A good bit of campaign journalism was launched in Melbourne yesterday by the Sunday Herald Sun in throwing open the debate on whether the drink driving limit should be dropped to .02.

.Freshen your drink governor?

The Sunday reported that 39 people had been killed in Victoria alone in accidents involving drivers under the .005 mark in just the last five years.

Victoria’s Deputy Police Commissioner has tentatively backed the debate, if not quite advocating an actual change to .02

We welcome any discussion around this. We welcome this debate.

“The bottom line is we’re not going to continue to get better and better unless we do continue to test our thinking,” he wrote yesterday.

The push for a change to .02 has been backed trauma surgeons, academics and some victims of road accidents.

Professor Ian Johnston from the Accident Research Centre said that Australia would join a pretty exclusive club of countries on 0.02 or 0, Sweden, Norway, Poland and few states in the US.

While Professor Johnston made the point that the risk of a crash doubled for a driver at .05 compared to that at zero the question is really whether the change would make any dent in the road toll.

A study out of the US recently argues that zero tolerance drink driving policy does not reduce road deaths, at least among drivers under the age of 21 to whom the zero tolerance laws applied to.

The study conducted by researchers in Texas and published in the Economic Inquiry journal looked at 30,000 fatalities in nighttime accidents and found no change in the amount that drivers were drinking.

Obviously the study has its limitations but it’s worth thinking about.

If we did switch to a limit of .02 it would basically do away with the idea that you could go to the pub, have a few drinks and still drive.

Dropping the limit to .02 is basically zero tolerance, leaving a tiny a margin for what would be basically accidental alcohol in your system.

Changing the limit would mean we would completely reconfigure the message of responsible drinking and driving in Australia that has been carefully crafted over the last 30 years. 

The new rule of thumb would have to be if you’re driving you’re not drinking full stop – an attitude that is not rare among a lot people already.

There’s also the question of getting every state and territory to sign up to the new limit. Australia currently avoid the farcical American situation where you could be facing jail time in one state and not even breaking the law

If it saves lives I can’t see a problem with it, but the question though is whether this actually would reduce the road toll or merely confuses harsher regulation with safer roads.

47 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • WHR says:

      05:43am | 12/10/09

      Sure, it effectively materialises as a tax on people other than me.

    • Louis says:

      06:33am | 12/10/09

      Hang on! I though speeding was the cause of all these drivers with a bit of alcohol in the system(at least thats what the ads suggest).

      Don’t give the coppers another thing to do. They already avoid trying to deal with problems in towns by sitting on the road with speed camera’s. Now they have the other guy doing RBT’s.

      Only yesterday i saw a cop car drive straight past a group of kids on bikes with no helmets who had been playing chicken with trucks. Probably rushing off to check some working truckers log books.

    • John A Neve says:

      06:51am | 12/10/09

      “Should we go to 0.002”, why ask such a question?  Why not ask, should we go to 0.000? What will either course of action do?
      Will it reduce the number of road accidents? I doubt it. 
      Will it reduce the number of road deaths? I doubt that too.
      Will it increase the number of traffic violations? Yes
      Will it increase state revenue from fines? Certainly.

      Why don’t we all go back to the start and have a person with a red flag walk in front of any moving vehicle?

    • SD says:

      07:31am | 12/10/09

      Why 0.02?

      Surely an analysis of the road toll data could reveal a sensible point above which the risk of fatality greatly increases. If not the road toll data directly, then I am confident that there are numerous studies which have documented the various effects of differing blood alcohol content (BAC).

      The BAC above which the chance of a fatality sharply increases may very well be 0.02. In which case, I’m all for it. However, I do get the impression that the 0.02 debate is fuelled by the convenience of existing standards.

      Once the question is phrased as “should we lower the legal driving BAC with the aim of reducing the road toll?” the debate loses the emotional component of asking the majority of drivers adhere to what are essentially conceived of as P plate standards.

      In debating this revised question, firstly, change is much more likely to be accepted by the general punter, and secondly, the final BAC will undoubtedly be a fairer and less arbitrary measure.

    • Liz says:

      07:43am | 12/10/09

      Make it 0.00 with severe penalties.

    • Steve Smith says:

      07:53am | 12/10/09

      0.02 just sounds like a great way to get some of the stimulus money back.

    • Nick says:

      08:00am | 12/10/09

      There is no evidence that alcohol was actually the cause of those deaths… just that it was present. In case you haven’t noticed completely sober people are often involved in fatal accidents.

      The 0.05 limit is fine. Lowering it would provide absolutely no benefit in terms of actual deaths caused by alcohol.

    • Nooby says:

      08:45am | 12/10/09

      The limit should be 0.00 no reason to drive with any alcohol in the system.
      I am a social drinker and having had a driving ban for exceeding the limit now never drink and drive with any alcohol in my system.

    • Bec says:

      09:39am | 12/10/09

      Nooby, the reason for 0.02 is that some medications may have alcohol in it and people don’t realise - thus why they give you that little amount of leeway rather than charging someone for driving after taking a small amount of cough medicine (for example).

    • Kelly says:

      10:10am | 12/10/09

      It should be ZERO!
      Keep it simple, if you drink DON’T DRIVE.

    • John says:

      11:20am | 12/10/09

      Did the statistics show how many people had died in an accident with a driver that had a 0.00 blood alcohol reading??? People shoudn’t be penalised for having a glass of wine with dinner, then driving home. I fail to see how such a small amount of alcohol can cause more accidents.

    • Allan says:

      11:36am | 12/10/09

      How about improving public transport to offer alternatives to drinking and driving?

    • bugalug says:

      11:37am | 12/10/09

      I would support a lowered BAC on the proviso that there was some decent public transport available.  After living in London for 2 years and never finding it necessary to own a car due to the availability of the tube, night buses, mini-cabs and taxis, public transport in Australia is an absolute joke.  Ever tried to get out of the center of Perth or Sydney on a Fri/Sat night without a car?

    • nelly says:

      11:47am | 12/10/09

      Is it so hard to say no to that glass of wine at dinner if you are going to drive? How many times have we heard people say that they didn’t think they were over the limit? It should be 0.00 end of story.

    • Elbogrease says:

      11:49am | 12/10/09

      05 is a joke it should go back to 08 not down to 02 FFS

    • Steve Smith says:

      12:00pm | 12/10/09

      While in theory, 0.00 should be the drink driving limit (don’t drink if you are going to drive). In reality the limit cannot go lower than 0.02 because of the inaccuracy of scanners and the ability for medicines/food to give off an alcohol reading e.g. cherry ripes and mouthwash.

    • COF says:

      12:00pm | 12/10/09

      All I know is if it gets dropped to 0.00, mouthwash sales will plummet.

    • Steve says:

      12:17pm | 12/10/09

      We must have a range of tolerance. Not being able to drive to get a bottle of milk from the shop after a wine an hour or more earlier is utterly ridiculous. There should not even be a debate, 0.05 is not lax or accommodating it is sensible.

    • Harry says:

      12:19pm | 12/10/09

      Well if it’s OK to have some alcohol in your system and drive, it should be OK to have a couple of bongs and drive too.

    • Alcohol drinker says:

      12:55pm | 12/10/09

      The study need to be done here is the comparision of BAC .05 vs leak of sleep (micro sleep) driver. Whom will have more chance of accidents. leak of sleep if alot worst off, so stop directing accidents as a cause of alcohol. BAC .05 is nothing, it just that some drinker get sleepy from alcohol (properly from leak sleep-due to work etc.). When you’re leak of sleep you can’t concentrate is doing anything, not even sex. So slack of the alcohol and leave it as it is BAC 0.05 and concentrate the study to improve sleepy driver then reducing .03 (.05 - .02)  which doesn’t help anything. send a message out to all driver “don’t drive when tried (sleepy)”. There is a curent message of “stop, revive , survive” and “avoid micro sleep” it different from driving sleepy. a short trip can be deadly when drivng tried (or sleepy)............

    • COF says:

      01:16pm | 12/10/09

      Harry: “Well if it’s OK to have some alcohol in your system and drive, it should be OK to have a couple of bongs and drive too.”

      Having an illicit drug is an offence when you are not in a car as well, Harry.

      The point is that setting a zero tolerance is not practical (due to alcohol based products) and shows a desire to regulate alcohol consumption rather than alcohol influenced bad driving. If we were to give zero tolerance to alcohol we should also give a zero tolerance to the drugs in these products
      Cold and Flu medication
      Painkillers
      Antidepressants
      Heart medication
      Antibiotics
      to name a few, as these medications could also affect driving skills.

      So, set the alcohol level at a level where it is considered dangerous to have any more. Find that level through rigorous study. The common sense approach.

      Unless I have missed your point, and you are promoting having bongs in the car. Sorry if I have.

    • MJ says:

      01:18pm | 12/10/09

      Harry, the alcohol is legal; the bongs aren’t.  When they are, then you can argue that point.

      Actually as I ponder this, the bong smoker is hardly likely to get any faster than 20km/hr anyway…so you may have a point.  They would have to slowly crash into another car, i.e. “dude, car….dude…car…seriously, dude…look at the road…car…dude you’re hitting the car…dude stop laughing…” and so on and so forth.

    • iansand says:

      01:27pm | 12/10/09

      39 people died with less than 0.05% and more than 0%.  A lot more than 39 people died in Victoria.  It is thus perfectly logical to make it compulsory for everyone who gets behind the wheel to have a couple of drinks first.  Only in aid of safer driving, of course.

      I suspect some selective statisticing here.  Lies, damn lies and…

    • Freeman says:

      01:30pm | 12/10/09

      Why not just ban alchohol?  Because that is what you are doing.  And while we are at it lets ban fun too, we’re all so righteous these days - as long as it doesn’t impinge on OUR personal space huh?  Hypocrites!

    • Steve says:

      01:39pm | 12/10/09

      I agree with the above contribution about sleep. Fatigue is a major issue on the roads; is it really fair to punish those who drive safely after one beer when there are many people on the road frequently who are completely drunk with tiredness but we have no way to prove it or demonstrate it? This would be a much more sensible allocation of resources rather than punishing someone who wants to have a single middy and then drive to the video shop an hour later.

    • Avis says:

      01:41pm | 12/10/09

      Oh Harry, maybe 1 bong definately not 2. You’ll be seeing far too many police cars to concentrate, and on the motorway people who smoke bongs hold up the already conjested traffic, So no to bongers on the road!

    • James says:

      01:43pm | 12/10/09

      Coming from the south coast of NSW. When you can guarantee that i can get a taxi home from the local pub after 9pm (the taxi companys closing time) on a weeknight night after having 3 beers while watching the footy or cricket then i will be happy for a .02 limit. Until then I will continue driving home.

    • S.L says:

      03:22pm | 12/10/09

      Good onya James. So it’s the local taxi company’s fault you allegedly drink and drive. They close at 9pm (with no after hours roster car on duty) and you don’t own a TV so you have to watch sport at the pub? I doubt it…................. but then again you probably also have tried to hail a cab at Town Hall station in Sydney and couldn’t find a driver who knew where the Opera House was (an urban myth but one many swear they have experienced).

    • Davo says:

      04:02pm | 12/10/09

      if you’re affected to the point where you can’t drive properly and you’re on 0.05, you shouldn’t be driving in the first place. Catch the bus.

    • Nicholas James says:

      05:46pm | 12/10/09

      This is just another indication of a terrifying trend; that our country is becoming a nanny state. I honestly think that if this trend continues I wont be living in my beloved Australia in a decade or two, I simply need more freedom than this. I need my government to treat me as a competent individual…

    • jon says:

      06:34pm | 12/10/09

      Given that accidents/deaths still occur when drivers haven’t been drinking at all, it is logically bankrupt to have “drivers under the limit still cause accidents” as the crux of your argument.

    • Greg says:

      08:25pm | 12/10/09

      I think it is a bit daft - so of course the usual suspects will be behind it.

      0.02 will affect your driving roughly as much as thinking about something else, listening to the radio, or of course talking to somebody.

      So I suggest that when the tiresome whiners get their way, we should gag all passengers in cars, destroy all in-car entertainment,  and when we can figure out how to control what people are thinking about, do something there as well.

      Of course the sensible alternative would be to work on things that cause accidents, 0.05 is not it.

    • Ben G says:

      10:29pm | 12/10/09

      It’s a terrible idea…. Make it policy at once!

    • Albert says:

      08:57am | 19/10/09

      I lost a relative to a tired driver who had not been drinking alcohol. So how can this be prevented? Its all about being responsible for your driving habits and there is buckley’s that all drivers will behave responsibly. Leave the bar at .05 and be serious about deterring drink driving offenders who break the law. Perhaps an electronic gadget which tests to see if you are competent to drive before your can start the vehicle would be the answer. It would cost money and be inconvenient, but what price a life.

    • Observer says:

      08:09pm | 19/10/09

      If you can’t live without grog, then I pity you.  What’s wrong with self control these days.  Don’t drink & drive, please.  The lives you save may be your family and friends.

    • Bec says:

      05:35pm | 20/10/09

      well.. to john, ” I fail to see how such a small amount of alcohol can cause more accidents.” even i know that getting in the car with alcohol in ur system is stupid and im only 15. Alcohol influences your driving even if you’ve only had a little amount.
      Your perception abilities are affected; you are less likely to observe traffic signs, bikers, pedestrians or cars coming from the opposite side.
      You have less control on your reactions in traffic situations as your eyes are slower and they need more time to focus on objects.
      Your reaction time and reflexes decrease, taking longer to respond and adjust to the traffic.
      You will find it more difficult to drive in a straight line, less able to judge distances and speed and also you may have a tendency to be overconfident and put yourself in danger.

      could u live with the guilt of killing an innocent person just because u had a couple of drink??? lower the limit to 0.02, not only lowering the limit is a safer option, but it also protects you from doing something you later regret.
      be responsible!

    • Paul says:

      12:18am | 22/10/09

      Lowering the limit will just provide more money to the system in fines. Nothing else. It won’t help lower the crime at all. They are putting forward an idea under the pretence of helping lower drink driving offences….where truth be told, its just a way of grabbing more money.

      Also, 0.05 is fine. Yes drinking in excess will cause impacts upon the body in which makes operating a vehicle very dangerous. This is rightly illegal. However consuming alcohol is a sociable and enjoyable thing to do, in moderation. Therefore if a person has had a drink and they are under 0.05 where the drug has not effected their bodily functions, they let them drive!

      Implimenting such social restraints on people is absurd. We might as well live under an iron fist!

      Have a look at http://www.drivingoffencesolicitor.co.uk for more info on drink driving. Good site.

    • Peter Davis says:

      01:52pm | 04/11/09

      I think this article should make more sense for my Persuasive writting piece that is due in next week for health!

    • Callum Ryan says:

      01:56pm | 04/11/09

      I think that the level shouldn’t be lowered because a lot of people behave at parties and are responsible and keep ther BAC level below 0.05 and don’t get fined and if the level is dropped they will get fined!

    • Dave Munro says:

      07:47am | 05/11/09

      Citycentric talk as usual. The current limit allows us country folk, who will never have access to public transport, the opportunity to have a few beers at the local possibly 30km away. The country pub is the community hub and a lower limit would put the final nail in the lid of this rapidly nailed down coffin. It might be a bit inconvenient for the city folk not to be able to find a quaint little no pokies pub (like mine) when on their Sunday drive but it would kiss goodbye to the livelihood of many families and the meeting place for the CFS and Silo Committee or a place to put the local Sports Memorabilia, Historic Photos, farm stuff. Life does actually exist outside of the city limits and there are people there who also like to have some sort of social life, we don’t have the facilities and attractions of the big smoke so don’t take away our pubs. That’s PUB not pokie palace tarted up on the misfortune of others.

    • OKay says:

      05:41pm | 15/03/10

      Sure, increase the workload for an already gutted police force. Or, worse yet, increase the size of the police force and give them unlimited search-and-seizure orders. This quirky concept must be a trial-balloon for lazy politicians. Why else would they not mention breathilyzing ignition interlocks? Lowering the limit is such a bad idea that it’ll be law in no time.

    • Chris Sweetman says:

      10:52pm | 11/04/10

      In the UK Lord Adonis is considering lowering the drink drive limit to 50mg, and possibly even lowering it further to 20mg and relaxing the penalties for being caught over the lowered limit. This is absurd as it would mean that a glass of wine for lunch may make you vulnerable to arrest on your evening drive home.

      Although we have the highest limit in Europe we also have one of the lowest drink driving related accident rates. The reason for this is that we convict 95,000 people every year of drink driving, and take away their right to drive for between 1 and 5 years.

      Lowering the drink drive limit would put added pressure on an already overstretched judicial process. As a specialist drink driving solicitor I defend people every week and can honestly say that lowering the limit would be a big mistake. For more info please visit http://www.sweetmanssolicitors.co.uk.

    • David Torp says:

      07:06pm | 16/06/10

      Sure if you want to be a dickhead like the people you are trying to stop. It’s not the alcohol at 0.05 BAH anymore than it is the oxygen the idiots that create the problem breathe. Its like saying someone smothered someone else with a pillow so lets ban sleeping together. It’s not the pillow’s fault nor the sleeping together that’s the issue, its the dickhead in the house with the pillow that has no regard for other people.

    • Dave Barnham says:

      07:04pm | 25/06/10

      it’s certainly an interesting debate, and unless drinking then driving is banned completely (which is not something i necessarily agree with either) then there will always be a grey area surrounding this specific part of motoring law.

      There are some interesting articles about drink driving and other motoring offences at http://www.oliverandco.co.uk/motoring

    • Jewishboi says:

      07:15pm | 17/05/11

      everyone needs to loosen up, and i agree with harry! mate you are a legend! if erryone had a few cones before getting behind the wheel, there would be no speeding, and everyone would be happy.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

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]

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