Advertisement

Forde man blows 0.3!

By 16 February 2012 27

About 10pm on Friday, February 10, police observed a silver Toyota Hilux driving on the incorrect side of the road on Terminal Circuit at the Canberra Airport.

The driver was stopped and underwent a roadside breath screening test which returned a positive result. He was taken to the City Police Station for a breath analysis where he recorded a reading of 0.298.

He was issued with an Immediate Suspension Notice and will be summonsed to attend the ACT Magistrates Court at a later date.

Two other men were caught in separate incidents over the weekend with more than 0.2 alcohol content. A 34-year-old man was apprehended on Saturday night (February 11) about 11.50pm on Drakeford Drive in Kambah with an alcohol content of 0.227. The other man, a 25-year-old, was caught on Saturday afternoon about 2pm in Crace with a reading of 0.213.

Police issued 10 Immediate Suspension Notices to drivers over the course of a week, from February 6 to 13 (suspending the driver’s licence to drive).

This week members from Belconnen Police Station have been conducting laser speed enforcement on Gungahlin Drive and Belconnen Way.

On Tuesday morning (February 14) six drivers were issued Traffic Infringement Notices (TINs) for speeding with one driver caught doing 114km/h in an 80 km/h zone on Belconnen Way, 34km/h over the speed limit. It was the second time within a month this driver, a Belconnen man, was detected speeding on this road.

Early this morning (Thursday, February 16) Belconnen patrol members conducted laser speed enforcement at the same locations. Another six drivers were caught speeding and were issued with TINs with the highest speed detected 103km/h in an 80km/h zone on Gungahlin Drive.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

Please login to post your comments
27 Responses to Forde man blows 0.3!
#1
harvyk111:32 am, 16 Feb 12

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

#2
colourful sydney rac11:38 am, 16 Feb 12

At the Blood Alcohol Concentration level of 0.3, most people lose consciousness…
http://addictions.about.com/od/substancedependence/a/BACmen.htm

harvyk1 said :

at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk.

Agree, but at .3 it is possible that he did not know he was driving…

#3
dpm11:56 am, 16 Feb 12

Impressive effort by the 3 that were > 0.2. It takes a fair bit of effort and dedication to get into that state and then attempt to drive. Twats…..

#4
Alderney12:14 pm, 16 Feb 12

How did he even manage to get the key into the ignition?

#5
HenryBG12:52 pm, 16 Feb 12

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

So, he didn’t kill anybody but he’s locked up, whereas you actively and publicly fantasise about killing people and you’re allowed to roam free.

If I had my way, the situation would be reversed: tolerating people like you in our society exposes us to the danger of a publicly-supported takeover by a ruthless and homocidal extremist authoritarian dictatorship.

#6
HenryBG12:54 pm, 16 Feb 12

Alderney said :

How did he even manage to get the key into the ignition?

Dunno, but it was a clever move he chose to drive around Canberra Airport and thereby avoided the danger of encountering a booze bus on Commonwealth Avenue or Bowen Drive.

#7
Heavs1:04 pm, 16 Feb 12

Good bars at the airport then?

#8
shirty_bear1:09 pm, 16 Feb 12

Alderney said :

How did he even manage to get the key into the ignition?

Years and years of practise … it takes a hardened drunkard to pull off this sort of stunt.

#9
Tooks3:53 pm, 16 Feb 12

HenryBG said :

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

So, he didn’t kill anybody but he’s locked up, whereas you actively and publicly fantasise about killing people and you’re allowed to roam free.

If I had my way, the situation would be reversed: tolerating people like you in our society exposes us to the danger of a publicly-supported takeover by a ruthless and homocidal extremist authoritarian dictatorship.

He wasn’t locked up, for starters. Secondly, I hope the aim of that little rant was to get a reaction from harveyk1 and you weren’t actually serious.

#10
Holden Caulfield4:22 pm, 16 Feb 12

“The driver was stopped and underwent a roadside breath screening test which returned a positive result. He was taken to the City Police Station for a breath analysis where he recorded a reading of 0.298.”

Reminds me of a yarn I once heard, possibly an urban myth, where a bunch of guys were out on the turps one night and foolishly decided to drive home. Along the way they encountered a roundabout and thought it would be fun to see how fast they could reverse around it.

The inevitable happened and they reversed into an otherwise innocent motorist trying to tackle the roundabout in the normal, legal fashion.

Of course, when the cops arrived it looked a like the second car had rear-ended the car in front. So the coppers put the guy in the second car on the bag and he was over the BAC limit. Figuring it was a simple open and shut case they eventually went to check on the original group who caused the accident to see if they were okay.

Crapping themselves that they were about to get a right bollocking from the Plod the officer said, “Are you guys alright? We did a breath analysis of the other driver and he was way over the limit, so we have taken him to the station for further questioning. Our suspicions were raised when he claimed you guys were reversing around the roundabout. It’s damn lucky you blokes are okay.”

I was involved in not-at-fault accident last year and still had to complete a breath test, which is why I suspect the story above is gag/BS. It’s very wrong, but sort of amusing nonetheless.

#11
KeenGolfer4:46 pm, 16 Feb 12

Holden Caulfield said :

I was involved in not-at-fault accident last year and still had to complete a breath test, which is why I suspect the story above is gag/BS. It’s very wrong, but sort of amusing nonetheless.

I call BS. At any accident police attend all drivers are routinely screened for alcohol as standard practice.

#12
Pork Hunt4:49 pm, 16 Feb 12

Tooks said :

HenryBG said :

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

So, he didn’t kill anybody but he’s locked up, whereas you actively and publicly fantasise about killing people and you’re allowed to roam free.

If I had my way, the situation would be reversed: tolerating people like you in our society exposes us to the danger of a publicly-supported takeover by a ruthless and homocidal extremist authoritarian dictatorship.

He wasn’t locked up, for starters. Secondly, I hope the aim of that little rant was to get a reaction from harveyk1 and you weren’t actually serious.

Hang on Tooks, if I’m wandering around Civic with a skinful at .298, would I not be locked up for at least my own protection?
You say he wasn’t locked up but released to wander the streets in that state in Civic?

#13
Holden Caulfield5:00 pm, 16 Feb 12

KeenGolfer said :

Holden Caulfield said :

I was involved in not-at-fault accident last year and still had to complete a breath test, which is why I suspect the story above is gag/BS. It’s very wrong, but sort of amusing nonetheless.

I call BS. At any accident police attend all drivers are routinely screened for alcohol as standard practice.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I said.

#14
NoImRight5:01 pm, 16 Feb 12

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

He probably knew he was drunk but was too drunk to make a sober decision. You see the Catch 22 here?

#15
HenryBG8:06 pm, 16 Feb 12

Tooks said :

He wasn’t locked up, for starters. Secondly, I hope the aim of that little rant was to get a reaction from harveyk1 and you weren’t actually serious.

So you don’t have a problem with the fact that Harveyk is posting on a public forum his fantasies about killing people, which appear to me to be an admission of intent, even if the crime has (possibly) not yet been committed?

And meanwhile, Mr 0.298 has neither murdered anybody nor – as far as I am aware – demonstrated any intent to do so.

In other words, while the police are busy dealing with their drunk, there is a potentially lethal psychopath wandering our streets and posting crap on Riot Act which the police will no doubt do zip about.

#16
Tooks8:27 pm, 16 Feb 12

Pork Hunt said :

Tooks said :

HenryBG said :

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

So, he didn’t kill anybody but he’s locked up, whereas you actively and publicly fantasise about killing people and you’re allowed to roam free.

If I had my way, the situation would be reversed: tolerating people like you in our society exposes us to the danger of a publicly-supported takeover by a ruthless and homocidal extremist authoritarian dictatorship.

He wasn’t locked up, for starters. Secondly, I hope the aim of that little rant was to get a reaction from harveyk1 and you weren’t actually serious.

Hang on Tooks, if I’m wandering around Civic with a skinful at .298, would I not be locked up for at least my own protection?
You say he wasn’t locked up but released to wander the streets in that state in Civic?

You’re alcohol reading has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you’re taken into custody under the Intox Persons Act. If you read the media release, he was tested, blew positive, and released from the police station. They had no power to lock him up.

#17
Tooks8:41 pm, 16 Feb 12

Aaargh. I wrote ‘you’re alcohol reading’.

#18
Tooks8:49 pm, 16 Feb 12

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

He wasn’t locked up, for starters. Secondly, I hope the aim of that little rant was to get a reaction from harveyk1 and you weren’t actually serious.

So you don’t have a problem with the fact that Harveyk is posting on a public forum his fantasies about killing people, which appear to me to be an admission of intent, even if the crime has (possibly) not yet been committed?

And meanwhile, Mr 0.298 has neither murdered anybody nor – as far as I am aware – demonstrated any intent to do so.

In other words, while the police are busy dealing with their drunk, there is a potentially lethal psychopath wandering our streets and posting crap on Riot Act which the police will no doubt do zip about.

[Troll detector reboots] I refuse to believe you are really this stupid. I congratulate you on successfully reeling me in, but you’ll get no more bites from me.

#19
Pork Hunt9:51 pm, 16 Feb 12

Tooks said :

Pork Hunt said :

Tooks said :

HenryBG said :

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

So, he didn’t kill anybody but he’s locked up, whereas you actively and publicly fantasise about killing people and you’re allowed to roam free.

If I had my way, the situation would be reversed: tolerating people like you in our society exposes us to the danger of a publicly-supported takeover by a ruthless and homocidal extremist authoritarian dictatorship.

He wasn’t locked up, for starters. Secondly, I hope the aim of that little rant was to get a reaction from harveyk1 and you weren’t actually serious.

Hang on Tooks, if I’m wandering around Civic with a skinful at .298, would I not be locked up for at least my own protection?
You say he wasn’t locked up but released to wander the streets in that state in Civic?

You’re alcohol reading has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you’re taken into custody under the Intox Persons Act. If you read the media release, he was tested, blew positive, and released from the police station. They had no power to lock him up.

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

#20
AsparagusSyndrome12:02 am, 17 Feb 12

NoImRight said :

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

He probably knew he was drunk but was too drunk to make a sober decision. You see the Catch 22 here?

He made a sober decision. Right about the time he decided to start drinking, with car keys in his pocket, knowing the likely outcome.

See, you can’t use the “too drunk to be responsible” defense. It doesn’t exist, because that’s not when the critical decision was made.

#21
KeenGolfer7:21 am, 17 Feb 12

Pork Hunt said :

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

You can read it here:
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1994-85/default.asp

#22
Tooks7:28 am, 17 Feb 12

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

It’s actually the Intoxicated People (Care and Protection) Act. It’s a very short piece of legislation if you want to have a read of it yourself, but here’s the part about locking up intox people:

4 Detention of intoxicated people
(1) If a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person in a public place is intoxicated and is, because of that intoxication—
(a) behaving in a disorderly way; or
(b) behaving in a way likely to cause injury to himself, herself or another person, or damage to any property; or
(c) incapable of protecting himself or herself from physical harm;
the officer may take the person into custody and detain the person.

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

(3) A person detained under subsection (1) must be released—
(a) when the person ceases to be intoxicated; or
(b) at the end of 8 hours after the person is detained;
whichever is earlier.

(4) A police officer must not allow a person detained under subsection (1) to remain at a police station where the person was detained for longer than 12 hours after the person is first detained.

(5) This section does not prevent a police officer from releasing a person detained under subsection (1) if, in the police officer’s opinion, it is reasonable to release the person.

(6) For subsection (5), a police officer is taken to have acted reasonably if the officer releases a person detained under subsection (1) into the care of the manager of a licensed place.

#23
harvyk14:52 pm, 17 Feb 12

HenryBG said :

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

So, he didn’t kill anybody but he’s locked up, whereas you actively and publicly fantasise about killing people and you’re allowed to roam free.

If I had my way, the situation would be reversed: tolerating people like you in our society exposes us to the danger of a publicly-supported takeover by a ruthless and homocidal extremist authoritarian dictatorship.

I’m actually a little concerned you think I might have been serious there HenryBG… However at 0.3 he would have had little ability to actually control his car, or his speed, and thus there was a very high probability that had the cops not picked him up for drink driving he would have ended up wrapped around a tree.

Now I’m not overly sure how familiar you are with physics, but I’ll put it into nice simple terms. When a car hits a stationary object which is well connected to the ground, for example a tree, it has the affect of making the front part of the car stop suddenly. Now that in itself is not a problem, except there is a little thing call momentum \ inertia, which is basically things will keep doing what they where doing. So assuming this guy is driving at 100 km/h when the front of the car comes to a sudden stop, the back end of the car will still be doing 100 km/h (although deaccelerating quite quickly). This has an affect of squishing the car together, this is especially noticeable when it is not the front of the car which hits the immovable object, but say the roof.

Funny enough it’s this idea that parts of a car is moving, whilst other parts of the car is stationary is the basic principal behind a car compactor. Thus my reference to him still being in it was that the end result would be the same regardless of which method was chosen. Of course with method number 2 you don’t have innocent bystanders getting mixed up with all this unpleasantness, however method number 2 is also consider execution (and probably cruel and unusual punishment) and would thus be banned in most of the western world.

#24
Pork Hunt5:26 pm, 17 Feb 12

Tooks said :

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

It’s actually the Intoxicated People (Care and Protection) Act. It’s a very short piece of legislation if you want to have a read of it yourself, but here’s the part about locking up intox people:

4 Detention of intoxicated people
(1) If a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person in a public place is intoxicated and is, because of that intoxication—
(a) behaving in a disorderly way; or
(b) behaving in a way likely to cause injury to himself, herself or another person, or damage to any property; or
(c) incapable of protecting himself or herself from physical harm;
the officer may take the person into custody and detain the person.

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

(3) A person detained under subsection (1) must be released—
(a) when the person ceases to be intoxicated; or
(b) at the end of 8 hours after the person is detained;
whichever is earlier.

(4) A police officer must not allow a person detained under subsection (1) to remain at a police station where the person was detained for longer than 12 hours after the person is first detained.

(5) This section does not prevent a police officer from releasing a person detained under subsection (1) if, in the police officer’s opinion, it is reasonable to release the person.

(6) For subsection (5), a police officer is taken to have acted reasonably if the officer releases a person detained under subsection (1) into the care of the manager of a licensed place.

So para 4 (1) (b) is not good enough to arrest a drunk driver?

#25
KeenGolfer7:23 pm, 17 Feb 12

Pork Hunt, no. Drivers are taken into custody for breath analysis, not for protection. Once breath analysis is complete they are free to go. Note the legislation says “in a public place”. The police station is not a public place. That doesn’t mean they can’t be lodged for protection afterwards or it doesn’t happen, but IMO it is open to debate due to the wording of the legislation and as police also have a duty of care.

#26
buzz8197:42 pm, 17 Feb 12

Pork Hunt said :

Tooks said :

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

It’s actually the Intoxicated People (Care and Protection) Act. It’s a very short piece of legislation if you want to have a read of it yourself, but here’s the part about locking up intox people:

4 Detention of intoxicated people
(1) If a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person in a public place is intoxicated and is, because of that intoxication—
(a) behaving in a disorderly way; or
(b) behaving in a way likely to cause injury to himself, herself or another person, or damage to any property; or
(c) incapable of protecting himself or herself from physical harm;
the officer may take the person into custody and detain the person.

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

(3) A person detained under subsection (1) must be released—
(a) when the person ceases to be intoxicated; or
(b) at the end of 8 hours after the person is detained;
whichever is earlier.

(4) A police officer must not allow a person detained under subsection (1) to remain at a police station where the person was detained for longer than 12 hours after the person is first detained.

(5) This section does not prevent a police officer from releasing a person detained under subsection (1) if, in the police officer’s opinion, it is reasonable to release the person.

(6) For subsection (5), a police officer is taken to have acted reasonably if the officer releases a person detained under subsection (1) into the care of the manager of a licensed place.

So para 4 (1) (b) is not good enough to arrest a drunk driver?

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

If his wife wants to come and pick him up and look after him, theres an alternative, the Police can take him home if someone is there to care for him.

If there is any other reasonable alternative, they can not just lock him up.

#27
IrishPete8:22 pm, 17 Feb 12

effect, not affect. Grrrrr. Rant ends.

IP

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.