Drunk, unlicensed and lying to police

Henry82 said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

Nothing i can technically do really,

well you can report the license plate of the new car. That way as RAPID is phased in, police will keep a lookout for that vehicle.

I was unaware i could do that – thankyou 🙂

TheDancingDjinn said :

Nothing i can technically do really,

well you can report the license plate of the new car. That way as RAPID is phased in, police will keep a lookout for that vehicle.

fabforty said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

Henry82 said :

arescarti42 said :

It may also result in innocent people having their cars crushed.

It may also result in people learning not to just give their car away to anyone without at least sighting a drivers license.

Perhaps 2 weeks impound for the first offence, and then start crushing cars. If we’re willing to do it for “hooning” in most states, i don’t see why we can’t extend the offer to unlicensed drivers.

I know of a man who continually drinks and drives, he has almost killed 3 people with both his negligence and his road rage ( he rammed a woman in the next lane off the road becasue she was where he wanted to be) and his community award winneing mummy whom he lives with in Hawker, buys him a new car every time, and when he has no licence or no car she allowes him to drive hers – personally i think she should face as many charges as he does every time as she will not stop helping him try to kill people in this town.

Charge anyone who lends their car to a drunk person

I agree on your last comment. However, regarding this “man you know”, have you taken any steps to report this ? Try Crimestoppers.

Nothing i can technically do really, he gets pulled over – mum pays the fines and he is drink driving again the next day – they suspend his licence and she allows him her car anyways. What am i meant to do? if the justice system wont teach him a lesson and actually make him serve some time in a unfriendly prison? i could call and call till i’m dead, it still doesn’t help the fact that he gets a slap on the wrist every time.

TheDancingDjinn said :

Henry82 said :

arescarti42 said :

It may also result in innocent people having their cars crushed.

It may also result in people learning not to just give their car away to anyone without at least sighting a drivers license.

Perhaps 2 weeks impound for the first offence, and then start crushing cars. If we’re willing to do it for “hooning” in most states, i don’t see why we can’t extend the offer to unlicensed drivers.

I know of a man who continually drinks and drives, he has almost killed 3 people with both his negligence and his road rage ( he rammed a woman in the next lane off the road becasue she was where he wanted to be) and his community award winneing mummy whom he lives with in Hawker, buys him a new car every time, and when he has no licence or no car she allowes him to drive hers – personally i think she should face as many charges as he does every time as she will not stop helping him try to kill people in this town.

Charge anyone who lends their car to a drunk person

I agree on your last comment. However, regarding this “man you know”, have you taken any steps to report this ? Try Crimestoppers.

m_ratt said :

Am I the only one to fail to fully understand this? “As an unlicensed driver, he is subject to a 0.00 limit.”

While behind the wheel of a car, a person who should not be behind the wheel of a car should also have no alcohol in their system, else they’re a bad person?

The legal system is not about what makes sense, and it is not about what is right or wrong. The legal system is about what is within the bounds of the rules, and what is not. Due to the definition of drink driving, it used to be the case that one must be licensed to operate a vehicle before one can be charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the conditions of their licence (i.e.: L & P drivers have a 0.0 limit, full licences have a 0.05 limit). The law wasn’t drafted with unlicensed drunk driving in mind.

Of course there are many laws that are drafted on the presumption that people will be abiding by the law. The moment you step over the bounds of one set of rules, you invariably end up in territory that isn’t covered by a swathe of other legislation, and as a result one case can end up causing a dozen pieces of legislation to be enacted in order to paper over the gap.

m_ratt said :

Am I the only one to fail to fully understand this? “As an unlicensed driver, he is subject to a 0.00 limit.”

While behind the wheel of a car, a person who should not be behind the wheel of a car should also have no alcohol in their system, else they’re a bad person?

Seems to me that the drink-driving charge creates pointless busy work, in which a conviction would achieve nothing more than the charges of driving unlicenced (which in themselves will de sweet fa, as the guy has demonstrated he’s more than happy to drive unlicensed).

I don’t quite understand the point of 0.00 BAC limits – I assume they’re supposed to encourage certain groups of people to not drink _at all_ before getting in a car. Is that because they’re not supposed to be trusted to judge if they’re below 0.05. If so, why – the rest of society isn’t trusted anyway (and rightly so). Below 0.05 is accepted to have nil-effect on driving skills and IMO should be the limit for all drivers. Just increase the punishment for >0.05 for all and be done with it.

Really? You don’t understand 0.00 limits? It’s pretty simple. If you don’t set a limit, then you can’t charge someone with drink driving.

Henry82 said :

Perhaps 2 weeks impound for the first offence, and then start crushing cars. If we’re willing to do it for “hooning” in most states, i don’t see why we can’t extend the offer to unlicensed drivers.

While I am usually against mandatory sentencing laws (some places in the world you can get life in gaol for your third offence, even if it is something we would consider very minor), in situations where we see repeat offenders (committing the same crime over and over), I am starting to think a mandatory sentencing system would be good.

I recommend that for the first couple of offences the punishment remains minor (I like to give most people the benefit of the doubt), but on the third consecutive DUI we should be talking car impounded plus time in the clink. People that get to 4 or 5 DUIs clearly could do with some time in the naughty corner (at the very least, they are too stupid to be driving).

Henry82 said :

arescarti42 said :

It may also result in innocent people having their cars crushed.

It may also result in people learning not to just give their car away to anyone without at least sighting a drivers license.

Perhaps 2 weeks impound for the first offence, and then start crushing cars. If we’re willing to do it for “hooning” in most states, i don’t see why we can’t extend the offer to unlicensed drivers.

I know of a man who continually drinks and drives, he has almost killed 3 people with both his negligence and his road rage ( he rammed a woman in the next lane off the road becasue she was where he wanted to be) and his community award winneing mummy whom he lives with in Hawker, buys him a new car every time, and when he has no licence or no car she allowes him to drive hers – personally i think she should face as many charges as he does every time as she will not stop helping him try to kill people in this town. Charge anyone who lends their car to a drunk person

arescarti42 said :

It may also result in innocent people having their cars crushed.

It may also result in people learning not to just give their car away to anyone without at least sighting a drivers license.

Perhaps 2 weeks impound for the first offence, and then start crushing cars. If we’re willing to do it for “hooning” in most states, i don’t see why we can’t extend the offer to unlicensed drivers.

Am I the only one to fail to fully understand this? “As an unlicensed driver, he is subject to a 0.00 limit.”

While behind the wheel of a car, a person who should not be behind the wheel of a car should also have no alcohol in their system, else they’re a bad person?

Seems to me that the drink-driving charge creates pointless busy work, in which a conviction would achieve nothing more than the charges of driving unlicenced (which in themselves will de sweet fa, as the guy has demonstrated he’s more than happy to drive unlicensed).

I don’t quite understand the point of 0.00 BAC limits – I assume they’re supposed to encourage certain groups of people to not drink _at all_ before getting in a car. Is that because they’re not supposed to be trusted to judge if they’re below 0.05. If so, why – the rest of society isn’t trusted anyway (and rightly so). Below 0.05 is accepted to have nil-effect on driving skills and IMO should be the limit for all drivers. Just increase the punishment for >0.05 for all and be done with it.