Prev
Next

Friday’s dilemma: Should I dob in a drink-driver?

Lucy Kippist

by Lucy Kippist

07 Jan 11:33am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

47

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

112

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

83

Filed under: Drink Driving, Moral Dilemma

60 comments

Punch deputy editor Ant Sharwood says:

So I’m at a Golf Club in Canberra one evening between Christmas and New Year’s. And these really pissed guys stumble out of the bar to the outdoor deck where I’m enjoying a cold one with a friend. One sees his golf clubs knocked over. “Did youse do this?” he says, with venomous intent. We didn’t, of course, but my mate and I say nothing. Clearly these guys are way, way too tanked to listen to reason. Best to say nothing.

So anyway, the two drunk morons then pick up their clubs, head to their utes and drive off into the sunset. Personally, I hope they both drove into trees.

Point is, should I have done something? Nobody likes a dobber, especially if it’s a golfing bloke ratting on another golfing bloke, but should I have called the cops? Or expressed my concern to the barman, even though he seemed to know the fellas in question?

And should I, perhaps, have named and shamed the golf club in question in this piece? You tell me. Because clearly, the menssage of no drink-driving has not gotten through to the idiots in society - especially the ones with the big fast cars most likely to kill or maim someone innocent.

And seriously, these guys would’ve blown 0.2 if stopped. They were way, way, way over the limit.

Can you help Ant? Add your advice below.

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

60 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • kerrie o'rourke says:

      10:39am | 07/01/11

      if the driver shares his/her drinks with you, you can dob him/her in when drinks are over,or only if he /she runs you over..

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      10:40am | 07/01/11

      You should have called the cops to pull them off the road, someone could have died at the hands of these fools.

      Reply

    • Danny B says:

      10:41am | 07/01/11

      We’re talking about human lives here.  Not just those two drink-drivers, but whoever they slammed into while trying to drive home.  Yes, you should have called the cops.

      Reply

    • Tails says:

      10:47am | 07/01/11

      Option 1: You pull them up and say they might be better off catching a cab home = They punch you in the face then drive off anyway.
      Option 2: You tell the barman. He shrugs = You feel like you’ve tried but they drive off anyway.
      Option 3: You tutt tutt, shake your head. = They drive off anyway.

      Reply

    • rudy says:

      11:07am | 07/01/11

      Option 4. You call the cops - if they care enough to respond at all, it will be too late. More likely they think you’re a timewasting dobber.

    • Tails says:

      04:39pm | 07/01/11

      Option 4 = They drive off anyway.

    • Flutz says:

      10:50am | 07/01/11

      You definitely should have called the police.  I worked for a very long time with people with disabilities and in my experience it is usually an innocent 3rd party that suffers the worst consequences when a drunk driver has an accident.  Also by the sound of how inebriated you have described these guys to have been, the golf club has been derelict in it’s duty under Responsible Service of Alcohol laws, so they should also have been reported to authorities.

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      11:00pm | 07/01/11

      #! I am so with you on this, I used to work with brain injured clients, every one was caused by booze #2Time to get out of Aussies don’t dob bullshit #3 pissheads should be made to do work experience in the morgue. #4 It is time to stand against the Bogan culture of this country

    • Trude Dunn says:

      10:54am | 07/01/11

      I would’ve called the cops and felt better for it.

      Them wrapping themselves around a tree isn’t a biggie and might have improved the gene pool. However it’s not just their lives which were at riskt, it’s every other person on the road, doing the right thing, who they could’ve killed.

      Reply

    • hot tub political machine says:

      10:57am | 07/01/11

      Yes, there are always people who simply won’t take in the anti-drink driving message. Those who will not just :drive home during “line ball” .05’s but will drive home completely smashed.

      My advice would be a written letter to the golf club to discuss their reponsibilites to the community and to “be a golf club” - rather than a bogan bar.

      Reply

    • NicoleG says:

      11:03am | 07/01/11

      Yep, you should have called the cops. Imagine the family these idiots could have wiped out. You should also name the golf club too. Obviously their staff don’t take their RSA seriously.

      Reply

    • Tombowler says:

      01:15pm | 07/01/11

      Nicole, I find myself in disagreement with you for the 1st time thus far….

      Drink driving has been painted, wrongly, as some sort of absolute moral abdication of responsility. This is not the case.

      Drink driving kills/maims approximately f#$ all people each year. This is, of course, no consolation for those few that are innocently killed but neither I suspect would there be any consolation to be found for those maimed or killed otherwise in the fact that the perpetrator had no alcohol in their system.

      “Dobbing in” drink drivers is very different from taking a mates keys or similar. When you take someones keys and offer them a lift or order them a cab is an action in excersing your duty of care to those you care about and truly warranted. Dobbing in a drink-driver is an exercise in rubber-necked nannyism- purporting to take the role of arbiter of the behaviour of the general citizenry and provided that they weren’t commiting serious and deliberately harmful conduct- a completely unwarranted assumption of responsibility that is as unjustifiable as it is damaging to the fabric of society.

      I know a woman who was “dobbed in” for drink driving as she was sitting in her car outside the pub listening to some crap music, sobbing about a break up. The “dobber” presumably had the best intentions in the world seeing a clearly drunk and distressed woman fumbling with her ignition.

      Despite the fact she had no intent to drive, the court determined that the act of starting the ignition to “accessory” (not actually igniting the engine but turning on the electrics) satisfied the intent. She very nearly lost her job and certainly lost her opportunity to advance (she is quite high profile). It caused untold damage and merely exacerbated a particularly poor time in her life.

      Without knowing these people noone knows the story: are they driving just around the corner? Do these guys have speech impediments? Are they on parole and drink driving could put them behind bars for another five? (something I suspect some of the alleged “lefties” would have no problem with)

      My point is; we need a return to the perfect equilibrium of personal responsibility and assumption of consequence.

      As it stands we have “vigilante” citizens who want to dob everyone in for the most minor of anti-social conduct, bouncers wanting defacto powers of arrest and people demanding that bars take responsibility for others lack of self-control.

      Fuck it. If they made it home, good on em.

      If they crash into someone and can’t pay; The MAC will bankrupt them and the courts will jail them.

    • Chris says:

      01:33pm | 07/01/11

      Tombowler, I would imagine you would not be feeling the same way if somone was “driving round the corner” and hit your wife, girlfriend or what ever.

      Your idoicy in your views about drink driving is phenomenal. Using the fact that the guy or girl might serve an additional 5 years if they get caught drink driving as a point to say don’t dob someone in is sorry to say retarted. So what if they will serve 5 years, they shouldn’t of been in a situation in the first place where that could be their punishment.

      And your comment “Drink driving kills/maims approximately f#$ all people each year” is completely unfounded. In the 8 years leading up to 2009 600 people died from drink driving accidents which accounted for 22.9% of all fatalities.
      http://www.police.qld.gov.au/services/discussion/

      Try and make your next contribution to a serious discussion a good one.

    • The Listener says:

      01:59pm | 07/01/11

      NicoleG
      I think I heard your head hit the desk way out here in the west.

    • James1 says:

      02:18pm | 07/01/11

      If a person is on parole and is still breaking the law, then I would have no problem with them going to prison, and I am no lefty.  Anyone in that situation is clearly a criminal, and I have no sympathy for criminals.  As hardline as you are on so many issues, I am surprised you would have sympathy for such a criminal Tom.

      That said, I probably wouldn’t dob in a drunk driver.

    • Tombowler says:

      02:24pm | 07/01/11

      How many died in the same period from cancer? How many from heart disease? We got much bigger issues than the road toll Chris…..

      The road toll is simply a cost attached to easy transport and it is, in the scheme of things, f#ck all…

      Of course if you have a relative or friend who dies then it doesn’t seem that way but the reality is it’s hard to be pragmatic when your personally affected by an issue.

      That sort of argument is typical emotive bullsh#t that constantly sours the debate.

    • Tim says:

      03:06pm | 07/01/11

      Chris,
      600 people in 8 years is a lot?
      I think i’d more likely agree with Tom that in the grand scheme of things that’s F***All.

    • CG says:

      03:36pm | 07/01/11

      Tombowler, I don’t think 22.9% of anything is “f#$k all.”

      And, not to say this harshly, but if Chris “soured the debate with emotive bullsh#t” (apologies, I’m paraphrasing you here), he should also be credited as being the only commenter to respond with any credible facts/figures/sources to back up his comments.

      Just sayin’...

    • hot tub political machine says:

      03:37pm | 07/01/11

      Just to shed a light side on the misconceptions possiblity.

      I know a guy who vomitted from eating too much - without a drink in his system - in a pub carpark and 30 seconds after vomiting jumped straight into his car and drove off in front of a large group of people.

      The people, assuming he was worse the wear for drinks -apparent looked horrified as he drove away

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      11:04pm | 07/01/11

      Tombowler, you can make all the excuses for this oxygen thief you discribe but reality is she only thought of it when sober or it was thought up by her lawyer. Reality is if she lost her job SO WHAT! ! !

    • Seano says:

      07:55am | 08/01/11

      @Tim - 600 people in one state that might be alive today if some selfish pricks hadn’t gotten behind the wheel whilst over the limit and that’s not significant?

      Try explaining to the families of the bereaved that losing their mother, father, wife, husband, son or daughter to a completely preventable accident isn’t important in “grand scheme of things“. And exactly how bad would this figure be if we had open slather? Not significant, idiotic.

    • Vicki says:

      02:37pm | 08/01/11

      Well, hell, Tombowler, your poor drunken dumped friend was simply a victim of what you advocate—personal responsibility and the assumption of consequence.  Any fool with a licence knows the deal: if you are drunk and in charge of a vehicle, you lose.  Clearly your tired and emotional gal pal was a wee bit too t & e either to recall that fact or to restrain her disinhibited impulses.  Whether or not she intended to drive is academic—that intent could have dissolved in a puddle of alcoholic tears at any time. F**k it, she got sprung and copped the consequences—tough titty.

    • Geoffrey Chaucer says:

      11:05am | 07/01/11

      When I worked for a while in the Netherlands many, many years ago, a drunk only had to call the police, or have barman do it for him, and they would drive him home. No court., no jail, not even a fine.

      All he was required to do was to go to the police station the next day and receive a lecture against drinking excessively.

      Of course, if we did this here, we would need to quadruple the number of policemen and state revenue from penalties would dwindle.

      Reply

    • Tombowler says:

      01:20pm | 07/01/11

      Yes I agree mate…

      In SA the government was bragging about halving the number of speeders detected; “Cameras work! The roads are safe”

      Unfortuneatley the complete ineptitude of the state government also meant we had halved revenue.

      The solution? Zero Tolerance! (for things including partially obscured number-plates when you’ve come off a dirt road in the rain or copped some bugs driving from say melb-adelaide.)

      More cameras! (in the city)

      Lower thresholds on cameras! (because everyone knows that the difference between life and death on North Terrace is 50-51kph)

    • weez says:

      12:14pm | 07/01/11

      Absolutely, call the cops, hide their keys, park them in if you can.

      I am a victim of a drink driver and I’m here to tell you that the only thing worse than getting killed by a drink driver is surviving the accident.

      Please see my story, ‘20 seconds in slow motion, 20 years ago’ at http://machinegunkeyboard.com/?p=742

      Reply

    • Ant Sharwood says:

      01:04pm | 07/01/11

      That’s a great story Weez. You have my sympathy and respect.

      Everyone on the site, you should read this link. I particularly like the bit where you tell the other commenter where to get off.

    • Kika says:

      12:34pm | 07/01/11

      I know a guy who regularly and blatantly drink drives. He doesn’t care about the consequences - despite all the media about it. He reckons he is a good enough driver and nothing will happen to him. Well, bad things happen to good people and he’s flirting with a very very sorry end.

      I think I would have called the cops. But it’s easy said then done. Especially when he was acting aggressively. You wouldn’t have wanted to intervene with him and taken the keys in case it started a brawl (most likely)

      Reply

    • Bengeck says:

      12:38pm | 07/01/11

      Call the cops, yes but tell them what? did you get the rego? car make? color?  what the guys looked like? what direction they where going? time they left?

      without this information all you would be able to say is you saw 2 pissed guys drive off from X golf club, don’t know where they went, nor the car make or color or the rego. so can you go get’em please? 

      the cops would hang up on you and you would get a summons for wasting police time.

      Reply

    • your no fun! says:

      12:40pm | 07/01/11

      so your saying a carton of piss and some rallycross on the way home is not acceptable

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      12:41pm | 07/01/11

      In strict theoretical terms - you should have done nothing. Turn the situation into a simple mathematical game: You, player A, want to feel emotionally and morally justified in a course of action, and arrive home alive. Them, player B, wants to arrive home alive, and for the purposes of the game, assume they also have the same emotional and moral needs as you.

      Player A can either report them to the Police, or do nothing and drive home. Player B can either drive home drunk, or not drive home. The outcomes of each decision for A, in order of preference of outcome are - Z, A calls Police, Police apprehend offenders, X, A does not call police, B arrives home Y, A calls Police, offenders are not apprehended, B arrives home, W, A does not call Police, B has an accident which we assume is catastrophic in some way.

      N represents the decision of wether or not to call the Police. So a simple pay off matrix looks like this: N=AZ N=AY / N=AX N=AW only in a grid.

      Simultaenously, B makes their choices, minus N, which would simply be BX BW or N=B, which we’ll assume to be the circumstance of B not driving home due to the fear of N, or Police intervention.

      The Nash Equilibrium is therefore X, you do no call the Police, and you assume B gets home based on the assumed perfect knowledge in a Nash Equilibrium that you know B wants to get home. By not calling Police, you increase the likelihood of them getting home, decrease the liklihood of them having an accident, and maintain equilibrium of your own needs.

      A situation like this is not a zero sum game, that is, you don’t see any benefit over the other player, you’re actually seeking a perfect equilibrium.

      Modern philosopher Brian Skyrms has a done a lot of work on game theory, specifically the Stag Hunt and it’s application on social norms and conventions. I highly recomend his work for anyone looking for a mathematical solution to social dillema.

      But if you don’t want to be that much of a wanker, you could just stop playing golf.

      Reply

    • weez says:

      01:42pm | 07/01/11

      What a load of excusatory bollocks.

      If you see a drunk get into a car with intent of driving off, you are morally obligated to stop them in any way within your abilities. End of story.

    • Cougs says:

      02:24pm | 07/01/11

      What drugs are you on? I want some.

    • Zeta says:

      02:30pm | 07/01/11

      @ weez - Nobody is morally obligated to do anything. They’re obligated to behave in such a way that satisfies their own criteria for acceptable behaviour, or what they’d have to rationalise later as ‘moral’ to someone else’s standard.

      If you’re going to be absolutely moral in that situation, you should do nothing. Because a moral person would acknowledge the potential for catastrophe in a circumstance where they attempt to do something.

      You can’t know that a drunk person is going to kill someone, and you can’t know that a drunk person isn’t going to kill someone while attempting to flee from police. You also can’t know that the impairment in their hand eye co-ordination won’t prevent them from over correcting on a turn that they’d other wise over steer into and crash anyway.

      If you do something, you introduce chaos into an already chaotic circumstance. If you do nothing, the sum total complexity of the situation remains the same and over time decreases.

    • Horthy says:

      02:50pm | 07/01/11

      But if you don’t want to be that much of a wanker, you could just stop playing golf where the cashed up bogans do.

      FTFY.

    • stephen says:

      06:58pm | 07/01/11

      A mathematical solution to a social dillema is called Economics.
      Been a round for a while.

    • Stewart Henstock says:

      01:05pm | 07/01/11

      I say…“forgetaboutit”.
      Until the Gov comes clean about wanting it both ways:
      1.On the one hand don’t drink and drive…don’t speed
      2.On the other hand allow beer commercials glorifying drinking and commercials glorifying driving that powerful car

      Now if the Gov was fair dinkum there’d be a zero tolerance for drink driving….not .05….zero
      Manslaughter becomes 1st degree murder.
      Busted once….never drive again
      If the basic speed limit is either…50…60…70kph…why the need for cars which can do 210kph.
      There’s a need to revamp the entire auto industry.
      When one drives they shouldn’t be texting,yacking on the phone (blue tooth inclusive) or listening to music…they should be concentrating and there should be mandatory driving tests for everyone every 5 years.
      Nanny state?
      Maybe but until we get serious…“forgetaboutit”.

      Reply

    • Tombowler says:

      01:36pm | 07/01/11

      The issues as I see them:

      1. The government has created the problem of drink driving.

      Through tight licensing, heavy taxes and addiction to pokie revenue all pubs/bars etc have been driving into two areas:

      a) The “entertainment district”; these soul destroying centres of inequity are generally lined with shit nightclubs serving tepid beer in plastic cups for $9.00 after a 30min lineup and $15 entry. They are heavily policed and it is nearly impossible to get a taxi, which when you do, costs upwards of $50 to get to the inner suburbs (melb cbd- albert park for example). The government keep the number of taxi plates low to inflate taxability and price of the plates and thus push up cab costs which are passed on to the consumer.

      b) “The suburban sports bar”: These equally soul-destroying profit-centres are the darlings of the AHA. Now almost entirely devoted to various forms of gambling they provide flourescently lit TABs, Pokie warehouses and subsidized shit buffets at the low cost of any character whatsoever.  Once again the government loves them because of the huge revenue provided by leeching off the vulnerable who are gonna “Strike it big” Where my area used to have about 8 pubs (or so I’m told) in the eastern adelaide suburbs, it now has three. These sh$tholes provide even less taxis and are centralized enough to cost a little less then from the city.

      The problem with sports bars is that most punters leave with zero cash as they have spent 50 bucks on beer, 100 on the tab, and 300 on the pokies (but they got a cardboard steak for $4.99 at least); hence they drive.

      The governments reasoning:’

      i) Control: Centralizing entertainment means that licensing, policing etc can all be heavily concentrated allowing the state to reap the massive revenue at a lower cost than the more socially preferable sprinkling of smaller, cooler bars and pubs without the scourge of gambling

      ii) Revenue: Allowing all this centralized orgy of price gouging by the AHA allows the govt to “wet its beak” in massive taxes on pints, pokies, tabs profits and everything else. Taxis are a real problem.

      iii) Moral Outrage: One of the greatest propaganda tools for governments is that of moral outrage. Entertainment centers and their horror stories provide ample ammunition for “Crack-downs”, “zero tolerance” and other “law-and-order” horsesh#t that state governments love peddling to the “kids-these-days” today-tonight crowd. Smaller pubs without montage-friendly scenes of drunk kids in the gutter do not allow for this and consequently make it harder for the govt to placate the stupid voter with tough-talk.

      Until State Governments see fit to end the hipocracy, break their addiction to gambling, grog and taxi revenue and defy the powerful AHA then their position is untenable and inherently anti-social.

      If governments really wanted to cut drink-driving they should abolish taxes on cabs, subsidize lower rates and deregulate the industry (most cabbies are sh#t anyway so it clearly isn’t about professionalism at the moment).

      This would be a great market mechanism to raise the opportunity cost of driving drunk against getting a taxi but unfortuneately doesnt offer the opportunity for moralizing and grandstanding (or revenue raising).

      Reply

    • Steph says:

      06:54pm | 08/01/11

      Taxi prices are insane… $45 from Geelong central to Lara, and that’s a 15 min trip. Paid upfront, too, and if you’re actual price turns out to be under the $45 fee, they’ll charge you the full amount anyway.
      Not to mention a 1hr wait in a queue.

      I think designated drivers (deso’s) should be given more encouragement. Free coke if you mention you’re a deso or something. I know a few places do that now, but it should be more widespread. Perhaps more people would opt to go alcohol free if they got free non-alcoholic drinks. I’m not gonna pin any hopes on it (I’ve offered to take my as-of-yesterday-turned-18 sister out to a good bar in Geelong and be the deso for the trip) but it would be nice to recognise the importance of having an alcohol-free driver and a cheaper alternative to a taxi.

    • Vicki PS says:

      08:08pm | 08/01/11

      An impressive feat of mystery and imagination, to turn drink driving into a conspiracy.  Have you been tippling absinthe, Tombowler?  Actually, I wanted to point out that you failed to consider a few equally valid ways out of the dilemma (apart from wearing an aluminium beanie), any of which you are free to choose:
      (a)  drink at home
      (b) don’t drink to excess
      (c) don’t drink.
      They work a treat.  Trust me, I’m sober.

    • No Question says:

      02:04pm | 07/01/11

      Dob in all drink drivers - end of story

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      03:19pm | 07/01/11

      Firstly Ant,
      everyone knows that the Cops in Canberra take about two hours to respond to anything, so the chances of actually changing anything is basically zero.
      Secondly,
      If you personally tried to stop them, the bogans would have just tried to fight you, which, depending on your martial arts skills may have ended up poorly for you.
      Thirdly (although not directly related to this story),
      public transport in Canberra is shit. I’m not surprised at all that many people are willing to risk a drink driving charge because of the expensive cost of taxis and lack of buses.

      I personally would have done nothing and just hoped they didn’t hit anyone on their way home.

      Reply

    • eddie says:

      03:28pm | 07/01/11

      Call the cops - as long as the drink-driver isnt one of them,  as happened to a barman in a major Central Qld port city recently. Bloke had at least 6 schooners of heavy at a club, - got up to leave with young child, Barman advised against driving, he was told to shut the——up, bloke drove off, Barman reported it to Police, who claim to have brethalysed chap in question and found him under the limit. Barman subsequently had his house raided three or four times, was stopped and checked by police about a dozen times before he packed up and left the town.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      08:54pm | 08/01/11

      Don’t be bashful Eddie, central Queensland with a Port, kind of Gladstoney or Mackas I assume!
      Not a great advertisement for those supposed to be our protectors!

    • joeyanna says:

      03:47pm | 07/01/11

      Im a bar girl… I work in a venue with 4 distinct service areas… we get slammed on the weekend…
      Let me tell you its not easy telling if someone is intoxicated…. its really not.
      You only have 20secs with them… “can i have two pints of pale”... they aren’t slurring their words… run get pints, come back,  take money, get change…  then overhear them say to their mate “im fucken smashed, mate… how about you”.... but you have 20 other guys standing in front of you..
      Ok… file them away… give the girl next to you a heads up not to serve again… ask her to pass it around… if you see the manager let them know. Don’t see them again… but two hours later you clearing tables and there they are with a full pint looking worse for wear…. now you locate manager and ask him to deal with it… “we know frank, we know the owner…. wait till frank hears about this… you will both be fired…”

      I try my hardest to serve alcohol responsibly… I am badged as a “responsible person”.... but honest at the end of a crazy christmas/new years period - I am sick of having to be responsible for other peoples actions… Im sick of customers telling me off because someone is drunk in the beer garden…. about my duty of care…  they made a choice to drink that much…

      So call the cops if you want…. but leave the bar staff alone.

      Reply

    • Backyard Bar Tender says:

      04:23pm | 07/01/11

      Bars are all heading underground/backyard anyway. We’ve got bigger plasma’s at home than the pokies and beer joint and at least you can crash on the lounge not in a head-on

      Reply

    • Mr Pod says:

      04:58pm | 07/01/11

      I have noticed locally there are quite a few neighbourhood garage bars popping up that I drive past enviously.  I can certainly understand this movement as I haven’t been to a pub for years due to the domination by soul sapping Pokie and Parmagiana warehouses.  I miss real pubs so much an episode of Cheers can bring me to tears.

    • AFR says:

      05:28pm | 07/01/11

      Nobody likes a grass.

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      05:48pm | 07/01/11

      Nobody likes a killer.

    • guy Lee Hanlon says:

      05:41pm | 07/01/11

      Your comment:
      i will dob in john singleton, bob hawke and gerry harvey

      Reply

    • Kricket says:

      06:08pm | 07/01/11

      Tell the manager, and the cops. Would you want to risk someone’s life just because you don’t want to look like a tattle-tale?

      I almost called the cops on my own brother the other week. Luckily though, his gf took the keys out of his ignition before he could drive anywhere, and I hid them in the house and promptly left. I didnt tell them where the keys were until the next day.

      That aside, I’d rather dob & have my brother lose his licence for 6 months for drink-driving, than for his son to live the rest of his life without a dad because he decided to be an a-hole and drink drive.

      Reply

    • accessory after the fact says:

      08:23pm | 07/01/11

      One lucky (for me) Saturday night I ended up in emergency with septicemia and a ruptured appendix. I wasn’t paid much attention because some drunk kid had decided to swipe a few cars, killing his mate and a few others in the process. His girlfriend was screaming on top of her voice all through the night, “Please do not take off my legs, let me keep my legs.”

      Any one not dobbin in a drunk is as stupid and guilty as they are, accessory after the fact.

      Why was this Saturday lucky for me? I wasn’t operated on and live to tell the tale.

      Reply

    • Riddley says:

      09:45pm | 07/01/11

      This is not a dilemma. You take rego, descriptions etc, and inform the police.

      If you don’t then, don’t cry when the morons drive into you causing permanent brain damage.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      11:38pm | 07/01/11

      I haven’t been to a GC for a while and rarely do bar nights these days, other things really limiting the drinking but it’s being reminded of what a Bloody Mary can do to someone that would make you think carrying a good length of chain and some sturdy padlocks in the boot of your car was a good idea just in case the GC driveway entrance had chainable gates and if not, maybe you could park your car across the exit.
      But for sure, be a Dobber for whilst a Cougar might think 50 is the new 35 and we may doubt it for some, a Dobber is certainly an Angel in disguise anytime.

      Ring 000 and then the local radio station to put out a public bulletin.

      Reply

    • Bishop34 says:

      07:04am | 08/01/11

      If you drink and drink then your just plain STUPID
      If you dont think it’s wrong then you’d STUPID
      If you pass the blame onto someone or government policy then your STUPID

      Reply

    • chucky says:

      07:30pm | 09/01/11

      If you don’t know that the contraction of “you are” is “you’re”, NOT “your”, then you’re STUPID.

    • Seano says:

      08:01am | 08/01/11

      Road deaths went down when seat belts where introduced. Road deaths went down when random breath testing was brought in.

      An individual drunk might get away with driving DUI causing no accidents and not being picked up by the police. But across the whole population drink driving laws save lives and prevent injury and porperty damage.

      It’s a no brainer you’ve seen a potentially serious crime being committed you should call the cops.

      Reply

    • Safety First says:

      08:08am | 08/01/11

      To those apologists for drunken drivers, may you all hit a tree while you are driving alone and feel for yourself the consequences of accidents caused by drunken drivers.  You could be thrown through the windscreen, hit the tree, recoil back through the jagged glass, have whiplash, and become a paraplegic as well as having a mangled face no surgeon can replace.  Think for a moment on that but I don’t think that is one of your abilities.

      Reply

    • Teenage Wowser says:

      08:13am | 08/01/11

      Never mind the moronoic drunks from the golf club.  I want to dob in the moronic commentators who think drunk driving is OK.  May they rest in peace in their next accident and let the responsible people drive carefully.

      Reply

    • chucky says:

      11:17am | 09/01/11

      So much supercilious condemnation, so little time. So many of you just can’t wait to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to drink driving, but are deafeningly silent when it comes to other dangers on our roads. The fact is, there are MANY people currently driving on our roads (especially older drivers) whose optimum natural reflexes and reaction times are MUCH slower than other more able-bodied people under the influence of (low range) alcohol. If driving with sub-standard reflexes and reaction times is really that dangerous, WHY do we allow these people to drive?!?!?!?!

      Then there’s all the gullible sheep who buy into the government’s “speed kills” propaganda. Seriously - anyone that stupid shouldn’t be allowed to drive either! Many drivers are forced to deal with draconian speed enforcement simply to raise revenue, and that’s got nothing to do with safety either. If every frivolous low-range speeding conviction was suddenly challenged in court, the whole system would come to an abrupt halt. It’s about time we started focussing on the real dangers on our roads, rather that only the easy targets.

      Reply

    • OwenLily says:

      06:15am | 27/08/11

      That’s perfect that people can receive the business loans and that opens up new possibilities.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

14

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

50

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

121

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed