Breathalyser buster cyclist brings police warning

[Mike]

Quokka wrote:

>> Thank the Gods that doesn't apply in W.A., where its a small
>> fine for cycling under influence, but no set blood-alcohol limit.

Seems to apply to other states too, from other posts.

> Is that true? Anyone want to provide a reference to a law?

I earlier posted:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=bikes+alcohol+W.A.&[email protected]

- Road Traffic Code, 2002, sec 229(a):
"shall not ride a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol ... to
such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the
bicycle." Penalty: 2 units. ($100?) No demerits.

For a motor vehicle, DUI (same wording) is assumed if blood alcohol
is over 0.15, but that doesn't apply to cyclists.

- The Road Traffic Act only sets limits for motorists.


> Not that I ever ride drunk... but I would like to know.

There is a big gap between "over 0.05" and "drunk".

> Paul

 

[Brett]

Mike wrote:

> Quokka wrote:
>
>>> Thank the Gods that doesn't apply in W.A., where its a small
>>> fine for cycling under influence, but no set blood-alcohol limit.
>
>
> Seems to apply to other states too, from other posts.
>
>> Is that true? Anyone want to provide a reference to a law?
>
>
> I earlier posted:
> http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=bikes+alcohol+W.A.&[email protected]
>
>
> - Road Traffic Code, 2002, sec 229(a):
> "shall not ride a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol ... to
> such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the
> bicycle." Penalty: 2 units. ($100?) No demerits.
>
> For a motor vehicle, DUI (same wording) is assumed if blood alcohol
> is over 0.15, but that doesn't apply to cyclists.
>
> - The Road Traffic Act only sets limits for motorists.
>

Thanks for the clarification...

Explains why everything in it referred to Motor Vehicle...

--
Brett

 

[Brett]

Mike wrote:

> Quokka wrote:
>
>>> Thank the Gods that doesn't apply in W.A., where its a small
>>> fine for cycling under influence, but no set blood-alcohol limit.
>
>
> Seems to apply to other states too, from other posts.
>
>> Is that true? Anyone want to provide a reference to a law?
>
>
> I earlier posted:
> http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=bikes+alcohol+W.A.&[email protected]
>
>
> - Road Traffic Code, 2002, sec 229(a):
> "shall not ride a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol ... to
> such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the
> bicycle." Penalty: 2 units. ($100?) No demerits.
>
> For a motor vehicle, DUI (same wording) is assumed if blood alcohol
> is over 0.15, but that doesn't apply to cyclists.
>
> - The Road Traffic Act only sets limits for motorists.
>

Thanks for the clarification...

Explains why everything in it referred to Motor Vehicle...

--
Brett

 

[Peter McCallum]

Terry Collins <[email protected]> wrote:

> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1333936.htm
>
> Okay, who rattled their cage?

I'd like to post a warning to anyone who thinks that they now have a
licence to drink and ride as a result of reading the posts in this
thread.

If you are injured in an accident when your blood alcohol concentration
exceeds the legal limit for motorists, you may find that the insurance
company of the at fault driver tries to use this information against you
in court. You may find that a blood sample is taken from you while in
hospital without your knowledge or consent (for example if you are
unconscious).

So, while you may not have transgressed any law, the barrister for the
defence will try to portray you as irresponsible and contributing to
your injuries either partially or fully as a result of your
intoxication. It would be the job of your legal team to argue that you
were being responsible while way over the "limit". Some judges/juries
may not look favourably on you in this situation.

Peter


--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

 

[Peter McCallum]

Terry Collins <[email protected]> wrote:

> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1333936.htm
>
> Okay, who rattled their cage?

I'd like to post a warning to anyone who thinks that they now have a
licence to drink and ride as a result of reading the posts in this
thread.

If you are injured in an accident when your blood alcohol concentration
exceeds the legal limit for motorists, you may find that the insurance
company of the at fault driver tries to use this information against you
in court. You may find that a blood sample is taken from you while in
hospital without your knowledge or consent (for example if you are
unconscious).

So, while you may not have transgressed any law, the barrister for the
defence will try to portray you as irresponsible and contributing to
your injuries either partially or fully as a result of your
intoxication. It would be the job of your legal team to argue that you
were being responsible while way over the "limit". Some judges/juries
may not look favourably on you in this situation.

Peter


--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

 

[Terry Collins]

Peter McCallum wrote:

> Some judges/juries may not look favourably on you in this situation.

Frankly, if this is for compo, you are wasting your time in NSW.

I know NSW has a charge of "drunk in charge of a bicycle". I am
wondering how many other states still have it, but it has slipped below
the radar.

 

[Terry Collins]

Peter McCallum wrote:

> Some judges/juries may not look favourably on you in this situation.

Frankly, if this is for compo, you are wasting your time in NSW.

I know NSW has a charge of "drunk in charge of a bicycle". I am
wondering how many other states still have it, but it has slipped below
the radar.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Mike wrote:

> There is a big gap between "over 0.05" and "drunk".

Yeah, 0.03. 0.08 is legally drunk. Any other description of drunk is
irrelevant.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Mike wrote:

> There is a big gap between "over 0.05" and "drunk".

Yeah, 0.03. 0.08 is legally drunk. Any other description of drunk is
irrelevant.

Theo

 

[Terry Collins]

Marty wrote:
>
> Brett wrote:
> > Marty wrote:

> >> I know someone who was done for driving a ride on lawn mower whilst
> >> drunk. If I remember correctly he not only got done for driving under
> >> the influence but driving an unlicensed vehicle without lights. (It
> >> was down the main street at night.)
> >>
> > Yeah, well that's just asking for it...
> >
>
> Well it WAS his birthday!

No excuse. He should have been using the back alleys and pathways to
play hide & seek with the fuzz. That is far more interesting as you hide
behind the restaurant rubbish bin as the fuzz search light along the
alleyway, then go roaring off to another hiding spot.