"No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

[mistermack]

Use of mobile phones is banned . MM Fact: if you drink alcohol there is a deleterious effect on your driving


don't bother us with the 'I drive more carefully when I've had a drink so I'm not unsafe .' BULLSHIT !

Use of mobile phones is banned. Carrying mobile phones in a car is not. Just the phone ringing, or your passenger carrying on a conversation, has a deleterious effect on your driving.
And it's not a fact, it's bollocks, if you don't quantify it. One mouthful of beer doesn't have a deleterious effect. Just you saying it, or writing it big, doesn't make it fact. It's just you talking bollocks.
.

[mistermack]

Maybe you've been lucky. Certainly people you've driven past have.
Seriously, how much do you personally think you can drink and be safe?

You really have missed the point. What a silly question! You can never be safe.

[Tigger]

Maybe you've been lucky. Certainly people you've driven past have.
Seriously, how much do you personally think you can drink and be safe?

You really have missed the point. What a silly question! You can never be safe.

Oh, I thought I was asking a sensible question. I can be safe, see, because I drive carefully and I bothered to pass an advanced test.
I thought you were suggesting you too could be safe after a drink, for why else would you be prepared to risk the safety of yourself and others and drive at all?

[mistermack]

Oh, I thought I was asking a sensible question. I can be safe, see, because I drive carefully and I bothered to pass an advanced test.
I thought you were suggesting you too could be safe after a drink, for why else would you be prepared to risk the safety of yourself and others and drive at all?

Don't give me that advanced test bollocks. The first person I ever knew who bothered with that was my best friend, who had an accident six months later, and killed one of his rear passengers.
The cause of the crash was carrying four adults in a smallish car. Like many people, he was unaware how badly a fully loaded car takes corners.
So thinking your'e a good driver, or passing tests, doesn't make you safe. Nothing makes you safe. If you think you are safe, you're a liability.
.

[Tigger]

Oh, I thought I was asking a sensible question. I can be safe, see, because I drive carefully and I bothered to pass an advanced test.
I thought you were suggesting you too could be safe after a drink, for why else would you be prepared to risk the safety of yourself and others and drive at all?

Don't give me that advanced test bollocks. The first person I ever knew who bothered with that was my best friend, who had an accident six months later, and killed one of his rear passengers.
The cause of the crash was carrying four adults in a smallish car. Like many people, he was unaware how badly a fully loaded car takes corners.
So thinking your a good driver, or passing tests, doesn't make you safe. Nothing makes you safe. If you think you are safe, you're a liability.
.

What an angry man. I hope you don't drive when you're all het up like that. I know I'm safe, because I've been trained to be.

[Feck]

I've been drinking and smoking since I was 11 ,I'm not dead yet that means that smoking and drinking don't kill people and I smoke in bed after a drink so all those stories about that must be untrue I've never burnt to death . And you do get charged with driving a vehicle with too many people in !

Stating the obvious ,the proven facts, is bullshit is it ? and now we are down to one mouthful of beer are we ,is that how much you drink ? it isn't is it ? ,so why mention it . And the effects of alcohol have been quantified side-lining the issue by saying that talking to a passenger or the phone ringing affects your driving is not relevant ,listing things that affect your driving does somehow make drink driving any safer . fuck it by your logic PCP is really dangerous to drive on so beer must be fine ?????

[mistermack]

What an angry man. I hope you don't drive when you're all het up like that. I know I'm safe, because I've been trained to be.

I'm not angry. I just lack social skills, so I unfortunately say what I think. If I think it's bollocks, I say so.
My friend was well trained to be safe. He still killed his passenger. Police drivers are well trained. They still cause fatal accidents. So your last statement is indeed bollocks.
.

[mistermack]

Stating the obvious ,the proven facts, is bullshit is it ? and now we are down to one mouthful of beer are we ,is that how much you drink ? it isn't is it ? ,so why mention it .

Do I have to spell it out? You claimed alcohol caused serious impairment. You didn't define serious, or define what quantity you were talking about. That makes it just a meaningless statement that makes you feel virtuous, apparently.
That's why I mentioned a mouthful, because according to you, it has a serious deleterious effect on driving.

I think almost any fool can see that a small amount has no serious effect, and a skinful is criminally reckless. You don't seem to appreciate that obvious fact.
However, the law in most countries does, so it's you that's in the minority.
.

[JimC]

What an angry man. I hope you don't drive when you're all het up like that. I know I'm safe, because I've been trained to be.

I'm not angry. I just lack social skills, so I unfortunately say what I think. If I think it's bollocks, I say so.
My friend was well trained to be safe. He still killed his passenger. Police drivers are well trained. They still cause fatal accidents. So your last statement is indeed bollocks.
.

No one is claiming "absolute safety", so you are attacking a straw man. In statistical terms, there are a number of factors which alter the relative safety of any given driver. Alcohol and drugs are major players amongst these factors. One or 2 drinks may only make a slight difference, but the safety risk rises considerably after that. No one is arguing for zero alcohol %...

And there is absolutely no doubt, based on Australian accident statistics that I have seen (which only count the driver's alcohol level, BTW), that the relatively small number of drivers with blood alcohol levels above the legal limit are disproportionally involved in accidents causing injury or death. Hence, I fully support measures designed to keep the numbers of such people to a minimum.

[Feck]

What an angry man. I hope you don't drive when you're all het up like that. I know I'm safe, because I've been trained to be.

I'm not angry. I just lack social skills, so I unfortunately say what I think. If I think it's bollocks, I say so.
My friend was well trained to be safe. He still killed his passenger. Police drivers are well trained. They still cause fatal accidents. So your last statement is indeed bollocks.
.

'I know my limits' ' I wasn't Drunk ' 'I'd only had a few ' 'I was driving extra carefully' Blah blah blah I'm not in a minority when I say drinking impairs driving that's why the legal limits are so low (or zero) .

[mistermack]

What an angry man. I hope you don't drive when you're all het up like that. I know I'm safe, because I've been trained to be.

I'm not angry. I just lack social skills, so I unfortunately say what I think. If I think it's bollocks, I say so.
My friend was well trained to be safe. He still killed his passenger. Police drivers are well trained. They still cause fatal accidents. So your last statement is indeed bollocks.
.

No one is claiming "absolute safety", so you are attacking a straw man. In statistical terms, there are a number of factors which alter the relative safety of any given driver. Alcohol and drugs are major players amongst these factors. One or 2 drinks may only make a slight difference, but the safety risk rises considerably after that. No one is arguing for zero alcohol %...

And there is absolutely no doubt, based on Australian accident statistics that I have seen (which only count the driver's alcohol level, BTW), that the relatively small number of drivers with blood alcohol levels above the legal limit are disproportionally involved in accidents causing injury or death. Hence, I fully support measures designed to keep the numbers of such people to a minimum.

If the word "safe" doesn't actually mean safe, only "fairly safe" or not particularly dangerous, then we are clearly talking different languages.
I hope you don't work with nuclear weapons.
The degree of safety is obviously the point in this subject. That's why I point out that no driver can legitimately claim to be "safe".

Insurance companies know better than anyone who is safer, and who is more dangerous.
A conviction for for drink-driving would not put a fifty-year-old into the same bracket as an 18 year old. Why not ban people from driving till they are thirty? Think of all the lives you would save.

I've got no problem with drink-driving laws, but there should be a brake on treating people like criminals BEFORE they have caused harm to others. By all means throw the book at someone if they have an accident while over the limit, but all this sanctimonious claptrap is just people sounding off because it makes them feel virtuous.
The truth is that most drink related accidents are not caused by people who are borderline, it's by people who are massively pissed.
Why is there hardly any graduation in the penalties?
There is no incentive to be sensible. If you are over, you might as well get pissed. You get treated the same.
These heavy drinkers know that, and they are the ones who are causing the carnage, not people who are borderline.
I would personally have lower penalties for someone who had not caused an accident, or had not comitted a driving offence, but were slightly over the limit. And much bigger penalties for careless or dangerous driving, (sober or not), and for being well over the alcohol limit. The penalty should match the crime. ie, the level of danger caused to others.
.

[mistermack]

'I know my limits' ' I wasn't Drunk ' 'I'd only had a few ' 'I was driving extra carefully' Blah blah blah I'm not in a minority when I say drinking impairs driving that's why the legal limits are so low (or zero) .

No, you're not in a minority. It's just a completely meaningless statement that lots of people make. It seems to make them feel saintly.
Wearing specs impairs driving. It's still legal. My brother-in-law can't even drive at night. He can still legally drive.

I pay less than £200 for fully comprehensive insurance, including breakdown cover. Why should I share the road with people who are such a risk, they pay ten times that amount? But we all do.
People just concentrate on drink driving because it makes them feel sanctimoniously virtuous, and they can't be assed to look at what really causes risk to others.
.

[Feck]

People are in general too stupid to be allowed behind the wheel . And yes there are many many things that increase risk .

[Trolldor]

Wearing specs does not 'impair driving'.

[JimC]

mistermack wrote:

Why is there hardly any graduation in the penalties?
There is no incentive to be sensible. If you are over, you might as well get pissed. You get treated the same.

There are certainly variations in the penalties under Australian laws - heavier fines and or longer periods of licence loss for greater blood alcohol readings...

Insurance companies know better than anyone who is safer, and who is more dangerous.
A conviction for for drink-driving would not put a fifty-year-old into the same bracket as an 18 year old. Why not ban people from driving till they are thirty? Think of all the lives you would save.

Sure, drink driving is only one factor amongst many, but it is one that is fully controllable by personal decisions, and one most amenable to reducing by appropriate law enforcement, including the random breath testing supported by the majority of people in Oz, and the majority of people on this thread.