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] VicPol on Alcohol rampage - operation RAID

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by robsalvv, Nov 26, 2010.

  1. Hmmmm... recent Police blitzes found that <0.1% of tested drivers had BAC's of >=0.05. The fatality stats though suggest that a quarter of all deaths on Victoria's roads have BAC levels >=0.05.

    Is that some kind of disconnect?? Is there some cooking of the stats books?? Could <0.1% of drivers really account for a quarter of the road toll? Or perhaps it does actually point to how much alcohol does influence ones driving.

    Anyway, the police, in the face of a rising road toll, are exercising the only muscles they have and are mounting another blitz.

    - - - - - - -


    Police raid alcohol high risk hot spots

    Friday, 26 November 2010 00:10

    Amid a soaring road toll Victoria Police is pulling out all stops to target drug and drink driving with the launch of one of the nation’s biggest road blitzes – Operation RAID.

    Over the next two weeks police expect to breath test hundreds of thousands of people as part of the Australia-wide operation.
    Operation RAID is happening in every corner of the state – but this year will see Victoria’s top 15 high-risk areas for alcohol-related road trauma targeted with a mass of additional police from the State Highway Patrol and Operations Response Unit.

    Police have identified the key focus areas, Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat, Dandenong, Wyndham, Hume, Moonee Valley, Brimbank, Yarra Ranges, Monash, Boroondara, Port Phillip, Glen Eira, Casey and Frankston, by looking at alcohol-related trauma levels and data detailing where drivers had last consumed alcohol.

    Operation RAID stands for Remove All Impaired Drivers and aims to remove motorist from the road who are impaired by alcohol or drugs. Hundreds of police will be saturating roads across the state and pledge to catch those who put other road users at risk.

    Deputy Commissioner (Road Policing) Ken Lay said police will be throwing everything they have at detecting drink and drug drivers.
    “We have seen far too much trauma on our roads this year and now the warm weather and festive season is upon us – traditionally one of the most dangerous times on our roads. It’s a time for celebrating, and with that comes drinking,” Mr Lay said.

    “One of the biggest dangers on our roads continues to be alcohol. This year, about one quarter of drivers killed on our roads had a blood alcohol level above 0.05. People need to understand that drinking and driving kills.
    “Over the next two weeks, police not only in Victoria, but across the entire country will join together for one of the nation’s biggest traffic blitzes – Operation RAID.

    “Police will on the highways, on the side roads and you can bet the back roads throughout the day and throughout the night, alcohol and drug testing drivers and targeting dangerous driver behaviour.”

    From 26 November to 12 December police from the State Highway Patrol and Operations Response Unit will join local police for satellite operations in the vicinity of booze bus operations.

    Mr Lay said that it’s important people understand why police are taking this action. “Alcohol has a significant impairment on driver’s reaction times, visions, perception and vigilance. And like alcohol, many drugs reduce a driver’s ability to have full control of a vehicle – illicit substance can impact alertness, reaction time and physical coordination,” he said.

    “In fact people might not be aware of the fact that in 2009, of all drivers killed in fatal accidents, 15 per cent tested positive to having illicit substances in their systems. “Police are not targeting these offences to spoil anyone’s fun – raise revenue – or what ever else people may think – we are doing it to save lives.”

    As part of Operation RAID last year, police removed 1616 drink drivers and 28 drug drivers from Victoria’s roads. Police from Western Australia, Northern Territory, New South Wales, the ACT, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania and Victoria are all taking part in the campaign.

    Anna Erbrederis
    Victoria Police Media Unit
    VP 7150/2010
  2. I'm quite surprised many of you vic people havn't shut up and shipped out of big brother's dominion by now.
  3. It's called Stockholm syndrome.
  4. i think its funny how they claim it takes all of them off the road.
  5. It's all states and territories of Aus and NZ running the RAID campaign, not just Vic.

    In the ACT the AFP gets quite a high hit rate on drink drivers.

    "In the first three weeks of November, ACT Policing has apprehended 149 drink drivers, compared to 98 in September and 113 in October. This is a ratio in November of one positive for every 37 RBTs."

    It depends on how it's done. If you setup an RBT in the middle of the day you might test hundreds before you get a positive, do targeted RBTs (eg from midnight to 5am) near clubs etc you'll get a very high ratio. Overall during the day the ratio would be pretty low (as you quoted 0.1%), but at night time in town/city centres I'd be willing to bet something like 5-10% will be drink driving.
  6. oh man, yesterday there were over 9 - yes, NINE - cars in my suburb doing RBTs and vehicle checks from about midday till after I got home, at about 7:30. why is nine incredible? cause my town, 1.5 hours away from anywhere, only has like 2 or 3 police cars!

    there was a LOT of police presence yesterday all over the roads... by some incredible force, I wasn't pulled over :D
  7. come live in my area. Sydney's Northern Beaches drink driving statistics are the highest in the Sydney Metropolitan and NSW state area for not just Random Breath Testing but also motor vehicle crashes.

    Ive seen them setting up yesterday at 2.30pm, i crossed the spit bridge today at 7.30 am and they were at it again.

    they probably actually catch a small % of all road users but i dont mind...good on em.
  8. It's the one thing I really don't mind them being full on about.
  9. ditto - get the drunks off the road!
  10. +1 on that - hit one the other day. I was fine but the lady in the Tarago taking her kids to school was busted over the limit + having a glass of wine in the cupholder. Yep - just after 8AM on the school run with 3 kids in the car.
  11. Yeah I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the road but to say 0.05 arbitrary limit makes someone "too drunk" to drive as opposed to 0.049 to me is a joke. For once, USA imo is better with sobriety test(s) is better, I've seen family members at gatherings react VERY different to the same alcohol consumption.

    As those Aussie "cop/breath testing" shows have, people pulled over, seem legible, not drunk and are 0.05 and done for "being drunk", then proceeded to be told off for them driving when having a drink yet there are no real proper measures to ensure one can drive after a drink.(when "we're told" that the home BAC testers should not be relied on, unless that's changed and there are "police accepted ones" for sale?) Just my pet hate, I've all but given up drinking (2-3 stubbies worth of beer in about 2 years) so I'm not trying to condone something I (would) do, but just not a fan of an arbitrary number without some sort of sobriety test(s) to support it. The cynic in me is because it takes too long to do this plus it may stop fining a percentage of people otherwise able to be "taxed"
  12. same here, don't care how hard they hit on drink driving....

    had a chat to the plod at the expo yesterday, apparently from dec and thru the summer, they're going to increase the pull over, quick check, chat,and pamphlet handouts again.....

    also had one of their patrol bikes there and went through the speed detection hardware they have.
    they work whether they are stopped, or riding, etc.
  13. I don't mind them going onto alcohol. I'd prefer less drivers with alcohol in their system on the roads.

    That said, I think there is a fair argument for a sobriety system, or at least some better way for drivers to know when they are over/under. As it is, it is a guessing game for drivers.

    I am becoming less convinced that BAC is representative of how impaired someone is. Hell, I have blown less than 0.05 (not driving) under situations that I wouldn't dream of jumping in a car. On a bike, I wouldn't drink anyways.
  14. The problem with the sobriety tests are that they are still open to interpretation. I think the general emphasis on 0.05 BAC is that any drink is a drink too much. The absolute most I'd have and drive would be a stubby of normal beer, but generally I'd not drink anything.

    When I moved here from the UK in '96, I was quite amazed at the almost tolerance the law had for 0.05, with the ads at the time indicating how many drinks you could have before you'd break the limit. In the UK they were pushing 'Don't drink and drive' line as the safest option. But they weren't/aren't allowed to do random stops either, so it was probably the best way for them to counter the accidents that drinking and driving were causing.
  15. *nod* Still, I'd say 0.00 BAC then, let people crack it for a bit then let society "ease" into a thought "drink, don't drive". It would take a while but **** it, but it would hopefully stop a LOT less drink drivers from hitting the road, or maybe then 0.02, so one drink is "ok" but any more, then either stop drinking or stop driving *period*

    With sobriety tests open to interpretation, yeah but I'd much rather see someone (who is under the legal limit) who can't pass a sobriety test (for interpretation, still a lot less interpretation than "guessing" you're under 0.05% BAC) because they are [obviously] not fit to drive due to being under the influence (no matter what actual BAC they have).

    It's a very grey matter of policing, so we will have various points of view (with no obvious right or wrong so to speak) but I feel the number put is not good enough, probably too many people who may be under the influence but less than 0.05% BAC allowed to keep driving and people who are "good" to drive, may be over 0.05% BAC pulled over and 'done' due to the BAC they are over yet "not under the influence". I think that's enough of my view, pretty much how I feel, and anyway, we're off shopping now in this wet weather. Luckily we bought a new pram that is totally waterproof (with the cover on) and 'good to use', the old one was good for dry weather, just not that good in wet weather to use..

    Luckily I won't be any BAC, so my driving skills of the pram or car won't be influenced due to alcohol *wink wink*, just to stay on topic :) Can't wait for our second bub, due next year :D *runs away with the STAY ON TOPIC sign giggling*

  16. Exactly. There are two choices for effective policing of drunk driving. Zero tolerance BAC, so if you blow any reading at all you get pinged. The other option, as mentioned, is the sobriety test. Considering these tests involve the driver exiting their car and doing some arbitrary movements, these are mostly a waste of time.

    I agree with removing drunk drivers from the road 100%. But by making it a guessing game, we have far more people prepared to take a risk. As Undii said, make it a zero limit, let people biatch and whine for a while and then watch alcohol related road incidents drop. Though, I think even a 0.02 limit being "ok" is a bad idea - give the driver that reads <0.05 a $250 fine or something. Or even make it fun, make it a sliding scale - 0.02 = $200, 0.049 = $490!
  17. Just how much policing do you guys want to take 0.1% of drivers off the road? How does that balance against people who wipe themselves off from eating too many pizzas or smoking etc? Just curious.
  18. I understand the thoughts about a 0.05 figure. The truth of the matter is though that most drink drivers go well over the limit. If that's the case then they're the sort of people that will ignore a 0.00 limit anyway so saying a 0 limit will reduce drink drivers is dubious IMO.

    I disagree on sobrierty tests as they are open to interpretation whereas a figure is not. It's like anything, you have to set a base figure that best overall covers the majority. If you have any more than a couple of drinks and drive you're likely to push the limit so anyone who does and drives/rides is an idiot.
  19. But if .1% of the drivers cause 25% of the accidents (assuming those numbers are correct), then isn't it a worthwhile effort?

    I don't want to share the road with people who place their right to get drunk and drive home over my right to get home safely. If you want to drink, then either get a taxi, PT or walk.
  20. The point is though (and it's fact from every state & territory) that about 25-33% of fatalities the driver has alcohol and/or drugs in their system. So it is worthwhile targeting the minority to make it safe for the majority.