Under the present laws of most , if not all , Australian jurisdictions , drink driving leading to death , is not murder because a murder conviction requires an intention to cause death or , at least , grievous bodily harm .

Even the most irresponsible drink driver usually has no intention to cause death or bodily harm . He may be convicted of manslaughter which carries a lengthy prison sentence , even life , if he shows a reckless disregard for human safety .

The fact that Courts do not usually impose maximum sentences is an argument for introducing legislation for minimum mandatory sentences , rather than for changing statutory definitions to convert manslaughter to murder in drink driving cases .

Further , there are a significant number of citizens who habitually drive irresponsibly , even when sober . Should they be convicted of murder if their driving causes death ?

Dear William,
This was, I thought, a self indulgent argument. I say that because it is mostly about manipulating the symbolism of blame and retribution rather than coming to grips with the problem of reducing road deaths and injuries. May I recommend a thought experiment for you? Let us suppose that your proposal has become law. Now, imagine yourself to be an Australian prison governor. You are in your prison reception centre with a 20 year old who has just arrived after conviction for murder arising out of a drink driving accident. He's an average sort of young man, neither better nor worse than most of his fellows. Except, of course, that he drove while drunk and killed. Now comes the point of the thought experiment. You have to explain to him your programme for the next 60 or so years that he will spend in your prison. Do you have a plan to ensure that he will have a worthwhile life in your prison? Perhaps you don't. Perhaps your plan is to ensure that the remainder of his life will be wasted. But I doubt that you would want that.

Of course - you didn't really mean to suggest that my hypothetical 20 year old should go to prison till he dies. There are quite sufficient qualifications and reservations in your opinion piece to indicate that you were really advocating a sort of 'murder-lite' conviction - a further dilution of the meaning of 'murder' with an infinitely variable sentencing scale.

Why not simply campaign for increased sentences, if you think that will help?

...I heartily agree with all sentiments in this article of the author. The war on alcohol must intensify in line with the war on tobacco. Both these anti-social killer drugs must be held up to the light of sober reason and consistency in justice and the of law.

...What better place to observe inequality in dealing with the featherbedding which surrounds alcohol abuse, than in the repetitive soft treatment of drunk drivers!

...Only in traffic offences is the alcohol related crime of drink driving (with its consequences), given consideration as an excuse for human failing.

First step is to get serial offenders off the road never to drive again.
People that rack up multiple fines totaling in the tens of thousands, and still on the roads.
Absolute disregard for the law, is the first step in committing roadway murder.
Drunkards, drugsters, and people with subprime mentality, must to be eliminated from competition of road space.

I think drink driving that kills pedestrians cyclists, electric bicyclists, and motorcyclists should be treated as murder because these vulnerable road users deterrent for the following reasons. There 8 other other reasons for such a detterent

1. All road users have a duty of care to avoid colliding with and injuring other road users.
2. A person driving a motor vehicle controls a very large, heavy and potentially dangerous machine capable of great speed – dangerous not only to the driver but to others inside and outside the vehicle.
3. A person driving a motor vehicle is greatly influenced by the existing environment inside the vehicle – radio, temperature, mobile devices, distractions from passengers and texting.
4. A person driving a motor vehicle is also greatly influenced by the way they perceive the external environment – limited visibility due to size of vehicle (SUVs and Commercials), limited visibility due to ambient conditions (weather, lighting, glare etc).
5. A person driving a motor vehicles may not be alert to the presence of small slow moving vehicles (people on bicycles) travelling within their peripheral vision.
6. Drivers of motor vehicles and vulnerable road users both have a legal right to travel on public streets and roads.
7. A person riding a bicycle has good visibility but has very little crumple zone and therefore is much more sensitive to the incursion of a motor vehicles into their operating space.
8. A vulnerable road user can accelerate quickly and or move into the road at speeds that people in motor vehicles sometimes find difficult to estimate.

It has been proven that being tired is far more dangerous than having a few beers.Do we now criminalise being tired or being inattentive ? How about prescription drugs.Do we gaol both the Dr and the patient?

: Is a drink driving killing murder?

Like all things, we take our chances in life, and just getting into a vehicle drunk or not, is one of many things that can go wrong, like being born for instance.

There's a hundred things that can go wrong at any time "so should all things that cause death be treated in the same way?...... We can call 1000's of other day to day risks that could also come under the same example.

To chance any of the currant laws that are in place, would just be silly.

cc

Good article, drink drivers are very selfish. Fines, demerit points, loss of licence are just aren't enough. Sure, life is full of risks but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce the risk where we can. Young people won't take anti drink driving messages seriously unless there are serious penalties for drink driving. Drink driving is not the same as driving when you're tired - sometimes you can't get enough sleep, but you can always not drink. Also if you make a choice to drive when you're very tired, you can't expect there to be no consequences if you hurt someone.

While I appreciate the sentiment of the article, I've been a bit distracted by the opening sequence of statistics. Hopefully someone will be able to explain where I'm going wrong here, as I just can't make them add up.

We start with 1.2 million deaths in road accidents.

We then learn that 1/3 of accidents are alcohol-related (though no specific statistic for road fatalities with links to alcohol is given - I'm happy to assume that's 1/3 as well). So that's 400,000 each year.

We then learn that there *may* have been over 100,000,000 people killed by drink driving.

For this to add up, we have to assume that:

a) the 1.2 million figure is a historical constant, and

b) people have been drink driving for more than 250 years.

The statistic is alarming and, if true, lends considerable weight to the article. I just can't see it, though.

Hi Otokonoko
Thanks for your comment and I agree with your calculations. Exact statistics do not exist and there is no guarantee that there have been more than 100 million drink driving deaths. The statement that there 'may' have been more than 100 million deaths world wide over all time took into account:
- the possibility that at some times and in some places the percentage of deaths caused by drink driving was significantly more than one third. It may sometimes have been less than this, but it seems more likely to have been higher on average, due to less warnings and rules about drink driving in the past;
- in many countries road traffic deaths have decreased in recent decades due to seat belts; better vehicles, roads and medical treatment; and more enforcement of laws e.g. drink driving laws.
- drink 'driving' deaths from non-motorised forms of road transport in earlier times when roads were poor and rules were virtually non-existent - many of those deaths would have been alcohol related.

Again, no one knows how many, but the numbers are clearly very large. Thanks again for your comment.

< Few acts better exemplify reckless indifference to the value of human life than drink driving. >

William, I share your great concern about drink-driving and road-safety in general, but I think you’re overstating it here.

Sure, it is true for many drink-drivers, but there are also presumably many who are only just over the limit and/or only drive a very short distance home after a night out, and do so carefully, but who get sprung and then get lumped into the worst-of-the-worst category of dangerous drivers.

It is not my intention to defend drink driving at all…. it is indefensible…but let’s be careful about placing everyone in the same basket.

Same thing with speeding. Most people who are caught for speeding are doing only a little bit over the bookable limit.

The problem lies with the policing regime! For as long as many people think that there is only a tiny chance of them being caught, they’ll break the law, sometimes and mostly in a minor way, but break it they will.

The policing of drink-driving is pathetic!

I’ve just travelled for four months through all the major cities in southeastern Australia and all the highways and towns in between. In tens of thousands of kilometres I was subjected to one single random breath test!

For as long as the regulatory regime is so dismally not up to the job, many normal people who are for the most part careful and responsible citizens will push the envelope a bit, with drink-driving, speeding and various other bad driving practices.

The art of driving is to never put yourself at risk of being booked for anything.
A little bit over is putting yourself in the category of being booked.
If you kill someone while you are in this bookable category it has got to be seen as murder no 1.
Driving should be zero alcohol, the same as trucks.

It is easier and a lot less expensive to drive your drink home than to tank up at your favourite watering hole and then drive home drunk!
A good man knows when he's had enough. We also know that the brains of folk under 26 or thereabouts haven't finished fully developing, and may be prevented from ever doing so by the too liberal use of alcohol! Perhaps the legal age limit should be raised to say 25?
Apart from delayed or prevented development, what are the downsides of the too liberal use of alcohol? Liver damage, early onset dementia, diabetes, antisocial behaviour, divorce, estranged families and poverty. Just to mention the most glaringly obvious.
As for imposing murder charges on drunk drivers who kill? What about arsonists who cold dead sober light fires; that in too many instances led to multiple and horrendous deaths? Besides, are there any other legal or illegal substances that reduce or eliminate normal inhibitions?
What about the doctor who has just completed a 24 hour shift, is fatigued and fighting sleep; and consequently, has less control than a completely smashed drunk?
I believe the legal level could be reduced to 0.03 as suggested, and perhaps drinkers over that limit could/should lose more than their licence? Perhaps if the car was also confiscated and sold at public auction to beef up a compensation fund for victims, who are not killed but damaged to the point, where they need 24/7 lifetime high care?
Our prisons are already overfill with drug addicts and the mentally unwell! Incarcerating drunk drivers who take lives, and the toll is very high, would leave a lot less room for those who deliberately and cold-bloodedly take life!
I'm inclined to agree with the author, but would propose permanent exile in a willing third world country, as another and perhaps more appropriate less expensive whole of life outcome? Rhrosty.

<< The art of driving is to never put yourself at risk of being booked for anything. >>

It’s a nice ideal, 579, but impractical.

This is particularly so with speeding. In just about all cases the cruising speed is right up there at the speed limit. So if you roll with the flow, you are perilously close to slipping over the bookable limit. If you exercise a bit of caution and keep your speed down five or eight kmh lower, you frequently get tailgated, riskily overtaken and shown contempt from other drivers.

It is more dangerous to travel a bit slower than the general cruising speed than it is to do the cruising speed, which is usually a bit over the official speed limit!

So you are perilously close to being in the bookable zone if you are just driving properly and safely!! In fact, technically you ARE in it!

This is a chronic problem, which becomes quite extreme in roadworks zones where just about no one observes the temporary slow speed limits for the whole slow zone or even anything close to them. Often if you dare to observe the speed limit, you are at strong odds with the traffic flow. You feel strongly pressured to not observe the speed signs and to just roll with the flow.

Then on the odd occasion that the police actually police roadworks zones, ALL those who are ‘speeding’ get nabbed and treated just the same.

If you drive a lot, you are going to get booked for speeding, even if you do your darnedest to observe the law!

There is much less prospect of ‘wrongly’ being nabbed for drink-driving. But there are circumstances where a person feels they have to drive while intoxicated, and that it is indeed better to do so than to not do it.

There can be reasons or mitigating circumstances in some instances. Sure, we have the courts to sort this stuff out. But I have about the same opinion of our justice system as I do for our policing regime.

Technology may help drunk or fatigued drivers. There are devices, which can be fitted to a drink drivers car; that have to be blown in to, to measure alcohol levels, which if too high can lock out the ignition. Another will keep you within the white lines and a safe distance from other road users.
One cannot however, legislate against stupidity.
One is reminded of a very well reported compensation case, where a woman having just purchased a very well known brand of motor home, activated the cruise control, then went into the back to make a sandwich. When the vehicle subsequently crashed and the woman suffered some serious injury, she was able to sue the Motor Home Manufacturer, for a sum much larger, than the replacement cost of said vehicle! Rhrosty.

"a very well reported compensation case…" No, definitely not well reported. Widely reported certainly.

If you're referring to Mrs Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma – as amusing as it was – it is a total fabrication.

Unfortunately, many sites around the internet never seem to get around to updating errors.

I saw the Motor Home story in print in a local newspaper! Newspaper publishers have a legal duty to validate the accuracy of that which they commit to print, no matter how hilarious!
Thus far, and many/many months after the publication, they have failed to correct or recant the article. However, not even a publication as revered and sacrosanct as say the bible can claim to accurately report the facts or pertinent statements/eye witness accounts?
Perhaps the Poster might be the one needing to validate his or her facts? Rhrosty.

Ludwig. There is no such thing as cruising speed. What is at fault is the bookable speed is around 3 or 4 Km over. Because of this every body thinks their speedo is absolutely correct.
If the bookable speed was 60 in a 60 zone, u would be more likely to drive 5 k's below the speed limit.
The bookable limit for .05 is .049 .05 is bookable.
I have no sympathy for people being caught with speed cameras. The law is the law, and should be further refined.
Tailgaters are booked in vic.
Get the cereal offenders off the road never to return. Zero tolerance.

Perhaps lowering the blood alcohol content would help people realise the seriousness of drink driving.

<< There is no such thing as cruising speed >>

Hey??

Well that’s not something I would have ever expected to be countenanced, 579. The concept of a cruising speed is simple – it is the speed that most people travel at, or that the traffic is moving at in any particular instance. And in most cases this is right on if not a few kmh over the actual speed limit.

<< What is at fault is the bookable speed is around 3 or 4 Km over. >>

No, what is at fault is that the bloody police / politicians / Dept of Transport, RACQ / NRMA / etc don’t tell us just what the actual effective speed limit is. In fact even when asked the direct question, the police refused to give an exact figure in an interview I heard a while back.

This is just bullsh!t. How dare they not tell us exactly what is being policed!!

Part of a proper regulatory regime is for the public to know exactly what the law is that is being policed, surely!

If it is 10 ks over, 4ks over or exactly on the speed limit is pretty much irrelevant just as long as we all know what it is….and that it is the same across the whole country!

As it is, the correct and sensible speed would be about 5 to 8 ks below the actual speed limit, but sheesh if you do that, you really do invite belligerent driving, which raises the hackles and distracts both the slower driver and the intolerant following driver, causes road rage, increases risk factors and is generally considerably more dangerous than sitting right up on or just over the speed limit or whatever speed everyone else is doing.

continued

<< Tailgaters are booked in vic >>

Yeah on the very rare occasions that a cop actually witnesses it and can be bothered booking the perpetrator. But if you report a tailgater when you are sitting on the correct speed, you’ve got no chance of the cops doing anything about it!

This leads to another huge aspect of road-safety regulation: the powerlessness of the public to assist the police! In my experience over many years and all Australian states, the cops are almost always not interested if you report someone for risky or unlawful driving, unless a serious accident/incident has occurred.

OK, so this article thread is about drink-driving, but it can’t be treated in isolation. And quite frankly there is little point in clamping right on that one aspect if the rest is left in the current pitiful state.

Ludwig The policeable limit is the designated speed limit as prescribed on the restriction signs. We can't say 60 doesn't mean what it says, it's ok to do a few ks over.
By doing that few k's over it puts peoples judgement of giving way or not out of kilter.
By doing a few k's over it makes that bit harder for persons not familiar with that particular road that much riskier.
By doing a few k's over it makes the .049 driver that much more vonorable.
By doing a few k's over it is confusing and misleading to learner drivers.
By doing a few k's over it puts you in a law enforcement limit.
Who sets the cruising speed. ?; i say it must be the devil.
The sign on the back of my car says, this car is limited to the speed limit.

579, this could be a long discussion. I’ll start a new general thread if you think you are likely to keep it going for a while. Whadayareckon?.

<< The policeable limit is the designated speed limit as prescribed on the restriction signs >>

But no it isn’t! Nowhere in the country do people get booked for doing 1kmh over the limit. In Queensland for a very long time (not sure about the current situation), you wouldn’t get booked unless you were doing at least 11ks over! I have that straight from the horse’s mouth! And everyone understood it.

<< We can't say 60 doesn't mean what it says, it's ok to do a few ks over. >>

But we can because that is the reality of the policing regime.

Yes by doing a few ks over it would increase risks, lead to confusion and present a hypocritical message.

The police had a slogan; ‘Every k over is a killer’. But at the same time they were letting everyone get away with 10ks over!

Now if that isn’t confusing and duplicitous, what is??

<< Who sets the cruising speed >>

The driving public, based on their understanding of the effective speed limit. Just about everyone has the same understanding that you can get away with a few ks over, which leads them to drive right on or more commonly just over the official speed limit.

I’m talking about Queensland. When I was in Victoria recently, it was a bit tighter, but still right up there on or damn close to the speed limit.

<< …this car is limited to the speed limit.>>

Really?? So your car never ever goes 1k over? When you go from an 80k zone into a 60 zone, you always drop your speed to 60 by the time you reach the speed sign? You always do 40 in roadworks zones where there are temporary 40k signs, even in the long stretch after the actual roadworks area before you are allowed to return to normal speed?

You’d be a UNIQUE driver if you never exceeded the speed limit!!

Drink (drug and speeding) driving causing death is really a despicable crime, and deserves a very severe punishment - including extended incarceration in the most blatant instances. Similarly, all drink/drug and speeding driving should be subject to severe penalties - because of the potential risks to self and others.

I do however believe that, as with many crimes, a scale of gravity, and an associated scale of punishment, should be maintained - to enable courts to ensure that the punishment 'fits' the crime. In drink (and drug) driving the 'scale' could equate with the degree of intoxication, as determined by both blood concentration and, if possible, a 'measured' loss of competence (as males, for example, may have a higher 'tolerance' than females, and some racial groups, per genetic makeup, may exhibit a very low tolerance). This is not to 'legitimize' excuses, but rather to take proper and reasonable account of culpability/recklessness. (Hence, in the case of playing 'Russian Roulette', using 5 bullets would warrant more serious condemnation than if using 1 bullet - though this may be splitting hairs.)

I also agree with Rhrosty that it may be appropriate for the legal alcohol limit to be lowered to .03, and for the legal drinking age to be raised to 25 - given the current statistics regarding excessive alcohol consumption, and youth road accidents and antisocial behaviour relating to alcohol consumption. But, I wouldn't expect such to be popular.

However, I don't think fear of punishment is really the best way to alter behaviour, though it is probably the easiest to implement, but would rather see an approach using positive reinforcement to instill attitudes in favour of maintaining responsible and ethical behaviour.

For me, punishment should always fit the crime, and if someone causes another's death the punishment should always be severe. I don't like seeing people 'get away with murder', and our courts too often seem far too lenient - IMHO.

Heard of a US drunk-drive-causing-death where the defence was that the defendant was 'too drunk to have formed the actual intention to drive'? Howzat?

Ludwig Start a new thread. You need teaching the art of driving.

579, here's your chance to teach me the art of driving:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5117