Marvin the Martian

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 11:44 AM

Unfortunately Brumby will offer little more than lip service to this problem.

I propose that all drivers with restrictions on their licese have a mandatory breath test implanted into their steering wheel to prevent the car from starting with even a hint of alcohol.

Those caught tampering, or caught over the limit in an unrestricted car will immediately have their car seized and sold. The proceeds to go TAC to pay for the victims healthcare and loss of vages etc.

It's funny... I got my motorbike license here in Melbourne and it is far more involved than the drivers exams. Even then there was no night driving, no skid pan etc. Although there is collision avoidance, but even then, you are only in the course for 5 hours on a closed course before you are expected to ride in full traffic.

Pathetic.

Jack

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 12:06 PM

In South Australia you can obtain your learners permit at 16, and can legally drive alone on a provisional license at 16 and a half. The test to obtain a learners permit is beyond easy to pass, and there are no implications if you fail the test (Other than having to re-pay the fee every time you redo the test.)

Once you have your learners permit, you're only required to do 50 hours of driving. You're also required to either do a "Vehicle On Road Test (VORT)" or "Competency Based Training" (Which is basically just multiple lessons with a driving instructor.)

I personally chose competency based training, long story short, I obtained my provisional license with ease. Not because I am a confident or above average driver for my age, but because it’s simply too easy. At 16 and a half, with nowhere near enough driving experience I was legally allowed to drive at 100km/ph at anytime of the day or night, with as many passengers as the car holds.

Thankfully so far I’ve never had a crash or lost control on road, although have multiple friends around my age whom have lost control of their cars whilst driving on the roads, and spun out (Thankfully with no physical injuries.) In neither of these incidents did they have passengers in their cars, or were intentionally being stupid. At no point between obtaining a learners permit, and obtaining a provisional license are you taught how to handle a situation like this, or in fact any dangerous situation such as how to avoid losing control.

Also of note, is that when on a learners permit you are limited to a speed of 80km/ph. As soon as you obtain your provisional license you’re allowed to travel 20km/ph faster (100km/ph) unsupervised. In fact the very first time I drove at 100km/ph was without a supervising driving, with only a YOUNGER friend with me. Needless to say, when you’ve only known driving at 80km/ph, 100km/ph is quite a change.

There are many flaws with the current setup, and sadly back in 2007 I was quite closely affect by a crash in our town which claimed 3 young lives. There was no alcohol involve, no speeding, no “hoon” behavior.

aries

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 01:09 PM

...in response to this comment by Jack. Jack you have raised some very valid points, specifically concerning speed and passengers.

With our current technology speed could be limited on any modern car with absolute ease. What better way than to stop idiots doing 165kph in 70kph zones just like the kid caught on the weekend who was a good friend of the 5 that died.

The picture with this article is the actual car the 5 kids died in. It is estimated that they were doing in excess of 140kph and police on scene didn't even know what kind of car it was until they found the bootlid with the badges on it which had torn off the car from the force of the impact.

What makes this story even sadder is that they had to remove the bodies of the dead boys which were layered on top of the sole 15 year old female survivor, effectively cocooning her in death but ironically saving her life in doing so.

We also need to consider the anguish and stress endured by the rescue workers, many of whom will need counselling for some time to come, not to mention the poor 15 year old survivor. The cost of such accidents goes way beyond the pointless loss of life.

Rescue workers were amazed to learn that there were 5 dead bodies in the car, 3 of which had to be extracted before they could reach the girl, which brings me to my next point.

Maybe we also need to limit the number of passengers kids have in their cars until they are better able to assess risk? It would certainly stop kids piling 6 mates into a car and driving home drunk at 15okph at 2 am in the morning if the law was say no more than 2 passengers while on P plates. Maybe we should stop them from carrying passengers altogether to begin with?

Again, with modern technology we could also easily fit breathalyzers to all modern cars.
Hell, we have high level brake lights and seat belts with explosive pre tensioners and airbags and crumple zones and ABS, EBD, traction control, stability control, cruise control, dvd players, cd players with mp3 inputs.... Why not a bloody breathalyzer? WHERE ARE OUR F**KING PRIORITIES???

It is a crazy crazy world in which we live people... CRAZY!!! WE seem hell bent on killing ourselves AND our planet... *sigh*

Jack

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 01:27 PM

In this particular case (and many other cases), I think the problem stems beyond problems with current laws. Not only were they speeding, but police believe Alcohol was involved. Without these factors, if the law was obeyed, I doubt this accident would have occurred. Certainly current laws aren’t perfect, but even if they were changed and made more restrictive, this won’t prevent incidents where people disregard the law anyway.

For example, if there was a legal limit on the number of passengers, there’s nothing to suggest this law wouldn’t have been disregarded as well. Changing the laws is a good start, but it’s certainly not a solution to many incidents. The real challenge lies in getting people to follow laws.

Peter

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 03:00 PM

I think we need to be radical, the Swedish examples sound great and may work, the problem I see is one of mindset, 17/18/19 year olds think they have a right to have such powerful machines, I'd be surprised if there are many countries in the world that have such cars on the road and available to such young drivers.

Things we should be considering (IMHO) are;

Get rid of this pathetic extraordinary licence bullshit, if you are done for DUI and you need your car to work tough titties you should have thought of it in the first place, have some responsibility to not drink and drive, in my view it should be a 12 month ban for anyone over the 0.05 limit, not 6 points and $150 fine.

Get rid of this stupid ctp on the rego, but make it so you have to have insurance before you get rego and make the insurance dependant on age and experience, similar to they have in the UK. Mr "I'm cool" 18 yr old wil think twice about getting a V8 if the insurance premiums for a 17 or 18 yr old are $4000 ish per year. Hammer people that dont have rego, though allowing for a reasonable grace period.

Stop pissing about with unlicenced drivers, not the ones that accidently let it slip - the ones that get banned then continue to snub the law, lock them up 3 months at a time doubling for each subsquent offence.

no one should be getting L's until at least 17

This is one area that makes me mad!! how many more young lives do we need to unnecessarily lose before the soft cock pollies grow a set of balls and do something instead of thinking about their re election and the cushy number they have.

p.s sorry about the blunt language, but feel it adds to the message

Mikey

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 05:52 PM

My $0.02 on some things that should be considered.

1) Mandatory hazardous course drivers training, day and night requirements.

2) Their vehicles to be fitted with a device that restricts the car to 60kph.

3) Caught driving under the influence - their cars given to a family who can't afford to buy a vehicle, plus license suspended for 6 months + 6 months community service.

4) Limited to 1 passenger only, except for emergencies (driving someone to hospital etc). Caught breaking this rule earns a 3 months license suspension.

5) Caught speeding or driving irresponsibly - automatic suspension of license for 3 months + $1000 fine + 6 point demerit. Second offence earns the same plus 1 week in the slammer.

6) Mandatory re-testing every 12 months.

7) Drivers license can not be obtained until the age of 20.

8) The legal age of drinking to be raised to 25.

9) Zero eligibility for extraordinary licence.

10) No driving between midnight and 6am.

TVBIZ(BOB)

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 07:02 PM

Restricting the engine capacity will not help the situation because it does matter whether you are driving a powerful v8 of a small 4 cylinder job it's the sudden stop that gets you each time.

I remember when I first got my licence, I only had a 1300 4 cylinder but I could still drive fast, fast enough to kill me or anyone else for that matter.

It does not matter what training you do and how long - it all come down to attitude.
I am afraid that attitude off not only the young but everyone else has to change.

What I see on Australian roads these days is far worse then 30, 40 years ago. The amount of cars is also making the situation harder.

Drivers these days do not worry about the laws that have been put in place to protect them.

My wife told me today that a work friend of hers really thinks that when you drive in the overtaking lane there is no speed restrictions. I have seen her drive and believe me it does not surprise me to hear this. She thinks she is the best driver around.

I have come to the conclusion the only way to fix this ever increasing problem is to make every driver take a brain test. I honestly believe that not everyone is made to operate a vehicle at any speed. There is something missing in their thought processes so no matter how much training is done it just does not click.

Just look at any P plate driver these days - new drivers with their driver training fresh in their minds but hey, do they obey the road rules? NO!

Jack

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 07:03 PM

...in response to this comment by Mikey. Although number 2 may work well for those living in the city, restricting speed to 60kph for those of us living in rural areas is simply unreasonable. Living in a smaller town surrounded by 110kph roads, being restricted to 80kph when on a learners permit causes quite a nuisance to other drivers. Although you might not think it, often when I was driving on 110kph roads (restricted to 80kph) a fair few cars would begin to line up behind me. There were often times when I’d simply pull over because it was far too dangerous being tailgated at those speeds (Especially being in an area where kangaroos can often leap onto the road requiring sudden breaking.) The number of trucks that will happily tailgate a learner driver at those speeds was also quite shocking. Not only this, but there were instances where people would simply overtake you regardless of the solid white line, even if visibility ahead was blocked by a turn and trees. There was even one instance where I was forced to slow down to allow an overtaking car back onto the road, to avoid an oncoming car. Restricting speeds in rural areas would simply be too dangerous in my opinion.

Before I go on with this second one, I should probably point out that I don’t ever drink. But, number 7, raising the drinking age to 25 is in my opinion beyond realistic. Even with the drinking age at 18, the number of people that would drink and get drunk back when I was 15 was crazy enough. Yet alone the number of people that began drinking and getting drunk at 16 and 17. Even now I still have a few 16 year old friends that are no strangers to alcohol. I’m sure it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that most of my friends come from a poor background, but these are all private (Catholic) schooled kids coming from good backgrounds. In fact the absolute worst offenders to drinking and getting drunk around this age group is females. A few of them being close friends, I believe this stems from the terribly low self esteem that girls in this age group all seem to posses. This isn’t even just a local thing, I happen to know of many underage teenagers from capital cities some even as young as 13, that will drink. I’d confidently say that underage drinking is one of our nation’s most over looked problems.

Other than those two, the other suggestions seem fairly reasonable, except for possibly the week in the slammer.

aries

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 07:08 PM

...in response to this comment by Peter. Hi Peter, thanks for weighing in.

As I see it, suspended drivers are not the problem here. As it is this is causing way too much of a drain on our court system, our police and our jails. I as a 37 year old pose absolutely no more or less of a threat on the roads if I were not the holder of a piece of paper that says I am legal to use a car and our roads. Personally I think that system is laughable. Every year we have to cough up ever increasing amounts of money and for what? Do they re-test me every year? Every 5 years? Every ten years? NO!!! It's only when I hit 75 do they even look at me again yet they happily take my money, yet provide mt no further driver training, it's ludicrous. Why should I pay when I am exactly the same driver I was last year, and having that piece of paper makes FUCK ALL difference to how competent I am on the roads, it just gives the government more play money!

Likewise the Extraordinary license system. Some people, ie tradies, MUST use their cars for work and they are governed very strictly under this system. They are only allowed to travel a certain route inbetween certain hours of the day and if they are caught outsiide of their set conditions the license is immediately revoked.

However, this is WAY off topic, because what we are talking about is young drivers who, as I stated in my original post, lack the brain development to be able to assess risk coherently in the manner an adult does.

It is for this reason WE MUST start looking at this matter much more seriously. So what if kids think they have a 'right' to own and drive a 6.0 litre V8 commodore, who gives a fuck, honestly??? Some people think they have a 'right' to murder too... just to make a point.

Mikey I think we feel the same way about this and I agree with most if not all of your suggestions. Personally I'm fed up with watching young lives thrown away when simple measures can be taken to prevent hundreds if not thousands of road deaths every year.

I think I am going to submit this article and the comments to some pollies in the very near future.

aries

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 07:20 PM

...in response to this comment by Jack. Jack you seem like a pretty level headed kid and yes you do have a point about country roads, but hey, in time people would get used to it and adjust.

You do raise another very good point about our young girls too mate. It is my experience in the last 10 or so years that every time a car goes screaming past me in a 60 zone doing 80 or 90kph it is almost ALWAYS a young P plate (or very close to it) girl behind the wheel. These uptight princesses really think they are above the law, more often than not talking on their phones too as they go whizzing past at breakneck speed. I have given on more than one occasion an angry honk, flash or a bit of verbal abuse to these female idiots.

And you are quite right about it being a matter of self esteem, but what more can you expect from a generation raised by flat screen TV's and Nintendo DS's???

Can you tell I'm pretty passionate about this?

andrew

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 08:20 PM

yep i got 2 girls who think they are jack brabham, fast is the only way to get there and it can be a hair raising drive when you travel with them, yet they are quite confident drivers, and yes i do tell them to slow down, done all the parent talk, yep they have got the odd speeding fine. and yes i do worry when they go out on the roads.
we were all young and invincible at some time, but as you get older you get wise

we get our license to drive,(at a cost) we have to renew it every 5 years(at a cost),we get 12 demerit points. if you lose any demerit points you pay for your license if you do not then dont pay for renewal make it a one off for life.

Rodney

Tuesday 19th January 2010 | 09:17 PM

...in response to this comment by Mikey. Geeze Mike! Old man, much?! 25 year old drinking age and 20 year old to drive?

Some of your other ideas are good (though I am never in favour of a hard limit on the speed of a vehicle - otherwise you cannot overtake a caravan safely in the country, etc).

We need better education and greater responsibility instilled into youth (and older folk alike). Not more nanny state. The more responsibility you attempt to take away from people, the less responsible they will be.

Trent Greguhn

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 03:31 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. I completely agree with Rodney. 25 year old drinking seems way to excessive. I mean, hell, I'm 22 and I'd still be 3 years shy of proper before I could drink, despite renting my own place and owning my own car and paying for all my bills? No way man.

Also, 20 years old to drive? I think we should all remember when we were old enough to drive and being able to drive ourselves to work and how great that was.

And 60kph restriction? That's what, 37 mph? What about the freeway? And what about roadtrips where the speed limit is 75 mph with a minimum of 45 mph? So no one could take a road trip or get on the freeway to get to work quicker or any of that?

I'd probably be right in guessing I'm one of the few younger people contributing here, but I think all of you are being a little to harsh on these rules. I think the most brilliant idea I've seen yet was Marvin's with a built in breathalizer. I think that should be the standard and your car can't start unless your sober, but of course people would find ways around it. If that were the case very strict punishment should be carried out depending on the type of infraction.

When I was 18 I had a car payment, insurance payment, utilities payment, phone payment, and a rent payment to worry about. I had the responsibility to take care of all of that, but I can't drive for another 7 years? Look, a lot of kids are irresponsible and terrible drivers, but not all of us were. It should depend on the amount of responsibility they have undertaken in their lives.

Have them take a strict driving test with rigurous training and awareness to get them better situated on the road and grade harshly. That's about the best you can possibly do. Then, when they turn 18 and are an adult re-evaluate where they are in their lives, how much they've improved and then re-test them.

I see people of all age groups being terrible drivers, just the other day a 40 something year old guy lane changed and almost side swiped my car, and he would have had I not noticed him and lane changed real quick. In fact, I've had more run-ins with bad adult drivers where I live than young ones. It's all about education and intelligence, and as was said earlier, attitude, and there's not much we can do about those besides developing a better driving test system.

Ben Thomas

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 07:40 AM

I have to point out that, unless I'm very much mistaken, the car in this case was a 6 cylinder RWD Falcon, without a turbo. So it's like a regular family car. These things can accelerate to 100 in around 7 seconds, which means it's easy for an inexperienced driver to get into trouble in a built up area very quickly.

One thing I've noticed is that nearly every news item reporting a dead teenager shows a rear wheel drive but otherwise bog-stock factory standard car.

So it seems to me that the problem is allowing inexperienced drivers to drive RWD cars.

If the government wants to do anything substantial about the road toll, they will have to make some very unpopular decisions. Banning new drivers from RWD cars will be difficult, coz most (many) parents drive RWD sedans, so you'd effectively be banning parents from teaching their kids to drive...

Papa

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 08:21 AM

...in response to this comment by Ben Thomas. "So it seems to me that the problem is allowing inexperienced drivers to drive RWD cars."

You can get into pretty bad wrecks with a AWD or FWD cars as well.

Restricting what cars people drive (due to age) is like smoking a shorter cigarette.

Kids will still be driving around in vehicle that can flip, roll, lose control due to weather, be affected by other drivers as well as numerous amounts of variables. You can restrict the car's speed to 50kph and someone can still roll it around a curve.

The problem is that inexperienced kids are driving like idiots. Requiring more training prior to obtaining a license seems like an all around good thing. If it is more difficult to obtain a license, people will be more afraid to lose it...

Jack

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 08:31 AM

I'm sure being 4 times over the legal limit didn't help too much either.

http://www.news.com.au/national/mill-park-horror-crash-driver-four-times-over-limit/story-e6frfkvr-1225821522831

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 08:56 AM

...in response to this comment by Ben Thomas. Ben,

The car was an XR6, still a very quick car for an inexperienced driver.

And Papa, Yes people can still roll a car or hit a lamp post at 80 clicks or even 50 and kill themselves but I think you might be missing the point.

If we put a whole bunch of measures in place to make getting a license much harder, and then further educate once the license is obtained plus implement laws such as no passengers for the first couple of years, (until off P plates) combined with speed restrictions and cars with inbuilt breathalyzers, sure we aren't going to prevent every young death on our roads but hell it's gonna stop what happened on the weekend from ever happening again.

Lets revise... 6 people in the car - ILLEGAL, 4 times over the legal limit - HIGHLY ILLEGAL, speed in excess of 140kph in a 70 zone - JUST PLAIN FUCKING STUPID AND HIGHLY ILLEGAL, unregistered car - ILLEGAL, driving a high powered Ford Falcon XR6 while on 'P' plates at night while drunk in an unregistered car with 6 people on board doing 140kph... - SHEER FUCKING INSANITY!!!

If he a) had an inbuilt breathalyzer this wouldn't have happened.
b) was not legally allowed to carry passengers, this would not have happened.
c) was not allowed to own anything greater than a 1.6 litre car speed restricted to 80kph, this would not have happened.

I could go on but you see my point I think?

DavidS

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 09:42 AM

I live in the United States and each state has a different requirement for getting one's license. In my state I took a class that taught us all the traffic laws. The class was very easy and you could easily pass it by using nothing more than common sense. After you pass the class you take a written test on what you learned in the class. After this you are given a permit. The permit allows you to drive with your parent in the car. You are supposed to log a certain amount of hours before you take your road test at 16. Once you pass the road test you are a licensed driver.

Now I will admit I am not the worlds best driver, but I'm not bad. I've been in one accident since getting my license and I wasn't at fault. I will also say that I really had no desire to drive at the time. I never did my homework for the class. I logged about 2 hours of driving time before even getting my license. Looking back at this I am shocked. I put such little effort into getting the license and I still got it without a hitch.

Now I drive a full sized sedan with a V6 and it's really the definition of a grocery getter. Somewhat ironically the car does not have any sort of speed governor in it. My car is able to do 107mph (172kph). While my car might be safer than your average car it is still nothing more than a screaming metal death trap. Same as any car.

As for the type of car playing on the likelihood of an accident; there might be some correlation but in the end all cars are dangerous. I have driven sedans, SUVs, vans, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, muscle cars, hell I've even flown an airplane. I don't think anyone has the right to tell you what kind of vehicle you can and can't drive. If I want to drive a high performance muscle car then I should be able to.

I agree with some of you that say that the answer lies in more training. I think kids are horrible under trained. I'm living proof of that. Nobody should have been able to do what I did. I think people need to log a few hundred hours driving with a professional before they should be allowed to drive alone.

I also think that kids will continue to do stupid things. There is no way of stopping a teenaged boy from driving fast. As a former teenaged boy I know this to be true. I also don't agree with not allowing them to drive at all. It's really a horrible situation but I don't think there is just a simple answer.

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 10:12 AM

...in response to this comment by DavidS. AND THERE IT IS!!!

"I don't think anyone has the right to tell you what kind of vehicle you can and can't drive. If I want to drive a high performance muscle car then I should be able to."

Do you wear a seat belt David? How a bout a helmet when you ride a motorbike? These laws are there to protect you, and by your own admission getting your license was ridiculously easy. Why the F**K should you be let loose to kill and maim yourself and others in a muscle car? The right to own such a vehicle and drive it should be earnt?

I bet the plane you flew was not an F1-11 or a Lockheed stealth fighter was it? Now why do you think that is?

Papa

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 10:16 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. "If he a) had an inbuilt breathalyzer this wouldn't have happened. "

Or one of his friends would have blown into it for him.

"b) was not legally allowed to carry passengers, this would not have happened."

If the dude was drunk you really think he would care at that point?

"c) was not allowed to own anything greater than a 1.6 litre car speed restricted to 80kph, this would not have happened. "

Your assuming too much. Like I mentioned before, the dude could have died doing a number of different things. Maybe he would have crossed a lane and smacked right into a on coming truck, too many variables to say, "this would not have happened".

I used to work at a auto shop, this dude came in with a breathalyzer on his steering wheel. He had to stand by every 15 minutes to start the damn thing up. They do use them here in the states, but only for people who have had past offenses.

The problem of what you propose is that you end up punishing the masses for a handful of kids dumb mistakes.

Mikey

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 10:37 AM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Ditto on all 3 points.

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 10:44 AM

...in response to this comment by Papa. You are not looking at the big picture Papa... If you put all the proposed changes into play and this particular accident would not have happened. Don't argue for arguments sake, look at the issue. I know, lets just all stand by and say "fuck it, it's too hard, nothing is going to change" like we have been doing for years.

Do you honestly think that on 'that' night, if 'that' kid had much better driver training, owned a 1.6 litre car, was legally not allowed to have any passengers and also had a breathalyzer fitted to his speed restricted car, that he would have hit a tree whilst driving drunk at 140+kph with 6 people in his car??? Come on mate, be serious please!

We are not talking about being able to stop every single road death here Papa, kids will be kids and will kill themselves in many numbers of wacky ways, but these methods WILL prevent deaths, and if we save only 1 life it was all worth it, lets not forget that. That 1 life could be YOUR KID'S!!!

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 10:49 AM

F**K it, lets all stop wearing seat belts and helmets too. I mean if you hit a tree hard enough they aren't going to help are they, so why even bother manufacturing and installing them, let alone make it against the law not to use them...??? Is that the attitude here???

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 10:52 AM

I've never had an accident in my life, so by your logic Papa the law stating that I have to wear a seatbelt is unfair, as it is just me being punished unnecessarily for the mistakes of the few... is that it??? Grrrr

Mikey

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 11:22 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. "Do you honestly think that on 'that' night, if 'that' kid had much better driver training, owned a 1.6 litre car, was legally not allowed to have any passengers and also had a breathalyzer fitted to his speed restricted car, that he would have hit a tree whilst driving drunk at 140+kph with 6 people in his car???"

Maybe, maybe not. But what I think...

Better driving training doesn't mean shit when the driver is doing 140kph. A slower vehicle won't matter when the kid swerves into oncoming traffic because he is intoxicated. After all, slow doesn't mean you can't still have fun on the read doing snakies, fish tales and doughnuts. And a built-in breathalyser is ineffective when any of his mates could blow into it, and a law restricting the number of passengers will go ignored if their intoxicated.

I think, being the irresponsible prat he was, he would have still found a way to off himself and the others. A drunk motivated teen is a dangerous thing regardless of what you think might stop him.

That said, these 'restrictions' might deter the more responsible teens. Just not every body. There are no guarantees.

Papa

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 11:29 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. "If you put all the proposed changes into play and this particular accident would not have happened. "

I am glad you can see the future, I cannot. But there is no reason to not consider that he could have died a number of different other ways. So what if he turned too sharply on a road after all of those restrictions place on his vehicle. Are we going to require teens not to drive on certain roads that are deemed dangerous? Where does it end?

"but these methods WILL prevent deaths"

Great, in stead of teaching kids how to drive more responsibly, lets just limit them so they can be as stupid as they want and it won't matter. "Since I can't drive worth sh*t, the government will just limit me so I won't be able to die, thanks for your tax dollars in work!"

Like I said earlier, your crusade to save one teenage life will further limit and punish the masses. We both are after the same goal, changing the way people drive.

You want to do it by enforcing restrictions upon every single teen that will cost millions and millions of dollars to do so. Do you know the cost of modding every single car that a teen drives with those kinds of requirements?

I want to make it harder for kids to get driver's license, so only those who are responsible enough and pass the strict driving requirements will obtain the permits necessary to operate a motor vehicle. Your solution is noble, but its a last resort.

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 12:25 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Papa sometimes I think you only see what you want to see honestly mate. We are talking about suggestions here. How does a kid hit a tree at 140kph if he can only do 80kph? Just answer me that simple question?

We are not talking about what might have happened, we are talking about what did happen. sure we can intellectually hypothesize a million different variants, and cactus and tyler might tell us it was preordained to happen at god's will.

I have suggested, as have others, a whole slew of things that we could or should put in place to prevent more, NOT ALL, unnecessary deaths including better and ongoing training, making it harder to get a license etc etc... or didn't you read that part???

What we ARE talking about NOW is 'that' accident on 'that' night and many many others just like it that could otherwise have been prevented.

Breathalyzers should be standard on all new cars, just like a.b.s. and high level brake lights and seat belts etc etc. Why not make the manufacturers take some responsibility for the death machines they manufacture? This measure will prevent not just the kids but the brainless adults who chose to get behind the wheel drunk and cause carnage. sure, occasionally you MIGHT find another person who is sober with no morals to blow into the machine for you, but honestly, how often do you think that is going to happen? And if it does, the kid can only do 80 clicks and if he does decide to pile 6 people into his little 1.6 car he does so knowing that the very first cop car that sees him is going to pull him over.

It's about altering the statistics, making it harder at every junction until these kids earn the right to drive bigger, faster more powerful cars. When you get a pilot's license do you jump straight into a fighter jet? No!!! Why not? When you get a motorbike are you allowed to ride an unrestricted bike? No!!! Why not??? When you want to start a career as a racing car driver do they let you just jump into an F1 car and blast off? No!!! Why not??? So why the FECK should it be ANY different on our roads where MILLIONS more people are just trying to get from A to B safely?

Can we stop arguing and start THINKING please?

Papa kids, that's what they are, are always (as I have already said) gonna find new and exciting ways to kill themselves because (as I have also already said) it has been PROVEN that they lack the same ability as you and I to accurately assess risk due to their brain development. That is science, not opinion. So, until they have that ability and knowing that they lack it, aren't we as adults supposed to do all we can to protect them? I will ask you again, do you wear a seatbelt? When you have kids in your car do you make them wear one? Why??? Same same but different buddy.

Papa

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 12:54 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. I understand you point bro, but honestly it would be great to think that these things could be implementing but your skipping right to the end without considering any other options.

"Why not make the manufacturers take some responsibility for the death machines they manufacture? "

No one is forced to drive anything, they can walk or ride a bike or not do anything at all. Its like suing key board manufacturers because we get carpal tunnel, or suing liquor companies for my bad liver. You know that makes no sense...

People choose to be stupid, no one forces them to get into a car and kill themselves. I see it as a huge waste of money and time. The way you talk about his death is that it is not his fault, that the companies who make these vehicles should have predicted this accident.

"aren't we as adults supposed to do all we can to protect them?"

Of course, but its not my job to protect your child or anyone elses. Its my job to protect my son, and I will be damned if the government is going to force me to put a breathalyzer on every car I have. Whats to keep him from jumpin in my car that doesn't have a breathalyzer on it? I understand that your suggestions are in response to this one accident, but is that enough president to require an entire country to spend millions and millions of dollars for one car accident? I am thinking practically here, all emotions aside...

Why is the government not crackin down on liquor selling to underage teens?

We could go back and forth all day... There is no right or wrong in this discussion, its just opinion against opinion.

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 01:08 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. No, it's just common sense Papa, and I'm not just talking about one statistic either. I see it on the news every night.

I get that you are smart guy and enjoy debate, but you haven't answered any of my really easy questions. Why do car manufacturers put seat belts in cars? Let's start with a simple one. Like I said before, I've never had an accident so I should be allowed to remove mine right?

In the words of Lleyton Hewitt... COME OOOOOOON!!!!

:)))

Papa

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 01:28 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. Sorry bro, alright now too your question... and your right, in America at least car crashes are the leading cause of teenagers.

Now, seat belts save lives in the event of a car crash. Same thing with air bags, you can choose to not wear your seat belt if you like. You may get a ticket if you do not comply, but you can still choose not to use it.

You cannot choose to use a breathalyzer (if they were installed by mandate), and its ridiculous to expect someone (like me) who has never had any problems in the past to be required to use it. Too have to blow into it every 15 minutes as I drive because some ass hole a few years ago killed himself by wrapping his car around his tree drunk is ridiculous.

I think more responsible teenagers should only be allowed to drive. With strict standards and a difficult process to obtain a license (more difficult driving exams, maybe a GPA requirement) the death toll would decline as well. Less and less idiot kids who parents buy them a V8 mustang would be out and driving about. And lets say, fuck... that didn't work kids are still killing themselves. Than maybe we should consider more drastic measures, but lets not go all the way in one direction at once. Does that make sense?

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 01:56 PM

See, now you are talking my language brother!!!

Still, your 'I have never drunk driven so why should I have a breathalyzer factory fitted to my car?' argument still holds no more water than my 'I've never had an accident in my life so why do 'I' need seatbelts factory fitted to my car?' argument...surely you can see that, yes???

Yes, we all have choices, but when we are drunk we don't often make good ones do we? I was actually done for drink driving myself as a young lad, in spite of my knowing better and apparent intelligence. I just though that I was ok... that is until I had to spend a night inside the slammer. Luckily I learn fast...

My point is that it is not just idiots that do silly things. Many an otherwise responsible hard working mature adult has risked it also and with dire consequences the result so, we either ban drinking alltogether or make cars with breathalyzers. That's the way I see it. It's illegal to smoke, eat and drink or talk on your phone whilst driving but, you can get into any car drunk!!!

Hmmmmm...

Marvin the Martian

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 02:09 PM

I find it interesting that for mortobike riders, we are restricted to lower powered nikes (mostly 250 cc) for the 'L' and 'P' plate restrictions. Why not cars? I see no reason why learners and 'P' platers can't get around with a less powerful car... Once their restrictions have come off their licese, they are free to buy what they like.

Any restricted riders/drivers must have an blood alcohol level of 0%. I have no issue with breathalysers on all restricted bikes and cars.

Seem like a good compromise.

Gina Squitieri

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 03:03 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read through each of the comments above, so I apologize up front if the point(s) I'm going to touch on have already been touched on. :)

It's been said that when European teenage exchange students come to the U.S. (from what I can tell, the mindset of the U.S. and Australia are not all that different, seeing how their laws are so similar), the first thing they notice is how the teenagers in the U.S. like to party (i.e. drink booze) ... a LOT. They think it's strange that kids in the US are so fascinated with it and they allude that they look and act like total boobs while under the influence. Whereas in European countries (don't know which ones, possibly France, Italy, Spain), the drinking age is around 14, or something very similar, and so there's no mystery/thrill about it. The children are allowed to drink at that age apparently, according to the European exchange students, their desire to go above and beyond their limit seems ridiculous to them.

Telling anyone they can't have a license until they're 20 or 25 to drink or drive makes them yearn for it all the more so that when they actually do get it, they treat it like it's going out of style. Besides, could you imagine what that would do to country's economy?

I say, teach kids to drink responsibly at a younger age and take the thrill/mystery out of it (sort of kill joy, if you will), and teach kids how to drive responsibly at a younger age (supervised of course, until they have the hang of it) and likewise, take the thrill/mystery out of it. You have much more influence as a parent over a child who isn't in the absolute throws of puberty -- so start them younger, I say, because 16 with a license to drive is just asking-- no, it's BEGGING for trouble.

My 2 cents.

Papa

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 05:06 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. "...we either ban drinking alltogether or make cars with breathalyzers. That's the way I see it."

That is very fundamentalist in nature Aries, come on. You can't literally think thats the only way of doing things...

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 06:26 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Jesus Papa, do you think it was ANY different when they first put seatbelts in cars??? That is fundamentalist by your definition. Once cars did not have them at all, but when they learnt that people were dying in them, they passed a law for the protection of everybody. How in all things sensible is this ANY different Papa???? How? How how how???

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 06:30 PM

...in response to this comment by Gina Squitieri. Gina,please get on the net and do some study about how damaging alcohol is to a developing teen brain. It is a rock solid argument for raising the drinking age to early 20's when the brain has stopped developing. Drinking at 14 is extremely dangerous to your health and your brain - even in very small doses. On this point I could not possibly agree with you less... but thanks for weighing in, it's been a while!!!

Papa

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 06:57 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. "Jesus Papa, do you think it was ANY different when they first put seatbelts in cars??? That is fundamentalist by your definition"

Yes it is. But Fundamentalists usually have only two ways of thinking, their way or the wrong way.

Let me just be honest, I want to get into my car whenever I want and drive for how ever long I want to drive for.

You must not understand how these breathalyzers work. The ones I have encountered you literally have to blow into them every 15 minutes for them to work popularly (meaning, to start the car up), and sometimes you have to blow and suck into them numerous times for them to read your blood alcohol content. They don't always work the first try...

I drive to Colorado from SoCal on a regular basis in my vehicle, you really think I want to deal with a breathalyzer every 15 minutes, on a 16 hour drive? Despite the fact that I have not had a history of drinking while intoxicated? Because according to you, if I have a 16 year old with a driving permit, the car must have a breathalyzer attached to it.

Your crusade is ridiculous, It takes 2 seconds for me to buckle my seat belt in, done no hassle. None what so ever. Or we can all blow and suck into these breathalyzers every 30 minutes or even an hour when we drive, simply because the rest of the population cannot control themselves enough to not get behind a wheel when they are drunk.

Sorry bro, but I like my vehicles the way the are. And just because a large majority of the population are f*ck-knuckles, and they want to drink and drive doesn't mean I should be punished for it... just my two cents... peace....

Papa

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 07:06 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. "'I've never had an accident in my life so why do 'I' need seatbelts factory fitted to my car?' argument...surely you can see that, yes??? "

Sorry again, but a seatbelt saves lives even when it's not your fault. Hence, if someone rams you head on, your seatbelt will still do it's job.

I had an EMT tell me a story once, where these kids were driving around having a good time, not intoxicated, just being teenagers. A car pulls out in front of them, subject slams on the brakes... subjects from the back seat slam forward and the back seat passenger's teeth were embedded in the skull of the driver. Wasn't the driver's fault, it was the fact they weren't wearing any seat belts. Tell me how a breathalyzer is the same as a seatbelt again....

According to your counter argument I should be able to disable my airbags and my anti-lock breaks and every other safety feature in the car because I haven't got into a wreck, but all of that is besides the point. A breathalyzer is not a safety feature, it does not protect you in the case of a wreck nor does it save your life. Its simply a mechanism for weak minded individuals who cannot say no after they have had too many.... I am not them, why punish me and everyone else for their mistakes?

Papa

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 07:09 PM

http://blog.motorists.org/mandatory-in-car-breathalyzers-coming/

Maybe your wish will come true!

aries

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 07:43 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Papa, I am not a teenage boy doing skids getting teeth embedded in my skull. Why should I be punished by having to wear a seat belt. They are uncomfortable, dig into me, on a hot day they get to hot to even touch against my bare skin... blah blah blah.

With today's technology I am positive, yes I'd even bet my own life on it, literally not figuratively, that we can build a better in car breathalyzer that does not require a blow every 15 minutes. I'm sure they are fitted to only the worst offenders cars.

Is it really so hard to give a 5 second blow before you turn the key if it saves a few thousand lives a year? Maybe your son will do as I did but not be so lucky? Maybe he will drive drunk one day and end up killing himself or others? Would your position change then?



And hell, I'm not on a crusade by any means, these are all just suggestions. Consider this work shopping or brainstorming!

Rodney

Wednesday 20th January 2010 | 08:47 PM

The breathalyser in cars will probably eventually come in and I'm not really against it.

Here's two reasons why:
1. When I was about 18, a group of us went into Northbridge, where we proceeded to get thoroughly stuck into the turps ('turps' - an Australian colloquialism meaning to drink alcohol, based on a reference to mineral turpentine. I included this irrelevant side note because I am avoiding doing work). Anyway, we asked some police (roaming the streets) if our designated driver could please use their breathalyser, to test if he was ok to drive. They said no - it's only allowed to be used on a driver. So in effect, they would only breathalyse him if he attempted to drive and could hence be arrested - despite the fact it costs nothing to let him play it safe. So in the end, we drove home on our friend's word that he was ok to drive.

2. When I was younger, around the same age as above, we used to pride ourselves on the amount of alcohol we could drink at a party. The general rule was anyone opening a bottle had to finish it, that night. We also would "never" drink drive. Very strict rule: no one drink drove. If any one attempted (and it was rare) they would have their keys taken off them and people would get really mad at them. So we'd crash for the night at whoever's house and drive home in the morning. However, the reality is, the morning was often little more than a few hours sleep away - after an entire bottle of spirits and probably some beer. So while we all thought we were being responsible, we almost certainly weren't.

So basically, an in car breathalyser would have been a good thing. If you're the kind of person who likes a drink or seven, you could actually think of it as doing you a favour by keeping you safe from the police.

Trent Greguhn

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 03:50 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Exactly. I don't see anything wrong with a breathalizer in cars. It saves your life and you hassle from the police as Rodney said.

And Aries, Papa is right. Despite your impeccable driving record, it won't stop someone else slamming into you. And if they do that and you're not wearing a seat belt you're going to wish you had. Maybe it's the fact that you haven't been in an accident to know how essential they are, but I'm telling you. A seatbelt will save your life, and one would think that'd be worth the mild discomfort.

aries

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 09:40 AM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. or.... maybe I'm just trying to make a point! I have never driven so much as to the end of my driveway without a seat belt, nor would I. I am making an argument, pointing out how ridiculous Papa's objections to breathalyzers are... Sheesh! I thought you of all people would pick that much up! :)))

Trent Greguhn

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 10:00 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. Haha, aw, my apologies!

To be honest, I wasn't completely surprised by that statement. But I shall make amends and admit my mistake. I apologize.

Yeah, I don't see any problems with breathalizers besides the obvious ways to get around them. I think it's the most practical solution that's been brought up so far.

Rodney

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 11:40 AM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. To be honest, that's my only real concern with in-car breathalysers - they are surely going to be easy to circumvent. People can use the argument that most people won't circumvent them but the reality is, it's the people who *do* that are the concerns on the road, anyway.

aries

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 12:45 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Easily solved my good man, because the technology already exists whereby the steering wheel can be turned into a sensor that can take continuous blood alcohol levels through the skin.

This means that even if someone else starts your car for you, as soon as you put your own hands on the wheel it will take a reading and cut the engine. If you wear gloves the sensor will be starved of data an likewise will cut the engine.

Even if you get in your car sober and opt for a couple of roadies along the way, if you have one to many, same result.

Pretty clever huh? And, not at all obtrusive. Should keep everyone happy, maybe even Papa! ;)))

Rodney

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 12:55 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. Still going to be circumvented. Like copy protection safe CDs, DVD macro encryption, etc, etc. It's going to be cracked prior to release. Someone will release a torrent of some firmware to disable the sensor or change the acceptable blood alcohol level to 98% or something like that. Believe me, whatever they come up with, it will be circumvented.

Mikey

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 01:36 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Definitely. Remember the teenager who cracked the Gov's 84 million dollar firewall within minutes or release? Well that was longer than I expected. As Rodney says these things are always cracked before release. A breathalyser in a car wont do anything.

Mikey

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 01:47 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. Sounds good on paper, except when the system fails for what ever reason and suddenly you've got some Mum who can't drive her kid to emergency because the car wont start.

And trust me when I say - where there's software involved, there will be bugs. Always. Even on systems where lived depend on it: https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=420

I doubt the Gov would take such a risk.

aries

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 02:15 PM

...in response to this comment by Mikey. Guys cars run on computers, every damn thing including the ignition which I would bet my life has failed at life changing or ending moments before and will most definitely again.

Hell, batteries go flat don't they? Better stop making cars with electronic ignitions or batteries altogether just in case one breaks down when we really need it.. No wait fuck it, just call an ambulance instead, what do you think?

Guys, it is ludicrous to say that just because we can circumvent it, that we all will. It will take an individual time, effort and money to do so, and looking at THE BIG PICTURE most people will not be bothered paying the 17 year old kid down the street the 400 clams he wants to override your car's breathalyzer. I still don't know anyone with a chipped playstation!!!

Of course a few people might, but FFS gents please...

Rodney

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 02:23 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. Two responses to that:

Firstly, to back up Mike: it will be a brave government who mandates such a device, because of the reason Mike says (but don't get me wrong, eventually they will mandate - but first it will be option while we all get used to the idea). The differences between Mike's example of the device costing a life and your example of flat batteries in cars and cars running on computers is no one passed a law mandating your car has to have a computer. If they passed such a law and the device failed, costing a life....

Secondly, re the point you make about most people not bothering to circumvent it. See my above point (https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=3959#comm31315) - the main people you need to worry about are the ones who *intend* to drink drive - and they're the ones who will circumvent it. So in effect, the very people you need protection from the most will still be at the same risk level.

Here's an alternative idea for you: breathalysers at the exists of public carparks in nightclub districts. Comes with it's own set of problems but hey, it's a talking piece.

aries

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 06:59 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. OK, but they did pass laws saying cars must have seat belts, anti lock brakes etc etc so how is this any different? Do you not think that occasionally the odd ABS system fails or seat belt snaps in the event of an accident. I'm sorry but I just can't see the difference.

Why should we all have to be inconvenienced by something that is going to save our life???

Hmmm, do you really need me to answer that?

Papa

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 07:51 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. "Why should we all have to be inconvenienced by something that is going to save our life???
Hmmm, do you really need me to answer that?"

Alright, I am getting your point. But the problem is that for a breathalyser to function properly, a subject must blow/inhale every number of minutes. Or else the subject could simply pay a bum to blow into the steering wheel after getting hammered at a bar, and drive all the way home. Or I guess in this case, wrap his/her car around a tree.

I think its a good idea (in theory), but to be honest I don't want that shit on my steering wheel. Like I mentioned earlier, I drive many many miles. Trips that are usually over 20 hours of driving, for me to continually have to pull over, blow/exhale every 20 minutes, I would never get to where the hell I was going.

Not to mention the fact that I could only be drunk out in the middle of Utah if I had a bottle of booze in my lap! (There are stretches of miles without any places to stop for gas, much less booze).

Inner city driving I see the point, while I do not agree with it, I see it's potential positive effect it could bring. Bed time now for the american... see y'all tomorrow...

aries

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 08:49 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. PSSSSST!!! PAPA!!! I wrote this one just for you several posts ago buddy, but you must have missed it!!! Did you have Miller -Vision??? Thank God for Cut N Paste...

"Easily solved my good man, because the technology already exists whereby the steering wheel can be turned into a sensor that can take continuous blood alcohol levels through the skin.

This means that even if someone else starts your car for you, as soon as you put your own hands on the wheel it will take a reading and cut the engine. If you wear gloves the sensor will be starved of data an likewise will cut the engine.

Even if you get in your car sober and opt for a couple of roadies along the way, if you have one to many, same result.

Pretty clever huh? And, not at all obtrusive. Should keep everyone happy, maybe even Papa! ;)))"

Gina Squitieri

Thursday 21st January 2010 | 11:28 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. Aries,

Please what ever you do, do not even consider the fact that kids in Europe who were introduced to alcohol at a much younger age are the ones looking around at the kids in the U.S. who are introduced to it at a much older age and thinking the kids in the U.S. are much too smitten with alcohol. No, believe what you want to believe

If alcohol at a young age is so damaging to a person's brain, why are the children of Europe making such adult-type statements about kids in the U.S. and acting so adult-like when it comes to alcohol in their own personal lives? No-no! Wait! Don't ever consider that.

aries

Friday 22nd January 2010 | 12:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Gina Squitieri. Gina, as usual you are living in la la land and talking absolute rubbish. It has been scientifically and medically proven, do you understand what that means? It means that people with university degrees have done medical and scientific studies which PROVE that alcohol has a very detrimental affect on a developing child's brain. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

In Australia we have television advertisements warning about the dangers of adolescent drinking based on this research. So, is this opinion of yours just another piece of wisdom someone at church told you, so therefore it must be true?

Sorry, but your stupidity and ignorance astounds me...

Papa

Friday 22nd January 2010 | 02:36 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. "PSSSSST!!! PAPA!!! I wrote this one just for you several posts ago buddy,"

Oops, I missed that one. I tend to get on this site after I have had one too many...

Well I respectfully retract my statement above...

Trent Greguhn

Friday 22nd January 2010 | 03:25 AM

...in response to this comment by Papa. See, that's what I love about these discussions. Both Papa and I can politley and thoughtfully withdraw our previous assumptions and apologize, especially when we were caught thinking the wrong way or mis-interpreting something.

I wish it were like this everywhere...

Trent Greguhn

Friday 22nd January 2010 | 03:28 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. Oh, and as far as testing for blood alcohol levels through your hands. Not only does that sound ridiculously expensive to pull off for ever car for me, but I dont' know if you've ever lived anywhere cold before Aries, but here in Utah in the winter, if I don't wear gloves while driving before the car heats up... well... that's a bad idea. Haha.

Otherwise, we got somethin' goin' here. I don't see anything wrong with keepin' those who are inebriated off the road. Save a lot of heart ache.

aries

Friday 22nd January 2010 | 08:24 AM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Bless you cotton pickin socks, both of you... I doubt I'll be getting any such apology or admission from you know who after her last mind numbingly stupid comment though!!! Such qualities are reserved for people with humility, compassion, respect and intellect. ;)

Maybe heated, alcohol sensing steering wheels are the way to go then??? Now we're talking ridiculously expensive huh? Still, we have put people on the moon almost 50 years ago so I find it very hard to believe that a simple solution doesn't exist.

Trent Greguhn

Friday 22nd January 2010 | 08:40 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. Haha, heated wheels! I should have thought of that.

But then again, it infinitely regresses, because I have to wait for the car to heat up to heat the steering wheel. Damn them.

aries

Friday 22nd January 2010 | 08:52 AM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Just get really drunk before you drive mate and then you won't even feel the cold, or the other car when it's bonnet goes through your spleen!!! ;P

Papa

Friday 22nd January 2010 | 08:57 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. "Maybe heated, alcohol sensing steering wheels are the way to go then??? Now we're talking ridiculously expensive huh?"

No, we're talkin 'bout style baby,

You never said anything about heated steering wheels! I am down for that...

Trent Greguhn

Friday 22nd January 2010 | 09:25 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. See, alcohol isn't so bad.

Laiste

Saturday 23rd January 2010 | 06:02 AM

I agree with Gina. The more mysterious and taboo something is the more young rebellious people want to do it. I don't think introducing more and more laws is the answer to anything because it takes away our own personal responsibilty.

Drink driving in australia is cultural. There are still way too many idiots who think they can get away with it, more laws or requirements aren't going to change that. Aries, you've likened the introduction of breatherlyser dead switches to seat belts, as in as a culture we once thought it was asking too much to make seat belts mandatory, we'll accept these too but I think there is too much that can go wrong. A seat belt won't get a bug and decide to stop the car at 100kph down a free way. I also think its a cop out to rely on technology to solve our problems. Our problem is that too many people think that they can drink and drive. Why not spend more time and effort on finding out WHY? How about we treat the cause of the problem instead of reacting more more and more stringent measures everytime theres a tragedy.

aries

Saturday 23rd January 2010 | 12:07 PM

...in response to this comment by Laiste. Because this is about way more than just brethalyzers and drink driving.

It's about (as you said) a total lack of education and awareness and it is indeed cultural which makes the task at hand even more monumental.

It's about kids obtaining licenses without passing stringent driver training. Emergency braking, night driving, wet weather driving and emergency response.

It's about immature and completely inexperienced kids both in life and their driving ability being allowed to drive any car whatsoever, regardless of how powerful it is.

In this country right now I could legally go and buy a Bugatti Veyron equipped with a W16, thats 2 x V8 motors bolted together with 4 turbo chargers developing 1,000 brake horsepower, capable of almost 400 kph and 0 - 100kpk in 3.5 seconds, THE DAY AFTER I GET MY P PLATES.

OK, this is one extreme, but do you see my point? A standard V8 commodore these days will hit 100kph in just on 5 seconds and a stock WRX in 5.1.

It's fucking ludicrous and should not be allowed... and then they get drunk and try to control them!!!

Sorry, but what we are doing now IS NOT WORKING and therefore SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!! We have a habit of sitting on our hands as a nation...

Gina Squitieri

Saturday 23rd January 2010 | 01:19 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3469/is_50_52/ai_81393561/

Aries,

Thank you for your sarcastic, ill-mannered, uneducated, childish, inept reply.

Here is but one example and comes straight from the horse's mouth. Forget statistics. Listen to what is actually being said:

U-Wire-Sitting around dorm rooms gulping liquor, playing drinking games and attending parties where the sole objective is to get wasted is a stereotype of U.S. college students.

But for many international students at Illinois' Northwestern University who are used to social drinking, such excessive abuse of alcohol seems not only immature but ridiculous.

"Drinking can be enjoyable, but college students in America go too far with it" said Iva Djuric, a speech sophomore from Belgrade. "I don't think that they know how to enjoy drinking. For them, the only point is to get wasted. Their friends make puppets out of them and throw them into the streets naked. It's disgusting."

U.S. drinking laws are contradictory because they actually promote this behavior, Djuric said.

"Instead of preventing kids from drinking, they give them a sense that by drinking they're doing something illegal," he said. "In Europe, drinking is absolutely normal. There is no need to show off and talk about it later to your friends. There is no pressure, no feeling that you are doing something wrong or illegal."

Even Northwestern University sophomore Noushad Kashem, who lived in Bangladesh and Qatar where drinking is extremely taboo, found binge drinking to be pointless.

"It doesn't give you anything," Kashem said. "You are pursuing momentary pleasures."

Thor Gudmundsson, a McCormick sophomore from Sweden, said he wasn't surprised by all the binge drinking he saw when he first came to Northwestern University. But he added that he was not aware of the existence of drinking games such as caps, where people toss beer bottle caps across a room into a cup to make their friends drink.

"I think such games are quite silly because the only point is to get drunk," Gudmundsson said. "People here drink to get drunk, but in Europe they drink because they like it."

The drinking age in all of Scandinavia is 18, but it is illegal to purchase liquor in a liquor store for those under 20, so many teenagers frequent pubs.

The drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18, Gudmundsson said, because drinking is not so serious as other privileges, like driving a car at 16 and voting and owning a gun at 18.

Djuric said that when Americans leave to go to college, they tend to lose all self-control when they are no longer under the protection of their parents. "They don't know their limits," Djuric said. "They just drink until they pass out."

Weinberg sophomore Ian Ludwig agreed, having spent 15 years before college in Taiwan, where the legal drinking age is 18. Although Ludwig said he has not seen many occurrences of binge drinking at Northwestern University, he does hear about them occasionally.

"Students should know their limits, decide beforehand how much they will drink, and stick to that," Ludwig said.

Lowering the drinking age to 18 would not have many adverse consequences, Ludwig said.

"If it was built into society, I don't think that binge drinking would happen as much," Ludwig said. "It might lessen problems because people would encounter alcohol sooner. College students would be less influenced by the sudden introduction of it into their lives." -By Nicole Drummer, Daily Northwestern, Northwestern U.

Gina Squitieri

Saturday 23rd January 2010 | 01:21 PM

Correction:

Aries,

Thank you for your contemptuous, ill-mannered, uneducated, childish, inept reply.

aries

Sunday 24th January 2010 | 03:12 AM

Yep Gina you are right as always. The sooner we get kids drinking the better. Simply fucking brilliant!!! I think I'll start my 11 year old tomorrow...

People like you should be politicians with your brilliance!!! I almost feel sorry for you.

Refer to my first comment regarding you and your post.

DavidS

Sunday 24th January 2010 | 06:39 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. I actually agree with Gina here. In countries with higher drinking ages that make alcohol our to be this wonderful taboo thing. You have to do it to be socially accepted and you're not having a good time unless you can't remember it the next morning. As a college student in America I know this to be true. Most college students I know aren't dumb enough to get behind the wheel after a night of drinking. I do know it happens though.
If you look at a country with a lower drinking age they are around alcohol all their life and it isn't this forbidden thing. I'm not saying some kid from Germany isn't going to get black out drunk; I'm saying they are less likely to and will do so infrequently.
Until reaching college I was taught all my life that drinking was bad and you should never do it. Drinking alcohol will end up with you dying and going to jail. Fear is not a deterrent. It only makes kids want to prove the people who told them this wrong. Once at college we were forced to go to a play that basically covered drinking, drugs, sex, rape, and other things were are likely yo encounter at college. None of these things, with the exception of rape, was drawn out to be a bad thing. They simply said that you are going to most likely do one or more of these things and it's fine. Just do it responsibly and don't be dumb. I've heard of less alcohol related deaths in my college of 8,000 than in my high school of 800.
So, as far as alcohol is concerned, I think there needs to be some sort of reform. Perhaps I am biased as a Twenty year old male. I can also so I don't drink however and I find drinking to get drunk to be immature. I choose not to drink. It's not a hard thing to do. Most people my age, however, don't choose to follow the same path as me. Lowering alcohol related deaths lies in better education and stricter laws.

Laiste

Sunday 24th January 2010 | 10:37 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. i do agree that young drivers should be restricted from high powered cars the same as motorbikes, as has been mentioned before. But surely thats just commonsense. However i do think driver training is far more extensive then it was even when I was on my L's and P's. There is certainly a lot more rigamarole that young drivers have to go through then I ever did. Is it worth all the training you are talking about? I don't know. Maybe for those high powered cars.

The bottom line is though that you simply can't prevent every tragedy. We can't live afraid all the time that something bad is going to happen. Yes. Take REASONABLE precautions, but beyond that its up to each and every parent to raise good responsible kids. Governments, laws and more restrictions can't do it for us. Perhaps we should also remember with kids its monkey see monkey do, so if we don't want them to drink drive and speed maybe we shouldn't do it ourselves.

aries

Sunday 24th January 2010 | 12:19 PM

...in response to this comment by Laiste. "but beyond that its up to each and every parent to raise good responsible kids"

THANK YOU!!! This was to be my very next point Laiste.

For the most part Australians and Americans employ the 'parenting by remote control' method of raising children. We have gotten lazy and irresponsible and our kids learn from us.

Good parenting will go so much further than any of the above suggestions, the problem is that most people don't know what it is any more.

Good parenting negates all the ridiculous arguments about letting kids drink earlier. That solution the easy way out, nothing short of a cop out for lazy parents and no matter how much you argue it there is still the issue of how dangerous alcohol is to a developing body and brain.

Education is paramount. My parents, both school teachers, educated us 3 kids about drugs and alcohol from an early age. However they DID NOT allow us to consume alcohol or use drugs!!! They raised us properly, gave us lots of love, education and information and trusted us to make smart choices for ourselves. As a result none of us are drinkers or drug users nor have we ever been.

I'm sorry but I can never in good conscience agree with the 'let them drink sooner' argument, it's just plain lazy and stupid.

Maybe in America they should start kids on gun ranges in grade school too, then maybe the crazy fuckers will stop shooting the shit out of each other, although in some situations maybe that is not a bad thing!!!

Laiste

Sunday 24th January 2010 | 12:44 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. Look I can see where you are coming from with your views on letting kids consume alcohol too young. But have a think about it for a second. Cultures that allow young people alcohol aren't about letting kids get drunk. Its about allowing them to appreciate the taste of the wine with their meal because it enhances the meal itself. Its NOT about getting out of it. Western culture (especially Australia and America) is way to much about getting drunk, not about enjoying the drink itself. Thats the cultural aspect that needs to change. The more forbidden alcohol is the more it becomes that rebellious taboo thing that both Gina and DavidS have talked about.

Parental responsibilty means to me letting my kid know what beer tastes like by letting her stick her finger in mine and taste it rather then not knowing that she's hiding around the corner with three other kids and a stolen bottle of beer giggling their heads off because they are doing something naughty. I think that if kids are legally old enough to consent to sex, then they are legally old enough to drink alcohol. Yes, drinking to excess is bad, but its bad for adults too. However theres also no easy solutions to situations like this when it is a cultural thing. These things take time and generations to change, laws, restrictions etc aren't going to change the louts from being louts, no matter what their age.

Gina Squitieri

Sunday 24th January 2010 | 02:33 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. One exclamation point would have been sufficient.

aries

Sunday 24th January 2010 | 02:49 PM

...in response to this comment by Laiste. "Yes, drinking to excess is bad, but its bad for adults too. However theres also no easy solutions to situations like this when it is a cultural thing. These things take time and generations to change, laws, restrictions etc aren't going to change the louts from being louts, no matter what their age."

My point exactly Laiste. My daughter has tasted beer and wine etc without ever taking a mouthful. Yes it is cultural, so no, lowering the legal drinking age here would only mean we have a bunch of rowdy brain damaged 14 year olds running around instead of 18 year olds.

It ALL comes back to responsible parenting. Lowering drinking ages will only make things worse in Australia and America.

Once again I will say, good responsible parenting which includes love, teaching kids self respect, respect for the law and their elders plus proper education on alcohol and drugs will do way more than any laws or restrictions.

However, as you correctly stated, these changes take generations to turn around, so in the mean time we have to do something else because just waiting for lazy irresponsible parents to magically get a clue and start parenting isn't working is it?

Is it?

Laiste

Sunday 24th January 2010 | 03:25 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. How on earth can anyone define responsible parenting??? I've brought this question up time and again and there simply isn't any easy answers. Your defintion of responsibile parenting is different to mine and different from the couple down the street. In fact you'll probably find as many definitions of responsible parenting as there are parents. Theres a whole section at bookshops devoted to just that!

I don't know about you but I don't want someone else telling me how to parent. I have a good kid which proves to me I'm doing something right, though, in all fairness ask me that question again when she's sixteen or eighteen or twenty one. Yes, it is a question of "in the meantime" and "what about the drop kicks". But if you wouldn't want someone telling you how to parent then surely there's a limit to how we can FORCE other people to parent?

Here's the bottomline, aries. No matter how many laws or how much education there will always be some people who are losers and drop kicks who let their kids (or themselves) drink drive and speed. Nothing we can do will prevent that. Luckily it really isn't as common as it could be. Hopefully tragedies, like the one that prompted this article and discussion, can be kept to a minimum with our current laws and police force and cultural disapproval of idiocy and drink driving.

aries

Sunday 24th January 2010 | 03:45 PM

...in response to this comment by Laiste. Laiste, how can you honestly just close your eyes and hope? The whole point of this article is driven by the fact that what we are currently doing is NOT working. It's NOT.

No one is trying to wave a magic wand and prevent EVERY death, but what we are doing currently is not enough and you and I both know that left unchecked it is only going to get worse.

We have been over this in this post over and over. Yes it is unrealistic to think we are going to stop every death and that kids are going to stop being kids and parents are going to start parenting responsibly, and yes there is no moral or ethical absolutes that define what exactly 'responsible parenting' is because it is called COMMON SENSE, or as I now like to call it UNCOMMON SENSE because it is becoming rarer by the day.

It's not rocket science... if you don't have a gun you can't shoot anyone!

DavidS

Monday 25th January 2010 | 11:49 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. I have been handling and shooting firearms from the age of 12. I went to through gun safety at 12. I think every kid should have to go through gun safety even though a lot of people will never handle a gun.
I think laws, at least here in my state are doing wonders for alcohol related deaths. We, Minnesota, are one of the strictest states in America about drunk driving. In fact we have seen a dramatic decrease over the years. In 2008 we saw 161 alcohol related traffic deaths. To compare in 1984 there were 332. I still don't think it's enough but it is a step in the right direction.
Lowering the drinking age takes the crime out of under age drinking. I am lucky enough to have parents and friends that I can call and say "I'm drunk. Can you give me a ride home." Some people don't have that. Most kids who drink underage are so afraid of being caught they will make the bad choice of driving home. Now if a 21 year old decides to drink here he can take one of the sober cabs they offer or go to the police station and ask for a ride home.
Underage drinking is popular because it is so risky and taboo. It is so dangerous for this same reason.

Mini Mel

Wednesday 27th January 2010 | 03:09 PM

for me, the main problem is the parents teaching the kids how to drive.. they are teaching their offspring the in-correct way to drive in traffic and all their bad driving habits.. i've nearly been wiped off the road on more than on occasion by an L plater with dad or mum in the car.

kids need to be taught the correct way to drive and respect the road, its rules and other cars and ppl around them. the topic has already been touched on, but they also should have mandatory defensive driving classes and learn more about the car they are driving.. from changing a tyre to checking the air pressure in the tyres, the oil and water.. filling up the chamber for the windscreen wipers etc.

but utmost, they should be taken to see what actually happens when you drink, drive and speed. they should see first hand what this deadly mix does to the human body and cars first hand.. not a pretty picture, or an ad thats on the tele. but real people. even if they see the dead in the morgue. its about time the youth woke up and realised they are not above the laws of nature (or police laws) and know what happens to ones body when its obliterated against a lamp-pole.

aries

Wednesday 27th January 2010 | 05:45 PM

...in response to this comment by Mini Mel. YES YES!!! Nothing kicks you in the guts and slaps you in the face like an afternoon trip to the ICU or the trauma ward of your local hospital...

And get this Mel, I drove past a learner driver the other day in the car with her Mum, mobile phone on her shoulder and a cigarette in the other hand!!! WTF???

No wonder Kids can't drive to save themselves any more. Good points Ma'am... :)

TVBIZ(BOB)

Saturday 6th February 2010 | 06:54 PM

I'll say it again people - it all comes down to attitude and mental ability!
For some unknown reason if the Government creates a road or driving law drivers will just choose to ignore it.
An example - they made a law recently about P plate drives having to display their P's clearly on the vehicles. Since that law came out I have seen most P plates hidden behind the number plates, upside down etc; etc. It is just absolute blatant arrogance, disrespect and stupidity. By the way it’s not just the young P drivers but the more mature drivers are having this anti law attitude too.

I can honestly say that the Police are at fault as well. It’s too much paper work involved to pull over a driver for such a minor offense. It truly creates a feeling of “I really don't give a shit" by the Police so you can see why it is truly getting out of hand.
One last thing - Aeroplane Pilots are not allowed to have any alcohol 24 hours before a flight so why a similar law can’t be made for motor vehicle drivers?
What's that? Oh you drive every day? Well don't drink anything then!
If you drive you simply don’t drink. You want to drink then catch a bus or train!

It’s really not rocket science people!!!