Experts back proposal to cut blood alcohol limit

[spajohn]

"A man weighing 85kg and measuring 1.8m can consume between five to eight standard drinks, or seven stubbies of beer, over a two-hour period and remain below the current limit, ESR forensic toxicologist Allan Stowell calculated. "

Makes sense to me...I reckon I would be questionable (!!?) if I drank to the max of the limit then drove...certainly don't want cagers near me that have.

What do you think?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3561510/Experts-back-proposal-to-cut-blood-alcohol-limit

[Maha]

Not being a big beer drinker, seven stubbies over a two hour period and I wouldn't drive.
Come to think of it, dont think I could even drink 3.5 bottles an hour.

[Jonno.]

It's the same bullshit, the amount of drink drivers caught close to or just under the limit pales in comparision of recidivist drink drivers twice, and thrice the legal limit. Do something about that first.

[Oakie]

Damned sure I wouldn't be riding after 7 stubbies. 3 over 2 hours is probably as far as I'd push it and even then I know I'd be more cautious than usual.

EDIT: Riding after 2 handles in an hour is the about the worst I've done I think.

[Jonathan]

<IMG SRC="http://static.stuff.co.nz/1270697365/538/3561538.jpg">

OMG! It's Rick Hemi!

On the One News site it says "The 80mg level allowed a man of average height and weight to consume six standard drinks within 90 minutes - about three-quarters of a bottle of wine, and a woman to have four standard drinks - about half a bottle of wine."

I have seen some people pretty ratfaced after 3/4 of a bottle of wine!

[bastardsquad]

I'd question the pharmacokinetics of the '7 stubbies in 2 hrs and be just under for an average guy' statement. In my Uni days we had a prominent ALAC poster displayed in the pub that advised for an average male it was 3 standard drinks in the first hour and one every hour after that for the liver to be able to break down the alcohol. Bear in mind that a standard drink is only 330mL of 4.0% beer , if you go to 5.0% its less to consume. So , I call bullshit.The important thing here is that this is a 'calculation' based on modelling of liver breakdowns in 'average' people, not blood alcohol measurements taken from live people in a validated study.

[nsrpaul]

im stuffed after two beers, so I say lower it!

[Bodir]

It does not matter what the legal limit is, but how people go about drinking and driving. The message is slowly sinking in that alcohol is affecting your riding/driving right from the start. The amount of alcohol to get it started depends on your liver. So some people should never drink before using a vehicle while others can cope with a lot and still be safe. It all results in the same though. People traveling on the road thinking they are still capable of doing so while clearly not and hence endangering others. The worst part is even drunken pedestrians cause accidents.

Personal responsibility should come first, laws and regulations should not be necessary to keep dangerous behavior off the road. I guess society is not there yet though.

[riffer]

Don't like alcohol and riding. Make the limit zero and avoid the ambiguity.

[Sentox]

Drinking and riding just boggles my mind. Drink driving is bad enough, but riding is far, far more demanding physically and mentally.

[Smifffy]

I'm all for a zero limit, but probably because I have friends and family who don't drink and are happy to sober drive.

[varminter]

The very idea of riding after drinking give me the shits, I need to be stone cold sober and have my faculties at 100%. Besides the doctor said stop drinking totally or you liver will leave you for another. No brainer that one.

[Bodir]

The problem is, you cannot make it zero. You will have blood alcohol from eating fruit or some wine in the cooking. I am all for making it near zero, but I am even more for rides choosing to behave like that anyway without the Muppets declaring it a rule.

[mashman]

Don't like alcohol and riding. Make the limit zero and avoid the ambiguity.

I agree 99%... but there is 1% that says we should make it zero... BUT... still breathalize and using a "safety limit" (i.e police discretion), maybe then have the person perform the tests that they do in the states... i.e. straight line etc... a fail resulting in you being DUI and charged as such (fine, warning)... do it again and we'll wreck your vehicle instantly and you'll be looking at time. Brutal, but I think that's where we're heading.

[Smifffy]

I guess it doesn't really matter what the limit is. There will still be those that claim "I'm ok to drive regardless of how many I've had", who will drive time and time again, and won't stop until they either kill themselves or some one else.

We already have limits and there are people up in court on the same charge for 8th and 9th time - some even pregnant!!!

FFS.

[scumdog]

I guess it doesn't really matter what the limit is. There will still be those that claim "I'm ok to drive regardless of how many I've had", who will drive time and time again, and won't stop until they either kill themselves or some one else.

We already have limits and there are people up in court on the same charge for 8th and 9th time - some even pregnant!!!

FFS.

Gouge their eyes out after the third offence.:angry:

The won't do it again.

Problem solved:yes:

[Toaster]

Yep, it will the usual muppets that disregard the law anyway and drive drunk no matter what.

Same goes for smacking kids. The same people will beat up their children no matter what the law says.

[Conquiztador]

Tightening the laws will solve nothing. Changing peoples attitudes will. But that is too much like hard work. So lets just change the laws and make it look like we are doing something. At the same time we will clog up courts with dads who had a beer after their game of footy.

Is there any statistics showing that drivers that were 1/2 way of the legal limit have more accidents than the ones who had no alcohol in their blood? I doubt it...

[Genestho]

The first thing I was asked when an indefinately disqualified 4x prior recidivist drink driver that tried to resit his license 2 years prior - and failed, before killing my hubby and mates was "do you think lowering the limits would stop this kind of thing happening" (huh?)

I'll say again, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

There is no way in hell him or his ilk would respect a lower limit, if he couldn't comply with the current limit.

One of the prime movers of lowering the limit, will have you believe that recidivism is not a problem.

And that infact only cases highlighted recently in the media make it appear so...


"Recent highly publicised cases of repeat drink drivers recording very high blood alcohol levels are reinforcing the ‘urban myth’ that drink driving is mainly a recidivist problem, says the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC)."

“The fact that a drink driver is more likely to be a first time offender, than a recidivist, is consistent with the findings from surveys looking at alcohol use and driving,” he said.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1003/S00478.htm

However: "A first time drunk driving offender on average has driven drunk 87 times prior to being arrested". Reference:Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.


Here's some facts that anyone can source:
[05 -07] 57% of driver fatalities involving alcohol were either; never licenced, learner licensed, restricted, and disqualified
Not all fatalities and injuries are tested for alcohol and co-lated into crash stats (the human element, not always the first job in terms of keeping people alive! And fair enough)

I quote Ministry of Transport....

[on 05-07 driver fatality BAC readings] "Many of the drivers killed had blood alcohol levels well in excess of the legal limit 80mg/100ml, over half of those who tested positive had a blood alcohol level of over 150mg/100ml."

Which was why there was a request from all concerned at the purpose of lowering limits - to deferr lowering the legal limit, as evidence is lacking in NZ, until research based on fact - not surveys - was undertaken on risk levels between 0.05 - 0.08, which seem, looking at the data - to be a very small slice of the overall pie.

Not only that; we don't enforce penalties that we do have - permanent car confiscation is available at courts discretion, eba causing death, if we did enforce the true sentence, seems the penalties are severely out of step with the rest of the world anyway.

There is no doubt that a first time timer can be just as dangerous to road users as repeats, but it's clear the public want Meaningful Solutions, not a bandaid.

[scumdog]

Gotta agree with the above post - most of the EBAs I get are first-time offenders.

The recidivists tend to give the highest readings though.

[MadDuck]

Don't like alcohol and riding. Make the limit zero and avoid the ambiguity.

I NEVER drink when I am on the bike even at the Puhoi which is less than 20kms from home yet I am happy to have a beer and drive the car....NOT over the limit. So whats the damn difference? I have actually never asked myself that......but am now.

[rustic101]

The answer is simple - Have a zero limit. From this there is no ambiguity if you have had even one drink you are not safe to drive.

I have taken part of the controlled testing of the current Police Breathalyzer, at Police Calibrations . After six RTD's, two beers and a standard glass of wine I still blew under the Youth Limit/ four hours with food. My flatmate picked me up and was pissing herself with laughter at my state. There was no farking way I would have been safe behind the wheel of a vehicle let alone a bike....

What amazes me is individuals three or four times over the limit and driving...Further more are those individuals that think they are safe the day after and still blow over the limit, unfortunate but still a risk to us all.

[MarkH]

It's the same bullshit, the amount of drink drivers caught close to or just under the limit pales in comparision of recidivist drink drivers twice, and thrice the legal limit. Do something about that first.

I have no problem with them lowering the 80 down to 50 and making youth 10 or 20 (margin for error and driving an hour or two after 1 bottle of beer) - it wouldn't cause me any problems because I don't think I have EVER driven/ridden with 10mg let alone 50. I have had a couple of RTDs and then driven about 3-4 hours later - but my body would have pretty much finished processing the alcohol by then (I couldn't feel any effect any more).

But I have to also agree with Jonno - do something about those recidivist drink drivers before they kill someone (like some others already have). I am fine with 6 months loss of license and a fine on the first offence - but they should seriously ramp up the penalties on subsequent offences. The 2nd offence should be fairly harsh - maybe 5 years loss of license and $50,000 fine? The 3rd offence should carry a mandatory prison term. When you read a case of someone done for their 17th offence you have to wonder how little respect that driver has for the law & for the lives of others on the roads! Get these fuckers off the road before they kill someone!!!!!

[slofox]

I'm also of the school that thinks changing the limit won't affect the carnage caused by drink driving. I would predict that changing the law will have NO affect on road deaths. Because, as others have said, the worst drink drivers ignore the rules anyway. All lowering the limit will do is create more criminals and generate more revenue from fines...

Yes, I'm a cynic.

[The Stranger]

I guess it doesn't really matter what the limit is. There will still be those that claim "I'm ok to drive regardless of how many I've had", who will drive time and time again, and won't stop until they either kill themselves or some one else.

We already have limits and there are people up in court on the same charge for 8th and 9th time - some even pregnant!!!

FFS.

What are you smoking? Lowering the limit will make these people see reason and stop them from ever doing it again.
We all know that chipping dogs stops dog attacks and anti smacking laws stops child abuse. I don't see how this is any different.

[F5 Dave]

The answer is simple - Have a zero limit. From this there is no ambiguity if you have had even one drink you are not safe to drive.
. . . ll.

The answer is not simple. You could get nabbed having drunk the night before very easily.

But none of that is relevant. You could have a negative limit; so that your blood has to reduce the level of alcohol just by by touching it - so everyone tested would fail

& you will still get these same feckers that would break our current limits driving.

[boman]

As has been said before, lowering the limit will NOT change a bloody thing. We could make the limit Zero, but, you will still get the disqualified drink drivers, and the lifetime drink drivers, ruining other peoples lives. These oxygen thieves do not give a f@#k that they might hit and kill somebody, because the system will only hit them with the same wet bus ticket they have been hit with before. It is a sham that the punishments in this country do not fit the crimes for which they have been handed down. As an Officer of the law once told me, unfortunately the system we have is the only one we got, so we have to live with it. In my opnion, we need to make the penalties alot harsher so these .... are unable, and possibly unwilling, to reoffend.

But I am not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

[The Stranger]

The answer is simple - Have a zero limit. From this there is no ambiguity if you have had even one drink you are not safe to drive.



You are right, that is a simple answer. Cough syrup and some deodorants contain alcohol. How would you account for that with a "no ambiguity" zero limit?

[Ixion]

I have no problem with them lowering the 80 down to 50 and making youth 10 or 20 (margin for error and driving an hour or two after 1 bottle of beer) - it wouldn't cause me any problems because I don't think I have EVER driven/ridden with 10mg let alone 50. I have had a couple of RTDs and then driven about 3-4 hours later - but my body would have pretty much finished processing the alcohol by then (I couldn't feel any effect any more).

..

FAIL!. With a zero limit you'd lose your licence. It takes four DAYS for the body to completely eliminate all alcohol, down to zero.Yes, days. Because it's one of those asymptotic graphs, where the last bit takes forever to get rid of.

Sure, the last couple of days the amount will be (literally) microscopic, and you won't notice any effect at all. But, it's not zero. Zero means zero. Not 'just a little'. Zero.

As ALAC and the other wqowsers full know, a zero limit means no drinking at all . Ever. Unless you don't drive . Ever. It's prohibition by stealth.

[rustic101]

You are right, that is a simple answer. Cough syrup and some deodorants contain alcohol. How would you account for that with a "no ambiguity" zero limit?

Each of these situations; Irish Moss or High concentration of perfume may fool the initial screening device but the full CBT eliminates this. Failing that you are also able to provide a blood sample in which case either of these two situations will be completely eliminated. This include surgical hand wash and antiseptic.

[F5 Dave]

So you will have every 2nd person hauled down to the station to do a CBT or blood test with 98% released. That sounds like a huge waste of time & more time that the Police aren't on the frontline trying to catch real offenders. Have you thought this out?

[rustic101]

Again its about choices. People choose to drink. There are a few country around that have a Zero limit. If people choose to drive even as you say days after and fail, then so be it. Personally I'm sick to death with alcohol and certainly do not wish to share the road with anyone under any condition who may be remotely under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Alcohol is responsible for more than just drunk driving. Domestics, Disorder, Self Harm and on and on I could go... Quite frankly pass on the next excuse so we can allow it to continue. NZ needs to harden up and individuals need to face the consequences of their actions IMO

[The Stranger]

Again its about choices. People choose to drink. There are a few country around that have a Zero limit. If people choose to drive even as you say days after and fail, then so be it. Personally I'm sick to death with alcohol and certainly do not wish to share the road with anyone under any condition who may be remotely under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Alcohol is responsible for more than just drunk driving. Domestics, Disorder, Self Harm and on and on I could go... Quite frankly pass on the next excuse so we can allow it to continue. NZ needs to harden up and individuals need to face the consequences of their actions IMO

Where are you going with this?
So we remove all alcohol. What about all the other things in society that cause harm, are you sick of those too, or just alcohol?
The problem with intolerance is intolerance itself. You remove alcohol from the top of the list, something else rises to the top becomes intolerable and needs to be quashed.

[scumdog]

You are right, that is a simple answer. Cough syrup and some deodorants contain alcohol. How would you account for that with a "no ambiguity" zero limit?

Obviously you have had NO experience regarding the EBA process and how it all works.

Or are a complete troll......

[Ixion]

Each of these situations; Irish Moss or High concentration of perfume may fool the initial screening device but the full CBT eliminates this. Failing that you are also able to provide a blood sample in which case either of these two situations will be completely eliminated. This include surgical hand wash and antiseptic.

No so. Your argument is , perhaps , valid for perfume. It depends on how much of the alcoholic vapour is able to permeate the lung barrier.And certainly for ahndwash, it won't penetrate teh skin

But cough medicines may contain 20% (sometime more) of ethanal (I used to make them by the thousands of tons). Drinking cough syrup containing alcohol is , metabolically, no different to drinking a Woodie containing alcohol. The alcohol enters the stomach, and from there the blood stream. The level will be low. But not zero. Zero means zero. Not 'low' or 'very low'; or 'bugger all' ;or even 'don't be bloody stupid'. Zero means one liquer choccie and you lose your licence. The CBT test at present works round this by ignoring very low levels. It reports them as zero . But if the limit is set to zero it cannot do this. Zero is zero. It must be amended to report the very low level. Which will be an offience. By by licence.

[Mom]

But cough medicines may contain 20% (sometime more) of ethanal (I used to make them by the thousands of tons). Drinking cough syrup containing alcohol is , metabolically, no different to drinking a Woodie containing alcohol.

Blah, blah, techie shit. You also need to consider inhaled broncho-dilators. They also use alcohol as a propellant.

Still, I am of the zero limit brigade. I drink. I dont generaly drive after I have been drinking. I dont like doing the maths associated with how many units I have consumed versus my body weight and my emotional state. Drink, dont drive :yes:

[twotyred]

just more feelgood nanny state crap(who said only labour did that?)...not to mention the huge revenue gathering potential...
8% of alcohol related crashes are in the 50 to 80mg range(currrently legal)
92% of alcohol related crashes are ABOVE the current maximum level.... and a THIRD of those are twice the maximum permissable level...

[Ixion]

Still, I am of the zero limit brigade. I drink. I dont generaly drive after I have been drinking. I dont like doing the maths associated with how many units I have consumed versus my body weight and my emotional state. Drink, dont drive :yes:

yers, you do. It's just a question of how LONG after drinking. If there is a zero limit, be prepared to accept no driving if you have had a drink in the last WEEK. Drink, don't drive. Ever again.

[MarkH]

FAIL!. With a zero limit you'd lose your licence. It takes four DAYS for the body to completely eliminate all alcohol, down to zero.Yes, days.

How is it a fail for me? In my post I said "I have no problem with them lowering the 80 down to 50 and making youth 10 or 20". I never said I would be happy to see 'Zero' even for youth - personally I think 0mg is stupid. If they went with 50mg for adults and 20mg for under 20s then I don't think there would be much problem from the law abiding!

There would still be those that flout the law though and they should do more about them. Even when some drunk crosses the centreline and hits my mate on his m/c putting him in hospital for months and causing the loss of his right leg just below the knee - all the drunk gets is a slap on the wrist!

I sometimes drink and I sometimes drive/ride, but it is always one or the other (right now I am not sober and I am not riding) - I like my life and I don't want to end it or anyone else's. If a drunk driver were to get sentenced to a few months in jail for the 3rd offence then I would be quite happy with that, maybe then some of them would take this a bit more seriously and take a taxi instead.

[bluebird]

Why would you drink and ride? For me it's zero. But I am quite happy to ride my pushbike home from the pub a bit pissed, at least then I won't get mugged, swift and silent!

[Ixion]

How is it a fail for me? In my post I said "I have no problem with them lowering the 80 down to 50 and making youth 10 or 20". I never said I would be happy to see 'Zero' even for youth - personally I think 0mg is stupid. If they went with 50mg for adults and 20mg for under 20s then I don't think there would be much problem from the law abiding!

.

The reference was to your statement



I have had a couple of RTDs and then driven about 3-4 hours later - but my body would have pretty much finished processing the alcohol by then (I couldn't feel any effect any more).


The point being that it would NOT "have pretty much finished processing the alcohol by then".

[p.dath]

How is it a fail for me? In my post I said "I have no problem with them lowering the 80 down to 50 and making youth 10 or 20". I never said I would be happy to see 'Zero' even for youth - personally I think 0mg is stupid. If they went with 50mg for adults and 20mg for under 20s then I don't think there would be much problem from the law abiding!

I would like to see a zero limit for youths. At the moment many youths will fail the current limit if they have even one drink. The problem with having a non-zero limit that is less than a single glass is it falsely gives the impression they can have something to drink and be legal. They end up breaking the law by accident. A zero law stops these people being prosecuted by re-inforcing that even a single drink will put them over the limit.

[scumdog]

yers, you do. It's just a question of how LONG after drinking. If there is a zero limit, be prepared to accept no driving if you have had a drink in the last WEEK. Drink, don't drive. Ever again.

Ahem, after 12 hours you won't get an alcohol reading with the present set-up...and possibly even less than 12 hours in most cases...

[Ixion]

Ahem, after 12 hours you won't get an alcohol reading with the present set-up...and possibly even less than 12 hours in most cases...

Yopu should have read further



The CBT test at present works round this by ignoring very low levels. It reports them as zero.But if the limit is set to zero it cannot do this. Zero is zero. It must be amended to report the very low level. Which will be an offience. By by licence


At present no-one is interested in anything less than 30 thingmillibudgies per centigumboot. So the gizmo can report those as 'no reading'. If the legal limit is zero the gizmo will have to be amended so it doesn't

[Tink]

As has been said before, lowering the limit will NOT change a bloody thing. We could make the limit Zero, but, you will still get the disqualified drink drivers, and the lifetime drink drivers, ruining other peoples lives. These oxygen thieves do not give a f@#k that they might hit and kill somebody, because the system will only hit them with the same wet bus ticket they have been hit with before. It is a sham that the punishments in this country do not fit the crimes for which they have been handed down. As an Officer of the law once told me, unfortunately the system we have is the only one we got, so we have to live with it. In my opnion, we need to make the penalties alot harsher so these .... are unable, and possibly unwilling, to reoffend.

But I am not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

What B said!!!!!

[davereid]

The data is really unclear for any change in the levels, although I am sure that the government will move just to be seen to be doing "something". In 2008, police investigated blood alcohol levels in 211 fatal crashes.

113 had no detectable alcohol
7 drivers were between 30-80
4 drivers were between 80-120
47 were over 120.

There is an obvious spike above 120, but nothing outstanding at lower levels. Certainly the 50-80 area does not identify as a problem.

Part of the difficulty is that in the above sample, 99.98% of drivers were wearing underpants. Does this mean underpants are causing crashes ? God forbid they ban them, or put a size restriction on them !

[Tink]

The data is really unclear for any change in the levels, although I am sure that the government will move just to be seen to be doing "something". In 2008, police investigated blood alcohol levels in 211 fatal crashes.

113 had no detectable alcohol
7 drivers were between 30-80
4 drivers were between 80-120
47 were over 120.

There is an obvious spike above 120, but nothing outstanding at lower levels. Certainly the 50-80 area does not identify as a problem.

Part of the difficulty is that in the above sample, 99.98% of drivers were wearing underpants. Does this mean underpants are causing crashes ? God forbid they ban them, or put a size restriction on them !

Why can't they just say NO ALCOHOL WHEN DRIVING... any trace is an offence!

[The Stranger]

Why can't they just say NO ALCOHOL WHEN DRIVING... any trace is an offence!

Why do that. From the figures davereid posted there is nothing to suggest that will save a single life.
Hell the number without alcohol were greater then either the 30-80 or 80-120, from that we should be encouraging some alcohol consumption.
Why erode our freedoms even more?
Don't willingly give up your freedoms for no benefit.

[motor_mayhem]

Why can't they just say NO ALCOHOL WHEN DRIVING... any trace is an offence!

Did you read whats been written in this thread in its entirety or just the last page?

Products that contain trace alcohol
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080407112239AANIHZ2

[Tink]

Did you read whats been written in this thread in its entirety or just the last page?

Products that contain trace alcohol
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080407112239AANIHZ2

The first line of every thread, I speed read...I might not take it all in, so thats just my opinion... if it has been stated before no harm done really. :)

A comment in the link: Hello, a drug test like that doesn't exist, your employer or whoever is testing you is lying to you to scare you. There is no possible way to detect trace amounts of alcohol 80 hours later. Trace amounts of alcohol are TOTALLY gone from your system within a few hours. What type of test are you taking (urine, blood) and what are you having to take it for?

Fair enough alcohol is in dishes, mouth washes etc.

[p.dath]

Why do that. From the figures davereid posted there is nothing to suggest that will save a single life.

They should do it for youths because the limit is so low for them already that they often can't have even a single drink without being over the limit.

In the 2020 submissions they said that having a non-zero limit often gave youths the false impression they could have 'a' drink. The result is that a lot of prosecutions occur when the youths didn't realise that having even one drink put them over the limit. My impression is this is the why a zero limit was proposed, as opposed to saving more lives.

By making the limit zero it is crystal clear that they can't have even one drink and drive.

[Tink]

They should do it for youths because the limit is so low for them already that they often can't have even a single drink without being over the limit.

In the 2020 submissions they said that having a non-zero limit often gave youths the false impression they could have 'a' drink. The result is that a lot of prosecutions occur when the youths didn't realise that having even one drink put them over the limit. My impression is this is the why a zero limit was proposed, as opposed to saving more lives.

By making the limit zero it is crystal clear that they can't have even one drink and drive.

Its like bad driving... drunk driving is not only youth, a lot of middle age people drive drunk! Proof comes with woman over 50... recently tried in court! What is the real answer people... I don't know...

[davereid]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10637535

One of the country's worst repeat drink drivers is back behind bars after clocking up her 11th conviction for drink-driving and her sixth for driving while disqualified.
Raquel Kiwi has this time been jailed for 21 months after appearing in Tauranga District Court.
Kiwi also lost her licence for a further two years from October 14, 2013, although she remains indefinitely disqualified for life, unless she gets permission from the director of Land Transport Agency to resit her licence.
Kiwi, 30, of Te Puna, in the Bay of Plenty, has an unenviable record, including being jailed for killing her child in a drink-drive smash in 2004, the Bay of Plenty Times reported.
In her latest offending, Kiwi was caught drink-driving at about 1.55pm on December 2 after a member of the public saw her staggering from her vehicle in Takitimu Drive, Tauranga, and alerted police.

When breathalysed, Kiwi had an excess breath alcohol of 1370 micrograms - well over three times the adult limit of 400.

Indefinitely disqualified at the time, Kiwi was driving a stolen Mazda Familia which she had taken from an associate's house the day earlier, the court was told.

- NZPA

[boman]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10637535

One of the country's worst repeat drink drivers is back behind bars after clocking up her 11th conviction for drink-driving and her sixth for driving while disqualified.
Raquel Kiwi has this time been jailed for 21 months after appearing in Tauranga District Court.
Kiwi also lost her licence for a further two years from October 14, 2013, although she remains indefinitely disqualified for life, unless she gets permission from the director of Land Transport Agency to resit her licence.
Kiwi, 30, of Te Puna, in the Bay of Plenty, has an unenviable record, including being jailed for killing her child in a drink-drive smash in 2004, the Bay of Plenty Times reported.
In her latest offending, Kiwi was caught drink-driving at about 1.55pm on December 2 after a member of the public saw her staggering from her vehicle in Takitimu Drive, Tauranga, and alerted police.

When breathalysed, Kiwi had an excess breath alcohol of 1370 micrograms - well over three times the adult limit of 400.

Indefinitely disqualified at the time, Kiwi was driving a stolen Mazda Familia which she had taken from an associate's house the day earlier, the court was told.

- NZPA

A prime example, that even a zero limit, would not stop this kind of person. A bullet would, but sod all else will. Rule .303.

[Coldrider]

Rule .303.Breaker Marant (TM)

[boman]

Breaker Marant (TM)

Yea, thats the one.

[MarkH]

The reference was to your statement

The point being that it would NOT "have pretty much finished processing the alcohol by then".

My point was that it WOULD! 2 RTDs = 1.3 x 2 = 2.6 std drinks. 3 - 4 hours later the body would have processed most of the alcohol and be pretty much finished by then.

I do realise that my blood alcohol would not have been on zero, but I don't think there would have been enough to give a reading on the police testers. It certainly would be well below the proposed 50mg/100ml that we are talking about here - therefore it would NOT be a fail!

As I said - I don't care if they lower it to 50mg - I have never ridden or driven with any where near that. As a limit of zero isn't even up for consideration I would never have failed either under the current law or the proposed one. The idea of making it illegal to drive with a teaspoon of cough syrup in your system (even for youth) does not seem particularly clever to me. For youth drivers I would rather see a limit of 10mg than 0mg - no way cough syrup would be enough to take the alcohol in the blood above 10mg and I don't believe 10mg is enough to impair the judgement of even a young driver in any meaningful way.

[Jonno.]

They should do it for youths because the limit is so low for them already that they often can't have even a single drink without being over the limit.

In the 2020 submissions they said that having a non-zero limit often gave youths the false impression they could have 'a' drink. The result is that a lot of prosecutions occur when the youths didn't realise that having even one drink put them over the limit. My impression is this is the why a zero limit was proposed, as opposed to saving more lives.

By making the limit zero it is crystal clear that they can't have even one drink and drive.
I'm pretty sure the average person will get away with more then one drink. I've been tested with 4 std drinks in 2 hours and been under the legal limit (and I'm a little fucker: 5'9 70kgs).

[davereid]

I'm pretty sure the average person will get away with more then one drink. I've been tested with 4 std drinks in 2 hours and been under the legal limit (and I'm a little fucker: 5'9 70kgs).

Remember we don't have a gauge on the dashboard that shows the exact level of blood alcohol.

The data appears to show that there are different types of drinkers.

Type a) Either don't drink, or drink moderately, they fall in the under 80 bracket, which is either not associated with an increased risk or only a moderate increase. Sometimes, as there is no meter on the dash, these drivers stray up to 120. This shows a moderate increase in risk, but doesn't stand out as a clear primary accident cause.

Type b) Don't care and will drink as they wish. They reach 150 + and drive without any consideration of the rules.

I remain unconvinced that a lower limit will affect group b). I'm also unconvinced that a lower limit will change the road toll, as group a) will continue to self monitor. The only difference will be more of them will be convicted of drink drive.

You could make a similar argument for lowering speed limits.

How many lives would we save by lowering the open road speed limit from 100 to say 50 ?

[Swoop]

How about the majority of crashes? Stone cold sober drivers appear to be a far greater problem.

[T.W.R]

Zero alcohol enforcement is a copy of Brazil's Lei Seca (law 11.705)

http://www.eyebrazil.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=535:lei-seca-declaration-of-war-against-alcohol-and-traffic-in-brazil&catid=343:politics&Itemid=48

and

http://gobrazil.about.com/od/gettingaroundbrazil/a/drylaw.htm

[scumdog]

How about the majority of crashes? Stone cold sober drivers appear to be a far greater problem.

Damn right.

So what is their excuse for lackwitted driving I wonder.:blink:

The sooner a 'stupidometer' is invented to test drivers with the sooner I'll be happy.:yes: