Drink driving penalties-too tough or too soft

[Olbucko]

I think both! , For a low range offence were no other offences have been committed there should be just an on the spot fine and say a loss of 6 points, anybody can miscalculate by one drink especially if you have a very small build, yet I read in the paper today about a disqualified driver caught driving with a blood alcohol level of .057, unlicensed, and car unregisted and all he gets is an $800 fine and 3 months added to his suspension. Ridiculous!

Then I read about drivers caught driving with high range readings who are taken to a police station, charged, let back out on the street, and then picked up later the same day, still full as a boot, back behind the wheel. They then go to court, get a fine, that they are unable to pay, and another year or so added to their suspension. Then sometimes within weeks they are back on the road again to repeat the cycle.

I think penalties should be much tougher for high range offenders and there should be mandatory goal sentences for repeat offenders. Maybe there should be a special prison just for these people were they could be rehabilitated rather than having them out on the road killing innocent people.

What do other people think?

[Jim Goose]

Repeat drink driving offenders as much as i hate to say it, should have their cars taken away for a few months.... (no crushing or selling).

[babyf6]

i agree with you. Some penalties are way to soft. Whereas some are way too harsh. some people are getting away with certain offences, when others, who are on their first offence and probably will never do it again, pay the fine. it is ridiculous!

[Elks]

Originally Posted by Olbucko

I think both! ,

That's probably right, but how do you deter people with soft (ish) penalties.

Speeding is the same. Now that we are so efficient at fining people that insurance companies no longer consider having speeding offences a problem (unless you actually lose your licence). Maybe offences under 10 kph should not attract a loss of points.??

[Nic85]

I think penalties are way too soft. Go and sit in your local court room on any typical day and you'll see case after case of young idiots in there for drink driving. Most are repeat offenders, and from what I've seen, most are high range (above 0.15). Mandatory charges see a loss of licence and a fine, but it's obviously not deterring them.

[BHDOGS]

It's simple hitting people in there hip pocket doesn't work anymore most of these people have little or no money to begin with cars taken away would be a good start but then just go steal one you gotta understand your not dealing with logical rational people I deal with them almost daily in my job i hate to say it but prison or even physical punishment is the only way to get through to some people but good luck with them until then it's just prison no matte how much you drink drive how many you kill how many you rape and once your not afraid of prison the law means little as no punishment effects your decision I'm talking from the straight out rapist killers and deadbeats I've met when you look into the eyes of someone whose killed for fun you'll know fear. Bit of a rant haha

[Nic85]

Wow man. Can you please try some grammar? That's really hard to read.

[dave351cid]

1st offence = major fine ($500) and loss of licence (6 months)
2nd offence = bigger fine ($2000) + loss of licence ( 2 years) + car confiscated for term of licence suspension.
3rd offence = $5000 fine + 5 year suspension + car confiscated and sold / crushed.

fixed panelties, no excuses. its a choice to drink and drive. the wrong choice. if you are driving , dont drink . that way you know your under the limit.

and the same goes for drugs.

[Nic85]

Originally Posted by dave351cid

1st offence = major fine ($500) and loss of licence (6 months)
2nd offence = bigger fine ($2000) + loss of licence ( 2 years) + car confiscated for term of licence suspension.
3rd offence = $5000 fine + 5 year suspension + car confiscated and sold / crushed.

fixed panelties, no excuses. its a choice to drink and drive. the wrong choice. if you are driving , dont drink . that way you know your under the limit.

and the same goes for drugs.

I can appreciate your thoughts for sure, and I definitely agree - If you're going to drive, simply don't drink - at all. I think the fines and suspensions need to be extreme.

First offence (0.05 - 0.10) = $2,500 fine + 12 months licence suspension.
Second offence (0.05-0.10) = 30 days jail or 150 hours community service.
Third offence (0.05-0.10) = 3 months jail or 500 hours community service.

First offence (0.10 and up) = $5,000 fine + 3 years licence suspension.
Second offence (0.10 and up) = 3 months jail or 500 hours community service.
Third offence (0.10 and up) = 12 months jail.

Anyone caught doing it more than 3 times would be publicly beheaded, .

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Olbucko

I read in the paper today about a disqualified driver caught driving with a blood alcohol level of .057, unlicensed, and car unregisted and all he gets is an $800 fine and 3 months added to his suspension. Ridiculous!

Personally, I think he should have been awarded a custodial sentence for that effort. Same as with these people who keep getting done for DUI over and over, there has got to be a point surely where someone says enough is enough. Forget confiscating or crushing their cars, they will just buy/use/borrow another and the behaviour will continue. The only thing that will have a chance of changing this sort of behaviour is the threat of prison. 3 months ought to do it. Circumstances of aggravation make it a longer prison term.

[Olbucko]

[QUOTE=dave351cid]1st offence = major fine ($500) and loss of licence (6 months)

A bit tough if someone has had one sip too many and comes in at .051, at least give him one chance. If he loses 6 or 8 points the first time he knows that he loses his licence the second time round, then it is OK to hit him with the big fine.
As for the bloke with a slab under his belt, I'm with you.

[Nic85]

[quote=Olbucko]

Originally Posted by dave351cid

1st offence = major fine ($500) and loss of licence (6 months)

A bit tough if someone has had one sip too many and comes in at .051, at least give him one chance. If he loses 6 or 8 points the first time he knows that he loses his licence the second time round, then it is OK to hit him with the big fine.
As for the bloke with a slab under his belt, I'm with you.

0.051, even for a small female, is more than one drink within 30 minutes of being tested, so it's not a matter of simply having "one too many sips".

I'm all for a blanket ban - 0.00, but I think there needs to be some tolerance for ambiguity's sake. Maybe 0.03 or something.

[IDT]

We all know they arent serious about punishment fitting the crime. How anyone can even pick up a drink and then complain that they thought they were under the limit is beyond me.

I also think if you are caught DUI, go to court, stand in front of a judge and get found guilty, you should cop a fine at least equal to a months wage (the equivalent to a months minimum wage if you dont work).

If you get caught a second time thats it, three months wage as a fine and lost licence for life until you demonstrate your worthiness to have one. Be it charity work for $150 hours with approved charity providers who will make you work (not some do gooder mob who will just sign off on a time sheet).

Loose it a third time a year in jail and lost licence for life.

[Ben73]

You are all quick to want to throw someone in jail. Jail should be the last result for repeat offenders. Big fines, licence suspensions and lots of communtiy service should be exhausted first.
Jail is just a way to **** someones life up majorly

[Nic85]

Originally Posted by Ben73

You are all quick to want to throw someone in jail. Jail should be the last result for repeat offenders. Big fines, licence suspensions and lots of communtiy service should be exhausted first.
Jail is just a way to **** someones life up majorly

Oh, the poor little things. Maybe they should learn to not drink and drive then.

[el_wagon]

All these fines probably don't even cover the cost of running the booze buses and other equipment. Should be at least be covering the cost of this system. As someone who doesn't drink and drive I hate for my rego $$$ to be subsidising the system.

[Jim Goose]

As an example of how stupid our "justice" system is....

THE friends and family of Jeffrey Higgins, a man fatally struck by a drunk driver, feel justice has been denied over their friend's death.

The popular Charters Towers man was killed while walking home on the eve of his 41st birthday, just metres from his front door.

The driver, Brendon Joseph Lewis, 31, was charged with hitting Mr Higgins in his 4WD on September 16, 2010 while under the influence of alcohol and then fleeing the scene.

But in an outcome the community cannot understand, Lewis was found not guilty of driving dangerously causing death after a trial in Charters Towers in March.

Read the rest here... just cant fathom how you kill someone, drive off and nothing happens to you.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au...3071_news.html

[The Yeti]

Originally Posted by dave351cid

1st offence = major fine ($500) and loss of licence (6 months)
2nd offence = bigger fine ($2000) + loss of licence ( 2 years) + car confiscated for term of licence suspension.
3rd offence = $5000 fine + 5 year suspension + car confiscated and sold / crushed.

fixed panelties, no excuses. its a choice to drink and drive. the wrong choice. if you are driving , dont drink . that way you know your under the limit.

and the same goes for drugs.

I'd double the fines

You can get higher speeding fines than that but the loss of licence I'd fully support

Also I think 1st offence low range shouldnt carry a criminal record, still high fine and loss of licence but no criminal record, once you hit mid range and 2nd time sorry your a dick head and the book gets thrown

[Sorted]

I have said it before and will say it again

If you get caught drink driving your car should be impounded

You should be classed as a hoon and treated the same way

[BHDOGS]

Giving people fines doesn't work hell fine them 1 million dollars you just choose to pay by installments of 20 a fortnight for 30 years or just don't pay at all and you'll get away with it what they gonna do take your licence you havent got any more if fines worked thered be no speeding

[xisled]

Gaol and 3 months loss of wages. People have no idea.

There is no point throwing a drink driver in to Gaol. Can you think of how full the gaol would be if every drink driver was put away.

I think drink driving should fall under the Anti Hoon laws. Impound the car for every offence.

Someone made a comment in this thread that drink driver get set free by cops and is caught later on in the same. Take the car and this can not happen.

They say hoons are dangerous, but drink driving are just as bad.

[nuthin' fancy]

There is plenty of research to confirm that from outside a court case (i.e. reading about the results in the paper) you think the sentence was too lenient but let you into the court room to see what happens and you will agree with the sentence.

How about this, do what I do now. If I am driving, two beers, that is it. You are being foolish if you want to try and calculate when you are under .05 and when you are over.

I think many will agree that for all the things we did in our youth, we are only here by the grace of God.

[cobramania]

I don't drink, so it doesn't affect me anyway, but I have no time for drink drivers, they endanger my life as much as theirs, when I'm trying to do the right thing by everyone, & they don't give a stuff.

Thing is though, why is 0.5 the limit & if you're on it, you get charged, but you don't get fined for driving at 60kph in a 60kph limit? Also in America & some other countries I think, the limit is 0.8, why does alcohol affect us & our driving ability more, or why does it affect them less? Are we too tough on the limit to start with, that's why many judges let many drink drivers off, or are other countries too lenient with the limit?

[castellan]

Originally Posted by cobramania

I don't drink, so it doesn't affect me anyway, but I have no time for drink drivers, they endanger my life as much as theirs, when I'm trying to do the right thing by everyone, & they don't give a stuff.

Thing is though, why is 0.5 the limit & if you're on it, you get charged, but you don't get fined for driving at 60kph in a 60kph limit? Also in America & some other countries I think, the limit is 0.8, why does alcohol affect us & our driving ability more, or why does it affect them less? Are we too tough on the limit to start with, that's why many judges let many drink drivers off, or are other countries too lenient with the limit?

We had rights once but the dictator mob have destroyed all that now as you could not be pulled over if you did noting wrong and if you were thought to be drunk you had to pass a practical test on the spot.
The fact is there is many drivers who are much worse drivers than some at 0.05
Look at how many drivers believe they can drive in the far right hand lane on the highway, as they sit there oblivious to all. because they can go to sleep and don't have to worry about cars merging on to the highway. and i am sure that some do it just to play a stupid game of hassling everyone like they will sit 20 km under the limit with some other idiot doing the same in the other lane and i have come across this nonsense with all 4 lanes at times.

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by Olbucko

I think both! , For a low range offence were no other offences have been committed there should be just an on the spot fine and say a loss of 6 points, anybody can miscalculate by one drink especially if you have a very small build, yet I read in the paper today about a disqualified driver caught driving with a blood alcohol level of .057, unlicensed, and car unregisted and all he gets is an $800 fine and 3 months added to his suspension. Ridiculous!

Then I read about drivers caught driving with high range readings who are taken to a police station, charged, let back out on the street, and then picked up later the same day, still full as a boot, back behind the wheel. They then go to court, get a fine, that they are unable to pay, and another year or so added to their suspension. Then sometimes within weeks they are back on the road again to repeat the cycle.

0.05,is the limit ,0.057 is over and hardly worthy of an agruement or mention
When your talking people who are,0.110, thats over and by alot , and what gets me is these people with these amounts still say even in court ,"Oh i only had a few beers ", absolute utter rubbish
Dropping a beer or two,even sculling 2 quickly wont get you near that amount, dropping a bottle of bourboun,quickly will be the figure
I dont get how a judge can be so stoooopid to believe many of the tall stories in court,go to a few public court hearings, its like a comedy hour
At what part does staggering on your feet, trippin over your shoes, and knowing youve been drinking for awhile,think once behind the wheel your fully focused
Those whom get stung DUI , and are over usually get their licence taken of them on the spot till a court hearing,so the myth that their send on their way is that a myth
The first fine for a medium reading entails a large fine,its to be a deterant to never offend again, its the people who have either very very low grey matter between the ears or blatant disrespect of others that repeat offend, many pubs,motels, drinking holes either have fones,or many carry fones so a call to a cab is easy
Its a topic that will never get a simple answer, will never be 0, and really why cant it be, P Plates are 0, truck drivers are 0, why not everyone else

[No.6]

I absolutely deteste drink driving. Having the car impounded for 4 months and fines relative to 2-3 months wages sounds good to me for a second offence + 150hrs communtiy service. 3rd offence should double it, fourth should triple. 5th means GTFO and never drive or beable to register a car under their name ever again. Suffer the consequences. You made a choice, no ones forced you to drink and drive.

[Steve280]

After loss of licence all drivers should be made to retake their driving test again and put on p's for the same period as first time drivers.
maybe they might learn something,

[fat4D]

The spoken I have with the with the whole system is the soft approach to repeat offenders, I was with a mate just this week at court as he got done at .08 (which I'm not excusing nor is he) but sitting there waiting there were multiple people who had been done a couple of times before or had been in court recently for drug or violence related things and they were given a suspended sentence and just a good behavior period of 12 months. Then comes my mates turn and he gets the book thrown at him with 9 months and 1600 fine, did he deserve what he got? Yeah he probably did but how do they let repeat offenders just walk where this is the first thing my mate has had apart from a couple of minor speeding fines and these people were obviously not learning the lesson

[fat4D]

The spoken I have with the with the whole system is the soft approach to repeat offenders, I was with a mate just this week at court as he got done at .08 (which I'm not excusing nor is he) but sitting there waiting there were multiple people who had been done a couple of times before or had been in court recently for drug or violence related things and they were given a suspended sentence and just a good behavior period of 12 months. Then comes my mates turn and he gets the book thrown at him with 9 months and 1600 fine, did he deserve what he got? Yeah he probably did but how do they let repeat offenders just walk where this is the first thing my mate has had apart from a couple of minor speeding fines and these people were obviously not learning the lesson

[protd]

i don't see why the law should drop to 0.00 why should the majority be punished because of a minority, i enjoy a couple of beers with dinner when i go out, just because some moron goes on a 12 hr bender shouldn't mean people who are responsible should have to suffer..

there is nothing wrong with a .05 limit