Drink drivers like to keep on drinking and driving

johnboy 18 June 2012 26

Almost half the 34 drivers caught drink driving in the ACT over the past week were found to be 0.00 licence holders. Police apprehended 14 0.00 licence holders in the week of June 11 -17.

About 9.30 pm on Thursday, June 14, police stopped a vehicle on Namatjira Drive in Weston after the driver failed to stop at a stop sign. The driver underwent a roadside screening test and returned a positive reading.

The 53-year-old Nicholls man was taken to Woden Police Station where he returned an alcohol content of 0.03. The man was found to be disqualified and had been convicted eight times previously for drink-driving.

Sergeant Rod Anderson from Traffic Operations said drivers such as this had no regard for the safety of others on ACT roads.

“It concerns me that someone who doesn’t hold a drivers licence and drinks and drives, shares the road with the rest of the community,” Sergeant Anderson said.

“In the interests of road safety and saving people’s lives, all that the police can do is continue in our efforts to find drink-drivers like this and put them before the court,” he added.

Of the 34 drivers caught drink driving over the past week, seven have had at least one previous drink-driving conviction.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
26 Responses to Drink drivers like to keep on drinking and driving
Filter
Order
Jethro Jethro 7:16 pm 20 Jun 12

James_Ryan said :

Felix the Cat said :

I don’t know how these interlock things work, what’s to stop their mate/partner from overiding it?

Good to see this discussion including interlock programs. The best source I’ve found is the International Council on Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety. They have two excellent papers on this kind of intervention:

http://www.icadts.org/reports.html

The best interlock equipment records a “signature” of the program participant exhaling. They also require a sample at random times during a journey.

+1

I really do not understand why this isn’t being trialled in Canberra

jimbocool jimbocool 10:12 am 20 Jun 12

HardBallGets said :

HenryBG said :

0.05? 0.08? 0.11? 0.02? 0.00?
Each of these is an arbitrary limit set by a jurisdiction somewhere sometime.

The fact that different places/times have different limits is an admission that this is pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey lawmaking.

And you wonder why so many people still drink-drive?
The law’s an ass.

The law may well be an ass, but the “arbitrary” limits you suggest inform “pin-the-tail” lawmaking are actually BAC points at which crash risk and fatality risk are shown by years and years worth of good data to swing upwards.

Probably haven’t described that very well, but check tables 1 and 2 at the following source and you can see how increased BAC leads to dramatic increases in risk at the .05 .08 kind of range.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/809-050pdf.pdf

In summary, there’s nothing arbitrary about the BAC readings that different jurisdictions have chosen. What is different is the amount of crash risk that different jurisdictions are prepared to accept in drivers that have consumed alcohol.

Most people only get caught drink driving once. In that respect the current approach is very successful in changing behaviour of people who aren’t alcohol dependant. For people who are alcohol dependant, the current approach fails for the most part. We see these people caught DUI again (and for some, again and again and again). Yet we also see the same process followed and the same sorts of interventions (sanctions) applied. And we ask “when will they learn?” but the same question should be asked of the law enforcement/criminal justice response which is demonstrated to fail at changing the driving behaviour of those with alcohol related health problems.

+1000 and this comment gets my nomination as the Most Sensible Thing Said on RiotACT for Many Years

HardBallGets HardBallGets 9:42 am 20 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

0.05? 0.08? 0.11? 0.02? 0.00?
Each of these is an arbitrary limit set by a jurisdiction somewhere sometime.

The fact that different places/times have different limits is an admission that this is pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey lawmaking.

And you wonder why so many people still drink-drive?
The law’s an ass.

The law may well be an ass, but the “arbitrary” limits you suggest inform “pin-the-tail” lawmaking are actually BAC points at which crash risk and fatality risk are shown by years and years worth of good data to swing upwards.

Probably haven’t described that very well, but check tables 1 and 2 at the following source and you can see how increased BAC leads to dramatic increases in risk at the .05 .08 kind of range.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/809-050pdf.pdf

In summary, there’s nothing arbitrary about the BAC readings that different jurisdictions have chosen. What is different is the amount of crash risk that different jurisdictions are prepared to accept in drivers that have consumed alcohol.

Most people only get caught drink driving once. In that respect the current approach is very successful in changing behaviour of people who aren’t alcohol dependant. For people who are alcohol dependant, the current approach fails for the most part. We see these people caught DUI again (and for some, again and again and again). Yet we also see the same process followed and the same sorts of interventions (sanctions) applied. And we ask “when will they learn?” but the same question should be asked of the law enforcement/criminal justice response which is demonstrated to fail at changing the driving behaviour of those with alcohol related health problems.

HenryBG HenryBG 12:01 am 20 Jun 12

LSWCHP said :

Pork Hunt said :

Perhaps we need some sort of genetic testing by the authoritahs.

I may have mentioned on this forum previously that from time to time, I drink like a fish but not since my teens have I felt the need to drink and drive.

As I approach the half century mark age wise, I clearly do not possess the gene that causes so many drunkards to get behind the wheel.

I figure that if I want to have a drink, I can leg it to the pub (and sometimes home), get a lift with a sober driver or have a few at home sitting in the narcolepsy chair.

Even when I’m “off” the grog and stick to my six pint “on the wagon limit”, I have no desire to drive.

What then, causes people to not arrange their affairs so that they don’t drink and drive?

Being a thoughtless inconsiderate arsehat with no regard for your own life, or the lives of other people on or near the road?

I don’t know what this “arsehat” thing is, but I’m guessing it’s some kind of media-driven bandwagon thing, just like your apparent confusion between moral and ethical imperatives and the perfectly arbitrary laws about BAC.

0.05? 0.08? 0.11? 0.02? 0.00?
Each of these is an arbitrary limit set by a jurisdiction somewhere sometime.

The fact that different places/times have different limits is an admission that this is pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey lawmaking.

And you wonder why so many people still drink-drive?
The law’s an ass.

bundah bundah 10:31 pm 19 Jun 12

Basilbrush said :

My car was hit (while I was waiting at the traffic lights in Civic one night many years ago) by a guy who came around the corner and mounted the median strip – he blew .221 – 2nd time in 12 months………….and I understand his first time he blew high too. Amazing these guys are not taught a harsh lesson the first time they are caught. Lucky he didn’t hit a person.

The cops were driving behind him and chased him and when he was pulled over he didn’t even know he had hit someone…..

He got a small fine and licence cancelled (which means squat….)

Well we are talking about the ACT judiciary here,if nothing else they are consistent….consistently pathetic!!

James_Ryan James_Ryan 7:24 pm 19 Jun 12

Felix the Cat said :

I don’t know how these interlock things work, what’s to stop their mate/partner from overiding it?

Good to see this discussion including interlock programs. The best source I’ve found is the International Council on Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety. They have two excellent papers on this kind of intervention:

http://www.icadts.org/reports.html

The best interlock equipment records a “signature” of the program participant exhaling. They also require a sample at random times during a journey.

LSWCHP LSWCHP 6:13 pm 19 Jun 12

Pork Hunt said :

Perhaps we need some sort of genetic testing by the authoritahs.

I may have mentioned on this forum previously that from time to time, I drink like a fish but not since my teens have I felt the need to drink and drive.

As I approach the half century mark age wise, I clearly do not possess the gene that causes so many drunkards to get behind the wheel.

I figure that if I want to have a drink, I can leg it to the pub (and sometimes home), get a lift with a sober driver or have a few at home sitting in the narcolepsy chair.

Even when I’m “off” the grog and stick to my six pint “on the wagon limit”, I have no desire to drive.

What then, causes people to not arrange their affairs so that they don’t drink and drive?

Being a thoughtless inconsiderate arsehat with no regard for your own life, or the lives of other people on or near the road?

Pork Hunt Pork Hunt 5:36 pm 19 Jun 12

Perhaps we need some sort of genetic testing by the authoritahs.

I may have mentioned on this forum previously that from time to time, I drink like a fish but not since my teens have I felt the need to drink and drive.

As I approach the half century mark age wise, I clearly do not possess the gene that causes so many drunkards to get behind the wheel.

I figure that if I want to have a drink, I can leg it to the pub (and sometimes home), get a lift with a sober driver or have a few at home sitting in the narcolepsy chair.

Even when I’m “off” the grog and stick to my six pint “on the wagon limit”, I have no desire to drive.

What then, causes people to not arrange their affairs so that they don’t drink and drive?

Felix the Cat Felix the Cat 4:25 pm 19 Jun 12

HardBallGets said :

Felix the Cat said :

Confiscating/crushing the cars would go a long way to deter repeat offenders. Good enough for hooning, good enough for drunk drivers.

With respect, I think you’re wrong and your completely understandable mistake is trying to understand repeat drink driving through a rational lens. Most people try to understand it (and a good many other irrational things) through the same rational lens … hence the failed current sanctions approach to alcohol dependant drivers.

Crushing/confiscating cars, alcohol “awareness” courses, incrementally tougher financial/criminal justice sanctions – all these things make the concerned public feel better but according to the raft of published evidence they trail best-practice alcohol interlock programs when it comes to changing the drink driving behaviour of alcohol dependant people.

So whilst it’s a bit counter-intuitative, the answer for alcohol dependant drivers (as often evidenced by high-range offences and repeat DUI convictions) is to impose a financial sanction that supports getting them back behind the wheel of their car with an alcohol interlock fitted, with a capability of logging the readings taken, supported by regular data analysis & counselling/education.

The evidence from jurisdictions where this kind of interlock program is in place shows that it is the successful way to work with recidivist alcohol dependant drink drivers.

I don’t know how these interlock things work, what’s to stop their mate/partner from overiding it?

HardBallGets HardBallGets 3:49 pm 19 Jun 12

Felix the Cat said :

Confiscating/crushing the cars would go a long way to deter repeat offenders. Good enough for hooning, good enough for drunk drivers.

With respect, I think you’re wrong and your completely understandable mistake is trying to understand repeat drink driving through a rational lens. Most people try to understand it (and a good many other irrational things) through the same rational lens … hence the failed current sanctions approach to alcohol dependant drivers.

Crushing/confiscating cars, alcohol “awareness” courses, incrementally tougher financial/criminal justice sanctions – all these things make the concerned public feel better but according to the raft of published evidence they trail best-practice alcohol interlock programs when it comes to changing the drink driving behaviour of alcohol dependant people.

So whilst it’s a bit counter-intuitative, the answer for alcohol dependant drivers (as often evidenced by high-range offences and repeat DUI convictions) is to impose a financial sanction that supports getting them back behind the wheel of their car with an alcohol interlock fitted, with a capability of logging the readings taken, supported by regular data analysis & counselling/education.

The evidence from jurisdictions where this kind of interlock program is in place shows that it is the successful way to work with recidivist alcohol dependant drink drivers.

greyswandir greyswandir 3:44 pm 19 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

Couldn’t they just test our genes at birth and pre-emptively punish us for everything we potentially might do in life?

“And who are ‘they’? The wizards…”

p1 p1 2:40 pm 19 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

Couldn’t they just test our genes at birth and pre-emptively punish us for everything we potentially might do in life?

Don’t go giving them ideas.

Antagonist Antagonist 2:32 pm 19 Jun 12

goggles13 said :

how many chances does a drink driver get – nine times is nine too many, and if this person does not get a severe penalty, then our justice system needs a serious overall.

What is a serious overall? A set of overalls that gives you a wedgie you cannot pull out?

HenryBG HenryBG 2:03 pm 19 Jun 12

p1 said :

HenryBG said :

Or is he being prosecuted for his *potential* to – maybe – cause damage?

Ummm, yes of course he is.

Every single person caught for exceeding whatever arbitrarily assigned limit (to velocity, BAC, drug use, etc) is being charged for their “potential to cause harm” (unless they have actually crashed *before* the cops bretho them/radar check their speed).

Speed, or BAC is used as a proxy for your likelihood to in a crash.

Couldn’t they just test our genes at birth and pre-emptively punish us for everything we potentially might do in life?

Felix the Cat Felix the Cat 1:40 pm 19 Jun 12

Confiscating/crushing the cars would go a long way to deter repeat offenders. Good enough for hooning, good enough for drunk drivers.

Watson Watson 1:39 pm 19 Jun 12

aceofspades said :

So “P” platers are being disciplined before they even offend?

Err, no? The 0.05 is regarded as a safe limit for experienced driver, but not for inexperienced drivers.

aceofspades aceofspades 12:59 pm 19 Jun 12

Watson said :

HenryBG said :

So this guy was picked up for being 0.03?
Clearly this isn’t a safety issue, or I wouldn’t be allowed to drive home at 0.05.

So what is it?

I wonder – did he cause and injury, loss or damage to any person or property?

Or is he being prosecuted for his *potential* to – maybe – cause damage?

Shall we pre-emptively prosecute everybody with a penis due to their *potential* to be a rapist?

Bad laws invite contempt.

The guy was on a 0.00 restriction because he was caught over the limit before. 8 times no less. So are you saying that there should be no consequences for drink driving?

And your analogy makes no sense. A correct analogy would be a convicted pedophile being caught hanging out near a primary school. Would you argue that hanging out near a primary school is not a safety issue as such and so he should be allowed to stay there?

The 0.00 restrictions serve as a disciplinary measure to enable wrongdoers to prove that they are committed to changing their ways, similar to a suspended jail sentence. It’s a ‘one strike and you’re out’ measure which they brought upon themselves.

So “P” platers are being disciplined before they even offend?

Basilbrush Basilbrush 12:56 pm 19 Jun 12

My car was hit (while I was waiting at the traffic lights in Civic one night many years ago) by a guy who came around the corner and mounted the median strip – he blew .221 – 2nd time in 12 months………….and I understand his first time he blew high too. Amazing these guys are not taught a harsh lesson the first time they are caught. Lucky he didn’t hit a person.

The cops were driving behind him and chased him and when he was pulled over he didn’t even know he had hit someone…..

He got a small fine and licence cancelled (which means squat….)

p1 p1 12:49 pm 19 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

Or is he being prosecuted for his *potential* to – maybe – cause damage?

Ummm, yes of course he is.

Every single person caught for exceeding whatever arbitrarily assigned limit (to velocity, BAC, drug use, etc) is being charged for their “potential to cause harm” (unless they have actually crashed *before* the cops bretho them/radar check their speed).

Speed, or BAC is used as a proxy for your likelihood to in a crash.

bikhet bikhet 12:47 pm 19 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

So this guy was picked up for being 0.03?

The report doesn’t say that. It does say that:

a) he failed to stop at a stop sign; and

b) he was driving while disqualified.

He may also have been done for driving while 0.03, but the other two should be enough to arouse the polices’ interest.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site