The drink-drive war is won!

[AD345]

Outstandiing news today from from the front lines of the war against drink-drivers. In a massive 2 days blitz where over 31,000 (31,777 to be exact) citizens were detained and searched by officers of the state, over 99% of them (99.4% to be exact) were found to be in full compliance with the nations drink-drive laws.

This heralds a new age of responsible behaviour by the ciitizenry of New Zealand and must, at long last, force official acknowledgement that the current, if onerous, laws and policing methods have finally achieved all that they were enacted to do. Hopefully this will see a marked easing in state surveillance of law-abiding citizens and a reduction in impediments to going about their lawful business.

What a great day

[SMOKEU]

(31,777 to be exact) citizens were detained and searched by officers of the state

What exactly were they "detained and searched" for?

[AD345]

What exactly were they "detained and searched" for?

Suspicion of excess breath alcohol. Each citizen was detained at mandatory checkpoints while their breath was eletronically searched for evidence of a possible crime

[scumdog]

Suspicion of excess breath alcohol. Each citizen was detained at mandatory checkpoints while their breath was eletronically searched for evidence of a possible crime

Hells-bells, I wish I could make it seem so dramatic when I was doing the 'electronic searching' on Friday night...:shutup:

[scumdog]

What exactly were they "detained and searched" for?

Looking for jarpies.....

[AD345]

Hells-bells, I wish I could make it seem so dramatic when I was doing the 'electronic searching' on Friday night...:shutup:

There would be very little drama involved given the nearly perfect rate of compliance and the endless patience of a long suffering populace to these continual stop-and-search exercises.

I'll just be glad when they are finally done away with

[SMOKEU]

Looking for jarpies.....

10-4 that.

[scumdog]

There would be very little drama involved given the nearly perfect rate of compliance and the endless patience of a long suffering populace to these continual stop-and-search exercises.

I'll just be glad when they are finally done away with

....and drunk drivers can go on their merry way huh??:blink:

'Long suffering' - like say 30 to 90 seconds average??:shifty:

[AD345]

....and drunk drivers can go on their merry way huh??:blink:

'Long suffering' - like say 30 to 90 seconds average??:shifty:

What drunk drivers?

The 0.6% of the population that you managed to scrape up?

I'll take my chances thanks and you can get out of my life ok?

For 30 seconds, 30 minutes or 30 days - you're a public servant and I'll call ya when I need ya.

[scumdog]

What drunk drivers?

The 0.6% of the population that you managed to scrape up?

I'll take my chances thanks and you can get out of my life ok?

For 30 seconds, 30 minutes or 30 days - you're a public servant and I'll call ya when I need ya.

I bet the victims of the .6% of drunken fuckwits won't quite have the same attitude as you..


And don't worry, don't bother to call us - we'll stop you on a road anywhere, anytime, all part of the service...:shifty:

[DMNTD]

There would be very little drama involved given the nearly perfect rate of compliance and the endless patience of a long suffering populace to these continual stop-and-search exercises.

I'll just be glad when they are finally done away with

Might sound dramatic but if I have to go through the odd checkpoint every now and again in order for the Police to potentially pull at least 1 drunk off the road, then it's worth while to me.

[Grubber]

What drunk drivers?

The 0.6% of the population that you managed to scrape up?

I'll take my chances thanks and you can get out of my life ok?

For 30 seconds, 30 minutes or 30 days - you're a public servant and I'll call ya when I need ya.

As much as i believe Scumdog seems to be forever on the side of the law...wether it be right or wrong....i would have to say, i agree with him on this occasion.
I think i have been through one of those checkpoints about 2 times. That's about 60sec of my life in total. I figure i can give up those 60sec (been held in cues at BP for fuel longer than that) for the sake of keeping that drunk idiot behind me off the road for a while so he don't kill me or members of my family.
Cheers for your input though...was awesome reading.

[AD345]

I bet the victims of the .6% of drunken fuckwits won't quite have the same attitude as you..


And don't worry, don't bother to call us - we'll stop you on a road anywhere, anytime, all part of the service...:shifty:

Life is risk - you gonna save me from everything? Guaranteed immortality? Musta missed that in the fine print.

Your argument is trite and a parroting of the party line - not unexpected and I can't blame you for it either. You deal with the mess from that 0.6% all the time and I don;t envy you that one bit

Fortunately you dont make the laws nor decide how to enforce them (althought you may think differently). We, the public, decide how much intrusion we will allow you into our lives and I'm tring to bring some balance to the hysteria over this issue - especially they way it is reported.

There's much bigger problems out there and checkpoints have had their day

[scumdog]

There's much bigger problems out there and checkpoints have had their day

They are starting (not before time IMHO) to haul in those who have been imbibing in 'recreational drugs' now,, a step in the right direction. (amongst other things)
And pick up the odd WTA etc that would otherwise go un-noticed...

(PS: I don't follow the 'party line' - just ask my bosses..)

[AD345]

Might sound dramatic but if I have to go through the odd checkpoint every now and again in order for the Police to potentially pull at least 1 drunk off the road, then it's worth while to me.

So where does it stop?

At what point do you, personally, draw the line where you say it is no business of the state to detain you ?

I'm genuinely curious

[scumdog]

So where does it stop?

At what point do you, personally, draw the line where you say it is no business of the state to detain you ?

I'm genuinely curious

When you don't live in said state anymore?

(And if you have found a state that does not poke its nose into your business - if such a state exists - be sure to let me know where...)

[AD345]

They are starting (not before time IMHO) to haul in those who have been imbibing in 'recreational drugs' now,, a step in the right direction. (amongst other things)


To address what issue?

What is the right direction?

how badly do you want to come into my house and just sniff around to see what you can find "just in case"?

remember - you aint just some traffic cop - you're a full fledged officer of the law. How much of my life do you think you should have access to?

You seem like a nice enough guy but geez wayne - do you ever think about where this "right direction" is going?

[Grubber]

So where does it stop?

At what point do you, personally, draw the line where you say it is no business of the state to detain you ?

I'm genuinely curious

They can detain me all they like if i've been fuckin it up.
Generally i don't, so they don't bother me at all..... except for that long arduous 60 seconds a while back.....now that was some imposition that was.

[scumdog]

To address what issue?

What is the right direction?

how badly do you want to come into my house and just sniff around to see what you can find "just in case"?

remember - you aint just some traffic cop - you're a full fledged officer of the law. How much of my life do you think you should have access to?

You seem like a nice enough guy but geez wayne - do you ever think about where this "right direction" is going?

Don't want those 'intrusions' and delays?

Easy, don't drive, anywhere. (In any country on this planet)

We ain't crashing ever into your house 'just in case' you may have been drink driving - unless you've not stopped as requested.

[AD345]

When you don't live in said state anymore?

(And if you have found a state that does not poke its nose into your business - if such a state exists - be sure to let me know where...)

So - whatever the ;aw says is ok = no chance that some wel meaning polli might have overstepped the mark in a rush to garner some votes?

No reflection on whether a set of circumstances that called for an action might have changed?

No possibility that an existing law could be used for purposes far beyond its original intent?

No way that any law abiding citizen could ever be affected by the application of the law to their detriment?

Scummy - is there any such thing as a bad law?

[DMNTD]

So where does it stop?

At what point do you, personally, draw the line where you say it is no business of the state to detain you ?

I'm genuinely curious

Sure thing...as soon as it comes onto my property (home/etc) is when I get more than a bit grumpy.
If I'm smoking a joint/being a clown/etc on my own land and the Police come in to enforce the "law"...then I take offence (pun intended).

I have seen the results of some fuckstain's actions after drinking and driving. I have seen the damage to those left behind from their selfish actions.
Because it is such a short amount of time that it takes to test my bloody alcohol level, I do not have an issue with it.



Do I have double standards? Hell yes...but my opinion non the less.

[riffer]

When I was 18 I was struck and nearly killed by a drunken driver going the wrong way down the street without his lights on. It wrecked my beloved GP125 and sent me into a lamp-post, injuring my neck and chest, resulting in the cervical spondylosis (arthritis in the neck) I now suffer from.

Scumdog et al - you run as many checkpoints as you need. You have my full support.

[AD345]

Don't want those 'intrusions' and delays?

Easy, don't drive, anywhere. (In any country on this planet)

We ain't crashing ever into your house 'just in case' you may have been drink driving - unless you've not stopped as requested.

Crap - and not worthy of you.

Its not a request

theres plenty of places where random searches are specifically illegal

and none of this is the point

we are talking about here and now

[AD345]

yeah I get it about friends and relatives being victims of drink drivers - the same is true with me and my family and friends

Only difference is that I take the actuality of freedom further than the simple comfort of security - thats not a dig at anyone - its just the way I am


Pretty happy just to be having the conversation to be honest - it's a start

[scumdog]

Crap - and not worthy of you.

Its not a request

theres plenty of places where random searches are specifically illegal

and none of this is the point

we are talking about here and now

Here and now?

Don't come down here and have me stop you if your driving pissed here and now.

Don't like the laws?

Neither do I for some laws - but drink driving I HATE - I'd do my own mother for it if she was that stupid (Unlikely, she;'s a tee-totaller)

Sooo.... what IS your point?
You don't want Police to catch drink-drivers?
Or you don't think Police should be allowed to stop YOU, pissed or otherwise?

[AD345]

Here and now?

Don't come down here and have me stop you if your driving pissed here and now.

Don't like the laws?

Neither do I for some laws - but drink driving I HATE - I'd do my own mother for it if she was that stupid (Unlikely, she;'s a tee-totaller)

Sooo.... what IS your point?
You don't want Police to catch drink-drivers?
Or you don't think Police should be allowed to stop YOU, pissed or otherwise?

Fair enough question

My point is this - I think you've won.

I think the culture of NZ has changed from when we started "getting serious" about drink driving (even the terminology has changed). I think we have had the laws and enforement actions that were (probably) needed - but now it's done.

I think the aim has been achieved and I want the checkpoints to be done away with. I dont want the state to stop me when I'm not breaking any laws and this is a place to start because the job is done.


I'm realistic though - I'l settle just for the acknowledgement that the change has occurred and that no further laws need be enacted to stop the "scourge of drunken drivers".

Then later we can reduce the frequency of checkpoints and free up valuable resource for other areas that need addressing but most of all I want us all to realise that what could be done has been done and it has worked

Whay do I get so passionate about this you may wonder, after all its only 30 seconds, saves lives etc etc.......

because mate it really has worked BUT (BIG BUT) there are always people that love to acquire more power (and no I dont mean you personally) and this is the time where they step up and make even more draconian legislation to fix a problem that is DONE with.

Enough is enough

[pete376403]

this http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/128437-The-message-just-isn-t-getting-through-is-it would suggest the war hasn't been won.

Why don't the police do checkpoints right outside pubs?

[Genestho]

Hey AD345. Always enjoy your posts.:yes:

I may be wrong but I doubt there's much chance that checkpoints or RBT will end, only because there are so many studies and proven research around the world - that show these methods as effective in catching drunk drivers, countries that don't have this legislation in place discuss these models in earnest. I do realise the point you're making in reference to that particular media story.

I wouldn't say the war is won, in some ways there is still a way to go, but probably not in the way you think I think :blink: I may explain another time..

I agree with you that there seems to have been a major change, in the time I've been doing my thing - I've seen drink-driving - generally - no longer a joke, unless you count recidivism....and youth are still a problem as we've seen in the last week, but with time I believe we will continue to slowly encourage and educate better planning, understanding and gain generational change.

Policy may encourage change but ultimately change will be down to us - the public, to achieve this. There will always be a percentage of those that won't.

I'd like to hope things can only get better.

Could you please clarify what you mean by this is the time where they step up with more draconion legislation?

Are you fearing changes to alcohol legislation, traffic legislation, search and seizure legislation, something else, or all of the above?
I ask this because the next public consultation/select committee is coming very soon on drink drive issues.

Youth and recidivist changes are a given and I believe there is going to be another huge push for lowering limits.

[riffer]

...I think you've won.

I think the culture of NZ has changed from when we started "getting serious" about drink driving (even the terminology has changed). I think we have had the laws and enforement actions that were (probably) needed - but now it's done.

I think the aim has been achieved and I want the checkpoints to be done away with.

I Disagree.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/3179956/Chch-drink-driving-blitz-nets-49
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/eastern-courier/2551907/Drink-drivers-caught-in-police-blitz
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/archive/national-news/179901

That's at least 400 drunks over a three month period within the last 18 months. Get real.

Personally I'd like the drink-drive rules changed to ZERO alcohol.

[davereid]

Personally I'd like the drink-drive rules changed to ZERO alcohol.


And lets reduce the open road speed limit to 20 while we are in the mood.

[doc]

The drink drive war hasn't started in the courts. Thats where the problem with drink driving is.
Cmon when people have 18 drink drive convictions and as many convictions for driving while disquailified.

Maybe if they lessened the number of checkpoints operation, but when they had one and you failed you lose with effective bigtime penalities.

[neels]

I have no problem with being detained and searched when driving, the imposition is minimal compared to the possible outcomes if drunk drivers were free to go about their business with a reduced fear of being caught.

It's no different from being stopped at the post earthquake police checkpoint on the way out to where I live, if it's keeping out the riff raff that would otherwise be causing problems, then I can live with a minor inconvenience in the interests of the good of the community in general.

[Ferkletastic]

30 seconds out of your life every now and then a massive imposition?

Get over yourself.

[MSTRS]

I gather from the OP that he is concerned because the message appears to be getting through that drinking/driving is a no-no with (only) 0.6% of 31,000 stoppees being over the limit - what was the figure 5/10/20 years ago? - then the Pollies, in an effort to keep the flow of fine dollars coming, will move the goalposts again.
Valid concern IMO. But then again, most people were aware that a blitz was intended, so they'd make a special effort to be good just for that period.
No claims can be made that the problem of drink/driving is sorted until the drinking culture itself in this country is sorted. There's no sign of that being anytime soon.

[p.dath]

Could you post a URL to the orignal story in the NZHerald?

[Pixie]

Outstandiing news today from from the front lines of the war against drink-drivers. In a massive 2 days blitz where over 31,000 (31,777 to be exact) citizens were detained and searched by officers of the state, over 99% of them (99.4% to be exact) were found to be in full compliance with the nations drink-drive laws.

This heralds a new age of responsible behaviour by the ciitizenry of New Zealand and must, at long last, force official acknowledgement that the current, if onerous, laws and policing methods have finally achieved all that they were enacted to do. Hopefully this will see a marked easing in state surveillance of law-abiding citizens and a reduction in impediments to going about their lawful business.

What a great day

Is your name George W Bush? (mission accomplished)

[p.dath]

Outstandiing news today from from the front lines of the war against drink-drivers. In a massive 2 days blitz where over 31,000 (31,777 to be exact) citizens were detained and searched by officers of the state, over 99% of them (99.4% to be exact) were found to be in full compliance with the nations drink-drive laws.

As much as I want drink drivers off the roads, I find it disheartening that 99.4% of citizens lots their right to go freely about their business for a problem with 0.6% of the population. And chances are, only 0.1% of those stopped are probably going to actually have something done in court.

I am very disheartened with the courts. I would prefer those doing nothing wrong could go freely about their business, and those that cross the line and kill and injure face a severe penalty (at least 7 years in prison). I would prefer out soceity operated at these two extremes.

I would like it to be more like Germany, were the penalties are so severe that people think twice about taking the risk. And those that do it a second time loose the opportunity to get behind the wheel for a very long time.

And while I am in full ramble mode, I'd also like our licence system to be more like Germany. Where it costs a lot of money, but most importantly, time to get your licence. You have to accumulate a lot of hours with a certified instructor in all different kinds of driving conditions before you get your licence.

The thing is, if you know it is going to take hundreds of hours of driving time with an instructor to get your licence you tend to value it a lot - and you know the process of repeating that to get your licence is going to be hard.

[MSTRS]

Besides, 0.6% of 31000 is still 185 potential death/mayhem causers off the road. At least briefly.

[Banditbandit]

Might sound dramatic but if I have to go through the odd checkpoint every now and again in order for the Police to potentially pull at least 1 drunk off the road, then it's worth while to me.

While I'm generally with AD354 on this one - I think that citizens going about their lawful business should be able to do so without interferance from the state - I'm also against drunk drivers.

I am prepared to give up a short piece of time at random checkpoints - to be stopped by the law even tho' I 'm doing nothing wrong - if it catches the bastards ... I have a vested interest - my own life - in getting them off the road. We're not yet ready o do away with checkpoints .. and I'm yet to be convinced we ever will be. Even in Muslim countries where alcohol is very restircted the law still catches drunk drivers.

AD354 is right - where do we draw the line? On this one I agree to be stopped - on other issuses I will not be so lenient ... I object to the power of the state and I object to enforcement officers of all types grabbing power to monitor and interfere in my life.

So Scumdog ... Most of the time you can leave me alone .. on this one issue alone I'll let you stop and search with no good reason ...

[bogan]

also, it was quite a blitz, I wonder if any drunk drivers found out and made other plans? If you take the confidence interval of the sampled data, I would imagine you'd include 1%, you saying the cops shouldn't be able to do anything about 1%ers unless it doesn't inconvenience anyone else?

I've only ever been checkpointed once, at like 11am in a commercial vehicle stop, dunno why it was only commercial vehicles though. So I'm probly getting off lightly with regard to my rights being violated. TBH as long as they are stopping everybody theres no discrimination there and I'm ok with it, if they just start pulling up shifty looking buggers like myself, then I'd be more annoyed.

edit: another point is, the cops are often reffered to as revenue gatherers, if they don't catch fuck all drivers in a checkpoint night, they won't make fuck all, so it must be for our safety after all! better there than on the end of a passing lane with a radar I say :shifty:

[Genestho]

You could also argue that those leaving pubs or wherever, were texting mates to avoid the checkpoints?
So those that had nothing to be concerned about went through.

[avgas]

here is hoping they do the same again in 6 months......before they get back on the road again ..... :shutup:

[phill-k]

I enjoy reading these sorts of posts to see peoples diversity of opinion, and sometimes wonder why and from where ones opinion develops.

As regard checkpoints, these are hardly personal searches, you speak towards an electronic device that either passes or fails you, no information is gathered unless you fail. Seldom do they even bother with WOF & Registration.

We will always require this sort of policing, NZer's and I would suppose other nationalities suffer from the complex of it's a great law / idea but it doesn't apply to me, protect me from others indiscretions but when I ignore the law, all will be all right.

As an example the new cellphone law, at present we have a lawyer in Wellington who was using his phone, which is against the law, appealing his conviction by his peers because of due process. He states that the conviction was unlawful, and wishes to overturn it in the high court. Driving whilst using a cellphone has been proved to be dangerous as has drink driving, its unlawful, but he is a man, a lawyer, who specialises in driving issues, who blatantly believes that it is ok for him to break this law. Having been caught, he now wishes to be excused, not because he didn't do the crime but he has the money to attempt to prove that on a technicality the conviction was unlawful.

Now before you start to argue that someone needs to hold the system to account, and you would be right, he has not denied using his phone, he was observed by the police officer to be holding it to his ear and then reaching across the steering wheel with his other hand to use the indicators, his technicality was the officer did not request to see his call register, the phone when stopped was found to be jammed between his thighs.

My point in all this, if the police continue with their checkpoints, and the courts continue with the underwhelming level of fines and punishments, then our present situation will continue, change any of these aspects for the better or worse, and the results will also change as we the public evaluate the risk to our behaviour. Third conviction, confiscation of the vehicle, and I don't care whether its your mothers or a rental companies, mandatory loss of license for 5 yrs, prison perhaps, and further penalties for any further offending. Until the courts start to support the police and impose penalties that have an effect, so the present status quo will exist, ramp them up or down and so also the effect on Joe citizen will change. Lets face it if the penalty for killing someone whilst driving under the influence, or perhaps just being in the wrong - I didn't see him as an example, was the same as if you had taken a gun and shot the person, how many convictions would it take before we all started to think about it a little more.
Just imagine if the police at said checkpoints had the facility to process you completely and if at that checkpoint they also had a compactor, and if it was your third conviction / second or perhaps even first, and the vehicle you were driving was driven straight into the compactor, how quickly would our attitudes change.
We would all be up in arms no doubt, but what if as a reality show, the police who have to deal with the results of drunken drivers also had a camera crew, and we all got to see what they deal with time after time on the 6pm news in all its graphic detail would we then be a little more sympathetic to increased police intrusion on our ability to travel in our own vehicles on our roads. It is because of this that I have the utmost respect for the likes of scumdog, and living in a small township north of whangarei I'm subject to regular screenings, in the last five years I would have been stopped perhaps 20 times and all during the day from as early as 7.30am on.

As an aside I attended a work conference in NSW a few yrs ago, it was over their queens birthday weekend and we had chartered a coach to do a wine tour. On returning to the Airport I got talking to the driver after one of our stops as he was beginning to get agitated, he was running out of drive time and did not want to get stuck in Sydney for his stand down time, but driving the Pacific Highway from Newcastle he was religiously sticking to the speed limit as he stated that in NSW on a holiday weekend they doubled the demerit points, and as a commercial driver if you receive demerits they are automatically doubled anyway so that if he was caught doing 10km over the speed limit he would end up with 4 x the demerit points for that infringement which in one go would mean automatic loss of license and that the police would then make him cease driving on the spot. The effect was he simply kept to the speed limit.

The cost of breaching the law to this driver was such that he modified his behaviour, simple really, its just about finding the level at which the punishment or enforcement deter.

[phill-k]

My apologies I've written a bloody book

[avgas]

the phone when stopped was found to be jammed between his thighs.
Sounds like he just didn't want a vasectomy.......but also did not want kids.
This is perfectly legal. :shifty:


driving the Pacific Highway from Newcastle he was religiously sticking to the speed limit as he stated that in NSW on a holiday weekend they doubled the demerit points, and as a commercial driver if you receive demerits they are automatically doubled anyway so that if he was caught doing 10km over the speed limit he would end up with 4 x the demerit points for that infringement which in one go would mean automatic loss of license and that the police would then make him cease driving on the spot. The effect was he simply kept to the speed limit
Alas I can openly say that while the penalties were severe during those times. You still have idiots on that road. I used to drive it every couple of days just over a year ago. Just like in NZ - the idiots still did stupid stuff. They didn't give a flying fuck how much in fines they would get.
It always used to leave me dumbstruck how the aussie family would pack up to go to Newy for the weekend, and do 140+kph on that road in their commodore (speed limit is110).
Sure its only 30kph, but would you risk your kids to save (pulls out calculator) roughly 20 minutes on your trip????

[Genestho]

Just to clarify - Pdath - you may have seen the case two weeks ago where a Judge wanted to give 7 years for drink driving causing death on the 18th drink-drive conviction, but the penalty was unavailable, the wheels are slow to turn but the max penalty is about to double from 5 to 10 years, then we need a Judge with balls to set precedent.

Phil-K to clarify - court ordered car confiscation is available - apparently the offender recoups costs.
http://www.communitylaw.org.nz/fileadmin/documents/Pamphlet_-_Drink_Driving_Brochure.doc

In OIA stats - in 07, 08 and 09 this penalty was not handed down, but then there is a disclaimer of an error band attached to the stats....

I have seen a confiscation order reversed http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-issues/news/article.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=10523479

Prove hardship - job done ;)

I have also seen car confiscation orders a couple of times this year, but 2010 stats won't be available till next year.

[phill-k]

In reply, I have always felt that our issues on the road - drink driving, boy racers, and dangerous speed (note the word dangerous) are well handled by the police by in large but the reasons we continue to see these offences regardless of the enforcement, tv campaigns ect is our court penalty system.
The police are continually let down by the judiciary - and I guess the law under which they act to an extent.
What is the point in lumping more and more fines on someone who does not have the ability to pay, we don't want to incarcerate people because that is a cost to society but what is wrong with confiscation, make sure the public are aware that if they commit a certain offence or amass a certain level of unpaid fine that they will lose the privilege to drive on our roads, their license will be removed and if caught in a vehicle that vehicle will be confiscated regardless of circumstances or ownership, until the penalties served up by the judiciary have the effect of altering behaviour amongst those that continue to abuse or ignore the law we will be stuck with what we have.

Just read the drink drive pamphlet - this is exactly why I feel the law lets society down, the rules of confiscation are that the offender must have an interest in the car, and if its going to put the offender or anyone out or make life a little difficult then they have grounds for appeal, in effect that law is an ass, again if the punishment is not sufficient to deter then the behaviour continues, this applies to both the animal and human kingdom

[glegge]

I like and i think understand your post.
the reason for the law being implemented in the first place has gone.
the figures prove this.
i think your asking that now the problem (at least on papers - numbers wise) has been delt to, it's time the government takes the laws away (the laws that say the police can stop us to check for over the limit - without any reason, ie not showing signs of drink driving).
I agree. look back in legal history - there are lots of examples of out-dated laws still in effect.
ideally the less laws the better, but that will be when we have a society filled with 'mostly decient people'



Outstandiing news today from from the front lines of the war against drink-drivers. In a massive 2 days blitz where over 31,000 (31,777 to be exact) citizens were detained and searched by officers of the state, over 99% of them (99.4% to be exact) were found to be in full compliance with the nations drink-drive laws.

This heralds a new age of responsible behaviour by the ciitizenry of New Zealand and must, at long last, force official acknowledgement that the current, if onerous, laws and policing methods have finally achieved all that they were enacted to do. Hopefully this will see a marked easing in state surveillance of law-abiding citizens and a reduction in impediments to going about their lawful business.

What a great day

[avgas]

An interesting fact (one I gained recently).
How you act on the road, is actually of higher consequence (in legal eyes), than what section of the road code you broke.

I had always thought it was the other way.
So it seems (according to the legal types anyway), not being courteous is actually more dangerous than say "speeding".
Food for thought. Why don't we have people checking on other people driving behavior on the road?
A cop watching traffic, leaving the speed camera to do its own thing?

[scumdog]

The police are continually let down by the judiciary - and I guess the law under which they act to an extent.

I'm not allowed to comment on or criticise the justice sytem (apparently..)

So I won't.

But guess what I'm thinking??

[red mermaid]

Same as I'm thinking?

[AD345]

Some great posts here and a really good discussion. Too many indvidual posts for me to reply to each of them but it has sparked a few more thoughts of my own.

I agree that the rigour of enforcement is diluted by the (seemingly) milder actual consequences of non-compliance.

At an offender rate of around 0.6% it is my opionion that you are getting down to the irreducible nub. As T.G.W stated at this level you are mainly talking about recidivists and first time offenders (youf).

There seems to be common agreement that the penalties for recidivism are much too lenient, especially compared to the likely consequences on innocent people posed by this continued law-breaking. I too am sick to death of hearing about spectacular, often fatal and always tragic outcomes caused by people who have multiple drink-drive convictions.

Tightening of enforcement or lowering of breath alcohol levels or increasing powers of surveillance is not going to affect these people. Their behaviour has already been proven resistant to change and if we cant affect their level of compliance then we must reduce their opportunity to break the law and risk lives. Incarceration or removal of access to vehicles (taking away their licences seems to also be ineffectual as they ofetn hae multiple breaches for that as well as drink-drive offences) would seem to be the best and only options left.

My original point remains and is, indeed, strenghtend by this. Check points and random stoppages are not going to reduce the level of offending much, if any, further. We have started to reach the point of diminshing returns for enforcement and now need to concentrate our efforts on imposing meaningful consequences for non-compliance.

The party/person that halves the number of checkpoints and random stops but doubles (and makes that doubling a minimum) the jailtime for repeat offences gets my vote.

The 0.6% is not going to go away unless we put them away.

[phill-k]

Some great posts here and a really good discussion. Too many individual posts for me to reply to each of them but it has sparked a few more thoughts of my own.

I agree that the rigour of enforcement is diluted by the (seemingly) milder actual consequences of non-compliance.

At an offender rate of around 0.6% it is my opionion that you are getting down to the irreducible nub. As T.G.W stated at this level you are mainly talking about recidivists and first time offenders (youf).

There seems to be common agreement that the penalties for recidivism are much too lenient, especially compared to the likely consequences on innocent people posed by this continued law-breaking. I too am sick to death of hearing about spectacular, often fatal and always tragic outcomes caused by people who have multiple drink-drive convictions.

Tightening of enforcement or lowering of breath alcohol levels or increasing powers of surveillance is not going to affect these people. Their behaviour has already been proven resistant to change and if we cant affect their level of compliance then we must reduce their opportunity to break the law and risk lives. Incarceration or removal of access to vehicles (taking away their licences seems to also be ineffectual as they ofetn hae multiple breaches for that as well as drink-drive offences) would seem to be the best and only options left.

My original point remains and is, indeed, strenghtend by this. Check points and random stoppages are not going to reduce the level of offending much, if any, further. We have started to reach the point of diminshing returns for enforcement and now need to concentrate our efforts on imposing meaningful consequences for non-compliance.

The party/person that halves the number of checkpoints and random stops but doubles (and makes that doubling a minimum) the jailtime for repeat offences gets my vote.

The 0.6% is not going to go away unless we put them away.

I would very much like to agree with you, however the reasons behind the checkpoint operations is not education it is merely a deterrent to the activity targeted, should the numbers of checkpoints decrease you can be assured there will be an increase in both the numbers driving whilst intoxicated and deaths as a result.
The likelihood of coming across a checkpoint is obviously sufficient to modify the behaviour of the majority, remove it and you can be assured people will begin to offend in the belief that they alone are ok driving whilst drunk. Its like smoking we all know the potential outcomes yet many still indulge obviously with the belief that the big "C" won't get them, I mean why else would they continue knowing the facts.

[AD345]

I would very much like to agree with you, however the reasons behind the checkpoint operations is not education it is merely a deterrent to the activity targeted, should the numbers of checkpoints decrease you can be assured there will be an increase in both the numbers driving whilst intoxicated and deaths as a result.
The likelihood of coming across a checkpoint is obviously sufficient to modify the behaviour of the majority, remove it and you can be assured people will begin to offend in the belief that they along are ok driving whilst drunk. Its like smoking we all know the potential outcomes yet many still indulge obviously with the belief that the big "C" won't get them, I mean why else would they continue knowing the facts.

I agree that the purpose of checkpoints is not education. I don't agree that the only reason people do not drink and drive is because of them. I can't think of a way to prove that so can only draw upon personal experience where myself and my friends do not drink and drive because it is a bad thing to do.

It's not fear of punishment that prevents me from murdering people - it is the sense that to do so would be a great wrong

I also think that the barrier to intrusion in our lives from organs of the state should be very very high. My forefathers fought for the ideals of individual freedoms and minimal state oversight and I think its an ideal to work very very hard for - not simply something to give lip service to and then discard in the name of "safety".

Again - that is not a dig at anyone, its just a personal belief. I really do believe that these ideas and ieals are more than just abstract matters for academic discussion. I believe that they are real and impactful every day of our life in a myriad of ways big and small where importance is not defined by the size of the intrusion but the fact of it.

[Banditbandit]

The police are continually let down by the judiciary - and I guess the law under which they act to an extent.




I'm not allowed to comment on or criticise the justice sytem (apparently..)

So I won't.

But guess what I'm thinking??

I'm sorry but the police are NOT the arbiters of social behaviours ... nor should they be allowed to make the laws ... Scumdog has just demonstrated why ...

The police are OUR enforcement arm .. and they enforce the laws that we, as a society, decide. The judiciary preside over trials to make sure they are fair ... in our adversarial system that's very needed ... the jury (12 honest citizens) decide the verdict .. then the judge decides the consequences ... within the framework that a democratic system decides .... And yes - that's the theory ... works in practice too ... tho' sometimes it stuff up - like Scott Watson, David Bain ...

And before you scream that the politicians don't set the laws you want - maybe you're in a minority ... ever thought about that? The right is minority in Aotearoa and has been for many many years ... a vocal one ... but a minority none the less ...

Sorry to scare you all over your morning coffee .. the truth is often scarey ...

[phill-k]

I'm sorry but the police are NOT the arbiters of social behaviours ... nor should they be allowed to make the laws ... Scumdog has just demonstrated why ...

Not sure why my post led into this statement - Our police force are charged as you say with enforcing the laws as implemented by Government on behalf of the people. The people have decided that Drunk Driving (the consequences of) is no longer acceptable, and thus the campaign to reduce drink driving and in the Government's eyes ultimately the road toll by whichpolice action and enforcement is judged. However this is flawed and what I was implying is that the Police in their roll of enforcer of the law are let down by the judiciary in the sentences they deem fit for the crimes bought before them. By this I mean that the punishments, whatever they are, whilst perhaps having an effect on the majority along with such things as checkpoints deter, these punishments are not sufficient to curb the behaviour of the recidivist drink driver and until the judiciary deal out sufficient punishment to deter these people the police actions will be largely ineffective from the point their enforcement has now bought us too.
Obviously if the judiciary are unable under law to increase the penalties then the law itself lets both the judiciary and the police down.

The police are OUR enforcement arm .. and they enforce the laws that we, as a society, decide. The judiciary preside over trials to make sure they are fair ... in our adversarial system that's very needed ... the jury (12 honest citizens) decide the verdict .. then the judge decides the consequences ... within the framework that a democratic system decides .... And yes - that's the theory ... works in practice too ... tho' sometimes it stuff up - like Scott Watson, David Bain ...

And before you scream that the politicians don't set the laws you want - maybe you're in a minority ... ever thought about that? The right is minority in Aotearoa and has been for many many years ... a vocal one ... but a minority none the less ...

Sorry to scare you all over your morning coffee .. the truth is often scarey ...


I'm not scared by your comments, however you say it is not the police responsibility to judge, rather just to provide the evidence, the police are at the coalface, they see the results of offending in all it glory but we leave the actual judgement up to a small elitist group of elderly (by in large) judges who are well removed because of their status and income from society. At this very moment we have a senior member of the judiciary before his peers for conducting a trial whilst having a conflict of interest, he owed a substantial sum of money and was in a business arrangement with one of the council appearing before him but didn't see fit to declare a possible conflict of interest to the parties. I'm afraid if I was to be scared by anything it is the fact that this small group of elitist people who we all no almost nothing about, who if you are to complain about are then judged by their peers who the almost certainly socialise with as well. The police are exposed to the realities of life seeing both good and bad on a continual basis, this is why I have faith in them as a whole.

[sidecar bob]

I'm not allowed to comment on or criticise the justice sytem (apparently..)

So I won't.

But guess what I'm thinking??

How great it was back in the days when the cops had Sunday School??
Dont tell me youre too old for that.

[FJRider]

From the 1st of August ... :yes:

YOUTH limit reduced .. to ZERO ....

PLUS ...

Well ... read it for yourself ...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9323794/parliament-raises-driver-licence-age-to-16/

[DrunkenMistake]

About Time,
doesnt effect me anymore anyway, im 20 in like a month haha

[slofox]

About Time,
doesnt effect me anymore anyway, im 20 in like a month haha

Doesn't affect me either. I'm 62. AND A HALF!

[sil3nt]

Adult limit reduced too ...No change to the adult limit from what i have read.

[jazfender]

ooh 12 months.

16 year olds are FAR more responsible than 15yos...

[FJRider]

No change to the adult limit from what i have read.

My mistake ... I got it wrong ... I must learn to read ... :innocent:

[AllanB]

Won't make a lot of difference other that the driver being 100% piss free and the rest of the car load of kids being absolutely pickled.

[roy.nz]

Should be 18 to get your learners!!!!!!:angry::angry:

Good on the zero limit.:yes::yes:

[FJRider]

Won't make a lot of difference other that the driver being 100% piss free and the rest of the car load of kids being absolutely pickled.

BUT ... They WILL be a year OLDER ... :yes:

I heard the contract to issue licences was let to Sanitarium (Wheetbix) ... Kellogs (Cornflakes) had NOT met the new criteria required ... :shutup:

so licences may be more expensive to buy ... :facepalm:

[StoneY]

I Disagree.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/3179956/Chch-drink-driving-blitz-nets-49
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/eastern-courier/2551907/Drink-drivers-caught-in-police-blitz
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/archive/national-news/179901

That's at least 400 drunks over a three month period within the last 18 months. Get real.

Personally I'd like the drink-drive rules changed to ZERO alcohol.

Almost Riffer, its gonna be 0% for under 20's soon and blood levels may be reduced to .5 from .8

I think the cops are doing a great job on reducing the DIC rates keep it up Scumdog and co.

But it is far from won, look at the little wanker last Feb a bloke called Tim Hutchings wrote off my Legacy doing 140-160kmh in a 50k street in Wainuomata, drifting, on bald tyres and cut springs, 800hp turbo rotary illegally installed in his shitter, and ......600+mg of alch on his breath results
Age- 21

[Gubb]

I would like it to be more like Germany, were the penalties are so severe that people think twice about taking the risk.

Ever since they started using the death penalty in the good ol' US of A, there's been no murders!

Incredible.

[Genestho]

Almost Riffer, its gonna be 0% for under 20's soon and blood levels may be reduced to .5 from .8

I think the cops are doing a great job on reducing the DIC rates keep it up Scumdog and co.

But it is far from won, look at the little wanker last Feb a bloke called Tim Hutchings wrote off my Legacy doing 140-160kmh in a 50k street in Wainuomata, drifting, on bald tyres and cut springs, 800hp turbo rotary illegally installed in his shitter, and ......600+mg of alch on his breath results
Age- 21

I'd like to be optimistic but reality is, it'll never be won so long as youth are youth, simple as that.

And no - there won't be any reduction of *adult* alcohol limits, not until after research has been conducted - two years. From there who knows.

Agree or disagree - at this point; past and present data has clearly pointed to high risk road users and youth being the problem - not the majority of the population.

Glad to hear you're ok!

[Murray]

Ever since they started using the death penalty in the good ol' US of A, there's been no murders!

Incredible.

Yes but how many of those that have been tried, convicted and received the penaly done it again!!!!!

[warewolf]

YOUTH limit reduced .. to ZERO ....What a crock. "Do as we say, not as we do." It would have more effect if the adult limit was brought down from the ridiculous 0.08 to the world-wide accepted standard of 0.05. Lead by example.

[p.dath]

ooh 12 months.

16 year olds are FAR more responsible than 15yos...

You mock it, but I believe the effect of the additional 12 months of brain development will make a difference. It's not just the responsibility issue, but the ability to consider the driving environment and make better decisions.

Plus the number of injuries in the 15 year old age bracket will now drop considerably ...

[jazfender]

You mock it, but I believe the effect of the additional 12 months of brain development will make a difference.

Well with logic, shouldn't the age be raised to the level of full brain development? And why would it not have been already if this was a major factor?

My expert googleresearch says:

"According to Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D., from the University of Pennsylvania, the human brain does not fully mature until age 21 or 22.

Read more: At What Age Is the Development of the Human Brain Complete? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5817063_age-development-human-brain-complete_.html#ixzz1LcZSRbSM"

[scumdog]

Ever since they started using the death penalty in the good ol' US of A, there's been no murders!

Incredible.

Well they don't seem to have quite the same percentage of repeat murderers in action that they have had in NZ...:blink:

[Usarka]

You mock it, but I believe the effect of the additional 12 months of brain development will make a difference. It's not just the responsibility issue, but the ability to consider the driving environment and make better decisions.


There is absolutely no evidence that shows this will reduce crash stats rather than just shifting the age bracket up.

[Bonez]

"According to Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D., from the University of Pennsylvania, the human brain does not fully mature until age 21 or 22.
Can't wait till I reach 21 then.................................

[scumdog]

"According to Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D., from the University of Pennsylvania, the human brain does not fully mature until age 21 or 22.

Read more: At What Age Is the Development of the Human Brain Complete? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5817063_age-development-human-brain-complete_.html#ixzz1LcZSRbSM"


Didn't work with me...:blink::shutup:

[FJRider]

Didn't work with me...:blink::shutup:

Perhaps ... you're just a "late" developer ..... :innocent:

[jazfender]

Can't wait till I reach 21 then.................................

I made you a cake in anticipation...

238107

[jazfender]

Perhaps ... you're just a "late" developer ..... :innocent:

or a latte developer?

[Usarka]

or a latte developer?

I don't think they have latte that far south!

[jazfender]

I don't think they have latte that far south!

I heard it swirls in a different direction down there... :shit:

[Bonez]

I made you a cake in anticipation...

238107The candle looks yummy.

[FJRider]

I don't think they have latte that far south!

I am not impressed with that statement ... we've had those machines for over a month now ... :yes:

[Mom]

I am not impressed with that statement ... we've had those machines for over a month now ... :yes:

Does anyone know how to use them though :dodge:

[FJRider]

Does anyone know how to use them though :dodge:

I started a thread a while back ... "In search of the perfect flat white" ...

:shutup:

[p.dath]

Well with logic, shouldn't the age be raised to the level of full brain development? And why would it not have been already if this was a major factor?

My expert googleresearch says:

"According to Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D., from the University of Pennsylvania, the human brain does not fully mature until age 21 or 22.


There is a balance between economic and social needs of society, and averting unneeded risk.


There is absolutely no evidence that shows this will reduce crash stats rather than just shifting the age bracket up.

There will be in about 12 months ...

[MSTRS]

There will be in about 12 months ...

As you say, time will tell...but I'm with those that reckon it'll made very little difference in the overall scheme of things, other than to lift the ages appearing in the stats. It isn't those 15yo learners having the horrendous crashes. Rather those that have been driving long enough to believe they are now competent.

[Usarka]

There will be in about 12 months ...

What are tonights lotto numbers?

[FJRider]

As you say, time will tell...but I'm with those that reckon it'll made very little difference in the overall scheme of things, other than to lift the ages appearing in the stats. It isn't those 15yo learners having the horrendous crashes. Rather those that have been driving long enough to believe they are now competent.

... competent to text AND drive ...

You don't need a gun licence to shoot somebody ... just a gun ...

And to drive DRUNK you don't need a drivers licence ... just a car ...

[RDJ]

And don't worry, don't bother to call us - we'll stop you on a road anywhere, anytime, all part of meeting the ticket quota

Fixed that for you.

[superman]

I don't understand this zero, does that mean I can't even have 1 beer 2 hours before driving? Or what exactly does this mean... at least with a small limit you'd know. But zero means what, I have a sip of my mums wine to try the taste and I get booked with a DUI?!

[bogan]

There will be in about 12 months ...

Is TPTB's evidence manufactory running a bit slow? Maybe it got worn out in 09/10 :facepalm:

[Usarka]

I don't understand this zero, does that mean I can't even have 1 beer 2 hours before driving? Or what exactly does this mean... at least with a small limit you'd know. But zero means what, I have a sip of my mums wine to try the taste and I get booked with a DUI?!

Ah it's easy.

The rule of thumb currently is 2x 4% beers in the first hour and 1 beer every hour after that.

Now that you can't have any alcohol you need to work out how long it takes for the booze to leave your system, so the best bet is to have a drink say two hours before hand, go for a drive, get stopped by a cop and see if you're ok. Trial and error.

Oh, and don't have any trifle, and watch the aftershave and mouthwash!

:scooter:

[FJRider]

I don't understand this zero, does that mean I can't even have 1 beer 2 hours before driving? Or what exactly does this mean... at least with a small limit you'd know. But zero means what, I have a sip of my mums wine to try the taste and I get booked with a DUI?!

It's easy to figure out ... Drink zero amount of alcohol ... and you may pass ... ANY (other) reading is an instant fail ...

[superman]

Ah it's easy.

The rule of thumb currently is 2x 4% beers in the first hour and 1 beer every hour after that.

Now that you can't have any alcohol you need to work out how long it takes for the booze to leave your system, so the best bet is to have a drink say two hours before hand, go for a drive, get stopped by a cop and see if you're ok. Trial and error.

Oh, and don't have any trifle, and watch the aftershave and mouthwash!

:scooter:

This is just the best piece of legislation ever!

I might have to make it a point that I call the police station for advice everytime I go for a drive just incase I might have consumed a few molecules of alcohol. Wouldn't want to be breaking the law now would I.

"My mother cooks fondue with a large amount of wine and I'm afraid that all the alcohol may not have evaporated, could you please send out an officer with a breath tester so I can check whether I'm legal to drive or not".

You have registered 25 micrograms sir. Cough syrup Mr. Policeman sir. I'm afraid that's a loss of license. FUCK YOU BASTARDS!

Honestly laws like these make me want to commit crime in hate of society against youth. I'm sorry I'm inexperienced, I really just shouldn't of been born. FFS.

[Genestho]

I don't understand this zero, does that mean I can't even have 1 beer 2 hours before driving? Or what exactly does this mean... at least with a small limit you'd know. But zero means what, I have a sip of my mums wine to try the taste and I get booked with a DUI?!
If you're under 20, it means zero, apparently the testing devices are calibrated so substances like mouthwash, don't produce a positive result.

EDIT: Although reading through the Q and A's (http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/bills/Pages/LandTransportAmendmentBill2010FAQs.aspx)
There's a reference: What will happen if a young person is found to have a BAC between 0.00 and 0.03?
They will receive an infringement. This will be an infringement fee of $200 and 50 demerit points.

[Usarka]

You have registered 25 micrograms sir. Cough syrup Mr. Policeman sir. I'm afraid that's a loss of license. FUCK YOU BASTARDS!

Honestly laws like these make me want to commit crime in hate of society against youth. I'm sorry I'm inexperienced, I really just shouldn't of been born. FFS.

Don't worry dude, the cops will use discretion if that's the case (cough-cough-bullshit-they-charge-everyone-and-say-it's-up-to-the-courts-to-decide-except-when-it's-another-cop-cough-cough).

I needs some cough syrup! :apint:

[superman]

Found this somewhere:-

"However, alcohol is present in small amounts in a number of foods, soft-drinks and medicines. Small amounts may also be generated within the body. Furthermore, no measuring device can be 100% accurate. Therefore, it is recommended that a cut off level of at least 100 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath is used where a zero tolerance policy is in place."

So the limit is 100 micrograms not zero according to this in order to be fair, the limit before zero tolerance kicks in for under 20s is currently at a scaringly high 150 micrograms. Go figure, bloody knobs.

For comparison 150micrograms is approximately 1 beer (4.5% alcohol) for an adult male. This is what I have always based it on, I never would drive after more than one. But fuck me if I can't have one bloody beer and drive, you give me a beer and put me up against the average Auckland driver and I will wipe the fucking floor with hazard detection/avoidence and focus. (But maybe that's just the one beer intoxication speaking...:facepalm:)

[scumdog]

This is just the best piece of legislation ever!

I might have to make it a point that I call the police station for advice everytime I go for a drive just incase I might have consumed a few molecules of alcohol. Wouldn't want to be breaking the law now would I.

"My mother cooks fondue with a large amount of wine and I'm afraid that all the alcohol may not have evaporated, could you please send out an officer with a breath tester so I can check whether I'm legal to drive or not".

You have registered 25 micrograms sir. Cough syrup Mr. Policeman sir. I'm afraid that's a loss of license. FUCK YOU BASTARDS!

Honestly laws like these make me want to commit crime in hate of society against youth. I'm sorry I'm inexperienced, I really just shouldn't of been born. FFS.

Waaaa, bawl me fuckin' eyes out cos I can't take cough mixture and drive...waaaaaah, the world ain't fair....waaah,.... does this post make you look like a juvie or what???:rolleyes:

So you KNOW exactly how the new legislation is going to be worded?, how the tests are going to be conducted? how it's going to be enforced? how it's...I didn't fuckin' think so.

FWIW: Drink drivers can't count anyway.:oi-grr:

ME: "So you've blown a reading of 456 sir, how much do you think you've you had to drink tonight?"
EBA subject:"Aw, about two, maybe three stubbies"
MY thought: "pfft, as-if".

ME "So you've blown a reading of 1014 sir, how much do you think you've had to drink tonight?"
EBA subject: "Aw, I shuposhe 'bout three drinksh, nushin' more..'
MY thought: "Does this efwit REALLY think I'm going to believe he's telling the truth and the breath-test is faulty?"

SO, it seems the standard amount of alcohol drunk by EBA subjects is 'about three drinks' regardless of the breath test result.:yes:

RE the new legislation?
My GUESS is that the new legislation will be that you MAY well fail the roadside screening test, ( I'm not talking about the 'say your name into the device sir' bit, THAT bit would show 'fail' from any alcohol on your person or just about from fumes in the car, hence the screening test!) and would then have to go back for an evidential test at the station or wherever, just like at present.

And then the evidential test device would be calibrated to show zero (and that's my GUESS bit) UNLESS you give a reading in excess of XXX amount which would be an amount that would indicate you had actually drunk some alcohol in a bigger amount than a sip of cough mixture etc.

Oh, and unless you blew in excess of 650 you would have to go to Court before anybody said 'that's a loss of licence'.

Chill out
Cheer up
Grow up.
:D

[scumdog]

For comparison 150micrograms is approximately 1 beer (4.5% alcohol) for an adult male.

MY non-conclusive unscientific test using ME as the subject?
Three quart bottles of beer (none of this boyish 'stubbie' crap, - pfft, were they invented for limp-wristed people that didn't have the strength to hold a proper bottle up to their mouth?) in just over an hour and a half, waited 30 minutes, tested myself and then blew 363.

But no way would I have thought I was fit to drive:no:

"Other results may vary, do not try this at home"

[Scuba_Steve]

MY non-conclusive unscientific test using ME as the subject?
Three quart bottles of beer (none of this boyish 'stubbie' crap, - pfft, were they invented for limp-wristed people that didn't have the strength to hold a proper bottle up to their mouth?) in just over an hour and a half, waited 30 minutes, tested myself and then blew 363.

But no way would I have thought I was fit to drive:no:

"Other results may vary, do not try this at home"

Booze tends to go through 3 stages.
1st stage: A couple you feel good 2 drive & can drive,
2nd stage: couple more you don't feel good to drive but still legal to drive (this is the point you should decide to stop now or give up the drive)
3rd stage: you feel good to drive again but are now over the limit & shouldn't be on the road

Now this is a general rule & won't suit/represent absolutely everyone so don't go taking as gospel but this tends to be how the 3 stages of booze & driving works.

But personally a couple of things that could help people like me trying to limit would be every RTD/beer (can/bottle std size) be limited to 1std drink per can/bottle & every bar/pub have to have a free breath test machine. All limiting drink laws do is screw over legit people & put the drunk drivers further over the limit nothing more.

[Berries]

But personally a couple of things that could help people like me trying to limit would be every RTD/beer (can/bottle std size) be limited to 1std drink per can/bottle & every bar/pub have to have a free breath test machine.
Would be good if it worked, but if it gives a slightly different answer to the Police machines then it would cause no end of trouble. Then there are people who will use it, see they are under so have another, and the fact that alcohol takes time to get in the blood. You could be under the limit when you leave but over the limit by the time you find your keys and get your helmet on the right way round.

[bogan]

Would be good if it worked, but if it gives a slightly different answer to the Police machines then it would cause no end of trouble. Then there are people who will use it, see they are under so have another, and the fact that alcohol takes time to get in the blood. You could be under the limit when you leave but over the limit by the time you find your keys and get your helmet on the right way round.

Also it's my understanding that it aint a light switch, even those under the limit are still impaired (just not as much), rather not have everyone leaving the pub just under the limit. Which is pretty fucking high as it is.

[Scuba_Steve]

Also it's my understanding that it aint a light switch, even those under the limit are still impaired (just not as much), rather not have everyone leaving the pub just under the limit. Which is pretty fucking high as it is.

yea there is that plus I guess the biggest prob is a straight line in the sand doesn't really work as half the people on the road nowadays are worse drivers sober than I would be shitfaced yet they're still allowed on the road let alone the same drink limit as me

[Owl]

MY non-conclusive unscientific test using ME as the subject?
Three quart bottles of beer (none of this boyish 'stubbie' crap, - pfft, were they invented for limp-wristed people that didn't have the strength to hold a proper bottle up to their mouth?) in just over an hour and a half, waited 30 minutes, tested myself and then blew 363.

But no way would I have thought I was fit to drive:no:

Hmmmm, I'm not sure I'd be able to see after 3 large bottles, let alone drive. My limit is 2 handles.:facepalm:

[scumdog]

yea there is that plus I guess the biggest prob is a straight line in the sand doesn't really work as half the people on the road nowadays are worse drivers sober than I would be shitfaced yet they're still allowed on the road let alone the same drink limit as me

Probaly true with some drivers - but Iguess there's no quick-easy way to test somebody who has been drinking to see how 'safe' they are.

And from experience I've seen people who had the best of intentions of driving straight home from the pub (when a tad pissed) who later ended up cruising around then getting into a bit of a show-off/race and it all went tits-up at that stage, - reflexes and judgement just weren't as sharp as they should have been. (and I'm including the decision to race as judgement too, not just motor-skills)

[Usarka]

MY non-conclusive unscientific test using ME as the subject?
Three quart bottles of beer (none of this boyish 'stubbie' crap, - pfft, were they invented for limp-wristed people that didn't have the strength to hold a proper bottle up to their mouth?) in just over an hour and a half, waited 30 minutes, tested myself and then blew 363.


Bastard, I drunk 2 steinies after work (had no lunch) and wasn't too far under the limit when stopped on the way home at 5:30. :shit:

[oldrider]

So where does it stop?

At what point do you, personally, draw the line where you say it is no business of the state to detain you ?

I'm genuinely curious

As long as there is drink available people will drink and drive, I for one hope they never stop their check points ... "ever"!

[superman]

RE the new legislation?
My GUESS is that the new legislation will be that you MAY well fail the roadside screening test, ( I'm not talking about the 'say your name into the device sir' bit, THAT bit would show 'fail' from any alcohol on your person or just about from fumes in the car, hence the screening test!) and would then have to go back for an evidential test at the station or wherever, just like at present.

And then the evidential test device would be calibrated to show zero (and that's my GUESS bit) UNLESS you give a reading in excess of XXX amount which would be an amount that would indicate you had actually drunk some alcohol in a bigger amount than a sip of cough mixture etc.

Oh, and unless you blew in excess of 650 you would have to go to Court before anybody said 'that's a loss of licence'.

Chill out
Cheer up
Grow up.
:D

So your theory is if I have any trace of alcohol I'll get screened out, then sent to a police station where they can be sneaky and allow me to blow a zero even with a bit of alcohol in me (oh aren't they soooo kind). So pretty much wasting my fucking time, wasting the tax payers money, and not making anything any safer.

I get it, typical policing buillshit.

[scumdog]

So your theory is if I have any trace of alcohol I'll get screened out, then sent to a police station where they can be sneaky and allow me to blow a zero even with a bit of alcohol in me (oh aren't they soooo kind). So pretty much wasting my fucking time, wasting the tax payers money, and not making anything any safer.

I get it, typical policing buillshit.

NO YOU WON"T GET FUCKIN 'SCREENED OUT" WITH ANY TRACE OF ALCOHOL!!:angry: You're 'theory' is retarded.

Man, I forgot what it's like to be young and stupid....can't remember being THAT stupid.

or THAT angry...

Cheer up. you'll at least be old one day if you live long enough.:woohoo:

[MSTRS]

Come on, SD. He falls in the bracket of those that will be affected by this change of legislation, and he's right to feel worried.
ZERO means nothing, zilch, nada...no trace detected. But if a trace is detected, he's off for an EBA at least. And what constitutes a trace? One sip of beer 2 minutes before the test? Or 24 hours before the test? Ingestion of some foods (as has been mentioned) or a squirt of breath freshener/mouthwash is also a concern. And if the machine/s are calibrated to ignore those, then ZERO doesn't mean what most of us were taught at school.

[superman]

NO YOU WON"T GET FUCKIN 'SCREENED OUT" WITH ANY TRACE OF ALCOHOL!!:angry: You're 'theory' is retarded.

Man, I forgot what it's like to be young and stupid....can't remember being THAT stupid.

or THAT angry...

Cheer up. you'll at least be old one day if you live long enough.:woohoo:

Obviously the police view is I won't live if I drink 1 beer and drive. :yes:

Why market it as "zero tolerance" if that's a lie, to make the media loving public happy?

[bogan]

sounds to me like the 0 (rounded to) refers to the drinks you can have, if your cough syrup contains more than half a beers worth of alcohol, you're fucked (on th plus side it's probly good cough syrup though).

[scumdog]

sounds to me like the 0 (rounded to) refers to the drinks you can have, if your cough syrup contains more than half a beers worth of alcohol, you're fucked (on th plus side it's probly good cough syrup though).

Hmm, somebody seems to have a sensible take to all this....

[FJRider]

Obviously the police view is I won't live if I drink 1 beer and drive. :yes:

Why market it as "zero tolerance" if that's a lie, to make the media loving public happy?

It's not the Police view ( they wanted it tougher ) you need be concerned about ... They enforce policy ... not make it ...

The Goverment changed the rules ... bitch at them ... and if you're old enough to vote ... vote them out in the next election ...

A zero tolerance will be a dead cert ... for those that fail the "attitude test" ...

[scumdog]

Obviously the GOVERNMENTS view is I won't live if I drink 1 beer and drive. :yes:

Why market it as "zero tolerance" if that's a lie, to make the media loving public happy?

Fixed it for you.:yes:

and market 'ZERO' tolerance?...now there's an idea that could be applied to speeds and...good idea young one.

[bogan]

Hmm, somebody seems to have a sensible take to all this....

sorry officer, it wont happen again :innocent:

[MSTRS]

sounds to me like the 0 (rounded to) refers to the drinks you can have, if your cough syrup contains more than half a beers worth of alcohol, you're fucked (on th plus side it's probly good cough syrup though).

Sounds about right.
Roadside sniffers and EBA detect alcohol being breathed out. I guess it has to come from 'boiling off' blood as it circulates through your lungs? Consumed in food or cough medicine, your blood wouldn't net enough to read. Conversely, mouthwashes and breath fresheners do little more than apply a coating to the mouth and trachea - any alcohol would boil off and be exhaled almost immediately.

[superman]

The thing is I understand the drink driving issue. But the age thing is just fucked up and it's fucking annoying how legislation is always wrote against young people.

The point of this under 20 driving limit is what really, lower limits for inexperienced. Then why not make it a limit for those who have had their full for less than 2 years, or 3 years. It means if a 20 year old gets his learners he can instantly drink a good few beers and not be over the limit, which is fucked up.

Just like if you're over 25 you can skip through the 1.5 year restricted time and get it down to a quarter of a year, when the least time I can spend is 1 year on a restricted. It's completely unfounded nonsense just to appease the majority of the population, which surprise surprise isn't affected by the legislation at all.

[bogan]

The thing is I understand the drink driving issue. But the age thing is just fucked up and it's fucking annoying how legislation is always wrote against young people.

The point of this under 20 driving limit is what really, lower limits for inexperienced. Then why not make it a limit for those who have had their full for less than 2 years, or 3 years. It means if a 20 year old gets his learners he can instantly drink a good few beers and not be over the limit, which is fucked up.

Just like if you're over 25 you can skip through the 1.5 year restricted time and get it down to a quarter of a year, when the least time I can spend is 1 year on a restricted. It's completely unfounded nonsense just to appease the majority of the population, which surprise surprise isn't affected by the legislation at all.

I agree, age is a correlation thing rather than a cause. And make the tests harder so you don't have to wrap everything on the road in cotton wool. Thing is, piss off the young-uns and lose fuck all votes, piss off the masses on the other hand...

[MSTRS]

But the age thing is just fucked up and it's fucking annoying how legislation is always wrote against young people.



Stereotyping is a bastard, eh.
All old people are grumpy and smell funny, right?

[superman]

Fixed it for you.:yes:

and market 'ZERO' tolerance?...now there's an idea that could be applied to speeds and...good idea young one.

Oh god this is like talking about the speeding thing. Police officers have their own discretion. They can enforce laws how they see fit to a point, they don't blindly follow what the big man says. At least I hope that's not the case.

Just because it's illegal to go 104 in a 100 doesn't mean every cop seeing you do that will pull you over and give you a fine because it's the law.

It's up to police how much they'll police a law, then of course I'll bitch at cops rather than the government which made said law. You're not mindless drones (open for discussion though I guess...).

Guess we're yet to see how much this is enforced and how much leniancy there is soon enough. Getting a driving intoxicated charge goes on your record for life though doesn't it, I don't want that. So I'm being scared into obedience byt the enforcement authority. It's disgusting to be treated as such if I'm caught driving after a beer. COMPLETE OVERKILL.

[scumdog]

So I'm being scared into obedience but the enforcement authority. It's discusting to be treated as such if I'm caught driving after a beer. COMPLETE OVERKILL.

Go and blame the relies of people killed by drunk drivers for wanting such an overkill, what were they thinking...:blink:

[Scuba_Steve]

Nothing goes better than booze & vehicles, except for Booze & firearms :drinkup::ar15:
...:whistle::innocent:



*not responsible for any fuckwit that actually takes this advice

[AD345]

Bit of a dredge....

The new laws are a bit of a step in the right direction although I think the zero limit for youf is going to cause all of the issues that superman raises but she's a tough ask to avoid political agendas in a political environment.

Well done to the Nats (arrgh that hurts) for staying the distance on the adult limit despite the protestations of the hysterical/talk-back classes.

The best bit to see was at least some effort being put towards recidivist drink drivers who remain a blight on our society. Now lets see if the judiciary take the hint...


Oh, and Stoney - jam it up your arse ya pussy.

:yes:

[FJRider]

Guess we're yet to see how much this is enforced and how much leniancy there is soon enough. Getting a driving intoxicated charge goes on your record for life though doesn't it, I don't want that. So I'm being scared into obedience but the enforcement authority. It's discusting to be treated as such if I'm caught driving after a beer. COMPLETE OVERKILL.

The new policy is working already .... :killingme

When you grow up ... you may find maturity has changed your opinion on the subject ... and improved your grammar and spelling ... :woohoo:

And ... you may be treated as an adult ... :facepalm:

and subject to the ADULT rules ... :yes:

In the meantime ... I just hope you dont find (or hear about) any of your young friends, dead in the wreckage of their (or their friends) car ... amongst the empty RTD/Beer bottles/cans ...

or worse ... hear they've killed somebody else ...

[superman]

The new policy is working already .... :killingme

When you grow up ... you may find maturity has changed your opinion on the subject ... and improved your grammar and spelling ... :woohoo:

And ... you may be treated as an adult ... :facepalm:

and subject to the ADULT rules ... :yes:

In the meantime ... I just hope you dont find (or hear about) any of your young friends, dead in the wreckage of their (or their friends) car ... amongst the empty RTD/Beer bottles/cans ...

or worse ... hear they've killed somebody else ...

Woops, should have double checked before posting that.

I can't see myself changing opinion on this, I don't have friends that drink and drive (drink more than 1 and drive). There is no way I allow them, I give them no oppurtunity to do so if I'm around them and they are contemplating as such.

[FJRider]

I can't see myself changing opinion on this, I don't have friends that drink and drive (drink more than 1 and drive). There is no way I allow them and I give them no oppurtunity to do so if I'm around them and they are contemplating as such.

Good to hear ...

Opinions are like ass-holes ... everybody has one.:yes:

And dont think ANY of the drink driving laws will soften ... they can ONLY get tougher ... :gob:

The laws are written to suit the "lowest common denominator's" in society ... :shit:

BUT ... If attitude ... AND behaviour of ALL ... improved ... that may not happen ... :innocent:

I have MY opinion on the chances of that happening too ... and I'll need to dress warmly :facepalm:

[StoneY]

Oh, and Stoney - jam it up your arse ya pussy.

:yes:

Oooooo struck a nerve have I?
:shutup:

[Viscount Montgomery]

What sort of naive dimwit thinks that dropping alcohol limits by changing and fiddling digits on paper from 0.8 to 0.5 is gonna stop the same old same old shit-heads and general dregs of society from getting rotten pissed and driving the roads whenever the fuck they feel like it???

Do people here think that the drunk/speeding/weaving/sneering/tyre-smoking shit-heads who are doing the actual killing and crashing on the roads out there GIVE A FUCK about rules or the law???

Yes, lets just target and attack the other 90% of responsible road users out there in an attempt to rape an extra few million bucks worth of sleazy fines from the law-abiding public.

Yes, let's all move forward. Joe or Josephine Bloggs who has had 2 or 3 cans of beer or a glass of wine on a Friday after work before heading safely and quietly home should be fucken strung-up or shot.

That'll leave less cars on the roads and more room out there for the REAL drunken shit-heads to carry on doing their thing with less chance of hitting other vehicles. Lets all agree and rubber-stamp this 0.5 thing into law immediately. We'll all be a lot safer then

[scumdog]

What sort of naive dimwit thinks that dropping alcohol limits by changing and fiddling digits on paper from 0.8 to 0.5 is gonna stop the same old same old shit-heads and general dregs of society from getting rotten pissed and driving the roads whenever the fuck they feel like it???

Do people here think that the drunk/speeding/weaving/sneering/tyre-smoking shit-heads who are doing the actual killing and crashing on the roads out there GIVE A FUCK about rules or the law???

Yes, lets just target and attack the other 90% of responsible road users out there in an attempt to rape an extra few million bucks worth of sleazy fines from the law-abiding public.

Yes, let's all move forward. Joe or Josephine Bloggs who has had 2 or 3 cans of beer or a glass of wine on a Friday after work before heading safely and quietly home should be fucken strung-up or shot.

That'll leave less cars on the roads and more room out there for the REAL drunken shit-heads to carry on doing their thing with less chance of hitting other vehicles. Lets all agree and rubber-stamp this 0.5 thing into law immediately. We'll all be a lot safer then

I tried the same logic with regard to gun ownership...

Got as much traction as your rant will.:yes:

[Genestho]

What sort of naive dimwit thinks that dropping alcohol limits by changing and fiddling digits on paper from 0.8 to 0.5 is gonna stop the same old same old shit-heads and general dregs of society from getting rotten pissed and driving the roads whenever the fuck they feel like it???

Do people here think that the drunk/speeding/weaving/sneering/tyre-smoking shit-heads who are doing the actual killing and crashing on the roads out there GIVE A FUCK about rules or the law???

Yes, lets just target and attack the other 90% of responsible road users out there in an attempt to rape an extra few million bucks worth of sleazy fines from the law-abiding public.

Yes, let's all move forward. Joe or Josephine Bloggs who has had 2 or 3 cans of beer or a glass of wine on a Friday after work before heading safely and quietly home should be fucken strung-up or shot.

That'll leave less cars on the roads and more room out there for the REAL drunken shit-heads to carry on doing their thing with less chance of hitting other vehicles. Lets all agree and rubber-stamp this 0.5 thing into law immediately. We'll all be a lot safer then

Many people agree with you - that particular lowering limits law is not going through I personally agree with you based on the data I found.
If you read the earlier Q and A's link in my last post, it tells you what's happening...youth, recidivism, alcohol interlocks and a raft of other things on the side, this is on a 10 year cycle.

Lowering limits complete data was not available and so, collection of all BAC readings including between 0.5-0.8 for the purpose of research - needed to be legislated for, and in two years once that data is collected - no doubt the issue will be revisited..

Have a happy:sunny:

[p.dath]

What sort of naive dimwit thinks that dropping alcohol limits by changing and fiddling digits on paper from 0.8 to 0.5 is gonna stop the same old same old shit-heads and general dregs of society from getting rotten pissed and driving the roads whenever the fuck they feel like it???
...
Lets all agree and rubber-stamp this 0.5 thing into law immediately. We'll all be a lot safer then

I tend to agree, that changing the limit from 0.8 to 0.5 is not going to cause a massive change.

However, you realise this isn't what was changed in the law?

[StoneY]

I tend to agree, that changing the limit from 0.8 to 0.5 is not going to cause a massive change.

However, you realise this isn't what was changed in the law?

That's true Phil
However it is being studied and assessed as an option to bring NZ into line with the rest of the western democracies who police the roads for drunk driving
NZ is one of the last with a .8 blood limit, which is arguably more accurate an assessment than the breath limits

So I have been told anyway, from sources that have more information than most.
Sadly, the limit has to be generic, and cant be catered for those with higher tolerances.
It has to be set to catch those who get pissed on 2 glasses, and I for one have no issue with that fact whatsoever. Its all about the rights of EVERY road user to be safe, not about the rights of the few that CAN drink more and handle themselves to have a pass card...that's what being part of a society is about.

My 0.02
:violin:

[scumdog]

NZ is one of the last with a .8 blood limit, which is arguably more accurate an assessment than the breath limits

So I have been told anyway, from sources that have more information than most.

:violin:

nah, both pretty accurate - although blood tests tend not to favour the subject. (i.e.they tend to show a higher percentage of alcohol in the subjects system than the breath sample.)

Sucks if you decide to go for blood after giving a breath sample, most (like 995 out of 1,000) come back worse for the subject - and he has to pay for the Dr. being called out and the analysis of the sample...:facepalm:

[Viscount Montgomery]

Anyone not being able to handle three cans of beer or a skimpy glass of wine should be kicked off the road and banned from driving anyway

drunk or sober

[Genestho]

That's true Phil
However it is being studied and assessed as an option to bring NZ into line with the rest of the western democracies who police the roads for drunk driving
NZ is one of the last with a .8 blood limit, which is arguably more accurate an assessment than the breath limits

So I have been told anyway, from sources that have more information than most.
Sadly, the limit has to be generic, and cant be catered for those with higher tolerances.
It has to be set to catch those who get pissed on 2 glasses, and I for one have no issue with that fact whatsoever. Its all about the rights of EVERY road user to be safe, not about the rights of the few that CAN drink more and handle themselves to have a pass card...that's what being part of a society is about.

My 0.02
:violin:

Being a part of society means taking some responsibilty for yourself.

Govt can only do so much, yet some want to take the whole population and guide them, based on high risk user stats which were proven beyond doubt as 75% of the problem, this is soley based on the data collected over the years.
You've got to measure the problem to see where the problems are.

Strangely - there were three years worth of data graphs all exact same info, with different years published in their headings; released on the MOT website - all under Labours watch :facepalm:
Is this indicative of the data collection at the time? No idea.

Without being rude mate - I've been in this for four years almost every step of the way.
I suggest you do more of your own research, and find out exactly what happened when limits were lowered overseas, and how inconclusive the information is - rather than quoting labour ministers whose party, when lobbied regarding limits in 2001 did jack shit, did jack shit again when lobbied in 2007.

From there, alot has been done.

I find it funny how Labour jumped on the bandwagon afterwards, when the only thing that changed was public opinion based on campaigns run by families killed by recidivist drink drivers.

Again, regardless of limits - you will still get people over the limit in the morning, strangely enough - nobody seems to have the answers to that. Why?
Because there's none. it's simple, people need to be aware - plan for it and take responsibility for that situation.

[Viscount Montgomery]

Yes, people who can't handle a few beers need to harden-up and start drinking more to increase their alcohol tolerance. Or else just don't drive. You can't be too safe.

[StoneY]

Being a part of society means taking some responsibilty for yourself.

Yes I totally agree...but I still say the limit has to be set for those who cant handle their piss



Without being rude mate - I've been in this for four years almost every step of the way.
I suggest you do more of your own research, and find out exactly what happened when limits were lowered overseas, and how inconclusive the information is - rather than quoting labour ministers whose party, when lobbied regarding limits in 2001 did jack shit, did jack shit again when lobbied in 2007.

Your not being rude mate, and I respect your opinion above many others, but there is still a strong case for the limit to be reduced, whether those with high tolerances see it as a punishment or not, I see it as setting a benchmark



I find it funny how Labour jumped on the bandwagon afterwards, when the only thing that changed was public opinion based on campaigns run by families killed by recidivist drink drivers.

Sorry mate this aint about parties, and its the sitting govt backing it not JUST the opposition...but I do see where you are coming from, years of inaction the suddenly jump on the band wagon with sketchy reasoning, your point is valid



Again, regardless of limits - you will still get people over the limit in the morning, strangely enough - nobody seems to have the answers to that. Why?
Because there's none. it's simple, people need to be aware - plan for it and take responsibility for that situation.

And here its time to own up, I am one who has been done the morning after.... I make no excuses for it either.
I was 26, I slept in my car that night outside the 21st I attended in Papkura, and the next morning at 9am ran a red light while 'hung over' and fark me blew 850!

I aint perfect, I fucked up, but I learned from that and now I stick to two beers, if driving AT all.... and give myself a far more honest assessment on 'mornings after' than I did at age 26..... would not drink and drive now if a gun was held to my head.

Ultimately, looking on my past with clear glasses on, I am just pleased I never hurt anyone.......
:yes:

[Genestho]

Yes I totally agree...but I still say the limit has to be set for those who cant handle their piss:

And for what we know at this point - they are the minority.

I'm not saying that's acceptable - it's just that the problem was measured to show this.

I've debated the hell out of this topic and I'm quite relieved it's done (for now)
I'll always say a little more could be achieved, but reality is the top of the cliff is an individuals responsibility.

I support what has been done - without delving to deep:

Finally family members of drink drive deaths get financial support from the offender levy alongside homicide victims, as well as trauma counselling, this has never been available before.

We now have convicted drivers named and shamed in most local papers.

The ACC loophole has mostly closed for offenders.

Interlocks are in alongside assessment programs - the latter had to be pushed for but there was an overwhelming response.

Drink drivers seeking to have cases discharged without conviction are finding it harder to do so successfully.

There are more frequent manslaughter charges.

Drink driving causing death is now 10 years, (it could be more inline with Australia - being 14 years)
And that's just off the top of my head.


Sorry mate this aint about parties, and its the sitting govt backing it not JUST the opposition...but I do see where you are coming from, years of inaction the suddenly jump on the band wagon with sketchy reasoning, your point is valid:

Yeah, you'll have to excuse my cynicism on this one, seen too much.


And here its time to own up, I am one who has been done the morning after.... I make no excuses for it either.
I was 26, I slept in my car that night outside the 21st I attended in Papkura, and the next morning at 9am ran a red light while 'hung over' and fark me blew 850!

I aint perfect, I fucked up, but I learned from that and now I stick to two beers, if driving AT all.... and give myself a far more honest assessment on 'mornings after' than I did at age 26..... would not drink and drive now if a gun was held to my head.

Ultimately, looking on my past with clear glasses on, I am just pleased I never hurt anyone.......
:yes:
I doubt there'll be many that could be excluded from this scenario. But perhaps people are more aware...
And as much as we learn, there will still be those who don't.

[scumdog]

Yes I totally agree...but I still say the limit has to be set for those who cant handle their piss.......
:yes:

Sorta the same way with speed limits too...

[jazfender]

Yes, people who can't handle a few beers need to harden-up and start drinking more to increase their alcohol tolerance.

hahah yeah, good advice bro.

Obviously the answer lies in training people how to drive drunk. See everyone crashes because they're inexperienced... they don't realise that when you drink you have to use four legs to control six pedals.

DRIVER AWARENESS