6 May 2013

Isaacs man blows over twice

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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]

Join the conversation

23
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
PrestigeDialaDriver9:14 am 20 May 13

Choices:- 1. Leave your vehicle at the venue. 2. Catch a taxi. 3. Catch the midnight bus service 4. Have a designated driver planned at the beginning of the evening 4. Call Dial a driver to get both you and your vehicle home safely 5. Be caught by AFP, spend the night in Watch House, appear in Court, run the risk of loss of licence, employment, relationship, and end up with a hefty fine. There is no excuse. Be considerate to other users of the ACT roads, and be responsible. Could YOU live the rest of your life, knowing that you’re the cause of an innocent persons loss of life? Is it really worth it???

Yeah, but how many times is a drink driver released, only to go out and get someone killed several days, weeks or months later? The problem in releasing people several hours later is they get the distinct impression, often psychologically and unconsciously, that drink driving is a slap-on-the-wrist transgression. For all the ad talk of drink driving being “bloody stupid”, we sure as hell treat it as the adult equivalent of making out with your high school sweetheart behind the gym against school rules. One or two hour detention and then you’re off on your merry way (with an inconsequential good behaviour bond issued five months later).

You seem to be confusing being detained by police, with punishment by the court. Being arrested is not meant to be the punishment for the offence; there are a number of criteria for arresting someone – punishment is not one of those criteria.

When a drink driver fronts up to court in a nice suit, a fistful of character references, a bit of a sob story and previously clean record, the Magistrates are sucked right in. There are people who blow over twice the limit and are given non-conviction orders, which -in my opinion- is a disgrace.

Don’t even get me started on the soft sentences for repeat offenders.

incredulousandridiculous said :

Tooks said :

bundah said :

Tooks said :

bundah said :

p1 said :

What a complete retard.

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

Well that would be illegal of course, but even if they were allowed to, do you really want police tied up babysitting idiots until they blow 0.00?

Well he was taken to the Watch House after they arrested him the second time so why not do that after the initial arrest to absolutely ensure that there is no opportunity of further stupidity.Besides could you imagine a scenario where upon releasing the idiot who is still well over the limit and he runs into an innocent person killing them in the process? Imagine the public outcry.

Because they couldn’t arrest him the first time as they had no grounds. When you blow over on the roadside, you are detained for the purpose of breath analysis (arrested in effect, but not really). Once the test is complete, the person is generally free to go unless there are grounds for arrest (confused?).

He was arrested on the second occasion for repetition of the offence. Also, most people who are done for PCA, aren’t drunk per se, so their release isn’t an issue. Given no drink driver – to my knowledge anyway – has ever died immediately after being released from custody, it’s probably not something to lose sleep over.

Yeah, but how many times is a drink driver released, only to go out and get someone killed several days, weeks or months later? The problem in releasing people several hours later is they get the distinct impression, often psychologically and unconsciously, that drink driving is a slap-on-the-wrist transgression. For all the ad talk of drink driving being “bloody stupid”, we sure as hell treat it as the adult equivalent of making out with your high school sweetheart behind the gym against school rules. One or two hour detention and then you’re off on your merry way (with an inconsequential good behaviour bond issued five months later).

Exactly and when one sees them walking out of the courthouse with a grin from ear to ear after they’ve been given yet another slap on the wrist for the umpteenth time then you know the judiciary is not just an absolute joke but imo culpable.

incredulousandridiculous10:13 pm 07 May 13

Tooks said :

bundah said :

Tooks said :

bundah said :

p1 said :

What a complete retard.

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

Well that would be illegal of course, but even if they were allowed to, do you really want police tied up babysitting idiots until they blow 0.00?

Well he was taken to the Watch House after they arrested him the second time so why not do that after the initial arrest to absolutely ensure that there is no opportunity of further stupidity.Besides could you imagine a scenario where upon releasing the idiot who is still well over the limit and he runs into an innocent person killing them in the process? Imagine the public outcry.

Because they couldn’t arrest him the first time as they had no grounds. When you blow over on the roadside, you are detained for the purpose of breath analysis (arrested in effect, but not really). Once the test is complete, the person is generally free to go unless there are grounds for arrest (confused?).

He was arrested on the second occasion for repetition of the offence. Also, most people who are done for PCA, aren’t drunk per se, so their release isn’t an issue. Given no drink driver – to my knowledge anyway – has ever died immediately after being released from custody, it’s probably not something to lose sleep over.

Yeah, but how many times is a drink driver released, only to go out and get someone killed several days, weeks or months later? The problem in releasing people several hours later is they get the distinct impression, often psychologically and unconsciously, that drink driving is a slap-on-the-wrist transgression. For all the ad talk of drink driving being “bloody stupid”, we sure as hell treat it as the adult equivalent of making out with your high school sweetheart behind the gym against school rules. One or two hour detention and then you’re off on your merry way (with an inconsequential good behaviour bond issued five months later).

Tooks said :

bundah said :

Tooks said :

bundah said :

p1 said :

What a complete retard.

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

Well that would be illegal of course, but even if they were allowed to, do you really want police tied up babysitting idiots until they blow 0.00?

Well he was taken to the Watch House after they arrested him the second time so why not do that after the initial arrest to absolutely ensure that there is no opportunity of further stupidity.Besides could you imagine a scenario where upon releasing the idiot who is still well over the limit and he runs into an innocent person killing them in the process? Imagine the public outcry.

Because they couldn’t arrest him the first time as they had no grounds. When you blow over on the roadside, you are detained for the purpose of breath analysis (arrested in effect, but not really). Once the test is complete, the person is generally free to go unless there are grounds for arrest (confused?).

He was arrested on the second occasion for repetition of the offence. Also, most people who are done for PCA, aren’t drunk per se, so their release isn’t an issue. Given no drink driver – to my knowledge anyway – has ever died immediately after being released from custody, it’s probably not something to lose sleep over.

Drunks dying shortly after release from custody is not unknown in other jurisdictions mainly in NT and Qld from memory, sometimes hit by cars while walking long distance home from the police station. Whether they were drink drivers or not I cant recall.

IP

bundah said :

Tooks said :

bundah said :

p1 said :

What a complete retard.

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

Well that would be illegal of course, but even if they were allowed to, do you really want police tied up babysitting idiots until they blow 0.00?

Well he was taken to the Watch House after they arrested him the second time so why not do that after the initial arrest to absolutely ensure that there is no opportunity of further stupidity.Besides could you imagine a scenario where upon releasing the idiot who is still well over the limit and he runs into an innocent person killing them in the process? Imagine the public outcry.

Because they couldn’t arrest him the first time as they had no grounds. When you blow over on the roadside, you are detained for the purpose of breath analysis (arrested in effect, but not really). Once the test is complete, the person is generally free to go unless there are grounds for arrest (confused?).

He was arrested on the second occasion for repetition of the offence. Also, most people who are done for PCA, aren’t drunk per se, so their release isn’t an issue. Given no drink driver – to my knowledge anyway – has ever died immediately after being released from custody, it’s probably not something to lose sleep over.

Tooks said :

bundah said :

p1 said :

What a complete retard.

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

Well that would be illegal of course, but even if they were allowed to, do you really want police tied up babysitting idiots until they blow 0.00?

Well he was taken to the Watch House after they arrested him the second time so why not do that after the initial arrest to absolutely ensure that there is no opportunity of further stupidity.Besides could you imagine a scenario where upon releasing the idiot who is still well over the limit and he runs into an innocent person killing them in the process? Imagine the public outcry.

bundah said :

p1 said :

What a complete retard.

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

Well that would be illegal of course, but even if they were allowed to, do you really want police tied up babysitting idiots until they blow 0.00?

devils_advocate11:23 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).

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

incredulousandridiculous7:54 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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

incredulousandridiculous3:15 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.

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.

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 ?

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

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

p1 said :

What a complete retard.

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

What a complete retard.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.