Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Friends of the Beige - HUN supporting TAC/VicPol/Vicroads

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Trundler, Sep 16, 2012.

  1. I've been noticing a lot of support for the TAC/police rot from the Hun lately, not just in their support of the politically motivated Dept. of Jokes survey.

    This puppet piece today was pushing for increased restrictions for new drivers.

    The figure of 668 drunk drivers does not seem all that excessive, given the total figure is 6000+, and they're adhering to a lower limit and have greater visibility to police.

    And the suspensions aren't really that interesting either since you can lose your licence for not wearing a seat belt (3 points) and having your plate fall down (3 points). It looks like some sort of error.

    But what's this crap from the RACV? He wants drivers prohibited from carrying passengers until they're at least 22?

    It's yet another case of blatantly ignoring stats when they don't suit:

    zoe2j8.

    VicRoads own data shows that crash risk halves over the first year, drops a little more in the second, but then basically plateaus from there.

    So what's his angle?


    And here's another annoying one.

    For a paper to put its weight behind something so unpopular seems a little suspicious.

    We already have a limit far less than other English speaking countries (.08% in all but South Africa) and an environment less conducive to it (lower density, less public transport).

    The Sweden drop occurred about 20 years ago, and doesn't appear all that remarkable on the graphs:

    times-graph_1.
    Fatalities per billion km

    Regardless, most crashes involving alcohol involve lots of it:

    [​IMG]
    TAC

    Most studies have shown very little affect on crash risk up to about .10 - for example, from the US NHTSA:

    [​IMG]

    Maybe Robert Hill could tell me how many lives we'd save if we dropped the state limit to 40km/h?

    Although I shouldn't give the clown ideas.

     
     Top
    • Like Like x 7
  2. If most risk is for drivers under 23 will my premium go down next renewal?
     
     Top
  3. I like this trundler fellow
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Re: Friends of the Beige

    CBF, reading all the bs. They state 668 of them caught drunk, do they in fact mean caught with anything more than .00 in their system? Drunk sounds better for the average dumbarse watching ACA.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 2
  5. That's my bet too.
     
     Top
  6. Re: Friends of the Beige

    I think a better option would be to raise the BAC for P platers to 0.02 0.00 is a ridiculous figure.

    Good post Trundler.
     
     Top
  7. Re: Friends of the Beige

    It would be nice if they did that. Would mean I could have a drink after work rather than being an outcast, or not be worried the next morning after drinking the previous night.

    But you know if it saves one life... ](*,)

    Yes good post Trundler.
     
     Top
  8. Re: Friends of the Beige

    I hope you meant 0.02, not sure drunk P platers is the answer [-( lol.
     
     Top
  9. Re: Friends of the Beige

    Not surprising that Brian Negus has led RACV down the path of road user victimisation. That was the same kind of policy agenda that he employed before sliding smoothly over from Vicroads.

    HUN will doubtless be counting the profits of a nice, generous TAC advertising contract about now. No contrary opinion will be published.
     
     Top
  10. Re: Friends of the Beige

    yup. can't imagine the hun care about the content they produce as long as it generates sales or advertising revenue. I loathe them but I can't blame them - all they are doing is catering to the lowest common denominator
     
     Top
  11. Re: Friends of the Beige

    This would affect me a lot. I would drive or ride at some level between 0.01 and 0.05 probably once a week or so.

    I guess the telling stat would be what proportion of fatalaties or serious injuries that occur with people with a BAC reading under 0.05 but over 0 and how this compares to the proportion of trips driven by people in the same range.

    I'm guessing they would be pretty similar.
     
     Top
  12. Re: Friends of the Beige

    I never really understood the point of P plates???

    Is there any evidence that there introduction actually achieved anything.

    It just seem obvious to me inexperienced drivers crash more surely it's not that complex?
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 3
  13. My theory is that the BAC at 0.02 for young drivers is more about social engineering to make alcohol less consumed. I am sure a lot of young people are less likely to binge as much when they know that they won't be able to drive for that many more hours to get under 0.02.

    It is all about controlling the people.

    The telegraph (also News Ltd) have been ranting about Kings Cross nightclubs binge drinking culture whilst on the same page having deals from the bottle-o's for buy one case of beer get one free etc, the irony is laughable.
     
     Top
  14. Re: Friends of the Beige


    Whoops, :) Yes I did mean 0.02, the point being that there is some leeway.
     
     Top
  15. Re: Friends of the Beige

    Unless we make it a mandatory minimum BAC of 0.2 for all p-platers.

    Roads will be a lot safer if they're all too drunk to find their keys :LOL:.
     
     Top
  16. Interesting my work place is about to introduce a drug and alcohol testing procedure and you need to be 0.02 or under if not your dismissed but you can still get in your car and drive home . I keep seeing this 0.02 figure around a lot recently .

    No real surprise from the liberal conservative risk averse Hun kissing the backside of a big advertiser the TAC . Any chance of employing a journalist that can think for themselves .
     
     Top
  17. You might be surprised how people can be affected at very low readings. For example, I've tested myself after a drinking session at 0.026 on one occasion and another at 0.019 yet I was well affected on both occasions and had to get someone to drive me home, yet I could have legally driven.

    If you've never tested yourself and know what reading you feel the affects of alcohol at, how can you say 0.02 for example is ridiculous. You might be surprised how you're affected at various readings.
     
     Top