John Key's right, I think!

[Edbear]

Lowering the drink-driving allowance won't make a jot of difference! He said it was the racidivist and heavily drunk driver that is the problem, and this article tends to support that.

Many driver's caught are considerably over the limit and are repeat offenders. While I am not one who will drink and drive myself, it is plain that even small amounts do affect you and I'd prefer a zero limit since so many drivers are incompetent even when stone-cold sober! However Key is correct the there needs to be a concerted effort to target heavy and racidivist drinkers who drive, not those who have only had a couple.

http://clearnet.co.nz/news-story.html?national~799245

[Oakie]

Agreed. If you're going to make an effort, at least put the effort where it's most needed. (Personally though, I wouldn't mind if the limit was dropped a little.)

[yachtie10]

Agree totaly

[Edbear]

Agreed. If you're going to make an effort, at least put the effort where it's most needed. (Personally though, I wouldn't mind if the limit was dropped a little.)

Personally I'd like it at zero, but that may be impracitcal. More publicity, ie: education about the effects of drugs and alcohol on driving ability would probably be better. Encouraging sober driving. Does anyone know whether the designated driver ads are actually having any effect?

It's high time the courts started making the punishment fit the crime too!

[DEATH_INC.]

Agree totaly
Me too. It makes sense...

[Scuba_Steve]

yep but anti booze orgs keep thinking by lowering it they'll somehow stop the people already 3-4x the current limit :blink::weird::facepalm: all lowering the limit will do is start criminalizing otherwise innocent people.
The big problem with current law is the judges they need to start handing out some real sentences but they like these people coming back to their court cause each time they do its one step closer to a cushy job at the top for the judge

[James Deuce]

Personally I'd like it at zero, but that may be impracitcal. More publicity, ie: education about the effects of drugs and alcohol on driving ability would probably be better. Encouraging sober driving. Does anyone know whether the designated driver ads are actually having any effect?

It's high time the courts started making the punishment fit the crime too!

How is zero impractical? Norway has 0.1mg/ml as a limit. Anything over 0.02 is automatic imprisonment. I'd like to see that as a minimum. It effectively means you can have 1 low alcohol beer. One.

NZ has been "encouraging" sober driving for 30 years and it hasn't worked.

I think the recidivist driver theory is a myth. I've been nailed by a drunk driver. His first offence. In his 70s. My wife was mowed down on a crossing by a motorcycle. 1st time offender, just over the limit. My brother-in-law was run over on the footpath by a first time offender.

It's a myth because anyone who thinks they can drive after any alcohol at all has the mind set of the worst recidivist drink driver. Most of those people above probably had a couple of beers when they were out without being caught for years, completely unaware that they were both over the limit and unfit to drive.

The massive flaw in the testing process is how BMI and brain chemistry affect your ability to absorb alcohol and how you respond to its effects. One person could drink spirits all night and not pop the limit on the test. Some women I know are over the breath alcohol limit hours after one wine.

I'd love to organise a modern day equivalent of the Survivor's Motorcycle Club Steinlager test and populate it with motorcyclists who can't see the point of dropping the alcohol limit. 1 Steiny fucks up your reaction times. 2 starts to affect balance. 3 starts to effect your perception of velocity.

Ask Andrew Templeton if you're doing your BHS or any rider training (yeah, right) in Wellington about that test and he'll describe how very competent motorcyclists turned into bumbling nincompoops after one beer.

I'd like to see the limit as 0 and I'd like to see jail terms for first time offenders and the death penalty for your second offence. Recidivism fixed.

I don't believe in banning alcohol, however neither do I think anyone should kid themselves that they're fine to drive after one standard drink. Remove the doubt and the game playing and make the limit 0.

[Owl]

I'd like to see the limit as 0 and I'd like to see jail terms for first time offenders and the death penalty for your second offence.

That sheep really fucked you up didn't it?:blink:

[Edbear]

How is zero impractical? Norway has 0.1mg/ml as a limit. Anything over 0.02 is automatic imprisonment. I'd like to see that as a minimum. It effectively means you can have 1 low alcohol beer. One.

NZ has been "encouraging" sober driving for 30 years and it hasn't worked.

I think the recidivist driver theory is a myth. I've been nailed by a drunk driver. His first offence. In his 70s. My wife was mowed down on a crossing by a motorcycle. 1st time offender, just over the limit. My brother-in-law was run over on the footpath by a first time offender.

It's a myth because anyone who thinks they can drive after any alcohol at all has the mind set of the worst recidivist drink driver. Most of those people above probably had a couple of beers when they were out without being caught for years, completely unaware that they were both over the limit and unfit to drive.

The massive flaw in the testing process is how BMI and brain chemistry affect your ability to absorb alcohol and how you respond to its effects. One person could drink spirits all night and not pop the limit on the test. Some women I know are over the breath alcohol limit hours after one wine.

I'd love to organise a modern day equivalent of the Survivor's Motorcycle Club Steinlager test and populate it with motorcyclists who can't see the point of dropping the alcohol limit. 1 Steiny fucks up your reaction times. 2 starts to affect balance. 3 starts to effect your perception of velocity.

Ask Andrew Templeton if you're doing your BHS or any rider training (yeah, right) in Wellington about that test and he'll describe how very competent motorcyclists turned into bumbling nincompoops after one beer.

I'd like to see the limit as 0 and I'd like to see jail terms for first time offenders and the death penalty for your second offence. Recidivism fixed.

I don't believe in banning alcohol, however neither do I think anyone should kid themselves that they're fine to drive after one standard drink. Remove the doubt and the game playing and make the limit 0.

Well... maybe not the death penalty, but certainly if the courts started dishing out near maximum's rather than the minimum's they're imposing now, it would be a start!

[Pussy]

Well... maybe not the death penalty

Why not? A lot of innocent victims have paid it!

[James Deuce]

That sheep really fucked you up didn't it?:blink:

If it hadn't been drunk and driving a Hilux at the time I'd probably be less fucked up.

[Edbear]

Why not? A lot of innocent victims have paid it!

That's why drink-driving causing death should start at a manslaughter charge and be upgradable to murder depending upon circumstances. If everyone knew they would be facing a mandatory charge of manslaughter even on first offence it may help. Especially if they also knew the minimum penalty would be near maximum, say 80% of maximum.

[Shadowjack]

The point of ingesting alcohol is to alter your states of consciousness.
The effects of this on driving are well documented.
To have any sort of allowance over a 0.00 blood-alcohol level is to (as a society) accept that it is OK to drive in an negatively-altered state of consciousness, and that it is OK (as a society) to live (or not) with the results. I entertain the optimistic hope that, one day, TPTB may want to grasp this particular nettle.

0.00 for me.

[Edbear]

The point of ingesting alcohol is to alter your states of consciousness.
The effects of this on driving are well documented.
To have any sort of allowance over a 0.00 blood-alcohol level is to (as a society) accept that it is OK to drive in an negatively-altered state of consciousness, and that it is OK (as a society) to live (or not) with the results. I entertain the optimistic hope that, one day, TPTB may want to grasp this particular nettle.

0.00 for me.

Well put. :yes:

[yachtie10]

The point of ingesting alcohol is to alter your states of consciousness.
The effects of this on driving are well documented.
To have any sort of allowance over a 0.00 blood-alcohol level is to (as a society) accept that it is OK to drive in an negatively-altered state of consciousness, and that it is OK (as a society) to live (or not) with the results. I entertain the optimistic hope that, one day, TPTB may want to grasp this particular nettle.

0.00 for me.

Might be the point to you but I can assure its not to me
0.00 is moronic IMHO, but some people would also have us stoned to death for religeous reasons and they think therey are right too

[Edbear]

Might be the point to you but I can assure its not to me
0.00 is moronic IMHO, but some people would also have us stoned to death for religeous reasons and they think therey are right too

What do you think is reasonable?

[Ocean1]

More publicity, ie: education about the effects of drugs and alcohol on driving ability would probably be better.

If I'm forced to watch another round of "educational" advertisements about drunk driving, (or anything else for that matter) I’m going to explode.

What is it with people who figure that just because other people don’t behave the way they want they must:

a) be wicked, and require locking up and thrashing to within an inch of their lives, or

b): fail to understand why they need to behave the way you want and just need things explaining to them firmly enough, (in words suited to an utter imbecile) and often enough so that it becomes clear to them and they finally behave the way you want them to.

Anyone care to postulate an alternative explanation for these ghastly, abhorrent behaviours?

[Scuba_Steve]

What do you think is reasonable?

Current limit is fine, start penalizing judges that hand out "soft" penalties & that person re-offends, make manslaughter minimum charge if someone is killed, murder maximum. Assault with a deadly weapon minimum if someone is injured by a drunk driver.
And aim any ads at stigmatization eventually this will catch on, the shock ones DON'T work (I personally find alot of them hilarious, but I'm also not a drunk driver & quite against drunk driving tho I don't expect them to work any better with them either).
Also breath testers (talk into type) in every bar wouldn't go astray either.

[Ocean1]

Oh, and yes zero alcohol tolerance is moronic because it’s unachievable and unenforceable. A limit amounting to "a few hours after a couple of beers" is workable and likely socially acceptable.

Refrain from making laws you can’t or won’t enforce.

[Edbear]

If I'm forced to watch another round of "educational" advertisements about drunk driving, (or anything else for that matter) I’m going to explode.

What is it with people who figure that just because other people don’t behave the way they want they must:

a) be wicked, and require locking up and thrashing to within an inch of their lives, or

b): fail to understand why they need to behave the way you want and just need things explaining to them firmly enough, (in words suited to an utter imbecile) and often enough so that it becomes clear to them and they finally behave the way you want them to.

Anyone care to postulate an alternative explanation for these ghastly, abhorrent behaviours?

I don't follow you. Are you saying drink-driving is acceptable?

[Genestho]

I received the actual stats today, nothing new, except more definitive.

By supporting (unoffically - as an individual) the idea of two drinks max 'pledge' in the name of personal responsibility, I then unfortunately witnessed my hubby's story go off in support of the lowering limits lobby campaign, by default

I requested educational publication of standard drinks information, variables that will quickly elevate BAC, information on elevated morning BAC and metabolism rates were published, as two drinks (think goblets of wine) could send a small person intoxicated and/or over the limit. I didn't feel it a robust message.

I never officially supported the campaign when asked, I thought it a good thing if the message was educational. Because of what I know - I've never lobbied for lower limits.

I had to pull two stories off the internet, the hard copies were already gone by the time I knew anything. I was then offered apologies and a clarification in form of a letter to the editor, which was then a twisted headline, bah, what can you do?

Let's face it, those that are responsible will support this iniative.

Those that aren't, won't. Simple, you will still have those that go to excess, a little tinkering around the edges will never change this!

Yes, the more you drink the chances of crashes increase, but what's overlooked is the studies overseas have no singular conclusive evidence that lowering limits actually worked, as other intiatves were rolled out alongside, in some cases there was no bench mark data to look back at, in some cases the numbers of convicted drink drivers rose..

IF there were to be any limit lowering - since we can't test ourselves definitively and our individual limits vary day to day dependant on physical/mental health and the variables, I'd suggest zero, because there is no grey area. You just don't do it at all. (And yes we'd still get repeat and hardcore drink driver's)

What has been overshadowed by the rather loud lowering limits debate, is that the Govt are actually moving on serious drink drivers.

[yachtie10]

What do you think is reasonable?

Perosnally I would bring in/back some test that showed a basic level of impairment before conviction was allowed
But I would also nail anyone who was significantly over the limit with much harsher penalties. and repeat offenders would lose the right to a licence for life and do jailtime

Also if you cause an accident where your impairment was a significant factor (proven) and someone was impaired or killed you would be guilty of manslaughter at least.

[Edbear]

Perosnally I would bring in/back some test that showed a basic level of impairment before conviction was allowed
But I would also nail anyone who was significantly over the limit with much harsher penalties. and repeat offenders would lose the right to a licence for life and do jailtime

Also if you cause an accident where your impairment was a significant factor (proven) and someone was impaired or killed you would be guilty of manslaughter at least.

I think most of us are on the same page here. The courts are far too lenient and need to start imposing the penalties they have at their disposal.

[Ocean1]

I don't follow you. Are you saying drink-driving is acceptable?

No. Gave it a good shot, can't be fookt doing it again.

[Mully]

Shit - people agreeing with John Key. Skyryder would be going mental.

[Edbear]

No. Gave it a good shot, can't be fookt doing it again.

I've re-read your post and I think I understand what you're saying, maybe it's just late and I'm tired...

[slowpoke]

Jaysus, black and white vision reigns supreme! I'm suprised any of you folks have got a colour TV....or do you see that in monochrome too?

These comments are just too blardy funny for a crowd that mostly flouts the speed limit and argues speed deterrents are misguided at best and simple revenue raisers at worst.

Do your Steinie Challenge or whatever the hell it's called and see the effects of alcohol: suprise suprise you don't ride so good.

Now conjure up a similar manouvering challenge and make people do it at both comfortable and elevated speeds instead: suprise suprise you don't do so good then either.

Why a stoning for one offence and total disregard for the other?

I reckon if I go for a Sunday ride/drive down to Lake Ferry and have a beer while reading the paper I can stop quicker from 100kph on the way home than I could if I'd had a coffee and was riding/driving at 120kph. Yet you'd have me hung drawn and quartered for the beer and not raise an eyebrow at the speeding.

If you're gonna go all medieval on someones arse at least be consistent across the board, don't be the Taliban on one issue and sidestep the rest if it doesn't suit you.

For the particularly assumptive, no, I'm not a fan of drink driving. I'm a fan of moderation, giving people reasonable guidelines, and applying reasonable penalties when they transgress.....or we can just apply the knee jerk "Burn 'em!" mentality and change the name of the country to New Zealandistan.

[Dave Lobster]

J

I reckon if I go for a Sunday ride/drive down to Lake Ferry and have a beer while reading the paper I can stop quicker from 100kph on the way home than I could if I'd had a coffee and was riding/driving at 120kph. Yet you'd have me hung drawn and quartered for the beer and not raise an eyebrow at the speeding.



BIG difference. You could be comfortably sitting at 100mph on a lot of the roads, without a single vehicle in sight, perfectly safely. Without your judgement impared, you're able to slow down to a suitable speed for corners and hazards.

You can't switch your impared judgement on and off, like you can adjust your speed.

[Banditbandit]

That's why drink-driving causing death should start at a manslaughter charge and be upgradable to murder depending upon circumstances. If everyone knew they would be facing a mandatory charge of manslaughter even on first offence it may help. Especially if they also knew the minimum penalty would be near maximum, say 80% of maximum.

Do you even know what the maximum penalty for Manslaughter is ?

Do you understand the differnece between Manslaughter and Murder and what has to be PROVEN to gain a conviction for Murder ?

[Genestho]

Even though when it happens to a family member it really does feel like murder, gaining a murder conviction is only possible if the driver actually has intent - I know a particular case where it was heard - the driver wanted to kill himself - got drunk, drove and killed and injured another.

Legally - Impaired driving is a 'diminished responsibility' therefor there is no intent (which is needed to prove beyond a doubt - murder - see above)

However for repeats - I do not see why manslaughter shouldn't be a given. I know 'why' within the system, and it's not good enough.

You can't argue - when some one has repeat convictions for the same offence that they didn't know the consequences 'this time'.

[Juzz976]

You can't switch your impared judgement on and off, like you can adjust your speed.

Yes you can, you can choose to break the law or not break the law.
Riding/diving at 160km/h has more risk than at 100km/h, similarly driving impaired presents more risk than un-impaired.

It doesn't matter which limit you are over, speed or alcohol.
Death can occur when either is exceeded and in both cases preventable by not exceeding these limits.

[avgas]

I would like to drop the limit a little but more importantly I wan the penalties increase.

Fuck this 6 months BS.
Give a whole year for first offense......and double for every future one.
All these fuckers who get 3 times are looking at very substantial times without wheels.
Fourth offense is easy - Jail for 2 years. With a doubling effect on that if they repeat.

Sort the men from the boys.

[Edbear]

Do you even know what the maximum penalty for Manslaughter is ?

Do you understand the differnece between Manslaughter and Murder and what has to be PROVEN to gain a conviction for Murder ?

We discussed it in another thread a while ago and I looked up NZ law on it. It's not as simple as one might think but very eye-opening as to the flexibility of the legal definitions and what is possible under the law. I can review it and post if you'd like.

[Genestho]

Do you mean license forfeiture Avgas?

If so - the only problem with license forfeiture is that if (it's said) 50 - 75% of disqualified drivers continue to drive.

Source: DUI Offenders Delay License Reinstatement: A Problem. July 2010 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research (ACER), an academic journal.

And this from corrections NZ:

"Each year a considerable number of offenders are sentenced to prison in New Zealand for either disqualified driving or drink-driving (these two offences make up 95% of all traffic offences resulting in imprisonment). While the overall rate of re-imprisonment for traffic offenders is 43 percent, a significant difference emerges between drink-drivers (34% reimprisonment rate) and disqualified drivers (54%). Many disqualified drivers are in fact persistent offenders with extensive criminal histories, of which disqualified driving is just one aspect.

When such offenders are imprisoned for disqualified driving, they are typically also (concurrently) convicted of other offences, such as drink-driving, burglary, car conversion, theft or violence."

http://www.corrections.govt.nz/research/reconviction-patterns-of-released-prisoners-a-48-months-follow-up-analysis/re-imprisonment-rates-by-original-offence-type.html


If convicted drink drivers do not feel threatened by the loss of their licenses, and continue to drive - then the license disqualification sanction, is not effective in its intended purpose of restricting road use to those who abide the laws

[avgas]

errr....nope....
license disqualification for first offenses....getting exponentially worse
then prison time.....which gets exponentially worse depending on amount of time done.

e.g
1 - lose license for 1 year
2 - lose license for 2 years
3 - lose license for 4 years
4 - 2 years prison time
5 - 4 years prison time
6 - 8 years prison time
7 - 16 years prison time....

They can accumulate as much as they want (with the exception of them being in prison - bit hard to drive there). After all the offense is for drunk driving not killing anyone. I figure if someone hasn't learnt not to drink drive after 14 years in prison, and 21 years without a license......putting them in the slammer for another 16 might do it. At which point they are nearing their 60's.....

[Dave Lobster]

Riding/diving at 160km/h has more risk than at 100km/h.

That may be your opinion of your ability. Try not to tar everyone with the incompetence brush.



It doesn't matter which limit you are over, speed or alcohol.
Death can occur when either is exceeded and in both cases preventable by not exceeding these limits.
Again, what absolute piffle!! Death can occur below the speed limit as well as above it. Look at the statistics. Of all the deaths on the road, where speed is a considering factor, how many of the people 'speeding' were above the posted limit?


Yes you can, you can choose to break the law or not break the law.

The speed limit on the open road is an arbitary figure, not a speed a which you will die when you travel faster than it.
Speed DOES NOT KILL. Inappropriate speed.. blah blah blah..

[Genestho]

Right gotcha, maximum penalty for 3 plus EBA's is 2 years, 11th, 24th etc, is two years.

EDIT: Despite other things coming through, that have taken over 3 years to lobby for] - I have tried to push that particular wall further, but unless public opinion weighs in behind and a few Judges make comments, it won't budge. You can kill and serve a rarely enforced max of 5 (at the mo - until next year) and serve around 2 years, seems out of step to me.

Furthermore I know of two recent cases where drink drivers have killed, served minimal time, had license's disqualified and are still being caught driving, one being caught with an alledged EBA of 1370mgs this year (limit is 400) and sentenced to 21 months jail.

[avgas]

Right gotcha, maximum penalty for 3 plus EBA's is 2 years, 11th, 24th etc, is two years.

I have tried to push the wall further, but unless public opinion weighs in behind and a few Judges make comments it won't budge.

You can kill and serve a rarely enforced max of 5 (at the mo - until next year) and serve around 2 years, seems out of step to me.

Furthermore I know of two recent cases where drink drivers have killed, served minimal time, had license's disqualified and are still being caught driving, one being caught with an alledged EBA of 1370mgs this year (limit is 400) and sentenced to 21 months jail.
The law is not designed for repeat offenses. And drink driving is often a repeat offense (along with speeding and fraud).
Therefore repeat offenders already know what is coming and have already evaluated int their minds it is worth it.
The game has to be changed, just like when you were a kid. First offense ya mum would growl ya, second was time out, 3rd you got your arse kicked.
As the risks get higher - most people evaluate that its not worth it.
As it currently stands the law can not cope with this - and the judge can only act on what the law allows.
The game needs to change. The perspective needs to shift.

[Genestho]

The law is not designed for repeat offenses. And drink driving is often a repeat offense (along with speeding and fraud).
Therefore repeat offenders already know what is coming and have already evaluated int their minds it is worth it.
The game has to be changed, just like when you were a kid. First offense ya mum would growl ya, second was time out, 3rd you got your arse kicked.
As the risks get higher - most people evaluate that its not worth it.
As it currently stands the law can not cope with this - and the judge can only act on what the law allows.
The game needs to change. The perspective needs to shift.
Exactly, you got it :yes:

[Swoop]

Shit - people agreeing with John Key. Skyryder would be going mental.
<wonder if we can troll him up?>
Well, labour had nine years to solve this problem.
<here fishy fishy>

[Paul in NZ]

The only fact that matters is that it is a rather unfortunate occurance that all people are so utterly 'individuals' that no number other than zero is going to be equal to all. Some people can handle booze, some cant, some people are really good riders who even impaired are better than I (no excuse of course) so any number set to 'tolerate' a couple of drinks is at best going to be a compromise.

Even as we age, or experience physical / emotional harm as we go through life changes the effects of alcohol on us. Having to adopt a gluten free diet has meant I cant drink beer (have you seen the cost of GF beer, no thanks) and suddenly wine has a completely different effect on me, it really stuffs me up! Then look at the USA. 20 ex soldiers per day are killing themselves (sorry, cant find the source again) and the weapon of choice is a car crash so families keep benifits. Depression and problems with drink being a leading cause.

These are just silly examples to illustrate a shakey point which is that maybe the time has come to think about a zero limit OR man up and introduce some really harsh options?

[Edbear]

The only fact that matters is that it is a rather unfortunate occurance that all people are so utterly 'individuals' that no number other than zero is going to be equal to all. Some people can handle booze, some cant, some people are really good riders who even impaired are better than I (no excuse of course) so any number set to 'tolerate' a couple of drinks is at best going to be a compromise.

Even as we age, or experience physical / emotional harm as we go through life changes the effects of alcohol on us. Having to adopt a gluten free diet has meant I cant drink beer (have you seen the cost of GF beer, no thanks) and suddenly wine has a completely different effect on me, it really stuffs me up! Then look at the USA. 20 ex soldiers per day are killing themselves (sorry, cant find the source again) and the weapon of choice is a car crash so families keep benifits. Depression and problems with drink being a leading cause.

These are just silly examples to illustrate a shakey point which is that maybe the time has come to think about a zero limit OR man up and introduce some really harsh options?

Well said. I think the climate is right for seeing some real penalties if not for a zero level.

[Ocean1]

Some people can handle booze, some cant, some people are really good riders who even impaired are better than I (no excuse of course) so any number set to 'tolerate' a couple of drinks is at best going to be a compromise.

One can only guess how Her Majesty's jolly old Tars managed swinging around in the rigging 120ft above the deck. Ships grog was watered spirits, (rum for preference) at the rate of half a pint a day. That's half a pint of Rum, ladies, served with the mid-day meal. Use makes master.

[Swoop]

One can only guess how Her Majesty's jolly old Tars managed swinging around in the rigging 120ft above the deck. Ships grog was watered spirits, (rum for preference) at the rate of half a pint a day. That's half a pint of Rum, ladies, served with the mid-day meal. Use makes master.

The usual ration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grog)was an eighth of a pint, diluted 2:1 with water (3:1 until World War II).

[Ocean1]

The usual ration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grog)was an eighth of a pint, diluted 2:1 with water (3:1 until World War II).

P'raps the later Royal Navy.

But, from your source: "Following Britain's conquest of Jamaica in 1655, a half pint or "2 gills" of rum gradually replaced beer and brandy as the drink of choice".

[Genestho]

OR man up and introduce some really harsh options?

Well it's taken nearly three years to lobby for what's about to come through, as it is. And these are evidence based solutions and first significant changes in ten years.

There are a whole lot of holes with the recidivist and disqualification process in many ways, - that I hope have been highlighted through the Land Transport Bill last month, I hope these are reviewed and strengthened. (as long as real efforts wern't too dulled down by hundreds of submissions on lowering limits :facepalm: )

[Edbear]

Well it's taken nearly three years to lobby for what's about to come through, as it is. And these are evidence based solutions.

There are a whole lot of holes with the recidivist and disqualification process in many ways, - that I hope have been highlighted through the Land Transport Bill last month, I hope these are reviewed and strengthened. (as long as real efforts wern't too dulled down by hundreds of submissions on lowering limits :facepalm: )

If the judges are not handing down what they have already available, what confidence do we have that new powers will be used effectively?

[Genestho]

If the judges are not handing down what they have already available, what confidence do we have that new powers will be used effectively?
Agreed. We don't - except in the last year there has been some movement, and the only thing that has moved this is public opinion. Public opinion is created by raising awareness.

But you can't do much about legal terms such as diminished responsibility, technicalities, hardship, mitigating circumstances EDIT: and precedents currently set.

[Edbear]

Agreed. We don't - except in the last year there has been some movement, and the only thing that has moved this is public opinion. Public opinion is created by raising awareness.

But you can't do much about legal terms such as diminished responsibility, techinicalities, hardship and mitigating circumstances.

Hmmmm.... Sounds a lot like me... :blink:

[Genestho]

Hmmmm.... Sounds a lot like me... :blink:
LOL! ya nut, I forgot early pleading of guilt and restorative justice - a victims right - but, all of these terms impact on penalties and sentencing.

[candor]

yep but anti booze orgs keep thinking by lowering it they'll somehow stop the people already 3-4x the current limit :blink::weird::facepalm:

I'd not give them so much credit - after long wrangling and misguided attempts tro reason with the neo-prohibitionists I'm fairly certain they have no interest in crash reduction whatsoever.
They're blind moral crusaders intent on stopping others from doing what they consider to be "binge drinking". Binge drinking is an old temperance league term that's been a main prong for 100 years of their campaign. Scientific road safety implications of certain BAC's are beyond their ken, drink is just the demon to them.
Unfortunately some endorsing "experts" have swallowed their twaddle without cross checking facts (somer great whoppers put out by the wowsers re road safety).

As TGW said lets hope their mass (photostat :yes:idiotic) submissions haven't resulted in worthy ones receiving less analysis or worse going unread. The 3000 wowsers of NZ rallied to make clone submissions base on Dr Sellmans 5 point plan. There's a risk policy analysts are just copying them all to enter on the website, then shredding, as read one and you've read all.

The Temperance lot supported by Baptists and Presbys have aannounced intent to help Darren Hughes plan (well really Trevor Mallards as tactician) to derail the current alcohol bill - with mass 0.05 subs. Not only is this grossly distracting, but it prevents the other content of that important bill from getting refined well at committee stage.
So sabo'ed the roadsafety bill & now lining up the alcohol one! And for all their screeching about evil liquor barons - it's the barons funding them in their diversionary crusade for 2 drinks (ALAC full of temperance folk and liquor funded) as limit drops don't reduce consumption - surprise surprise. So these temperance leaguers have no moral high ground. It's just about the worried underdogs perceiving themselves as achieving something, anything.

The Herald has treated "victims" very disgustingly through this - I too was approached in a way atypical of most media and gave a similar view to Jos saying idea nice but message not thought through, but what came of that's another story. Newspapers should report, not be acting like Goebbels understudies or best pupils even to the point of culling real victims voices out imo.

It's funny how the Heralds website has 60,000 followers but only 2,600 who've signed on. I'm absolutely convinced following much research 0.05 will increase the drunk toll as occurred in Victoria, NT, Denmark & others. It's not therefore neutral in my book but :sick: and :shit::and crybaby:.
Personal interest (road safety not drinking), as a relative killed by repeat drink and drug driver. Which the vast majority of the residules now left at it are; caught or not. Have met with the key pollies and lines are drawn, it is about vote wars not us

Lab is seeing this as a key election platform shown by it only putting 1 private members bill in the ballot to up that bills chance of being drawn to 4%. Some in the party are not happy about this as it also means by not putting your other bills in that the Nats have a better chance one of their bills (likely hostile to Labour ideals) gets pulled up too.
Trying to get elected in on a con job - fake 0.05 gold. It's a circus. Luckily there's time to parry.

[slowpoke]

BIG difference. You could be comfortably sitting at 100mph on a lot of the roads, without a single vehicle in sight, perfectly safely. Without your judgement impared, you're able to slow down to a suitable speed for corners and hazards.

You can't switch your impared judgement on and off, like you can adjust your speed.

The speed example I used was just that, an example, I could have easily used mobile phone use, or falling asleep at the wheel or a hundred other "for instances" to highlight the inconsistency of various peoples' approach.

For what it's worth you've just highlighted that inconsistency, publically justifying "licence in the shredder" speeds where others are advocating medieval sentencing on another issue. If you'd publically justified drivng at well over the blood alcohol limit the outcry would deafening. How is that consistent and resonable?

I can understand it, I've done the same speeds, but you're kidding yourself that you can adjust your speed to suit the hazard. Your argument is fatally flawed in that you can only adjust your speed to things you can see and your speed adjustment is a judgement call. If you don't see something, or make a bad judgement call the effects are obviously worse from higher speeds. No-one is perfect, we all make mistakes sooner or later, and you're a new species of human if you don't. Yup, I speed as much as any motorcyclist, but I'm not falsely assuming it's as safe as being conservative Johnny Citizen.

Again, my argument was not about speed per se, it was about the inconsistency prevalent within' the previous arguments for solutions ranging from capital punishment to a zero alcohol limit. Why is it a case of "Bugger, sorry to hear that" if someone falls asleep at the wheel and crashes yet a public ostracising if they drive at 0.01mg/l over the limit and cause no damage? There needs to be some perspective and sanity applied to the debate, not a lynching mentality............but then this is KB afterall.

[candor]

Solutions must start with looking at whats not working. This thread hasn't really got it about how bad courts are. Met with a defense lawyer and drunk driver the other day and I was blown away to hear the going rates - which can't be gleaned just from odd media reports. He was telling ?8 x drunk driver not to worry as it goes as so
EBA 1 fine, 2 bigger fine, 3 community service, 4 comm service, 5 comm detention (PD), 6 home detention, 7 maybe jail but prolly home detention, more... short lag maybe. The offender told me it wa obvious to her its not a serious offence. She volunteered to help us toughen up, I said lets sort it, the lawyer said no you'll destroy my business (only half joking). There's no evidence base for our regime.

[Banditbandit]

Therefore repeat offenders already know what is coming and have already evaluated int their minds it is worth it.
The game has to be changed, just like when you were a kid. First offense ya mum would growl ya, second was time out, 3rd you got your arse kicked.
As the risks get higher - most people evaluate that its not worth it.
As it currently stands the law can not cope with this - and the judge can only act on what the law allows.
The game needs to change. The perspective needs to shift.

Most repeat offenders and serious criminals do not, in fact, consider the consequences. Yes, most people evaluate that it's not worth it - as you say - but repeat offenders and serious crims are not most people ... and do not evaluate the risks ...

[Banditbandit]

Even though when it happens to a family member it really does feel like murder, gaining a murder conviction is only possible if the driver actually has intent - I know a particular case where it was heard - the driver wanted to kill himself - got drunk, drove and killed and injured another.

Legally - Impaired driving is a 'diminished responsibility' therefor there is no intent (which is needed to prove beyond a doubt - murder - see above)

However for repeats - I do not see why manslaughter shouldn't be a given. I know 'why' within the system, and it's not good enough.

You can't argue - when some one has repeat convictions for the same offence that they didn't know the consequences 'this time'.

I am not against Manslaughter as a charge for killing someone while driving drunk ... I think it should be used more often ... it's someone dying as a result of an illegal act - clearly manslaughter ... and the penalty can be up to life ....


Murder is a whole different ballgame ... it has to be proven that they intended to kill the person they killed - a difficult thng to do in the cases of drunk driving causing death ...

[Edbear]

I am not against Manslaughter as a charge for killing someone while driving drunk ... I think it should be used more often ... it's someone dying as a result of an illegal act - clearly manslaughter ... and the penalty can be up to life ....


Murder is a whole different ballgame ... it has to be proven that they intended to kill the person they killed - a difficult thng to do in the cases of drunk driving causing death ...

Agreed. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329311.html

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329302.html
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329329.html

I think that drink-driving causing death automatically comes under the definition of Culpable Homicide and Manslaughter and should be treated as such.

[Genestho]

I am not against Manslaughter as a charge for killing someone while driving drunk ... I think it should be used more often ... it's someone dying as a result of an illegal act - clearly manslaughter ... and the penalty can be up to life ....


Murder is a whole different ballgame ... it has to be proven that they intended to kill the person they killed - a difficult thng to do in the cases of drunk driving causing death ...
Yes, you are correct, that's why I have gone on record at select committee to propose Manslaughter for repeats :) Even some within the system can't understand why Manslaughter isn't a given.

Yes, Murder needs an undoubtable show of intent as the true example shows in the post you quoted. Only those very minimal cases that have been charged and sentenced with Murder have had actual intent proven with supportive evidence in court..

[scumdog]

all lowering the limit will do is start criminalizing otherwise innocent people.


THAT has to be the most inane statement posted on KB for quite some time - and I suspect it's not a troll:blink:

[mashman]

THAT has to be the most inane statement posted on KB for quite some time - and I suspect it's not a troll:blink:

I'll see what I can do about that :).

Remove the limit entirely. Let's face it, people will drink drive irrespective of laws, fines, punishments etc...

If an incident is caused (non fatal) and one/all of the drivers/riders is intoxicated, 1 month jail instantly. No fucking around, get them portacabbins up and running, 1 month in the road users prison, add the person to the register. Every subsequent intoxicated road incident will cause the previous sentence to be multiplied by 2. 2 offences 2 Months, 3 - 6 months, 4 - 8 months etc...

If an incident is caused (fatal) and one/all of the drivers/riders is intoxicated, 1 year jail instantly. No fucking around, get them portacabbins up and running, 1 year in the road users prison, add the person to the register. Every subsequent intoxicated road incident will cause the previous sentence to be multiplied by 2. 2 offences 2 years, 3 - 6 years, 4 - 8 years etc...

That'd stop me drink driving :), it may not stop everyone, but a fine just doesn't cut it, not even close for the recidivists...

[avgas]

Most repeat offenders and serious criminals do not, in fact, consider the consequences. Yes, most people evaluate that it's not worth it - as you say - but repeat offenders and serious crims are not most people ... and do not evaluate the risks ...
They would not have to. They would be locked up.
Think of it like this, if they don't evaluate the consequences, it does not matter - as they will be on the road less regardless.
Either by choice (if they are smart enough), or by enforcement (Jail time).

Either way public wins.

[Edbear]

I'll see what I can do about that :).

Remove the limit entirely. Let's face it, people will drink drive irrespective of laws, fines, punishments etc...

If an incident is caused (non fatal) and one/all of the drivers/riders is intoxicated, 1 month jail instantly. No fucking around, get them portacabbins up and running, 1 month in the road users prison, add the person to the register. Every subsequent intoxicated road incident will cause the previous sentence to be multiplied by 2. 2 offences 2 Months, 3 - 6 months, 4 - 8 months etc...

If an incident is caused (fatal) and one/all of the drivers/riders is intoxicated, 1 year jail instantly. No fucking around, get them portacabbins up and running, 1 year in the road users prison, add the person to the register. Every subsequent intoxicated road incident will cause the previous sentence to be multiplied by 2. 2 offences 2 years, 3 - 6 years, 4 - 8 years etc...

That'd stop me drink driving :), it may not stop everyone, but a fine just doesn't cut it, not even close for the recidivists...

Perhaps, but I think realistically, it is not only politically expedient to have a set limit, but what would be publicly acceptable as well. I think the public would resist a zero limit even if many support lowering the limit. If, as the stats seem to show, the vast majority of offenders are well and truly in excess of 400, then targetting them with harsher penalties is the way to go.

[mashman]

Perhaps, but I think realistically, it is not only politically expedient to have a set limit, but what would be publicly acceptable as well. I think the public would resist a zero limit even if many support lowering the limit. If, as the stats seem to show, the vast majority of offenders are well and truly in excess of 400, then targetting them with harsher penalties is the way to go.

I don't care if it's not politically expedient... this is the REALITY of the situation we find ourselves in. Political expediency is not the name of this game. Aren't we trying to discourage people from drinking and driving because they could end up killing someone? Politics should have nothing to do with it. As for the public :rofl:, erm, that's pretty easy. If you're the govt, whatever limit you set, they'll follow it, they'll have to, it'll be law :killingme.

The limit is, almost, pointless. You have 2 ways (obviously more, but 2 at the moment) to catch a drink driver. 1. A checkpoint, 2. After an incident has halted their progress.

Checkpoint Scenario...

Officer: Hi, you've tested positive for alcohol. How many did you have?
Me: 3
Officer: You seem to be slurring your words a bit. Would you please pull your car to the side of the road for 30 minutes and drink some coffee (or another alcohol dispersant?)... and we'll reassess you. You do realise that should you become involved in an incident tonight that you WILL face jail time.

Incident Scenario

Hi, you've tested positive for alcohol. You have the right to remain silent..........

I fully realise that there are other issues involved and that the above may seem unpalatable to some, but tough shit, we do what the govt says anyway :rofl:... If drink driving needs to be tackled, just do it, stop fiddling with a limit that people ignore anyway, stop producing legislation that really does nothing other than give a set of guidelines... give a firm solid rule. If you're drink driving and fuckup, you're going inside.

[Juzz976]

That may be your opinion of your ability. Try not to tar everyone with the incompetence brush.

So you can stop in the same distance from 160k as 100k? interesting laws of physics in the world you live in.

Again, what absolute piffle!! Death can occur below the speed limit as well as above it. Look at the statistics. Of all the deaths on the road, where speed is a considering factor, how many of the people 'speeding' were above the posted limit?

They were not driving/riding to conditions most likely, its a limit not a target.
Had they been at a lower speed would they have had a better chance of avoiding accident or limiting the impact and making fatal injuries minor.

The speed limit on the open road is an arbitary figure, not a speed a which you will die when you travel faster than it.
Speed DOES NOT KILL.

Drinking alcohol doesn't either
Both however affect the distance you will travel before coming to a stop or avoiding a hazard therefore compromising safety margins.

A zero breath/blood alcohol limit makes about as much sense as having loss of licence for 1k over speed limit.
Not condoning speeding or drink driving, just amazed about double standards..

[James Deuce]

Drinking alcohol doesn't either


I can assure you that drinking alcohol can in fact be deadly in its own right. It is inherently dangerous. That's part of the point.

As for the comment about speeding and "double standards" you're not vaguely comparing apples with apples. Having said that I've never had a speeding ticket or a speed camera photo.

[Banditbandit]

They would not have to. They would be locked up.
Think of it like this, if they don't evaluate the consequences, it does not matter - as they will be on the road less regardless.
Either by choice (if they are smart enough), or by enforcement (Jail time).

Either way public wins.

Yes - if they are in jail then they are not on the road .. but they don't make the choice not to drive - they drive .. disqualified, drunk, stoned .. whatever .... deterent sentences don't work for many crims ... they don't think they'll get caught ..a dn if they do they go to jail ... a normal part of their life anyway ...

[James Deuce]

Yes - if they are in jaiol then they are not on the road .. but they don't make the choice not to drive - they drive .. disqualified, drunk, stoned .. whatever .... deterent sentences don't work for many crims ... they don't think they'll get caught ..a dn if they do they go to jail ... a normal part of their life anyway ...

Hence death penalty for second offence.

[avgas]

Yes - if they are in jail then they are not on the road .. but they don't make the choice not to drive - they drive .. disqualified, drunk, stoned .. whatever .... deterent sentences don't work for many crims ... they don't think they'll get caught ..a dn if they do they go to jail ... a normal part of their life anyway ...
I agree with the fact that some people wont learn - that is life.
However me having to deal with them simply because "can't be bothered" mentality? Really?
I say lock em up - and keep locking em up for more and more time, and even if they dont change - the chances of me finding them on the road is slimmer.

At the end of the day its about controling these individuals. If they expect it - don't hold back, give it to them. Feed them the whole 9 yards.
They will either choke or die.....but most importantly they won't bothering anyone else.

[Juzz976]

I can assure you that drinking alcohol can in fact be deadly in its own right. It is inherently dangerous. That's part of the point.

What point, water can be dangerous too.



As for the comment about speeding and "double standards" you're not vaguely comparing apples with apples. Having said that I've never had a speeding ticket or a speed camera photo.

So its ok to speed because speed never killed anyone,
and dont drink any alcohol because its dangerous.

:facepalm:...:facepalm:...:facepalm:

[Banditbandit]

Hence death penalty for second offence.

Taliban style ???

[James Deuce]

What point, water can be dangerous too.



So its ok to speed because speed never killed anyone,
and dont drink any alcohol because its dangerous.

:facepalm:...:facepalm:...:facepalm:

Alcohol is a poison. Part of the thrill of imbibing is that it's not good for you.

As for the second point Evel Kneivel would be proud of your ability to leap chasms of tremendous size without an apparent rocket pack.

[Genestho]

Yes - if they are in jail then they are not on the road .. but they don't make the choice not to drive - they drive .. disqualified, drunk, stoned .. whatever .... deterent sentences don't work for many crims ... they don't think they'll get caught ..a dn if they do they go to jail ... a normal part of their life anyway ...


You're right, anacdotely and officially - there are many specific psychological and criminal profiles on these groups of people.

And in that case - It really shouldn't be whether we can deter a recidivist anymore, when use is not made of sanctions to change behaviour..and it'll be good to see how Interlocks fit in, if used as an option when passed through legislation...

When clearly the mentality is ignorant of lives around them...

At what conviction should it become prominently about the safety and protection of 'my family' and 'my friends' and licensed road users, and not of the poor offender's circumstances?

(rhetorical - please carryon :) )

[ducatilover]

At what conviction should it become prominently about the safety of 'my family' and 'my friends' and licensed road users, and not of the poor offender's circumstances?

(rhetorical)

It's a stupid system really.

[Dave Lobster]

So you can stop in the same distance from 160k as 100k? interesting laws of physics in the world you live in.


I can stop my motorcycle from 100mp/h in (at a guess) half the distance that a hooded savage or oblivious asian can stop their borderline legal Corolla or bean can exhausted impreza from 100km/h.



They were not driving/riding to conditions most likely, its a limit not a target.
Had they been at a lower speed would they have had a better chance of avoiding accident or limiting the impact and making fatal injuries minor.


Make your fucking mind up. Inside the limit, or to the conditions??




Drinking alcohol doesn't either
Both however affect the distance you will travel before coming to a stop or avoiding a hazard therefore compromising safety margins.

Pulling on the brakes to adjust your speed so you can stop within half the distance you can see is the answer.. not sure of how you can cut the alcohol in your bloodstream, willynilly.

Do you even own a passport??

[candor]

I agree with the fact that some people wont learn - that is life.


Some can learn - they learn scientifically proven methods to pass breathalysers can reduce bac by over 10%. Was informed of this by a recidivist, who twice got through checkpoints well drunk lately, using the techniques shown by studies to lower BAC. The driver was surprised at getting through while "blind - couldn't see".

It wouldn't be so likely in the USA where 0.08 or 0.1 is the limit at which charging is automatic, but where law in most states also allows charges at over 0.04 or 0.05 if observations other than breath eg in "walk the line" tests lead to a finding of DUI.

Also the breath can be over 50% above the alcohol level….a breath tester reading of 0.14% taken from the last part of the breath may indicate that the blood level is only 0.09%.” 9(6) The Champion 16 (1985).

Which means a driver at BAC 0.03 could read a 0.05, but sadly pollies are currently passing the road safety and other matters bill which removes your right to an independent blood sample should you demand Police prove their case by taking one for themselves. So if the samples get mixed up at ESR, and you weren't guilty at whatever the legal limit ends up, you still might be found so!

This stripping of the right to defend oneself happened to youth lately, with no one noticing, slipped by in the latest boy racer vehicle seizure bill.

[twinbruva]

If you don't drink and then hit the road, what have you got to worry about? (Apart from all the 'normal' dangers.)

[Shadowjack]

If you don't drink and then hit the road, what have you got to worry about? (Apart from all the 'normal' dangers.)
Not a thing (except as you note)
Too simple, mate...

[ducatilover]

I learned.....

[candor]

Yes - if they are in jail then they are not on the road .. but they don't make the choice not to drive - they drive .. disqualified, drunk, stoned .. whatever .... deterent sentences don't work for many crims ... they don't think they'll get caught .. ...

I have to agree given my Mums 5x convicted of drink or drug driving drove impaired while awaiting trial for killing her... and I just heard today that he was again convicted of drink driving just lately, so his year of Porridge for being a human hand grenade had no effect. The latest reoffence by paroled man P's me off - especially as his therapists seem to have fallen for his crap that he never caused the crash.
He blamed the oncoming truck he hit before bumping left, then overcorrecting when kicked by the passenger out of slumber, to cross centreline.

There should be a special needs sentence for killers who keep it up. Plane - Island.