Some pollies think drink-drive limit should be 0.02

[Barfrangipani]

Rudd weighs into drink-driving debate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Note KRudd's name is in the headline, but he's only said it's being look into, not that he wants it.

Then we get this:

The South Australian Labor Party says it will only support the change if it is adopted nationally, while Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond says reducing the limit seems unnecessary.

"I spent 10 years on the Road Safety Advisory Council, and that's some years ago admittedly, but the evidence internationally was that the real problem was above 0.08, rather even than 0.05," she said.

"I think that socially it just becomes unacceptable to people to be too draconian when in fact the evidence doesn't seem to exist that that's where the problem is."

ie. 0.05 is strict enough, and statistically real problems don't happen until 0.08

Then you get some Dorrington-wannabe retard from the NT spouting the same propaganda

But the Automobile Association of the Northern Territory (AANT) says the idea of a lower blood alcohol limit for drivers has some merit.

AANT president Bob Bradley says alcohol is one of the biggest contributing factors to road accidents in the Territory.

"There's still a hard core that even if you put it at 0.02, they'd still drink and drive," he said.

"But from a road safety perspective, if everyone on the road at any time was under 0.02 our accident rate would go down."

I'd love to know what % of drivers at any one time were between 0.02 and 0.05, I bet it would be an insignificant number

[Xuaxace]

I don't drink but that is retarded.....

Lets ban any form of motorised transport while we are at it.

[MattyA]

meh im not a drink driver, once i pop a beer im stayin, altho i can stay 0.00 after one beer.

if the limit was 0.00 for everyone i wouldnt care.

[Rizzo]

Some pollies think drink-drive limit should be 0.02

And they are obvoiusly very retarded! There are so many, and very worthy issues for them to be sorting out rather than even contemplating dropping the driving alcohol limit!

It's not the ones who stick to driving within the limit that cause the problems, it's the retards that smash it then drive. When will some of the pollies wake up?

[Gambino]

must be nice to not have to drive yourself anyway, I refuse to drink and drive, its just something Im vehemetly against, I dont if they have statistic talking about speed, say your60km is 0.05, would 80 be 0.08

[Melchior]

I'd prefer 0.00 to 0.02 anyway...easier to stay under the limit. When I was on P's and it was 0.02 I just didn't drink at all.

As you said Barfy, what would the difference really be between 0.02 and 0.05? Most of the bad accidents you hear about, the driver is 4x over the limit or something silly like that.

Changing the limit won't stop people driving when theyre wasted.

[Arwon]

it was then stated that Sweden and some other country had the lowest death ratio per head of populatio0n and it operated on 0.02bac, so to say it has no merit it ludicrous.

Mind you people will still drink and drive no matter what the limit.

[Lord Farquaad]

it was then stated that Sweden and some other country had the lowest death ratio per head of populatio0n and it operated on 0.02bac, so to say it has no merit it ludicrous.

Mind you people will still drink and drive no matter what the limit.

Correlation and causation. Just because they have a .02 limit doesnt mean that's why they have a low death rate on the roads. I'm guessing that somewhere with a low limit has harder penalties for breaking it and a lot of thought into their road safety strategies.

[Nero Diablo]

it was then stated that Sweden and some other country had the lowest death ratio per head of populatio0n and it operated on 0.02bac, so to say it has no merit it ludicrous.

Mind you people will still drink and drive no matter what the limit.

Most european countries you have to actually learn to drive before getting a license its not cheap either between 2-3 k on average. As the countries are smaller they are able to keep a much high standard of road condition. As others have said its not the people running around at .05 or below thats the problem but nothing gives a pollie that warm and fuzzy feeling they have done something better than stuffing around at the edges of an issue.

[Arwon]

When Michelle Roberts was the minister in charge of these sorts of decisions, a common sense law was not forthcoming, i mean really, if i said i was going to put someone who has been done twice for drink driving in charge of road safety, you would tell me to get my head checked. But not in WA, we had a Premier who 'fails to recall' others who sniff ladies chairs, drunks and drug addicts making the decisions that affect us on a daily basis.

I have no faith in Politicians.

[jules_1972]

Might as well just ban it 100% as already said, 0.00%....

Thought Alcohol related road deaths were somewhat on the low side
nowadays???

[aussieman]

you cant use sweden as an example , have the year its iced up and you cant drive
i see it as what point when you are drinking that you are capable of saying i have had enough ?? and at what point do you say oh fuck it a few more for the road .02, .05,.08 ???

[fosh]

"But from a road safety perspective, if everyone on the road at any time was under 0.02 our accident rate would go down."

Pretty sneaky way of phrasing this. I'm sure if everyone on our roads was at our under 0.05 "our accident rate would go down", too!

[jackmbee]

They should be either suggesting 0.00% or no change.
It should either be allowable or not.
As soon as any is acceptable it starts the "am I okay to drive" scenario.
The difference from 0.02 to 0.05 is simply stupid.
In Norway they have a 0.00 limit. People therefore have to make a clear choice to 1 - Drink and not drive, 2 - not drink and drive, or 3 drink and drive. There is no, "I'll just have one".
Of course there will always be those that will drink and drive but they don't care what the limit is anyway.

[fulltimer]

If it goes ahead people will still drive drunk. If they ban it all together people will still drive drunk. Unless they can somehow change peoples attitudes towards the issue there is not going to be any really positive result.

[Envy]

I have 2 things to ask about this...

1) at .02 doesn't that mean you can't have 1 drink and leave for atleast 4 hours??
2) what % of accidents happen Between 0.02 and 0.05??

[Magilla]

I think that 0.00 is a much better idea - not because it's less dangerous than 0.02 or 0.05, but as jack said, the "am I OK to drive" issue is a problem. It's like expecting people to stick to the speed limit without a speedo.

The more you drink, the less capable you are of (1) making good decisions and (2) telling exactly how drunk you are.

A yes/no decision is much easier to make based on "have I had alcohol tonight?"

[HotelBushranger]

Yep, I'm for 0.00 as well.

[T-Rex]

0.00 is stupid. Given this situation; you have an accident on your way to work, monday morning after a decent night out before. You are not in the wrong. You have paid $2k to insure your ride for the year. But you still have a lingering alcohol reading of 0.015. An amount that research has time and again shown to not notably reduce driving ability.
But now your insurance wont pay up, you get done for a drink driving offence and the guy who hit you isn't going to be paying up for a while.

0.00 has no room for human error. I have had 0.00 limitations, 0.02 and 0.05. 0.05 is in many cases a decent amount but to gauge yourself is near on impossible so I'm sure most people drive at 0.02/0.03 as to have factored in their own margin for error. 0.02 will just result in more unneeded convictions, licence suspensions and then less people with insurance etc.

[hlucin8]

i can't believe i'm reading this. Its normally the pollies that get done for dd, now they want to make it easier for them to get done?
Posted via Mobile Device