Leave it at 0.05

A successful motion at the Victorian Liberal Party's 152nd State Council, which I put on behalf of the Young Liberals, commended the Baillieu Government for resisting calls to lower the blood alcohol limit from 0.05 to 0.02. I began by discussing the quintessential Australian corner pub, whose prevalence throughout this nation, in commercial and built-up areas, in the city and the country, and in richer and poorer suburbs alike, reflects our unity when it comes to a social drink.

That 0.02 would have such a fundamental impact on the Australian way of life, and on our social liberties, while doing little to enhance road safety, is of great concern. Nor do we believe any Government should pass a law whose target would be mum-and-dad drivers. Indeed, it would be irresponsible to implement such a policy before more pressing road reforms, such as an annual servicing requirement.

Alcohol is social, not a social evil. A lower limit would carry with it a presumption that dangerous driving results from dinner wines and cocktails, unfairly presuming that road users are naturally irresponsible. Consider a hypothetical husband and wife from Glen Waverley, out to a hypothetical dinner in South Yarra for their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. The husband BYOs a bottle of Sauvignon Blanc, and they each polish off a glass for every three courses. A half hour passes between that last glass and the car starting, and 5 minutes before they get waved over on Alexandra Avenue. Hubby probably overdid it, but is under the legal limit at 0.042. The question we need to ask, in this and similar scenarios, is: should he be? Does the smallest amount of alcohol make him a road risk?

For those whose lives have been torn apart by drink driving, and who will take the pain of that moment to their graves, it is a supreme insult to suggest that their loss resulted from a social drink. The most horrific of drink driving offences are perpetrated not by mum and dad drivers, who are not, for want of a better phrase, drunks, for whom it takes more than a Carlton Draught. A drunk becomes a drunk out of irresponsible and excessive drinking. This is unlikely to be spontaneous; the person generally intends on getting "wasted" or "smashed" in advance. The blood alcohol limit stops those people getting on the road, and punishes them if they are juvenile enough to do so. It also represents the level at which a person's senses are deemed to become unsafely affected by alcohol.

Only a special kind of drunk becomes a drink driver. Such people will break the law regardless of the particular limit; it is naïve to suggest otherwise. Irresponsibility knows no bounds, nor is alcohol its only cause; many manage to drive far in excess of the speed limit without a drop of alcohol. Put simply, an alcoholic willing to drink-drive today would not think differently tommorow if we lowered that limit.

So what would 0.02 achieve? More drivers will get processed after breath testing (ie. more will need to step out for blood testing on a booze bus), resulting in a vast number of mum and dad drivers being penalised for drinking a glass of wine. That "new paradigm" will require a mass diversion of police resources, from areas such as patrols and on-call officers, to keep the system afloat. The number of road fatalities, however, will be unaffected; their cause is irresponsibility, not social drinking.

Joel Silver holds a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Melbourne. He is President of the Caulfield Young Liberals and member of the Victorian Young Liberal executive. This article draws on his speech to the Liberal Party State Council in Melbourne on May 29.

Comments

[Dom Vasta]

1.

is it necessary to have a limit at all? It's preempting any harm being done, people are good enough judges of their own ability. take speed limits for example, on the autobahns in Germany very few people go more that 130km/h, even driving down the highway in a 110km/h zone a few people will stick to 100. if someone feels that they can drive at .08%BAC let them, to be really pedantic you could give people personal limits at which they'd proven they could drive at, but this seems like a big waste of time and resources and would require a huge amount of cooperation between state and federal governments. the small minority that do drive when they are clearly too drunk may be an extra risk as they won't be caught before they do damage but it will mean far less police time used to chase down drunk drivers and far fewer people being forced to spend the night in the back seat of their car waiting for their BAC to go down.

[SignedIn]

2.

Joel I agree with you on resisting calls to lower the blood alcohol limit from 0.05 to 0.02.
0.02 can be less than one drink for some people. As such it may as well be 0.05 or 0.000000000 (you get the point).

We wouldn't accept anyone operating machinery in the workplace to have a BAC above zero, so we could ask why do we accept in on roads?

I would argue here for personal responsibility. If you want to drink, don't drive. If you want to drive, don't drink. A 0.05 limit is acceptable, but generally common sense would suggest you simply do not drink or drive.

Dom Vasta I will disagree. One only has to look at the statistics to see that many people are good NOT enough judges of their own ability.

Now if only we could invest in better public transport to get the social people among us home safely, whether they have had a drink or not.

[Louis McLennan]

3.

I feel uping it to 0.08 is more approrpaite. Or just removing it all together. However, I guess if the state owns the road the are probably right to dictate what can and can't use it.

[TerjeP]

4.

0.08 is a good idea.

[Ben]

5.

Good points. When I drink I become more alert (another fact ignored by hysterics).

[Dom Vasta]

6.

I'm not sure if it's their own ability that they aren't sure of, but rather whether they're under .05 or not. If you're told you're safe to drive at .05 then you'll be more inclined to think that even though you feel too drunk you're actually okay. there are of course the small minority that drink excessively and drive regardless of the laws or their own abilities.

[Matt]

7.

Jerkoff

[SignedIn]

8.

"Good points. When I drink I become more alert (another fact ignored by hysterics)."

This looks like a hysteric ignorant of scientific facts.

[Alastair]

9.

Thing that really frightens me about BAC limits as currently set, is that I have NO WAY of accurately measuring my BAC ! It's like giving you a car with out a speedo !

[bluebell]

10.

I have the perfect solution - don't drive if you have been drinking. :o)

I was recently pulled over by the boys in blue for a RBT and I passed with flying colours. T`was a miracle that I could even blow into the damned thing - I was rotten with the flu at the time and my lung capacity was terrible. Still the boys were a little sloppy when viewing my licence. They didn't ask me for the medical certificate that states my diabetic status. Even though I am not insulin dependent I still have to carry a medical certificate stating my condition. I control my condition thru diet and tablets.

[Andy]

11.

If I know I'm going to have a boozy lunch or dinner I always get a cab.
Should I go to a lunch or dinner that looks like turning into a boozy lunch or dinner I'll refrain from drinking – as I hate leaving my car at the car park.

If it was zero it would worry me.
People should be responsible.

[Michael Angelico]

12.

I'm in favour of a .00 limit. After all, commercial drivers (truck, bus, taxi, etc) are all required to be .00, why should it be any different for "normal" drivers?