Pixies Place Forums - Australian ~ World first

Pixies Place Forums (http://www.pixies-place.com/forums/index.php)

- General Chat (http://www.pixies-place.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - Australian ~ World first (http://www.pixies-place.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23100)

Errrr how could ya know, if ya thought it was illegal? :confused:

Okay, so the bill says that suspect drivers will be videorecorded and then tested if it seems they are impaired, yet the article says the testing is random? Did I miss something? Is the random testing in support of the existing law forbidding "driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug"?

And while I'm on that subject, is it not patently ridiculous to have a law against "driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug", and an additional law forbidding "driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug"? How difficult would it be to make this one law?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharni

Errrr how could ya know, if ya thought it was illegal? :confused:

How could I know that driving under the influence was illegal, if I thought it was illegal? :confused:

Wether it is 2 laws or 1 is irrelevant really....there are many laws like that pertaining to other crimes...so thats seems pretty normal to me

Yep...as in random testing....like hmmm lets pull over that car...hmmmmm he seems a little odd...i think we should do a drug test on him....
I mean if the car driver is behaving in a suspicious manner it would be pretty obvious that something is going on....a test for influencial properties would seem prudent would it not
When your pulled over for a breath test for alcohol...it would seem you will be tested for drugs as well

It has always been illegal to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of either drugs or alcohol....and if ya read the bill anyone suspected of doing either was put to test...blood/urine

Now they just have a speedier way of testing

A note on 'over the counter' or 'prescription' drugs

All that knowingly affect your ability to operate machinary say so on the packet....i dont know about anyone else but i always ask the chemist or my doctor if what they are perscribing will affect my abilty to operate a vehicle (of course telling them if i am on any other medication incase a reaction between the medication i'm already on and the newer one could cause drowsiness)

If you read the pack properly and ask questions then driving whilst using any influencial drug like that should not happen

So testing for it should not be a big problem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharni

Whether or not it's 1 or 2 laws is quite relevant, firstly because each corresponding offence has its own setencing guidelines, secondly because it has implications for the sentencing of future crimes (especially where mandatory sentencing applies) and the accused's future in general - more offenses = more charges even if the accused is found innocent in the end.

What you've described is not random testing. Random testing is where the driver is pulled over for no particular reason, as close as possible/practical to a mental "roll of the dice" on the officer's part. I have no problem with random testing (even though "random testing" tends to play into prejudices) nor with testing drivers who show visible signs of having taken influential substances, I just found it odd that the article referred to random testing when the bill calls for the exact opposite.

Prescription drugs pose no problem if we trust those taking them not to drive if the drug can impair driving. What's to say people won't say "Bugger it, I'll be right", and then cause an accident?

1 or 2 laws to me is irrelevant

While i'm not a police officer so i dont know for sure....they may look at a young persons hotted up car and decide to pull it over...to me thats random and i know for certain thats happend....what else could it have been that caused them to pull me over?...all my lights were working, indicators were used....they told me it was for a licence check...but blow in this while you're here :rolleyes:

Breath testing stations are still called random testing...so that is where the police maybe calling it random and the bill is not...i dont know

Did you go to the link on the bill or just read the part i posted? Go to the link and read page 2 it covers perscription drugs...i hadnt read it myself...and managed to get it pretty right actually *LOL*

I am not a lawyer or in anyway have a great deal of legal knowledge...i am only going on what i have read and some common sense

What i have written here are what i believe in...take it or leave it

For me this new testing is excellent...the hows and whys really dont interest me....but the technology does...and hope it soon hits my State