Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

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
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 9:16 am 06 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

snoopydoc said :

(SNIP a whole lot of particularly ineffectual assertions)

1. By this definition, drink-driving is currently legal. Well done for proving my point for me.

2. What is *my* limit? If there are various limits that apply to various people, why is an arbitrary limit that takes no account of my circumstances applicable to me?

3. There is no Truth to the assertion that 0.05 is safe while 0.06 is unsafe, so threatening to lock people up is a complete injustice.

4. The fact that such a large proportion of drivers treat the legal blood ethanol level limit with contempt is worrying. The fact that you clearly (a) think that’s okay, and (b) hold the same opinion is also very worrying.

5. Somebody can driving with a BAC above any arbitrary limit that might be applicable and drive perfectly within all the normal bounds expected of as licensed driver. Therefore the BAC is no indication of their ability to drive properly and safely.

6. There is nothing intrinsically unethical about breaching an arbitrary law invented by wowsers and control freaks.

7. It is a plain fact that most people can drive perfectly safely with a BAC higher than any of the arbitrary limits that might be applicable to them.

Would you prefer the law allows drink driving for every body and just deal with the consequences after the accidentsd?

HenryBG HenryBG 8:17 am 06 Aug 12

snoopydoc said :

(SNIP a whole lot of particularly ineffectual assertions)

1. By this definition, drink-driving is currently legal. Well done for proving my point for me.

2. What is *my* limit? If there are various limits that apply to various people, why is an arbitrary limit that takes no account of my circumstances applicable to me?

3. There is no Truth to the assertion that 0.05 is safe while 0.06 is unsafe, so threatening to lock people up is a complete injustice.

4. The fact that such a large proportion of drivers treat the legal blood ethanol level limit with contempt is worrying. The fact that you clearly (a) think that’s okay, and (b) hold the same opinion is also very worrying.

5. Somebody can driving with a BAC above any arbitrary limit that might be applicable and drive perfectly within all the normal bounds expected of as licensed driver. Therefore the BAC is no indication of their ability to drive properly and safely.

6. There is nothing intrinsically unethical about breaching an arbitrary law invented by wowsers and control freaks.

7. It is a plain fact that most people can drive perfectly safely with a BAC higher than any of the arbitrary limits that might be applicable to them.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 6:46 am 06 Aug 12

LegalNut said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well can any of you peeps tell me for what reason somebody should legally be aloud to drive with high range blood alcohol level or to molest a chid? There are some thing that are inexcusable and the people that defend them are on the same level.

So you are essentially arguing that people get locked up without trial?

I can’t see any problems with that…..

Why should you have the chance to defend your self when caught by the police with high range? What’s in dispute?

Was the breathalyser working properly and properly calibrated? Was the breathalyser accepted at law to be suitably accurate for the purpose? Did the police officer properly administer the test to ensure it was accurate? Was the person administering the test actually authorised to do so? Are there extenuating circumstances which the law recognises as a legitimate defence to the alleged conduct?

There are so many things that can realistically and properly be in dispute. I understand that you don’t think that those things should matter but if all of those ducks aren’t in a row, how can we say that we actually know that a person does have an unlawful blood alcohol content.

Well I guess when you put it like that, but how realistic is it that all those things would happen?

Jethro Jethro 6:18 am 06 Aug 12

Popsicle said :

It’s the sight of RBT operations that you think is so rare. Not the site. By the sound of it they are quite easy to sight when so sited. Hope this makes sense without the need to cite.

I realised the mistake after posting.

HenryBG HenryBG 5:21 am 06 Aug 12

LegalNut said :

For instance, the ability to require a person to undergo an evidentiary test without probable cause or other justification to suspect an offence doesn’t fly in other areas (for instance, murder).

Precisely.

On the other hand, to echo LSWCHP, some relatives of mine were once raped by a man, so I think the police should conduct roadside stops to catch everybody in possession of a penis who should be locked up on account of their potential to rape people.

harvyk1 harvyk1 2:30 am 06 Aug 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Why should you have the chance to defend your self when caught by the police with high range? What’s in dispute?

The ability to challenge any accusation made against you by the police means that an officer can’t just take a dislike to you and start handing out fines, as any one of those fines they may have to stand up in court and prove the offence actually happened.

The way it works is pretty simple, the police alleged that you are DUI, now if you accept the fine on the spot you admit guilt on the spot, if you don’t accept the fine on the spot and instead take the matter to court it is then up to the court to determine guilt or innocence. Remember that your not actually guilty of DUI until you either accept the polices fine (and technically your not actually considered guilty until you pay the fine), or a magistrate states you are.

Whilst it might seem trivial or stupid to you, this ability to challenge an accusation in a court of law is one of the founding principals of most of the western worlds legals systems, you get to defend yourself against any accusation regardless of how trivial or serious the accusation is. Another part of the legal system is that you have the right to have someone who is familiar with the law defend you against any allegation.

LegalNut LegalNut 9:01 pm 05 Aug 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well can any of you peeps tell me for what reason somebody should legally be aloud to drive with high range blood alcohol level or to molest a chid? There are some thing that are inexcusable and the people that defend them are on the same level.

So you are essentially arguing that people get locked up without trial?

I can’t see any problems with that…..

Why should you have the chance to defend your self when caught by the police with high range? What’s in dispute?

Was the breathalyser working properly and properly calibrated? Was the breathalyser accepted at law to be suitably accurate for the purpose? Did the police officer properly administer the test to ensure it was accurate? Was the person administering the test actually authorised to do so? Are there extenuating circumstances which the law recognises as a legitimate defence to the alleged conduct?

There are so many things that can realistically and properly be in dispute. I understand that you don’t think that those things should matter but if all of those ducks aren’t in a row, how can we say that we actually know that a person does have an unlawful blood alcohol content.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 8:16 pm 05 Aug 12

Jethro said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well can any of you peeps tell me for what reason somebody should legally be aloud to drive with high range blood alcohol level or to molest a chid? There are some thing that are inexcusable and the people that defend them are on the same level.

So you are essentially arguing that people get locked up without trial?

I can’t see any problems with that…..

Why should you have the chance to defend your self when caught by the police with high range? What’s in dispute?

Popsicle Popsicle 8:07 pm 05 Aug 12

It’s the sight of RBT operations that you think is so rare. Not the site. By the sound of it they are quite easy to sight when so sited. Hope this makes sense without the need to cite.

bundah bundah 7:30 pm 05 Aug 12

Jethro said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well can any of you peeps tell me for what reason somebody should legally be aloud to drive with high range blood alcohol level or to molest a chid? There are some thing that are inexcusable and the people that defend them are on the same level.

So you are essentially arguing that people get locked up without trial?

I can’t see any problems with that…..

Yeah so much time wasting at taxpayers expense. Chuck ’em in there and throw away the key!

snoopydoc snoopydoc 7:23 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.

Oh, Henry… Henry… Henry… Can people help me out here? Is this guy a bored semi-retired professional troll, or does he _really_ think like this?

1. If you’re worried about the variation in definitions of unacceptable blood ethanol levels while driving, there’s a great way to simplify and standardise it: Drink-driving = drinking alcohol, and then driving. No particular numbers required.

2. The fact that there are varying upper limits placed on legally accepted blood ethanol levels according to jurisdiction, type of license held, and age is _not_ evidence that placing any given legal limit on blood ethanol level whilst driving is completely arbitrary. Such an assertion is merely a hypothesis based on suggestive anecdotal data, subjectively interpreted. Please buy any good introductory book on deductive/inductive logic, or indeed introductory statistics, for further detail.

3. You assert that the legally defined limit for blood ethanol level whilst driving “carries no intrinsic Truth.”. Firstly, “truth” is not a proper noun and is therefore not usually capitalised. Secondly, the concept of a number in some way possessing or representing “intrinsic truth” is nonsensical. Thirdly, the term “intrinsic truth” is itself nonsensical. Fourthly, what I suspect you meant by the above very fuzzily-worded statement is that you think that the fact that there exists considerable variation in the specific upper limit of legally acceptable blood ethanol level somehow a rational basis for the assertion that the assignment of any particular upper limit is not evidence-based. This is faulty logic (please see point no. 2). (Note: If you are a Douglas Adams fan, and assert that 42 holds some intrinsic truth… well… maybe I’ll cut you a little slack). 😉

4. The fact that such a large proportion of drivers treat the legal blood ethanol level limit with contempt is worrying. The fact that you clearly (a) think that’s okay, and (b) hold the same opinion is also very worrying.

5. The very decision to drive while intoxicated defines one as a bad driver. Please read this point again until it sinks in.

6. Driving with a blood ethanol level of 0.07% is unethical, immoral, dangerous, irresponsible, and just plain stupid. The third and fourth reasons mentioned are why it is also illegal and a criminal offence.

7. The fact that you have already decided that nothing will convince you that driving with a blood ethanol level of 0.07% is a bad thing, and that you think most people can be intoxicated to a level well beyond 0.05% and not drive badly is, quite simply, evidence of your ignorance… as well as being very scary.

I am curious to know, Henry, given your stated attitude, whether you yourself regularly get behind the wheel on the roads that I share when you are intoxicated, perhaps well over 0.05% or at 0.07% and “not driving badly”?

Please take some time to check some of the information in the various reports and databases available online under the Safety heading on the Austroads website, if you would like to redress your ignorance:

http://www.austroads.com.au/

Deref Deref 6:19 pm 05 Aug 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well can any of you peeps…

You’re calling is small yellow marshmallow chickens?

Jethro Jethro 6:08 pm 05 Aug 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well can any of you peeps tell me for what reason somebody should legally be aloud to drive with high range blood alcohol level or to molest a chid? There are some thing that are inexcusable and the people that defend them are on the same level.

So you are essentially arguing that people get locked up without trial?

I can’t see any problems with that…..

LegalNut LegalNut 6:06 pm 05 Aug 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well can any of you peeps tell me for what reason somebody should legally be aloud to drive with high range blood alcohol level or to molest a chid? There are some thing that are inexcusable and the people that defend them are on the same level.

Because we rely on laws to tell us what we can and cannot do and if those laws are not followed to the letter by both the individual and the State, then it leads to all sort of problems. On the one hand, no laws leads to a reckless and lawless state while enforcement of laws that don’t exist creates an arbitrary and inhumane justice system a la Syria.

The fact is that the law provides for a range of protections designe to ensure that those who are caused have actually committed a crime. In some cases this means the guilty get off but that is the price you pay to minimise the number of innocent who end up convicted.

In the case of drink driving, we have already provided a significant number of allowances to the State. For instance, the ability to require a person to undergo an evidentiary test without probable cause or other justification to suspect an offence doesn’t fly in other areas (for instance, murder). Thus, it makes sense that the police must dot every I and cross every T to have valid evidence and if that means a few people get off because the police use a non-gazetted breath analyser or for some other reason, I’m happy to live with that.

thehutch thehutch 5:26 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.

Everyday when I wake up, the feeling of Government oppression takes hold. I no longer know if i’m living in North Korea or the ACT. There can be no doubt that the Government and their officials are determined to find ways to further oppress Australian citizens. They have started with this magical 0.05 BAC figure – this is not about safety, it is about making all our lives more difficult and keeping us under their control. The Government does this for fun. We must revolt. We must all go and drink as much as we can and get behind the wheel of our cars. We must show these demon Government oppressors that they are their scientific studies have as much credibility as China’s human rights record. Do not fear the other citizens driving around with BAC’s of 0.07, 0.11 or 4.99, these figures are arbitrary and part of the evil Governments plan to SCARE you. It is fact that MOST of you treat the oppressors arbitrary BAC limit with contempt (I’ve know as I’ve asked everyone in my circle) and I congratulate you for taking on this evil Government regime. Finally my fellow revolutionary’s, when you are driving around, thinking perfectly clearly after downing 3 beers in an hour, you must hunt down other ‘bad drivers’ on the road… they must be found and demonised. They are the true evil – not us innocent people driving around after consuming a mind affecting substance.

“NOT DRINKING AND DRIVING? YOU BLOODY IDIOT!”

lobster lobster 5:10 pm 05 Aug 12

To be fair – the people doing u turns might not have been drink driving.

They might only have been driving without a license, driving without rego, driving an unsafe car, or simply driving a stolen car.

But on the other hand it might not be so evil. Might just have been running late and didn’t feel the need to stop.

dpm dpm 3:45 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.

Hahahaha! Spoken by someone who got caught (but avoided penalty?) DUI! Another example of Henry hating crime (and crims), unless it inconveniences him! Then it’s ok to break the law – and he’ll tell you why that law is all-of-a-sudden stupid! Hahahaha!!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 1:26 pm 05 Aug 12

Well can any of you peeps tell me for what reason somebody should legally be aloud to drive with high range blood alcohol level or to molest a chid? There are some thing that are inexcusable and the people that defend them are on the same level.

Jethro Jethro 1:25 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.

Apart from the mountains of research that show drinking while under the influence of alcohol slows your reaction time, makes you more likely to take unnecessary risks and more likely to be involved in an accident. Driving is not a right and the government is perfectly justified in setting and enforcing rules that regulate your behaviour when driving.

Jethro Jethro 1:21 pm 05 Aug 12

Evil_Kitten said :

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!

I’ve been living in this town for close to 6 years and have been tested once, at about 8:00pm on a Friday evening driving out of civic.

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