Motor Accident Commission launches another lame drink driving campaign

[Crisis63]

A NEW road safety campaign targeting drink drivers "just over" the blood alcohol limit has been launched today by the Motor Accident Commission.
The 'Just over, just don't drive' campaign will focus on young males in particular who believe if they are not obviously drunk then they are still able to drive.
The MAC said impairment started after only a few drinks, with reaction times and judgement significantly reduced at .05. The campaign will include three TV commercials, two radio commercials, four venue advertisements for pubs and clubs and online advertising.
The MAC said the commercials were run in Victoria up to five years ago and were successful in reducing the road toll.
SAPOL traffic support branch superintendent Linda Fellows said police figures showed an increase in the number of people testing just over the limit and a reduction the amount blowing high figures.
"People are not blowing as high as they did some years ago, which is showing that there is some community impact - but the number of people drink driving is not really changing," she said.
"It's a real concern for us and we want people to make the decision not to drink and drive.
"People are misjudging the amount of alcohol they have had to drink and the message of this campaign is that just over is still over."

MAC general manager of corporate affairs Ben Tuffnell said about 30 per cent of road fatalities each year were caused by motorists driving over the legal blood alcohol limit.
"This campaign is showing you don't have to be drunk to be a drunk driver and being just over the limit can cause just as much carnage," he said.
He said the new commercials were run in Victoria up to five years ago and showed some success in reducing the road toll

Motor Accident Commission launches 'just over' drink driving campaign | Adelaide Now

" the message of this campaign is that just over is still over."
So what?

"MAC general manager of corporate affairs Ben Tuffnell said about 30 per cent of road fatalities each year were caused by motorists driving over the legal blood alcohol limit."
How much? The statement is useless without some qualification. But this is how these wastes of taxpayers money like to misuse their statistics.

“The MAC said the commercials were run in Victoria up to five years ago and were successful in reducing the road toll.”
Really?! I thought that was the speed cameras. Or wasn’t it the reduction in speed limits, or asking people to drive 5kmh less.

Being over a arbitrary limit has nothing to do with your ability to drive safely. Plenty of sober people have no idea. The current way of measuring intoxication is almost completely unrelated to the level of impairment at the lower end of the limits. It merely makes policing easier. If they want people to take them seriously then start being serious.

[Dr HaxZaw]

hhhhmmm I would have thought don't drink and drive would have pretty much covered the subject quite well... obviously a catch line stating the obvious was needed for South Australia... nothing unusual then i guess

[STEEV888]

should be 0.00

[Astranomical]

I can't see whats so hard about it, personally...if you've had even one sip of alcohol, don't drive. And if you're thinking about drinking, have a think about it before you start! Catch public transport, or get a mate to drive you. And if you're at home, save your drink(s) till the end of the day when you know you won't have to go anywhere. Come on...its pretty simple.

[one_and_only2004]

If you're unable to control a car after having a beer, there's a good chance that you can't control one when you're sober.

[Darren_L]

Being over a arbitrary limit has nothing to do with your ability to drive safely. Plenty of sober people have no idea. The current way of measuring intoxication is almost completely unrelated to the level of impairment at the lower end of the limits. It merely makes policing easier. If they want people to take them seriously then start being serious.

not trying to be a smart arse but how did you come to that conclusion ?

[wraith]

This is just more sexist advertising. As a male I feel we are being grossly misrepresented and we need to take a stand.

[Stressball]

[I]...about 30 per cent of road fatalities each year were caused by motorists driving over the legal blood alcohol limit.
"This campaign is showing you don't have to be drunk to be a drunk driver and being just over the limit can cause just as much carnage,"...

Gotta love that. 30% of accidents caused by motorists driving over the BAC limit. I wonder what percentage were in the 0.04 range.

[DAKSTER]

or how many were in the .05 - .08 range .. or how many non fatal accidents .. or how many tailgates hit poles in carparks..

Statistics can be used to prove or disprove anything. The percentage of fatalities in the .05 - .08 range is probably much lower than those with higher readings. A percentage will have been caused by people having a single drink which clashed with some medication they were on.

Where do you draw the line, thats the real question. I drink about 2 drinks a year, on a special occasion like a family birthday dinner or a romantic night out with my lady, I might have a single Bourbon and coke. I never have a second, as a basically non drinker I guess I have a low tolerance, because I can feel the effects of a second drink pretty much immediately, even if I dont have it till an hour later. I would be perfectly legal to drive ( pretty sure two drinks in an hour is ok legally ?) , but I would never drive when I feel that effect, in fact I wont drive after the first drink.

I vote for a 0.00 % limit for everyone. It applies to illegal drugs, why shouldnt it apply to legal ones. Anything that impedes your driving skills and road awareness should not be tolerated.

[gopher]

MAC general manager of corporate affairs Ben Tuffnell said about 30 per cent of road fatalities each year were caused by motorists driving over the legal blood alcohol limit.

the other 70 % were caused by sober people

therefore it must be safer to drive under the influence

[Shedvl]

the other 70 % were caused by sober people

therefore it must be safer to drive under the influence

Actually...no its not safer. I realise what you are trying to point out. The campaign is stupid, but I guess its better than no campaign. I agree with what a lot of you have written. Everytime Im driving I see people on their mobiles, calling or texting...people fiddling with their stereos...and people who I swear got their licence out of a weetbix box. The point is its a privilege to hold a licence. A car can turn into a very powerful weapon when in the wrong hands. Once people drink they feel invincible. Any alcohol affects your response time. Ive seen a lot of good drivers who are young and bad older drivers...and vice versa. The idiot who hit me was 39...old enough to know better. Ive just found out that he has been done for drink driving before..as far as Im concerned he should never get another licence....but I guarantee he will drive even though he is suspended. The bad drivers who cause accidents dont realise the damage they cause...financial and emotional. The guy who hit me had a blood alcohol reading of .293 he had no headlights on and an open can of bourbon. He hit me while I was stopped at a set of traffic lights, police think he was going at 100 klms per hour...even though he was absolutely hammered he still knew he had done the wrong thing and tried to run off. I wont go into the emotional damage too much because Im not after pity, but Im now suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and so is my mum. We dont care about compensation...we just want our life back to where it was. So the advice I have is "Think before you Drink"...in other words if you are going to drink..plan ahead. Also a split second of bad judgement in a car can mean a lifetime of pain. Picture it was a member of your family that was hit by a drunk driver.

Just a reminder of one person thinking they were ok to drive.....

[one_and_only2004]

I vote for a 0.00 % limit for everyone. It applies to illegal drugs, why shouldnt it apply to legal ones. Anything that impedes your driving skills and road awareness should not be tolerated.

Anything - like a radio perhaps? Advertising on the sides of the road? I believe things like that can be more distracting than a single Jim beam. I do see where you're coming from but a zero limit is simply stupid.

[GEN3RATD]

Anyone see that episode of mythbusters tonight? Proved it's more dangerous to drive on your mobile phone then to drive at 0.08bac.

Both ended bad just the mobile phone runs were worse.

Bit of info for you, I for one back a 0.00 limit but thats because I don't drink

[Crisis63]

should be 0.00

The devices used to measure blood alcohol are not accurate to 0.0%. I lost my licence for driving with .098 blood alcohol. Judge it how you will. I don’t recommend it and I wont be going there again. One of the punishments was driving for a year with 0% blood alcohol. I did not drink “before” I was going to drive or when I knew I was driving. That part was easy. The part you are less sure of is just how long all of the alcohol takes to get out of your blood. Like what time the next day. Or what food you may consume that may have alcohol in it and will it register a reading. It is pretty impossible to be sure I guess unless you quite drinking or quit for a year. But when you have been convicted of DUI nobody cares so they can get away with that kind of law. For those who have not it is impossible to fairly enforce 0%.

not trying to be a smart arse but how did you come to that conclusion ?

Put 10 people with the same blood alcohol limit be it 0%, .05%, .08% or more and test their reflexes and reactions. They will be different. A true and accurate method of checking for impairment would be just such a test. Although it would be far more time consuming and difficult the simple walk the white line test will tell you more than a blood alcohol reading. Road safety has very little to do with effective enforcement and far more to do with simple answers, arbitrary measures and collecting money.

Anything that impedes your driving skills and road awareness should not be tolerated.

listening to a CD, changing a radio station, smoking in your car, thinking about what you are going to do when you get to work? Lack of concentration will result in pretty much the same thing as driving with a low percentage of alcohol in most people’s blood. There has to be a line in the sand and a way of preventing drivers from driving with alcohol that impedes your driving skills and awareness. I would find it easier to respect the law and law makers if they were not so cynical an deceitful.

. The campaign is stupid, but I guess its better than no campaign.

Well no, a stupid campaign is a waste of our money. And it can actually be counter productive.

The point is its a privilege to hold a licence.

I don’t accept that but I have addressed my opinion in another thread.

A car can turn into a very powerful weapon when in the wrong hands. Once people drink they feel invincible.

that is a massive generalisation of the type these kind of campaigns play on. When I drink I feel no such thing.

The guy who hit me had a blood alcohol reading of .293 he had no headlights on and an open can of bourbon. He hit me while I was stopped at a set of traffic lights, police think he was going at 100 klms per hour...even though he was absolutely hammered he still knew he had done the wrong thing and tried to run off.

That is the example of a dangerous drunk driver. I appreciate your whole view of “drunk” drivers would be forever influenced by it and I would not blame you. But there is a difference between that and someone driving after one or two drinks. And that difference actually has nothing to do with alcohol. It has to do with the whole attitude towards ones responsibility on the road.



I read somewhere a cop pleading with people to keep their eyes on the road and concentrate on driving. Try that while driving on most Adelaide roads at the moment with the endless stream of various speed restrictions.

[minux]

I read somewhere a cop pleading with people to keep their eyes on the road and concentrate on driving. Try that while driving on most Adelaide roads at the moment with the endless stream of various speed restrictions.

Try it in Vic. I will recieve a speeding fine on Saturday driving along a dead straight piece of road. Speedo read 104. GPS 101. Speed camera flashed me. Now, since when is doing 104 max on a part of a highway that is straight as far as the eye can see dangerous? No doubt if I fell asleep and hit a tree they would say speed was a factor...

Over policing petty crime, under policing major crime. It is the Victorian way. You know a state is ####ed when you receive a higher penalty drink driving than agrravated assault and rape. Happens so often here.

[ari666]

oh look another drink/driving thread. i wonder if this one is gonna have the same amount of posts like:

[holier than thou voice] i never drink and drive, anyone that touches alcohol and a steering wheel needs to be sent to prison blah blah BSBSBSBS[/holier than thou voice]

or some crap like that.

[minux]

oh look another drink/driving thread. i wonder if this one is gonna have the same amount of posts like:

[holier than thou voice] i never drink and drive, anyone that touches alcohol and a steering wheel needs to be sent to prison blah blah BSBSBSBS[/holier than thou voice]

or some crap like that.

It will. I always drink and drive. Just never go over the limit

[elmaso]

so i'm guessing you fellas enjoy a few drinks then? hahahaha ^^

[DAKSTER]

I dont drink more than a couple standard drinks a year, so of course I am cool with a 0.00 limit. My basic problem with any method of drink driving assessment is where the appropriate place is to set the bar, and how that is measured.

Different people react to alcohol in different ways. Some have high tolerance, some dont. My father was an alcoholic, and he was invariably still drunk when he awoke in the morning. A couple beers for breakfast, off to work.. a liquid lunch.. then get smashed again at night. I cant remember him ever making a mistake at the wheel though, much as I hate to admit it because I despised him ...

On the other hand, if I attempted to drive after just 2 drinks, I fear I would kill someone.

That probably means I would be more dangerous at .03 than he would have been at .23 on the road, so I dont feel blood alcohol content would be an accurate judge in that respect.

Similarly, at those levels I would possibly be slurring my words a little, and certainly unable to do the American style sobrietry test.. no way I could walk no stinking white line! but my old man would have done it hopping on one leg easily, and his speech would be normal and coherent.

Its a matter of metabolism, genetics, gender, consumption, medications, and tolerance levels combined; and there just isnt a way of testing all of those at once to evaluate a driver. Many people are much safer drivers at .10 than some drivers would be at .01 . It just seems to me that the only way you can guarantee someone isnt affected by alcohol at all is to have a zero tolerance.

They do it with random drug testing.

Regardless of the legalities of the drugs, thats not the discussion here.. the charge is 'driving under the influence of' not 'use'.

Any trace found in your system is 'driving under the influence of' because they cant prove whether you were actually being affected by the joint, ecstasy tablet or whatever it was that you had 3 days ago.

Surely the same principle should apply to alcohol? Since you cant always prove if it is affecting you, or to what level, just make it illegal to have in your system whilst driving?

Then again, having said all that.. I am getting heartily sick of the nanny state approach to government, from all sides of politics. Maybe anarchy would be better..

[Crisis63]

Try it in Vic. I will receive a speeding fine on Saturday driving along a dead straight piece of road. Speedo read 104. GPS 101. Speed camera flashed me. Now, since when is doing 104 max on a part of a highway that is straight as far as the eye can see dangerous?

Well that is the old “exceeding the posted limit” vs “driving at a dangerous or inappropriate speed” whine I am always on about. There has to be a limit obviously but targeting that type of offence is purely there for revenue. Simply put having speed cameras in areas that are safe to travel 5 – 10ks above the limit and where people are more likely to is targeting revenue.

Over policing petty crime, under policing major crime. It is the Victorian way. You know a state is ####ed when you receive a higher penalty drink driving than agrravated assault and rape. Happens so often here.

In all traffic offence cases you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. Ironic too that in a assault or rape case you can defend your case with mitigating circumstances, bargain and possibly reduce your sentence.

[detox_nath83]

0.00% is crap..

cmon who loves a steak and a glass of red at a restaurant to really set of the flavors

or a nice meal with your partner and both have a drink. (responsibly)

u can get done with just using Mouthwash.

or a beer with a counter meal..

0.00% is poo, lets be realistic here

[Trayner]

Over policing petty crime, under policing major crime. It is the Victorian way. You know a state is ####ed when you receive a higher penalty drink driving than agrravated assault and rape. Happens so often here.

Hahah reminded me of that group on Facebook "Selling ur modified car and becoming a murderer so the cops hassle you less"

[Shedvl]

I would find it easier to respect the law and law makers if they were not so cynical an deceitful.


Well no, a stupid campaign is a waste of our money. And it can actually be counter productive.

I don’t accept that but I have addressed my opinion in another thread.

that is a massive generalisation of the type these kind of campaigns play on. When I drink I feel no such thing.

Im guessing the law is cynical because hey are sick and tired of scraping people off our roads..especially innocent people who are doing the right thing on our roads when some clown takes them out. I dont think the campaign is a waste of money...thats your opinion and youre allowed it of course...but it has us discussing it so even if it stops one person driving drunk...Im all for it. Ive seen too many people..male and female think that they are ok to drive..I evn got in a car with a girlfriend one night and I thought she was ok...an she almost wrapped us around a telegraph pole. So now I always make sure I have a safe way to get home...it comes down to personal responsibility I guess. I dont think a zero alcohol would work in this country. You have to know your own limits...in my situation where the guy was .293 he was obviously hammered. I could forgive it was someone that had a heart attack at the wheel...but would it have mattered if he was only .06.... nope he was still doing the wrong thing. The fact that he was so drunk, just made my anger worse. The penalites need to be tougher, its the only way people learn. Also do it more than once...take their licence, but as I said would that stop them...probably not.