Drink drive law changes [Archive]

Genestho

28th July 2010, 13:06

Many of you will know, myself and a few others have been lobbying for awhile , particularly with regards to Recidivist Drink Drivers.

Dependant on what happens with public consultations and select committee hearings, legislation could be changed early next year.

What became clear in the final months was that the issues of prevention and deterrents had come down to lowering the limit across the board, which started in the media as soon as the crash that killed 3 Motorcyclists by a four times prior drink driver, started me on my journey began - or, targeting repeats.

Through public consultation - results released at the beginning of the year - The top issues adressed were repeats, what couldn't be agreed on was lowering the limit.

It became an extremely passionate debate for all involved.

In the end, amongst a storm of controversy - Government announced on Monday:

Alcohol Interlocking Devices - proposed at Judges discretion possibly from second offences - user pays.
Zero tolerance for repeat drink drivers.
Zero tolerance for youth drivers.
Doubling the Penalty for Drink Driving causing Death from 5-10 years.
Edit:Cabinet has also asked for more work to be done on penalties for the most serious repeat drink drive offenders.

There is still alot of work to be done to get these laws working right legislatively, a few loopholes need closing, avoidance issues need adressing, current and future changes need to be enforced.

Anyway, well done to those on KB that have supported the cause through wearing the T-shirt, attending BADD events, reported on the cause, assisted in some way, put up with Rants :p, or been a friend along a really tough road

Alot of hard yards have been put in from alot of people both here and offline, so thankyou all:Punk:.

We never gave up.

Gremlin

28th July 2010, 13:21

the adult level still needs to be lowered :(

mashman

28th July 2010, 13:28

Dogged and relentless, I like it... superb work TGW, I hope you get everything you want :)

onearmedbandit

28th July 2010, 13:32

the adult level still needs to be lowered :(

Serious question. Is there any info on the number of crashes where the driver was within say 30% either way of the limit? I'm just curious as to whether the majority of alcohol-related crashes are caused by those grossly over the limit etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'm strongly opposed to drink driving.

Gremlin

28th July 2010, 18:18

Serious question. Is there any info on the number of crashes where the driver was within say 30% either way of the limit? I'm just curious as to whether the majority of alcohol-related crashes are caused by those grossly over the limit etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'm strongly opposed to drink driving.
Dun look at me for them fancy numbers stuff... I simply believe you can be too impaired to drive while still under the limit.

But then, I don't drink, so the limit could be zero for all I care :shifty:

rastuscat

28th July 2010, 18:43

caseye

28th July 2010, 18:48

davereid

28th July 2010, 19:49

Toaster

28th July 2010, 20:03

Good work that girl, I have watched your input, and well done.

I am unconcerned about the limit staying where it is.

Drivers don't have a "drink speedo" to read, and in my opinion they fall into two camps - the 2 beers after work, or a wine at dinner guys, and the I don't give a fuck I'm driving anyway group.

So, if it were a speed limit, we have those doing 45, 50, 60 and those doing 160 as it were. While it can no doubt be proven that dropping the speed limit to 30 would save lives, its the 160 km/hr chap that needs the attention, particularly if it is a habit.

You work on catching the major, recidivist offender is the important bit.

Exactly right.

Same goes for crime. Just because it is illegal, that doesn't stop some from doing it and they are the problem.

Much of it is just a bandaid on a large wound. Recidivist drink-drivers will still find ways around it such as using other cars they own or that of or friends and relatives (as they already commonly do). They keep driving drunk and while disqualified with little regard for the law or the safety of those wanting to use the roads and get to their destinations unharmed.

I say 2nd offence should be forfeiture of the car to the Crown, and goodbye freedom for a month and compulsory rehab.... one less drunk on the roads at least while behind bars.

I am tired of seeing large multiples of repeat disqualifications handed down laid and extentions to disqualifications that they ignore anyway!

schrodingers cat

28th July 2010, 20:23

I hear that there is discussion whether or not to lower the allowable blood alcohol limit to 50mg/100ml of blood from its current 80mg/100ml.

http://www.alcohol.org.nz/InpowerFiles%5CPoliciesAndSubmissions%5CDocument.D ocument.33179.1f26619a-17ac-4b01-9154-405fc2ee4ded.pdf

In principle I don't have a problem with that but was wondering what people thought the pros and cons of having a 'soft landing' would be.

Heres how it could work.

If over 80mg/100ml apply status quo
If over 50mg/100ml the driver recieves an infringement notice and lots o demerit points.
More alcohol, more points/money up to the 80mg cut off
If a driver recieves 3 strikes in 2 years over 50mg but always under 80mg then they have to undergo drug and alcohol counselling.

In this way you would achieve a lower threshhold of alcohol level in the good sized group of law abiding citizens. Should someone get it wrong and overimbibe a little then they would surely get an almighty wake up call

IMO 'soft landings' work because a firm cutoff (79mg - lawful citizen, 81mg - baby seal killer) makes the 'crime bigger than it is.

They already do it with speed so there is a precedent already.

As I see it, there is plenty of research that show other factors (tiredness for instance) impairs folks driving as much or more than alcohol. These things can't be legislated against so why simply demonise alcohol?

So tell me wise ones - Why wouldn't this work?

SMOKEU

28th July 2010, 21:06

porky

28th July 2010, 21:08

Dun look at me for them fancy numbers stuff... I simply believe you can be too impaired to drive while still under the limit.

But then, I don't drink, so the limit could be zero for all I care :shifty:

x2

.....limit should be zero..... but ive got an axe to grind.....

rastuscat

28th July 2010, 21:35

I wonder who the retard is who came up with the idea of alcohol interlock devices to be fitted to vehicles. And people wonder why the government is fucked when there are muppets like that trying to rule the country.

Interlocks need to be fitted to the EBA retards, not the vehicles. Anyone can see that a car with an interlock will just sit in the driveway while the other car is used.

Or am I out of sync with the real world?

Spearfish

28th July 2010, 21:46

Hmmmmmmmmmm. TGW, maybe you can answer a question on this.

If a cop stops someone, the cop will have to know the drivers previous conviction list before being able to apply differential readings i.e. if the driver is over 20, the Popo will have to know if they have previous, as the test result will have different outcomes for someone with convictions.

It seems to me that this is going to be the end of passive breath testing on large checkpoints, as you can't find out a drivers history very quickly.

Secondly, what constitutes a recidivist? One conviction in the last 5 years? Two?

The practicalities of this are a bit hard to picture. Your advice appreciated.

The passive is the one they do in the car to determine if you have been drinking at all, if it fails you are required to undergo the evidential without delay but like you say how do cops know at that stage who should be at 0 and who is ok up to 400 breath alco level, but then they have different limits for youth etc
So if they sniff any alco you will have to wait for a radio check for your history, yes its just a min or so to wait but its not going to be a quick wave on even after a legal drink.
After a few months of being stopped by TAG units the general public will find it much easier just not to drink anything at all (the best outcome for us that have lost family to pisshead vehicular murder). So because the overpaid wet blankets in the beehive cant bring themselves to pass a law lowering the drinking level (because of public backlash?) by stealth they will have zeroed it.
I guess it depends on how cynical you are if you think the govt did it by design or blunder.
Considering the real outcome of the mining in NZ national parks bullshyt, I would say design.

A piss-head, social outcast, potential murderer completing a forfeiture of licence could be given a special licence with conditions that the popo can read then and there rendering this post as nothing more than a rant.

Genestho

29th July 2010, 11:00

I also forgot to add in the announcement:
Cabinet has also asked for more work to be done on penalties for the most serious repeat drink drive offenders.

To be honest, I didn't realise the outcome would be "either/or"

I lobbied for what I did because I couldn't see how lowering limits were going to prevent hardcore drink drivers.

A hardcore drink driver is indicated as having high level BAC, and/or repeat offences.

Treatment specialists have been saying for a few years now with OIA's to back the claims - that assessment is not mandatory, in 2006: 52% are on their 4th or 5th offence before judges order assessment and only 5% of all drink drivers were required to attend A &D counselling , so we have had no way of knowing who's a problem drinker, or who is simply a binge drinker and could be educated.

Spear fish - you're correct, other countries recognise a recidivist offender on an interlock program by issuing Interlock licenses for on the spot recognition.

Rastus - I believe a recidivist would be a repeat offence within 5 years, and there is an option called SCRAMX link (http://alcoholmonitoring.com/ams_files/resources/SCRAMxdatasheet.pdf) to monitor alcohol thermally every half hour, to make sure zero tolerance is adhered to, circumvention is logged, and how this is dealt with depends on who monitors this, and what the penalty is.
Car avoidance can be monitored through the IID technology, usually dealt with in general as a penalty, swiftly and severely, and further enforced through courts, dependant - case by case.

Studies in New Mexico show those who tried avoidance techniques in court who were given a selection of more unsavoury sanctions, showed 70% of drink drivers opted into Interlock programs.

Again in New Mexico - In 2005 after installing mandatory interlocks to all DUI's first timers with high BAC readings - after using them for 10 years on recidivists, they have seen a 35% reduction in all alcohol related fatalities.

I refer to New Mexico because they have a hard drinking culture, quite rural and spread out, and the first to use IID's on recidivists, with 11 states in the US following suit, Canada, Europe, Sweden and Australia, NM has most successful outcomes based on a combination of factors, and best look back detail.

Files attached, you will note in one that 57% of license classifications are incomplete - learners, restricted, never held a license or disqualified so we can see that's part of the problem as Toaster referred to.

There's no magic bullet here, but a combination of education, rehab, technology, sanctions, monitoring, and most importantly community involvement - is proven to work.

rastuscat

29th July 2010, 13:20

The passive is the one they do in the car to determine if you have been drinking at all, .............................
So if they sniff any alco you will have to wait for a radio check for your history, yes its just a min or so to wait but its not going to be a quick wave on even after a legal drink.

Ta for that.

Any attempt to flog the repeat offenders is good.

Irony here. Shoplift a Moro bar from K-Mart and you'll get fingerprinted, photographed and some time in a cell. Get caught drink driving and they fill forms out, hand them to you and send you on your way (in the vast majority of cases). It's a throw back to the MoT days, when drink driving was only considered an offence, not a crime. Personally I think that threatening the lives of other people by drink driving should be treated more seriously than the Moro bar theft, but I'm just a plebe. God forbid that I should trample on the rights of some poor drink driver.

So there.

Kickaha

29th July 2010, 16:32

I also forgot to add in the announcement:
Cabinet has also asked for more work to be done on penalties for the most serious repeat drink drive offenders.

What, like this guy?

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/7666333/drink-drive-killer-had-17-previous-convictions/

A banned motorist who killed a Northland mother while driving with nearly double the legal limit of alcohol had 17 previous drink-drive convictions, a court has heard.

Warren John Jenkins, 49, of Orewa, north of Auckland, pleaded guilty in Auckland District Court last week to driving with excess breath-alcohol causing the death of Katherine Kennedy, and other offences.

He was remanded in custody for sentencing in September, The Northern Advocate reported.

Jenkins crossed the centre line, colliding with Ms Kennedy's car on State Highway 10, just south of Kerikeri in the Bay of Islands, on March 17.

She was airlifted to Whangarei Hospital where she died several hours later.

Jenkins returned a blood-alcohol reading of 146mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood -- nearly twice the 80mg legal limit. He had 17 previous convictions for drink-driving and 19 convictions for driving while disqualified.

Police at the scene found two red wine casks in the back of his car and another wine bladder on the road after the crash.

Jenkins was admitted to hospital for treatment but discharged himself two days later.
He was arrested as he slept in a car parked in Auckland, after a tip off from a member of the public.

Genestho

29th July 2010, 19:15

What, like this guy?

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/7666333/drink-drive-killer-had-17-previous-convictions/

A banned motorist who killed a Northland mother while driving with nearly double the legal limit of alcohol had 17 previous drink-drive convictions, a court has heard.

Warren John Jenkins, 49, of Orewa, north of Auckland, pleaded guilty in Auckland District Court last week to driving with excess breath-alcohol causing the death of Katherine Kennedy, and other offences.

Unfortunately I don't know whether this will come under the new legislation with the timing.

But IMO this is a 'great' example of what Govt need to address, he has so many convictions that it can't be denied he would know the consequences of his behaviour could kill. Not a matter of if, but when.

The charge seems weak under the circumstances.
He will already gain time off for pleading guilty.

I wish this family the best of luck, I hope they have the strength to push hard, and to ask for accountability and the reasoning, as to why this man was let off so many times.

Now is the time.

Spearfish

29th July 2010, 20:13

98tls

30th July 2010, 06:44

I still fear that the Judges will once again let the whole thing down,read in the ODT yesterday of a guy still not sentenced to jail when appearing on his 8th drink driving conviction:shit:,the judges reason for not sending him was that the guy had imposed a trespass order on himself at every pub in town (Alexandrea),who the fuck cares thats not going to stop him drinking.The judge is a complete and utter idiot as many of them seem to be.

davereid

30th July 2010, 08:40

I still fear that the Judges will once again let the whole thing down...

Thats part of the problem, no amount of new laws will help if the powers the courts already hold are not used.

And it could be argued that a lower limit might exacerbate this problem.

Many more people would appear before the courts, with relatively benign blood alcohol levels, diverting attention from the small but very dangerous numbers of drivers appearing with very high blood alcohol levels.

I also see in this mornings "Dominion" Section A3, that 35% of drivers who died in crashes had taken drugs.

The actual figures.. from 1046 deaths

Alcohol only = 135 (12.9%)
Alcohol and Cannabis = 142 (13.5%)
Cannabis only = 96 (9.1%)
Other drugs = 127 (12.1%)

2% of the drivers had alcohol higher than the proposed .05 but lower than the existing 0.08.

Genestho

30th July 2010, 10:24

Its sad this and any other family have to not only go through a trial but have to deal with the questions left over when the soak is sentenced and you know they will.

I don't know if the new impairment test they do for (any) drug carries a heavier penalty, if it does then perhaps that's a better way to hit harder?
It is sad but neccesary, what's worse is that families shouldn't have been put in this position in the first place!

I still fear that the Judges will once again let the whole thing down,read in the ODT yesterday of a guy still not sentenced to jail when appearing on his 8th drink driving conviction:shit:,the judges reason for not sending him was that the guy had imposed a trespass order on himself at every pub in town (Alexandrea),who the fuck cares thats not going to stop him drinking.The judge is a complete and utter idiot as many of them seem to be.
Yep, just last month there were two drivers put away with multiple drink drive convictions, finally receiving the max, which should've happened sooner in the careers, but making their conviction out of step with a drink driving causing death case, where the recidivist had four priors sentenced similar time frame.

Thats part of the problem, no amount of new laws will help if the powers the courts already hold are not used.

And it could be argued that a lower limit might exacerbate this problem.

Many more people would appear before the courts, with relatively benign blood alcohol levels, diverting attention from the small but very dangerous numbers of drivers appearing with very high blood alcohol levels.

2% of the drivers had alcohol higher than the proposed .05 but lower than the existing 0.08.

You're right, part of the problem is current laws aren't being enforced, must gutting for the guys in the front line.

I am waiting on a few OIA requests and hope to be able to see the numbers.

Causing Death with EBA needed raising to reflect the devastation and harm caused IMO, and I do believe IID's are an important measure, but at Judges discretion doesn't sound promising for participation rates, unless the other options are well worse and enforced.

scumdog

30th July 2010, 11:19

AT a guys place today (in the US) and he reckoned his single DIC cost him directly and indirectly $10,000 easily!!

The lawyers fee the drivers ed classes he had to attend twice a week at $40 a pop, the increase in insurance, the fine, the 3 years on probation (Zero alcohol reading allowed during that time), the two days jail etc etc.

Sounds like NZ really needs to step up to the mark.......

scumdog

30th July 2010, 11:22

It is sad but neccesary, what's worse is that families shouldn't have been put in this position in the first place!

Yep, just last month there were two drivers put away with multiple drink drive convictions, finally receiving the max, which should've happened sooner in the careers, but making their conviction out of step with a drink driving causing death case, where the recidivist had four priors sentenced similar time frame.

You're right, part of the problem is current laws aren't being enforced, must gutting for the guys in the front line.

.

Yep, to get even half the maximum sentence you have to make a really determined effort with your drink-driving it seems.

Max fine 1st EBA = $4,500

What they normally get: a fine equal to or less than their breath reading most of the time.

So most get less than $1,000 fine, a lot of the time it's even less than $700.

ukusa

30th July 2010, 12:21

Yep, to get even half the maximum sentence you have to make a really determined effort with your drink-driving it seems.

Max fine 1st EBA = $4,500

What they normally get: a fine equal to or less than their breath reading most of the time.

So most get less than $1,000 fine, a lot of the time it's even less than $700.

& how many are unemployed & don't pay anyway?

caseye

30th July 2010, 20:53

The big prick who nearly killed my mum and dad 12 years ago was on his 14th! yes I said 14th drink driving conviction.He was a native of Tahuna (where the attempted murder of innocent road users occurred) Luckily he died at the scene.Wrong side of the road for over 200m's just a half a k from his home.
Been to the pub three! times not one of his whanau tried to stop him the last time he headed out for "more" booze.
My opinion for what its worth, a slow bullet is too good for em, thow them in Mt Eden and throw away the key.
I'd do it tomorrow no regrets no allowance for mistakes, too bad.
How many more of our families have to die before the small minority who dont know how to care get the point.Stop or you will be stopped PERMANENTLY!

miloking

31st July 2010, 20:02

Hmmmmmmmmmm. TGW, maybe you can answer a question on this.

If a cop stops someone, the cop will have to know the drivers previous conviction list before being able to apply differential readings i.e. if the driver is over 20, the Popo will have to know if they have previous, as the test result will have different outcomes for someone with convictions.

It seems to me that this is going to be the end of passive breath testing on large checkpoints, as you can't find out a drivers history very quickly.

Secondly, what constitutes a recidivist? One conviction in the last 5 years? Two?

The practicalities of this are a bit hard to picture. Your advice appreciated.

Blue licence for learner
Yellow licence for restricted
Green for full

AND FUCKING BRIGHT RED ONE FOR RECIDIVIST DRINK DRIVERS! (yep, would be very embarasing for them to be asked for I.D. in a bank, clubs, getting on domestic flights etc...you name it but thats the way it has to be!)

That way breath testing check can stay passive...

Do you think it would work?

Also recidivist drink driver = anyone who was ever disqualified for drink driving... and i mean EVER, for a life time! There is no need for being nice about it...as most recidivist drink drivers are alcoholics anyway so they should be "off the wagon" for rest of their lifes anyway*

*(unless court decides otherwise in individual cases...as there are always some exceptions and to account for possible errors)

Edbear

31st July 2010, 20:31

Unfortunately I don't know whether this will come under the new legislation with the timing.

But IMO this is a 'great' example of what Govt need to address, he has so many convictions that it can't be denied he would know the consequences of his behaviour could kill. Not a matter of if, but when.

The charge seems weak under the circumstances.
He will already gain time off for pleading guilty.

I wish this family the best of luck, I hope they have the strength to push hard, and to ask for accountability and the reasoning, as to why this man was let off so many times.

Now is the time.

AT a guys place today (in the US) and he reckoned his single DIC cost him directly and indirectly $10,000 easily!!

The lawyers fee the drivers ed classes he had to attend twice a week at $40 a pop, the increase in insurance, the fine, the 3 years on probation (Zero alcohol reading allowed during that time), the two days jail etc etc.

Sounds like NZ really needs to step up to the mark.......

NZ could learn a lot from the US where Vehicular Homicide is a law. We do have now the means to do more, such as a charge of manslaughter or murder and as Scummy says, use the weight of the laws we have!

Indoo

31st July 2010, 21:06

still not sentenced to jail when appearing on his 8th drink driving conviction:.

I can't understand why your not sentenced to imprisonment after your second?

Daffyd

31st July 2010, 21:37

Blue licence for learner
Yellow licence for restricted
Green for full

AND FUCKING BRIGHT RED ONE FOR RECIDIVIST DRINK DRIVERS! (yep, would be very embarasing for them to be asked for I.D. in a bank, clubs, getting on domestic flights etc...you name it but thats the way it has to be!)

That way breath testing check can stay passive...

Do you think it would work?

Also recidivist drink driver = anyone who was ever disqualified for drink driving... and i mean EVER, for a life time! There is no need for being nice about it...as most recidivist drink drivers are alcoholics anyway so they should be "off the wagon" for rest of their lifes anyway*

*(unless court decides otherwise in individual cases...as there are always some exceptions and to account for possible errors)

I like it!

scumdog

1st August 2010, 08:16

& how many are unemployed & don't pay anyway?

Dunno - they go to jail quick-smart if they haven't got payment made in a short time, how they pay back the guys that forwarded the money to pay said fine is another issue - this ain't New Zealand you know, soft-cocks need not apply.!

BTW - 104 degrees F. here at the mo, I know being out in the jail-yard wouldn't be that much fun I suspect.

scumdog

1st August 2010, 08:18

sfordnz

1st August 2010, 10:20

Hey, I agree with you 100% this time - keep up that line of thought matey!:Punk::niceone:

sounds good to me

GOONR

1st August 2010, 10:38

Spearfish

1st August 2010, 10:56

There we go, Miloking has single handed fixed the problem but the problem is, its to simple and worse probably to effective for NZ.

Genestho

2nd August 2010, 11:39

Seperate license classifications to recognise repeats, as well as plate recognition of learner and Restricted plates, like in Australia - have already been suggested in submissions, alongside many other suggestions.

What appears to be missing is a multi agency accessed database, based solely on drink driver data, as is used overseas in DUI courts.

From there we are able to grasp a complete picture of what we have, how to deter repeat offenders case by case - sanctions and interventions, for 'look back' monitoring purposes, and also have a complete historic reference of all prior offences for future reference.

There's a study that suggests increasing fines or license disqualification as a prinicpal penalty, would have limited potential in deterring recidivist offenders in NSW, Aus, based on history and subsequent re-offending of 70,000 persons who received a court imposed fine between 1998 and 2000.

Yet, in an online survey funded and supported by some of the liquor industry of DUI clients in the States - with an average of 3 prior offences; 81% of hard core drink drivers say that more severe sanctions after their first DUI would have made them change their behaviour, the top 3 self reported deterrents from recidivists in order:

1. 76% said Mandatory one year Jail
2. 75% said Mandatory Fines ($10,000 - US)
3. 70% said Alcohol Interlocks

Aside from the legal consequences, family and friends topped the list of reasons why HCDD's stop.

Ironically, 80% were concerned about other drink drivers on the roads.

Patrick

5th August 2010, 01:26

....The actual figures.. from 1046 deaths

Alcohol only = 135 (12.9%)
Alcohol and Cannabis = 142 (13.5%)
Cannabis only = 96 (9.1%)
Other drugs = 127 (12.1%)

2% of the drivers had alcohol higher than the proposed .05 but lower than the existing 0.08.

That 2% still equates to more than 20 families and all their friends not having to go through the trauma of losing a loved one.... time and again on the anniversary of the death.....

Yep, to get even half the maximum sentence you have to make a really determined effort with your drink-driving it seems.

Max fine 1st EBA = $4,500

What they normally get: a fine equal to or less than their breath reading most of the time.

So most get less than $1,000 fine, a lot of the time it's even less than $700.

Ever seen a maximum given out? The best I saw was a $3500 fine in the North Shore Court.... and that was for a 9th conviction..... and I've been doing this for 25 years........................................

& how many are unemployed & don't pay anyway?

True.... dock the benefit....... immediately.......

Blue licence for learner
Yellow licence for restricted
Green for full

AND FUCKING BRIGHT RED ONE FOR RECIDIVIST DRINK DRIVERS! (yep, would be very embarasing for them to be asked for I.D. in a bank, clubs, getting on domestic flights etc...you name it but thats the way it has to be!)

That way breath testing check can stay passive...

Do you think it would work?

Also recidivist drink driver = anyone who was ever disqualified for drink driving... and i mean EVER, for a life time! There is no need for being nice about it...as most recidivist drink drivers are alcoholics anyway so they should be "off the wagon" for rest of their lifes anyway*

*(unless court decides otherwise in individual cases...as there are always some exceptions and to account for possible errors)

I like it a lot... but as for coloured licences, it wouldn't work... they would just hold on to the green license and hand that over, instead of surrendering it when they lose it.... just like they do now.......

A brand on the forehead "PISSHEAD DRIVER" might work better?

T.W.R

5th August 2010, 09:12

A brand on the forehead "PISSHEAD DRIVER" might work better?

this prick is an ideal candidate

http://www.3news.co.nz/Drunk-driver-It-would-be-bad-luck-if-I-killed-someone/tabid/367/articleID/169015/Default.aspx

scumdog

5th August 2010, 09:53

Genestho

5th August 2010, 10:03

Talking to some locals here in Reno, they told me mandatory jail for 3rd DUI, licence goes on probation for a year after sentencing, i.e. NO alcohol aloowed on a roadside screening test.

Would that NZ politicians had the balls to do likewise with our laws.

I believe we are sending the wrong message as to what's acceptable, if we want to combat drink driving on any level, faith in the Justice system must be restored, less judges discretion and more mandatory interventions and penalties.
Discretion is simply not working IMO, as an example: we've used discretion in EBA causing death in 2 cases that come to mind, in the last few years, and some of these people are out, and re-offending and convicted again.

I do have faith that Joyce et el have the balls, knowing what I do - I believe they have shown it so far, and I hope they continue to do so.

Patrick

6th August 2010, 16:57

Talking to some locals here in Reno, they told me mandatory jail for 3rd DUI, licence goes on probation for a year after sentencing, i.e. NO alcohol aloowed on a roadside screening test.

Would that NZ politicians had the balls to do likewise with our laws.

Isn't this exactly what is actually being proposed? Recidivists = no piss at all? Or am I reading the wrong newspaper....?

caseye

7th August 2010, 14:53

Isn't this exactly what is actually being proposed? Recidivists = no piss at all? Or am I reading the wrong newspaper....?

You know what they say Patrick.
If you've got to ask, then your probably on the wrong page mate.
This is a subject worthy of being treated with restraint and application from anyone coming here to comment, the graduated licences should already have happened for car drivers.
The EBA level should stay as it is, all the hype about what can and can't be drunk before any sort of impairment is reached is BS!
Would anyone out there in KB land take the word of a couple of journo's?
I sure as hell would not.
Patrick, while I know the figures are right ie: the 2% between .5 and .8 equates roughly to 20 families, even that number can and would re reduced if we could get to all the under aged, drivers, the habitual drunk drivers and the career crims who all simply drive a car without thought to safety, warrants of fitness, registration,seat belts(either their own or their kids) drink comsummed, etc etc.
Surely we need to be making targets of these types and stop making criminals out of ordinary folk who do drink responsibly and then drive home safely and under the limit as it stands.
NZ's Pollies seem to make much of new laws which do no more than existing ones, except to sound and look good making them up!
I drive cars, i ride bikes,I shoot guns, and I walk in our DOC land with a pack on my back and a fishing tod in my hand.Once i would have paid tax once and been able to do everyone of the things I love doing without thought for how much it was going to cost me.
now the Govt get something out of me for doing each and everyone of those things.
But if you are unemployed, drive an unregistered car, carry illegal weapons and rob your neighbours while they are at work IT"s OK.No Tax@! required cause you are poor and deprived
I've had enough.T.G.W go for the doctor and call me when you want any sort of support I'm in.

Genestho

17th September 2010, 11:28

Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 213-1 (2010), Government Bill
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0213/latest/DLM3231101.html?search=ts_bill_Land+Transport_rese l&p=1&sr=1

And in PDF for easy reading. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0213/latest/096be8ed805ff502.pdf

Safer Journeys alcohol actions and review of penalties causing death, and further actions from the Safer Journeys Iniative.

Allowing police to take alcohol readings for research purposes from all drivers involved in fatal or serious injury crashes who have a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) between .05 and .08 (50 milligrams and 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood or 250 and 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

Lowering the youth drink drive limit for drivers under 20 years of age from BAC 0.03 (30 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood or 150 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath) to BAC zero.

Repeat drink drive offenders will be subject to a BAC zero limit for 3 years after they receive their licence back.

Provide for infringement offences and the associated infringement penalties for the breach of the zero drink drive limits.

Allowing Courts the option to require repeat or serious drink drive offenders to use alcohol interlocks, after a mandated 90-day disqualification.

Interlocks must be used for at least 12 months, and can only be removed where the offender shows a violation-free period of 6 months (reducing to 3 months if an approved alcohol assessment is also completed) and offenders will be subject to a zero BAC limit for the 3 years after the removal of their interlock.

Increasing penalties for dangerous driving causing death.

More Info - recommended reading for ALL Road Users (http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/bills/Pages/LandTransportAmendmentBill2010.aspx)

If anyone else has a vested interest: Select Committee process Information:

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/

MarkH

18th September 2010, 14:05

Repeat drink drive offenders will be subject to a BAC zero limit for 3 years after they receive their licence back.

I don't care about a zero limit - if an occasional drinker is safe to drive with under 50mg then a frequent drinker will cause no problems with that kind of level of alcohol. I care more about the repeated 100+mg offences.

I remember reading in a local paper's court news about a drink driver on the 17th offence being told by the judge that they were lucky not to be going to prison and being given a fine & license suspension. I'm all for mercy and all - but how many times does someone need to show no regard for the law before the law takes that shit seriously?

What I'd like to see is some serious ramping up of penalties for subsequent offences. Something like:
1st offence - 6-12 months loss of license & a fine + explanation of what happens if caught again.
2nd offence - 2 years minimum loss of license & $1K minimum fine + explanation of what happens if caught again.
3rd offence - 5 years minimum loss of license & $5K minimum fine or jail time.
4th offence - 10 years minimum loss of license & mandatory jail time.
5th offence - mandatory lifetime ban on driving (obviously can't trust this cunt with a license) + jail.

Also add a big penalty for drink driving while disqualified for previous drink driving, like penalty equivalent to next offence up. i.e. 2nd offence for drink driving while still banned from driving from the first offence - 5 years minimum loss of license & $5K fine, if caught again driving drunk in those 5 years then they get the lifetime ban and jail time.

This should be a serious law that make the drunks take it seriously. The guy that almost killed my mate (over 6 months in hospital) and caused him to lose his right leg below the knee got a fine & loss of license and some PD - that is rather pitiful considering the impact on another persons life. Maybe if the law got serious with the prick on an earlier offence this would never have happened. There needs to be some proper punishment even for those lucky enough to not hurt someone else - don't keep sending them out on the roads to try again until a motorcyclist is killed or injured.

Genestho

18th September 2010, 18:10

I'm really sorry to hear about your mate Mark, I totally agree with you that we need to stop mucking around letting drivers culminate so many offences.

I can see why there has to be a zero limit set for repeat drink drivers - you have to send the message. It's not just about the issues we have now, but the way we shape our young ones. Things will very different for the next generation, it won't be as excepted as it was.

We also know legislation can only do so much.

I'm also going to apologise for my LONGGGG and wordy post - but please bare with me. :)

There's a two fold thing - some penalties are available and not charged or sentenced accordingly in the public's eyes - but justifiable in the eyes of the justice system, some penalties are just not available when Judges are calling for them.

Some cases have mitigating factors, offenders pleading early guilt, Restorative Justice, reparation, time frame between offending.. resulting in less severe sanctions, it can all be very complex to what we may see as a black and white situation.

In the last month there've been cases where judges are now awarding the max penalty for serious recidivist drink and disqualified drivers of two years, but this becomes out of step with drink drive causing death cases as we've seen some go away for the same amount of time, or judges crying out for more options.

Last week a High Court Judge turned over a District Court Judges ruling http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/7946686/drink-drivers-19th-conviction-draws-bigger-sentence/

To explain the sentencing referred to in the story:
Concurrent Sentencing is the type most commonly used at present in New Zealand. This is where seperate sentences are handed down for each offence committed by an offender - but they are all served simultaneously, i.e. side by side, in parallel.

Cumulative Sentencing is where all the sentences that an offender may get at any one time for a series of offences are served end-on-end, i.e. one after the other.

I'm thinking this is down to:
Until 1st July 2010 - we had:

"Traffic offences
Subcategories are:

driving causing death or injury – charges involving driving with excess alcohol; reckless/dangerous driving; or careless driving where death or injury occurred.
It is no longer possible to distinguish data related to charges resulting in injury and charges resulting in death.
A small number of those who kill a person while driving a motor vehicle are charged with manslaughter rather than driving causing death driving with excess alcohol – mostly charges where a person was driving with excess alcohol, but also includes charges where the offender refused to supply a blood specimen, or was convicted for driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

Charges where a person was driving with excess alcohol and caused death or injury are included in the ‘driving causing death or injury’ category in this table
-driving while disqualified
-reckless/dangerous driving
-careless driving
-other traffic. "

From 1st of July - drinkdriving causing injury or death is no longer 'just' a traffic offence as it has been for squillions of years - it is now under a new offence classification of dangerous and negligent acts endangering persons, becoming more aligned with New South Wales offence classification - so we now have an aggravating factor. This tells me that Govt are listening to the public and recognising the harm and destruction being caused.

This is what we have now:
Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons
Offences in this category include:

Driving under the influence of alcohol or other substance
Dangerous or negligent operation (driving) of a vehicle
Neglect or ill-treatment of persons under care
Other dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons

As well as:
Traffic and vehicle regulatory offences
Offences in this category include:

Drive while licence disqualified or suspended
Drive without a licence
Vehicle registration offences
Vehicle roadworthiness offences
Exceed the prescribed content of alcohol or other substance limit
Exceed the legal speed limit
Parking offences
Pedestrian offences

I'm assuming/hoping this will and other bits will allow for more cumulative sentencing options and current or future proposed penalties.

There's progression - we're chipping away. As you can imagine submissions and info are sent in by all quarters of the community - last year saw around 1400 submissions for the whole raft of 60 odd measures in the Safer Journeys strategy, pretty small when you see exactly how far the changes reach every road user in the country.

The more individuals or families that have been involved in these types of crashes, or has vested interest that add input the better - it takes a bloody long time to move mountains!

Fatt Max

19th September 2010, 08:45

This is news of great importance and a result of mammoth proportions. Considering all that had to be discussed, dissected, analyzed etc etc the result is one which will affect the lives of many and which will! make sure many more don't have to die needlessly on our roads.Well done T.G.W and all of the others who represented and stood tall.

+1 and well said Caseye.

Brilliant work T.G.W, major respect for what you have done and your tenacity in continuing with this lobbying, an example to all of us mate

Genestho

1st October 2010, 11:44

Cheers FM!! :) It's been a long haul..

Just a reminder to those interested, Submissions are being requested for select commitee - you can do this online here: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/MakeSub/e/d/7/49SCTIR_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL10329_1-Land-Transport-Road-Safety-and-Other.htm

The bill http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0213/latest/DLM3231101.html?search=ts_bill_Land+Transport_rese l&p=1&sr=1

Or .pdf
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0213/latest/096be8ed805ff502.pdf

Submissions are due 21st October!!!

FAQ's here: http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/frequentlyaskedquestions/Pages/Alcoholpackage-FAQs.aspx

Juzz976

1st October 2010, 11:57

Genestho

2nd October 2010, 21:30

I once had youth failed after having 1 x 4% beer, ok so I thought strange but ok I'm an adult.

I was more surprised that I was not asked for identification, this happened when I was 23, I'm now 28 and still get ID'd everytime I purchase alcohol.

I wonder how old that cop thought I was as I would have expected to have been asked for identification to prove I wasn't a youth and not over the limit.

Also I think the limit is too high, I have walked passed a checkpoint and asked to be tested to see if I was able to drive in the current state. I passed even though I'd never drive that intoxicated.

For now, all we can hope is that people will plan ahead, or make judgmement calls such as yours.

Apologise for the long post...:)

I went searching for data and came back with sketchy figures and estimations, reports based on unsure information from worldwide BAC reports.

We simply cannot base a blanket policy around unknown information - we just don't have the data, we can't even correctly estimate how many lives or costs would be saved.

If the data were to show significant crash rates within .5 and .8, it's something that without a doubt should be changed.

This data should've been collected years ago - unfortunately it hasn't.

What does stand out was that we allow drivers to cultivate multiple convictions, we have a severe problem with youth, and we have a significant amount of incomplete license owners or disqualified drink drivers causing crashes.

There is actually a helluva lot more to preventing drink driving and the category of wider issues of which there's quite a list, and so many issues not being tackled - unfortunately, no singular magic bullet.

Having read literally hundreds of reports on worldwide BAC limits and critques, they always come back to saying the same thing - we are unable to expect legislation of lowering limits alone to change a minority of public behaviours.

There's shown to be positive gains overseas when lowering limits in changing behaviours, alongside certain types of public programs, campaigns, education, enforcement, asessing and monitoring of alcoholics, in the US - impaired courts - not all but some of which would require serious rethinking in NZ (and alot of money).

We have seen over the last year - scare mongering tactics - media coverage of absorption rates and no detail at all paid to metabolism rates, aka; the healthy liver processes one standard drink an hour - drink beyond and you'll be too drunk to drive.

Same as with residual alcohol - if you don't let your liver rid itself of alcohol in the morning by the time you drive (again at one standard drink an hour) you'll be intoxicated or over the limit.

Alcohol related crashes frequently happen during the day.

Metabolism rates are just as important to understand and to educate, if there had been mention - the media stories would've been quite different and more honest.

candor

19th November 2010, 23:44

For now, all we can hope is that people will plan ahead, or make judgmement calls such as yours.

Apologise for the long post...:)

I went searching for data and came back with sketchy figures and estimations, reports based on unsure information from worldwide BAC reports.

We simply cannot base a blanket policy around unknown information - we just don't have the data, we can't even correctly estimate how many lives or costs would be saved.

I think the data is sufficient. Luckily got some under the OIA before the subject was sensitive.
Local figures for bacs are here - 223955
223954

I note one driver over 35 dies at 0.05-8 every two years ie half an adult dies at 0.05-8 every year, MASSIVE PROBLEM HERALD DICKS

And there are numerous studies showing that
A) people are incredibly unlikely to crash due to being at 0.05-8 & crashes DUE TO being at that level account for under 1/2 a percent of the toll - resulting in MoTs advice to Govt in the Safer Journeys regulatory impact statement that if fewer peopledie at 0.05-8 due to the numners of such drivers reducing this will be offset by more sober drivers dying ie the same guys will still die alcohol free as it wasn't the deciding factor, any more than being blonde.
b) 0.05 limits increase drink driving deaths (Denmark, Victoria, NT etc etc) due to complex unintende policy impacts.

What has me most convinced (the intelligent and independent studies findings aside) is that all the places with the lowest drunk deaths per km / mile travelled, remain at 0.08, with grossly more severe and modern penalty regimes. While the UK is less comparable, we should look at some of the more result driven States.
TGW has talked about NMs way of addressing it's still serious problem. And drink drive safe havens Utah and NY have about half our drunk toll death risk per km travelled. Intelligent preventive penalties and real deterrence - full stop to flat out offending. Big full stop. The answers are known already, our Justice system is just too liberal or the revenue gatherers too keen for repeat business. Enter 0.05... :sick:
As was explained by Senators to the appalled Mum of a teen who got killed, who'd campaigned all the way into the Whitehouse (she told me) "we just can't get completely rid of drink driving - too many industries depend on it, from panelbeaters... you have to be pragmatic"

candor

20th November 2010, 00:09

IIn principle I don't have a problem with that but was wondering what people thought the pros and cons of having a 'soft landing' would be.

Heres how it could work.

If over 80mg/100ml apply status quo
If over 50mg/100ml the driver recieves an infringement notice and lots o demerit points.
More alcohol, more points/money up to the 80mg cut off
If a driver recieves 3 strikes in 2 years over 50mg but always under 80mg then they have to undergo drug and alcohol counselling.

In this way you would achieve a lower threshhold of alcohol level in the good sized group of law abiding citizens. So tell me wise ones - Why wouldn't this work?

Lower averaged blood alcohol concentrations in the driving population do not lower shared crash incidence. Ireland noticed this.
The myth of such an easy lever just by focussing on BACs alone has lately been subject to much doubt in the policy area. It's an outmoded approach due to many confounding factors.
Prime ones being that
1 recent cannabis use doubles ones supposed BAC related risk (which is very significant as to whether you crash or not). A lot of mixing throws a spanner in the works and is why NZ sees manifold more fatal crashes at BACs under 0.05 than between 0.05-0.09
2. Fatigue makes alcohol more dangerous at very low levels than is taken into account in current policy think tanks. Fatigue is endemic in todays world unlike when the original alcohol crash risk studies were done.
3. The kind of alcohol affects crash risk, more drink crashes are experienced in countries increasing beer consumption, but not in ones increasing wine consumption by volume per capita.
A theory that may explain this (apart from beer drinkers being more macho and reckless by nature than wine snobs) is the inclusion of (? sp) lupulin in beer which is hops - a sedative related to cannabis. So beer likely depresses ones responses more than wine though brewers are keen to spread a myth the hops aren't psychoactive. They are. Go to your chemist or health shop and buy a hops loaded insomnia remedy. Whoa... and then we have people steeping thc teabags in their beer or even their energy caffeine enhanced alcohol brews.
And service stations are selling no doz type stuff to impaired drivers as well.

James Deuce

20th November 2010, 00:12

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Explanatory%20note.pdf

Check Norway out. Same population, much smaller roading infrastructure. 0.01 limit.

candor

20th November 2010, 00:21

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Explanatory%20note.pdf

Check Norway out. Same population, much smaller roading infrastructure. 0.01 limit.

In Norway I've heard theres a law like no more than 2 drink sales to any customer.. it's seagoing and full of sailors and had to get tough.

James Deuce

20th November 2010, 00:25

In Norway I've heard theres a law like no more than 2 drink sales to any customer.. it's seagoing and full of sailors and had to get tough.

It's more to do with the huge suicide problems in Norway, largely due to the seasonal light patterns so depressants like alcohol are frowned upon socially and legally. Their suicide rate doesn't approach ours though. Something else to think about.

schrodingers cat

20th November 2010, 06:54

Lower averaged blood alcohol concentrations in the driving population do not lower shared crash incidence.

Thanks for that.
I've just finished reading a fascinating book by Tom Vanderbilt called
TRAFFIC
Why we drive the way we do
(and what it says about us)
ISBN 978-0-307-27719-0

Recommended reading

James Deuce

20th November 2010, 08:00

Metabolism rates are just as important to understand and to educate, if there had been mention - the media stories would've been quite different and more honest.

Most people seriously don't give a shit and really aren't that interested in understanding metabolic function. It's why there's so many fat people now.

The message is quite simple. Don't drink and drive. If we're not going to introduce the death penalty for the second offence at least allow cops to legally beat the shit out of anyone pulled over with excess breath alcohol more than once. That would work, provided we allow the cops to inflict crippling injuries that leave people in hospital recovering for months.

I don't have any patience with the waffling around the issue. Politicians and lobbyists split hairs about allowing people to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of a depressant that alters mood, increases reaction times, and causes damage to internal organs including the brain like none of that matters. Because of my liver damage from my accident I'm almost somnolent after one beer. I'm sure there are many people out there in the same boat, perfectly legal to drive but functionally incapable after small amounts of alcohol. So I don't drink and drive but I have NO faith that my fellow Kiwi cares enough about other road users to exercise the same restraint.

Again, I don't suppose anyone gives a shit but do you have ANY idea what is like to drive about expecting the worst all the time (because it happens)? Every second I'm operating a vehicle, while still recovering from a bunch of injuries that have turned out to be much worse than expected? Should I be driving at all? Am I being irresponsible? I KNOW I'm thinking too hard because my fellow road user doesn't think like that and will happily get in a vehicle in whatever altered state they so choose to drive in. In the meantime I'm going to make room for cyclists and motorcyclists and take the abuse from other road users.

The biggest part of this whole mess is always left alone. Most people view driving as a casual right that requires no development as physical capabilities and vehicles change. My accident in January was my fault. I bought a hyper-sports machine that was many levels over what I'd been riding and I probably got bitten because I overreacted to a fairly common situation. I should've done some rider training and a bunch of ride days to get used to the new bike. I still don't know what happened really because I can't remember. All I know was that there was stock on the road immediately before the accident and the Cops found evidence of a collision with a sheep. So who is the fuckwit there then? Me. No one else seems to ride or drive with that attitude though, so therefore drink driving, killing cyclists and pediestrians, running reds and killing kids will remain a national pass time.

Harden up and give a fuck people. Stop arguing about the semantics of what quantity of which drug has the least effect on your driving or riding ability (honestly, you may have excellent machine control but you're still a shit rider/driver - accept that and the road toll will go down when you start doing something about it) and start riding or driving like everyone else out there is your dependant.

Genestho

20th November 2010, 08:53

Most people seriously don't give a shit and really aren't that interested in understanding metabolic function. It's why there's so many fat people now.

The message is quite simple. Don't drink and drive. If we're not going to introduce the death penalty for the second offence at least allow cops to legally beat the shit out of anyone pulled over with excess breath alcohol more than once. That would work, provided we allow the cops to inflict crippling injuries that leave people in hospital recovering for months.

I don't have any patience with the waffling around the issue. Politicians and lobbyists split hairs about allowing people to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of a depressant that alters mood, increases reaction times, and causes damage to internal organs including the brain like none of that matters. Because of my liver damage from my accident I'm almost somnolent after one beer. I'm sure there are many people out there in the same boat, perfectly legal to drive but functionally incapable after small amounts of alcohol. So I don't drink and drive but I have NO faith that my fellow Kiwi cares enough about other road users to exercise the same restraint.

Again, I don't suppose anyone gives a shit but do you have ANY idea what is like to drive about expecting the worst all the time (because it happens)? Every second I'm operating a vehicle, while still recovering from a bunch of injuries that have turned out to be much worse than expected? Should I be driving at all? Am I being irresponsible? I KNOW I'm thinking too hard because my fellow road user doesn't think like that and will happily get in a vehicle in whatever altered state they so choose to drive in. In the meantime I'm going to make room for cyclists and motorcyclists and take the abuse from other road users.

The biggest part of this whole mess is always left alone. Most people view driving as a casual right that requires no development as physical capabilities and vehicles change. My accident in January was my fault. I bought a hyper-sports machine that was many levels over what I'd been riding and I probably got bitten because I overreacted to a fairly common situation. I should've done some rider training and a bunch of ride days to get used to the new bike. I still don't know what happened really because I can't remember. All I know was that there was stock on the road immediately before the accident and the Cops found evidence of a collision with a sheep. So who is the fuckwit there then? Me. No one else seems to ride or drive with that attitude though, so therefore drink driving, killing cyclists and pediestrians, running reds and killing kids will remain a national pass time.

Harden up and give a fuck people. Stop arguing about the semantics of what quantity of which drug has the least effect on your driving or riding ability (honestly you may have excellent machine control but you're still shit rider/driver - accept that and road toll will go down when you start doing something about it) and start riding or driving like everyone else out there is your dependant.

My point regarding metabolism is that it reflects loudly on people who drive drunk in the morning after a hard night, and further regarding any limit at all, it is a huge factor that's not been addressed.

Off the top of my head - even the latest case 11am, the case prior 8am, our case midday, van kampen in the morning, another case mothers day.

Lowering limits essentially means you won't be drinking much the night before, or you will... and hope you don't crash, kill or get caught..

The first year after our crash I was in a severe fog I don't even know what happened then, I shouldn'tve been driving but who else was going to.

Jim, I do know what it's like to be in fear when driving, I can't travel too far as the sole driver because I am fearful for my kids safety or mine as their only remaining parent, with minimal support.

Can't go up north or down the southern isles for long holidays anymore because I feel quite exposed and I know how hideous a smash is.

I can't and won't ride my bike on the road, or pillion with anyone anymore - that joy has been stolen and it has screwed my love for attending rides and rallies, I watch people discuss these and feel complete envy.

Maybe these things will change one day, but I can't see it, just another in a long list of consequences and sacrifices.

Lowering limits legislation is not even on the table - it has been dismissed back in July.

However the debate has been pushed by those looking for an easy vote on an election campaign, a new editor at a paper, and a group pushing a 5+ prohibition plan - they're not bothered that we need more in place to support something like this.

It is not an easy subject, for more solutions you find more problems, and a HUGE problem is that half of what we do now isn't enforced with any meaning, it has been an extreme push to get this far.

But I agree with you - why are we told and know that we don't drink and drive if there is ANY limit at all. It negates the whole point.

The otherside of that is any limit won't prevent those that don't abide laws anyway, so this goes again back to enforcement and community involvement; catching or restricting those on the roads before harm's done. And enforcing the law when it is.

James Deuce

20th November 2010, 09:05

My point regarding metabolism is that it reflects loudly on people who drive drunk in the morning after a hard night, and further regarding any limit at all it is a huge factor that's not been addressed.

Even the latest case 11am, the case prior 8am, our case midday, van kampen in the morning, another case mothers day.

Lowering limits essentially means you won't be drinking much the night before, or you will... and hope you don't crash or kill..

The first year after our crash I was in a severe fog I don't even know what happened then, I shouldn'tve been driving but who else was going to.

Jim, I do know what it's like to be in fear when driving, I can't travel far as the sole driver because I am fearful for my kids safety or mine as their only remaining parent, with minimal support.

Can't go up north or down the southern isles for long holidays anymore because I feel quite exposed and I know how hideous a smash is.

I can't and won't ride my bike on the road, or pillion with anyone anymore - that joy has been stolen and it has screwed my love for attending rides and rallies, I watch people discuss these and feel complete envy.

Maybe these things will change one day, but I can't see it.

Lowering limits legislation is not even on the table - it has been dismissed back in July.

However the debate has been pushed by those looking for an easy vote on an election campaign, a new editor at a paper, and a group pushing a 5+ prohibition plan - they're not bothered that we need more in place to support something like this.

It is not an easy subject, for more solutions you find more problems, and a HUGE problem is that half of what we do now isn't enforced with any meaning, it has been an extreme push to get this far.

But I agree with you - why are we told and know that we don't drink and drive if there is ANY limit at all. It negates the whole point.

The otherside of that is any limit won't prevent those that don't abide laws anyway, so this goes again back to enforcement and catching or restricting those on the roads before harm's done. And enforcing the law when it is.

You're an intelligent, caring, driven woman carrying a much bigger load than is feasibly possibly to most people. All I ask is that you try to understand that most people won't consider the arguments you put forth because they're simply beyond their capability for understanding and acceptance. Most people don't think about their interaction with other road users beyond having enough gas to get to work and bitching about people who cut them up.

All we can do is loudly make drinking and riding/driving socially unacceptable and lobby for it to be much harder and most importantly, VERY expensive to get a licence and even MORE expensive to get it back if you lose it. Shift the economic benefits from panelbeaters to rider and driving trainers. The only way to make people value anything these days seems to be through their pocket. Yes that doesn't address the utterly moronic or criminally insane, but too much focus is on those people. We need to focus on what we can change and that is primarily driver attitude. Where that can be changed is at the training level. Make it compulsory to be trained by training schools who primarily teach attitude and secondarily teach driving to pass your scratchy. Make it expensive.

Doing these things will have a much bigger impact on road tolls and attitudes than focusing on drink driving and speeding as the cause of all things bad on the road.

Genestho

20th November 2010, 09:31

You're an intelligent, caring, driven woman carrying a much bigger load than is feasibly possibly to most people. All I ask is that you try to understand that most people won't consider the arguments you put forth because they're simply beyond their capability for understanding and acceptance. Most people don't think about their interaction with other road users beyond having enough gas to get to work and bitching about people who cut them up.

All we can do is loudly make drinking and riding/driving socially unacceptable and lobby for it to be much harder and most importantly, VERY expensive to get a licence and even MORE expensive to get it back if you lose it. Shift the economic benefits from panelbeaters to rider and driving trainers. The only way to make people value anything these days seems to be through their pocket. Yes that doesn't address the utterly moronic or criminally insane, but too much focus is on those people. We need to focus on what we can change and that is primarily driver attitude. Where that can be changed is at the training level. Make it compulsory to be trained by training schools who primarily teach attitude and secondarily teach driving to pass your scratchy. Make it expensive.

Doing these things will have a much bigger impact on road tolls and attitudes than focusing on drink driving and speeding as the cause of all things bad on the road.

Thanks, I appreciate what you say Jim, love how you get straight to the point!!! :D

When you look at the picture as a whole, it is too much to drive at once, each factor needs a sole focus and be driven by those impassioned and financial enough to do so.

I have been asked to support this and that over the years, each issue takes immense focus, as I'd prefer not to support something on someone elses say so, but to look further into it with an objective and knowledgable view.

In additition to creating awareness, being apart of education programs and researching solutions - last year I submitted a request for road safety classes in schools, I asked for regular relicensing and training, I further asked for maori road safety education because there's a clear culture difference and this should be acknowledged and worked on, I submitted what I did on limited knowledge and information but in a belief of what I felt important.

I know what I know on a particular subject within the whole spectrum, that has affected my family and others and I believe will prevent the same, if we didn't focus on this subject who would've? Nobody else had.

Those measures will be announced hopefully sometime after the 16th of December..

The focus given by myself and others similarly affected has driven these changes and that was the point of my choice of journey, these are the most significant changes to alcohol and driving in ten years.

Knowing what I do on processes - nobody can put all their efforts across the whole spectrum.

candor

20th November 2010, 22:43

Yep these are the most significant change to drink drive laws in 10 years :sunny:
Now we need to look at these baby killers as most safer journeys submitters said; http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4367985/Killer-driver-on-P

Most people seriously don't give a shit and really aren't that interested in understanding metabolic function. It's why there's so many fat people now.

The message is quite simple. Don't drink and drive. ... So I don't drink and drive but I have NO faith that my fellow Kiwi cares enough about other road users to exercise the same restraint.

Again, I don't suppose anyone gives a shit but do you have ANY idea what is like to drive about expecting the worst all the time (because it happens)? Every second I'm operating a vehicle, while still recovering from a bunch of injuries that have turned out to be much worse than expected?

The biggest part of this whole mess is always left alone. Most people view driving as a casual right ...start riding or driving like everyone else out there is your dependant.

The vast majority do try to drive safe, 99% aren't driving drunk or recklessly. I really relate to the paranoia others discuss and definitely limit my highway trips to avoid masacre by the nut jobs, and always take alternate routes to crash prone ones. I've installed a cage to block the dog into the back so it doesn't get killed by an impaired driver like my Mums which was killed too (2 grand of vet surgery later another funeral).

Agree with keep it simple but not so much a flat dont drink then drive message for all, as total zero limits have failed overseas, so don't drive drunk or impaired is the best message imo. As you say the biggest part is attitude, to get caring about other strangers as if they're dependent we need to relate the anti violence value to road safety from a young age.

Road safety education should not be look left then right or signal on your bicycle - it needs to be integrated into the early curriculum as a value of caring to both self and others. I know a lot of otherwise caring people who just cant seem to translate that into their road safety behaviour - they feel immune like a Mum I saw recently elect to drunk drive after much pleading not to from others because she "needed to be home for her kids".

Teen years are too late to make that penny of vulnerability and responsibility to wider society drop. Offenders are either mistake makers or else if incorrigible don't give a F. That starts early and is characterwise a global feature.

The debate and lobbying allows people with focussed awareness on a component of the problem to improve things, sometimes or more often than not here the partial solutions are in details or areas that tend to get ignored. If raising awareness on metabolism, excess power for experience & suchlike helps some people realise their risks with light bulb moments then its all good.
Whats the bet someone has read above posts and rethought something?

kevie

21st November 2010, 09:40

Do we really believe that lowering the limit will stop the drunk drivers???? Personally I don't ... after all, there is a set limit and the drink drivers ignore it ... so what makes the government think lowering that limit will lower the drink drivers? All it will do is make the guy that was 3 times over, 5 times over.

I don't agree with a zero limit, as that kills the wine with the dinner scenario.
But I think they need to look at other options, some suggestions that could be implemented along with a lower limit:
~ the mandatory impound of the driven vehicle on the first offense, (providing the vehicle belongs fully or in part to the offender OR he/she has the owners permission to be driving the vehicle) And a 28 day automatic suspension of license.
~ CRUSH the vehicle on subsequent offenses and the driver goes to prison (or home detention) (again the conditions as above)
~ Reduction in opening hours of ALL liquor outlets including clubs.
~ If a liquor outlet sells to a minor revoke his license to sell for 28 days
~ If a drunk driver injures a person charge him with attempted manslaughter, if the drunk kills another person charge him with manslaughter and sentence them to the maximum sentence. (There has been enough education and there is NO excuse and its as bad as me walking into a mall with a gun and firing it then claiming didn't know it would kill or injure someone).
On the sentencing issue ... I believe violent or repeat 'physical harm' offenses should carry a MINIMUM sentence (as opposed to the current recommended/maximum), so the judge can only sentence the offender to that minimum limit or make it higher; Also they should remove parole for a repeat violent offender.
All harsh you will say, but you try riding with the emergency services and watch them struggling to keep the victim(s) of these drivers alive!! I have been on both sides of that coin, as an ambulance officer for several years and also as a victim of a drunk driver, Where we were hit by a drunk driver, with the spinal injuries I sustained I had 4 other patients in our car to attend to, 2 of them in serious condition........ one of the occupants (A young teenage family friend) in our car died a week later, 20 years later my wife still has problems with the spinal injuries sustained in the crash and the offending driver (who done a runner) was NEVER CHARGED!!!!!

So ....... I make NO Apologies for a tough opinion on drunk drivers !!!!!!!!!!!

James Deuce

21st November 2010, 10:16

I don't agree with a zero limit, as that kills the wine with the dinner scenario. That's why I support the zero limit. Your attitude is the same attitude as the many times over the limit recidivist drunk driver's. There's no difference. My broken neck and back was the result of being t-boned at an intersection by someone who had 1 wine with dinner. He was just over the limit on the one wine.

I can't trust you to not drink and drive so no one will. Death penalty for second DIC.

Katman

21st November 2010, 10:23

Harden up and give a fuck people. Stop arguing about the semantics of what quantity of which drug has the least effect on your driving or riding ability (honestly, you may have excellent machine control but you're still a shit rider/driver - accept that and the road toll will go down when you start doing something about it) and start riding or driving like everyone else out there is your dependant.

Amen to that Jim.

yachtie10

21st November 2010, 10:31

Owl

21st November 2010, 10:40

In Norway I've heard theres a law like no more than 2 drink sales to any customer.

Interesting that with nearly half the alcohol consumption of NZ, Norway have more than twice the alcohol related deaths? Perhaps Nick was involved in those stats?

Bonez

21st November 2010, 10:43

Katman

21st November 2010, 11:37

And just to clarify my position - I, too, wouldn't support a zero limit.

Using laws to attempt to change peoples attitudes won't make as solid a difference as working on people's sense of conscience to change their own attitudes would.

MarkH

21st November 2010, 11:44

He was just over the limit on the one wine.

How is that even possible? It seems MUCH more likely that the 'over the limit' driver was flat out lying about how much he had been drinking! Was there 'real' evidence that he had in fact only drank 1 glass of wine with dinner?

Katman

21st November 2010, 11:58

How is that even possible? It seems MUCH more likely that the 'over the limit' driver was flat out lying about how much he had been drinking! Was there 'real' evidence that he had in fact only drank 1 glass of wine with dinner?

My wife has a wineglass that holds a whole bottle.

(She insists I add that she hasn't used it yet). :o

scumdog

21st November 2010, 12:16

That's why I support the zero limit. Your attitude is the same attitude as the many times over the limit recidivist drunk driver's. There's no difference. My broken neck and back was the result of being t-boned at an intersection by someone who had 1 wine with dinner. He was just over the limit on the one wine.

I can't trust you to not drink and drive so no one will. Death penalty for second DIC.

What was his breath alcohol level?

I bet it WASN'T over the limit with 1 wine - unless it was one BOTTLE.

Maybe you mean he failed the 'sniffer' test at the crash scene?- (which showed he had alcohol in his breath but not the actual amount)

BTW: Almost everybody I've tested assured me they have had "a couple" or sometimes "I've had three" when the reading shows a level of 680 or so and I ask them to honestly tell me how much they have drunk.

Do they think I am going to say "Ah well, in thatcase the machine must be wrong, run along, you're free to drive home"?:blink:

Drew

21st November 2010, 12:50

What does lowering the limit achieve? People are still more likely NOT to encounter a booze bus driving home, so they'll just keep risking it like they do.

Eventually the general public will view it as a cash gathering by the cops, though they will be wrong as drink driving is a criminal offence and will cost a fucking fortune to process the increase in numbers of cases.

More money will be spent paying for ad's, after shit loads of cash is spent on private companies being paid to find statistics that the government made the right choice.

So, fuck that! Lets just toughen up on the cunts that are driving over the limit. (I don't care if the use of that word offends people, in that context it should only offend drunk drivers).

Genestho

21st November 2010, 12:51

Just to clarify I have never lobbied for lower limits, will never lobby for lower limits, and have lobbied for things I think will actually work and could make a difference to RECIDIVIST AND HARDCORE DRINK DRIVERS, the rest is down to education and awareness and personal responsibility, without that as a foundation - we have nothing to base anything on.

Infact, I was one of the few last year to bring up the point that there's no evidence to lower limits. I studied that point very briefly and it was dismissed.

In two years time when research is in to lower limits, then I will be far far away from being involved.

rastuscat

23rd November 2010, 04:17

My broken neck and back was the result of being t-boned at an intersection by someone who had 1 wine with dinner.

Over the years I have processed hundreds of drink drivers who have claimed to have only had 1 glass of wine, but who have been over the limit.

Having access to the testing machine, I can advise that I have also tested myself (and lots of other Popos) after a wine or 2, or alternative alcohol choices. Our unanimous view is that anyone who is over the limit who says they have had one glass of wine is full of sh**.

People claim to have had less than they actually have in order to deflect blame. It makes the limit look like it is too low, instead of them having had too much to drink. It's a normal human reaction called self-justification.

The limit is too high. I have been at the limit, and would never dream of driving a vehicle. This view is held by everyone who actually has been able to test themselves after drinking.
:angry:

candor

23rd November 2010, 19:36

The limit is too high. I have been at the limit, and would never dream of driving a vehicle. This view is held by everyone who actually has been able to test themselves after drinking.
:angry:

But thats a view about how safe you are based on subjective feelings not one supported by science, feeling dodgy doesn't equal being dodgy;
Nb it is a $300 non criminal infringement MoT proposes
Post 50 shows zip deaths in the proposed infringement range (underrepresented). It is 5x more dangerous to just be a sober youth & they have no subjective feeling of the risk, and more dangerous to drive sober than at 0.04 (solid evidence for this is in the massive real world German study linked below).

In four years 2004-7 only 13 NZ’ers died @ 0.051-8, versus 56 deaths @ 0.01-5 (drugs often compounding risk. Fully 200 died while over the 0.08 limit. Only two of the thirteen 0.051-8 deaths (unlikely alcohol caused mostly) were over 34. So on average only one "senior" person dies, within the proposed infringement range each two years (source BAC bands OIA). Consistent data locally with Grand Rapids Revisited study finding under half a % of tolls can be attributed to alcohol >0.08 in Germany http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/T95/paper/s9p2.htmlge

Also;

The briefing note on BAC given to to the Irish Govt; "In general, in other states, lowering the BAC legal threshold has been accompanied by a significant lowering of alcohol related collisions. This has been demonstrated in the evaluation of the effects of lowering the BAC from 0.10 to 0.08. However the research on reducing from 0.08 to 0.05 has not seen the expected decline in alcohol related collisions". It says experienced drivers won’t suffer adverse effects or raised crash risks at the same BAC as novices. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0kv4kSxp1N8J:www.drinkiq.com/DrinkiQ%2520Documents/en-IE/RSA%2520Briefing%2520Note%2520on%2520Blood%2520Alc ohol%2520Levels.doc+briefing+note+Road+Safety+Educ ation+and+Research+briefing+note+on+blood+alcohol+ levels&hl=en&gl=nz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShX_-F6LJIaA-OJ2Dhb9iFLZFGbpR9y37ZGROdPHEGOn7YOEh3LQiNuuJiAsqTr r1bB_qVgl8WtCA0b7p4pEbUvtuDAnpPtg7HIWOXlmun0yhGvsT-hGi7DTCX57zCI-wgadeF0&sig=AHIEtbR5yjPwp7VeQzZ6Y1EPh7PnCY-Vx
In Irish Govt debate 25/2/2010 it was noted a limit drops moot in the absence of rural transport. Per “suicide aware” elderly rural people may have their only interaction at the Pub, and isolating them by mingey intake may result in more deaths from suicide than may occur on road if the limits not dropped.

"On 1 March 1998, the Danish per se limit was lowered from 0.08 to 0.05% BAC for motor vehicle drivers...this has not resulted in a marked decrease in the proportion of injury accidents with impaired motor vehicle drivers (BAC>/=0.05%) compared to all injury accidents. On the contrary, the proportion of fatal accidents with drink-drivers compared to all fatal accidents has increased in the after-period - Danish Transport Research Institute. Ref - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12729815

Intensive 0.05 ticketing doubled drink deaths in 21-29 year olds and in those over 40 and made no diff to others in Victoria btw 97-01 (graph 3) as tests had risen to the 2 million + with 45,000 tickets versus say 314,000 with 14,000 fines in 1986.

Prior to the ramp up Homel (Drink-driving law enforcement and the legal blood alcohol limit in New South Wales - Acc Analysis and Prev. Volume 26, Issue 2, April 1994) had just found a small impact on Saturdays but "There was no significant effect of the .05 law on any other day of the week (than Saturday)", and that drink crash reductions were due instead to random breath tests impacts, + that what were then assumed to be small impacts of 0.05 on just Saturday crashes (yeah right) offset by more in week crashes may not have been sustained without RBT. Yeah right - see how RBT "sustained the (SUGGESTED MEAGRE) gain" NOT, when the trial given its full run DOUBLED DEATHS in Victoria; http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=6&tierID=3&navID=91C67AC87F00000100716FA042BED8C1&navLink=null&pageID=23

And a comprehensive Canadian Govt review, bought to my attention here, given known facts states;“Even if 0.5 caused behaviour change, which requires drivers to know limits and how to stay under, when studies show most don’t, the behaviour being prevented is of itself simply not likely often harmful”. !!! I want Police preventing homicides not civilised dining experiences.

Queensland saw no sustained effect, South Australia drug tests so isn’t comparable, Dutch gains were due to advents of breath and drug testing, Alcohol factored in 19% of Swiss fatalities pre 0.05, now 30% of serious crashes. Harm stayed high when France and Slovakia went to 0.5, so both lately corrected with mass random drug testing. The touted effect of lower average BAC’s only lasts 1-2 years. The much cited Northern Territory miracle of lower average BAC’s… for a minute… took alcohol involvement in fatalities from 48% in 2005* to 74% last year** (NT Police alcohol strategy 2005 doc and 2010 doc)

To top it off the AA is rightly concerned a limit drop will up the toll by distracting from real issues. Media release: 15 November 2010
“Simply lowering the current blood alcohol limit is not going to fix New Zealand’s drink driving problem because these people are already blatantly ignoring the higher current limit, so we don’t see why they would respect or comply with a lower one,” says Mr Noon. And see huge criticism of drink drive tack here as it expands on the submission AA made to safer journeys noting that "Safer Journeys only novelty is one of degree in the scope for issuing infringements. Doing the same thing expecting a different result isn’t rational";
http://www.hardingconsultants.co.nz/trafinz2010/downloads/Wed_4_King__Peter.pdf

Which evidence all supports the views of Officer Phil Robinson of quotas, wimpily defended by bot Paula Rose on Close Up; "we have to take advice of the overseas advisor" (world bank guy Tony Bliss). The Canadian review clearly stated all countries switching to 0.05 quotas did so not on the evidence but under World Bank pressure. MAKE IT PAY - MAKE YOUR PAY

IT'S HARD TO LOOK PAST THE FACTS THAT The UK, NY and Utah are the safest places from drunks - all 0.08 WITH PROPER JUSTICE SYSTEM Support. 0.02c also works but 0.05 is retrograde, and on all credible evidence will set road safety back and spill big blood by distracting from real solutions, while the penny drops that 0.05 isn't, over the 5 years following the newe taxes implementation.