Contact Page

Contact The Pedestrian 08 Campaign below.
Enter any communication below as if it were a post.

What Can I Do?
The usual list of things to do for this issue exists as for so many others. What you can do that may be unique is to add your support via the blog! And:

  1. In Australia, contact your state member of parliament and ask them to declare their support for the Pedestrian 08 Campaign.
  2. Let them know that you expect this program to:
    Save pedestrian lives
    Properly and clearly define what ‘Responsible Drinking’ is
    Enforce Responsible Drinking like no other campaign possibly could
    Reduce violence and intimidation on our streets
    Change a drinking culture from one of institutionalised binge drinking, in clubs, sporting grounds and on the streets to one of responsible drinking
  3. Ring your local Radio and TV stations. Ask them if they have signed on and if not, why not!

New! Click here for: Supporters Page

18 Responses to Contact Page

  1. David says:

    Thanks for your comments. I think whatever gets the most public acceptance or should I say least public resistance should be pushed. That being what BAC level and weather whole state or just entertainment areas. I hope in long run the 0.08 gets accepted as sounds like you have some good research behind that number.

    My personal opinion is for RBT pedestrians is whole state. Also a person who is willing to stay in safe area until under safe BAC e.g. police station shouldn’t be fined for first offence. It should be about duty of care initially, control is only necessary for repeat/high range offenders.

    Also I must state that expect public resistance when RBT came in most of public against. Now most public would agree saves lives.

    • pedestrian08 says:

      David, thanks again.
      And I agree with you. The Politicians who suffered abuse, lobbying from Big Liquor entities and even death threats, would be surprised to now know that no current politician would contemplate – for a nanosecond – the removal of point 05 and it’s most important element – RBT. Now, imagine the same scenario with Pedestrian 08, P-RBT and trains. Or King Street or Kings Cross. These areas of widespread concern get thoroughly cleaned up via P-RBT. Goon Bagging becomes some distant, bad memory, and violence (70% of violence is alcohol related) heavily minimised. Which politician would then dare to turn back the clock?
      We only need one street or train line, one Government and one minister with the vision, commitment and guts to make a difference noted by jurisdictions around the world. Just one instance will do it.
      Best wishes for the new year David!

  2. David says:

    There is news stories about making 0.15 the pedestrian limit (Northern Territory). This website states 0.08. Is there any research on difference between limits in behaviour of pedestrians. Also why not push for just a limit to get accepted by parliment for now (up to 0.15). Then over time the limit will decrease. Obviously whilst no accepted legislation all we have is good intentions.

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Hi David,
      Thanks for your input.
      I looked for but could not find any recent reference to this initiative.
      Which BAC Level? Well, The Pedestrian 08 Campaign has researched, reference behind its “number”.
      If anyone wants to argue a higher limit, just show us the research or references behind that number.

      I’d suggest that point one five is a number that is dangerous to any drink walker and anybody who has this misfortune of crossing their path. It is way too high a number.

      The fact that someone is proposing a pedestrian, drink walking limit in the Territory is encouraging.

      I hope whoever is proposing it adds the following to their wish list:
      1/ Mandatory BAC machines in all licensed venues – so users can readily check their BAC levels;
      2/ Extensive advertising / education campaigns – so users know what’s coming and can adjust their behavior accordingly;
      3/ On street, Pedestrian Random Breath Testing (P-RBT) – so users will know you are serious.

      Note, you can blanket rule the whole territory with this initiative – or, you can carefully target a particular troublesome area or district. (These are usually euphemistically labelled “entertainment districts” down here in the southern states. What they actually are amounts to commercialised, Binge drinking Zones.)

      So, once a street gets out of control, losing whatever public support it once may have had, you can shut down the problems with a well resourced attack on violent, commercialized binge drinking via a fully fledged, Pedestrian 08 campaign.

      No licensee has his/her license conditions affected. The campaign is aimed at consumers – not the so called “responsible” servers of alcohol.

      • David Shaw says:

        Thanks I just looked again these articles were from 2010 about BAC 0.15. Obviously it never progressed. I cannot deny that your research that 0.08 is the safest number. However I still believe that the priority focus should be on having pedestrians breath tested. I believe that naturally there will be resistance. I also believe that the higher the number of BAC the more community acceptance of it being about duty of care to intoxicated person and community at large.

        What I am trying to say in summary is that its better to have legislation approved for pedestrian BAC testing than no testing at all. The lower the limit the more the harder to get approval. Even if a higher limit gets approved it can always be lobbied for a lower limit later. I believe its far better to focus initially on what can be agreed upon: ‘That a person who reaches a BAC of between 0.08 – 0.15 is a danger to themselves’. **

      • pedestrian08 says:

        I hear what you are saying. And we are pushing in the same direction and let’s celebrate that! Whenever and wherever Pedestrian RBT is done – it must be done effectively, and seen to be effective in eliminating alcohol fueled violence and the commercialization of binge drinking that rests at the very heart of alcohol fueled violence. At point 0.15 you are going to get plenty of violence on the streets and businesses will do everything they can to sell alcohol to dangerously inebriated users. (As they do now!) To gain public acceptance – propose the alternative! Pick on a street, block or district that has had it’s name totally discredited by the businesses who have profited from the binge drinking violence*. These areas – such as King St in Melbourne, and Kings Cross in Sydney have a name less valued than mud. In these streets, the few remaining “civilians” will greatly appreciate a policy that turns their street around overnight. From one of fear to one of safety. Police and/or council officers can develop and hone their enforcement skills on these “test” areas. Researchers can count the saved lives and note the improvements in “civilian” quality of life. Newspapers can report that these streets are no longer “No Go” zones.
        No Licensee needs to be compensated because almost nothing has changed in the terms and trading hours of their license.
        And the developed example is then put out there – a policy that works where so many others have either failed or not done that much to create a culture of “responsible” drinking.
        * One other area to be targeted is public transport. Make you trains, buses and stations areas of safety rather than areas of fear!

  3. Mark says:

    My grandfather used to say about wowsers “don’t engage ’em, it’ll only encourage ’em”. So sorry granddad but here goes.
    You say:
    ” If you get cleaned up stumbling around drunk, we – the taxpayer – will pay for your hospitalisation, rehabilitation and / or nursing home.
    So Taxpayers have a right to demand that you keep your drinking within reasonable limits.”
    It is so hard to know where to start with the illogicality of this reasoning. But for starters, 0.08 BAC is not stumbling around drunk and to suggest it is undermines the rest of your campaign; to suggest that taxpayers have a right to impose limits on behaviour which may result in hospitalisation leads to the conclusion that acts such as climbing a ladder (Hello Molly), lopping trees and more too numerous to list can be made illegal.
    The further illogic is compounded by the naive assumption that making something illegal reduces its occurrence.
    You sir are welcome to leave at any time to live in one of the many countries around the world that ban alcohol – that would be preferable to trying to change our society into what you want it to be.

    • pedestrian08 says:

      point 08 is a referenced limit. See the blog.
      If you think you are totally sure of a number, let us know, and let us know why? How do you justify your number?
      At the moment, the number is infinity. You are welcome by our Governments to drink to near death, and mingle with cars, trams, trains and other pedestrians.
      Not a lot of IQ in that policy, but, this is the reality now.
      As per a previous correspondence, you may be the world’s greatest expert on what stumbling round drunk is, and what BAC level that is. However, you haven’t told us.

      Making something illegal surely does not guarantee a reduction in consumption.
      What does is what the total pedestrian 08 policy achieves. Setting a limit everyone immediately understands. Advertising / promoting that limit. Making it functionally easy for alcohol users to know exactly what BAC level they are currently running at. Finally, the odd piece of on street BAC testing. FYI, the World Health Organisation points to campaigns that are underscored with a “hard legal edge” are in fact, the only campaigns that work. This is why feel good / better messages like “Say No to Whatever” never work. Whereas the Motorist point 05 campaign has and continues to work. This is education for sure, but, there are consequences for transgressors. This is the edge The Cross needs. Along with Sydney’s Trains and places like Blacktown.

      And Mark, your last sentence is senile.
      Prohibition is not the intent, hidden or otherwise of this campaign.

      • Mark says:

        It is you who wrote ‘stumbling around drunk’ in your reply to Serioudsly [sic] justifying a 0.08 limit so it is you who confuses the two concepts. You propose 0.08, it is up to you to justify that limit and if you think that is ‘stumbling around drunk’ you are obviously projecting.
        0.08 is such a wowserish limit that the rest of the reality based community understands that it is effectively a ban on drinking.
        I do not want to live in a society which empowers police officers to force me to take a breath test on my way out of a restaurant after sharing a bottle of wine. Although I am not senile I am an adult and want to be treated as one.
        “Blaming alcohol for youthful indiscipline is like blaming the cutler whenever there is a stabbing. Calling for a tax increase in response is like increasing the price of household cutlery to stop stabbings. “Penalise everyone for the misdemeanours of the few” has long been the cry of authoritarians and tax-fanciers.” (there’s a reference for you).
        And I note you totally avoid the wider point which is why not ban or otherwise criminalise all activity which can lead to injury or death which taxpayers have to pay for. Should climbing a ladder be against the law and Molly Meldrum be jailed as a lawbreaker after he woke from his brain injury?
        And the comparison to drivers is inapt – driving is a privilege in our society, not a right and you may recall in your more lucid moments that you need to have a licence to drive, so it is generally accepted that conditions of use may be attached to any licence.
        PS stay classy.

      • pedestrian08 says:

        good to see you coming back for more.
        You may (or may not) be a hardened user of alcohol, conditioned to large BAC levels. This doesn’t make your world and your standards the world’s standards.
        How do you know what your usual BAC level is? Does your alcohol supplier provide BAC machines or are you guessing?
        As far as your fear of a BAC test goes, i suggest you ought to be afraid.
        Depending on your accustomed BAC level, you could be in some trouble.
        I suspect, however, that you wont be.
        The BAC test btw, will take about 10 seconds, and, I would be amazed if you were tested more than twice a year, on footpath that is, under a Pedestrian 08 Area.
        That would be enough to get you to monitor your obviously enormous alcohol input.
        (See the National Medical Research Council’s references on this site for guidance).

        You reference an opinion, for Pedestrian 08 I referenced a Government Department’s expertise.
        That about sums up your “argument”.
        For your final “why not criminalise” argument, cop this: No other activity other than Smoking puts as many people in Hospital under the knife, as does your favourite and addictive recreational drug.
        No other activity gets as many people assaulted, murdered, maimed, injured and traumatised as does your favourite drug.
        Hospitals are filled every week by victims of your drug’s suppliers.
        Cancers are being sliced out, faces and throats disfigured in the process.
        Livers are being transplanted. But that’s not the worst of it.
        Because of the baby maiming traits of this drug, some 1 in every 100 babies born today, can expect some level of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).
        Molly and his ladders have nothing to worry about in comparison.
        Molly doesn’t maim babies.

  4. Kelsey Boulton says:

    Hi I’m a journalism student at Griffith University and am currently writing a story on alcohol fuelled violence, I was wondering if you could help me in answering the following questions:

    1. What are your thoughts on Alcohol-fuelled violence?
    2. Do you believe alcohol-fuelled violence is worse in Sydney than in Brisbane?
    3. How do you believe the 3am lockout has affected alcohol-fuelled violence in Brisbane?
    4. In what other ways do you think alcohol-fuelled violence can be diminished?
    5. Do you support the Government’s plan to introduce laws to ban double shots and limit drinks after midnight in Sydney?
    6. What are the main messages you wish to send out with your campaign?

    Your answers to these questions would be a major help in my story, Thanks heaps for your time.

  5. Tracey Hurlbut says:

    Well done Mike, I think what you are doing is fantastic i would vote for you any day.

  6. Serioudsly says:

    Walking and biking are the only methods of transport left without any interference from the police state – and you propose to increase the coercive power of government?!?! Please, leave us alone, if we are walking home drunk we can cause little harm, whilst if we are driving home drunk much harm can be caused.

    If your proposal goes through, no one will be able to get themselves home legally after a night at the pub. If they cannot avoid breaking the law, then it is likely that they WILL break one law or another. STOP making new ‘progressive’ laws and just leave the people alone!

    • pedestrian08 says:

      Hi Serioudsly,
      you haven’t contributed with a valid email address, so I hope this message reaches you.
      No one is proposing to stop you drinking…
      At the moment, if you are in Victoria, a member of the force can deem you to be drunk and then give you an on the spot fine for being drunk in a public place.
      No one knows what that really means…
      The Pedestrian 08 Campaign proposes a definition.
      One that is based on research and is consistent with motorist 05 campaign.
      You are not on an island flying solo. If you get cleaned up stumbling around drunk, we – the taxpayer – will pay for your hospitalisation, rehabilitation and / or nursing home.
      So Taxpayers have a right to demand that you keep your drinking within reasonable limits.
      No one is proposing to stop you from drinking. Only you can do that.
      But, given the high pedestrian fatal rates, the propensity for alcohol fuelled violence and the current scope of underage and binge drinking, only an irresponsible government would fail to recognise and set and enforce an 08 pedestrian limit.

      • Alex says:

        Hi Mike,

        Met you today at that Brighton polling booth. Only 5 comments here and so foulmouthed! These people don’t even take the time to read and understand your good intentions. Please don’t be discouraged: Rome wasn’t built in a day and there are always fools among the bricklayers.

        Very disappointed to see that the ABC here: not only doesn’t even mention you by name, but indicates that you got a swing against yourself! As a first time candidate and all, that’s pretty hard to beat…:-) Of course, it doesn’t really mean that, it’s just that the previous independent candidate might have got more votes than you, and I have no idea what their plank was. Maybe they had a bigger crowd of supporters. Also, some of those who usually voted Lib might have supported the previous independent on first prefs, but this time people are so annoyed with Labour, even Brighton has a 10%+ swing to the Libs.

        Best wishes for the future, and your campaign ( which should not stop…. now comes the approaches to new Government Ministers, for ex.) and also for the Festive Season!

  7. Chris Cheron says:

    Yeh you gutless p****, “comment awaiting moderation”. Of course only leftwingers like you f**** are allowed to have their words arent they!

    you f******* c**** you.

  8. Chris Cheron says:

    You c****!

  9. Naden Smithers says:

    You left-wing, do-gooder bastards you. Leave us the hell alone!

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.