Queensland to consider.02 blood alcohol limit

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes they have tongue swab thingies that are primarily used for detection of naughty stuff but also register opiates etc.

They will probably detect medicinal opiates such as endone, oxycontin, codiene etc, but I am not sure if they pick up the presence of other sedating medications such as benzodiazepines (valium, seroquel, temazepam, allopam etc), phenothiazines (stemetil, phenergan and other anti nausea and anti histamine), not to mention a whole list of other medications.

I do not know that the tongue swabs get used very frequently post crashes, I have never seen them used on scene or at hospital. Most initial questioning and breath tests occur in the back of my ambulance so I would probably see it if it was done.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

They will probably detect medicinal opiates such as endone, oxycontin, codiene etc, but I am not sure if they pick up the presence of other sedating medications such as benzodiazepines (valium, seroquel, temazepam, allopam etc), phenothiazines (stemetil, phenergan and other anti nausea and anti histamine), not to mention a whole list of other medications.

I do not know that the tongue swabs get used very frequently post crashes, I have never seen them used on scene or at hospital. Most initial questioning and breath tests occur in the back of my ambulance so I would probably see it if it was done.

antidisestablishmentarianism..... na na na na na na my word is longer....

No the drug swabs have been used for random driver tests.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...eID=45056&vf=1

So there you go, not everything Bligh does is evil, who knew......

[Flaming Mo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Not without a toxicology blood screen and I am not sure if they can legally collect such a sample. They have legislation covering the collection of blood alcohol samples but I am not sure if that extends to toxicology. Very easy for me to find out when I am back at work.

Gecko. In answer to your question relating to police powers to take blood sample. Obviously they can if a breath test cannot be conducted due to medical attention / injuries, which no doubt you would have seen after T/A’s.

With respect to drivers not involved in T/A’s that are possibly under the influence of prescription drugs and a breath test comes up negative - if there is sufficient indicia, police would / should arrest suspect outright for the offence based on indicia evidence. Once under arrest, police then have the power to require a blood sample for supporting evidence if indicia is inconsistent with breath test result.

Obviously things can go pear shaped down the track if the blood test comes up negative, and the officer would need to arrange for charges etc to be withdrawn, so as said before, sufficient indicia needs to be present.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

antidisestablishmentarianism..... na na na na na na my word is longer....

No the drug swabs have been used for random driver tests.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...eID=45056&vf=1

So there you go, not everything Bligh does is evil, who knew......

Yes I know about the random tests, I got waved through one on a friday night, I was in the ambulance and the cop said with a joke "there is something wrong if you guys are on drugs".

My doubt in the application of drug tests was not to do with random "booze busses" but post traffic incident.

Mo pretty much cleared it up though, seems they can if they have reasonable suspicion the driver is under the influence of something.

[bonspeed]

Fixing the roads would do more to curb the death toll.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by bonspeed

Fixing the roads would do more to curb the death toll.

Among other things, but they all cost money, not make money.

[cob115]

to me this sounds like another dumb **** idea from a state gov that loves taxing every one to fund there mistakes .02 jesus

[flappist]

I have a cunning plan.......

The states swear on a stack of bibles that speed cameras and low BAC fines are not revenue raising and all the money goes to roads.

How about the Federal Government deduct any monies raised by these methods from the states' grants and ACTUALLY used it to build roads.
e.g. Victoria raise $500,000,000 in speed camera fines so $500,000,000 is taken from their Federal grant.

Then it is absolutely true that the states are not revenue raising

I am sure Comrade Kev and the red witch would welcome the funds to help pay for roads (and screams from the states would take the media focus off insulation, schools, health and whatever else they have stuffed up this week ).

So any of you true believers have an inside line to pass this off as your own idea so you get a promotion or new job as a reward?

[DJR-351]

Are you daft!! I have never heard of such a ridiculous concept!! whoever suggests this would be on the dole queue quick smart.....

[Wally]

For the out of towners, the truth has come out about this. It seems the govt wants to rollback nightclub hours to 3 am. To make sure this is palatable to the industry, the 0.02 idea is being floated as a big stick. The trouble now though, is the cottonwool mice are roaring and actually giving traction to the idea.

[RG]

My point referring to the prescription drugs was that it is very easy to get away with driving under the influence of them as opposed to drink driving, yet I believe that there would be quite a few prescription drugs out there that would have more of an affect on your driving ability than 2 beers would.

I wonder what the stats say about the number of accidents where prescription drugs are a contributing factor compared to persons between .02 and .05?

Another thing to think about is the effect alcohol has on different people. While one person may be perfectly fine to drive at .08 but legally over the limit another will not be fine at all at only .02 yet this is perfectly legal. Another reason I don't think blanket levels for all are at all appropriate.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by RG

My point referring to the prescription drugs was that it is very easy to get away with driving under the influence of them as opposed to drink driving, yet I believe that there would be quite a few prescription drugs out there that would have more of an affect on your driving ability than 2 beers would.

I wonder what the stats say about the number of accidents where prescription drugs are a contributing factor compared to persons between .02 and .05?

Another thing to think about is the effect alcohol has on different people. While one person may be perfectly fine to drive at .08 but legally over the limit another will not be fine at all at only .02 yet this is perfectly legal. Another reason I don't think blanket levels for all are at all appropriate.

First off, as there is no routine screening for prescription meds after a crash, the stats will be insufficient, if any stats are available, to give any true indication on their effect on the ability of a person to drive.

Secondly, although different BAC's affect the persons ability to drive at different levels across all road users, this is not something that can factored in with legislation. Just as on road user may have lightning fast reflexes and awesome attention span, more than capable of safely handling a car at 80 in a given zone, another road user without those talents will be on their limit at 60. Legislation must be geared to the lowest reasonable common denominator.

Is 0.5 too high, are some unreasonably affected at that level? Based on my experience cleaning up the mess after crashes, I would say no. Is a level of 0.02 required, again I would say no. I see it as time and resources tied up in an area that is not going to be beneficial in the reduction of the road toll.

I would prefer to see time, money and resources in areas that will make a difference. Such as driver training, reduction of distractions, vehicle road worthiness, fatigue, following distances, road condition etc. In my experience, make effective improvements in these areas and you will halve the road toll, not just reduce it by maybe 1 or 2 like a reduction to 0.02 is likely to do.

[RG]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

First off, as there is no routine screening for prescription meds after a crash, the stats will be insufficient, if any stats are available, to give any true indication on their effect on the ability of a person to drive.

Kind of what I was getting at, there are that many other things that may be just as common as someone having a couple of beers. The only difference is it's easier for the powers that be to Police alcohol. Easier is not always better.

Secondly, although different BAC's affect the persons ability to drive at different levels across all road users, this is not something that can factored in with legislation. Just as on road user may have lightning fast reflexes and awesome attention span, more than capable of safely handling a car at 80 in a given zone, another road user without those talents will be on their limit at 60. Legislation must be geared to the lowest reasonable common denominator.

Agreed, but how low should the lowest common denominator be that is allowed to be on our roads?

Is 0.5 too high, are some unreasonably affected at that level? Based on my experience cleaning up the mess after crashes, I would say no. Is a level of 0.02 required, again I would say no. I see it as time and resources tied up in an area that is not going to be beneficial in the reduction of the road toll.

You are much better qualified to provide insight into that then most, that includes those whose job it is to look at the accepted levels.

I would prefer to see time, money and resources in areas that will make a difference. Such as driver training, reduction of distractions, vehicle road worthiness, fatigue, following distances, road condition etc. In my experience, make effective improvements in these areas and you will halve the road toll, not just reduce it by maybe 1 or 2 like a reduction to 0.02 is likely to do.

Agreed, unfortunately though the things you have suggested are far too often placed in the "too hard basket" and they don't make gumbyments money.

Any politician that comes out and says that this is purely for safety is either ignorant or a liar.

[gunner]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I have not read this thread yet, I will when I get time. I just thought I would point out something that you will all find a bit interesting.

Today we had 4 crews in station (quiet morning, it doesn't happen often), so we talked about this news. Out of all of us (eight officers) had been to multiple crashes that involved one or more drivers being done for DUI, not one had seen someone blow a low level (less than 0.08). Most of the offences involved BAC greater than 0.1.

My point is, in our experience reducing the legal level will not prevent crashes and will not reduce any great number of deaths as most DUI's involving crashes are 0.08 or more. Therefore because they are already higher than the present limit at 0.05, how will dropping the limit to 0.02 prevent this?

Interesting that your experience backs up what the Norwegians found when they dropped their blood alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12729815

Effect of lowering the alcohol limit in Denmark.

Bernhoft IM, Behrensdorff I.

Danish Transport Research Institute

On 1 March 1998, the Danish per se limit was lowered from 0.08 to 0.05% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for motor vehicle drivers. Based on accident data and drivers' drinking habits before and after the amendment, the effect of the new limit has been evaluated. Interviews revealed a significant decrease in the number of drinks that drivers allow themselves to drink within a 2-h period before driving. The proportion of drivers, who would not drink at all or only have one drink, increased from 71% before the amendment to 80% after the amendment. Drivers with changed drinking habits most often stated the lower limit as the main reason for having less alcohol. However, based on accident data from the first year after the amendment, this has not resulted in a marked decrease in the proportion of injury accidents with impaired motor vehicle drivers (BAC>/=0.05%) compared to all injury accidents. On the contrary, the proportion of fatal accidents with drink-drivers compared to all fatal accidents has increased in the after-period. The total number of drink-driving sentences were a little larger in 1999 than in 1997 because of the lower limit, but a significant change from higher towards lower alcohol levels can be seen."

On a side note (and using Bligh-logic) Sweden and Norway also have much higher rates of Volvo ownership than in Australia hence we should ban all cars that aren't Volvos.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by RG

Kind of what I was getting at, there are that many other things that may be just as common as someone having a couple of beers. The only difference is it's easier for the powers that be to Police alcohol. Easier is not always better.

Precisely, I think more attention needs to be placed on medical capacity, either through disability or medications to drive. There have been some changes here but there is still some way to go. I believe that a GP or hospital placing a patient on a medication that is dangerous to drive on, should have the capacity to suspend that persons license for the duration of that treatment. A good example is I once transported and bus driver that was at work on the public bus service because she was drowsy. The cause of her drowsiness was the fact that she was on valium (a powerful central nervous system depressant) and endone (a powerful narcotic pain killer). Treatment she had been on for a considerable time whilst still working.

Not an easy answer, as some that are likely to require such medication will then refuse to get medical assessment and therefore treatment. Easy answer, I do not know but something needs to be done.

Agreed, but how low should the lowest common denominator be that is allowed to be on our roads?

That is a question that has a multitude of applications and no easy answer, when we do find one we will probably no longer have any discussions about road safety as there will be no issues to discuss.

You are much better qualified to provide insight into that then most, that includes those whose job it is to look at the accepted levels.

I don't know about more qualified, I just call it how I see it. My evidence may be anecdotal but at least it is real world, not just theory.

Agreed, unfortunately though the things you have suggested are far too often placed in the "too hard basket" and they don't make gumbyments money

.

Like many other road safety issues, round and round we go!

Every politician is ignorant and/or a liar.

I hope you don't mind, I edited it for accuracy.

[Papa Smurf]

Citing studies like this of Noway etc and how they have smaller road deaths is lying with facts. It IS a good idea to ban drinking for drivers but, alcohol isn't the only problem.

[gunner]

Originally Posted by Papa Smurf

Citing studies like this of Noway etc and how they have smaller road deaths is lying with facts. It IS a good idea to ban drinking for drivers but, alcohol isn't the only problem.

I don't understand how it's lying with facts. Could you explain your view?

I just don't like the way the government will grab some random fact from another country, then use that single fact to sell their ideas. I was trying to show that I could easily grab another fact from a similar country to make the opposite point; The Qld Gov says Sweden's reduction in the BAC helped reduced their road toll. I'm saying Norway's reduction in the BAC did not help reduce their road toll. We both have "facts" to back us up so who's right? Obviously the issue must be more complex.

Yes, lowering the BAC to 0.02 would lead to less people having a drink and driving (but not necessarily drink driving). As to whether that would correspond to a reduced death toll, I'm unconvinced. In the ideal world a BAC of 0.00 would apply, just as it does in the workplace, but culturally we will never place safety ahead of our social life.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by gunner

I don't understand how it's lying with facts. Could you explain your view?

I just don't like the way the government will grab some random fact from another country, then use that single fact to sell their ideas. I was trying to show that I could easily grab another fact from a similar country to make the opposite point; The Qld Gov says Sweden's reduction in the BAC helped reduced their road toll. I'm saying Norway's reduction in the BAC did not help reduce their road toll. We both have "facts" to back us up so who's right? Obviously the issue must be more complex.

Yes, lowering the BAC to 0.02 would lead to less people having a drink and driving (but not necessarily drink driving). As to whether that would correspond to a reduced death toll, I'm unconvinced. In the ideal world a BAC of 0.00 would apply, just as it does in the workplace, but culturally we will never place safety ahead of our social life.

If BAC was the major issue then those countries with lower than 0.05 would ALL be better than us and those with higher would ALL be worse. This is not the case.

Lowering the speed limit to 10km/h would almost completely remove the road toll. Evern those who fell asleep during the week long trek from Sydney to Melbourne and had a head on crash with someone who fell asleep going the other way would have a very good chance of driving away from the prang.

People who walk everywhere would see no problem with a 10km/h limit as in fact would probably support it as it would be fairly easy to run away from any car running amok with the driver asleep.

In the ideal world there would be no private cars at all as public transport would get you everywhere you want to go and the only reason you are forced to actually DRIVE is that there is no other way.

It is not like you actually LIKE driving and owning a car and it is part of your lifestyle.

Maybe YOUR lifestyle has to change, after all the speed limits on inner waterways are less than 10km/h and we don't have many boat crashes.

So do we put safety ahead of YOUR lifestyle..........

[irish2]

The point these studies fail to show is that Australia should base their deaths off a deaths per 100,000km system. Comparing Aus to Norway where you can drive across the entire nation in a few hours is rediculous. We have far more space per person than any other nation in the world, except ant-artica and other minnow nations with no cars or roads.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by flappist

Do you drive when you are tired?
Do you drive on stinking hot days when the air pollution level is higher?
Do you drive when you have a cold or flu?
Do you drive you are angry?
Do you drive when you are sad?

All these things effect your reaction times as well, or are they not important because they are too difficult to measure?

ok so i better not drive through the M5 TUNNEL IN PEAK HOUR AFTER MN SHFT IN WINTER WITH THE FLU AFTER HAVING A FIGHT WITH THE MISSUS BEING SAD ABOUT THE TRAFFIC BECAUSE IV'E HAD A BEER AND NEED TO URINATE THEN hahahahaha LOL dont laugh .