NEWS Segeyaro wants to seal the deal

[Nashy]

The old rule of thumb is 2 standard drinks in the first hour and one standard drink every hour thereafter keeps you under 0.05%. But in practice such a theory rarely ever works, because few to no-one drinks ‘standard’ drinks and everyone processes alcohol differently. Body mass has an effect, eating has an effect, metabolism has an effect and obviously how much you drink and how quickly has an effect.

My theory is better. If you want to drink, go and enjoy it. Just don’t drive, at all. Make other arrangements. At least within 12 hours or so of having your last drink. If you want to drive, just don’t drink. At all.

Pretty hard not to be safe if you follow my theory. Which many don’t of course.

You don't find it concerning that the are police in the force who both don't agree with the official stance of the police, yet still spill out the same line as the official advice?

 

[Jason Simmons]

You don't find it concerning that the are police in the force who both don't agree with the official stance of the police, yet still spill out the same line as the official advice?

I do. It’s hypocrisy at it’s worst. One of the worst things in the world, in my opinion.

But if you are referring to police enforcing the drink driving rules of the road and then getting caught themselves drink driving, I doubt you are considering that unlike most people we get punished twice. Once by the courts same as everyone else (though invariably harder as we are supposed to know better) and secondly by our employer, which is often far more significant than the court punishment.

Getting demoted for instance, is a usual outcome of internal disciplinary action for police getting caught drink driving. Now that may not sound like much of a punishment, until you look at our pay scales. We lose a rank, we can lose up to $25k a year until that rank is regained, if it ever is, with subsequent consequences against our super.

Ever heard of anyone else getting fined $25k a year for ‘n’ number of years, for drink driving?

In saying all that, as I mentioned in the other thread, I don’t agree with every policy or law in existence. I think very low range drink drivers should be dealt with by means other than courts for instance, and I don’t think minor possession of Cannabis should be a crime that ends you up in court, either.

But as of today, them’s the rules...

 

[WASSHHH]

It’s simple: don’t drive Drive, it’s a laundry detergent.

 

[Jason Simmons]

It’s simple: don’t drive Drive, it’s a laundry detergent.

Or tide pods...

 

[WASSHHH]

It’s simple: don’t drive Drive, it’s a laundry detergent.

Damn, just realised I fluffed the dad joke.
Hang my head in shame.

 

[lynx000]

Yeah I think he should be suspended for four weeks for low range drink driving. Of course not, the punishment of an alcohol ban and working for $20 an hour is more than enough.

No need to be a smart arse, I gave you the courtesy of seeking clarification politely. It is a shame you could not accord the same in your response.

 

[lynx000]

Hopefully Nashy can fix the block system soon and we won't have to worry about any of that. Fine him 5k and have him make it back by giving back to the club. Again, I didn't say he should be suspended, just punished. Do you believe he shouldn't be punished at all? You've moved the goal posts by the way. Your initial comment was wrong and idiotic.

PS, I agree with you, there should be some consequences, I would in fact suspend him for one match and a fine.

 

[mitch222]

There really is no excuse for a P-Plater though. You just don't dare attempt driving until at least 12 hours after your last drink. Its zero tolerance.

 

[lynx000]

Been tried in court a million times and has never succeeded once to the best of my knowledge. The reason is because deeming provisions under TORUMs means a properly issued certificate from an approved breath analysing instrument, operated by an authorised breath analyser is ‘deemed’ to be conclusive proof of breath alcohol concentration. Mistake of fact is also specifically excluded as a defence to drink or drug driving.

Your legal options then come down to 1. Proving the certificate wasn’t lawfully issued (improper requirement). 2. Proving there was some inaccuracy inherent in the instrument. 3. Some extraordinary emergency that meant you had to drive because of some life threatening emergency, or 4. A direction to drive by some lawful authority, ie: a police officer.

Your points may have some relevance in mitigating a sentence, but they will have zero effect on guilt or otherwise.
[automerge]1558961655[/automerge]


I would speak to a properly qualified legal advisor before you give it a run...

I tried to run the extraordinary emergency one once (not for me) and went down in a screaming heap.

 

[john1420]

0.05 is the legal limit for a reason - it is the number below which the human body is deemed capable of driving

Seggy was below 0.05 and therefore by definition, and by law, he was not endangering lives

He was, however, breaking the law, and as such there has to be a punishment, but it must fit the crime

A fine and 1 week suspension is all that's required

 

[Jason Simmons]

0.05 is the legal limit for a reason - it is the number below which the human body is deemed capable of driving

Seggy was below 0.05 and therefore by definition, and by law, he was not endangering lives

No it isn’t. It’s the limit for open licence holders only...

He was, however, breaking the law, and as such there has to be a punishment, but it must fit the crime

A fine and 1 week suspension is all that's required

He most certainly was.

 

[McHunt]

0.05 is the legal limit for a reason - it is the number below which the human body is deemed capable of driving

Seggy was below 0.05 and therefore by definition, and by law, he was not endangering lives

It's still 0.08 in England. Never seen an RBT. Also you can buy CBD in soft drinks. In Austalia it's a criminal offence.

Laws are funny old things when you use them to get sanctimonious.

 

[Wolfie]

NSW have a zero limit and an immediate loss of license for 3 months and a fine now. Lucky he moved up here. I'd actually like to see that Australia wide personally then there can be no argument. You know what will happen if you chance your arm.

I've also seen plenty of RBT's back in England. I'd also love it if we had the amount of red light cameras they have over there. The Government would make an absolute fortune the way numpties over here constantly speed up to get through traffic lights.

 

[Morkel]

 

[McHunt]

I've also seen plenty of RBT's back in England. I'd also love it if we had the amount of red light cameras they have over there. The Government would make an absolute fortune the way numpties over here constantly speed up to get through traffic lights.

Difference is they have amber light on get ready.

Random breath testing is illegal in Scotland unless they have cause to stop the motorist.

 

[Wolfie]

Difference is they have amber light on get ready.

Random breath testing is illegal in Scotland unless they have cause to stop the motorist.

And we don't have amber lights over here? Traffic lights are practically the same system. It's pretty easy to pull over a motorist for a breath test. You dont have to do a great deal wrong for them to have cause to suspect something.

 

[Porthoz]

No it isn’t. It’s the limit for open licence holders only...

What is the limit based on? The (assumed) biological impact of alcohol on a person's ability to control a motor vehicle before they become impaired.
I doubt it cares what type of license you have, so it should be the same for everyone.

I don't agree with many of the current traffic laws, and even less the way police monitors them (but that is a different discussion anyway). However I have no problem with anyone DUI (and I mean actually impaired) being thrown the book at, because they are a danger on the road to everyone, including themselves.
That said, this is not the case and it is being treated the same way because "it's the law". I know you have to act that way as an officer of the law, but that doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Broncos Maestro]

Or he lives in the city where transport is readily available and I’m sure the club helped him out heaps with travelling.

It’s not unusual in Sydney to be on your Ps into your late 20s. I got my greens at 19 and just never bothered to sit the test for my fulls. They just gave me my fulls after 10 years of no offences. A lot of people in Sydney don’t even own a car, I only had a car about 50% of the time between getting my greens and now.

Of course, you could be right but it’s definitely not unheard of to have your Ps at 30.

My wife was on P’s in her 30s since coming from overseas she didn’t need to drive because of public transport. Mind you she sometimes drives worse than drunk drivers I’ve encountered (lucky she doesn’t read any footy related posts I make).