Attitudes to the road toll

[doug3030]

in terms of being able to function within Australia society, a licence and/or access to a motor vehicle is almost essential.
Unless you live in one of the Sydney's "silver-tail" suburbs, being disqualified till 2035 is essentially equivalent to being placed under house arrest for 25 years. (The press story implies that disqualification occurred 7 years ago i.e. in 2010).

Disqualifying someone for 25 years may make a bunch of us old fogies feel better, but really, what as a community do we expect to be the outcome?
Pay the guy a disability pension for 25 years? because without a licence and/or a vehicle he can't really access meaningful employment.

Well if you are going to follow that argument, then nobody should ever be disqualified from driving. Even loss of license for a month could and has, caused people to lose their jobs.

A girlfriend of mine from several years ago had a daughter who was severely injured when a truck ran into her school bus. Mum and daughter (17 by then, two years after the accident) was in court when the truck driver was sentenced. the penalty was a substantial fine and a license suspension for - if I recall correctly - about two years. After passing sentence, the judge turned to the 17-year-old victim and asked if she understood what had just happened. She replied "I think so your Honour, you just fined a man $10,000.00 and then removed his ability to pay it."

[MAPLEMAN]

Alcohol is certainly a contributing factor towards our shocking National road toll...and always has been!
I'd like to see zero alcohol tolerance for all road users...that would be a good start
Probably the most insidious drug on this planet...and it's legal...go figure
Drunk drivers are the ones that should be 'cubed'...MM

[ian]

She replied "I think so your Honour, you just fined a man $10,000.00 and then removed his ability to pay it."

precisely

[Twisted Tenon]

She replied "I think so your Honour, you just fined a man $10,000.00 and then removed his ability to pay it."

This is the real issue. There should be a distinction between the punishment for drink driving and driving while suspended. I think that suspending a persons drivers license for anything other that a driving offense is counter productive. I saw a man in court tell a magistrate that he owed over $40 thousand dollars in unpaid fines. There was a pause in the court and the magistrate said "you'll never drive again". We all new that he would take the risk, as he had nothing to lose. He did and went to gaol. There should be a distinction between keeping a dangerous driver off the road and punishing a person for non payment of fines. Much like we keep firearms away from mentally unstable persons.

TT

[Lappa]

Apparently drug use has now overtaken alcohol as a cause of accidents according to recent media reports.

[doug3030]

Apparently drug use has now overtaken alcohol as a cause of accidents according to recent media reports.

It always has caused more accidents. The difference is that now they are testing for it.

[Twisted Tenon]

It always has caused more accidents. The difference is that now they are testing for it.

The police have a test for it now and the results for alcohol and illicit drugs will eventually even out. The problem with the current testing methods is that the saliva swipe does not indicate the level of the drug it detects, just that it detects the drug. This means that people are charged for having an illicit substance in their system that may or may not be affecting their driving. Just because there is a trace of an illicit drug in the system, does not mean that it is impairing a persons ability to drive.
TT

[doug3030]

Just because there is a trace of an illicit drug in the system, does not mean that it is impairing a persons ability to drive.

I guess that there is no real incentive to come up with a test to indicate the level of drug in the system since it is illegal to drive with any level of concentration. A positive reading and that's another tick against the daily quota.

[Twisted Tenon]

I guess that there is no real incentive to come up with a test to indicate the level of drug in the system since it is illegal to drive with any level of concentration. A positive reading and that's another tick against the daily quota.

Agreed, but when the test is used to gauge a persons culpability in an accident it isn’t fair. We know cannabis can stay in the system for over a month and amphetamines can still be detected between 3-5 days, however Any impairment may have worn off after a few hours, much like alcohol. So until research is completed that can accurately determine the level of impairment for each illicit drug the test remains unfair. There is little incentive for any government to do address this.

TT

[FenceFurniture]

So until research is completed that can accurately determine the level of impairment for each illicit drug the test remains unfair. There is little incentive for any government to do address this.

That might have to change with more and more people using medicinal cannabis legally.

[rustynail]

"Do not drive or use machinery" is marked on many a pill bottle. As for illicits, just take it as a given.

[rustynail]

I've lost track of how many dope users I've had to sack over the years.

[FenceFurniture]

That might have to change with more and more people using medicinal cannabis legally.

I mean in terms of there being residual evidence for some weeks. As I understand it, users of medicinal cannabis do not get stoned as such, so in that case it would seem harsh to effectively ban them from driving altogether. No doubt there'll be some research done.

[Dibbers]

The current mobile drug testing is a bit of a joke. as mentioned in a previous post, its not like an RBT that measures levels of alcohol, it only looks for traces. So if you dabbled in a little something a week ago (whether or not you approve of such things) it is no longer impacting your ability to drive. If you had it 5 minutes ago, it is. But the drug testing can't determine that. neither can the subsequent blood tests from what i understand.

Now, if the mobile drug tests were looking to charge people for using an illicit substance, thats one thing, but they are using it to charge DUI, which IMO in its current form it can't possibly do because it can't measure the amount of the substance in a persons system.

Now (and this is drawing a very long bow here i know), if I had my drink spiked, theoretically i can't drive for a week or 2 (depending on the drug) because i'd still have traces in my system and if pulled over, i could be charged.

I'm actually surprised that these charges are holding up in court as there are so many flaws in it... probably people aren't willing to fight it because they'd be admitting they'd taken something illegal in the first place...

[doug3030]

I've lost track of how many dope users I've had to sack over the years.

Me too.