Skip to content Skip to main navigation

RBT Avoiders

Jethro 4 August 2012 55

Driving inbound along Parkes Way last night I was pleased to see a big RBT operation set up testing outbound traffic about 600-700 metres past the Bindubi Street exit. Judging by the number of cars left on the side of the road it looked like the police has successfully removed quite a few drink drivers from our roads.

However, as I waited at the Bindubi Street lights I saw in my rear-view mirror a number of outbound cars perform illegal u-turns over the median strip and high-tail it down Bindubi Street when they spotted the booze bus up ahead.

I was a little surprised that the RBT operation was set up in a place where people could see it a long way off and take action to avoid it. I was also surprised that there wasn’t a least 1 police officer stationed down near the Bindubi Street lights ready to catch people trying to avoid the breathalyser.

Most of all, I was furious at the pricks who were driving drunk on the road and avoiding responsibility for breaking the law.

Should the police be more careful about policing those avoiding the RBTs? Should there be much more severe penalties for drink drivers caught trying to avoid the tests? Am I wrong, and was there a police car further down Bindubi Street testing people there are well? Why is the site of RBT operations so rare that drink drivers figure it is worth taking the risk driving home drunk?

As for those of you who think it is ok to get behind the wheel when you’re drunk, I can only assume you have never experienced the grief of having a loved one killed by a drink driver. To me, the current punishments handed out to you do not reflect the severity of the crime you are committing.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
55 Responses to RBT Avoiders
Filter
Order
1 2 3 Next »
DrKoresh DrKoresh 4:32 pm 04 Aug 12

+1
I whole-heartedly agree, drunk-drivers are scum, and I was always shocked on the drive home to Tuggers after finishing work at Flatheads in O’Connor on a Friday night that there were almost never any RBT units set up along the way. Honestly, I can count the number of times the missus and I saw an RBT van on the way home on one-hand. And we were driving from one side of town to the other on the busiest roads in Canberra.

If I were an amoral piece of shit then I certainly wouldn’t be deterred from getting behind the wheel after a bit of a bender.

screaming banshee screaming banshee 4:54 pm 04 Aug 12

What current punishments? Don’t they just have to sit in front of an apologetic magistrate for 30 minutes and promise not to do it (yet) again

Nightshade Nightshade 4:59 pm 04 Aug 12

Not sure if it’s still the case, but for a long time I used to go to a class every Thursday evening, and at least once a month (it felt like more often) there would be an RBT set up in exactly the same place on my way home. It may have been on public service pay day, though I never paid enough attention to figure that out. I always wondered why they made it so predictable. I suppose it would catch one-off drinkers, but anyone in the habit of going out drinking on Thursday nights would have caught on just as I did and taken a different route home if they were concerned.

JC JC 5:05 pm 04 Aug 12

They should have set up a lot closer to Coulter Drive out of sight and have someone waiting for the illegal u-turners.

Once saw a silly RBT at the back of Higgins on Drake Brockman Drive. The RBT was set-up just past Kinsella Street in plain view, so easy to just turn to avoid it without being obvious.

farnarkler farnarkler 5:11 pm 04 Aug 12

What disgusts me the most is there are a number of lawyers who actively advertise that they’ll help you if you get caught drink driving. FFS if you do the crime, you do the time.

bundah bundah 5:35 pm 04 Aug 12

The question of whether there should be more severe penalties for those attempting to avoid being breath tested is secondary to the real question of why we are so lenient on those caught drink or drug driving.I suspect that most who take the risk do so because they know they will get a small fine and on average a 3 month licence suspension for their first offence.So what we therefore have is no real fear of consequence and the attitude of let’s take the risk and hope for the best.
I would like to see something akin to the Swedish model implemented and see whether that changes their mind.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 6:22 pm 04 Aug 12

farnarkler said :

What disgusts me the most is there are a number of lawyers who actively advertise that they’ll help you if you get caught drink driving. FFS if you do the crime, you do the time.

Criminal lawyers are just about as unethical and human trash as the scum they represent.

I would love to see permanent rbt teams in Canberra, moving positions constantly and running 24/7

DrKoresh DrKoresh 6:54 pm 04 Aug 12

bundah said :

The question of whether there should be more severe penalties for those attempting to avoid being breath tested is secondary to the real question of why we are so lenient on those caught drink or drug driving.I suspect that most who take the risk do so because they know they will get a small fine and on average a 3 month licence suspension for their first offence.So what we therefore have is no real fear of consequence and the attitude of let’s take the risk and hope for the best.
I would like to see something akin to the Swedish model implemented and see whether that changes their mind.

I’d implement a Swedish model any day.

Felix the Cat Felix the Cat 8:47 pm 04 Aug 12

I don’t understand why the cops don’t pick a pub/club every Friday and Saturday night and set up a RBT around the corner, they would get dozens of DUIs, rather than a road like Parkes Way or Drake Brockman Dr where as mentioned all the drunks can see the RBT a mile away and turn down a side street. It’s like the cops aren’t really interested in catching anybody.

LSWCHP LSWCHP 9:30 pm 04 Aug 12

I’m with Jethro on this. I’ve had family members killed by a drunk driver. Scofflaw Recidivist drunk drivers in particular should be locked up for a long time.

Jethro Jethro 1:19 am 05 Aug 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

farnarkler said :

What disgusts me the most is there are a number of lawyers who actively advertise that they’ll help you if you get caught drink driving. FFS if you do the crime, you do the time.

Criminal lawyers are just about as unethical and human trash as the scum they represent.

I would love to see permanent rbt teams in Canberra, moving positions constantly and running 24/7

I’m all for more RBTs and more severe punishments given to those caught driving while drunk.

But I’m not going to criticise lawyers who defend drunk drivers, I believe in the rule of law and the right to a fair legal defense too much.

There are plenty of crimes I abhor – drink driving, pedophilia, armed robbery, murder, break and enter, the list goes on.

nonetheless, I strongly believe in the right of the defendant to access fair and competent attorneys who will work to defend them. It’s how our legal system works.

The way I see it, there are many crimes and criminals we find abhorrent – surely all of us have a right to defend ourselves against such charges?

DrKoresh DrKoresh 3:33 am 05 Aug 12

Jethro said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Criminal lawyers are just about as unethical and human trash as the scum they represent.

I would love to see permanent rbt teams in Canberra, moving positions constantly and running 24/7

I’m all for more RBTs and more severe punishments given to those caught driving while drunk.

But I’m not going to criticise lawyers who defend drunk drivers, I believe in the rule of law and the right to a fair legal defense too much.

There are plenty of crimes I abhor – drink driving, pedophilia, armed robbery, murder, break and enter, the list goes on.

nonetheless, I strongly believe in the right of the defendant to access fair and competent attorneys who will work to defend them. It’s how our legal system works.

The way I see it, there are many crimes and criminals we find abhorrent – surely all of us have a right to defend ourselves against such charges?

I’m with Jethro, calling them human garbage is a bit much. Everyone is entitled to representation in court, and while I agree with you that there are a great many slimy defence attourneys, they do a necessary job and to dismiss them all as unethical scum is something only a lack wit would do.

I have respect for someone who will do their best to provide an individual with the representation they’re entitled to under our legal system without judgement. We still run on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and a good lawyer works on that principle. Of course there are amoral money-grubbers out there, but it’s supremely unfair to paint all lawyers with the same brush.

One One 4:33 am 05 Aug 12

-1

Shame the union regulated working police wont do it for both directions from 7am on Monday morning, the next day, and the day after that, plus another one, and one for the quota.

While there – I bet 0.04 while on Medical Valium is still good to go.

Evil_Kitten Evil_Kitten 5:11 am 05 Aug 12

Those big regular operations aren’t the only ones around town. Just because you don’t see random ones in the suburbs (and why would you if you don’t live in that suburb) doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

I got breathalised at my local high school at about 5pm a few months ago.

And more recently at the end of the Tuggeranong Parkway where it becomes Drakeford Drive at about midnight on a SUNDAY in the freezing cold. It was just a lone cop car with 2 officers. I had come from the northside was literally the only car on the road. I think they were grateful for a customer lol

So it’s not always the ‘expected’ 3am, major road out of Civic, on a Saturday night. To those saying it’s predictable and easy to avoid the known spots, there’s no way in hell I’d risk it! In all the years I’ve been driving, mine have pretty much all been random times and places like above!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 9:30 am 05 Aug 12

Jethro said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

farnarkler said :

What disgusts me the most is there are a number of lawyers who actively advertise that they’ll help you if you get caught drink driving. FFS if you do the crime, you do the time.

Criminal lawyers are just about as unethical and human trash as the scum they represent.

I would love to see permanent rbt teams in Canberra, moving positions constantly and running 24/7

I’m all for more RBTs and more severe punishments given to those caught driving while drunk.

But I’m not going to criticise lawyers who defend drunk drivers, I believe in the rule of law and the right to a fair legal defense too much.

There are plenty of crimes I abhor – drink driving, pedophilia, armed robbery, murder, break and enter, the list goes on.

nonetheless, I strongly believe in the right of the defendant to access fair and competent attorneys who will work to defend them. It’s how our legal system works.

The way I see it, there are many crimes and criminals we find abhorrent – surely all of us have a right to defend ourselves against such charges?

Why should you even be given the chance to defend yourself if you blow a high range alcohol level, or if you are caught having sex with a child?
To find such things abhorrent, you cannot then go on to say the offenders deserve a right to defend themselves.
I know it’s how our legal system works, but clearly, as has been proven, our legal system is incredibly broken.

HenryBG HenryBG 9:49 am 05 Aug 12

“Drink-driving” covers people who have breached a completely arbitrary level of alcohol in their blood.

In different places, at different times, that blood alcohol level varies from .00, .01, .02, .05, .08, .11

The fact that a variety of limits exist reveals that this number is completely arbitrary and carries no intrinsic Truth.

Demonising “drink-drivers” for failing to adhere to an arbitrary limit most of us treat with contempt (including members of the legal fraternity including magistrates and judges) is stupid.

How about demonising bad drivers instead? You know, the drivers who get behind a wheel and actually cause damage to property and injury to persons?

Because nothing will convince me (nor many of my fellow citizens, obviously) that driving with a BAC of 0.07 is an intrinsically unethical or immoral thing to do. It’s just another tool of government oppression.

And LSWCHP, your relatives weren’t killed by somebody who happened to be drinking. They were killed by somebody who drove badly. Most people can drink to well over .05 and not drive badly. Threatening to lock people up for crimes *others* have committed is a repulsive approach Stalin would have approved of.

HenryBG HenryBG 9:52 am 05 Aug 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Why should you even be given the chance to defend yourself if you blow a high range alcohol level, or if you are caught having sex with a child?

Has the person who did “blow a high range alcohol level” caused damage to property or injury to persons?

Because if they haven’t then you have no victim and your comparing the supposed “offence” to paedophilia is idiotic hyperbole.

bundah bundah 10:34 am 05 Aug 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

farnarkler said :

What disgusts me the most is there are a number of lawyers who actively advertise that they’ll help you if you get caught drink driving. FFS if you do the crime, you do the time.

Criminal lawyers are just about as unethical and human trash as the scum they represent.

I would love to see permanent rbt teams in Canberra, moving positions constantly and running 24/7

I’m all for more RBTs and more severe punishments given to those caught driving while drunk.

But I’m not going to criticise lawyers who defend drunk drivers, I believe in the rule of law and the right to a fair legal defense too much.

There are plenty of crimes I abhor – drink driving, pedophilia, armed robbery, murder, break and enter, the list goes on.

nonetheless, I strongly believe in the right of the defendant to access fair and competent attorneys who will work to defend them. It’s how our legal system works.

The way I see it, there are many crimes and criminals we find abhorrent – surely all of us have a right to defend ourselves against such charges?

Why should you even be given the chance to defend yourself if you blow a high range alcohol level, or if you are caught having sex with a child?
To find such things abhorrent, you cannot then go on to say the offenders deserve a right to defend themselves.
I know it’s how our legal system works, but clearly, as has been proven, our legal system is incredibly broken.

To state the bleedin’ obvious of course everyone had the right to defend themselves however abhorrent their actions.By the same token the judiciary is empowered to make them accountable for their actions.Would it be fair to say that the reason you believe that the ‘legal system is broke’ is largely due to lenient sentencing?

Grrrr Grrrr 11:23 am 05 Aug 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Why should you even be given the chance to defend yourself if you blow a high range alcohol level, or if you are caught having sex with a child?

Yeah – and anyone found holding a bloody knife should go straight to jail for life, no trial required. Or perhaps just left to you to administer some swift Bat-justice!

bundah bundah 1:18 pm 05 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

“Drink-driving” covers people who have breached a completely arbitrary level of alcohol in their blood.

In different places, at different times, that blood alcohol level varies from .00, .01, .02, .05, .08, .11

The fact that a variety of limits exist reveals that this number is completely arbitrary and carries no intrinsic Truth.

Demonising “drink-drivers” for failing to adhere to an arbitrary limit most of us treat with contempt (including members of the legal fraternity including magistrates and judges) is stupid.

How about demonising bad drivers instead? You know, the drivers who get behind a wheel and actually cause damage to property and injury to persons?

Because nothing will convince me (nor many of my fellow citizens, obviously) that driving with a BAC of 0.07 is an intrinsically unethical or immoral thing to do. It’s just another tool of government oppression.

And LSWCHP, your relatives weren’t killed by somebody who happened to be drinking. They were killed by somebody who drove badly. Most people can drink to well over .05 and not drive badly. Threatening to lock people up for crimes *others* have committed is a repulsive approach Stalin would have approved of.

Given that statistics reveal that one in four road deaths involve drivers with a blood alcohol level over 0.05 do you still believe that the reason for those deaths is due to poor driving skills and not intoxication?

1 2 3 Next »

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site