpacas are OK to ride?.

Many many years ago this was a common occurrence as not everyone had a car. Lots of people got booked for drink peddling. There was even someone booked for drunk in charge of a horse. Everything old is new again.

Frustrated said :

But, if your are Peta Credlin, the PM’s advisor, you get a slap on the wrist and dont lose your licence!

Yeah, the authorities are certainly on top of things.

Credlin’s punishment was in line with that of any other civilian with a similar offence. No special treatment, no conspiracy. Same thing with that Jack Waterford tool.

You wouldn’t believe how many non conviction orders are handed out for drink driving.

But, if your are Peta Credlin, the PM’s advisor, you get a slap on the wrist and dont lose your licence!

Yeah, the authorities are certainly on top of things.

p1 said :

Did he fail the attitude when he got pulled over, or was he riding the wrong way down a main road?

Must have been something to get our police to bother. Is this the first time since motor vehicles were introduced?

Sobering thought though.
Makes you wonder if you were on a bicycle path, not the road, over the limit and got busted. You’d lose your driver’s license, but you can still ride. What if you didn’t have a license to begin with? What does the law do with you, stop you riding to work? WALK!!
I personally think this law is ridiculous for so many reasons, but as pointed out, it only takes one to ruin it for all of us. I have to confess, I’ve ridden to and from the shops [sticking to footpaths all the way] to avoid the risk of DUI, but didn’t think this was possible.
Again I iterate – what is the penalty for those who haven’t got licenses, compared to those who do? It’s like taking your medical practitioner’s license away from you because you were fishing without a fishing license. They are different distinct modes of [transport, activity, qualification], but one affects the other.
If the police are going to start enforcing this rule, then I am going to actively start campaigning for equity between drivers and cyclists. Specifically, cyclists should be licensed to do so and their vehicles registered as being roadworthy according to the relevant Australian standards!
Further, that an infringement upon a driver or cyclist as demonstrated by this nitwit, be binding on both the driving and cycling license.
Total moron for ruining everything for all of us.

p1 said :

Did he fail the attitude when he got pulled over, or was he riding the wrong way down a main road?

A cop friend once told me that the only time that anyone gets booked for this is when they bring it on themselves. Usually by doing one of two things:

– Behaving like an absolute total dick, playing chicken with traffic, behaving dangerously etc where the cops get lots of complaints.
or
– if you are in an accident where someone is injured (normally this results from behaving like a total dick) and the police have no choice but to act.

Aside from that its not really high on their priorities.

It takes a rare sadist to post such a story on Friday afternoon. May both your beer and your tyres be flat.

I love that riding a sheep while drunk is an offence! As if anyone would do that while sober.

I did the exact same thing a couple of years back. Got pulled over by an unmarked car. I was civil with the cops and got off scot-free.

I was drunk, I had no lights or helmet and was riding on the side of Northbourne against the flow of traffic.

I was lucky, but better him than me…

gazket said :

That’s more that what most pissy car drivers get.

It appears he must have blown over .15 (or refused) and was given the first time minimum penalty.

http://www.legalaidact.org.au/pdf/publications_drinkdriving_and_restrictedlicence.pdf

p1 said :

Did he fail the attitude when he got pulled over, or was he riding the wrong way down a main road?

I’d say he probably reeked of the good ol’ intoxicating liquor.

Wow, almost sounds like JB is endorsing riding drunk on public roads.

Did he fail the attitude when he got pulled over, or was he riding the wrong way down a main road?

That’s more that what most pissy car drivers get.

jase! said :

at least he can still ride his bike

at 3am, wearing all black, and without a helmet… pissed.

at least he can still ride his bike