22 March 2011

Recidivist drink drivers

| johnboy
Join the conversation
38

More than a third of people caught drink driving in the past week were repeat offenders; with thirty one people caught in total. Twelve people were caught on Friday (March 18) alone.

A 28-year-old man recorded 0.297, the highest recording for the week. The man is restricted to a 0.00 limit.

A 25-year-old man, on a 0.05 licence, recorded the next highest reading with 0.231; while a 22-year-old female 0.05 licence holder recorded 0.200.

With the ACT road toll at four, Superintendent Mark Colbran is urging the community to support the police message that drinking and driving is unacceptable.

“The fact that we continue to catch repeat offenders tells us those who think it’s ok to drink and drive are just not getting the message.

“I urge anyone who knows someone who drinks and drive to make a stand. Tell them that their actions are unacceptable. Notify the police. We will not tolerate the lives of our friends and family being put in danger,” he said.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

Join the conversation

38
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

screaming banshee said :

As far as I am concerned, drink drivers can all f*** off and die. I would be very content with a death penalty for the offence.

Slightly harsh, don’t you think? First of all, when somebody drives drunk, they have made that decision whilst already under the influence of alcohol (which has been shown repeatedly to reduce ones ability to make responsible decisions). Secondly, the percentage of fatal crashes which involve drivers over-the-limit is anywhere from 12.8% (2001 study in the U.S) to 32% (2006 study in Australia), and the percentage (again to quote from American sources here) of people injured in crashes involving drink-driving (versus those involved in crashes where no alcohol is consumed) is between 3.22% and 7%.

Finally, it has been proven that talking on a mobile phone impairs ones ability to drive more so than being under the influence of alcohol, yet I don’t see you up in arms demanding the death penalty for somebody guilty of chatting to their wife about dinner on their way home from work. Maybe you should re-think your apparent propensity for being an alarmist, ignorant arm-chair critic. You want to make a difference, how about instead of offering to kill other human beings for committing benign crimes, you get out and volunteer to be a counsellor to struggling alcoholics and actually help somebody get their life back.

shadow boxer11:50 am 24 Mar 11

Special G said :

Healthy liver metabolises about 0.025/hour regardless of body weight, sex or hair colour.

Drinks like vodka/red bulls get people in trouble as the large amounts of caffeine mask the alcohol effects to a degree.

Really ? then why is the advice on what you can drink different for women and men

screaming banshee10:37 am 24 Mar 11

As far as I am concerned, drink drivers can all f*** off and die. I would be very content with a death penalty for the offence.

screaming banshee said :

Me no fry said :

It probably isn’t worth taking.

You’ve missed the point me no fry, we don’t want their liver…that goes in the trash. Lets see them down a carton short a liver.

Actually, no I didn’t. I understood quite well what you meant. You really are a banshee, aren’t you?

Healthy liver metabolises about 0.025/hour regardless of body weight, sex or hair colour.

Drinks like vodka/red bulls get people in trouble as the large amounts of caffeine mask the alcohol effects to a degree.

farnarkler said :

In this discussion nothing of the offender’s friends have been mentioned. Surely the offender isn’t sitting drinking alone and then decides to drive.

What sort of person lets a friend who’s obviously had more than a few get behind the wheel?

Ahhh…I suspect it would be the sort of drunken arsehat friend who has also had several skinfulls with their mate at the club/pub, and has climbed into their car equally pissed and driven off in the other direction because they know they’re drunk but don’t give a shit about the law or the potentially fatal consequences of their actions.

Me and members of my family and our friends have suffered because of drunk drivers. I hate the bastards with a passion.

screaming banshee11:06 pm 23 Mar 11

Me no fry said :

It probably isn’t worth taking.

You’ve missed the point me no fry, we don’t want their liver…that goes in the trash. Lets see them down a carton short a liver.

In this discussion nothing of the offender’s friends have been mentioned. Surely the offender isn’t sitting drinking alone and then decides to drive.

What sort of person lets a friend who’s obviously had more than a few get behind the wheel?

Jethro said :

eily said :

And how many were repectable people, caught the next morning over (just) the limit after doing the right thing the night before and not driving but thought themselves right to drive after a good nights sleep?

A respectable person would realise that a couple hours sleep doesn’t sober you up. Time does. I don’t drive the next day if I had a really big one the night before.

I’m not talking about the ones who had a bender the night before, just the mum and dad drinkers who only have a couple. But though age/weight/sex etc don’t clear the alcohol from their systems as fast, as in the past,we have been told we do.

How many still believe that two/three in an hour will put you over the limit and one an hour will keep you there. If your one of the unlucky ones, just one will put you over the limit.

And were do they tell us how long it could take to clear our systems.

Some people may take only a couple of hours, some over twelve. There’s a reason pilots can’t have a drink 24 hours before they take to the air.

Someone I know went to a drug/alcohol information course and the number of caught drivers who fell into that category of being over in the morning, and not after a heavy night, were in the majority. Including, he was told, police, lawyers and others who you think would know better.

If they don’t know how much they can drink and how long it takes to leave their systems, what hope do the rest of us have.

And before you go off again; I don’t condone the drivers who knowingly drink drive. Those ones need the book thrown at them. Hanged, drawn and quartered, and whatevers left being made to go out with the ambos and seeing the consequences of their stupidity/idiocy. That might get the point across.

But until we change our ideas about drinking, I very much doubt it.

OpenYourMind5:41 pm 23 Mar 11

Shadow Boxer I think you are still missing the point. The repeat offender example you use has already taken the decision to put at risk the wife & kids transport and also other people’s lives. The punishment of taking the car is to protect everyone else.

Sure, John Laws (if he was a repeat offender) may not be harmed by losing a car in the same way he probably wouldn’t feel a $1500 fine.

… public humiliation scheme: couple of pages in the paper and some community service tv ads set aside for publishing photos, names, alcohol levels and number of offences, for second and subsequent offences.

*ducks under desk, anticipating incoming human rights/privacy lecture*

georgesgenitals12:05 pm 23 Mar 11

shadow boxer said :

You seem to think these are rational, reasonable people who think about the consequences of their actions before they do them.

People who are rational and reasonable generally aren’t recidivists. They might occasionally do the wrong thing, but getting caught multiple times for high range drink driving?

shadow boxer11:53 am 23 Mar 11

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

johnboy said :

On the other hand wives might take their husband’s drinking more seriously if it could lost them the car.

Agree

You seem to think these are rational, reasonable people who think about the consequences of their actions before they do them.

The fine for a second or third offence is probably more than the car is worth but that doesn’t stop them. My guess is they do this every week and getting caught occasionaly is just the cost of their lifestyle.

It’s probably only jail that will help but again that’s not a proven deterrent either

Rawhide Kid Part311:44 am 23 Mar 11

johnboy said :

On the other hand wives might take their husband’s drinking more seriously if it could lost them the car.

Agree

Rawhide Kid Part311:29 am 23 Mar 11

pptvb said :

Make them do community service caring for an incapacitated road accident victim for a week.
Having to wipe a 30yr olds bum might get them to see reality.
Oh, and crush their car.

No…. Sell the cars at auction and the money raised can go into driver education or health or something like that.

Rawhide Kid Part311:25 am 23 Mar 11

Spideydog said :

Davo111 said :

Having said that. If you knowingly loan your car to a driver who has no license, then you’re asking for trouble.

Its actually illegal.

True. The owner of the vehicle is responsible for the use of that vehicle unless its is used without their permission.

On the other hand wives might take their husband’s drinking more seriously if it could lost them the car.

screaming banshee said :

Let them keep their car, but take their liver.

It probably isn’t worth taking.

I think that any punishment that involves mandatory confiscation will always end up hurting people other than the intended target.

Instead of taking their cars, take their liberty. Mandatory imprisonment for repeat DUI offenders sounds like a good idea to me – with the length of the sentence increasing for subsequent offences. Just like taking their cars, it might not make them mend their ways in the long term, but at least they can’t drink and drive while in gaol.

For recidivist drivers, probably a regime similar to sports people caught taking drugs. The drunk driver is required to present themselves to a police station on a regular basis for a breath test, at a time when they’re most likely to have been drinking.

Or, implement a targeted breath testing programe, set up breath testing stations near their place of residence, or even target those repeat offender drivers for extra testing.

shadow boxer10:19 am 23 Mar 11

OpenYourMind said :

If taking the car away penalises the poor more than the rich, then how much more is the ‘poor’ repeat drink driver going to be penalised if he/she totals the car and also does other property and personal damage to him/herself and others? There’s a chance that the ‘poor’ person may well take out another innocent honest hard working but poor person. Also, generally speaking the rich have more expensive cars so the fine is kinda proportional!

For a bloke with a user name open your mind, you need to think a bit more, the impact on the wife and kids of taking away and crushing the family car because the husband is a d#ckhead is far different than taking one of John Laws 55 cars away, he just buys another one.

Crushing works for street offences as the people doing this tend to be young people with a lot invested in the vehicle.

eily said :

And how many were repectable people, caught the next morning over (just) the limit after doing the right thing the night before and not driving but thought themselves right to drive after a good nights sleep?

A respectable person would realise that a couple hours sleep doesn’t sober you up. Time does. I don’t drive the next day if I had a really big one the night before.

OpenYourMind11:17 pm 22 Mar 11

If taking the car away penalises the poor more than the rich, then how much more is the ‘poor’ repeat drink driver going to be penalised if he/she totals the car and also does other property and personal damage to him/herself and others? There’s a chance that the ‘poor’ person may well take out another innocent honest hard working but poor person. Also, generally speaking the rich have more expensive cars so the fine is kinda proportional!

0.297 is effectively 6 times the legal limit.

Scumbag murderous bastard piece of filth.

shadow boxer said :

OpenYourMind said :

can someone make one valid argument against taking the cars from repeat offenders.

It’s inequitable ie penalizes the poor more than the rich, it may be the wiifes car should I go on

No, it penalises the stupid. Money isn’t a contributing factor.

Make them do community service caring for an incapacitated road accident victim for a week.
Having to wipe a 30yr olds bum might get them to see reality.
Oh, and crush their car.

But how many were caught over (just) the following morning after doing the right thing the night before, thinking themselves fine to drive after a good nights sleep?

screaming banshee8:18 pm 22 Mar 11

Let them keep their car, but take their liver. Hell, give them a gift voucher for the bottleshop in exchange for it.

Davo111 said :

Having said that. If you knowingly loan your car to a driver who has no license, then you’re asking for trouble.

Its actually illegal.

And how many were repectable people, caught the next morning over (just) the limit after doing the right thing the night before and not driving but thought themselves right to drive after a good nights sleep?

These repeat offenders clearly have drinking problems. So my question is, is there any sort of substance abuse programmes they could be forced to undergo? Is that already happening?

The current approach to drink driving is obviously not working. People have mentioned confiscation of cars. It is an option. There have to be others (breathalyser locks have been mentioned).

Whatever the solution is, drink driving (particularly recidivist drink driving) needs to be dealt with way more harshly than it is.

georgesgenitals7:27 pm 22 Mar 11

OpenYourMind said :

can someone make one valid argument against taking the cars from repeat offenders.

It doesn’t stop them from driving.

shadow boxer7:10 pm 22 Mar 11

OpenYourMind said :

can someone make one valid argument against taking the cars from repeat offenders.

It’s inequitable ie penalizes the poor more than the rich, it may be the wiifes car should I go on

OpenYourMind said :

can someone make one valid argument against taking the cars from repeat offenders.

Its the same argument as hoon car confiscation – if the car doesn’t belong to the driver its not fair on the owner.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/91493/lamborghini-gallardo-mechanic-denies-160kmh-road-test-allegation/

Having said that. If you knowingly loan your car to a driver who has no license, then you’re asking for trouble.

Rawhide Kid Part36:35 pm 22 Mar 11

Take their cars, take their cars, take their cars…………..

OpenYourMind5:20 pm 22 Mar 11

can someone make one valid argument against taking the cars from repeat offenders.

“A 28-year-old man recorded 0.297, the highest recording for the week. The man is restricted to a 0.00 limit.”

Clearly to set that high score he was not “restricted” by anything, or anyone.

“A 25-year-old man, on a 0.05 licence, recorded the next highest reading with 0.231”

This was the same jerk who managed to smash into an occupied stationary vehicle while travelling faster than the speed limit. In this case I think the outcome of his actions are more important than reporting the figure.

0.297… good lord. They probably noticed him by the trail of vomit he was issuing from the driver’s side window.

colourful sydney racing identity2:34 pm 22 Mar 11

I am not normally a subscriber to the ‘take their cars away’ point of view, but, I really don’t know what else you do with these recidivists. If you don’t get the message after being caught once, what will make you learn?

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.