Should an drink driver be allow back on the road ?
Related Topics
kw ...@my-deja.com
There was 2 articles (one in an WA Newspaper The Sunday Times and one in an Brisbane paper the Sunday Mail 3/9/2000) Where an Western Australian driver (A Moody) was allow to drive again even those he had been convicted nine times and have four life times disqualifications for drink driving.
Questions: Should this person be allow back on the roads, even with all this ?
Should he be put in gaol ?
Should he seek help ?
Should the judge (Surpreme Court Justice T Templeman) who let him back on the road be sacked and asked to seek help for doing this ?
Web site for your information: http://www.sundaytimes.com.au http://www.sundaymail.com.au http://www.justice.wa.gov.au (justice dept wa) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Richard John Cavell rjcav...@student.unimelb.edu.au
I am very saddened by this. Criminal law exists, among other reasons, to protect the community against people who cannot be trusted. The driver licensing system exists to protect the community against people who cannot drive safely.
The judge has totally ignored both of these principles.
He is a lawyer, and is immersed in the legal fantasy land. What do you expect?
Legislation often fixes the problems that common law creates.
--------------
Richard Cavell Melbourne University Medical Student, Debater, Chess Player, etc.
- r.cav...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au Celebrating the Micro$oft breakup.
Newsgroups - Please keep it on the group, and copy your replies to me via email. (Server problems).
Psyconutt Psycon...@mindless.com
Should he be allowed to drive again?
Nope... and if he is caught should be shot on sight... one less drunk driver on the road makes all the difference Psyconutt
"Rod Speed" rod_sp...@yahoo.com
Dont expect that the world will stop rotating about its axis any time soon.
Pathetically niave. Specially with the lower level offences like that.
Completely off with the fairys as always.
No licensing system ever does that, specially with those like that that choose to flout the law.
No such 'principles' Got absolutely nothing to do with the law.
Wota wanka.
"Ferg" fergus_...@yahoo.com
Personally, I've been drink-driving since I was 17, and I've never hurt anybody.
On the other hand, I've seen lots of stone-cold sober idiot drivers make the most appalling errors of judgment resulting in accidents.
someone.
So it is a completely arbitrary law which fails to reflect on the true capacity, capability and expertise of the individual and actually bears no relation to the individual's actual risk to the driving population at large whether drunk or not.
Shouldn't they also be pulling people over and testing them for XX chromosomal pairs, banning them if they come up positive due to the increased risk of accidents being caused by people who carry this genetic disorder?
"Rod Speed" rod_sp...@yahoo.com
Some drunk driver hiding behind ...
Completely and utterly irrelevant to whether you've got into a situation where your reduced capabilitys when pissed would have affected your response and someone could well have got hurt.
You're just another drunk attempting to justify its behaviour.
Thats why that was made illegal.
You get to like that or lump it.
Bet you've made plenty yourself, whatever you claim, specially when pissed.
You're committing an appauling error of judgement driving when pissed.
Fine, bye bye to your licence when you get caught.
All those sorts of laws are you clown. Just as true of a speed limit.
Its made illegal because clowns like you cant grasp the basics.
You have no way of knowing what your individual risk is anyway.
You're just another drunk.
Nope, summarily executing clowns as stupid as you would be much more effective.
Psyconutt Psycon...@mindless.com
Perhaps forcing drunk drivers to kill other drunk drivers on a controlled ground would be an even better option. Im sure there would be no end of volunteer speed humps for such a programme.
Psyconutt
"Rod Speed" rod_sp...@yahoo.com
Dunno, I recon its one thing that the chinese have managed to get right.
Bullet in the back of the neck in a public execution is very cheap and effective and might well help with the shortage of donated organs too.
Tho I spose the livers of drunks may well not be much use to anyone.
Psyconutt Psycon...@mindless.com
Ah yes , have you seen the movie Titled " Executions" ?
It shows the above mentioned on film. Convicted drug dealers are walked outside the court house , execution orders are thrown in front of them followed by a bullet to the back of the head , in full view of the public.
I think this should be done to drink drivers that are convicted more than once ( High Range ) Psyconutt
"Unm" onc...@wrs.cx
It's never as clear cut as it may, at first, seem...
C.f. Lawyer's Guide to DUI (the web site) for thought-provoking question into issues such as the ***umptions made when an alcotest is given, et al.
http://www.duicenter.com/legal_resources/lawyer_guide.html Where is the local (i.e. Australian) thought on the issues raised? Is it only those who can -afford- excellent legal advice who get it in this country...? Or is there an on-line source of information, open to all, that could be of interest to those involved (in any way in the process of breath-testing)?
FWIW, a non-drinker wrote this... one who has friends who have been maimed by drink-drivers... I do -not- support drink-
driving... only a fair and complete consi-
deration of any & all related issues.
Leon Garde l...@soafy.desiin.com.au
and when your the local police boss and your kidneys are failing, how far will you go to get replacements ?
hmm
Psyconutt Psycon...@mindless.com
How far would you go to survive?
Psyconutt
"Rod Speed" rod_sp...@yahoo.com
On a fairly technical point that the driver licensing authority didnt have the power to withdraw his special license issued to allow him to continue in his employment when he was found to have flouted the conditions of that special license.
The courts found that only a court could do that and a court may well refuse to him a special license now.
Corse not when he has shown he repeatedly flouts the law on drink driving.
Thats probably a bit extreme but I spose it may well be warranted because he would likely have just driven without any license at all if he hadnt got a special license. He had chosen to drive without any license at all plenty of times in the past and had got caught.
Jail might well have some effect on him continuing to flout the law.
Soorree, fresh out of magic wands to wave to fix alcoholics.
No because the decision was a technical one and he wasnt allowed back on the road because of it.
Thats just plain wrong with that total obscenity being discussed.
Doesnt have any relevance to our situation where we have provisions for a blood test if you fail a roadside breath test etc.
Our law just makes driving with particular levels of alcohol illegal.
As they should.
Taint necessary here.
That happened when the laws were framed.
kw ...@my-deja.com
You have demonstrated Ferg that you don't have any common sense to realise that this person could have killed someone on the roads and with this stupid comment if you think that this drunk driver is safe to be on the roads, then you have demonstrated how safe you are as an driver and as such should give up your vehicle and drivers licence before it is too late and do your driving in aus.cars.
Didn't you know he has in fact put people lives in danger by being an drunk on the roads and that he has in fact hurt his own family for knowing they have drunk in the family.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
kw ...@my-deja.com
This is good, giving yourself away so someone can report you to the Police, what an idiot and you never hurt will for an start you can talk to your family to say you have hurt the family, because you are an drunk and that you are an danger to other people on the roads and that I (Ferg) need help.
But this is no excuse for you to drink and drive is it, but didn't you know in tests people who drink and drive has the appalling errors of judgment as well, so on this basic why should you be allow on the roads.
But you have proven that you in fact are an risk and have no capacity, capability or expertise to be on the roads by boasting you drink and drive and as they say: Drink and Drive, you are an bloody idiot.
And boasting that you drink and drive since 17 shows you have an genetic disorder.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
kw ...@my-deja.com
Not only are the livers of people like Ferg would not be much help to people, but by showing lack of common sense Ferg brain wouldn't be much help to other people as well.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
"Dave Proctor" dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au
See above. What about any p***engers he had in the car.
Dave
"Rod Speed" rod_sp...@yahoo.com
Sure, but some of the other bits might be better than nothing.
"Dave Proctor" dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au
So rather than a bullet to the back of the head, use a bit of rope instead, that way you save the corneas.
Dave
"Rod Speed" rod_sp...@yahoo.com
Dunno that they bother with those much, mostly use artificial lenses now.
Sure, lethal injection may be as good, tad less messy too.
Dunne though, that might bugger up some of the bits worth keeping or something.
"Robert Crew" mahan...@eisa.net.au
Robert Crew robertc...@hotmail.com
-------------------------------------
"Rod Speed" rod_sp...@yahoo.com
The problem is actually that the drunk is about the last person capable of rationally analysing the increased risk of him driving in that condition.
Habitual drunk drivers in spades.
Wrong. The reason we went for a simple test of BAC is that its never going to be feasible to measure how well a particular drunk can react to an unusual event compared with not being drunk.
Its been proven that EVERYONE has the capabilitys affect by legal alcohol limits and in fact we have chosen to allow people to drive just under the limit, even when its quite trivial to show that their driving performance is worse than normal.
Every person preforms worse at driving at just under the legal BAC. THATS what matters.
You dont have to be 'drunk' to increase your risk taking behaviour.
Physical coordination is just the most gross deterioration of your driving performance and you should be prevented from driving well before you get that bad.
And this is fudging the issue considerably. Everyone is less safe to drive at just under the limit, even tho there is undoubtedly a real difference in the effect that level has on particular individuals.
A genetic difference.
You've mangled that completely too. Those individual differences affect the actual BAC, not the effect a particular BAC has on driving performance. Most obviously with the body weight.
Because its quite trivial to show that everyone performs worse at driving skills when they are just over the limit set.
You can use precisely the same argument about speed limits.
There are obviously plenty of individuals that can drive safely at say 25% over a particular speed limit. We choose to have a particular speed limit because its never going to be feasible to individually test everyone's driving skill at the speed they are driving at down the street at a particular time and we choose not to just penalise actual accidents.
And the effect of that on your posting is quite noticeable.
Most obviously that earlier post to me where you made a complete fool of yourself and likely wouldnt have if not pissed.
Absolutely cl***ic example of the effect of alcohol on inhibitions and very relevant to driving performance.
You may well 'feel' that, and you are clearly in no fit state to do that without significantly increasing the risk of an accident.
That is why the law doesnt allow you to drive with that BAC.
And its easy to show that your driving performance is worse at 0.05 too.
Thats comprehensively mangled too. Thats just a rough statement thats designed to err on the safe side so those following the advice dont get caught out.
Obviously the advice is designed to err on the safe side.
Corse there is. It happens to be by far the most used intoxicant and happens to be the easiest to test for in roadside tests.
Because nothing else is feasible.
We used to have what the yanks still have and tossed it in the bin because it wasnt very useful, only stopped the worst of the affected from driving. We noticed that the driving performance of those with a BAC at the levels the law specifys gives a very measurably worse driving performance.
So does lack of sleep, long time driving, but thats just not practical to test by the side of the road with a handheld meter.
Wrong on the last one.
Because it cant be done.
Says absolutely nothing useful about your driving performance at 0.05
"Ferg" fergus_...@yahoo.com
I seriously doubt the strictest driving test could possibly find fault in my driving abilities when I am at around 0.08-0.1 BAC.
In the circumstances, I resent being in the position of having to drive "illegally" when so many that have consumed *no* alcohol whatsoever are apparently permitted to drive despite being extremely poor and dangerous drivers.
A solution would be for people to choose an alcohol content to do their driving-test at, and, if they p***, this alcohol-level (be it 0.02/5/9) would be endorsed on their licenses as the maximum-allowable BAC.
Of course such a common-sense approach would never be agreed-to by the idiots that run our lives.............
"Mosley Jones III" suga...@iii.net
its againt the law, and not up to tyhe indervidual, just as violence at the WEF is againt the law,and not up to the indervidual.
"Ferg" fergus_...@yahoo.com
...so will the police who committed acts of criminal violence be taken to court?
Oh, I forgot, none of them were wearing their name-tags, AS IS REQUIRED BY LAW, so we don't know who was who.
| To Top |