I don't think drink driving penalties are harsh enough.

[BA GT-HO]

I have never really been affected by a drink driver until yesterday. I won't go into details besides saying I came across an accident site where a serial drink driver had blown 0.4 after swerving into the opposite lane and crashing into an innocent motorist (who is fine besides shock). Considering this person had just got his license back 3 months ago after having it suspended for 18 months for drink driving got me wondering what sentence would likely be imposed on him.

I did a google search and found most serial drink drivers (by that I mean getting caught more than once with a reading above 0.15) get their licenses suspended for 5 or so years and a fine ranging between $1000-$2500 and sometimes a suspended jail term of 3-6 months.

Is this really good enough? I think not. There should be a minimum 1 year jail if you offend twice within 5 years with a reading above 0.15. Then take the license off the person for 15 years minimum. Clearly when you are that drunk YOU KNOW you are over the limit, yet you still choose to endanger lives. My driving teacher always taught me DRIVING IS A PRIVELAGE NOT A RIGHT.

If the Government was serious about cutting the road toll it would impose way harsher penalties for drink driving that 6 months suspended license and such.

[daniel_rossy]

agreed.
if some of you think it is easy to drink and drive, next time your getting a lift home with a mate after you'v been drinking, pretend your driving, and see how hard it is and notice your reaction times to everything.
Its not. and if you think you can you should go along with a police officer to a mother and fathers house at 3am to tell them their son or daughter has been ran over by a drink driver.

[XR8putts]

Agreed also.

I believe if a person gets done for drink driving having been convicted of the same thing once before - they need to spend atleast 6 months in jail. This might teach 'em.

I can almost understand someone having a drink or two and driving home over the limit and getting booked. But if they do it again, they really have no excuse - and they need a propper punishment.

[4Vman]

0.06 or maybe 0.07 shows an attempt to stay under but poor judgement and the current penalties are ok, anything beyond 0.07 is flagrant disregard.

[nugget378]

Loss of license wont stop the few that dont care, they will just keep driving regardless..

Harsher laws do tend to trickle down to lesser offenses.

[pauljh74]

My sister got done for 0.08, got her license back and then within a year got done again, this time 20 months. The judge warned her, if it happens again, she could go to jail. She gets it back again/is eligible to get one late this year and has lent the car to a friend - so she isn't driving at all. We're trying to drill into her that drinking = no driving and driving = no drinking. She still thinks she can drink a couple and then be OK. We've made it clear it shouldn't happen again - next time there won't be any help. I think she has copped enough of a penalty in her case - the judge wasn't in a mood to let her off lightly. If it does happen again in her case, it'll only be worse for her.

I do think that heavy drink drivers - at 0.4 there's no way you can think you are perhaps a little over or are OK to drive. That and people who are done for driving while disqualified and often drunk - jail should be used as a deterrent far more often. We hear of people too often who have a 10 year+ history of drink driving, incur a ban, get caught driving unlicensed and drunk again, get further bans, ignore them, get caught again and what does the judge do? Increases the ban that hasn't stopped them the last couple of times. At this point a jail term should be the punishment. The person's ignoring of the bans shows contempt and a lack of remorse for their actions.

It's getting to the point that if you aren't speeding or driving stupid, you won't be at risk of being caught driving unlicensed. A co-worker's boyfriend has never had a license - got done drink driving before he actually got around to getting his license. Got caught again driving a work vehicle - told his employer he had a license when directly asked as he got the job. She explained to us that they've got some fine to pay before he can go for his license - that was over a year ago and the guy drives to work daily. 2 people working full time and living together - should have had the cash to pay it off by now. Tempted to call it in and tip off the cops.

[vztrt]

Apparently NSW is getting tougher on DD

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-n...0114-7go8.html

Drink drivers 'less likely to get off'

January 14, 2009

NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos has welcomed statistics showing fewer drink-drivers are escaping conviction, but says more needs to be done.

Figures released by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics on Wednesday show less than one person in 40 convicted of a high-range drink driving offence is allowed a Section 10 order, which means no conviction is recorded.

Before new sentencing guidelines were issued by the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) in 2004, almost one in 10 escaped conviction.

But the statistics show there has been little reduction in the use of Section 10 for low-range drink-driving, with about 40 per cent of low-range offenders escaping conviction.

Mr Hatzistergos said the government would convene a working party to examine whether more stringent guidelines or new legislation were needed for drink-driving offences.

"While the government welcomes the impact of the Court of Criminal Appeal's guideline judgment on the use of Section 10s, we acknowledge more needs to be done," he said in a statement.

"It is important to recognise that community awareness and attitudes to drink-driving offences have changed."

A spokesman for the attorney-general said the review of guidelines on Section 10 orders would be limited to drink-driving cases.

On Tuesday, the NSW opposition said Section 10 of the NSW Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was being abused by magistrates and lawyers.

"I think some magistrates make a practice of it," said opposition justice spokesman Greg Smith, who is a former prosecutor.

"I think lawyers do shop around to get the more lenient people to do their cases. I've seen it happen."

Mr Hatzistergos said on Tuesday the Section 10 provision was not generally being misused.

A similar provision in Commonwealth legislation allowed Biggest Loser host Ajay Rochester to escape a conviction on Wednesday, despite pleading guilty to illegally claiming $14,000 in welfare benefits.

[gz1]

Originally Posted by BA GT-HO

Is this really good enough? I think not. There should be a minimum 1 year jail if you offend twice within 5 years with a reading above 0.15. Then take the license off the person for 15 years minimum. Clearly when you are that drunk YOU KNOW you are over the limit, yet you still choose to endanger lives. My driving teacher always taught me DRIVING IS A PRIVELAGE NOT A RIGHT.

If the Government was serious about cutting the road toll it would impose way harsher penalties for drink driving that 6 months suspended license and such.

Fully agree with you.
In 1981 My then GF and her sister were killed by a drunk driver.
We were to meet at her parents place so we could announce our engagement that night.
The drunk got off with only a $400.00 fine.
No jail No suspension, no nothing. and that's for causing a twin fatality whilst driving at 0.14.
I got off with a lifetime of resentment and wondering what may have been.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by gz1

Fully agree with you.
In 1981 My then GF and her sister were killed by a drunk driver.
We were to meet at her parents place so we could announce our engagement that night.
The drunk got off with only a $400.00 fine.
No jail No suspension, no nothing. and that's for causing a twin fatality whilst driving at 0.14.
I got off with a lifetime of resentment and wondering what may have been.

This is sad to hear.

Over the years I’ve been involved in a few mishaps with drunk drivers. On one occasion this bloke was driving north along the south bound lanes of the Hume Freeway near the Picton exit. He smacked the car that was beside me in the left-hand headlight and speared into the back of my trailer. I was driving a Kenworth T600 at the time and they can be a little difficult to manoeuvre when it comes to a split second lane change.

Unbelievably when this moron climbed out of his car, he was so drunk, he could not even walk. And to make matters worse, had no injuries at all, except for some severe bruising to his eyes a broken nose, concussion and other possible injuries like dislodged teeth, you know, the type of injury that can occur in these types of accidents. When the cops turned up they weren’t in the mood for negotiating with him when he refused a breath test. Maybe it was hard for him to get that tube into his mouth when his teeth are falling out.

The poor bugger in the Nissan beside me was trapped in the passenger side of his car by his left leg, luckily he lived to talk about it. This was just a normal family heading back home to Goulburn after a day at the Easter show in 1991.

This moron could have quite easily killed that entire family.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Pfft you only have to walk out of your local pub at night to see the amount of drink driving that goes on.. Its bloody bullshite!

I just left my local now and there were 2 ****eheads getting into cars.... Its unbelievable that these same guys think they can do this and get away with it.

[XA-Coupe]

The legal system allows people who cough up for a good barrister, such as Brendan Murphy in Vic, to get off on technicalities. I don't even resent Brendan for it, he is only doing what the system allows him to do.
What technicalities you ask ?
calling an amber light, yellow
Mispronouncing the name of the breath testing device
Disagreements on what one member woud have done to the other, neither affecting the case.. such as allowing the offender to go back to their car for their cigarettes or not.

Then we have culpable driving. I am still at a loss as to why this exists.. what's wrong with Manslaughter? It is the death of a person not intentional but reasonably forseeable for their actions .. and even better, the penalities are harsher for some reason. Killing someone with a car is apparently less serious than killing someone another way.

Until these sorts of things are dealt with, then we can pass all the laws we like. People will get killed and a'holes will be getting away with it.

/rant

[xr6turbo2005]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

0.06 or maybe 0.07 shows an attempt to stay under but poor judgement and the current penalties are ok, anything beyond 0.07 is flagrant disregard.

tottaly agree. this is always going to be subject to much debate on suitable penalities etc for repeat offenders.

i often think the whole drink driving problem needs a complete re-think on how its policed with more focus on education etc.
- Pubs / clubs could have those breathtesting machines installed. As you say above, some people dont realise they are over the limit, and i beleive the majority of people would do teh right thing and not drive if they knew they were over the limit.
- instead of having RBT's catching people when they are already behind the wheel, why not go to pubs / clubs and conduct voluntary testing. Anyone caught over the limit with car keys on them (which is technically in charge of a vehicle and could be charged), they have the keys taken off them and they agree to attend a course of some sort with shows the after effects of accidents etc caused by drunk drivers. Its not only the people who are killed in an accident (in a way maybe the lucky ones) its the ones who now live life as a vegetable etc that it effects and their family.

I know there is lots of advertising showing accidents etc on TV, but its the old "wont happen to me" attutide. Educate at the cold face - in the pubs.

I know this is not the saving solution, but thought id put it out there and see what people think.

[prydey]

harsher penalties may or may not improve anything. the handing out of the punishments needs to be improved. maximum penalties are very rarely handed out.

a certain infringement/crime may have a maximum penalty of $2500 and a jail term + loss of licence for a period of time. the actual penalty that gets handed out would be less than a 1/4 of the fine, no jail time and loss of licence for a smaller period than it should be.

there shouldn't be any leniancy. once they start watering down the punishments it sets a huge precedent.

[dave289]

Originally Posted by prydey

harsher penalties may or may not improve anything. the handing out of the punishments needs to be improved. maximum penalties are very rarely handed out.

a certain infringement/crime may have a maximum penalty of $2500 and a jail term + loss of licence for a period of time. the actual penalty that gets handed out would be less than a 1/4 of the fine, no jail time and loss of licence for a smaller period than it should be.

there shouldn't be any leniancy. once they start watering down the punishments it sets a huge precedent.

the reason it continues to happen is because there is no REAL detterant. we all know someone that has been done drink driving, I know a few and some that have been done on more than one occasion. they have sometimes lost there licence and been fined and others for the same offence have kept there licence. It is sometimes a bit of a lucky dip, no set in stone rule for everyone.(basically you can buy your way out if you have enough money to pay a good lawyer....yet the courts are supposed to be fair for all, not fair for those that cant afford it but thats a story for another day....). A pommy mate of mine said that over in england where he lives if you get caught drink driving over the limit you automatically lose your licence for three months and it does not matter if your the judges son or somebody famous you will still cop the same. He said if you get caught the second time you are jailed for three months and you cant buy your way out like you can here. he said drink driving over there is almost non existant and its not acceptable in the way it is here to some, his old man owns a pub in england and he sees what goes on. If the same rules were apllied here evenly to everybody then I would expect you see a big drop in the number of drink driving here.If you knew you got caught you were guarnteed to lose your licence and guaranteed to go to jail if you ever got caught again I think this would detter many from drink driving the first time.surely this would get the message through, it may seem tough but this is what the law is for ,to PREVENT these things happening by way of detterant.THERE NEEDS TO BE A REASONABLE DETERANT FOR THERE TO BE PREVENTION. UNTIL THEN IT WILL CONTINUE LIKE A JOKE AND CONTINUALLY PUT OTHER PEOPLES LIVES AT RISK. THANKS TO THE LAW FOR MAKING US ALL SAFE. I also know people who have been damaged for life because of drink drivers but I wont go into that now....

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

0.06 or maybe 0.07 shows an attempt to stay under but poor judgement and the current penalties are ok, anything beyond 0.07 is flagrant disregard.

if you have been done once there should be no excuses you should have learned your lesson , first offenders (low and mid range only ) should do the traffic offenders program so the learn and receive a reduced penalty for sucsessful completion. high range offenders and repeat offenders need to have harsher penalties. repeat offenders should have court mandated treatment for their obvious alcohol problem . an option would be to offer an option of escaping a prison sentence in exchange for taking antabuse ( a drug that prevents you drinking ) if you drink even a sip of alcohol with antabuse you become violently ill and it takes days to stop having a reaction after you stop taking it so you can't just stop and go on a bender.

although the temptation to punish is great, helping obviously alcohol dependant people to quit would be of far greater benifit to the community than locking them up

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by dave289

(basically you can buy your way out if you have enough money to pay a good lawyer....yet the courts are supposed to be fair for all, not fair for those that cant afford it but thats a story for another day....)

The penalties were changed a while back here in Vic after a well known has-been from the seventies called Daryl Somers was caught driving home and basically got let off with nothing more than a donation to the poor box.

I still remember him on the news saying that he was a bloody idiot and that he was ashamed, but I bet as soon as he got home he would have been doing high fives and punching the air laughing at the judiciary system.

http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/mandatory.sentencing.html

Daryl Somers says he is a 'bloody idiot' for drink driving. But if the former host of Hey Hey It's Saturday wasn't such a famous 'bloody idiot', he may not have escaped a licence suspension when found guilty. Police say the minimum sentence for ordinary folk who blow 0.098, nearly double the legal 0.05 limit, is a six month licence suspension and a $300 fine. But Melbourne magistrate Kate Hawkins dismissed the charges on the condition he donates $600 to charity. No conviction was recorded. (Source: The Age, June 2001).

In my opinion, some of these inept out of touch magistrates are no better than the people who stand before them for allowing people like this to go unpunished.

Edit: For those who don’t know Daryl Somers. He would spend more than $600 on boozy lunch, so I’m sure that he will miss this amount from his wallet.

[FPVF6X189]

[QUOTE
- Pubs / clubs could have those breathtesting machines installed. As you say above, some people dont realise they are over the limit, and i beleive the majority of people would do teh right thing and not drive if they knew they were over the limit.
- instead of having RBT's catching people when they are already behind the wheel, why not go to pubs / clubs and conduct voluntary testing. QUOTE]


i agree but then your not getting actual readings i see it all the time people finish there last one then get up straight away and walk out problem then is if they check on breathalliyser on the way out they are getting mouth alcohol readings which arent correct and i doubt if most people will sit at a pub and drink a couple of glasses of water and wait fifteen minutes to see what there true reading is

[4Vman]

I remember a few years ago a friend had been drinking in a pub and wasnt sure how close to .05 he was, outside up the road there was a booze bus, he walked up to them and asked if they could breathalyze him, they bluntly refused to and told him it was upto him to asses his own level of intoxication and "roll the dice" as to weather he was over the limit...
I think there should be more facilities for people to check their BAC at licensed venues.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by xr6turbo2005

Pubs / clubs could have those breathtesting machines installed. As you say above, some people dont realise they are over the limit, and i beleive the majority of people would do teh right thing and not drive if they knew they were over the limit.
.

Ive seen a couple of them that, unbeleaveably, you need to pay $2 to use :

(yes i konw $2 is not alot at all in the end, but, for a life saving device you'ld think that the cost would be waved buy the pub of govenment...)

Im very cautious with drink driving, only one have i driven home from a night out after a few drinks, used the machine and had to wait around to be under the limit, and i had 3-4 beers over 5 hours. What is surprising is, there was not a patrol car near the pub...

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I remember a few years ago a friend had been drinking in a pub and wasnt sure how close to .05 he was, outside up the road there was a booze bus, he walked up to them and asked if they could breathalyze him, they bluntly refused to and told him it was upto him to asses his own level of intoxication and "roll the dice" as to weather he was over the limit...I think there should be more facilities for people to check their BAC at licensed venues.

Great thinking from our protective police force, their are probally some legal reasons behind it....

[mrbaxr6t]

Drink Driving is rife, and it seems there is little to be done to alert people they are over the limit, its more profitable to catch them and slam them with a fine. (this mentality sound familiar?) I support harsher penalties for drink driving (I don't do it) but an emerging problem is driving while under the influence of other illegal substances. In my opinion the penalty for this needs to be brutal, instant loss of licence and a fine for being under the influence of an illegal substance perhaps?

on the subject of fines :

Getting even a seatbelt infraction fine whilst being unemployed is hopeless - the individual lacks the financial resources to pay the fine. On the other end of the scale someone wealthy cops a $200 fine and it hurts far less.

What say fines are issued as a percentage of a persons' yearly income so the effect is the same financially regardless of income.

[TUF_302]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I remember a few years ago a friend had been drinking in a pub and wasnt sure how close to .05 he was, outside up the road there was a booze bus, he walked up to them and asked if they could breathalyze him, they bluntly refused to and told him it was upto him to asses his own level of intoxication and "roll the dice" as to weather he was over the limit...
I think there should be more facilities for people to check their BAC at licensed venues.

Thats strange?, i have a mate who went out a few friday nights back and he wanted to drive home, so he walked to the local cop shop and they where more than happy to bretho him!, he was 3 times the limit lol, so he slept in his car lol!


When it comes to serial drink drivers i think they should be locked up for 12-18 months minimum depending on how bad they have been!

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by TUF_302

Thats strange?, i have a mate who went out a few friday nights back and he wanted to drive home, so he walked to the local cop shop and they where more than happy to bretho him!, he was 3 times the limit lol, so he slept in his car lol!


When it comes to serial drink drivers i think they should be locked up for 12-18 months minimum depending on how bad they have been!

There could be a host of reasons why the members at a RBT station wouldn't test him so im careful not to pass judgment before knowing all the facts.
In terms of your mate technically you can still be charged with drink driving if you're caught sleeping in your car!!

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

There could be a host of reasons why the members at a RBT station wouldn't test him so im careful not to pass judgment before knowing all the facts.
In terms of your mate technically you can still be charged with drink driving if you're caught sleeping in your car!!

thats only 1/2 right you may enter the car from the passengers side without risk but just by putting the key in the drivers door you are deemed to be " in control of the vehicle" and can be done even if you are only opening it to get something out of the car. if you have been drinking stay away from the drivers side

[mas89]

but only the drivers who care would do a test or even stop and think if they are over the limit, or even think about the point of them even being capable of driving. the answer could/should be with the car makers to install a system that will not start or even shut down when it detected a level of alcohol around the drivers area.

but yes I don't think drink driving penalties are harsh enough.

[BA GT-HO]

Originally Posted by dave289

A pommy mate of mine said drink driving over there is almost non existant and its not acceptable in the way it is here to some

I too know a person that has moved here from England 3 years ago and was astounded at the amount of people that drink and drive. He said the same thing. You would almost get bashed if you were to try it over there.

[phillyc]

Take their cars off them. Second time you lose it for good.

It's what happens under the hoon laws. DD is much worse because it affects the whole journey.

Guess it won't happen as politicians, lawyers and judges are rife for doing it and they won't legislate a law that may affect them...

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by phillyc

It's what happens under the hoon laws. DD is much worse because it affects the whole journey.
...

That is constantly annoyong, "hoons" are becomming more socially belittled the drink drivers, the penalties for doing a burnout are worse then drinking driving! The thing is the focus is on the P-Plate and hoons drivers the media draws attention to it (possibly because of the circus of characters involved) and becomes a hot topic to sell. The bad thing is when a driver is over the limit, and is hooning, the focus is on the hoon aspect...

I agree, drink drivers should be charged under hoon laws (possibly remame the laws?)

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Nikked

That is constantly annoyong, "hoons" are becomming more socially belittled the drink drivers, the penalties for doing a burnout are worse then drinking driving! The thing is the focus is on the P-Plate and hoons drivers the media draws attention to it (possibly because of the circus of characters involved) and becomes a hot topic to sell. The bad thing is when a driver is over the limit, and is hooning, the focus is on the hoon aspect...

I agree, drink drivers should be charged under hoon laws (possibly remame the laws?)

Drink drivers are not suddenly immune to hoon laws just because they're over .05...
They still apply the same.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Drink drivers are not suddenly immune to hoon laws just because they're over .05...
They still apply the same.

I was more talking about media focus...