Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

Isaacs man blows over twice

By johnboy - 6 May 2013 23

A 28-year-old Isaacs man will face court later this month after being caught drink-driving twice within 90 minutes yesterday morning (Sunday, May 5).

Police were conducting a mobile general duties patrol in the City CBD area around 4.45am yesterday when the male driver of a blue coloured Hyundai Lantra was taken into custody after returning a positive road side screening test.

The driver of the Hyundai Lantra was conveyed to the City Police Station, where he recorded a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) reading of 0.180. His licence was immediately suspended.

Police informed the man he would be summonsed for this drink-driving offence, and he was then released.

Around 90 minutes later, the same male driver was again taken into custody after being observed driving a short distance from where he was originally taken into custody.

Breath analysis results indicated the male driver had a BAC reading of 0.153. The driver was conveyed to the ACT Watch House where he was charged with two counts of driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol and driving whilst suspended.

He will face the ACT Magistrates Court on May 23.

[Courtest ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
23 Responses to
Isaacs man blows over twice
devils_advocate 11:23 am 07 May 13

incredulousandridiculous said :

Jailing or public shaming then. I think if we had billboards with the photograph of serious drink-driving offenders saying “I could have killed someone; I didn’t care. I decided to drink and drive.”, we’d eliminate half the problem overnight.

Unfortunately no. The sad truth is, the vast majority of people in the population who are motivated by social norms/shame/intrinsic moral motivations (variously described in the literature) are also the ones who tend to obey the law.
The repeat offenders are not motivated by the risk of killing people. This is because in their internal cost/benefit analysis, the risk is of getting caught by roadside breath testing- not of killing someone. they tend to view it as a regulatory infraction, with the fine being merely the price of the illegal act which on average they are willing to pay (i.e. given they will get caught only a fraction of the time).
Of course the problem is compounded by the inherent reduction in rationality caused by intoxication during the decision-making process of whether to commit the crime.

One solution would be an attempt to appeal to the more rational self (i.e commitment mechanisms – getting people to leave the car at home when they’re sober and thinking properly). I also think that viable public transport options could help – for some people the prospect of saving $50 or more in cab fares is too tempting for their nearsighted selves (sad I know).

bundah 9:42 am 07 May 13

What’s more i’ve been told by a lawyer that it’s well know in legal circles that any number of professionals ie. politicians,doctors,lawyers and even some magistrates and judges have been known to get behind the wheel after having had quite a few bevies.

Hardly surprisng therefore that drink driving isn’t taken that seriously particularly when one looks at the sentences that have been handed out

incredulousandridicu 7:54 am 07 May 13

IrishPete said :

Alderney said :

incredulousandridiculous said :

People love to laud the difference between the stigma of drink-driving in the 1980s and 2010s. Things may have improved but they’re still far from acceptable.

There should be a two strikes policy for 0.05 and above but under 0.075. After two, you lose your licence for a year. Anything above 0.075 should result in an automatic suspension of three to five years. A second strike above 0.075 should be a ten year ban. If we’re serious about ending the lunacy of drink driving, let’s prove it.

Mandatory sentencing probably infringes their human rights.

But your rights to not be killed or maimed by a drunk driver are somehow tradable.

Unfortunately, as well know, suspending the license does not stop people driving and then they’re uninsured. Suspending this guy’s license on the spot didn’t stop him driving a short while later.

IP

Jailing or public shaming then. I think if we had billboards with the photograph of serious drink-driving offenders saying “I could have killed someone; I didn’t care. I decided to drink and drive.”, we’d eliminate half the problem overnight.

Call it extreme but I tend to value the life of innocent people killed or maimed by drink driving more than the feelings of the offenders themselves.

Considering our own Transport Minister some years ago, John Hardgreaves, got caught for a DUI, the problem isn’t taken seriously even by the authorities. Wasn’t some Queanbeyan police sergeant also convicted for it a couple years ago as well?

Plodder 10:41 pm 06 May 13

The reason Police don’t seize drunk driver’s keys until the driver is sober is they have no legal authority to do so. Similarly unless there are grounds for arrest the driver will be released following the breath analysis process. Crazy I know but that’s the law.

IrishPete 7:08 pm 06 May 13

Alderney said :

incredulousandridiculous said :

People love to laud the difference between the stigma of drink-driving in the 1980s and 2010s. Things may have improved but they’re still far from acceptable.

There should be a two strikes policy for 0.05 and above but under 0.075. After two, you lose your licence for a year. Anything above 0.075 should result in an automatic suspension of three to five years. A second strike above 0.075 should be a ten year ban. If we’re serious about ending the lunacy of drink driving, let’s prove it.

Mandatory sentencing probably infringes their human rights.

But your rights to not be killed or maimed by a drunk driver are somehow tradable.

Unfortunately, as well know, suspending the license does not stop people driving and then they’re uninsured. Suspending this guy’s license on the spot didn’t stop him driving a short while later.

IP

p1 4:20 pm 06 May 13

gazket said :

please explain – a car can be confiscated for screeching tyres, but blow .2 and you can get the car back in an hour.

Because “Hooning” is something terrible young people do. DUI is something politicians and judges occasionally do.

I am against mandatory sentencing, but I would support mandatory wheel clamping for some arbitrary period of time, say 12 hrs. Although, then the police would have to carry wheel clamps, and I guess the boot of their cars are already full of cop stuff.

gazket 4:05 pm 06 May 13

The police should confiscate the drink drivers car keys until they are sober or another sober person signs the keys out or even impound the car for 24hrs.

please explain – a car can be confiscated for screeching tyres, but blow .2 and you can get the car back in an hour.

Alderney 3:55 pm 06 May 13

incredulousandridiculous said :

People love to laud the difference between the stigma of drink-driving in the 1980s and 2010s. Things may have improved but they’re still far from acceptable.

There should be a two strikes policy for 0.05 and above but under 0.075. After two, you lose your licence for a year. Anything above 0.075 should result in an automatic suspension of three to five years. A second strike above 0.075 should be a ten year ban. If we’re serious about ending the lunacy of drink driving, let’s prove it.

Mandatory sentencing probably infringes their human rights.

But your rights to not be killed or maimed by a drunk driver are somehow tradable.

incredulousandridicu 3:15 pm 06 May 13

People love to laud the difference between the stigma of drink-driving in the 1980s and 2010s. Things may have improved but they’re still far from acceptable.

There should be a two strikes policy for 0.05 and above but under 0.075. After two, you lose your licence for a year. Anything above 0.075 should result in an automatic suspension of three to five years. A second strike above 0.075 should be a ten year ban. If we’re serious about ending the lunacy of drink driving, let’s prove it.

bundah 3:15 pm 06 May 13

IrishPete said :

or insist they get a taxi home. Pushing someone out the door of the watchhouse at a 0.180 alcohol reading is asking for trouble. And expecting a drunk to do what he is told “Don’t go and collect your car” is silly.

IP

Apparently there have been instances where those caught and released have subsequently been picked up by a friend who presumably was going to take them home but only ended up back in their vehicle and apprehended a short time later.IMO they shouldn’t be released until they’re under the limit both as a precaution and as a form of punishment.

Genie 3:01 pm 06 May 13

Was it the same car ??

When my ex got busted DUI they impounded his car for the night. This was about 8+ years ago…

Why don’t they do that anymore ?

IrishPete 2:52 pm 06 May 13

or insist they get a taxi home. Pushing someone out the door of the watchhouse at a 0.180 alcohol reading is asking for trouble. And expecting a drunk to do what he is told “Don’t go and collect your car” is silly.

IP

carnardly 2:47 pm 06 May 13

didn’t an Old Fella in Qbn do the same thing about a week ago.

bundah 2:32 pm 06 May 13

p1 said :

What a complete retard.

What’s even more retarded is that they don’t detain them until they’re under the limit!

p1 1:22 pm 06 May 13

What a complete retard.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site