Given the mendacity and ingenuity of Canberra’s drink drivers (not to mention the example set by our politicians and the judiciary) we don’t think alcohol interlocks will make much difference.
But Simon Corbell is sending forth word that his Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 (No 2) has passed the fastest legislature in the West.
Alcohol ignition interlocks will be fitted to the vehicles of repeat and high range drink drivers in the Territory, under reforms to drink driving laws passed today, Attorney General Simon Corbell said today.
The Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 (No 2), which was passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly today, establishes an alcohol interlock program for high-risk drink driving offenders.
An alcohol ignition interlock is a breath test device that prevents a vehicle from operating, or continuing to operate, if the driver has a specified concentration of alcohol in his or her breath.
“There is considerable research to show that alcohol ignition interlocks are effective in reducing drink driving, particularly by the habitual or high range offenders targeted by these new laws,” Mr Corbell said.
Interlocks will be mandatory for all drivers convicted of having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.15 or higher, three times the legal limit.
Interlocks will also be required for all repeat offenders who have been convicted or found guilty three or more times of drink driving offences in the previous five years, who apply for a probationary driver licence after serving at least half of their licence disqualification period.
While participating in the interlock program, drivers will be required to maintain a zero BAC at all times while driving, enforced by the interlock, for a period of at least six months.
Loading ...
DrKoresh said :
Hah. Good luck with that.
I’m pretty sure this one can’t tell the difference between piss and vinegar.
Rawhide Kid Part3 said :
Balloons? But this is for people who have proven themselves incapable of thinking that far ahead!
Ben_Dover said :
You do understand the difference between Federal and State elections, don’t you?
Ben_Dover said :
They grew their vote at the last ACT poll. The reason they’re going to loose federally is they have a crackpot leader, bad advisors and are up against a simpleton dealing in three word slogans he’ll never deliver on.
bundah said :
Its taken seriously enough for it to become an offence that can see you sentenced to Jail for a first offence. I think in 98 that came in. Sweden has low levels of drug related crimes and burglary etc. But apparently it has higher rates of serious crimes like hate crimes, sexual assaults and the like compared with the other EU countries. And so you know, big brain bundah, Sweden spends more money on welfare than any other European country. I am all for spending more on welfare. But I know a short sighted fool like yourself probably thinks that it would be just money going to bega court residents, such is your vast general knowledge.
“Interlocks will also be required for all repeat offenders who have been convicted or found guilty three or more times of drink driving offences in the previous five years, who apply for a probationary driver licence after serving at least half of their licence disqualification period.”
Applying for a probationary licence halfway through a disqualification period? Huh? I presume they wouldn’t have meant ‘restricted’ licence because coming from a Gotvco spin doctor they couldn’t have made a factual error.
If we had a judiciary and gummint that actually took drink driving offences ‘seriously’ eg we adopted something like the Swedish model then there’d be no need for idiotic gimmicks like this!
So will a new offence be created, that of “driving a vehicle without an interlock” (eg someone else’s car) after being convicted and the court has imposed one on their own car?
Nice one labour!!
Want a clue why your party will be annihilated at the next election?
Just watch car theft skyrocket.
Were willing to spend soo much to help these losers but nothing to prevent them from becoming losers.
I can see the sale of balloons increasing. Besides what’s to stop them using an accomplice or and other motor vehicle not fitted with theses devices? This also makes for interesting reading on this subject. http://tinyurl.com/lyu9zhx
It has always defied me why they can impound a car for something that is subjectively determined under the ‘hoon’ laws but for objectively proven and known dangerous act of drink driving the car stays in the driveway.