Queensland to consider.02 blood alcohol limit

[gtfpv]

got my elictricity bill today . fook me i hope they still have petrol when we are driving electric cars , i wont be able to afford the power bill !!! i say have a beer or two , buy a v8 and fook emm all . as long as your under .05 and drive sensibly . give them the finger . this is all about fines without conviction to raise revenue .

[Scott]

Haven't read the article or most of the posts here but will chime in anyway:

I have no problem with drinking and driving, I have a problem with driving drunk. Any change to a 0.02BAC is nothing more than revenue raising and will not deter those who happily disregard the current limits.

Citing stats from countries all over the world about their road toll and the relevance to BAC will simply highlight the fact that BAC has little to do with the road toll beyond the severity of the incidents that occur as a result of grog influencing the actual outcome.

Give me highways full of people driving under the influence over brain-dead twats texting, applying lippy, reading maps or nursing animals on their laps anyday.

[MITCHAY]

A dose of reality here guys. BAC is just a measure at which you can be charged, it's not a measure of sobriety.

Doing 100km/h in a 100km/h zone in crappy conditions makes it legal, but not safe

What you think people don't get sloshed under the 0.05 limit? :

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

A dose of reality here guys. BAC is just a measure at which you can be charged, it's not a measure of sobriety.

Doing 100km/h in a 100km/h zone in crappy conditions makes it legal, but not safe

What you think people don't get sloshed under the 0.05 limit? :

2 can Sam or a Cadbury- Glass and a half

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by DJM83

2 can Sam or a Cadbury- Glass and a half

That wasn't my point but :

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

A dose of reality here guys. BAC is just a measure at which you can be charged, it's not a measure of sobriety.

Doing 100km/h in a 100km/h zone in crappy conditions makes it legal, but not safe

What you think people don't get sloshed under the 0.05 limit? :

Well, actually they don't. The BAC is an indicator of how much available alcohol is in the blood stream, in other words no longer in the gastrointestinal tract and now in the blood. It is this alcohol in the blood that has the effects on the central nervous system. A Sam two can will not be sloshed at a level below 0.05, he will just get there on less consumed due to greater gastric absorption and therefore a more rapid rise in BAC. Now it is true that seasoned drinkers can tolerate higher BAC without physical sign of intoxication (highest I have seen is a guy walking and talking fine with a BAC of .287), but clinical research over a wide number of people showed that a BAC is a safe level that demonstrated mental function that was well within acceptable limits.

There are many factors that effect alcohol consumption and the ability of it to pass the gastrointestinal tract. The most common of these is the presence of food in the gut. There are also factors that affect the rate the BAC raises in a given time, liver function (alcoholics have damaged livers that take longer), body mass, age, sex etc. None of these factors affect the central nervous system effects at BAC of less than 0.05, they affect how quick the BAC rises above 0.05.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

That wasn't my point but :

Maybe i should check my BAC :

[crunchbunty]

I wasn't gonna get involved with this one, but I thought some of my experiences may be of interest to some people.

About ten years ago (when I was at Uni), I completed some studies of drugs and alcohol. Now some of this research was obvious - alcohol and drugs don't make you a better driver but, the extent to which one drink can affect reaction times is unbelievable.

We used a standard light system. A board with approx 50 lights was placed in front of each subject. when a light came on, the subject then pressed the light (thus switching it off). A subject would do complete the test (about 100 lights would come on), then try it again after one standard drink.

Most people thought they could do it faster after a drink (coz they felt more relaxed). Of the 90 people we tested. Noone could match their 0% BAC times. No one even got within 0.25 seconds of their 'sober' times.

We even tried it the other way around. Have a drink, do the test. Wait an hour or so, test your BAC to ensure 0%, try the test again. Same results.

Over the test group, the average reaction time was .6seconds slower. Doesn't sound like much, eh? But at 100km/h that is near 20metres. At fifty km/h, that is still close to 10 metres.

How many times (when driving at 50km/h or over) have idiots pulled out in front of you, or stepped onto the road, or you've just taken your eyes off the road and you didn't realize the traffic was stopped? If you had to brake, bringing the car to a stop within 10mteres (30 ish feet) of the pedestrian, badly driven hyundai, traffic jam etc, then you probably would have hit said object if you'd had a drink before getting behind the wheel.

I'm not preaching to anyone here. We are all entitled to our own opinions. After my studies, I never had a drink before I drove. Not even one.

I tend to subscribe to the belief that idiots cause accidents. Not doing 110 in a 100 zone, not having a XXXX gold after work on Friday, but inattentive drivers, idiots, HSV drivers etc. I reckon that I have to have all my faculties operating at maximum capacity incase the soccer mum in her Prado pulls out in front of me. Or incase her kids step out in front of me. Or in case I hit a little bit of oil/petrol/detergent etc on the road and need to react as quickly as possible.

One drink might only cost me 0.6 of a second, but I might need that six tenths of a second.

Just my two cents.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by crunchbunty

I wasn't gonna get involved with this one, but I thought some of my experiences may be of interest to some people.

About ten years ago (when I was at Uni), I completed some studies of drugs and alcohol. Now some of this research was obvious - alcohol and drugs don't make you a better driver but, the extent to which one drink can affect reaction times is unbelievable.

We used a standard light system. A board with approx 50 lights was placed in front of each subject. when a light came on, the subject then pressed the light (thus switching it off). A subject would do complete the test (about 100 lights would come on), then try it again after one standard drink.

Most people thought they could do it faster after a drink (coz they felt more relaxed). Of the 90 people we tested. Noone could match their 0% BAC times. No one even got within 0.25 seconds of their 'sober' times.

We even tried it the other way around. Have a drink, do the test. Wait an hour or so, test your BAC to ensure 0%, try the test again. Same results.

Over the test group, the average reaction time was .6seconds slower. Doesn't sound like much, eh? But at 100km/h that is near 20metres. At fifty km/h, that is still close to 10 metres.

How many times (when driving at 50km/h or over) have idiots pulled out in front of you, or stepped onto the road, or you've just taken your eyes off the road and you didn't realize the traffic was stopped? If you had to brake, bringing the car to a stop within 10mteres (30 ish feet) of the pedestrian, badly driven hyundai, traffic jam etc, then you probably would have hit said object if you'd had a drink before getting behind the wheel.

I'm not preaching to anyone here. We are all entitled to our own opinions. After my studies, I never had a drink before I drove. Not even one.

I tend to subscribe to the belief that idiots cause accidents. Not doing 110 in a 100 zone, not having a XXXX gold after work on Friday, but inattentive drivers, idiots, HSV drivers etc. I reckon that I have to have all my faculties operating at maximum capacity incase the soccer mum in her Prado pulls out in front of me. Or incase her kids step out in front of me. Or in case I hit a little bit of oil/petrol/detergent etc on the road and need to react as quickly as possible.

One drink might only cost me 0.6 of a second, but I might need that six tenths of a second.

Just my two cents.

Do you drive when you are tired?
Do you drive on stinking hot days when the air pollution level is higher?
Do you drive when you have a cold or flu?
Do you drive you are angry?
Do you drive when you are sad?

All these things effect your reaction times as well, or are they not important because they are too difficult to measure?

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by flappist

Do you drive when you are tired?
Do you drive on stinking hot days when the air pollution level is higher?
Do you drive when you have a cold or flu?
Do you drive you are angry?
Do you drive when you are sad?

All these things effect your reaction times as well, or are they not important because they are too difficult to measure?

you're right they do, so why add another one that we CAN control to the potion?

[crunchbunty]

Excellent reply, Flappist.

You are 100% correct. Unfortunately, we have are yet to develop a roadside sadness meter.

There is no doubt that even one drink increases your reaction time, As does being tired, taking antihistamine, having your mind on other stuff etc.

They are just as important, but simply too hard monitor and enforce.

The one thing we can measure and enforce is BAC.

[f1tzy]

Another thing is i don't think a lot of people have a drink and then drive as soon as they have thrown the empty out. I think what most people (i know i am) are ****ed off about is if i have a drink at a bbq at a mates house and i have to leave about 30 mins after it will put me over the proposed limit

[crunchbunty]

True. And your reactions will be slower. I love a drink, but I just don't drink and drive.

I usually hang out for more than 30 mins at BBQ's or I stick to Coke (the consumption of which sharpens your reactions!!!!) or some other soft drink.

Oddly enough, a belly full of burnt snags, potato salad and cheesecake would probably make you tired enough to increase your reactions too!

That's bad enough without adding a beer to it!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by crunchbunty

True. And your reactions will be slower. I love a drink, but I just don't drink and drive.

I usually hang out for more than 30 mins at BBQ's or I stick to Coke (the consumption of which sharpens your reactions!!!!) or some other soft drink.

Oddly enough, a belly full of burnt snags, potato salad and cheesecake would probably make you tired enough to increase your reactions too!

That's bad enough without adding a beer to it!

I don't drink and drive either but I believe that life is for living and really if your driving skill level is so low that a BAC of between 0.2 and 0.5 will render you incapable of controlling a motor vehicle safely then maybe you should not be allowed to drive at all.

Here is an idea, do you test again with a BAC of 0.0499 and if you pass then you have a 0.05 limit, if you fail you have a 0.02.

I strongly suspect that it won't actually happen anyway. One on the main incomes to the government here is from tourism and the 0.02 will dramatically effect the hospitality industry therefore reducing government income.

One thing is absolutely 100% sure as far as the incumbent government is concerned, they will never do ANYTHING that will reduce their income.

[crunchbunty]

Interesting point of view.

I don't believe anyone suggested you are incapable of controlling a motor vehicle after a beer.

What cannot be argued with is the fact that it increases reaction time and can be measured.

Your argument of "I believe life is for living" is confusing. Are you suggesting that consuming alcohol and then getting behind the wheel is living? You say that you don't drink and drive - is that because life is worth living and not worth risking!

Even the most skilled driver cannot escape the fact that their reactions are slower after a drink. I am surprised that people argue about whether they should be able to knowingly consume a legal depressive drug (it depresses the senses - I'm not talking about clinical depression) and still get behind the wheel. If one drink adds 20 metres to your stopping distance, would you be so eager to let 15psi out of your front tyres and venture down the highway? Or simply remove the rear brakes. That would add 20 metres! Smear some dirt on windscreen perhaps.

It slows you down. Even taking into account the effect of alcohol, most of us are probably better drivers than my (insert stereotype here) neighbour. She's hopeless. But people like her need to be avoided. It's a pretty reasonable choice - Drink or Drive.

Don't avoid alcohol because your driving skills are so woeful that you need all the help u can get. Avoid alcohol because you need to avoid idiots that are allowed on our streets.

Incidentally. I'm 105kg, after one drink I'm only 0.012.

[flappist]

In that you are all about statistics, would driving a FG with DSC, brembos, multiple air bags and crumple zones and having consumed one drink be more or less dangerous to the other road users than driving, for example, a XC or NF with none of those safety features stone cold sober?

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by flappist

In that you are all about statistics, would driving a FG with DSC, brembos, multiple air bags and crumple zones and having consumed one drink be more or less dangerous to the other road users than driving, for example, a XC or NF with none of those safety features stone cold sober?

your typical FG with brembo's would be a GT or F6 with around 415hp so i'd guess it would be equally as dangerous as a clapped out XC, granted it will outbrake it even with poor reaction time, but reaction time applies to controlling your throttle foot too.

I doubt the 0.2 limit will ever be introduced anyway.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

your typical FG with brembo's would be a GT or F6 with around 415hp so i'd guess it would be equally as dangerous as a clapped out XC, granted it will outbrake it even with poor reaction time, but reaction time applies to controlling your throttle foot too.

I doubt the 0.2 limit will ever be introduced anyway.

Hopefully the politicians seek advice from people with real research
of data and real actions designed to reduce the road toll.

Politicians are quick to pull the triger on legislation because they can
be seen to be doing something - it's just not the right thing.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Do you drive when you are tired?
Do you drive on stinking hot days when the air pollution level is higher?
Do you drive when you have a cold or flu?
Do you drive you are angry?
Do you drive when you are sad?

All these things effect your reaction times as well, or are they not important because they are too difficult to measure?

In my experience, some of these are the vastly more common reasons for crashes. But you forgot two.

Do you drive while reading a text or talking on the phone?
Do you drive while changing a CD?

I do not see this as something that will come in, like Flappist said, the effect on the hospitality industry would be huge.

Look at government revenue, ever alcohol sales earns the government a large amount in tax. Bring in a law like this and the loss in taxes would far outweigh the revenue earned in fines.

By the way, driver fatigue slows reaction times and hazard perception to a point that exceeds 0.08 BAC.

Sure your test with the flashing lights shows a slowing in reaction times, that is without argument. The problem is the introduction of 0.02 induces restrictions on peoples lifestyle and recreation for no tangible benefit. In all crashes it is impossible to prove that a 0.05 BAC was the cause of the accident. Yes it may be a contributing factor but often less of a factor than the others that caused the accident, I hope that makes sense. Lets not forget, it is rare that a crash occurs through one mistake or incident, there are normally a number of contributing factors.

As for this argument of "well lets get rid of the one that we can control", lets do it properly than and get rid of the factors that cause a lot more accidents. Lets ban all car stereo systems, ban all mobiles in vehicles, make it compulsory for headlights to be on at all times, speed limit all cars to 40 km/h and ban driving in wet weather. That is the only way to reduce the road toll to nothing. I hope it does not happen though!

[Professor Farnsworth]

some of you are forgetting we don't live in a perfect world. i've never disagreed that there are many factors that contribute to accidents, i'm well aware of these other variables, the point is that drink driving is and always has been a big issue, as it's a needless waste. in time you'll probably find there will be technology to prevent you driving when you're tired, too emotional, or have the stereo up too loud. Until then you should use common sense..

[irish2]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

In my experience, some of these are the vastly more common reasons for crashes. But you forgot two.

Do you drive while reading a text or talking on the phone?
Do you drive while changing a CD?

I do not see this as something that will come in, like Flappist said, the effect on the hospitality industry would be huge.

Look at government revenue, ever alcohol sales earns the government a large amount in tax. Bring in a law like this and the loss in taxes would far outweigh the revenue earned in fines.

By the way, driver fatigue slows reaction times and hazard perception to a point that exceeds 0.08 BAC.

Sure your test with the flashing lights shows a slowing in reaction times, that is without argument. The problem is the introduction of 0.02 induces restrictions on peoples lifestyle and recreation for no tangible benefit. In all crashes it is impossible to prove that a 0.05 BAC was the cause of the accident. Yes it may be a contributing factor but often less of a factor than the others that caused the accident, I hope that makes sense. Lets not forget, it is rare that a crash occurs through one mistake or incident, there are normally a number of contributing factors.

As for this argument of "well lets get rid of the one that we can control", lets do it properly than and get rid of the factors that cause a lot more accidents. Lets ban all car stereo systems, ban all mobiles in vehicles, make it compulsory for headlights to be on at all times, speed limit all cars to 40 km/h and ban driving in wet weather. That is the only way to reduce the road toll to nothing. I hope it does not happen though!

Great post. I doubt bringing in all those changes at the end would actually reduce the road toll to zero. People still get run over at 40k's.

[Auturbo6]

It's illegal to drive wilst under the influence of drugs so ive allways been amused by the fact that it was legal to drink drive but only to a .05 blood alcohol limit.
Make it legal or illegal none of this half way #x#x.

[SLO AU XR8]

Originally Posted by Auturbo6

It's illegal to drive wilst under the influence of drugs so ive allways been amused by the fact that it was legal to drink drive but only to a .05 blood alcohol limit.
Make it legal or illegal none of this half way #x#x.

it is illegal to drive under the influence of ILLEGAL drugs. Alcohol is legal. There is your difference!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by SLO AU XR8

it is illegal to drive under the influence of ILLEGAL drugs. Alcohol is legal. There is your difference!

The other difference is there is research and data available as to the effect on driving ability at different levels of BAC, we have many decades of experience on this and the effects of alcohol are a well known constant.

Other drugs do not allow this knowledge as they are ever evolving, 50 years ago there was no such thing as ice, crack, speed, ecstasy, fantasy, PCP etc. How do you monitor blood concentration levels of so many chemical compounds with so many different effects. That is just considering the actual drug, it gets even more complex when you consider the hundreds of different compounds that those drugs are cut with.

As has been said, for as long as they are illegal to use at all, there will be no legal tolerance for use whilst driving and nor should there be. If some drugs are legalised, then there would have to be a way of monitoring levels as there is with alcohol, but legalisation of drugs is a whole new topic and one best left alone.

[RG]

Originally Posted by Auturbo6

It's illegal to drive wilst under the influence of drugs so ive allways been amused by the fact that it was legal to drink drive but only to a .05 blood alcohol limit.
Make it legal or illegal none of this half way #x#x.

It's illegal to take illicit drugs also as they are a banned substance.

It isn't illegal to drive under the influence of prescription drugs either.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by RG

It isn't illegal to drive under the influence of prescription drugs either.

It is up here if they debilitate you or you are warned that you cannot drive/operate heavy machinery by the pharmacist/doctor......

[RG]

Originally Posted by flappist

It is up here if they debilitate you or you are warned that you cannot drive/operate heavy machinery by the pharmacist/doctor......

But can you be tested for them by any way other than a blood test?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

It is up here if they debilitate you or you are warned that you cannot drive/operate heavy machinery by the pharmacist/doctor......

Correct, any medication or illness that adversely affects your ability to operate a vehicle is illegal. If you were taking a sedating medication (for example valium) and you were involved in an at fault accident, you can be charged with an offence for driving under the influence of medications. Medication is not a defence.

Similarly, if you suffer from uncontrolled epilepsy or diabetes etc you are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle. Any doctor that knows of your condition and the lack of control of symptoms is legally required to report it to the department of transport.

Not sure what other states are like but this is correct in QLD.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by RG

But can you be tested for them by any way other than a blood test?

Yes they have tongue swab thingies that are primarily used for detection of naughty stuff but also register opiates etc.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by RG

But can you be tested for them by any way other than a blood test?

Not without a toxicology blood screen and I am not sure if they can legally collect such a sample. They have legislation covering the collection of blood alcohol samples but I am not sure if that extends to toxicology. Very easy for me to find out when I am back at work. You can have your medical records used, your doctor is legally required to report any medical condition or treatment that is likely to adversely affect driving ability. Your doctor can be compelled to make a statement as to your medical suitability to drive and it is a serious offence for him to not comply or give misleading information. There are very strict guidelines on this regarding what medications are listed and what medical conditions are reportable. This does not get used often but the legislation is there and you can bet they would use it if the crash resulted in a death.
Your medications are also easily tracked through the pharmacist and medicare as most sedating drugs are also required to be recorded on national registers, to easy to prove.