| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should cars be legally required to have breathalysers? |
| Yes, and they should be interlocks (that is, the car won't start unless you blow under 0.05). |
|
50% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes, but not interlocks – it should be up to the driver whether they test themselves. |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| No, but people should be free to get one installed if they pay for it themselves. |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| No, blood alcohol testing should be left to the police. |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 6 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
By the time they phased this in, drug driving will be more prevalent than drink driving anyhow.
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: |
thing is though, the fucktards who even contemplate driving after a few drinks, wont bother to use the device.
|
Oi. I resemble that remark.   
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Bucks5 wrote: | | By the time they phased this in, drug driving will be more prevalent than drink driving anyhow. |
Already is. See my post on page 1.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Do you know what would save even more lives? Mandating helmets for all occupants of cars.
Cut the nanny state BS out thanks. |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ The dealership doesn't need to organise it prior to sale? |
As I wrote above, it's called a predelivery check. You should get an informal certificate, or there will be a page for it in your service book.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | Do you know what would save even more lives? Mandating helmets for all occupants of cars.
Cut the nanny state BS out thanks. |
I have some sympathy for libertarian concerns in these areas, and for that reason would be strongly inclined not to support, say, mandatory interlocks. But requiring manufacturers/mechanics/VicRoads to place breathalysers in cars – and not even necessarily making it mandatory for drivers to carry, like France tried to do – is hardly a massive incursion into civil liberties. I think there are much worse liberty-oriented issues to worry about right now.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not sure it's such a great thing, just encourage people to drink up to the limit. I have three drinks and I shouldn't drive, I know that I'm not capable of driving properly, yet I'm no where near .05. If I know I'm driving I might have one drink only, but usually I won't even have that.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Breathalysers aren't infallible anyway.
If the alcohol hasn't had time to fully absorb into a person's system before blowing into the breathalyser, they may read as 0.4 and think they are safe but their BAC could rise above the limit a few minutes later.
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
|
luvdids 
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | | ^ The dealership doesn't need to organise it prior to sale? |
As I wrote above, it's called a predelivery check. You should get an informal certificate, or there will be a page for it in your service book. |
Not in any of the dealerships I've worked in.
Predelivery is letting tyres down (not to flat, just not as high as they are on the boat), taking plastic off, setting radio etc. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Not sure it's such a great thing, just encourage people to drink up to the limit. I have three drinks and I shouldn't drive, I know that I'm not capable of driving properly, yet I'm no where near .05. If I know I'm driving I might have one drink only, but usually I won't even have that. |
But on the flipside, how many people just trust their instincts like that and end up going over the limit? I tend to think you can never have too much information. If people want to drive around on .04 that's perfectly fine, though there would need to be advertising campaigns reminding people about blood alcohol going up after a last drink, etc. The system I'm proposing is really about people taking responsibility for themselves and being given the right tools to do it.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Not sure it's such a great thing, just encourage people to drink up to the limit. I have three drinks and I shouldn't drive, I know that I'm not capable of driving properly, yet I'm no where near .05. If I know I'm driving I might have one drink only, but usually I won't even have that. |
But on the flipside, how many people just trust their instincts like that and end up going over the limit? I tend to think you can never have too much information. If people want to drive around on .04 that's perfectly fine, though there would need to be advertising campaigns reminding people about blood alcohol going up after a last drink, etc. The system I'm proposing is really about people taking responsibility for themselves and being given the right tools to do it. |
Then I'm all for it!
Predelivery should be a general check of the vehicle, obviously it should not be necessary to check the wear on things like brakes. Make sure the wheel nuts are tight (no they are not always!) check the spare is in the boot, all the lights function, test drive to make sure the car handles correctly, no pulling, brakes work well and without bias, etc etc. that's a good PD anyway, I used to do 6 in a day at peak new company car season!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
npalm
Joined: 01 May 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Just voted for mandatory breathalyzers with interlocks. It's about saving people from other people's stupidity.
Many of us have done the wrong thing in the past and driven under the influence. I can recall a couple of times in my youth when I drove home pissed. I'm so grateful that I didn't hurt or kill anyone.
_________________
Side by side. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Do you really want to have to do a breath test every single time you go for a five minute trip to the shops, though?
It would certainly all but eradicate drink-driving, I'll say that much. But I doubt that it would be a particularly popular move. The fact that TAC ads have been presenting them explicitly as a punishment and a burden says it all – would be a little rich for them to turn around and start telling us that they're not so bad and that we're all going to be stuck with the system for our own good.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Do you really want to have to do a breath test every single time you go for a five minute trip to the shops, though?
It would certainly all but eradicate drink-driving, I'll say that much. But I doubt that it would be a particularly popular move. The fact that TAC ads have been presenting them explicitly as a punishment and a burden says it all – would be a little rich for them to turn around and start telling us that they're not so bad and that we're all going to be stuck with the system for our own good. |
Ha, if you think people won't find away around it in about 10 min flats, well I'll sell you a bridge! Trucks still have those 100 speed limited signs on, I was working ar Mercedes Benz trucks when the regs came out, and the speed limiters were fitted to every single truck! How many times has a fricken truck gone past you like your standing still, and your actually doing 100!
I think it would be a good incentive to have, but it would also encourage people to drink more than they might. Someone who doesn't drink much could drink to .04 and be so out of control its not funny. They really need a new way to measure it!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Not sure it's such a great thing, just encourage people to drink up to the limit. I have three drinks and I shouldn't drive, I know that I'm not capable of driving properly, yet I'm no where near .05. If I know I'm driving I might have one drink only, but usually I won't even have that. |
Depending what they are, 3 drinks would have you at or around 0.05.
1 standard alcoholic drink puts roughly 0.025% alcohol into your bloodstream. A healthy liver processes that in around an hour so 3 drinks in an hour is 0.075 minus what your liver processes.
The speed at which it gets into your blood stream depends on the alcohol content of the drink (straight spirits gets in slower but has a cumulative effect) and whether it's carbonated or not (CO2 speeds up absorption) and also other factors like what you've eaten, when you've eaten, your body mass etc.
The line is drawn at 0.05 because it's supposedly the place where most people will start to have their reflexes and judgement impaired. Doesn't mean you're drunk nor does it mean you're suddenly incapable of driving at 0.06 but were fine at 0.04.
How different people are impacted by the same level of BAC is a different argument. Some people have higher tolerance level than others, some are better drivers to start with. I'm confident that I can drive better at 0.10 BAC than many people can drive stone cold sober, but that's irrelevant if I got caught as it's not an aptitude or ability test, it's a line in the sand set at pretty much the lowest point.
Much as it's funny and seemingly primitive when you see US cops making suspected drunk drivers do things like walk a straight line or other physical coordination tests, maybe they have the right idea. If everyone had to do that prior to getting a license it'd be a lot safer on the road to start with.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
