Opinion

.02 for all

The Queensland Government says that the risk of being involved in a crash at the current road speed limits is significantly higher than at a fraction of that limit, so it is advocating a limit of 20kmh. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says such a lower limit should be considered nationally.

Oops, did I write speed limit when I meant blood-alcohol level? The Queensland Government says the risk of being involved in a crash at the current blood-alcohol limit of .05 is significantly higher than at a fraction of that limit, so it is advocating a limit of .02. And Mr Rudd is interested.

I suppose there will be a risk at .02, and at 20kmh, but I am unconvinced that the risk of being involved in a crash at .05 is double, as is claimed by officials in Queensland and NSW and elsewhere. As I ask in my column in The Herald today, does this count of double include drivers not at fault? And, presumably, the statisticians have counted the number of drivers at .05 to arrive at the doubled risk - how did they do that? And did they count at night or during the day?

I'm dubious about the claim of significantly increased risk at .05, .04 and .03 because I know that when I drive after three beers my driving is unaffected. And I suspect that the statistics marched out by government agencies whenever they talk blood-alcohol limits could do with critical analysis by statisticians and experts not in their camp.

I realise that we need some speed and that we don't need any alcohol, but .02 strikes me as too glib when it would have a dramatic impact on the quality of life of many Australians. As the RTA says on its website, to stay under .02 you should not have even one standard drink. Why should that affect quality of life? Whether or not it fits into your view of the world and alcohol, a drink after work with colleagues, as just one example, won't happen when there can be not even one drink.

I must say that I have been unreservedly in favour of the zero alcohol limit for p-platers - much better zero that the tantalising .02, I think - and I have had my own adult children very much in mind. I am happy that they don't drink at all when they drive.

But I value the capacity to have two or three beers - yes, a double standard, but I would say I am a much more experienced and cautious driver than most younger people - and I would not be at all surprised if a critical evaluation of the stats showed that any increased risk up to .05 (and .08) differed according to age groups. In other words, that the risk applies to young fellows but not to sensible, mature and experienced drivers like myself!

Can there, though, be any argument against .02 if it saves lives? And 20kmh?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 15/03/2010 4:51:00 PM | Comments (52)

Share on
Facebook

Tweet on
Twitter

Email to
a friend

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

Good choice of topic, it needs to be debated before it is just imposed. Firstly I have to point out that the buell finds it very hard to sit on 20kph, and I refuse to buy a rice burner. I believe there should be a 0.02 limit nation wide, but why clog up the courts. Maybe a reading 0.02 to 0.049 inclusive could be dealt with via a Infringement notice and loss of four points. If it is considered dangerous and accepted that being on a work site with 0.02 is unacceptable surely driving a vehicle should also be accepted as dangerous. You are correct in pointing out that cyclists are vunerable, and lowing to 0.02 could be reassuring. Basically Jeff having a licence and driving a vehicle is a privlege not a right, and if you cannot manage to do it without drinking there is a problem. It could be a frustrating for some as I am sure there are people that have at least 0.02 24/7.

Posted by Buell, 16/03/2010 9:22:17 AM, on The Herald

An interesting idea, Buell! Even if I disagree!

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 16/03/2010 10:05:10 AM

I would support reducing alcohol limits. I know a few people who have had their lives turned upside down by someone who 'just had a few' before driving home. I see no reason that you need to have a few before driving - if you want to drink, leave the car at home . simply really! With busier, narrower roads and more users (cyclists, pedestrians, old people in motorised buggies et al), there is ever more reason for drivers to be more aware and careful. Surely Jeff, as a cyclist, you would appreciate that a driver who has had JUST a tad too little may be the difference between passing your bike safely and collecting you with the mirror whilst on your 6pm cycle?? One things I feel is completely neglected here is viable alternatives. If Newcastle, or Sydney (or any capital city) had a reliable viable public transport alternative, everyone could have 10 schooners and 5 shots after work each day and just get the tram/bus/train/taxi home.... But I suppose Tony Brown would then argue to close pubs earlier to prevent the 'late night' hooligans on the streets at 7pm....

Posted by Tomato Juice, 16/03/2010 9:45:46 AM, on The Herald

20 kph is horse and buggy speed and if the horse doesn't have a drink then it should be ok. Yes go for it. Another cracker of an idea from the queenslanders...are they right in the head? 0.2 may as well be zero.

Posted by suzhousid, 16/03/2010 9:54:23 AM, on The Herald

A lot of your argument for the degradation of the social fabric brought on by not being able to have a drink after work with your mates is predicated on the belief that all social interaction has to be alcohol based - why not go for a coffee/tea/bonox somewhere nice with your mates? There has been a lot of talk lately about the alcohol fuelled binging and violence etc. and some of it revolves around the fact that we have to change the perception that alcohol = sociability and good times when in fact many times it = violence, indiscriminate damage to property, dangerous driving, injuries and death. And yes I do like to have a beer with friends at times.

Posted by zuluclayman, 16/03/2010 9:54:58 AM, on The Herald

Meeting my mates for a cup of tea aint going to happen, Zulu. I do, however, have a cup of tea occasionally with my wife. Two sugars, two Dilmar teabags.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 16/03/2010 10:07:41 AM

i think it could be raised to .08, lower te speed limit around town and increase the speed limit in some parts. look at parts of nelson bay road... an old goattrack section posted as 100km/h and then a nice, much newer section 80km/h. it doesnt make sense. in many places around the hunter it is the state of the roads that is killing people. while pollies trot out the usual drink, speed and fatigue the roads deteriorate further and become more of a danger.

Posted by pauly marto, 16/03/2010 9:58:19 AM, on The Herald

Um ... why not 0.00 for all? What would be harm in that? I love a brew as much as the next fella, but I love not being hit by some drunken ****fit a little bit more.

Posted by Jaded, 16/03/2010 10:01:56 AM, on The Herald

I whole-heartedly agree with your idea of higher limits for older drivers. I'd support 0.02 or 0.03 for under 25 drivers and the regular 0.05 for over 25. And this is coming from a 21 year old. When I choose to be the deso driver, I do it knowing that I won't drink at all, even though I know I could get away with having one drink. More experienced drivers are likely to better know their limits when it comes to alcohol than younger people (the main risk-takers). If I took the risk of drinking as a deso, i'd probably be tempted to have a second, maybe even a third drink because hey, "I still feel sober enough..."

Posted by Cammy, 16/03/2010 10:26:25 AM, on The Herald

where will it end. bloody wowsers everywhere. up the alcohol limit to its original 0.08 and speed limit cars to 30k... and give them big rubber bumpers all around them at the same height. sounds like fun to me. alcohol = sociable (most of the time). i also advocate the introduction of a drink limits licence. we have all said that "so and so" should not drink, where as most others are fine. everyone should have a licence that allows them to have 1, 2 , 3 or however many drinks without becoming a knob. some get a 0 drinks allowed licence - you've seen the shirt - instant a***hole, just add alcohol.

Posted by judgedredd, 16/03/2010 10:32:22 AM, on The Herald

I wonder how many of the fatals occur at 0.05 or less? The problem here is that the vast responsible majority will again be totally inconvenienced by the actions of the irresponsible minority, probably with no perceptible reduction in the death toll. Witness the reduction in speed limit on the Old Pacific Highway between Mt White and Hawkesbury from 80 to 60 because of the number of motor bike accidents. All this did was inconvenience those of us who stick to the speed limit, while those who used to speed by 20km/hr+ now speed by 40km/hr+. What's also sad is the article later in today's paper (p15) that notes the decrease in alcohol limit as being "certain" and "inevitable", clearly because there are no other expert ideas on how to stop crashes other than to criminalise even responsible drinking and lower the speed limit, again.

Posted by Grandog, 16/03/2010 10:35:25 AM, on The Herald

i agree with jaded. Why 0.02? How about a blanket ban - if you drink, you don't drive. Full stop.

Posted by mikey, 16/03/2010 10:37:07 AM, on The Herald

The .02 is probably designed as a wee bit of leeway for drivers who are driving the morning after they've had a few drinks. Zero would mean that daily drivers should be teetotallers. You, Mikey, may think that's a good idea, and you'll hopefully agree that such a major change should go to a referendum or at least an election.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 16/03/2010 10:46:10 AM

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next >