Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Zero alcohol limits imperfectly understood

By johnboy - 19 July 2011 32

One third of the 24 drink-drivers apprehended by ACT Policing over the weekend (July 15-17) were those required to comply with a zero blood alcohol level.

Among the eight apprehended with this restriction was a 30-year-old man from Fisher, who was stopped by police on Streeton Drive, Stirling around 9.30pm on Saturday night (July 16). He was found to be driving whilst disqualified and when breath-tested by police, produced a reading of 0.206.

A total of 30 drivers were apprehended for drink-driving in the ACT for the week ending July 18, with 0.206 as the highest reading recorded.

Nine of the 30 had previous convictions for drink-driving.

One of the drivers with multiple previous drink-driving convictions was a 47-year-old man from Bruce, who was apprehended after his vehicle struck a light pole in Belconnen on Wednesday evening (July 13). The driver, who has seven previous convictions for drink-driving, refused to provide a breath sample to police and was issued with an immediate licence suspension notice, effective for 90 days. He was taken into custody and later bailed to face the ACT Magistrates Court on August 5.

The Officer in Charge of Traffic Operations, Sergeant Jeff Knight, said it was of concern to police that so many drivers continued to drink and drive.

“It is completely unacceptable that these drivers should endanger the lives of others by flouting the law,” Sergeant Knight said. “Drink-driving is a killer on our roads and affects the entire community. For so many people to drink-drive, and a third of them found to be repeat offenders, should infuriate all other responsible road users.”

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to
Zero alcohol limits imperfectly understood
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
ivyisabella 9:48 pm 11 Nov 11

Cut his their hands off!!!

You cant drive without hands!!!

Oh, and you cant pick up aschooner either……….LOW LIFE!!!

IrishPete 8:54 pm 22 Jul 11

Jethro said :

KeenGolfer said :

IrishPete said :

If he was disqualified, how does he have a zero limit? He shouldn’t be driving, full stop. Was the police media release poorly worded, or is the law actually this silly as to impose a disqualification on someone and also say “and if you drive (illegally) you’d better not have any alcohol in your blood”.

Sigh. Of course he shouldn’t be driving. However all drivers have an alcohol limit, disqualified or not as per the road transport alcohol & drugs act. It makes perfect sense and is not silly at all. People without a licence are included in the special driver category which has a zero limit. If disqualified drivers weren’t classed as as special driver they’d still be subject to 0.05 which to me isn’t right.

Or, according to the original logic, wouldn’t have a limit placed on them at all.

Yep, you’ve confirmed for me that this is plain daft. Of course there is no “limit” for them, because they are not permitted to drive. It is a mixed message to say “don’t drive, oh and if you do, don’t drink”.

And it clearly isn’t working either.

Would make more sense for being over the limit to be an aggravating factor for driving while disqualified.

Jethro 7:52 pm 22 Jul 11

KeenGolfer said :

IrishPete said :

If he was disqualified, how does he have a zero limit? He shouldn’t be driving, full stop. Was the police media release poorly worded, or is the law actually this silly as to impose a disqualification on someone and also say “and if you drive (illegally) you’d better not have any alcohol in your blood”.

Sigh. Of course he shouldn’t be driving. However all drivers have an alcohol limit, disqualified or not as per the road transport alcohol & drugs act. It makes perfect sense and is not silly at all. People without a licence are included in the special driver category which has a zero limit. If disqualified drivers weren’t classed as as special driver they’d still be subject to 0.05 which to me isn’t right.

Or, according to the original logic, wouldn’t have a limit placed on them at all.

KeenGolfer 7:26 pm 22 Jul 11

IrishPete said :

If he was disqualified, how does he have a zero limit? He shouldn’t be driving, full stop. Was the police media release poorly worded, or is the law actually this silly as to impose a disqualification on someone and also say “and if you drive (illegally) you’d better not have any alcohol in your blood”.

Sigh. Of course he shouldn’t be driving. However all drivers have an alcohol limit, disqualified or not as per the road transport alcohol & drugs act. It makes perfect sense and is not silly at all. People without a licence are included in the special driver category which has a zero limit. If disqualified drivers weren’t classed as as special driver they’d still be subject to 0.05 which to me isn’t right.

IrishPete 3:28 pm 22 Jul 11

James_Ryan said :

Most drink drivers aren’t caught reoffending. Most repeat drink-drivers have problems with alcohol. Expecting someone who is alcohol dependent to “see sense” or “learn their lesson this time” is silly and obviously isn’t working. What would improve things is a best-practice program of Alcohol Interlocks, where a log of tests is maintained by the equipment and reviewed by the driver in conjunction with a counsellor. Failed tests result in vehicle ignition being inoperable and also provide information for the driver and counsellor to work with towards behaviour change. The cost can be covered by a user-pays system. The technology exists, as does the evidence for what consitutues an effective program (i.e. what stops people drink driving). Of course, it’s far easier for everyone concerned if the police just come out every few months wringing their hands together bleating “when will people learn?”

ignition interlocks face the same problem as impounding cars, if the driver isn’t the owner. I’m not objecting to either, just pointing out the fly in the ointment.

IrishPete 3:27 pm 22 Jul 11

26 posts and no-one has noticed the problem with this paragraph:

“Among the eight apprehended with this restriction [to comply with a zero blood alcohol level] was a 30-year-old man from Fisher, who was stopped by police on Streeton Drive, Stirling around 9.30pm on Saturday night (July 16). He was found to be driving whilst disqualified and when breath-tested by police, produced a reading of 0.206.”

If he was disqualified, how does he have a zero limit? He shouldn’t be driving, full stop. Was the police media release poorly worded, or is the law actually this silly as to impose a disqualification on someone and also say “and if you drive (illegally) you’d better not have any alcohol in your blood”.

IP

James_Ryan 1:40 pm 21 Jul 11

Most drink drivers aren’t caught reoffending. Most repeat drink-drivers have problems with alcohol. Expecting someone who is alcohol dependent to “see sense” or “learn their lesson this time” is silly and obviously isn’t working. What would improve things is a best-practice program of Alcohol Interlocks, where a log of tests is maintained by the equipment and reviewed by the driver in conjunction with a counsellor. Failed tests result in vehicle ignition being inoperable and also provide information for the driver and counsellor to work with towards behaviour change. The cost can be covered by a user-pays system. The technology exists, as does the evidence for what consitutues an effective program (i.e. what stops people drink driving). Of course, it’s far easier for everyone concerned if the police just come out every few months wringing their hands together bleating “when will people learn?”

milkman 8:59 pm 20 Jul 11

DUI is not an offence the courts take seriously,

KeenGolfer 6:27 pm 20 Jul 11

Sleaz274 said :

It was a serious offence and then like most legislation there was the inevitable creep so that now ANY alcohol is suddenly an offence. 1/3 according to the media release fell foul of bringing the laws down to zero for particular licences. That means 1/3 previously to the new law would not have been arrested for DUI, ie even 12 months ago.

Bringing it down to zero tolerance made DUI a minor offence probably committed unknowingly by people blowing 0.02, 0.01 after a night out, drinking hours previously and considering themselves fine to

Your logic is flawed. Just because 1/3rd were on a zero limit doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have been caught before. That would only apply if they were under 0.02. I can assure you very, very few special drivers with a zero limit blow under 0.02.

OpenYourMind 5:35 pm 20 Jul 11

We’re not talking about the person who made a bad mistake or even two bad mistakes, we are talking about people that drink and drive unlicenced so regularly or so badly that they managed to get picked up multiple times.

dvaey, these people won’t be in a hire car because they don’t have a licence.

I’d be pretty confident that anybody lending one of these idiots a car would be well aware of their licence situation and doubly aware of the risk of having their car crushed. If the unlicenced drunken idiot crashes the car (not a unlikely event), the car is totalled and there’s no insurance anyway.

Crushing or long term impounding the car isn’t a stocks and pitchforks approach, it’s just common sense.

Tooks 3:42 pm 20 Jul 11

Solidarity said :

He’s been caught 7 times, I don’t think taking his license away will stop him….

I’d imagine he already have a disqualified licence.

Solidarity 12:58 pm 20 Jul 11

He’s been caught 7 times, I don’t think taking his license away will stop him….

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site