Pedestrian 08 Campaign

The Pedestrian 08 Campaign exists to promote the rapid adoption of scientifically based, maximum blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for those other road users – Pedestrians. In the media, this has been called The Drink Walking Campaign.
We need this limit imposed and enforced to:

  1. Prevent pedestrian accidents, injuries and deaths
  2. Eliminate alcohol related violence.
  3. Reduce binge drinking.

1. Pedestrian safety

Research into Pedestrian safety demonstrates a clear need to adopt a Pedestrian 08 Limit.
What is the maximum acceptable blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for a pedestrian?

‘Research indicates that the skills necessary to cross a road safely are impaired at BAC levels of .08 and above.’

For your own safety, if you are not driving, stay under a BAC of 08. Read the rest of this entry…

2. Alcohol fuelled violence, alcohol related violence

Glassing Attack

88,000 ‘Glassings’ occur every year in the UK

Research proves that at a BAC of 08 and above you are more likely to become engaged in acts of alcohol related violence.

Alcohol is a psychoactive drug. It can act as a disinhibitor. You are more likely to throw a punch or kick someone to death at or above a BAC of 08 than below it.

For your own safety and the safety of others always stay under a BAC of 08. Read the rest of this entry…

3. Binge drinking

The research is clear. Do not drink until the age of 23. Your brain is still developing and can be hindered or impaired by alcohol consumption.
Alcohol consumption by children is killing them via brain and liver damage, falls, traffic and other pedestrian accidents.
Children as young as eight years old are regularly being treated in casualty departments.


Parents, sporting clubs and organisations, alcohol advertisers, sporting programs, all night beer barns, Big Liquor, Big Liquor’s ‘alcopops’, ‘alcohol-normalising’ TV and Radio programs and broadcasters, politicians and governments are all to blame for the burgeoning binge drinking culture.

Binge drinking is dangerous to your health and the health and well being of others. Find out what binge drinking actually is via these pages and the links to other sites. Show some character, avoid it all costs – it leads to alcoholism, cancer and accidental and violent deaths. Read the rest of this entry…

A Cultural Problem

With a greatly expanding phenomenon of binge drinking at its core, we have a rapidly developing and destructive cultural problem to contend with.

The ‘silo mindset’ of many government departments make for narrowly based policy decisions with little coordination and a multitude of interests to deal with. A whole-of-government response is needed with a publicly declared primary motivation that human life – especially those of children – is the government’s top priority.

A massive whole-of-government policy option is to set a pedestrian BAC limit of 08. It will change behaviour, reducing violence, injury and death. It will work and if lessons of our motorist’s 05 campaign are taken on board, it will work immediately and with dramatic immediate effects.

Governments have a clear duty of care to do this and do it now.

Sporting organisations can assist by publicly and openly contracting their players and staff to play and work under 08.

As an individual you can help by never forgetting where responsible drinking ends – at 08 – and by resolving to always stay under 08.

↑ Top

Click here for Blog – Latest News

Click here for our Policy Details

32 Responses to Pedestrian 08 Campaign

  1. mat says:

    It’s just flawed logic of prohibitionist. Prohibition rarely achieves anything and usually have some unforeseen consequences.
    “Researchers also estimate that of 190,000 15-to-16-year-olds in England, 57,000 binge by drinking five or more drinks in one session.Just under half of those surveyed drank at least once a week, with 40% of girls and 42% of boys later involved in violence.” It’s already against the law for teenagers to buy, carry and consume alcohol but they still get involved in alcohol violence and a large proportion of it.

    “The “kind of person” can be anyone at sometime in their lives.” – I strongly disagree, violence and substance abuse is a personality problems that coexist. 87% of alcohol violence happens after long period of alcohol abuse, not by getting drunk once. Why not target problematic personalities instead?

    Why not try different approach like legal controlled market for other drugs that are proven to be safer and less likely to cause violence?
    It’s estimated that controlled sale of cannabis alone (for over 18 in Dutch model) would reduce alcohol consumption by 25% and release police for more pressing issues. Additionally removing the artificial divide between alcohol and drugs you are more likely to achieve shift in mentality that drinking more than couple glasses is a risk.

    “We have an 05 motorists law and a no drugs whilst driving laws for very good reasons.” – which is hardly scientific as stoned person is according to studies twice as likely to be involved in accident as sober. Mind that at close to 0.5 alcohol you are 3-8 times more likely to be in accident. That’s why law have to be challenged to be based on science not whim or prejudice. Just that something was made law doesn’t make it wise or valid.

    I oppose this kind of law change that you are proposing. It would be expensive, oppressive and misspend to police it.

    • pedestrian08 says:

      thanks for supporting the Pedestrian 08 Argument. You didn’t mean to do this – but you have!
      Teenagers binge drinking is often kicked off via the neglect of alcohol hooked parents. 8 year olds are regularly wheeled into English A & E depts. This will start happening here and soon! Why? Because many of the supermarket ideas driving down alcohol prices in the UK have been imported here.
      Teenagers are not RBT’d – in the UK, as Pedestrians.
      Underage drinkers are a prime target for Pedestrian 08.
      Fines and intervention by social authorities are possible where an underage drinker is detected.
      And No, should a bozo parent supplying alcohol to a child cop a couple of thousand dollars fine for underage drinking, their attitude may be paused for a bit of contemplation.

      Thousands of children can be saved annually via Pedestrian 08. Have no doubt about that.

      Where did you get your 87% figure from? (Which leaves you with 13% who may in fact be responsible for how many one punch homicides? How many are acceptable to you?)

      Introducing another addictive, harmful drug is not my preferred response.
      Alcohol is a drug.

      Government policy ought be directed at an all out attack on consumption levels of all harmful drugs, such as cancer causing Alcohol.
      This baby maiming drug needs to have it’s current consumption level cut by a minimum 75%.
      You cannot do this via Prohibition.
      You can do it via carefully targeted and sensible laws.
      Pedestrian 08 – A law, Lots of Education, BAC Testers in all pubs for self testing plus a bit of judicious Pedestrian RBT – will do a lot to achieve this.
      Less total tonnages sold ought to be the reasonable objective of any conscientious Government.

  2. Steve of Cornubia says:

    The kind of person who is likely to inflict serious harm on another person while intoxicated is NOT going to care a jot about your proposed legislation. As is so often the case, petty laws designed by meddlers and others with a sense of moral superiority do more to impact negatively on the lives of law-abiding people than they do to fix ‘the problem’.

    Instead of adding more restrictions to the freedoms of law-abiding citizens who do no harm, why not just campaign to have our existing laws against violence more effectively used?

    • pedestrian08 says:

      You are simply wrong Steve.
      The “kind of person” can be anyone at sometime in their lives.
      The legislation underlines a clear declaration by our representatives in Parliament as to where the limit of Responsible Drinking ends.
      This would key in to a related and substantial program of education to explain both the pedestrian BAC limit and the rarely understood harms of alcohol.
      These include addiction, cancer, birth defects, serious illnesses and, of course, violence.
      Prevention is way better than any post disaster cure.
      Prevention means more jail beds will remain open for serious criminals needing a longer stretch.
      Recall that 70% of Police Work is tied up with alcohol related causes.

  3. mat says:

    This idea is ridicules and way of thinking flawed. Alcohol doesn’t turn random persons violent. Aggressive individuals can’t be stopped by random breathalizer tests.
    There is big problem with underage drinking vilence in this country. As you can imagine they should not be able to buy alcohol in the first place but they do. They should be easy to spot on streets and taken in custody but they are not. If police is not able to tackle problem for which there is already law present it means that tightening it won’t work either.
    “The majority of people respect the law and would, without any further intervention, respect this law.” – Empty claim, people obey law if it is not stupid or impractical, that’s why most of people do speed in their cars once in a while. Making stupid law makes people relax their view on breaking some other rules.
    Accidents after alcohol? Well injuries related to alcohol and stupidity are not accidents
    People should get decent education about any drug use so they don’t put themselves in danger.
    If you have problem crossing street while over 0.08 then don’t. I rearly drink that much but be assured I can focus for time long enough to cross the street. Some people don’t do it sober so why not ban everyone leaving their houses because there is a clear link between leaving home and number of pedestrians deaths.
    We don’t need another ussless law.

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Thanks for your input Mat.
      You’d probably be able to drive home ok at a BAC of 05+ most days too?
      We have an 05 motorists law and a no drugs whilst driving laws for very good reasons.
      We need an 08 pedestrian law for very similar reasons.
      It’s not about you or me, it’s about how the whole population is being adversely affected by our out of control, liquor industry driven, alcohol problem.
      I hope you look around the rest of the site and discuss it with your family and friends.

      To see latest news click here…

  4. Pamela Arlous says:

    Yeah great, blame the pedestrian. I have enough trouble staying alive sober. Motorists give way to no-one. Try booking them when they don’t give way when turning right, don’t give way when turning left, go through a red light as I’m about to step off the kerb, go through a green walk sign as they turn left over my foot, don’t stop at the pedestrian crossing etc. And if I am on a pedestrian crossing chances are I’ll get yelled at. I’ve never seen a motorist booked for breaking the “give way to pedestrians” rules. However, in Geelong the other day lots of pedestrians got booked for jaywalking.

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Hey Pamela,
      thanks for your input.
      I hear your point of view. This is about improving pedestrian safety, not just in terms of traffic accidents, but, in minimising alcohol fuelled violence and binge drinking.
      We are all pedestrians!

  5. david (Wollongong) says:

    Mike, good on you, you are going for a cultural change and isn’t the language getting rough. It is convenient to have issues and inconvenient to have solutions. Why is that? Do your respondents know? It reminds me of the venom aimed at the pioneers of RBT in NSW in the eighties. Check this link out.

    It is extraordinary. The Road toll at the time was 1300 approx which was then halved and stayed that way ever since. The implementation did not mean that police had to be on every street.

    They worked and reworked the hot spots and look what has been achieved.

    The key point being that RBT turned a policy, specifically a message, into one that was effective.

    By setting a limit, promoting it, then efficiently enforcing it, does the trick.

    No reason why a similiar result can’t occur with Pedestrian08.

    Keep up your good work.

    David (Wollongong)

    • pedestrian08 says:

      David, thanks for your comments. You are absolutely correct.
      You understand what we need and can see it happening.
      There are other people besides myself working for and inspiring The Pedestrian 08 Campaign.
      You have just joined the list!
      Please keep in touch.

  6. Gordon says:

    Where do I start? And where does your campaign end? Should you recommend that there be a legal drinking level in the home as well? After all, think of all the accidents someone drunk might encounter in his kitchen, and of course there’s domestic violence as well. Yep, let’s do that. Police can randomly doorknock and breath test people in their homes. Brilliant! Or how about we treat citizens as citizens instead, and we regard adults as adults?

  7. Confused says:

    Sorry, just to clarify…
    Does this campaign effectively mandate that no one with a blood alcohol level of above 0.08 be allowed outside their homes?

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Read text above Confused. You’ll see that at 08 you are unsafe to be a pedestrian. Just as you are – if you are 05+ as a motorist. Does this bother you? Are you often over 08 or under it?

  8. Karrie says:

    I’m all for stopping violence but do you really think it is reasonable to make it illegal for me to have 2 or 3 glasses of wine at my local Vietnamese restaurant (most likely putting me over .08)on Saturday night and then walk the 150 metres home? Especially since I am the first to admit that for most of the Saturday nights in the last 10 years I would have had a BAC of over .08 and have never had an issue with crossing a road let alone violence or threatening behaviour?

    Surely this is an issue of education and cultural change not strict laws?

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Hi Karrie,
      Many thanks for your question.
      If you have 2 or 3 glasses of wine on a Saturday Night, ‘standard drink’ sized, and it took you most of the night to get through them, then you may be ok insofar as staying under 08.
      For the sake of your long term health, you should check out The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australian guidelines to reduce health risks from drinking alcohol. The number one recommendation is:

      1. To reduce the risk of an alcohol-related injury or disease during their lifetime, healthy men and women should drink no more than two standard drinks on ANY day.

      The NHMRC also state that ‘To reduce the risk of an immediate alcohol-related injury, healthy men and women should drink no more than four standard drinks on any one occasion.’
      The trouble is Karrie; our culture is running hard up against the known facts about ‘safe’ alcohol usage.
      Other references point to 08 being at the point where you are not safe to cross a road. Remember alcohol is a depressant, which will affect your awareness and decision making. You may ‘feel’ you’re ok walking home at 08 plus, but that’s the trap this drug sets for you.
      So, simply put, at 08 you’re unsafe. See the reference above.
      We then use this research to set our street level maximum. The spinoffs to your improved pedestrian safety include setting in place a mindset similar to the 05 campaign. ‘Oh, I must be careful tonight, at 08 I’m unsafe’, knowing that there may be a friendly police person asking me to blow into a bag. So spinoff number one is a control on the dangerous and carcinogenic trend of excessive or binge drinking.
      Alcohol related violence has to drop as well. Spinoff number two is a reduction in alcohol related violence.

  9. pedestrian08 says:

    Check out Blog – Latest News for more feedback

  10. What a CROCK says:

    What a total crock of an idea! Do you have a big red nose and big floppy shoes? As this idea is just laughable, I thought it was the fruition of clowns!

    Sure there is a problem with excessive consumption, but trying to pass a law, which will cause a massive spike in policing, so, they’re going to set up a ‘booze’ bus on a city street, and breath test everyone that walks though? Under point 6 of your proposed law, then anyone over .08 are not allowed to continue their journey … So, where I might ask do all the drunken people go? NOWHERE! They all have to stand together like a herd of cattle, and wait … can you see it now? All it takes is one person to start off a stampede, and lo and behold we have a brawl, because all these anxious drunken people are put together, or as you put it, they shall be restrained.
    Think of it this way, how many people on a particular friday/saturday night travel along the main street in any city? Blocking off this street to breath test each person, let’s give a vague figure 500 people are tested in one hour. Of that 500, 100 are over .08, so the police are to ‘restrain’ 100 people, SOMEWHERE? Now, the police also need the manpower to look after these people, these police, who could be out on the street, doing anything else rather than babysitting drunks. Now, how long are these people to be ‘restrained’ for? If you know your BAC calculations, the average human body loses .01 per HOUR … So, someone who is .1 they need to be restrained for 2 hours. In those 2 hours, they could’ve been on their way home to sleep it off instead.

    Do you see where I’m getting at? This idea is plain straight ridiculous!

    We need a better approach to the idea, not some half cocked idea, the need for better education on the fact, parents need take a step back and look at what their kids are doing, they need to be pro-active in their kids lives. Not taking a step back, and letting them run amok, and expecting the government/police to babysit them.
    Take for example that cash up bogan mother, who ‘stole a barmat’ in Thailand, and left her kids at home. What sort of example does that set to her kids? That it’s okay to get drunk and abuse local authority?

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Hi What a CROCK,

      You’re making some massive assumptions about how police would go about enforcing the new law.
      You’re also making some more massive assumptions about the law itself and how it would work.

      The concept of restraining offenders until under they slip below the limit is based on the knowledge that they are unsafe to continue on their own.
      At 08 you shouldn’t be crossing the road without supervision.
      This is occurring tonight and every night, under the noses of police and with the tacit blessing of the government.
      So, if you reckon – guess that breath testing 500 would reap 100 over the 08 limit, then that would give you an idea of how many people are risking life and limb stumbling home, dodging trams, trains and road traffic. It is unconscionable to continue this practice.
      Many of them do not make it home.
      Many of them climb into cars to finish their journeys quite drunk.

      If you were given the job of making it work, how would you go about it?
      You’re a bright crock, think about it and fashion out how you would organise it.
      What methods of restraining them or alternatives to restraining them can you come up with?

      If you are / were a young buck considering the idea of getting into the city and drinking dangerously, if the advertising campaign made it plain that the fine was $250 plus for a first offence, and that your car licence was on the table, would that make you aware of the limits of responsible drinking? Would it change your behaviour? What would you do?
      By the way, removing your 100 people from harm, could reap $25000 in fines. Almost as good as parking fines.
      Do you think that crew of police would be earning $25000 per hour in revenue?
      More or less?

      If you had to hang around the city, holding onto your fine, and not being able to move off for an hour or two, a massively boring prospect I would think, would you do it again?

      If you were watching a massive advertising blitz pointing out what was going to happen, and then it happened, as it did for the 05 campaign, would you get 1 in 5 over the limit tested for 08?
      Or would you expect it to drop?
      If it did drop is that a sign of success or failure Crock?

      Crock, you may think you’ve thought this out, but i dont think you have.
      Whilst your concept of taking it back to schools and parents is a worthy thought, such methods arent going to effect real change in any way, if at all, but certainly not in the immediate future.
      If anything your concept would simply add to the list of Spin based deflections our governments indulge in.
      Governments of all persuasions have done nothing but increase the size of the problem, via their Liquor Licencing practices affecting both outlets and hours, whilst funding multi-million dollar publicity campaigns promoting deliberately ineffective ‘programs’. They often do this in an unseemly partnership with Big Liquor.

      Thanks for chipping in and next time please restrain yourself from commenting on my nose and feet.
      It’s hard enough living with them without someone reminding me of them.

  11. Jerry says:

    Why has this debate stopped? Has everyone gone to the pub? Violence and binge drinking are not good things and I think we would all agree we want the world to be a safer and healthier place to live in. Will it get safer and healthier on it’s own? I don’t think it will, we all have a part to play in encouraging social change and this debate is one way of doing that.

  12. David (parent) says:

    To Caleb.. Hi.. If police stop a ‘supposed’ grog affected pedestrian (who might protest that he/she is just tired) they would do a quick BAC test and then do an assessment (for pedestrian/public safety)ie can this person get home safely or are they a risk to themselves or traffic. If pedestrians know that they could be tested they will treat police presence like a speeding motorist might. Even before one pedestrian is breath tested, this initiative will save lives (just like seat belt legislation) because people will be thinking about it before they go out for a drink. Stick a $60+ (incrimental) fine on top and the behaviour shouldn’t be repeated and the Bars won’t be so ready to serve intoxicated patrons. Cheers

  13. Caleb says:

    Great Idea, but why don’t the police use the powers they already have. There is still a current law called Drunk and Disorderly which is not enforced for some reason.

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Hi Caleb,
      thanks for your input and sorry to have taken so long to reply.
      This is aimed at not only the drunk and disorderly, but, those who are over 08 and therefore present a danger to themselves as pedestrians. The science is in and it says, you are unsafe at 08. Then you have health disasters of binge drinking and alcohol fuelled violence. Both will be mitigated by the leadership shown by a government willing to implement an 08 limit.
      The more you read on these issues, the more disturbing the picture gets.

  14. David (parent) says:

    Excellent debate. I’m no tea toatle but all alcohol impaired people need guidance.Parliament (and parents)still need to ‘put up the boundaries’ to producer, seller and consumer..In high quantities alcohol is poison.(like tobacco) In moderate quantities it can still contribute to death (30% of road deaths)I don’t want any drunk pedestrians to get tangled up in my bullbar. Like ‘off duty’ drivers, pedestrians who want to get ‘sozzled’ should be at home..08 is an ample level to send a patron on their way. Anything more than that and they will be fighting shadows and lamp posts.
    R.A.A.A.A.D.D. are advocating for 00 self regulation for drivers. .01 will be law within 10 years anyway. Why do we need regulation? We’re still in an age where dickhead parents STILL need to be told not to smoke in cars/houses with kids.

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Thanks for your comments David.
      I urge you to stay in touch with this site, and, recommend your colleagues and friends to check this out and get on board.
      Add any more feedback you feel is necessary to add please do so.

  15. david says:

    What is absolutely pathetic is there is no leadership on this issue. Is it true that this is to become law?
    I’m confused. I want to know what the politicans intend doing. Enough to drive me to drink!

  16. vanessa says:

    i think this is absolutly pathetic idea, do you really think our police have the time and resources to waste on some harmless people who have just left a club and are walking to a taxi rank or train station. you are possibly talking about 1000 – 5000 people walking in the city on a average saturday night. what is this world coming to?

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Vanessa, a campaign like this would be preceeded by a large publicity campaign informing people of the new law and that on street random breathalysing and drug testing was to take place.
      A max BAC of 08 in itself, without policing has a major impact. The majority of people respect the law and would, without any further intervention, respect this law.
      Our state leaders would show us a clear direction and clearly understood line not to cross.
      Then you have the reinforcing effect of policing.
      At the moment, hundreds of motorists have to be stopped to find one person over 05.
      It wasnt always so.
      When we start policing 08, candidates will be thick on the ground.
      Depending on how it is managed and implemented, the amount of effort needed to find someone over 08 and walking the street will increase as it has for motorists.
      Job Done, less alcohol fuelled violence, less binge drinking, less people being maimed and killed as pedestrians on our roads.

  17. Shaun says:

    Yeah just what we need in our lives.. more regulation

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Yep Shaun, i agree with your sentiment. Regulation usually follows in the absence of commonly held commonsense. We have tried failed advertising campaigns, failed education campaigns, failed research leading to go-nowhere newspaper articles.
      This would at least directly intervene as a campaign of behaviour change.
      Not one ‘responsible drinker’ who is a pedestrian would be adversely affected in the same way that not one ‘responsible drinking driver’ has been adversely affected by the .05 laws.
      In place of a wishy washy idea of what ‘responsible drinking’ actually is, currently a TV commercial, you would now have two numbers to remember:
      .05 if you intend to drive; and
      .08 if you intend to walk, catch cabs, train or tram home.
      Thanks for chipping in.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.