UPDATE: Mike Cockburn has responded in comments, and in answer to his question, yes, the Prick does support “INFINITY” as the legal limit for pedestrians. It’s only when one starts causing trouble that we have a problem, and there are already plenty of laws to handle that. Several readers have tipped this site off to the fact that Cockburn is a crank of long-standing, having pushed this campaign at least as far back as 2010 when he ran in the Victorian state election and won a grand total of 216 votes. Better luck next time, champ.
* * *
Anyone who’s lived in Australia knows that, contrary to the country’s overseas reputation, ours is one of the most highly-regulated democracies on Earth, a place where three whole layers of government conspire to boss a scant 22 million people around and generally ensure no one is having too good a time. And if Victorian man Mike Cockburn has his way, things are about to get a whole lot worse:
A WORRIED Melbourne parent believes the city has become so violent at night he has begun campaigning to ban “drink-walking”.
Father-of-three Mike Cockburn last week launched a website calling for the introduction of laws making it illegal to walk the city streets with a blood alcohol content above .08 per cent…
If the ambitious campaign is successful, police would use breathalysers to detect pedestrians over the limit.
The “drink-walkers” would be fined or locked up, depending on their level of impairment, Mr Cockburn said.
Cockburn even has a website with a semi-catchy name, Pedestrian08, which “exists to promote the rapid adoption of scientifically based, maximum blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for those other road users – Pedestrians.”
The scary thing is that this is exactly the sort of knee-jerk campaign that could catch on. Ever since the one-punch death of Thomas Kelly in Kings Cross, whose alleged killer the police have not claimed was affected by alcohol in any way, the great and the good have feasted on the tragedy to figure out new ways to impose order when the old ones – heavy police presence and charging people for violence and affray – tend to work whenever and wherever they are tried in earnest, as anyone who’s been to New York City can tell you. But that’s not good enough for some people: amazingly, soon after Kelly’s death, I listened to an ABC radio broadcast discussion in which Richard Neville, who once went down on an obscenity rap thanks to his involvement with the satirical magazine Oz, agreed with a similar anti-drunk walking proposal, with no hint of irony or embarrassment.
And if Cockburn’s proposal did catch on? Given that .08 is, for many people, barely impaired – and in fact the legal limit in many US states – it would give the cops a broad new power to stop just about anyone they wanted on a Saturday night. Almost surely an informal quota system would develop – “how many drunks did you bag tonight, Constable?”, desk sergeants around town would ask at the end of a shift – and as in airport security, the people who are least likely to give any guff will be the ones who have to put up with this sobriety theatre. Meanwhile those who are acting like real jerks, or worse, would continue to be considered too much trouble, their crimes hopefully caught on CCTV cameras to be picked over and analysed, perhaps, at some later date.
Prick With A Fork 
I know a simple way around that law, and used it more times than I care to admit to when I was young and silly.
Find somewhere nice and soft and dry. Lie down. Go to sleep.
Garden beds in council parks are not too bad. So long as they aren’t full of rose bushes.
And then there’ll be a campaign against drunk sleeping…….in case someone wakes up under a rose bush with a hangover and cuts themselves as they get up.
Oh boy, what a nutcase! He’s clearly got a very bad dose of religion, or something. His behaviour is not consistent with a well adjusted member of society.
What an asinine comment. Do you then think theft and murder should be allowed, because these are not allowed under the ‘religious’ 10 commandments?
Crikey, I’ve got a live one here! I’m of the belief that making it illegal to be in public with a blood alcohol content above 0.08 is the stuff of cranks & crazies, Jan says therefore I am in favour of theft & murder….
I’ll be kind to your mental state Jan, & diplomatically suggest you are drawing a VERY long bow with that one!
Oh shutup Jan, you reactionary twit. People like you always bring the tone down by absurdly and childishly seeing everything as black white and literal. Your as bad as Cockburn himself.
Jan, the problem with articles like this is that it brings out a particular type of male mental masturbator, namely, the type who believe that ridiculing people who support social order elevates them to the status of ‘socially successful cool partying dudes’. It is just another example of primitive, lower class, hormone driven male behaviour designed to create the illusion that the person expressing the opinions possesses socially desirable qualities. It is part of the ritual for attracting mates. Pathetic isn’t it? But that is the nature of the species.
To get back on topic, in a civil society people should not have to tolerate drunks weaving all over the footpath, vomiting everywhere and engaging in loud, anti-social behaviour. No! If you are reaching for your keyboard to type ‘but there are laws against that’, don’t bother. Why? Firstly, there is the matter of apprehended violence. Do people have to wait until they are a victim of random violence before they can expect the police to intervene? Secondly, the police can’t assign a squad to follow every drunk along the street to wait until they break a particular law. If being drunk in a public place were an offence, it would very quickly put an end to the culture of heavy drinking and violence that has ruined our public places. But, of course, it will never happen thanks to the money the alcohol industry throws at political parties. The odd random bashing death or person killed by a drunk driver is the price the public pays so that a handful of people can make an easy buck out of people who are stupid enough to waste their time and money getting drunk. In southern Europe people will spend a night out and sit on just one drink. They spend their time socialising rather than writing themselves off. When people get blotto they do so to try to conceal their social insecurity. After all, being a write-off is a good way to avoid having to acknowledge to yourself that you failed to attract someone from the opposite sex. Both men and women do it.
What are you on about steve? You said that anyone that who wants to bring in some drink walking law must be crazy and have “a bad case of religion”.
My point is, being religious does not necessarily mean you are crazy and I certainly do not think that such a law should be brought in.
Drawing my bow then, if you think Christians are crazy because there are laws against being drunk then obviously the other laws (10 commandments) are stupid in your sight. You cannot pick and choose what you like, either you agree with all of them or not.
By the way, nowhere did you say that it should be illegal to be in public over 0.08 BAC, as you infer in your second post.
I apologise if you meant something completely different to what I read in your posts or were you replying to someone other than commenting on the main article?
I think he just thinks you’re over reacting.
As do I.
Not sure where to start Mr err Fork…
Maybe on a point of law. Did you know that police have powers of arbitrary arrest as the law stands now? Look up “Drunk in a public place”. This exists in Victoria right now. If a police officer deems you drunk – guess what – you are drunk. So, insofar as your concerns about police knocking up a score of “Drunk in a public place” arrests, we are already there – with no evidence needed.
You state that point 08 is barely inebriated. How would you know? Does that apply to all persons or just Forks?
If you aren’t happy with point 08, then what’s your number?
Do you support INFINITY? Which is the current legal BAC limit for a pedestrian…
How do you justify your choice.
The Pedestrian 08 Blog justifies the point 08 proposal. What have you got?
As far as the tragic and unnecessary death of Mr Kelly goes, you’ll need to go further back. Because an alcohol related one punch homicide occurs down here, once a month.
The serious assaults, causing maiming, permanent disfigurement, imprisonments etc rarely rate a mention at all in our media, but they do occur.
In fact our Deputy Police Commissioner claimed some 70% of all Vic Police Work was in some way due to alcohol. It is the biggest law and order drug problem in Victoria and, I’m sure, in most if not all of Australia.
And this figure relates to the official, nationwide number of 70% of assaults being down to alcohol. (See the blog).
So, Pedestrian 08 means, good folks like “Steve at the Pub” will have available to him a near blood test quality, BAC testing machine. He’ll have a clear definition of what “Drunk in a public place” means. He’ll probably learn a lot about the drug he is using, and I can guess he doesn’t know much about it now. He’ll put up with a bit of shock horror advertising. And about once or twice per year, he’ll have a nice police officer asking him to blow into a breathalyser. No big deal.
And what do we get in return?
That’s right: A total elimination of alcohol fueled violence from our streets. Our A & E dept’s emptied of drunks on drunk nights. A focus on the Responsible Consumption of Alcohol rather than the lame RSA regime that has paved a PR path for so many of today’s tragedies. And a lot of education about the cancers, the maimed babies, the toxic and addictive nature of a drug so often portrayed the the gullible Steve’s of the world as being a harmless bit of fun.
Can’t see what your hysteria is about Mr Fork.
Take a Bex and have a good lie down.
And what do we get in return?
“And what do we get in return?
That’s right: A total elimination of alcohol fueled violence from our streets. Our A & E dept’s emptied of drunks on drunk nights.”
GOLD. COMEDY GOLD.
All the other acts outlawed by legislation have stopped…
This is crazy-talk nanny08 but perhaps we could try “personal responsibility” /gasp. You know that thing that basically says that you can do pretty much what you want but if you mess up, eg. bash somebody or damage property, then you will face the full force of the law. Obviously this would require follow through with police, courts, etc. but this is my preferred method.
For the record, a police officer stopping me while I go about my lawful business is a big deal. Don’t fob your lack of respect for personal responsibility and freedom onto the rest of us.
Murder is illegal, too.
Domestic voilence is illegal.
Good thing we eliminated murder and domestic violence with those laws.
I’ll drink to that!
Not a deep thinker are you Daniel?
Look into the effectiveness of Point 05 and RBT.
This combination changes behaviour so there are fewer DUI. More drivers stay cleaner.
At one Grand Final in Melbourne, the whole carpark was RBT’d and they couldn’t find one over the limit! Imagine that 30 years ago!
Sorry, I asked you to imagine something…
8yroldPedestrian, we accept restrictions on driving as part of the privilege of driving. Walking around town is not a privilege.
Do try to keep up.
Walking near me is. I don’t want you erectiles tripping over us crawlers.
Actually pedestrian08 the upper limit is not infinity, it is a BAC of 99.99999etc%. Anything over that and it is just alcohol.
Btw, you realise your policy will kill off every pub in the country (prohibition is your ultumate goal isn’t it?). Won’t somebody just please think of the publicans?
Clown.
Al, having met with the murder, assault and accident victims caused by alcohol, please forgive me for not giving a toss about any business that relies on Binge Drinking to make a buck.
If a business doesn’t rely on the Binge, then I’ve no problem with them.
The Prohibition Question: Whether a cancer causing, baby maiming drug is prohibited or not means little to me. What matters is the tonnage sold, the liters consumed, the damage done That’s all I care about. Why don’t you?
Ooh, another classic of the nannyistas: “That’s all I care about. Why don’t you?” i.e. if you don’t agree with me you want people, babies included, to be murdered and maimed.
Hey pedestrian08, when you met the murder victims caused by alcohol, what did they tell you? Seriously, I want to know.
Your having met with murder victims is quite an achievement Mr.08… I’m impressed.
Steve, you love to slag off, but you have no answers. You have nothing. Nothing to offer.
And the parents and family of murder victims are victims for life.
The Binge Drinking Culture you support creates these victims.
More are being created this week, whilst politicians fail to act.
I’ve got an answer alright!
Shut up and take your religion somewhere else, like Libya, where it may be appreciated.
You’re not wanted here. (And are yet more proof not only of the irrelvancy of Victoria, but of how it is overstocked with cranks & crazies).
I usually get so in-the-bag that I am incapable of ambulatory transit.
Does that let me out of the “Pedestrian08” dragnet on a technicality?
Oh … and I have never assaulted anyone (including “maiming babies”) whilst pissed. The most annoying activity I engage in is to sing old Bruce Springsteen songs very loud and very off-key, which I might cease doing if I am in danger of being locked up with Wayne Swan on a Saturday night.
Maybe Dickhead08 could direct his campaign at namby-pamby judges and magistrates who dispense wet-lettuce justice to the minority who go off their tree and punch the living suitcase out of people for no good reason.
And here is another thought ….. Dickhead08 and his fellow travellers are fond of the term “alcohol fuelled violence” and yes, alcohol may be a factor. But how many of these thugs are also wired up on crystal meth and all manner of other substances (collectively known as ‘party drugs’) which it is just, like, so uncool to criticise.
Have these thugs been tested on the night of their offences and the full pathology released?
Might make interesting reading.
Toad, it’s hard to relate to you on must things, but I will say this: Pedestrian 08 will stop public acts of alcohol fueled violence. Certainly, it will be harder for Big Liquor to make money out of Binge Drinking. Which constitutes about 50% of their sales.
The bottom line being: Less alcohol related crimes and convictions will result in more Jail Beds being available for the remaining real crims who will get the 10/20/30 year sentences they richly deserve!
Want to put crims away for a long time? Support Pedestrian 08.
Pedestrian08 sez:
Why don’t we just outlaw public violence, and that will stop ALL public acts of violence, alcohol-fueled or not?
Oh, wait.
I do support mandatory jail time for those who use the word “less” when they mean “fewer”, though.
We could stamp out crimes against the English language within one generation if we’d just get serious about it. You know it makes sense.
“…Because an alcohol related ONE PUNCH homicide occurs down here, once a month.”
I’m beginning to think we really need to see some solid evidence of Herr Oberst Pedestrian’s claims.
Read the blog Mr Pub, evidence everywhere. Including direct quotes from Police Commissioners etc.
Rubbish….yep I think That pretty much sums up the argument.
Or perhaps assinine simplistic illogical nanny status twaddle would be suffice.
Pedestrian08, what you are actually asking for, is that bar staff be more vigilant in their enforcement of the RSA guidelines and for the police to enforce the existing drunk and disorderly laws. Further, you are asking the courts to enforce sentencing of anti-social crimes rather than allowing people to walk away almost Scot-free.
But, alas. In the times in which we live, it appears that the more anti-social your behavior, the more lenient authority is toward you. Examples… being bullied on Facebook? Close your account. Being bullied on Twitter? Close your account. Being threatened (or punched out) by someone in a road rage incident? Don’t engage……
See? Society expects the victim to be the “bigger man” and give in the bullies, be they drunk, violent or abusive. Turn your blog toward getting the authorities to enforce the laws already in place rather than trying to bring in more laws that will not be enforced to prevent the crimes already covered by laws that are already not being enforced.
Well said. So right. Use the laws we have and enforce them.
Nope, Steve, close, but you don’t get it. Alcohol Users deserve to know just how inebriated they are prior to risking their lives on the streets. There is no such thing as real RSA without the omnipresent availability of self testing, near blood test quality BAC testing machines.
We ought to be into self control and responsibility. Yet this drug works to diminish self control and your ability to estimate how much you have consumed. Few, but the rusted on morons above would dispute that.
In trials, this mis estimation can amount to the whole motorist limit: Point 05. Thus, those who thought they were about .08 find that they are .12 … So, the need for setting in place a reasonable maximum, on street, drink walking limit.
The law motivates the testing, giving less binge drinking.
Most normal civil minded citizens want this outcome.
Less pedestrian accidents, car accidents, violence and more in terms of education about this toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic and addictive recreational drug.
RSA is impractical and designed and built to fail.
And every weekend at the Cross, and St Vincent’s Hospital proves that ongoing failure.
Responsible Consumption of Alcohol via Pedestrian 08 is the game changing fix we need asap.
pedestrian08 says: “Most normal civil minded citizens want this outcome.”
Nice one, those who don’t see the world as you do are clearly not ‘normal civil minded citizens’, quite the opposite in fact, they are ‘rusted on morons’. I’m prepared to accept that ‘most normal civil minded citizens want this outcome’ based on your definition of being normal and civil minded which I suspect only includes you and a small number of equally pharisaical, misguided peddlers of misinformed, kneejerk solutions.
They do make ankle-bracelets (SCRAMx) which continually monitor the wearer’s blood alcohol content and transmit it wherever you like. Perhaps we could combine that with a taser-like device which would automatically administer an uncomfortable electrical shock whenever the citizen’s BAC goes over .08.
Mandating that every citizen (aka “future-criminal”) over the age of eight be fitted with one for life would solve most of your problems. You know it makes sense.
Sdog, you need to see a shrink.
Real soon.
Nan, it is so much more violent today than it was say 50, 100, 500, 2000, 5000 years ago isn’t it? Must be the endless laws to control us all. I say bring this in, I am uncomfortable when someone isn’t peering over my shoulder and into my private life saying “hmmmm, I don’t think I quite like what your doing, I think i’ll have top ban that!”
Mmmmmm……..Cockburn eh? They have something for that now.
No but seriously,were your ancient ancestors chicken roasters or did they just sleep around?
Funky
Oh dear, that’s gotta be offensive to someone.
*snort*
Pedestrian08; a serious question; could you ensure that occupying police resources with a priority on testing and locking up random ‘inebriated’ pedestrians would not allow more acts of violence to occur due to the finite amount of police. These acts of violence include all including those in the home, or by drunk, sober, individual and gang.
Another question; if you are a criminal for both walking and driving if inebriated, why wouldn’t you drive? I am not advocating this, but sooner or later somebody would come to this conclusion.
Bambi, some 70% of police time is somehow tied up with alcohol. Alcohol is only a problem for police when Binge / Excessive drinking is on. That’s where we are now.
BAC machines in every venue, a legal limit to adhere to, allied by a point 05 like education campaign is the greatest slice of campaign. Pedestrian RBT will underscore these efforts and would need to be done carefully.
To expand on this, in Melbourne we are getting about 900 more cops just to look after our trains. What is the biggest single cause of problems on our trains? Goon Bagging Alcohol Users of course.
In the Melbourne context, more behaviour change will occur with a lot, lot less labour than what the plan currently shows.
How many train traveling pedestrians can be RBT’d on a trip from Melbourne to Frankston? By how many cops? Why wait for the fights?
A valid argument to put to you Bambi, is that Pedestrian 08 will save police resources – not expand them.
If people are goonbagging on trains (which is illegal in itself – so why add further legislation), how are BAC machines in venues going to make any difference? If it will take 900 additional police (i will take your word for it) to control clustered behaviour (geographical location and times), how many will it take to police all ‘offenders’ in the suburbs? Your point is that is the 0.08 BAC that is the trigger right? So a person walking 100m from his mate’s place after a BBQ is in equal need of being locked up that a person walking home from a pub right?
Is it a fair parallel to state that making regulated drinking at lisensed venues more unattractive will make drinking at residences more attractive. Looking at USA college towns this appears to be the case.
Bambi, you are right.
Nothing is set in concrete in this business.
So long as Big Liquor are able to market without effective restrictions, all sorts of “promoters” will be doing whatever they can to create and reinforce a binge drinking culture.
So, what’s stopping Colleges from going Pedestrian 08?
When you think about it, major universities subscribe to Local Government enforcement of parking fines etc, no reason, I can see, why Pedestrian 08 cannot be extended to cover public places such as Colleges.
To answer your other questions.
The trains here are riddled with goon baggers going to town and coming from town later at night. They are binge drinking and doing it endangering not only themselves but those they come into contact with. For Example, I spoke with a Bus Driver who works in fear every drinking day, much like our nurses, our paramedics and police.
Pedestrian RBT for a Ped 08 limit will change behaviour.
Why BAC testing machines in all alcohol venues? To better enable self awareness of BAC levels by all alcohol users. This has helped minimise binge drinking – on its own – in certain areas.
Note too, recent media reports on binge drinking. It is now “standard” for reporters to RBT willing alcohol users in the street to prove to viewers, how bad binge drinking is.
You BAC level is how you express how pissed you are.
To communicate a level of responsible drinking, you have to give it a number.
Hence: “Responsible Drinking Ends at Point 08”.
As noted above, 0.08 is the legal limit for driving in many US states. It is also so in the UK. It is quite ridiculous to assert, therefore, that this represents the point beyond which one is likely to be a nuisance, a danger to one’s self or harmful to others. It is generally accepted in the UK that a couple of pints will take you over the limit. It is also very common in the UK for people to go to the pub and have a couple of pints at Sunday lunch time. I have often done this and then taken a steady stroll back for Sunday lunch, all in a straight line without any fisticuffs for the simple reason that I and my fellow strollers are not in the least bit drunk.
I would not support such a law under any circumstances, but by pitching it at such an absurdly low level, Cockburn demonstrates that he is a controlling little twat who seems to be more determined to harm the drinks industry that come up with proposals that he could at least argue are reasonable and would catch only those who have a high probability of harming themselves or others.
Thanks for your time Ped08, but after our discussion I cannot agree with you.
Hey pedestrian08 – go and bother some other, more totalitarian, society please.
And guess what – you just lost your own argument. If the police already have a tool to use against drunk pedestrians (no, I don’t mean you – I mean the “drunk in a public place law” you indicate exists here), then they don’t need your whole misguided campaign.
But thanks for wandering by.
Now back to the good food blogging and occassional conservative socila commentary.
I’m not sure that Prick would identify himself as conservative. Libertarian or classical liberal perhaps.
Good point
I hate it when a spelling error buggers up a perfectly good rant
DMS: Great cover-up, but we all KNOW you’re guilty of typing over .08… 😉
DMS, lame response DMS, really lame.
Oh sweet sober irony right thar pedo8
The problem is not the alcohol. The problem is that people know there is no legal consequence to their anti-social behaviour due to the courts giving people a slap on the wrist instead of incarceration or letting people off because they happen to belong to the victimised group du jour. The limit has been the same for decades so why is it only in more recent years that a problem has arisen?
I agree.
Enforce the current drunk/disorderly laws – if that’s what they’re still called.
No consequences mean that many idiots these days don’t learn to behave properly.
The Victorian police have a very unhappy record when it comes to abrogating their role to keep law & order on the streets. Perhaps they could begin down there be kicking the police force in the behind & making it do its job.
… while they’re at it, kick a few magistrates in the coit, and force them to start dishing out penalties to offenders, instead of dishing out understanding.
I disagree, laws should not prohibit me getting pissed and walking home without harming anyone else or infringing upon their rights. Whether or not a copper thinks I’m drunk or not should be irrelevant if I’m doing no harm. Laws that assume you may cause harm effectively negate the presumption of innocence. The law has all the powers it needs to deal with people who do harm to others. With dumb laws like this will have people criminalised for walking home a couple of hundred metres from neighbours at the whim of a copper. When this law doesn’t work, which it won’t, prats like Cockburn always then move onto their next repressive idea without ever suggesting that the ineffective law should be repealed.
Doc Bud
Enforce the current drunk/disorderly laws.
If someone is being obnoxious do something, if they’re not bothering anyone, in no danger, let them go.
I don’t want pedestrians breathalysed, that’s just ridiculous.
Also, in my experience, binge drinkers get drunk before they go out – it’s cheaper.
Oops please change name to DocBud and remove email address.
OOps, lookout, you’ll be next with mr point 08 for drunkblogging!
Please rename the above post which has my email address as the title with the name DocBud
Thanks
Absolutely spot on. No legal consequence but also no financial/hardship consequence to one’s actions anymore, given the welfare tap stays full on to anyone who wants it.
I guess people like this would not have to speak up and try to get new laws implemented, if the judiciary prosecuted offenders to the maximum extent of laws we already have in place.
Ninety percent of crimes are directly attributed to alcohol and something needs to be done.
I am sick of going to accident scenes because some idiot thinks getting drunk is the “Australian way”.
Ninety percent of crimes? Can you divulge the source of that amazing statistic?
Don’t be silly Kae, this Jan character lives in the land of the over the top big statement, it helps feed the ever hungry crazy in her.
“Over 87% of statistics are made up on the spot. Only 14% of the people know that.”
-Philosopher and social critic H. Simpson
Why doesn’t the pedestrian08 clown simply buy a ticket, travel to Afghanistan and join the Taliban? I hear they’re dead (excuse the pun) against drinking too. And they have penalties in place which pedestrian08 would surely approve of….
Yeah but they are very much into the supply of some very serious “party drugs” KG, which may just cause p08 some measure of cognitive dissonance.
pedestrian08,
Does “lame” mean “incontrovertibly correct” in your dialect? If DMS’s comment is wrong, explain why the “drunk in a public place” law is inadequate while at the very same time its existence proves that “we are already there” with the Fork’s concerns about arbitrary arrests.
I am going to campaign to make car ownership illegal. Y’see, any person who owns a car might exceed the speed limit. Under present useless laws, until they go over the speed limit they haven’t actually broken the law, which does nothing to reduce our terrible road toll. If we can just fine people BEFORE they break the law, I’m sure things will improve.
While we’re at it, how about doing something about all men being equipped to be rapists?
Perhaps castrate all men. Think how much better off the human race will be then, a hundred years with no rapes at all.
And what about tax avoision? Most taxpayers would willingly break that law if they thought they could get away with it, and some may be. That doesn’t just upset some emergency workers’ stomachs, it affects the entire economy people! Imagine how bad Swannie’s deficit would be then? Won’t someone think of the bureaucrats? So the gummint should force companies to pay worker’s entire salaries directly to the ATO so that it can be redistributed. Oh wait,… that’s pretty much happening already.
What happens when you get thrown out of a pub, either for being drunk or more likely, closing time. How are you meant to get home? Can’t drive. Can’t walk. Yogic flying perhaps?
Pedestrian08 is like all temperance cranks before him. He wants to close down all dens of iniquity.
Mmmmmm…….can’t even walk they say? We could all become sprint champions and run!
“Last drinks!” – one by one everybody in the pub starts stretching and limbering whilst necking that last schooner.Cue Benny Hill chase music and fling the doors open!
Yes!….. funkybarfly…. We have a winner!
Perhaps lay down and roll home, though it could cause quite a head spin. I don’t think it’s illegal either. Yet.
What if you got a gumnut stuck in your ear?
Okay, that was a stupid show.
You guys have got it all wrong! the bus pulls up at the loading dock at closing time, then off to the gulag. Breath test in the morning and walk home. A couple of admin hiccups to be overcome, but the streets would be safe from these criminals, and we wouldn’t have to waste police resources in harassing pedestrians in case they have been motoring along at a schooner an hour.
If that rubbish ever came in, I’d just drive
Too many idiots like this dill already in Victoria. There is a campaign to make it compulsory for motorcyclists to wear Hi-Viz Jackets, Gloves, Pants and Helmets at all times when riding. The natural progression will be to include cyclists then why not pedestrians if they cross the road? Can we establish a state for people who want noting more to live in peace and take responsibility for their own lives, or a state where control freaks like the dill above can live and they can interfere with each others lives as much as they want.
hahhhaa you Victorian prats, love to see you in bright fluro colours. I came down from canberra for a weekend, walking (soberly at the time) in Collins Street, in my White outfit, and everyone else was in black. Thought the State was in mourning. Maybe a little good comes out of some craziness. More colour I say. Particularly if you wake up in jail with a dreadful hangover.
So someone who is just over the eight so to speak, down the road apiece at a celebratory drink, in a good mood and responsible shouldn;t go across the street to home by shanks, thus avoiding a drink driving episode, because this bozo wants zero alcohol all round?? Who is he and is he Marx reincarnated?
PS I’m teetotal but I don’t begrudge others a drink,and think the world is worse off for this kind of wowser! Besides, wouldn’t it take a copper for every house to enforce?Suppose there’s one born every minute!
Being as how “drinkwalking” is defined as someone over .08 putting their foot onto a public footpath, it is going to make getting from the pub to a taxi rather an acrobatic feat!
I’m not sure Mr. Cockburn (now there’s a name for you) has though this through.
I’m really interested in knowing what happens when someone breaks through the physiological blood alcohol boundary of 100% on their way to INFINITY. I assume though that such a divine event wouldn’t happen on our streets but be performed inside the high-church of solid drinking – a Qantas flight to London.
A campaign against “drink-walking” sounds, and possibly is, insane. Calling it a ban on public drunkenness would be a step in the right direction.
We already have laws forbidding ‘public drunkeness’.
My first thought was, why not, instead of a restricting the behaviour of lawful citizens,just pay someone to go out and keep order on the streets by stopping the unlawful ones from being unlawful,…that happily we already have. Instead we will be paying the police to stop behaviour that is in the main harmless. What are we paying for now then?
As to such incredible interference in the lives of individuals, I’ll go the basic Paul Keating response on that;
“F@#k off, just f@#k off, go to buggery.”
Nice touch that guy.
Christ on a bike – I leave one comment and all hell breaks loose.
Glad to see so many people rallied around to chase off the Fun Police.
Pingback: Telegraph’s Tim Blair floats Pedestrian 08 Policy on line « The Pedestrian 08 Campaign
Mike Cockburn, quite simply: you’re a cunt.
Has anyone submitted that photo of Mr Cockburn in the Melbourne Leader to the Angry People in Local Newspapers blog yet, or shall I?
Ah yes…Prohibition worked so well here…to avoid public drunkenness on the order of Pedestrian08, all the pubs will have to become hotels…or shall we call them “Sleep-easies” ?
Excellent idea. They should have to crawl once they hit 0.08 as they will be less injured if they collapse from a crawling position rather than from an erect stance.
Mike Willie-Frizzle: just another totalitarian.
I have worked in lots of interesting alcohol-soaked venues and been accosted by more than a few alcoholically-enhanced idiots.
I suspect that the tax take from booze and smokes is well in excess of the annual health budget. This of course make one wonder what exactly is the point of said “sin taxes”, apart from the usual government theft.
I have also been quite merrily intoxicated in several interesting foreign countries where violence has been the last thing on anyone’s mind. It’s not the booze, it’s the mindset of the boozers.
My brother once astutely observed that the most dangerous thing on the planet, after an officer with a map and a pistol, was a “concerned citizen”.
Your brother may have meant an Officer with a map and a compass.
New Second Lieutenants are guaranteed to get geographically embarrassed / lost at some stage.
Every young officer has at some point joined the Fukahwe tribe.
As in, “Where the fuck are we?”
I know what it is!
Mister Cockburn is an emissary of ‘Big Taxi’*. You see, if we can’t drive and we can’t walk then the only way left for most of us to travel is by taxi. He and his friends in ‘Big Taxi’ will reap vast rewards from a law like this. Travelling by taxi will become the main source of travel throughout the state.
There you have it, folks. Mister Cockburn of Pedestrian08 is in the pay of ‘Big Taxi’.
(*If he can blame ‘Big Liquor’ I can blame ‘Big Taxi’)
Pingback: Nanny State Mofos | Prick With A Fork