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.

Harold Scruby calls for people to be breathalysed before buying a beer

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by smileedude, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. Your article acknowledges the costs associated with over-consumption of alcohol but does not address the real cause (''High-risk drinking out of control in NSW'', December 11).
    Apart from the pain, grief and suffering, road trauma costs Australia more than $27 billion a year. Pedestrians account for about 20 per cent of deaths and injuries on our roads, but typically, pedestrian injuries cost double those of injuries sustained by occupants of vehicles. More than 20 per cent of pedestrians killed on our roads have a blood-alcohol content exceeding 0.15.
    The flaw in the debate is the belief that those serving alcohol are trained and certified in its ''responsible service''.
    To know whether someone is too intoxicated to be served another drink is impossible without a legally defined maximum BAC and an Australian Standards-approved breathalyser.
    There are legal limits for drivers but no one can agree on a definition of when a patron is legally intoxicated.
    This charade has allowed the industry to feign responsibility, while alcohol-related deaths, injuries and mayhem continue unabated. Imagine if police were required to conduct random breath-testing operations by guessing if drivers were over the limit.
    The violence and carnage will continue until the government legally defines the maximum allowable BAC for the service of alcohol, and mandates the use of approved breath-testing equipment.
    Harold Scruby chairman, Pedestrian Council of Australia

  2. Much as we motorcyclists dislike El Scrubador, I think he makes a good point that the definition of 'intoxicated' is nebulous at best and its application and enforcement varies from person to person.

    That said, I'm not sure breath testing of people at a bar before each drink is the best solution to a complex situation, both in terms of what bar/club culture would 'accept', and even as a technical solution. Hmm.
  3. The most immediate effect would be a rise in the use of alternative intoxicating substances.
  4. Not withstanding the points of the argument.. FFS, why do people keep publishing that person's views.

    I'm creating a Respiration Council for all of us breathers. Breathers, UNITE!
  5. Couldn't agree with you more. The man is the walking definition of position justification syndrome. The pedestrian council used to consist of him and the tea lady.
  6. Till she got too old to walk?
  7. First the news last night was talking about huge price hikes on packaged alcohol prices to (supposedly) prevent people from drinking before they go out, and now this. Alcohol's not the problem. It's the culture of alcohol use in this country that's the problem. Not helped of course by the fact so many people aren't held fully accountable for their actions because they were pissed.

    It's like those warning labels on electrical appliances telling people not to put them in the bath, "adults" shouldn't f*&king need them.
  8. I think he ran her over in his Hummer
  9. Regrettably Scruby is the 'go-to' person the lazy press approaches whenever something even vaguely safety-related crops up.

    Equally, all the scrutiny on safety always falls on drivers, and not on intoxicated or at least alcohol-effected pedestrians and that should not be the default position. We were inflcited with a set of traffic lights on the Princes Highway near my house because a drunk idiot lay down on the road on the way home from the local pub and got himself killed......

    All that said, ANY form of enforcement of BAC for pedestrians would be totally impossible....
  10. The man is a vacuous waste of oxygen, & the fact that he even gets any attention at all should give our motorcycling bodies cause for concern that they cannot.
  11. Nor should it even be a discussion. If I want to get hammered, i should be allowed to get hammered. People can take a hike if they disagree.
  12. I agree, and this should extend to many other areas as well. If I want to eat myself silly and die of diabetes or heart disease, I should be allowed to do so. Eating isn't against the law. Likewise with smoking, although I think smoking AND drinking are wasteful and expensive pasttimes.....
  13. As long as you don't try suing McDonalds for making you fat, or expect large sums of public money to treat you.

    Unfortunately for bars the blame and liability always seem to be put on them for people getting drunk, and driver's who get blamed for hitting drunk pedestrians.
  14. Party at Hornets tonight, or maybe not.
  15. everybody's welcome, although you might have to bring your own expensive and wasteful pasttimes :ROFLMAO:
  16. Can't we just borrow your bike? :p
  17. Seems like a good plan; Macquarie Pass is just down the road!
  18. Hornet and his bike have a history of crashing on the Pass.
  19. cruel

    but true......

    although in my defence the last time I crashed on the Pass was a few years ago, and I've done lots of miles on it since...... :whistle:
  20. Most of us pay it forward, that's what taxes are for. Damned right im going to cost the govt a fortune in care. I diligently pay my taxes and I expect to be able to use them at some point in time.

    Also, even if you're a pinko-nutjob-hippy* and live a life of salad and no-alcohol/smoking, that doesn't stop you getting expensive brain tumors down the track. End of life care is expensive no matter what. You might as well enjoy yourself before you get to that stage ;p

    * added drama for effect