Drink drivers like to keep on drinking and driving

James_Ryan said :

Felix the Cat said :

I don’t know how these interlock things work, what’s to stop their mate/partner from overiding it?

Good to see this discussion including interlock programs. The best source I’ve found is the International Council on Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety. They have two excellent papers on this kind of intervention:

http://www.icadts.org/reports.html

The best interlock equipment records a “signature” of the program participant exhaling. They also require a sample at random times during a journey.

+1

I really do not understand why this isn’t being trialled in Canberra

HardBallGets said :

HenryBG said :

0.05? 0.08? 0.11? 0.02? 0.00?
Each of these is an arbitrary limit set by a jurisdiction somewhere sometime.

The fact that different places/times have different limits is an admission that this is pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey lawmaking.

And you wonder why so many people still drink-drive?
The law’s an ass.

The law may well be an ass, but the “arbitrary” limits you suggest inform “pin-the-tail” lawmaking are actually BAC points at which crash risk and fatality risk are shown by years and years worth of good data to swing upwards.

Probably haven’t described that very well, but check tables 1 and 2 at the following source and you can see how increased BAC leads to dramatic increases in risk at the .05 .08 kind of range.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/809-050pdf.pdf

In summary, there’s nothing arbitrary about the BAC readings that different jurisdictions have chosen. What is different is the amount of crash risk that different jurisdictions are prepared to accept in drivers that have consumed alcohol.

Most people only get caught drink driving once. In that respect the current approach is very successful in changing behaviour of people who aren’t alcohol dependant. For people who are alcohol dependant, the current approach fails for the most part. We see these people caught DUI again (and for some, again and again and again). Yet we also see the same process followed and the same sorts of interventions (sanctions) applied. And we ask “when will they learn?” but the same question should be asked of the law enforcement/criminal justice response which is demonstrated to fail at changing the driving behaviour of those with alcohol related health problems.

+1000 and this comment gets my nomination as the Most Sensible Thing Said on RiotACT for Many Years

HenryBG said :

0.05? 0.08? 0.11? 0.02? 0.00?
Each of these is an arbitrary limit set by a jurisdiction somewhere sometime.

The fact that different places/times have different limits is an admission that this is pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey lawmaking.

And you wonder why so many people still drink-drive?
The law’s an ass.

The law may well be an ass, but the “arbitrary” limits you suggest inform “pin-the-tail” lawmaking are actually BAC points at which crash risk and fatality risk are shown by years and years worth of good data to swing upwards.

Probably haven’t described that very well, but check tables 1 and 2 at the following source and you can see how increased BAC leads to dramatic increases in risk at the .05 .08 kind of range.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/809-050pdf.pdf

In summary, there’s nothing arbitrary about the BAC readings that different jurisdictions have chosen. What is different is the amount of crash risk that different jurisdictions are prepared to accept in drivers that have consumed alcohol.

Most people only get caught drink driving once. In that respect the current approach is very successful in changing behaviour of people who aren’t alcohol dependant. For people who are alcohol dependant, the current approach fails for the most part. We see these people caught DUI again (and for some, again and again and again). Yet we also see the same process followed and the same sorts of interventions (sanctions) applied. And we ask “when will they learn?” but the same question should be asked of the law enforcement/criminal justice response which is demonstrated to fail at changing the driving behaviour of those with alcohol related health problems.

LSWCHP said :

Pork Hunt said :

Perhaps we need some sort of genetic testing by the authoritahs.

I may have mentioned on this forum previously that from time to time, I drink like a fish but not since my teens have I felt the need to drink and drive.

As I approach the half century mark age wise, I clearly do not possess the gene that causes so many drunkards to get behind the wheel.

I figure that if I want to have a drink, I can leg it to the pub (and sometimes home), get a lift with a sober driver or have a few at home sitting in the narcolepsy chair.

Even when I’m “off” the grog and stick to my six pint “on the wagon limit”, I have no desire to drive.

What then, causes people to not arrange their affairs so that they don’t drink and drive?

Being a thoughtless inconsiderate arsehat with no regard for your own life, or the lives of other people on or near the road?

I don’t know what this “arsehat” thing is, but I’m guessing it’s some kind of media-driven bandwagon thing, just like your apparent confusion between moral and ethical imperatives and the perfectly arbitrary laws about BAC.

0.05? 0.08? 0.11? 0.02? 0.00?
Each of these is an arbitrary limit set by a jurisdiction somewhere sometime.

The fact that different places/times have different limits is an admission that this is pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey lawmaking.

And you wonder why so many people still drink-drive?
The law’s an ass.

Basilbrush said :

My car was hit (while I was waiting at the traffic lights in Civic one night many years ago) by a guy who came around the corner and mounted the median strip – he blew .221 – 2nd time in 12 months………….and I understand his first time he blew high too. Amazing these guys are not taught a harsh lesson the first time they are caught. Lucky he didn’t hit a person.

The cops were driving behind him and chased him and when he was pulled over he didn’t even know he had hit someone…..

He got a small fine and licence cancelled (which means squat….)

Well we are talking about the ACT judiciary here,if nothing else they are consistent….consistently pathetic!!

Felix the Cat said :

I don’t know how these interlock things work, what’s to stop their mate/partner from overiding it?

Good to see this discussion including interlock programs. The best source I’ve found is the International Council on Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety. They have two excellent papers on this kind of intervention:

http://www.icadts.org/reports.html

The best interlock equipment records a “signature” of the program participant exhaling. They also require a sample at random times during a journey.

Pork Hunt said :

Perhaps we need some sort of genetic testing by the authoritahs.

I may have mentioned on this forum previously that from time to time, I drink like a fish but not since my teens have I felt the need to drink and drive.

As I approach the half century mark age wise, I clearly do not possess the gene that causes so many drunkards to get behind the wheel.

I figure that if I want to have a drink, I can leg it to the pub (and sometimes home), get a lift with a sober driver or have a few at home sitting in the narcolepsy chair.

Even when I’m “off” the grog and stick to my six pint “on the wagon limit”, I have no desire to drive.

What then, causes people to not arrange their affairs so that they don’t drink and drive?

Being a thoughtless inconsiderate arsehat with no regard for your own life, or the lives of other people on or near the road?

Perhaps we need some sort of genetic testing by the authoritahs.

I may have mentioned on this forum previously that from time to time, I drink like a fish but not since my teens have I felt the need to drink and drive.

As I approach the half century mark age wise, I clearly do not possess the gene that causes so many drunkards to get behind the wheel.

I figure that if I want to have a drink, I can leg it to the pub (and sometimes home), get a lift with a sober driver or have a few at home sitting in the narcolepsy chair.

Even when I’m “off” the grog and stick to my six pint “on the wagon limit”, I have no desire to drive.

What then, causes people to not arrange their affairs so that they don’t drink and drive?

HardBallGets said :

Felix the Cat said :

Confiscating/crushing the cars would go a long way to deter repeat offenders. Good enough for hooning, good enough for drunk drivers.

With respect, I think you’re wrong and your completely understandable mistake is trying to understand repeat drink driving through a rational lens. Most people try to understand it (and a good many other irrational things) through the same rational lens … hence the failed current sanctions approach to alcohol dependant drivers.

Crushing/confiscating cars, alcohol “awareness” courses, incrementally tougher financial/criminal justice sanctions – all these things make the concerned public feel better but according to the raft of published evidence they trail best-practice alcohol interlock programs when it comes to changing the drink driving behaviour of alcohol dependant people.

So whilst it’s a bit counter-intuitative, the answer for alcohol dependant drivers (as often evidenced by high-range offences and repeat DUI convictions) is to impose a financial sanction that supports getting them back behind the wheel of their car with an alcohol interlock fitted, with a capability of logging the readings taken, supported by regular data analysis & counselling/education.

The evidence from jurisdictions where this kind of interlock program is in place shows that it is the successful way to work with recidivist alcohol dependant drink drivers.

I don’t know how these interlock things work, what’s to stop their mate/partner from overiding it?

Felix the Cat said :

Confiscating/crushing the cars would go a long way to deter repeat offenders. Good enough for hooning, good enough for drunk drivers.

With respect, I think you’re wrong and your completely understandable mistake is trying to understand repeat drink driving through a rational lens. Most people try to understand it (and a good many other irrational things) through the same rational lens … hence the failed current sanctions approach to alcohol dependant drivers.

Crushing/confiscating cars, alcohol “awareness” courses, incrementally tougher financial/criminal justice sanctions – all these things make the concerned public feel better but according to the raft of published evidence they trail best-practice alcohol interlock programs when it comes to changing the drink driving behaviour of alcohol dependant people.

So whilst it’s a bit counter-intuitative, the answer for alcohol dependant drivers (as often evidenced by high-range offences and repeat DUI convictions) is to impose a financial sanction that supports getting them back behind the wheel of their car with an alcohol interlock fitted, with a capability of logging the readings taken, supported by regular data analysis & counselling/education.

The evidence from jurisdictions where this kind of interlock program is in place shows that it is the successful way to work with recidivist alcohol dependant drink drivers.