Peter McCallum Wrote:
flyingdutch wrote

Terry Collins Wrote
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1333936.ht

Okay, who rattled their cage

slight problem with policeman's statement

a cyclist cant be breathalysed, as such, unless there is 'other
reaso
for doing so (causing accident, riding dangerously, wobbling, etc
Obviously the latter and lack of helmet gave em caus

A certain member of Vic dept of Justice got off just last month co
Police could not show a defineable due reason for breathalysing him
despite him blowing .06 (he was riding home from state go
function!)
Loophole in law that finally makes me smile :

There is no legal blood alcohol limit for cyclists in Qld so the new
item's statement that the cyclist was six times the limit is erroneous

In Qld you can just refuse to provide a sample of breath regardless o
whether you have caused an accident, etc. The police have no power t
demand a breath/blood/urine sample in the case of cyclists (o
pedestrians or horse riders or anyone else who's not in control of
motor vehicle, tram, train or vessel). I imagine this is the same i
other states/territories

Under the Qld law a cyclist can be charged with being under th
influence of alcohol. There is no strict definition of what "under th
influence" means. In another part of the law it says that a driver of
motor vehicle who has a blood alcohol concentration of greater tha
0.1
per cent is automatically deemed to be under the influence of alcohol
So it seems you can drink around three times as much as drivers an
still be legal

Pete

-
Peter McCallu
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
so you mean she even agreed to the Breathalyser as well ????
what a winner, she might a contestant in the Darwin Awards sometim
soon

--
MikeyO