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?