2 cyclists from Lenasia knocked down by a drunk driver on R82 Walkerville. Both cyclists declared dead.

[Bro Derek]

I disagree 

Hundreds of taxies, cars and illegal vehicles were impounded over the last 8 weeks. 
 

Taxis are being policed at the moment. The implementation of smart cameras and license recognition is going to be huge.

It isn't 'targeted soft crime'. It is crime. It just affects you, so you're against being caught.

You don't rob houses, or rape or murder, but you drive drunk/above the limit and speed. Which is a crime which can be policed relatively safely.

There is also much bigger implementation of bike patrol units who do stop motorists mid act. They just can't be everywhere at once and dumb things are done on our roads every few seconds and they each take a few seconds. So if the patrolman in driving 1km away he misses it. 
 

Also, it is all strawman stuff. 

0% means you cannot justify any sort of drinking and driving. No excuses and no mishaps. If you drink, you don't drive.
In theory it will help to break the terrible cycle of justification in our culture which is evident in the comments here. 

Drugs and heavy machinery don't mix

You're just lying to yourself if you think booze and cars aren't that

Edited February 3 by Bro Derek

[DieselnDust]

3 hours ago, Robbie Stewart said:

So now the onus would be on the accused to prove that the result of the test was due to test kit precision variances. In the mean time, you have a cloud over your head, and also a weekend in police custody to deal with.

Or just don’t drink at all. Problem is I like my tumbler of 20yr old just before bed. 
Old man’s sleeping pill 

[Headshot]

1 hour ago, droo said:

Most traffic law enforcement in SA is revenue- and convenience-driven. Lots of speed traps, near zero enforcement of moving violations.

Much easier to sit under a tree with a radar gun to catch someone going 10km/h over the limit than to stop someone from doing a U turn across traffic over a solid line or driving like a muppet.

Like Shebeen said, 2am and 5am roadblocks would do a much better job of catching drunk drivers than what they're doing (and shouting about loudly from the rooftops) now.

I regularly see i.e a few times a week - people being pulled over by traffic enforcement in the area of the N1/M5 I frequent on my commute. Its usually unmarked Ghost Squad cops doing their thing but there are numerous marked traffic cop cars in the area as well. 

[NotSoBigBen]

Coming back to this topic I sincerely hope the necessary evidence needed for a drink driving offence has been collected ... I mean according to reports all 5 occupants of the Polo were taken to hospital, surely a blood sample could have been taken at the same time?

Let's see how the investigation/prosecution goes 

[DieselnDust]

7 minutes ago, NotSoBigBen said:

Coming back to this topic I sincerely hope the necessary evidence needed for a drink driving offence has been collected ... I mean according to reports all 5 occupants of the Polo were taken to hospital, surely a blood sample could have been taken at the same time?

Let's see how the investigation/prosecution goes 

I hope consent isn’t required because that’s then the easiest escape of prosecution 

[droo]

6 minutes ago, Headshot said:

I regularly see i.e a few times a week - people being pulled over by traffic enforcement in the area of the N1/M5 I frequent on my commute. Its usually unmarked Ghost Squad cops doing their thing but there are numerous marked traffic cop cars in the area as well. 

This is good to hear - the number of marked traffic "enforcement" vehicles I see in my reasonably minimal amount of driving ignoring blatant violations is nearly 100%. Jumping lights, blocking intersections, driving on the wrong side of the road etc... the only things I see enforced are the odd parking violation and a whole lot of speed traps.

[Duane_Bosch]

RIP to the riders who have lost their lives.

 

Slightly off topic. In my family when we go out for dinner the standing agreement is the payer (usually me) gets to have a few beers.

Use it, Don't use it.

Edited February 3 by Duane_Bosch

[DieselnDust]

2 hours ago, Robbie Stewart said:

And now I'm going to chuck the cat among the pigeons. Pretty much every cycling event I have participated in has a beer garden for the finishers. How often does it happen that you reach the finish, and end up swilling a couple, or more, of the on-tap of choice, before making your way to the car for the drive home?

This is more of a cultural change than we are likely willing to admit.

or club rides that end at a pub or beer garden or restaurant. I can assure you that all those cyclists leave there over the legal alcohol limit but claim they're "ok".

Yet, reaction time and judgement is impeded.

"O" is attainable but for the general public its unconscionable...

 

[Robbie Stewart]

2 hours ago, droo said:

Like Shebeen said, 2am and 5am roadblocks would do a much better job of catching drunk drivers than what they're doing (and shouting about loudly from the rooftops) now.

Can you imagine the hefty fines that would generate, because those officers would probably be paid overtime which has to be covered in the revenue stream.

In saying that, I can't say I would oppose such a move. If you want to get sh1tfaced and drive around at stupid o'clock, then you deserve what's coming your way.

[ChrisF]

12 minutes ago, Robbie Stewart said:

Can you imagine the hefty fines that would generate, because those officers would probably be paid overtime which has to be covered in the revenue stream.

In saying that, I can't say I would oppose such a move. If you want to get sh1tfaced and drive around at stupid o'clock, then you deserve what's coming your way.

 

Wonder what the stats say ?

 

Accidents plotted from 0 to 24.00 hour each day .... any particular high spots ?

 

Similar for accidents with severe injuries and/or loss of life ?

 

Third graph .... levels of alcohol measured per time of day at accident scenes .... non-tests to be removed to ensure a better representation.

 

 

IF .... IF traffic law enforcement is about SAFETY .... heck, then you KNOW what time of the day to apply your testing and roadblocks, etc ....  just dumbluck that the revenue from fines will be "optimal", until new habbits patterns are enforced

 

 

Really not rocket science .... least amount research and planning .... then targetted enforcement.

 

 

And such an approach CAN be "blind" ... the search is for bad spots, bad times .... bad vehicles can be the very last data, even better if withheld.

 

 

2023 I came from MTB race ... my bike inside Ertiga, aka Uber look alike .... coming through Wellington I approached roadblock ... most waived through, but my Uber looking wagon gets pulled over ... lisence ready, windy open .... officer gets to my window and looks in ..... start smiling ....

 

Sorry sir, we thought you were a taxi ..... NOBODY likes being targetted !!

 

 

Real targetted toadblocks needs more neutral and factual base .....

[Shebeen]

25 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

or club rides that end at a pub or beer garden or restaurant. I can assure you that all those cyclists leave there over the legal alcohol limit but claim they're "ok".

Yet, reaction time and judgement is impeded.

"O" is attainable but for the general public its unconscionable...

 

 

2 hours ago, Bro Derek said:

0% means you cannot justify any sort of drinking and driving. No excuses and no mishaps. If you drink, you don't drive.
In theory it will help to break the terrible cycle of justification in our culture which is evident in the comments here. 

Drugs and heavy machinery don't mix

You're just lying to yourself if you think booze and cars aren't that

Ja, I like to end a ride/run with a carbohydrate recovery drink. I can't have nice things now?* 

This is probably the wrong thread to have a 0.05 vs 0.00 debate, as the driver of this vehicle was most likely well above both, but here we are so here goes with a hopefully useful analogy.

South Africa had a huge problem with perlemoen poaching. It was blindingly obvious that the stocks were being decimated by syndicates that were multilayered from the actual divers all the way to shipping/export. Eventually in 2008 they went thermonuclear and banned all recreational collecting, with only the highly controlled commercial quotas allowed. This zero tolerance approach meant it would be easy to catch offenders and the whole cycle would be stopped.

18 years of "zero tolerance" later it has only got worse. The syndicates are still wreaking havoc, and the law abiding recreational guys who were a fraction of the total catch have been shut out.

 

if we're only catching a fraction of the +0,15 guys now, how will they get stopped with the masses of 0-0,05 guys also being processed.

how will this be different?

 

 

*If you're of the view that drivers should not have had a drink in the 6 hours before they drive then we will never agree on this one.

[DieselnDust]

1 hour ago, Shebeen said:

 

Ja, I like to end a ride/run with a carbohydrate recovery drink. I can't have nice things now?* 

This is probably the wrong thread to have a 0.05 vs 0.00 debate, as the driver of this vehicle was most likely well above both, but here we are so here goes with a hopefully useful analogy.

South Africa had a huge problem with perlemoen poaching. It was blindingly obvious that the stocks were being decimated by syndicates that were multilayered from the actual divers all the way to shipping/export. Eventually in 2008 they went thermonuclear and banned all recreational collecting, with only the highly controlled commercial quotas allowed. This zero tolerance approach meant it would be easy to catch offenders and the whole cycle would be stopped.

18 years of "zero tolerance" later it has only got worse. The syndicates are still wreaking havoc, and the law abiding recreational guys who were a fraction of the total catch have been shut out.

 

if we're only catching a fraction of the +0,15 guys now, how will they get stopped with the masses of 0-0,05 guys also being processed.

how will this be different?

 

 

*If you're of the view that drivers should not have had a drink in the 6 hours before they drive then we will never agree on this one.

That’s why i‘M saying 0,0mg is never going to work unless people actually stop driving or drinking. Either is a choice but it’s going to be a long hard journey as we have a very low compliance culture in SA.

[ChrisF]

17 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

That’s why i‘M saying 0,0mg is never going to work unless people actually stop driving or drinking. Either is a choice but it’s going to be a long hard journey as we have a very low compliance culture in SA.

 

The level is of lesser importance - YES, I am favour of a near zero figure.

 

The real issue is policing it..... especially after accident .... until there are REAL concequences for drink driving there is zero incentive to stop !!  Even then, many will continue until the penalty far outways the alternatives ...

[Shebeen]

20 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

That’s why i‘M saying 0,0mg is never going to work unless people actually stop driving or drinking. Either is a choice but it’s going to be a long hard journey as we have a very low compliance culture in SA.

even 0.02g/100ml is not going to do anything. it only targets the people who are currently "under the limit". We have history on this as the limit has been lowered twice before. Doing the same thing over again and expecting different results  is insanity...Einstein had a theory on that (well he didn't but, let's not get facts arrive at the station).

 

We can all agree that speed limits are also widely ignored in this country, and responsible for accidents and deaths*.

We could lower them to 40km/h on the municipal roads and 80km/h on the freeway, not going to change anything unless it is widely adopted as a society - in reality that's never gonna happen.

 

*(I'm sure you could even find plenty of the keep left/pass right chops here who think they have a law allows them to drive as fast as they want).

[mrmed]

This is murder, plain and simple. Until these drivers are tried and convicted as such, other road users including cyclists and pedestrians are just cannon fodder for 1 ton + missiles.

[johnctaylor1]

Condolences to the families and friends of all the cyclists who were tragically killed last week.

Since the weekend, I have been thinking about the tragic loss of our fellow cyclists and the devastating impact on their families and friends. It raises an urgent question: what rights do we, as members of the public, have when it comes to an alleged drunk driver involved in such accidents? Too often, we hear stories of “no evidence” against those responsible, and it’s heartbreaking to think that justice might not be served.

If an accident is caused by someone suspected of being under the influence of alcohol, what can we do to ensure that the necessary blood samples are collected to prove it? I understand that this is primarily the responsibility of the police and traffic authorities, but sadly, there are many cases where this step seems to be overlooked.

I know there are lawyers and legal experts in our community, and I would appreciate guidance on these points:

1. Can a member of the public insist that a treating paramedic take a blood sample?

2. Can a member of the public follow the perpetrator to the hospital and insist that a blood sample is taken?

3. Can a member of the public call a doctor to the scene to take a blood sample?

4. Is a video showing an obviously drunk person admissible as evidence?

This isn’t just a legal question; it’s about accountability and ensuring that families affected by such tragedies see justice. Any advice or insight would be appreciated