Chief Minister talks tough about drink driving

Makes plenty of sense. Most states do this for a range of minor offences such as shoplifting, fighting in public, drink driving low range. Nothing is decriminalised just if people are prepared to plead guilty they pay the fine and accept the charge – this cuts out the Court factor reducing costs to the community. If people plead not guilty they make representations to the fact then Police prepare the brief as usual. Currently in the ACT everything goes to Court. Court costs are about $55 – somehow I think it costs more to the public coffers than $55 to send someone to Court.

Last year ACT Govt brought in on the spot fines for a couple of things – urinating in public and graffiti – bring it on I say.

Holierthanthou said :

You could catch mob phone drivers by getting phone companies to send details to police about users who shift recpetion between 3 towers wthin a time that could only be done by car travel.

How would you distinguish between mobile phone using drivers and passengers, public transport users etc?

You could catch mob phone drivers by getting phone companies to send details to police about users who shift recpetion between 3 towers wthin a time that could only be done by car travel.

I have never been rtb’d in 30 years of driving.

It seems to me that there’s a decided lack of visible policing of drink driving in the ACT. In NSW it seems the popo set up RBTs regularly and in all manner or places, so much so that drivers expect to be stopped and act accordingly.

Having never once been stopped for an RBT in 4 years in the ACT, and having only ever seen them operating 5 times (10am on the Parkway doesn’t count!) it’s unsurprising that the culture of the huns is to avoid a $40 taxi fare and get behind the wheel because 99 times 100 they get away with it.

Get serious about making ACT Policing do RBTs and you’ll get serious about stopping the drinking driving happening. It’ll take a year or two but it’ll happen.

proofpositive said :

Drink drivers first offence – Put them back on “P” plates for 3 years with a 0.02 alcohol limit.
Speeders 20km/h+ over the speed limit first office – Put them back on “P” plates with 4 points for 3 years.

Drink Driving laws at the moment seem to be fine. They are harsh enough for what is a serious offense but one that may be committed for the first time when a person makes an error of judgement. Why set up first timers for repeat offenses by reducing the alcohol limit.

Stigmatizing people caught speeding 20km/h+ by putting them back to P plates seems harsh. Various speed traps around Canberra seem designed to catch the unwary when 80Km/h changes back to 60Km/h for instance.

Yep, and I think speed cameras must also be the most successful method for catching mobile phone users, those that fail to use their indicators and those that cross unbroken lines. Well done Mr Chief Minister, I feel so much safer on our roads now!!!!

The best way to reduce drink/drive offences is to make it 0.10 instead of the girly 0.05.

Then, even the minister for lunch wouldn’t get sprung.:)

@powell01: crap, what happened (if you are prepared to talk about it)?

Actually two of the 4 permanent judges of the ACT Supreme Court have been caught DUI. The Chief Justice and also Justice Gray (March 2002) – 50% of the resident ACT Supreme Court judges have been done for DUI. A good example to the rest of the community. NOT.

proofpositive said :

Drink drivers first offence – Put them back on “P” plates for 3 years with a 0.02 alcohol limit.
Speeders 20km/h+ over the speed limit first office – Put them back on “P” plates with 4 points for 3 years.

As someone who lost a lot to a drink driver, I wholeheatedly support this one.

southeeplace said :

When was our chief justice ‘caught DUI’?

Late 2003, there’s a snippet here but even our archives don’t go back that far.

80% of the magistrates courts work is probably drink driving offences that always end the same. You go in, plead guilty, lose your license for the recommended time, get the recommended fine, and get your ‘I can only go to work and home’ license.

Cut out the court date for these cookie cutter offences, keep the serious serious lunatic offences, and things will be a lot smoother.

When was our chief justice ‘caught DUI’?

A very serious crime, but I wonder why he must always be so patronising. Indeed, I wonder if, for example, driving one’s government funded car through scrub to catch up with one’s mistress is as deserving of a patronising tone as drink driving?

As for the no court whatsit, I understand solutions like the Stanhope proposal actually mean the person charged with the offence will have to prove their innocence via appeal rather than the prosecution having to prove the guilt. Very efficient indeed, but at what cost?

johnboy said :

H1NG0 said :

I noticed the “Drink & Drive – Its a Crime” sign in Gungahlin has been modified with a can of spray paint. They have crossed out “Its a Crime” so now it just reads “Drink & Drive”. You know, we shouldn’t disobey Stanhopes signs! *glug* *glug* *glug* *Vvvvrrrrooooooooooom!*

Can you get a photo of it?

Possibly. I’m at work at the moment but I’ll see what I can do.

Sorry far too many IMO’s in there. Nothing like waking up a 11:45am and getting straight into debate.

I completely agree that drink driving is very dangerious and anything making it seem less serious would be negaitive.

That said decriminalizing it would take quite a strain off our courts. You can still have loss of licences and massive fines as a solid deterent. People know its a crime and still don’t take it serious enough. Jack up the punisment and cut the paperwork i say. The thought of 2 years of bus riding in this place is much more of a deterent to most then ending up in front of a judge. Only those who drive while disqualified are worthy of a judge IMO.

IMO habitual dangerious drivers are just as bad as someone who gets behind the wheel when they might not be sober enough to drive. Those habitual dangerious drivers don’t clog up our courts when occasionally caught.

On the subject of allowing drink drivers in positions of power. Get real people. Accidents happen. Especially in a country that drinks as much as ours. Depriving society of every single person that gets a DUI would be stupid. That Chief Justice and a Minister for Corrections still (arguably) have plenty to offer society. Im sure they paid the price. Their job is certainly too harsh a price IMHO.

H1NG0 said :

I noticed the “Drink & Drive – Its a Crime” sign in Gungahlin has been modified with a can of spray paint. They have crossed out “Its a Crime” so now it just reads “Drink & Drive”. You know, we shouldn’t disobey Stanhopes signs! *glug* *glug* *glug* *Vvvvrrrrooooooooooom!*

Can you get a photo of it?

I noticed the “Drink & Drive – Its a Crime” sign in Gungahlin has been modified with a can of spray paint. They have crossed out “Its a Crime” so now it just reads “Drink & Drive”. You know, we shouldn’t disobey Stanhopes signs! *glug* *glug* *glug* *Vvvvrrrrooooooooooom!*

Drink drivers first offence – Put them back on “P” plates for 3 years with a 0.02 alcohol limit.
Speeders 20km/h+ over the speed limit first office – Put them back on “P” plates with 4 points for 3 years.