CASE 2— ‘Shattering affront’

Press, 13 June 1978, Page 17

CASE 2— ‘Shattering affront’

For a 51-year-old professional man, the experience of being stopped at 3 a.m. and being asked to take a breathalyser test was a shattering affront. It was not that he considered he had done anything wrong. . . He and his wife had been out to dinner with another couple, and had gone later to their friends’ home for drinks. “It was hardly a wild evening. On the way home I bent down for a packet of cigarettes and the car meandered over the white line.” he recalls. He maintains he was not a bad case, had not had much to drink, and should perhaps have merely been asked to be careful and sent on his way.

“I always drive carefully. I don’t do silly things and I have respect for the job traffic officers are trying to do,” he says. But this officer was “out for a conviction.” The man refused to allow a bloon test to be taken at the police station because he said he did not see why ne snould submit to “such an assault on my person.” A friend who had agreed to a blood sample being taken had lost the use of a hand for two weeks. He simply could not afford this to happen to him. The law, he says, does not seem right when he was assumed to be guilty until proved innocent.

Charged with refusing a blood test, the man was fined $250 and his licence was suspended for six months. He has no argument with the process of law, saying that the penalty was as moderate as he could have hoped for, and that he was treated fairly by the court. The fine “did not break me” and conditions were imposed for partial use of his licence. Rather than feeling guilty, this man looks on the episode as an affront. He found being ordered to the police station where he was walked past the cells a profound shock. Although he drinks every day, he describes

himself as a moderate drinker and a responsible citizen. He considers that traffic officers should take cognisance “of what sort of fellow you are.” “The whole thing left a bitter taste in my mouth, especially when all sorts of people do crazy things on the roads. The traffic officers don’t chase bikies when they go speeding around the place breaking the law — they’re afraid of being beaten up.” There is a contradiction inherent in this man’s attitude to which he freely admits. While he says that people of his age should be allowed to go their way, provided they are acting responsibly, he agrees that there cannot

be two laws — one for young people and another for an older age group. But he considers that motorists are a heavily penalised section of the community, particularly when viewed against other law-breakers, such as burglars. And although he concedes that medical science deems a person unfit to drive if the blood alcohol level is above the legal limit of 100 mgm, he denies that he would have driven so badly on the night he was stopped as to have hurt anyone. But he agrees that a conviction does mean the driver is more careful when driving his car after drinking. He also agrees that the

drinking-driving problem in this country is of major proportions. But he does not accept random testing near hotels and taverns. “That is a bit too much like a Gestapo state. And it is not going to prevent people from drinking and driving.”

He believes that much of the present problem stems from irresponsible behaviour as a result of too much drinking. Given existing social patterns, he seems to see personal responsibility as the main answer — if you have had too much to drink, you should not drive home; if you do, then you run a risk. And this is a risk thousands of people take every day.