Punch on: Open thread 10/09/09

Rationalist says:

06:36am | 10/09/09

I think drink driving fines are fantastic (effectiveness is less relevant, although they probably do more good than harm). They are a tax on the stupid which therefore means less tax for me to pay. Drink driving is one of the most pathetic things you may undertake. With drink driving, not only are you undertaking an activity which endangers your own life but also endangers countless other people. If anything, there should be some kind of coordinated national drink driving fine system, coordinated with the federal alcohol tax which should be high but also proportional to the quantity of alcohol in the drink.

With respect to speeding fines, penalties and fines should be steep however reasonable or negligible up to perhaps +10km/h. Beyond that, any defence of carelessness is pretty fruitless and hence fines and penalties should be high, resulting in another tax on the stupid (ie. a tax on others but not me).

DG says:

06:39am | 10/09/09

A law is only as effective as it’s enforcement. This is not intended as a criticism of our Police force, but the chances of getting caught drink driving are about as close to zero as is possible.

To be an effective law it must not only propose a punishment for the offence but contain an element of prevention. While the penalty does part of this,  enforcement is also an essential part of prevention.

The fear of the penalty is weighed against the chances of getting caught - While the penalties are quite serious, the risk of getting caught is negligible and as such I would suggest that the law is ineffective (much like our prohibition of the service of alcohol to individuals who are intoxicated).

For an example: of the hundreds of people that I know, I am only aware of 1 that has ever been caught drink driving. I know quite a few who have had a few drinks and driven home. Are they idiots? Yes, they could kill someone, but their chances of getting caught are so negligible that they feel that it’s worth it.

If there was some drink-driving equivalent of the speed camera I would strongly support its use (as I support speed cameras) - but unlike speeding, drink drivers are usually heading home after a few drinks at their local or a mates place, it would be almost impossible to cover all the back roads that they would take to avoid detection. Meanwhile speedsters routinely break the law on main roads as they make their way to work each day.

I would guesstimate that no better than 1 in 1000 instances of drink driving drivers are actually caught (basing this on a the instances of drink driving I understand to have occurred but not been caught, I dare say it’s closer to 10,000). If we could catch 1 in 1000 instances of speeding our State would be rolling in cash (I imagine that we catch less than 1 in 50,000 instances).

Until there is a reasonable chance of getting caught, the laws are ineffective.

BB says:

07:47am | 10/09/09

In Japan being over 0.05% BAC will result in an automatic 3 years in prison and 500,000 yen fine. A BAC of 0.03% has a 1 year prison sentence. Japanese courts have no juries and a >99.9% conviction rate (the top defence lawyer in Japan has never won a case).  Drink driving is very uncommon tin Japan.

jed says:

08:22am | 10/09/09

Why aren’t we seeing this reported anywhere?

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=105711&sectionid=3510203

Funnel Ant says:

10:15am | 10/09/09

@jed - I am surprised we haven’t - but then you are naive to think there is a free press

RT says:

11:13am | 10/09/09

DG, you’re quite wrong, and there’s clear proof that the law is effective. The introduction of RBT laws in most states by the early 1980s saw an immediate and continuing decline in road accidents and related deaths. The law has clearly acted as a deterrent against drink driving and has reduced the number of accidents to levels of the early 1950s.  Road deaths had been rising steadily all over Australia until the introduction of RBT and they have been falling since.

No doubt some people continue to drink-drive and get away with it, but they should know they will be jailed if involved in a serious accident. I know several people who lost their licences because of RBT. I know of one fellow employee who lost his job because he lost his licence that he needed for his job and failed to tell his employer. The risks are there and people ignore them at their peril.

DG says:

12:12pm | 10/09/09

RT: I would argue that the education policy has done more to reduce the drink drivers than the fear of getting caught, and for that reason I would argue that the legal prohibition is largely ineffective.

Anecdotal evidence, from the people I have spoken to, suggests that the fear a smearing their head across the windshield is far greater deterrent than the fear of getting caught.

I agree that they face the risk of gaol time in the event of an accident, but if they are at fault in the accident they face that risk anyway. Your average drink-driver doesn’t appear to ask themselves if they are likely to get caught, they ask themselves if they think that can drive safely.

Not once have I heard someone walk out of the pub saying “I won’t get caught”, every time it’s “I’m fine to drive” (or some variation thereof).

The reason that the education effect is greater for drinking than speeding, is that people ‘know’ that they lose a bit of finesse when the’ve had a few, and can extrapolate that while they may not be ‘gone’ they probably aren’t at their best, but people , when sober, believe that they are good drivers and an extra 10 kph wont change anything (and in the vast majority of cases they are proven to be right).

As for falling road deaths, I think that you would be hard pressed to find an expert that was willing to say that the decreased death rate is more influenced by the drink-driving laws than by the improvements in vehicle safety.

As for the number of accidents, again improvements in vehicle stability, braking and control would have a significant impact on that statistic without consideration for the reckless behaviour of the drivers. The braking capacity of a vehicle with ABS (or similar) is significantly better than that of an older car that does not have that technology - as such two drunks hitting the brakes at the same time - the one with ABS still has a reasonable chance of avoiding the accident.

RT says:

01:34pm | 10/09/09

You’re not serious, are you, DG? Plenty of studies show that fear of punishment is a much more effective deterrent than education about risks. In this case, the correlation between the introduction of RBT and the fall in the road toll is clear and irrefutable and is acknowledged as such. It was immediate and has continued downward ever since. Look it up yourself. The only other measure that has had a similar measurable effect was the introduction of mandatory seatbelts. Also, the likelihood of facing culpable driving charges increases greatly if over proscribed alcohol limit. That’s not to say that other measures such as increased vehicle safety haven’t contributed, just that their contribution is not as easily seen in downward trends in road deaths.

RT says:

01:37pm | 10/09/09

DG - here is just one review of the evidence that comprehensively demolishes your case: http://www.madd.ca/english/research/Random breath testing in perspective -July 2009.pdf

RBT is credited with about a 35% reduction in road fatalities.

Michael says:

05:43pm | 10/09/09

Oil giants ‘propping up Burma’s junta’

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26053896-401,00.html

Any chance of finding a knowledgeable speaker on this subject? would probably be worth a bit of discussion.