MEL First lounge joins PER RSA push

[anat0l]

In my opinion blood alcohol readings mean nothing in whether you are able to handle a car or not. I can handle a car better at 0.08 or even 0.12 than someone who has had nothing to drink.

I won't defend 0.12, but we all know that the blood alcohol limit was originally 0.08.

I'm sure neither of you are advocating deliberate flouting of laws.

If you are caught blowing in excess of 0.05 in Australia, you can argue all you like to the judge that you were in complete control of the vehicle. You'll still be summarily ruled against and set any prevailing penalties. Unless you are, or are the close relative or very close friend of, a politician.

In any case, what does BAC have to do with the topic again?

 

[Hvr]

<snip>

If you are caught blowing in excess of 0.05 in Australia, <snip>

In any case, what does BAC have to do with the topic again?

Actually if you blow 0.05 and above you're in trouble. Basically you must be below 0.05 not on or above the limit.

 

[JohnK]

Actually if you blow 0.05 and above you're in trouble. Basically you must be below 0.05 not on or above the limit.

I once blew 0.12 and was taken to the police station. Police asked for my mobile phone and put me in back of the paddy waggon. I was just recovering from fractured ankle and the trip to police station was no fun. From memory I blew 0.04 or similar and they had to let me go. I did not drink that much so not sure why it was even that high.

Anyway they told me to go but I had to beg them to take me back to my car which was only ~500 metres from my place. I had to wait for a patrol car to take me back instead of the paddy wagon.

 

[serfty]

0.05 is really the "Lowest Common Denominator".

It is a single regulation to catch all.

While quite a few people would be complely inebriated at the 0.05 level there are some with sufficient tolerence to alcohol that they would in actuality and measurably not be impaired at level of 0.10 or even higher.

 

[Pushka]

I won't defend 0.12, but we all know that the blood alcohol limit was originally 0.08.

Yep. And in those days you could be just off your learners permit, be just 18 and legally blow .079.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Yep. And in those days you could be just off your learners permit, be just 18 and legally blow .079.

What was the road toll in those days

 

[Pushka]

What was the road toll in those days

I'm not sure tbh but that statistic must always be placed in context. 30 years ago seat belts were a rarity. No air bags. No ABS brakes. No crumpling cars that protect the passengers. Advances in medical treatments. Better engineered roads. Even better windscreen wipers!

I remember being legally allowed to have my son (now 30) in his bassinet just sitting on the seat. No seat belt or harness for him or the bassinet.

So there is really no basis for comparison based on one variable when there are multiple in play.

 

[medhead]

What was the road toll in those days

While I don't have the road safety stats sitting on the top of my head. I recall a documentary that told is the most significant reduction in road toll occurred with the introduction of seat belts. I'm sure the introduction of drink driving laws would have resulted in a drop (1970s). But I doubt the change from 0.08 to 0.05 in the late 1980s/early 1990s had a similar impact. Someone could look up the stats I guess.

Personally I think the biggest factor is attitude. I've had a couple of excellent accidents that basically resulted from poor attitude and lack of concentration. I think concentration is the biggest factor to road safety.

 

[Pushka]

And following on from seat belts, I can't recall the exact statistic but from memory it may have been something like 50% of fatalities involved people not wearing them. That includes pedestrian and biker accidents.

Alcohol on its own probably isn't as huge a culprit as has been made out to be.

 

[markis10]

And following on from seat belts, I can't recall the exact statistic but from memory it may have been something like 50% of fatalities involved people not wearing them. That includes pedestrian and biker accidents.

Alcohol on its own probably isn't as huge a culprit as has been made out to be.

Its about 10% of the road toll if we use the TAC data applied against Victoria's average of 300 road fatalities

 

[whatmeworry]

On a positive note, just think how much money QF is saving with this RSA policy.

 

[Pushka]

Its about 10% of the road toll if we use the TAC data applied against Victoria's average of 300 road fatalities

View attachment 38672

Thats not as high as I would have thought!

From Qld:

In Australia, approximately 20% of drivers and passengers killed in crashes
(where seat belt use is known) are not wearing seat belts. On average
around 150 people die nationally per year from this cause.

 

[markis10]

Thats not as high as I would have thought!

Thats not capturing the deaths from others involved in the crash where the driver was intoxicated.

 

[ermen]

I was in the MEL F last Sunday (1 Mar) at around lunch.
Service was really good and did not experience any bad issues. Perhaps was just the day in question?

 

[Steady]

I was in the MEL F last Sunday (1 Mar) at around lunch.
Service was really good and did not experience any bad issues. Perhaps was just the day in question?

That's good to hear, let's hope it stays as an exception rather than the norm.