Euthanasia?

The biggest problem is that drink drivers think that there is very little chance of getting caught. And they are right.

The policing regime is just dismal!

Over a four month period earlier this year I travelled through Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Adelaide, backwards and forwards through the guts of these places, spending several days in each, and of course passing through all the towns in between. I experienced one single RBT!

And this is supposed to be one of the aspects of road safety that the police actually concentrate on!

We absolutely need mandatory interlocking devices which link a breathalyser with the car’s ignition. But they will never be foolproof and we would still need a vastly improved regulatory regime.

What we don’t need are tougher penalties at the lower end of the scale. We need a strongly sliding scale whereby those who just tip over 0.05 get a small fine for a first offence, with the fine increasing steeply as the blood alcohol level increases.

We don’t want to kid ourselves that we are addressing the problem by booking hundreds of people, with 95% of them being barely-over-the-limit first-timers, while the really dangerous drivers continue to get away with it.

The only level stretch of tarmac is ZERO alcohol.

Bian Holden:

…I think it only reasonable that a “caveat” be applied to all alcohol sales. That caveat will bind the purchaser of alcohol to a legal agreement between him/herself and society, which compels the exchange of a “life for a life” in event of the death by any misadventure which can be associated with alcohol consumption of the purchaser.

…Failing the above simplicity, IE; a simple facility to progressively weed-out personalities in our society who pose a risk to the life of others, whether or not that risk is associated with driving, or in other socially conflicting ways such as physical violence associated with alcohol consumption.

…We must await scientific research to produce counter measures that may allow the increasing consumption of dangerous drugs (and their consequences to others), such as alcohol, to control behavior in individual “Drug-Fk’s”.

...An interesting book on the subject (I have recently read) of “Brain Science”, is Hannah Holmes “Quirk”. This is a very readable exposé on the subject of differing personalities, (including addictive personalities), I recommend it to those with concerns along the lines, such as raised in your article.

LUDWIG...

You state that during one of your protracted trips through three States, you came across only one RBT. Why would that be do you reckon ? You also infer that police simply aren't doing enough to curb serious Traffic offences, by the absence of many more necessary RBT teams.

In principle, I'd agree with you. The trouble is, when police mount saturation coverage on a specified offence, eg speed, seat belts, DUI, whatever...often the public view it, as mere revenue raising, and nothing to do with the interdiction of serious traffic matters.

Apparently in Victoria, during an election campaign, the Govt. promised to publish the exact position of all Radar vehicles, in order to negate any assertion that it was all to do with revenue raising. I'm not sure if this promise was kept ?

But the purpose of Radar, is to 'calm' traffic, and detect excessive speed. The whole question of reducing the Road Toll, does NOT lay at the feet of police. They're constrained by money, manpower, and the will of government.

And I'll tell you something quite unequivocally, police DO NOT have to breach a minimum number of offences, in a shift. The traffic sergeant knows very well, whether or not a unit is working! Often a traffic unit may well be diverted to other, more urgent, unrelated duties, for example.

Much of what Mr HOLDEN says is quite impractical, even preposterous. As with the general thrust of a lot of the material that he seeks to elucidate.

Why so many hit and runs. Do these people have something to hide as alcohol, drugs, no licence, not roadworthy, no rego, speeding, or just could not care less.