ACT Policing has arrested two motorists for high level drink driving offences in the past two days, with one driver being caught twice in two hours.
On Wednesday (November 14) at about 1:45am, police conducted a traffic stop on a white Toyota Kluger on William Webb Drive in McKellar. The 44-year-old Flynn female driver returned a positive roadside screening and was taken to Belconnen Police Station where she returned a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) reading of 0.200, four times over her legal limit.
The woman was issued with an Immediate Suspension Notice and her license was seized by police.
In a separate incident around 3:30am yesterday (Thursday, November 15), police attended McDonalds at Emu Bank in response to reports of a driver in a black Toyota Celica loudly revving his engine in the car park. The driver, a 26-year-old Weetangera man, underwent a roadside screening test which returned a positive result.
The driver was taken to Belconnen Police Station where he returned a BAC reading of 0.109. The man’s license was suspended and he was released from custody, summoned to appear in court at a later date.
At around 5:20am, police stopped the same Toyota Celica on Eastern Valley Way in Belconnen. The same man was identified as the driver and again returned a positive roadside screening result.
The driver was taken back to Belconnen Police Station where he returned a BAC reading of 0.099. The 26-year-old man was charged with two counts of drink driving and one count of driving while on a suspended license. He is scheduled to appear in ACT Magistrates Court next Tuesday (November 20).
Officer-in-Charge of Traffic Operations Sergeant Rod Anderson said ACT Policing is targeting alcohol and drug impaired driving over the next three months and is determined to apprehend and prosecute people who make the thoughtless decision to drink and drive.
“It is unacceptable that drivers such as these continue to show such disregard for the law and the safety of other road users.
“If you think you can avoid police by drink-driving in the early hours of the morning, think again – all police patrols will be undertaking breath testing duties 24/7 so your chances of being caught are very high,” Sergeant Anderson said.
Loading ...
For what reason is a person who goes DUI not taken into custody until at least below the limit?
Pork Hunt said :
I’m pointing the finger at ‘human rights’.
Pork Hunt said :
At least make the high range offenders dry out in the cells…They are’nt only a danger behind the wheel.
Confiscation of keys. That’s all I have to say……
esp said :
Including the spare set?
Here we have descriptions of impairment according to levels of intoxication:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/communications/pdf/DADSS-ScopeOfAlcohol_01262011.pdf
Too pissed in town and you’ll get taken to the station in a divvy van to dry out, yet put people’s lives at risk by driving a car drunk and you get let out to re-offend 2 hours later??? Anyone see a problem with this?
Spykler said :
I agree with both of these comments. Maybe if magistrates or people who pass down these stupid idiotic laws and sentencings have a loved one maimed or killed by a drink driver I do not think things will change at all. Personally I cannot fathom getting behind the wheel of a car after consuming copious amounts of alcohol anyways. If your are going to drink then do not bloody drive!!!!!!!!!
bundah said :
I love the way the acronym for this is DADSS. (Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety. Or Dad’s Seldom Sober?)
poetix said :
Dumb As Dog Shit S?
Pork Hunt said :
To complete the acronym we could look at it from the cops perspective ie. ‘Yeah he’s as Dumb As Dog S*** Sarge’
esp said :
I remember when my dumb arse ex got busted for DUI…. They locked his car up overnight.. Had to drive him down the next day to pick the car up from their impound. Why don’t they do that anymore ???
This was prob around 2004-2005 … Can’t remember
Crush the car. Simple, easy and proves a point.
rhavinmad said :
Bugger that. Sell the car, and send the money to general revenue.
I’ve often thought taking the car is wrong, actually, for several reasons:
1) You haven’t had a chancee to defend yourself in court, yet the penalty is applied anyway
2) Different cars cost different amounts, so consistency in penalty is lost
3) What if the car is stolen?
rhavinmad said :
But do you let the driver out first?