I have 3 questions for the group. Normally I will not drink and ride. I am also AGAINST reducing the legal limit to 0.00% BAC (especially if the legislation is applied only to motorcyclists because it is useful to have the option of riding at below 0.05%BAC sometimes -- just like car drivers and cyclists do). I have heard that many years ago the BAC limit was reduced to 0.1% and it achieved a reduction in the road toll; then, a few years later, Johnny Howerd said "we need to do it again". That was the basis for halving the BAC limit for all road users and it delivered no benefits. Q1. is that in any way correct? If so, can anybody cite a source for any of those claims? (or an alternate version of events). Here goes... "The x Organisation is undertaking a study for the 'Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads' on the effects of low doses of alcohol on simulated motorcycle riding. We are looking for people who would like to participate in an exiting experiment to test the effect of low doses of alcohol on motorcycle riding in a simulator. The study will involve completing a simulated ride after consuming either a non- alcoholic drink or a low (under 0.05%BAC) alcoholic drink." Q2. If the research is privately funded, the results are frequently dictated by the funding organisation. Is this also true of government- funded research? I expect the findings to be in line with other research, mainly US- based (eg. http://goo.gl/oXzri) something like this: "Overall, the observed alcohol effects across riding tasks occurred primarily in the BAC 0.05 condition and certain effects were also found in the lower BAC 0.02 condition. This demonstrates that alcohol impairment likely occurs at levels below and equal to the current Australia legal limit of 0.05 g/dl. BAC". I think the _ONLY_POSSIBLE_USE_ for this research output is to recommend 0.00%BAC for motorcyclists if there IS a measurable effect, and not to make a recommendation for change if there is NO discernible effect. Q3. Can anybody here think of any other possible use for this research? What possible recommendations could be made based on the results, regardless of what the results are? I think they took the money and their ethics may be a bit off on this one, what do you think.
Discussion paper (2010) from QLD Transport dept. http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/f...cc51cc/pdf_drink_driving_discussion_paper.pdf You mention 0.1 BAC historical figure. I presume for QLD? What would Johnny Howard have input on a State-based policy, apart from perhaps pushing for a more sensible uniform figure for all jurisdictions. eg NSW was 0.08 before the introduction of RBT in early 80's that also lowered the limit to 0.05 that has remained ever since (apart from lower limits for various classifications eg learners/P platers).
No, this is half-remembered half-pub-talk. Probably it was 0.8. Now I will go away and read the link you posted. Well that maybe why I cannot find any info! Maybe it never happened hence my total inability to find any references in any form on the Net. It did occur to me that road rules are state based. The limit is uniform across the federation(?) so I assumed it was not impossible for some kind of federal instrument to be at work.
This will be more of that idiotic logic that goes "with .05 limit a lot of people are driving at well over the limit and crashing so we need to lower the limit...." (The same stupidity as the "people are driving well over 100kph so we need to lower the limit to 80...." which we see very regularly). *IF* they actually published some figures of alcohol-related crashes occurring with riders having BAC below .05 (or .02 for novices) this crap might make some sense but I fear the crash stats are imaginary.
I can't remember the BAC ever being at 0.1%, in any State In Vic, I think it started at 0.05% and that was that
A few years back, probably decades now, the federal government was pushing for the states to reduce the road toll. From memory, they tied some funding to legislative change, so in order for the states which had a 0.08% BAC limit (which was all except Vic and Tas?) were to have [part of] their share of the annual income tax distribution to the states linked to initiatives such as a lower BAC 0.05% nationally. I'm pretty sure this was also linked to other 'road safety' initiatives, such as NSW reducing the threshold for automatic licence suspension in speeding offences from 45+ to 30+. Nev..
I've got to say it I *HATE* it when they put up graphs like the one on page 6 as "evidence" for a problem. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, just that an increasing number of "fatalities as a result of crashes involving drink drivers* as a percentage of all fatalities" doesn't exclude the possibility that the total number of road fatalities is falling. I'm always suspicious of documents that show the headline graph but don't include the numbers. Reference 7 is simply "Department of Transport and Main Roads. Crash data extracted from the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ RoadCrash database in November 2009." So I can't possibly know the numbers, only the relative percentage (assuming their arithmetic is correct). No points so far.
Link got snipped:- <http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/f6a8002d-cda6-4c70-9f84- b8a886cc51cc/pdf_drink_driving_discussion_paper.pdf>
I have nothing substantial to contribute to the debate, except some historical numbers from outside Australia. The German Federal Court determines the level above which a driver is committing a criminal offense: in 1953 it was set to 0.15% (except they don't use percent but "per mille", thus the local number was 1.5 0/00); in 1966, this was reduced to 0.13% and in 1990 to 0.11%. In 1973, a Summary Offense was introduced, applicable above 0.08%, reduced in 1998 to 0.05%. The number of injured persons in traffic accidents did fall from 522,000 in 1975 to 436,000 in 2007; the number of deaths from 17,000 to 5,000. The number of injured persons from alcohol-related traffic accidents fell from 76,600 to 26,600, deaths from 3,641 to 565. For 2-wheelers between 1991 and 2007, the number of injured persons stayed the same (55,224 to 55,867); it dropped for alcohol-related accidents from 3,969 to 2,228. For cars, these numbers are 510,000 down to 413,000 (total) and 30,500 to 11,800 (alcohol).
