Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Simon proposes interlocks for drunk drivers

By johnboy - 7 August 2012 17

Simon Corbell has let it be known that he’s pushing out an exposure draft trying to slow down Canberra’s rampant recidivist drink drivers:

ACT Attorney General, Simon Corbell, has today released for comment, an exposure draft bill that could see a mandatory alcohol interlock program in cars to prevent high-risk drink drivers from getting behind the wheel if they had been drinking.

“Around 1500 people were caught drink driving in the ACT in 2010-11, and alarmingly, almost a third of these were repeat offenders,” he said.

“These are frightening statistics – drink drivers pose a significant risk not only to themselves and their passengers, but they also put the safety of other innocent drivers on our roads in jeopardy, and we know that these careless actions can lead to tragic outcomes.

“The government is seeking views from the community on an alcohol interlock program as a measure to prevent high risk people, and repeat offenders from driving after drinking to reduce their crash risk and protect others on our road.”

Mr Corbell said high-risk drink driving offenders could be required to undergo a pre-sentencing assessment to determine treatment options by the courts.

“It is proposed that the interlock program would be complementary with a treatment program that would support drivers to separate drinking and driving and promote sustainable changes in behaviour,” he said.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
17 Responses to
Simon proposes interlocks for drunk drivers
Pork Hunt 6:52 pm 07 Aug 12

farnarkler said :

Slightly off topic but I wonder if the same type of system could be used to prevent cars being stolen. Have a setup where the system detects certain individuals via their breath (DNA I’m guessing) and only allows those individuals to start the car? As for the gov’t’s idea, bring it on. It can’t do any harm.

If you blow into it can it also determine paternity via DNA? Two birds with the one stone…

Proboscus 6:14 pm 07 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

dpm said :

Oh…Henry isn’t going to like this….. People can drive perfectly fine over the limit! Or is it just him that can? Hahahaha!

Well, let’s see, shall we?

How many people were inconvenienced by being pulled over by police on no valid grounds in order to be subjected to a “random” breath test last weekend? Several thousand?
And how many people were caught drink-driving? 26?
Is that a good return on investment of police time?

What proportion of people “drink-driving” over the weekend would that 26 represent? 10%? 1%? Less?

And assuming only 260 people were drink-driving last weekend, how many drink-fuelled road carnages occurred in total? 0?

So, we inconvenience thousands of drivers (in the process breaching their civil rights to not be pestered by police in the absence of any evidence that they have done anything wrong) to catch a very small proportion of those who chose to drink-drive, not one of whom had managed to kill or main anybody anyway.

Way to go, wowsers and control-freaks – and now you want our cars taken over by wowser-bots?

If it keeps selfish retards like you off the road, then I’m all for it.

bundah 5:52 pm 07 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

Jivrashia said :

Mid range BAC is 0.08~0.15. This is where people should start getting worried, as 0.10 is where people start to talk loud and their reflexes are much slower, making them riskier in the event they are caught in an accident, irrespective of whether it was their fault or not.

What part of driver licensing sets a metric defining the required level of these “reflexes” and which part of driver licensing measures an applicant’s “reflexes” as judged against this metric?

As drivers are *not* checked for their ability to have the appropriate “reflexes” (which aren’t defined anyway) before being issued with a licence, it’s completely nonsensical to be feeding the ever-growing amoeba that is our legal system by creating laws that apparently defer to something which doesn’t actually exist.

And as you have no predefined metric which defines a driver’s capacity for “safe driving”, you have no possible way of knowing who, whether they have .01 or .11 BAC, possesses or retains the capacity for safe driving.

It’s arbitrary, it’s stupid, and it’s unjust.

So given you believe the arbitrary figure of 0.05 is a nonsense what would you do to address the fact that 30% of road deaths are attributed to alcohol consumption?

HenryBG 4:31 pm 07 Aug 12

Jivrashia said :

Mid range BAC is 0.08~0.15. This is where people should start getting worried, as 0.10 is where people start to talk loud and their reflexes are much slower, making them riskier in the event they are caught in an accident, irrespective of whether it was their fault or not.

What part of driver licensing sets a metric defining the required level of these “reflexes” and which part of driver licensing measures an applicant’s “reflexes” as judged against this metric?

As drivers are *not* checked for their ability to have the appropriate “reflexes” (which aren’t defined anyway) before being issued with a licence, it’s completely nonsensical to be feeding the ever-growing amoeba that is our legal system by creating laws that apparently defer to something which doesn’t actually exist.

And as you have no predefined metric which defines a driver’s capacity for “safe driving”, you have no possible way of knowing who, whether they have .01 or .11 BAC, possesses or retains the capacity for safe driving.

It’s arbitrary, it’s stupid, and it’s unjust.

Jivrashia 2:45 pm 07 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

How do you know that?
If they were driving with proper respect for all the road rules, why would you give a flying fart what they have in their blood?

Henry, I haven’t seen all your arguments for and/or against judging people’s capability for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Low range BAC (0.05~0.08) usually gets a simple slap on the wrist and a very short license suspension and/or fine, which I am fine with. Hopefully drivers convicted of this charge will be more careful with the drink or two after work.

“a measure to prevent high risk people, and repeat offenders from driving after drinking to reduce their crash risk and protect others on our road.”

Mid range BAC is 0.08~0.15. This is where people should start getting worried, as 0.10 is where people start to talk loud and their reflexes are much slower, making them riskier in the event they are caught in an accident, irrespective of whether it was their fault or not.

High range BAC. >0.15. I don’t think I have to describe these individuals. They shouldn’t even be allowed to pick up a chop-stick, much less operate a motor vehicle.

I am assuming that this proposal is targeted at the mid and high range BAC repetitive offenders. The portion of the drinking demography that you probably will not be able to defend no matter how hard you try, because in most cases they are individuals who are unable to help themselves. If they can’t help themselves then they are in danger of hurting themselves, as well as other people.

Henry82 2:41 pm 07 Aug 12

ridiculous,

no 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th chances.

Confiscate the car for the second offense – no matter who the owner is. If they’re caught driving again, take it for longer (exponentially increasing the time)

HenryBG 2:18 pm 07 Aug 12

Jivrashia said :

If these idiots are unable to respect the safety of other road users, …

How do you know that?

Did they run a red light? Fail to give way? Change lanes without indicating? Tailgate? Have their foglights on on a non-foggy day?

If so, book them for what they have done, which is illegal and disrespectful of other road users’ safety.

If not; if they were driving with proper respect for all the road rules, why would you give a flying fart what they have in their blood?

Jivrashia 2:10 pm 07 Aug 12

I’ve got a more cost-effective practical approach.

Paint the DUI conviction on the car, in big bold letters.
Also mark the car with something that will make it easy to spot even in the dead of the night, allowing people to know a convicted drunk driver is heading their way. This will make it easier for the police to stop and confirm that they aren’t going for their n-th drink driving offence.

If these idiots are unable to respect the safety of other road users, and we are not going to take away the right to drive from them, then the next best thing is to alert other road users to the hazard approaching them.

HenryBG 12:02 pm 07 Aug 12

dpm said :

Oh…Henry isn’t going to like this….. People can drive perfectly fine over the limit! Or is it just him that can? Hahahaha!

Well, let’s see, shall we?

How many people were inconvenienced by being pulled over by police on no valid grounds in order to be subjected to a “random” breath test last weekend? Several thousand?
And how many people were caught drink-driving? 26?
Is that a good return on investment of police time?

What proportion of people “drink-driving” over the weekend would that 26 represent? 10%? 1%? Less?

And assuming only 260 people were drink-driving last weekend, how many drink-fuelled road carnages occurred in total? 0?

So, we inconvenience thousands of drivers (in the process breaching their civil rights to not be pestered by police in the absence of any evidence that they have done anything wrong) to catch a very small proportion of those who chose to drink-drive, not one of whom had managed to kill or main anybody anyway.

Way to go, wowsers and control-freaks – and now you want our cars taken over by wowser-bots?

Thumper 11:57 am 07 Aug 12

Certainly worth a try.

Afte all, what they currently doing is not exactly a success with repeat offenders.

dpm 11:40 am 07 Aug 12

Oh…Henry isn’t going to like this….. People can drive perfectly fine over the limit! Or is it just him that can? Hahahaha!

farnarkler 11:11 am 07 Aug 12

Slightly off topic but I wonder if the same type of system could be used to prevent cars being stolen. Have a setup where the system detects certain individuals via their breath (DNA I’m guessing) and only allows those individuals to start the car? As for the gov’t’s idea, bring it on. It can’t do any harm.

How_Canberran 10:56 am 07 Aug 12

Interlocks, ‘name and shame’, CSO’s, kiss and cuddles….why no just lock ’em up?

That’ll send a ‘strong message’.

bundah 10:35 am 07 Aug 12

So the scheme applies to drivers defined as ”high-risk offenders” – those who blow a high-range reading of .15 or above and ”habitual offenders” convicted three or more times in five years.

Call me heavy handed but i reckon if you’re convicted the second time regardless of the reading above 0.05 you deserve to have an interlock installed permanently to every car you own regardless of how often you replace them.

buzz819 10:25 am 07 Aug 12

Sooo… They can just take their partners/friends/etc. car?

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