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.

<< 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. >>

Yes o sung wu, I fully agree. It was not my intention to be particularly critical just of the police. The real problem lies with a lack of political will to employ enough police to do the job….

Community policing also needs to be implemented, so that it is not just the thin blue line out there, but rather, it would be anyone who could do a bit of policing by making a complaint and then having the police act on it. In my experience of making quite a few complaints over a period of a decade or more, the police just really aren’t interested…. and I only bothered to make complaints about the very worst incidents of rank driving that I’d had imposed upon me.

I find this totally deplorable. We are encouraged to report litterers. Neighbourhood Watch is all about reporting suspicious activity. We are generally encouraged to report wrongdoing of all sorts. And yet when it comes to road safety, the police effectively put up a brickwall to exactly the same sort of approach!

This is something that has really bothered me for a very long time.

So, if the public was encouraged to report incidents of dangerous or risky or silly law-breaking driving, those would-be law-breakers would soon realise that it is not just the cops that can bring them unstuck, and that the chance of getting sprung would suddenly be much greater than it currently is with the very thin blue line.

The police would then be somewhat freeer to increase their effort on aspects of road safety that are not easily reportable by the general public, such as drink-driving.

You make some excellent points LUDWIG. You say you're annoyed when you take the trouble to make a complaint to police having witnessed examples of particularly bad driving behaviour, and they appear to have little or no interest in what you say.

Again I agree with you. I've laid an information twice, in the last four years, having witnessed two serious examples of DMD ('Drive manner Dangerous'). Again, police were not particulary bothered, even when I said I'd 'jump the box' in both matters. The only response was, the raising of a cynical eyebrow ?

LUDWIG, even as a retired Detective, 'I can walk the walk and talk the talk' and when I enquired why the constable didn't appear to be too anxious in what I was saying, he stated inter alia, '...you should know what it's like, all the paperwork...'

'...Like establishing, and then interviewing the alleged driver, taking your (the informant's) statement, establishing the whereabouts, and available evidence, of other potential witnesses, adducing from the 'Eagle' system, the specific traffic antecedents of the alleged offender, and so it goes on...!

Yeah, sadly I do know what it's like, overburdened with far too much unnecessary paperwork. Before the days of computers, manual typewriters, which were unmercifully poundered by large coppers with 'worn short' stubby fingers because of all the bloody typing associated with being a 'street' copper...........?

Indeed, I do know what it's like, all too well I'm afraid ?

Thanks o sung wu. I am pleased that you can appreciate what I am saying.

I’ve stated this stuff many times on OLO over the last seven years, but the response has been minimal. Not vehement disagreement but not very much support either. Just a whole lot of apathy actually.

And therein lies the guts of the problem. The general public is not holding our politicians to account for the terribly inadequate regulatory regime.

We hear and read about road fatalities all the time. It is such a commonplace news item. But as a society, we’ve become desensitised to it.

'afternoon to you LUDWIG...

Again you're so right ! But when you come to think of it, it's not just law enforcement it's everything. Our brilliant Pollies don't seem to heed anything the electorate, asks of them ?

It's as if we (the electorate) are invisible - we've no voice, none at all ? Except every three or four years, when they won't leave us alone !

LUDWIG, in my dotage, I often doze, and in so doing, dream of possibilities & probabilities like, one day.....

Wouldn't it be good if, whenever a politician;

(i) Broke a promise ('core' or otherwise);

(ii) Knowingly misled the public and/or parliament;

(iii) Knowingly lied;

(iv) And having done so, compounded that lie, by employing language calculated to deceive;

OR;

language of a kind, designed to deliberately obfuscate the facts...

That politician having done so, is criminally charged, and brought before a Court of his peers, and upon conviction, sent to gaol, an old Gaol...!

Long haunted by those hapless, faceless souls, who were badly done by, through the complete absence of character of that wilfully perjured politician.

Then LUDWIG, * POP * I suddenly awaken, and snap back to reality, sadly.

Take it easy ol' friend.

Cheers...Sung WU.