Drink and drive ...

[Ext User(the_dawggie)]

Looking at the ARRs this is legal. Ie, the drive back from
work to home you can have your stubbie in the cup holder and
sip from it.

If pulled over you have 15 minutes to prove you are on the
decrease (under limit) or increase? without drinking water
or anything else between times.

Legal, or not?

{Watching COPS, in USA illegal to have open container in all
states}

I've certainly noticed many folk here doing it, and
done it myself.

[Ext User(James)]

"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfJgj.732$421.371@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Looking at the ARRs this is legal. Ie, the drive back from
> work to home you can have your stubbie in the cup holder and
> sip from it.
>
> If pulled over you have 15 minutes to prove you are on the
> decrease (under limit) or increase? without drinking water
> or anything else between times.
>
> Legal, or not?
>
> {Watching COPS, in USA illegal to have open container in all
> states}
>
> I've certainly noticed many folk here doing it, and
> done it myself.

Well I can tell you that one town I used to live in was swarming with cops
(a lot were posted there straignt out of the academy) and it was considered
normal with the locals to drive down the main street drinking a long neck.
When I first moved there I quizzed a mate about it and his reply was "Why
the fuck can't I do it? I'm not over .05". Neither he, nor anyone else I saw
do it regularly over the 15 months I was there, was booked for it. Beats me!

James

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Jan 8, 10:36*pm, the_dawggie <the_dawg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Looking at the ARRs this is legal. Ie, the drive back from
> work to home you can have your stubbie in the cup holder and
> sip from it.
>
> If pulled over you have 15 minutes to prove you are on the
> decrease (under limit) or increase? without drinking water
> or anything else between times.
>
> Legal, or not?
>
> {Watching COPS, in USA illegal to have open container in all
> states}
>
> I've certainly noticed many folk here doing it, and
> done it myself.

A few years ago I posted in here about seeing a guy pull into a servo
and plonk his Jim Beam and coke can on the bowser while he filled up.
Spooky said it was fine as long as he's not over 0.05 and the 15
minute thingy you mentioned.

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Jan 8, 10:36*pm, the_dawggie <the_dawg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Looking at the ARRs this is legal. Ie, the drive back from
> work to home you can have your stubbie in the cup holder and
> sip from it.
>
> If pulled over you have 15 minutes to prove you are on the
> decrease (under limit) or increase? without drinking water
> or anything else between times.
>
> Legal, or not?
>
> {Watching COPS, in USA illegal to have open container in all
> states}
>
> I've certainly noticed many folk here doing it, and
> done it myself.

go to the top of this thread:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.cars/browse_frm/thread/7b348469a3b4b3aa/b5c23cab62c067af

P.S. Check out all the old names from 5 years ago too :-)

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfJgj.732$421.371@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Legal, or not?

I don't know about your part of the world, but as far as I'm aware it's
illegal to drink alcohol whilst driving in Victoria.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(John Tserkezis)]

the_dawggie wrote:

> Looking at the ARRs this is legal. Ie, the drive back from
> work to home you can have your stubbie in the cup holder and
> sip from it.

I was always under the impression, the driver couldn't drink within the
vehicle. That said, this was from decades old umpteenth hand heresay - which
holds less value than "I heard about it on the Internet so it must be true".

(From here on, I'm talking about New South Wales rulings. There could be
differences in other states).

Looking up the ARRs, I can't find any evidence of alcohol consumption at
all, which leads me to believe the ARR doesn't cover this type of provision.
The RTA web site has plenty of information on this, but it's limited to the
alcohol that's already ingested. No mention of alcohol OUTSIDE of the body,
such as transporting, amounts, open or not within the vehicle.

> If pulled over you have 15 minutes to prove you are on the
> decrease (under limit) or increase? without drinking water
> or anything else between times.

False. If you are stopped for a breath test (for whatever reason) the first
field reading is used as an approximate guide as to what your real level is.
If it's borderline, (or clearly over), you need to go back to the office (or
bus or other) where they have qualified people who draw blood, that in turn is
sent to the Testing Unit that determines how much blood is in your alcohol stream.
If it's a serious accident where an ambulance is called, they take a sample
at the scene.

Two samples actually, they give you one, and they take the other. You have
opportunity for selecting your own testing agency if you want to dispute the
Police Testing Unit's reading.

There is nothing for you to do to prove for or against in this matter - it
is completely out of your hands. If the station is next door, they get a
fresh reading, if it's far, they get an older reading. Either way, the time
of first offence, till the time of the blood test is noted, and a reading is
projected by the Testing Unit of what your blood alcohol level would have been
when they first stopped to test you. That's what they go on (along with other
information you give them).

It's been proved many a time that only *time* has any major effect on your
blood alcohol level. Drinking water or eating food isn't going to change it
enough for anyone to care.
They can not, and will not stop you from drinking water, likewise, can not
and will not force you to drink water.

> Legal, or not?

It comes down to the numbers, and you're not likely to find out before
they're done testing your blood, which could be weeks after.

> {Watching COPS, in USA illegal to have open container in all
> states}

The abbreviation of "Australia" is not USA. So it still doesn't answer our
question.

> I've certainly noticed many folk here doing it, and done it myself.

Same here (well, seen it, not done it as I don't drink), but in the absence
of any documents, it's hard to say whether your original argument of openly
drinking while driving is allowed or not.



Would certainly be hard to convince the "law" otherwise if you were merely
transporting beer, were in an accident, and had cans break apart on impact.
You would be utterly drenched in beer, but still register a BAL of zero.

This actually happened to a lady I used to work with, they took her BAL (as
per routine) and found nothing, there was no further mention of this afterwards.

So at least in that case (as well as others), there is strong anecdotal
evidence that it's legal. But as I've said, in the absence of any
documentation, it's still "officially" unknown.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

[Ext User(David Z)]

"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfJgj.732$421.371@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Looking at the ARRs this is legal. Ie, the drive back from
> work to home you can have your stubbie in the cup holder and
> sip from it.
>
> If pulled over you have 15 minutes to prove you are on the
> decrease (under limit) or increase? without drinking water
> or anything else between times.
>
> Legal, or not?
>
> {Watching COPS, in USA illegal to have open container in all
> states}

And yet the US is more liberal with their legal limit of 'only' 0.08.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D0Ogj.795$421.615@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> And yet the US is more liberal with their legal limit of 'only' 0.08.

But then the US carries on with those stupid fucking "field sobriety tests"
that can take forever, when a breathalyser takes all of ten seconds and
doesn't rely on the judgement of some country town hick copper.

It's .08 in South Australia as well I believe.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

Noddy wrote:
> "the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dfJgj.732$421.371@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> Legal, or not?
>
> I don't know about your part of the world, but as far as I'm aware it's
> illegal to drink alcohol whilst driving in Victoria.
>

Could be but I have seen many people doing it in Melb and don't know of
anyone ever being fined for it.
If it is an offense its probably the same one as if you were drinking a
soft drink, maybe careless driving for not paying attention or something
like that, my guess is the alcohol would only be a problem if you were
over 0.05.



Daryl

[Ext User(John Tserkezis)]

Noddy wrote:

>> And yet the US is more liberal with their legal limit of 'only' 0.08.

> But then the US carries on with those stupid fucking "field sobriety tests"
> that can take forever,

I've always wondered about that. Americans are a strange bunch. They won't
wear their seatbelts (regardless of the law), in fact, to sell your car in the
US, you have to cater for saftey restraint systems ASSUMING the driver will
not wear their seatbelts, otherwise said buyers will not buy it.

Yet they're happy to be subjected to the field sobriety test, that everyone
short of an acrobat will fail.

> when a breathalyser takes all of ten seconds and
> doesn't rely on the judgement of some country town hick copper.

> It's .08 in South Australia as well I believe.

South Australia (and Western Australia) changed from .08 to "standardise" to
..05 some time back.

Dunno about SA, but the WA change was interesting.

The crux of it is, they were pretty much told that if they change "now" they
get a bunch of money. If they don't, they WILL be changed in a couple of
years regardless, but without the money.
No prizes for guessing they changed sooner rather than later.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:42:53 +1100, "Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote:

>
>"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:D0Ogj.795$421.615@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> And yet the US is more liberal with their legal limit of 'only' 0.08.
>
>But then the US carries on with those stupid fucking "field sobriety tests"
>that can take forever, when a breathalyser takes all of ten seconds and
>doesn't rely on the judgement of some country town hick copper.
>
>It's .08 in South Australia as well I believe.

You fail to recognise that the field sobriety test is a far fairer
system as it takes into account the ability of some people to maintain
their abilities despite having a few drinks.




I've mentioned before that I took part in the initial testing to
determine BA levels for introduction into NSW law.

A large number of us from highly skilled race drivers (me :-) to
drivers in their first year of having a licence and from a variety of
ethnic groups, were given a driving and reaction test, then given
measured amounts of alcohol after which the tests were repeated untile
we were deemed to be 'drunk' and incapable of operating a motor
vehicle safely.

Let me tell you that some of the drivers were in my opinion incapable
when completely sober and in the case of some young asian drivers,
both male and female, their performance deteriorated dramatically
after just a single drink to the stage where they were no longer
allowed to drive when still below the 0.08 limit which eventually
became law.

I think that this study, after review, probably contributed to the
further lowering of the limit to 0.05 some time later.


Oh BTW, This is of course a total figment of my imagination and never
happened ........




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Jan 9, 9:12*am, John Tserkezis
<j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

> * Yet they're happy to be subjected to the field sobriety test, that everyone
> short of an acrobat will fail.

Don't be so sure ;-)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKI_8_VD_yQ>

[Ext User(LSx-Australia)]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:42:53 +1100, Noddy PCM code reading says:

> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D0Ogj.795$421.615@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> And yet the US is more liberal with their legal limit of 'only' 0.08.
>
> But then the US carries on with those stupid fucking "field sobriety
> tests" that can take forever, when a breathalyser takes all of ten
> seconds and doesn't rely on the judgement of some country town hick
> copper.

LOL I usually do the same test sometimes when I have the odd BBQ with
friends and family. If they walk the white tape too well they need a
drink. If they walk the white tape with difficulty they need a drink.

If they need to go home they need a Taxi. :-)

--
Regards
Dan

[Ext User(John Tserkezis)]

OzOne wrote:

> It allows people who may have been drinking BUT who are still
> functioning at a level suitable for driving a car to be on their way
> while catching those who succumb to the effects of alcohol much
> earlier and are a danger to themselves and others.

like those who have no sense of balance at the best of times?

Still not a very "conclusive" test IMO, largely open to interpretation.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

[Ext User(John Tserkezis)]

LSx-Australia wrote:

> If they need to go home they need a Taxi. :-)

Shouldn't it be 'if they need a lie down they need a taxi home?'.

I mean, they're never going to want to leave with free booze while they can
still muster up enough hand-eye co-ordination to put the glass to their lips
and not miss (too much).

And you don't want drunken bastards all over your place (unless you're one
of them yourself).
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Jan 9, 9:12*am, John Tserkezis
<j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

> * Yet they're happy to be subjected to the field sobriety test, that everyone
> short of an acrobat will fail.

Don't be so sure.

I've seen a video (can't find it right now) of a drunken cowboy type
who was pulled over and he passed everything the officer could throw
at him. He even fluently said the alphabet backwards which stunned the
cop a little bit (try it yourself now - sober).

She eventually had him skipping around in a circle changing his
leading foot on every second skip, which he again passed with flying
colours. At this point he said "Hey y'know what that needs? How 'bout
a hip-e-tey hop, a stomp, then a barrel roll <jumps in the air and
does a barrel roll> and then CHA! <whips his hat off and holds it in
the air like a flag>"

The cop then says "Wow you're a great dancer" to which he replies "Nah
I'm just drunk..."

Busted.

[Ext User(LSx-Australia)]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:37:03 +1100, John Tserkezis PCM code reading says:

> LSx-Australia wrote:
>
>> If they need to go home they need a Taxi. :-)
>
> Shouldn't it be 'if they need a lie down they need a taxi home?'.
>
> I mean, they're never going to want to leave with free booze while
> they can
> still muster up enough hand-eye co-ordination to put the glass to their
> lips and not miss (too much).

I rarely supply enough "free" booze at my BBQ's most of them are defeated
the fact that they have nothing to drink after a fair few good hours.

>
> And you don't want drunken bastards all over your place (unless you're
> one
> of them yourself).

All of them are family and friends really so I know what they are like if
they fuck up they never get invited again.

--
Regards
Dan

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:12:48 +1100, John Tserkezis
<jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

>Noddy wrote:
>
>>> And yet the US is more liberal with their legal limit of 'only' 0.08.
>
>> But then the US carries on with those stupid fucking "field sobriety tests"
>> that can take forever,
>
> I've always wondered about that. Americans are a strange bunch.

It allows people who may have been drinking BUT who are still
functioning at a level suitable for driving a car to be on their way
while catching those who succumb to the effects of alcohol much
earlier and are a danger to themselves and others.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Daryl Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13o7t2frthr4031@corp.supernews.com...

> Could be but I have seen many people doing it in Melb and don't know of
> anyone ever being fined for it.

My brother in law got pinched for it a few years ago, and he lost his
licence over it despite him being under the legal BAC limit.

> If it is an offense its probably the same one as if you were drinking a
> soft drink, maybe careless driving for not paying attention or something
> like that, my guess is the alcohol would only be a problem if you were
> over 0.05.

No, it was consuming alcohol whilst in charge of a vehicle or some such if I
remember correctly.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:47840826$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...

> like those who have no sense of balance at the best of times?
>
> Still not a very "conclusive" test IMO, largely open to interpretation.

Agreed.

Far easier to have a blanket limit apply to everyone.

--
Regards,
Noddy.