it is getting harder to be responsible - Page 2

OLDFORDNUT · 29-05-2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP owner

I still think that it is a service and an opportunity for education to test someone who is not driving.
If you are under - they can say it was great that you erred on the side of caution, but to remember that just 1 more drink could put you over.
If you are over - they can say it was great that you were not driving, and a walk is great to work off the effects, and it always pay to err on the side of caution.
This could only build rapport, and it is providing education and safety measures.

exactly

jimmyxr6t04 · 29-05-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP owner

I still think that it is a service and an opportunity for education to test someone who is not driving.
If you are under - they can say it was great that you erred on the side of caution, but to remember that just 1 more drink could put you over.
If you are over - they can say it was great that you were not driving, and a walk is great to work off the effects, and it always pay to err on the side of caution.
This could only build rapport, and it is providing education and safety measures.

Whilst it sounds like a good idea, could you imagine the implications for the cop if the person were involved in an accident and blew over the limit only moments after being told they were 'ok' to drive?

There would be some drivers out there who would not take responsibility for their own actions and blame the cop for letting them drive..

Perhaps if a signed disclaimer was used, it might be different.

It's a shame the world has to be like this though...

muppet · 29-05-2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyxr6t04

It's a shame the world has to be like this though...

It indeed is.
It,s a shame the police are either unable (because of regs) or unwilling (just because they couldnt be bothered) to do these types of things. The example in this thread is a regulation reason they can not because they have to justify their readings, fair enough. But I have on more than one occasion been fobbed off by police just because they couldnt be bothered. It's not just police either it's the motto of just about everyone these days " lets see how little we can actually do and still get paid"

EDManual · 29-05-2010, 12:46 PM

I walked up to one a few years back, saying "i'm wondering what my reading is, as I want to drive", they didnt mind checking at all, they just had to write down my details first.

Got checked, right to drive. Cool.

uranium_death · 29-05-2010, 01:17 PM

The best solution is that either you don't drink, or if you drink, you don't drive.

Fool proof.

krt10 · 29-05-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uranium_death

The best solution is that either you don't drink, or if you drink, you don't drive.

Fool proof.

thats great in a perfect world. unfortunately we dont live in one.

if i plan on drinking i wont drive, thats simple but sometimes, lets say after work, you may have a few drinks with the workmates. now im not going to spend 3 hours catching busses to work just because i may have a pint.

NEEDspeed · 29-05-2010, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

Governments do the educating and write the laws.

Are you serious? These days it seems they introduce the laws THEN educate people what is happening AFTER they receive the penalty for it.
This refusal situation, as some have said, may well perpetuate the feeling in the community that police are no longer there to protect and serve just to collect the spoils of the Government's laws.

For me, it parralels with the hiding of speed cameras and undercover police provoking street racing just to collect 'tax' off us all.

nang3 · 29-05-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyxr6t04

Whilst it sounds like a good idea, could you imagine the implications for the cop if the person were involved in an accident and blew over the limit only moments after being told they were 'ok' to drive?

There would be some drivers out there who would not take responsibility for their own actions and blame the cop for letting them drive..

Perhaps if a signed disclaimer was used, it might be different.

It's a shame the world has to be like this though...

the implications would probably be exactly the same as if the person went thru an RBT to blow under but then crashed and blew over wouldnt it?? im sure thats happened before??
IMO theres no difference between being tested at an RBT or by a copper in a normal patrol car etc...
it all comes down to what u blow at the time they test you.

jimmyxr6t04 · 29-05-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nang3

the implications would probably be exactly the same as if the person went thru an RBT to blow under but then crashed and blew over wouldnt it?? im sure thats happened before??
IMO theres no difference between being tested at an RBT or by a copper in a normal patrol car etc...
it all comes down to what u blow at the time they test you.

Perhaps, but the person driving will have had their rego taken down etc..

I'd like the cops to be able to breath test people who ask, but with the amount of regulations that govern police actions there isn't always much scope for the 'grey' area.

But if it's true that the breath testers record all readings above .05, then the cop will be reluctant to test anyone not driving, as then they have to explain why there were readings above .05 not being processed etc, it would really open up a can worms re: corruption, or letting a 'mate' off etc...

SteveJH · 29-05-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyxr6t04

Perhaps, but the person driving will have had their rego taken down etc..

I'd like the cops to be able to breath test people who ask, but with the amount of regulations that govern police actions there isn't always much scope for the 'grey' area.

But if it's true that the breath testers record all readings above .05, then the cop will be reluctant to test anyone not driving, as then they have to explain why there were readings above .05 not being processed etc, it would really open up a can worms re: corruption, or letting a 'mate' off etc...

Take down the details with a comment that the person wasnt driving when breathalised. ;)

vanman_75 · 29-05-2010, 03:03 PM

i dont like the law much ,but its not the officers fault if he cant do the test ( against protocol or whatever) but much is to be said on what clown actually makes those rules ... now that is a bloke i would like to meet. nanny state ...no nanny nation , i would no doubt be a high level risk to society in there view ,we should all paint the world grey and hand in our keys .

geckoGT · 29-05-2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP owner

I still think that it is a service and an opportunity for education to test someone who is not driving.
If you are under - they can say it was great that you erred on the side of caution, but to remember that just 1 more drink could put you over.
If you are over - they can say it was great that you were not driving, and a walk is great to work off the effects, and it always pay to err on the side of caution.
This could only build rapport, and it is providing education and safety measures.

They can not do this, it gives them a duty of care and they are then responsible for what happens to you.

In scenario one, they congratulate you on your caution and send you on your way, not knowing your BAC is on the way up. You then get pulled over and get done for 0.06. The first thing you are doing then is ranting at the duty officer that constable bloggs told you that you were safe to drive. Now constable bloggs has a complaint he has to address and you have a defence you will try on in court.

In scenario two, you exceed the limit and the cop tells you and advises you to enjoy the walk. Off you go and in the process of enjoying the walk you stumble in front of a passing car. Now you are in a hospital bed, with a hangover and a paraplegic for life. In your rage and desire for there to be someone to blame (because no one is ever responsible for their own actions) you blame the cop because he knew you were intoxicated and potentially more likely to be involved in a misadventure, but he still allowed you to walk away. The court case comes and the judge decides that with the positive BAC he did have a duty of care and he was negligent for letting you leave instead of ensuring you get home in safety. More people hear of this and it becomes a common occurrence of people walking into police stations/ police cars etc to get tested, knowing that if they are over the limit they will get a free ride home or an insurance policy if they don't get the free ride. Then every friday/saturday night we have to provide three times the amount of police to cover the free police taxi service.

I would not like to see our cops put into this position, they put up with enough crap as it is.

Simple, if you are in any doubt, don't get behind the wheel, that is YOUR responsibility. This whole idea of getting cops to test you is just shirking responsibility and trying to put it onto someone else.

It is fine to have a couple and remain under the limit according to the law, but anyone who can not deal with this responsibility should hand their license in or just not drink.

For all the mechanics out there, would you say it is reasonable that I get you to inspect my brakes for free if I suspect the pads might be low? That is in the interest of public safety.

For the electricians out there, I believe I may have a dodgy power point, I want you to check it for free in the interest of public safety.

geckoGT · 29-05-2010, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyxr6t04

Perhaps, but the person driving will have had their rego taken down etc..

I'd like the cops to be able to breath test people who ask, but with the amount of regulations that govern police actions there isn't always much scope for the 'grey' area.

But if it's true that the breath testers record all readings above .05, then the cop will be reluctant to test anyone not driving, as then they have to explain why there were readings above .05 not being processed etc, it would really open up a can worms re: corruption, or letting a 'mate' off etc...

Great point.

Quote:

Take down the details with a comment that the person wasnt driving when breathalised

Not good enough, still open to corruption. Constable Bloggs pulls over a car, finds out it is Jimmy that he went to school with. Jimmy blows over the limit but constable writes the positive reading up a "community service" reading and no infringement involved.

Cam · 29-05-2010, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDManual

I walked up to one a few years back, saying "i'm wondering what my reading is, as I want to drive", they didnt mind checking at all, they just had to write down my details first.

Got checked, right to drive. Cool.

I walked into a cop shop this new years day and explained that I had a few last night, and wanted to make sure I was right to drive (had a 3 hour drive). I had 2 kids and didn't want to risk getting caught, I was not drunk just wanted to be sure it was out of my system.. The cop was more then happy to oblige, i blew 0.00 and off I went..

uranium_death · 29-05-2010, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krt10

thats great in a perfect world. unfortunately we dont live in one.

if i plan on drinking i wont drive, thats simple but sometimes, lets say after work, you may have a few drinks with the workmates. now im not going to spend 3 hours catching busses to work just because i may have a pint.

Well in an imperfect world, if you cannot dictate terms to suit yourself.
Fact remains, if you plan on drinking a bit, don't drive, or plan your drinking so that when you are due to drive, you are not over, and know you aren't.

The idea factor in this is personal responsibility.

Bucknaked · 29-05-2010, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEEDspeed

Are you serious? These days it seems they introduce the laws THEN educate people what is happening AFTER they receive the penalty for it.
This refusal situation, as some have said, may well perpetuate the feeling in the community that police are no longer there to protect and serve just to collect the spoils of the Government's laws.

For me, it parralels with the hiding of speed cameras and undercover police provoking street racing just to collect 'tax' off us all.

So drink driving is a new law?

I agree that there are some laws about that we've never heard of until after we break it. But it's laws like driniking and driving and speeding that they run these campaigns in the hope to educate motorists. It doesn't work because anything the government try to tell us, we ignore and we whinge and complain about them, and even more when we get caught. But this is the thing they tried to warn us about in the first place. And we still vote for them at the elections.

It may very well come down to revenue raising, but doing all they can to keep a driver off the road who is drunk or high on drugs, is that really such a bad thing?

I think this has been in the news recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G54Bu...layer_embedded

Franco Cozzo · 29-05-2010, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

For all the mechanics out there, would you say it is reasonable that I get you to inspect my brakes for free if I suspect the pads might be low? That is in the interest of public safety.

Pfft, come to our workshop and you'll get told to shove it, pay our $110 an hour or GTFO.

geckoGT · 29-05-2010, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Pfft, come to our workshop and you'll get told to shove it, pay our $110 an hour or GTFO.

But you should not be so lazy, how dare you have your lunch break and refuse to do a service in the interest of public safety, quick ring TT or ACA!

3vXT · 29-05-2010, 11:07 PM

I think the cops should behave more like the bad cops in the second dirty harry movie, magnum force.

Or they should have tasers shaped like breath testers, "keep blowing until i tell you to stop"

gtxb67 · 29-05-2010, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uranium_death

The best solution is that either you don't drink, or if you drink, you don't drive.

Fool proof.

come on - that is just being responsible
it almost sounds too easy

uranium_death · 29-05-2010, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxb67

come on - that is just being responsible
it almost sounds too easy

Silly me. Perhaps I've been looking at this entire thing too wrong.

BPXR6T · 29-05-2010, 11:33 PM

Some pubs have breathe testers nowadays and I would think it should probably be mandatory that one is provided. Might be responsible to buy a breathe tester and keep it in the car. I bought one for $250 bucks years ago for a new years eve drinking competition. It seems to be acurate enough.

geckoGT · 30-05-2010, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPXR6T

Some pubs have breathe testers nowadays and I would think it should probably be mandatory that one is provided. Might be responsible to buy a breathe tester and keep it in the car. I bought one for $250 bucks years ago for a new years eve drinking competition. It seems to be acurate enough.

Some good points

Does anyone else see the irony?

You are suggesting buying equipment to promote driving safety that you bought years ago so that you could measure how ****ed people could get in a competition.

4Vman · 30-05-2010, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPXR6T

Some pubs have breathe testers nowadays and I would think it should probably be mandatory that one is provided. Might be responsible to buy a breathe tester and keep it in the car. I bought one for $250 bucks years ago for a new years eve drinking competition. It seems to be acurate enough.

There's enough info on how to drink responsibly and stay under the limit without needing to breathalise people to see if they're under the limit (as opposed to safe to drive)...
Im fed up with people not taking responsiblity for their actions and relying on someone else to "look after" them...
A breathaliser is a fall back position, it takes the ownership out of being sensible and responsible in the first place..

JC · 30-05-2010, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Oh here we go again!.. Bloody wowsers.
I thought prohibition ended in the 30's?
Really, is there a need for people to push their moralistic tripe down our throats every time a .05 thread is raised?

Peoples, it's about taking responsibility for your own actions!

I'll see your "wowser" and raise you the derogatory term of your choice (idiot would do). Who's talking about prohibition? We're talking about drink driving - I have no problems drinking, it's the driving afterwards that concerns me.

rodderz · 30-05-2010, 01:00 AM

Used to work with a bloke who grew up in Brisbane, and drank quite a bit. One night he was the driver, but was probably the groggiest of the lot. He was that drunk leaving the carpark of the pub, he pulled up next to the cop car thinking it was the bottlo and asked for a few cans of bourbon.

He got out of being the designated driver for a few years after that

gtxb67 · 30-05-2010, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Im fed up with people not taking responsiblity for their actions and relying on someone else to "look after" them...

too true - it is amazing to me that this forum in general is so against becoming a nanny state and yet so many people complain about needing help and regulations to staying under the limit - both speed and alcohol. how nanny statist is that. take responsibility for your actions - as you suggested, we have guidelines to how much we can drink, we have speedo's - what more do we need
if in doubt - don't do it

geckoGT · 30-05-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxb67

too true - it is amazing to me that this forum in general is so against becoming a nanny state and yet so many people complain about needing help and regulations to staying under the limit - both speed and alcohol. how nanny statist is that. take responsibility for your actions - as you suggested, we have guidelines to how much we can drink, we have speedo's - what more do we need
if in doubt - don't do it

Well said, could not agree more.

Stefan · 30-05-2010, 11:23 AM

*****

nang3 · 30-05-2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Great point.
Not good enough, still open to corruption. Constable Bloggs pulls over a car, finds out it is Jimmy that he went to school with. Jimmy blows over the limit but constable writes the positive reading up a "community service" reading and no infringement involved.

haha i find it quite ironic that in order for the cops to successfully do their job - which involves breath testing and catching drink drivers - they are not supposed to breath test someone who is requesting a test in order to help them achieve thier goal of keeping Drink drivers off the road in the 1st place.....
maybe this policy is because if they arent tested, then drive then get done it means more $$$ revenue than if they were tested and decided not to drive due to their reading and therefore there was no offence to extact revenue from??
but that could just be the cynic in me talking because we all know that safety is a distant second behind revenue in all things govt related.