Bill slashing drink-drive limit before Parliament (down to 0.05g per 100ml of blood)

[Jeff Sichoe]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9213060/Bill-slashing-drink-drive-limit-selected

Where do you stand?

Is this one of those situations where no protest from the public is possible due to then being seen as 'drunk drivers' or otherwise being looked down upon (much like 'normal' people who had an aversion to the Gay Marriage thing - ya can't say you don't agree with it without being labeled a bigot or similar...)

Is this just another 'freedom' NZers have gotten used to which really should be changed, or is this another example of the Goverment taking our toys away?

Who doesn't enjoy a quiet after work before riding home? Or are you teetotal when on the bike?

Discuss!

[bogan]

Good, everything I've seen about the current limit points to it being set too high.

Approximately how many standards is 0.05?

[Devil]

I dont think it should be changed. Pretty sure its not the people at or near the limit that are the problem, but happy to be shown otherwise.
I think they should leave the limit, but get MUCH tougher on repeat offenders. Those are the attitudes that need changing.

[Jeff Sichoe]

Pulled from an older article on stuff -

A 0.05 limit equates to about two standard drinks in the first hour and one per hour thereafter. A level of 0.08 equates to six drinks in 90 minutes, which is closer to the definition of binge drinking than social drinking.

(2010... http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/3521150/A-lower-drink-drive-level-will-make-Kiwis-safer-on-the-roads)

[Scuba_Steve]

They need to just stop wasting time & money, leave this alone & work on actually doing something about the problem. Giving repeat drunk drivers the keys back time & time again while they constantly drive 4x the limit isn't helping anyone yet what do they do? Just try to make it so they're 5x the limit & leave it at that :brick:

[bogan]

Pulled from an older article on stuff -

A 0.05 limit equates to about two standard drinks in the first hour and one per hour thereafter. A level of 0.08 equates to six drinks in 90 minutes, which is closer to the definition of binge drinking than social drinking.

(2010... http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/3521150/A-lower-drink-drive-level-will-make-Kiwis-safer-on-the-roads)

Sounds about right tbh. Bigger practical difference between the two than the 0.05 and 0.08 numbers imply though!

[Paul in NZ]

They need to just stop wasting time & money, leave this alone & work on actually doing something about the problem. Giving repeat drunk drivers the keys back time & time again while they constantly drive 4x the limit isn't helping anyone yet what do they do? Just try to make it so they're 5x the limit & leave it at that :brick:

Agree - FFS - the total drunks dont give a hoot for the limit now and this wont change a damn thing except make criminals of people doing no harm.

[Jeff Sichoe]

Don't forget that a standard drink ain't shit these days tho

Two big ole woodstock 8%ers (I miss them so :( ) would put ya at just under 6 standard drinks...

[HenryDorsetCase]

c5wGcEPezcI


I'm with these guys.

[HenryDorsetCase]

It should be zero in my view.

some of the NOrdic countries do that. Sweden I think. No ifs, buts or maybes.

[Gremlin]

It's hardly slashed if it's going from 0.08 to 0.05.

I think it's great and about time. National chickened out of changing this the last time around. 0.08 is simply too high, and I thought I read something recently, that if you're around that level, you're actually too intoxicated to made a safe decision about driving or not. 0.05 is also a level adopted by quite a few countries.

Agree with Devil as well that they really need to nail repeat offenders. Often these cases are blown a little out of proportion by the extreme. Harsher rules for all dog owners, when it's a minority that won't obey the new rules anyway. Same thing with drink driving.

[Scuba_Steve]

Don't forget that a standard drink ain't shit these days tho

Two big ole woodstock 8%ers (I miss them so :( ) would put ya at just under 6 standard drinks...

Social engineerings where it's at for the regular folk, everyone I grew up with was taught the limit of 4 standard drinks & we all stick round that limit. Just keep pushing the 4 standard drink message & the majority will be fine.
Then it's just dealing with the wankers that don't care for anyone else which isn't solved by any limits no matter how low, a good 1st step would be shifting that Boyracer car crushing over to repeat drunk drivers (& possibly their vehicles too :devil2:)

[mashman]

Sigh... always legislation first, much easier that way eh.

How's about, you've been caught more than once, therefore before you can drive off in your car you must pay ??$300?? to have a bloke fit a breathaliser unit and a light to your car. Your car will not start without the breathaliser being blown into, but instead of it stopping the car from starting, it merely pops on a light to let others know that there's a piss'ead behind the wheel.

At least that way you will give everyone a chance of spotting the moron's that the cops can't catch because they're having a psychic day off.

[superjackal]

Agree - FFS - the total drunks dont give a hoot for the limit now and this wont change a damn thing except make criminals of people doing no harm.

This reminds me of the anti-smacking bill. The bad offenders couldn't give a hoot about some law. Same with drunk drivers...

[MisterD]

It should be zero in my view.

Are you a taxi driver or summat?

[jasonu]

Sigh... always legislation first, much easier that way eh.

How's about, you've been caught more than once, therefore before you can drive off in your car you must pay ??$300?? to have a bloke fit a breathaliser unit and a light to your car. Your car will not start without the breathaliser being blown into,.

They do that here except it costs the offender more like $2000 for the installation and your ride won't start at all until you blow under the limit which for the offender is 0% and if you get your mate to blow and get cought it is off to jail for you.

[mashman]

They do that here except it costs the offender more like $2000 for the installation and your ride won't start at all until you blow under the limit which for the offender is 0% and if you get your mate to blow and get cought it is off to jail for you.

They did an experiment a while back where a drunk would ask strangers to blow into the tube for them... needless to say that some did. It also mentioned the possibility of black market devices to bypass the device. All the more reason to just let the thing start and to have a light come of giving people a warning I would have thought, but meh, since when did common sense matter eh :D.

[jasonu]

This thread is moot now...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11130481

[unstuck]

Ban the shit all together, If weed is illegal then alcohol should be too. Stupid fuckin humans.:weird:

[Road kill]

If it somehow made the courts impose maximum sentences then maybe it would be of some worth.

But it won't,,so what's the fucking point ?

This is just lazy law making by people that don't have the nuts to do anything real about the problem.

The solution is already in their hands but their simply to gutless to use it, so they change the law in an attempt to be seen as having done something.

Just more smoke screen politics,,,nothing new.

[Swoop]

0.05 is what Aussie has, so no surprises there.

Stupid move? = Yes.

The problem is the repeat offenders who are GROSSLY over the limit and then the courts give them a slap with the proverbial wet bus ticket.

(Then we have the issue of lowering the age to purchase alcohol...)

[Jeff Sichoe]

This thread is moot now...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11130481

I think that's just a retarded headline? By 'Being pulled' they mean pulled from the ballot not 'being removed from the table'

[Grizzo]

Ban the shit all together, If weed is illegal then alcohol should be too. Stupid fuckin humans.:weird:

Yep, more bad shit happens when alcohols involved.
I bet no serious crime gets committed after one partakes in a smoke of the good stuff....maybe because they cant be fucked getting off the couch:lol:

But in all seriousness, it's a fucked world when alcohol and poison soaked tobacco
is readily available off the shelf but a plant that chills people out is illegal.


Fucked I tell ya:crazy:

[Scuba_Steve]

Yep, more bad shit happens when alcohols involved.
I bet no serious crime gets committed after one partakes in a smoke of the good stuff....maybe because they cant be fucked getting off the couch:lol:

But in all seriousness, it's a fucked world when alcohol and poison soaked tobacco
is readily available off the shelf but a plant that chills people out is illegal.


Fucked I tell ya:crazy:

Define "serious crime" thefts, assaults, murders, rapes have all occurred during weed highs. Weed making people too laxed to do anything is BS, it's like saying booze makes people to shitfaced to do anything.

However if it was upto me weed would be legalised & taxed to shit like the other poisons, I don't see it any worse than booze & fags

[SMOKEU]

Why is the bill before parliament in the first place? You'd have to be dumb to think it's going to reduce the road death toll.

[ellipsis]

But in all seriousness, it's a fucked world when alcohol and poison soaked tobacco
is readily available off the shelf but a plant that chills people out is illegal.

...do you really think they want the minions to be 'chilled'...there ain't no brass in a calm situation, turmoil and doubt is what the leaders want...keeps them in bizzo...

[Scouse]

It's hardly slashed if it's going from 0.08 to 0.05.

I think it's great and about time. National chickened out of changing this the last time around. 0.08 is simply too high, and I thought I read something recently, that if you're around that level, you're actually too intoxicated to made a safe decision about driving or not. 0.05 is also a level adopted by quite a few countries.

Agree with Devil as well that they really need to nail repeat offenders. Often these cases are blown a little out of proportion by the extreme. Harsher rules for all dog owners, when it's a minority that won't obey the new rules anyway. Same thing with drink driving.your opinion does not count cos your not from here your a yarpie so you have no rights to comment

[paturoa]

I've not seen anywhere the number of accidents, injuries or deaths directly attritibutal (sp?) to people with ranges BETWEEN 05 and 08. Has anyone?

[Bassmatt]

I've not seen anywhere the number of accidents, injuries or deaths directly attritibutal (sp?) to people with ranges BETWEEN 05 and 08. Has anyone?

Apparently a study into just that is to be released "soon". The article in the Herald has some expert suggesting it could cut the road toll by 2/3rds , can't see it myself.

[Gremlin]

your opinion does not count cos your not from here your a yarpie so you have no rights to comment
Nice try... everyone's an import at some point :rolleyes: Spent more than half my life here anyway...

Oh, and I vote, so yes, my opinion counts :bleh:

[Katman]

Who doesn't enjoy a quiet after work before riding home? Or are you teetotal when on the bike?


A quiet after work shouldn't get you in any trouble.

[sil3nt]

Limit should be zero. Anyone above 0.05/100ml should be shot.

[onearmedbandit]

How's about, you've been caught more than once, therefore before you can drive off in your car you must pay ??$300?? to have a bloke fit a breathaliser unit and a light to your car. Your car will not start without the breathaliser being blown into, but instead of it stopping the car from starting, it merely pops on a light to let others know that there's a piss'ead behind the wheel.

At least that way you will give everyone a chance of spotting the moron's that the cops can't catch because they're having a psychic day off.

You're fucking taking the piss I hope. Either that or that is the stupidest idea I've ever fucking read on KB.

[Ocean1]

that is the stupidest idea I've ever fucking read on KB.

So, you've not been reading much of Mashie's work, then?

[Road kill]

Nice try... everyone's an import at some point :rolleyes: Spent more than half my life here anyway...

Oh, and I vote, so yes, my opinion counts :bleh:

Chill out Frances.

He was talking about good fuckers like you.

Just that other nasty thing.

[Road kill]

Limit should be zero. Anyone above 0.05/100ml should be shot.

They could do that,but the courts would still just give them a stern talking to anyway.

So why fucking bother if it's not even an election year.

[mashman]

You're fucking taking the piss I hope. Either that or that is the stupidest idea I've ever fucking read on KB.

So the cops are gonna catch 'em all eh? I guess you find it more fun for people to be surprised when a boozed up fucknugget appears from nowhere and kills someone? You wouldn't want to know that the cunt approaching you is pissed behind the wheel? yeah, let'spass another law coz that's realy proactive. Ain't you got a cave to dwell in.

[scumdog]

Ban the shit all together, If weed is illegal then alcohol should be too. Stupid fuckin humans.:weird:


I agree:niceone:

[Berg]

As a drinker but not a drink driver I'm OK with the lowered limit. We sat at home with a breathalyzer and (OK, I was way out of practice) I was shocked at how pissed I felt before finally blowing over the limit.
I think we as a country need to stigmatize drink driving the same way smoking has been. Only then will we make headway towards reducing the rate of people driving under the influence. Between that and courts growing a pair and imposing some realistic penalties to repeat offenders.

[James Deuce]

The two interfaces my family has had with drunk drivers, neither of them were grossly intoxicated. The person who nearly killed me and broke my neck and back blew 0.081. The person who ran my brother-in-law over on the footpath and lacerated his abdominal wall and liver blew 0.09. No one needs to drink and drive. From talking to my wife and her colleagues it's not the grossly intoxicated having most of the so-called drink drive accidents in vehicles, most "drunk" drivers are mildly intoxicated at best.

It's bullshit that we've allowed the practice of altering cognitive function with toxic chemicals and then letting people in that state pilot vehicles that they aren't very good at piloting sober to continue for so long.

After doing the Steinlager Experiment in 1989 with the Survivors Motorcycle Club I CAN'T drink and drive or ride. I know what one beer does to me. I k now what one beer does to most people. I think it was F5Dave who managed 6 Steinies before he started falling off things, but we all know he's a freak anyway. There is no argument you can make that will convince me that you need alcohol before you drive. That's just borderline alcoholic whining. The sooner the limit is zero, the better.

[Brett]

Should be zero tolerance. 0.00ml. That way there is no confusion. Having a drink? Don't drive. At all. Won't stop those who don't give a flying fuck about the law to begin with, but it's a start in my book. I sometimes have a couple (being 2 drinks) and then drive or ride, would be MORE than happy to cut this out. But as we know, just making something legislation isn't going to fix a problem.

[neels]

After doing the Steinlager Experiment in 1989.
There's your first mistake, drinking that shit.

I don't see zero alcohol limits as a solution, far too much of a restriction on otherwise law abiding people, why can't I have a glass of wine with my wife when we go out for dinner without having to stump up an extra $100 in taxi fares for the privilege.

I do see that lowering the limit would raise awareness, I understand it has been studied and our current limit of 0.08 is around when people can no longer make reasoned decisions around whether they should drive or not, so a drop to 0.05 (or effectively one drink less) doesn't seem that bad.

None of the above will stop the old fella heading home from the RSA with the attitude of 'I've been driving for years, I'll be fine as long as none of these young hoons kill me on the way home'. These are the people my 18 year old son who is very responsible about drinking and driving is scared of sharing the road with.

[scissorhands]

If 0.08 is too high, and 0.00 too unrealistic, as well as too unfair, probably 0.02 to 0.035 would be my pick.

One thing I've found is the presence of others in a car, to lower my concentration and safety. A bit like texting. Especially if those others have been drinking, and/or are wildly socialising the driver and distracting him/her.

One day drunk passengers may be in the firing line too

[mashman]

None of the above will stop the old fella heading home from the RSA with the attitude of 'I've been driving for years, I'll be fine as long as none of these young hoons kill me on the way home'. These are the people my 18 year old son who is very responsible about drinking and driving is scared of sharing the road with.

You've also got the, how often do I get pulled for a random test issue.

It's a big country to "police", and the above is why I suggest what I have suggested. I care not that it is unpopular as a potential solution, but if you aren't going to mitigate what is inevitably going to happen, then what changes? People will always work around any anti-driving device. So what do you do?

[Ocean1]

The two interfaces my family has had with drunk drivers, neither of them were grossly intoxicated. The person who nearly killed me and broke my neck and back blew 0.081. The person who ran my brother-in-law over on the footpath and lacerated his abdominal wall and liver blew 0.09. No one needs to drink and drive. From talking to my wife and her colleagues it's not the grossly intoxicated having most of the so-called drink drive accidents in vehicles, most "drunk" drivers are mildly intoxicated at best.

It's bullshit that we've allowed the practice of altering cognitive function with toxic chemicals and then letting people in that state pilot vehicles that they aren't very good at piloting sober to continue for so long.

After doing the Steinlager Experiment in 1989 with the Survivors Motorcycle Club I CAN'T drink and drive or ride. I know what one beer does to me. I k now what one beer does to most people. I think it was F5Dave who managed 6 Steinies before he started falling off things, but we all know he's a freak anyway. There is no argument you can make that will convince me that you need alcohol before you drive. That's just borderline alcoholic whining. The sooner the limit is zero, the better.

From personal experience I gota agree. Post up the details of that test, eh?

Just one problem: there's no such thing as zero. By all means run a study to find out what a sensible minimum should be, but that won't be zero.

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm yet to see a valid argument for lowering it, the closest on this forum so far is James Deuce but even those in his story were ABOVE current limits; so again no-ones brought forth a good argument of why it should be .05 over .08 & there is not definitive evidence that says it'll do anything cept make the Govt more money.
As for 0 limit, thats fucking retarded. Might be worth doing some Goolgleing & seeing how well prohibition's worked in the past might give you an idea of how well a 0 limits gonna work. Also those saying a 0 limit best never operate a vehicle on any prescription medicine, drugs, cough medicine, without glasses/contacts (where applicable), tired, sick etc lest you be a hypocrite

[p.dath]

I think the limit probably does need to be reduced, but also also agree with many others that the impact won't be as great as indicated in the article, as a lot of the problem is with repeat drink drivers, and if they are already exceeding the limit now, they'll simply be exceeding the new lower limit and nothing will have changed.

The new limit will however impact those that respect the law and don't have an alcohol addiction. Part of the problem is two different people can consume the exactly the same amount of alcohol, but the impact on those two people can be quite different. The limit change will reduce the impact in this group of people - but not uniformly.

[scissorhands]

At zero, being breathalysed going to work in the morning after a few drinks the night before, will make you a criminal.

Fermentation problems in the gut can make ones intestines produce alcohol, even if none consumed. At least that could be exploited by in court as an excuse

[Scuba_Steve]

At zero, being breathalysed going to work in the morning after a few drinks the night before, will make you a criminal.

Fermentation problems in the gut can make ones intestines produce alcohol, even if none consumed. At least that could be exploited by in court as an excuse

don't forget too dependant on how "tolerant" the devices are/become fruit can be alcoholic especially bananas left in the sun; Bundaburg Ginger Beer & Lemon, Lime, Bitters are both alcoholic (as is any brewed drink); cough syrup/lollies can be alcoholic; listerine/mouthwash is alcoholic...

[SMOKEU]

Fermentation problems in the gut can make ones intestines produce alcohol, even if none consumed. At least that could be exploited by in court as an excuse

I read of a case recently where a guy very nearly died because of that, and he wasn't drinking any alcohol recently before the incident.

[oldrider]

They need to just stop wasting time & money, leave this alone & work on actually doing something about the problem. Giving repeat drunk drivers the keys back time & time again while they constantly drive 4x the limit isn't helping anyone yet what do they do? Just try to make it so they're 5x the limit & leave it at that :brick:

Spot on ... fix the current problems like repeat drunk drivers and soft cock judges before trying to strangle those that abide by the laws anyway FFS! :brick:

[pzkpfw]

...
The new limit will however impact those that respect the law and don't have an alcohol addiction. Part of the problem is two different people can consume the exactly the same amount of alcohol, but the impact on those two people can be quite different. The limit change will reduce the impact in this group of people - but not uniformly.

I agree with your post (including the bit snipped) but wanted to point out this bit is basically the same as speed limits.

Sure, some of us can go faster than the posted speed limit in some conditions, in/on some vehicles - and be "safe". But they can't set laws based on that. Letting people go whatever speed they want will just result in innocent lives being lost due to people who mis-judged their own "safety". So speed limits are set, and have to be based on some kind of average. Would it really be practical to have different limits for different people? (The different limit for trucks, and cars towing trailers, is already mostly ignored.)


I see the drink-drive thing the same way. You can't have a system based on "be responsible". You need limits. And those limits need to be good "on average", and they need to be practically enforceable. (So I don't think "zero" is a practical limit).

So to the current thing I say say "Meh". Someone has decided 0.5 is better than 0.8. Yeah, go for it.


(For the record: as a good Kiwi binge drinking teenage boy I drove smashed a few times, and was a passenger of a smashed driver several times. It's pretty much pure "luck" we didn't kill each other - or innocent people. As an adult, I may have a beer or two when I have my car somewhere, but generally I just avoid having my car (or being the driver) if I'm in a situation where I know there'll be beer. If I'm on my bike - I set myself a ZERO limit; and have found that easy to do.)


Edit: and yes - how the heck do people get to double-digits on drink-drive convictions? How does "the system" let that happen??

[Ender EnZed]

I agree with your post (including the bit snipped) but wanted to point out this bit is basically the same as speed limits.

The difference between the alcohol limit and speed limits (and a big part of the reason why many people are opposed to lowering it) is that no one actually knows what they're at until they blow into a breathalyzer. When the speed limit is 109 you can drive at 109 and know you're not risking a ticket.

It may well be that the point at which I decide I've had enough to drink is <0.5 but I like to have a decent margin of "safety" in the sense that I know I'm not risking a DWI. At the current adult limit there are very few people that are ever going to be surprised to discover that they're over it, if it's lowered to 0.5 there will be more.

[MisterD]

your opinion does not count cos your not from here your a yarpie so you have no rights to comment

Posted by someone called "Scouse"...you're not in Liverpool now Barry.

[Mushu]

I'm not a drinker so I never get behind the wheel after more than 1 drink and won't touch the stuff at all if I'm on a bike, so a law change wouldn't affect me at all.

I still think is a stupid idea as has been said they need to do far more about repeat offenders, how about 3 times = permanent loss of license, there's really no excuse for it anyway.

[scumdog]

don't forget too dependant on how "tolerant" the devices are/become fruit can be alcoholic especially bananas left in the sun; Bundaburg Ginger Beer & Lemon, Lime, Bitters are both alcoholic (as is any brewed drink); cough syrup/lollies can be alcoholic; listerine/mouthwash is alcoholic...

You would have to down a shit-load of them to get a proper breath-alcohol reading...<_<

[onearmedbandit]

So the cops are gonna catch 'em all eh? I guess you find it more fun for people to be surprised when a boozed up fucknugget appears from nowhere and kills someone? You wouldn't want to know that the cunt approaching you is pissed behind the wheel? yeah, let'spass another law coz that's realy proactive. Ain't you got a cave to dwell in.

No you suggested instead of shutting the car down, it should be equipped with a light. Go on, entertain me with how this 'light' will help an innocent road user when Mr drunk driver flies through a red light and cleans him out. Because I can tell you how not allowing the car to start will help them.

If the evidence suggests .08 is too high and that .05 is a better level then I'm happy for a law change. However no amount of law changes or new laws will prevent Mr recidivist drink-driver from getting behind the wheel and driving.

[scumdog]

I'm not a drinker so I never get behind the wheel after more than 1 drink and won't touch the stuff at all if I'm on a bike, so a law change wouldn't affect me at all.

I still think is a stupid idea as has been said they need to do far more about repeat offenders, how about 3 times = permanent loss of license, there's really no excuse for it anyway.

How about gouging their eye-balls out?
THEN they wouldn't do no repeat drink-driving.

And shit.

[onearmedbandit]

I still think is a stupid idea as has been said they need to do far more about repeat offenders, how about 3 times = permanent loss of license, there's really no excuse for it anyway.

You'll find a lot of repeat offenders don't care whether they have a license or not.

[scumdog]

At the current adult limit there are very few people that are ever going to be surprised to discover that they're over it,

True.

Very few are REALLY surprised to find they're over the present limit.

[Trade_nancy]

Well it is a bill being put forward by the Palmerston North MP (and a dick) Lees-Galloway. He was quoted in the Sunday rag recently when asked several key questions about his life preferences. On alcohol: Do u prefer Pinot or Tui - he said Tui. Got to be lacking in a balanced mind and pallet.
and...I've never felt inclined to trust anybody sporting a hyphenated name. Typifies lack of decision-making ability and compromise.
Q. If Lees-Galloway marries Hawthorne-Wilberspoon..... do his children become Less-Galloway-Hawthorne-Wilberspoons? When does it stop...

[scumdog]

Well it is a bill being put forward by the Palmerston North MP (and a dick) Lees-Galloway. He was quoted in the Sunday rag recently when asked several key questions about his life preferences. On alcohol: Do u prefer Pinot or Tui - he said Tui. Got to be lacking in a balanced mind and pallet.
and...I've never felt inclined to trust anybody sporting a hyphenated name. Typifies lack of decision-making ability and compromise.
Q. If Lees-Galloway marries Hawthorne-Wilberspoon..... do his children become Less-Galloway-Hawthorne-Wilberspoons? When does it stop...

Are you drunk????

[mashman]

No you suggested instead of shutting the car down, it should be equipped with a light. Go on, entertain me with how this 'light' will help an innocent road user when Mr drunk driver flies through a red light and cleans him out. Because I can tell you how not allowing the car to start will help them.

If the evidence suggests .08 is too high and that .05 is a better level then I'm happy for a law change. However no amount of law changes or new laws will prevent Mr recidivist drink-driver from getting behind the wheel and driving.

It will alert joe innocent (on foot or driving etc...) to their being someone that has been drinking and is now driving a car. That could be enough of a difference to stop someone from getting wiped at the lights or on the footpath or coming towards you etc... All of those things are accomplished by non-drink driving folk too. Do you honestly believe that where there is a market for bypassing/fooling the gadget that stops your car from starting because of excessive alcohol consumption that that need won't be met? Pulease, engage brain cell man.

So go on, your turn to entertain me. If you have anti-start devices fitted and it has been bypassed, then please tell me how you identify a drunk driver on the road? After all, if the vehicle is moving, then there's a sober person behind the wheel right?

[scumdog]

So go on, your turn to entertain me. If you have anti-start devices fitted and it has been bypassed, then please tell me how you identify a drunk driver on the road? After all, if the vehicle is moving, then there's a sober person behind the wheel right?

Most (if not all) of these devices requires regular inputs of breath - not just a puff before driving off.

And if the flashing lights bulb blows/the wire breaks etc your 'device' is no use.

[mashman]

Most (if not all) of these devices requires regular inputs of breath - not just a puff before driving off.

And if the flashing lights bulb blows/the wire breaks etc your 'device' is no use.

I've no doubt that there are safety measures, but even the best in the world can be bypassed by the smart kids who see that sort of thing as a challenge and a way to make money.

You guys must have estimates for the number of drunk-drivers on the road at any given point in time. What percentage do you think you pull over?

[onearmedbandit]

It will alert joe innocent (on foot or driving etc...) to their being someone that has been drinking and is now driving a car. That could be enough of a difference to stop someone from getting wiped at the lights or on the footpath or coming towards you etc... All of those things are accomplished by non-drink driving folk too. Do you honestly believe that where there is a market for bypassing/fooling the gadget that stops your car from starting because of excessive alcohol consumption that that need won't be met? Pulease, engage brain cell man.

So go on, your turn to entertain me. If you have anti-start devices fitted and it has been bypassed, then please tell me how you identify a drunk driver on the road? After all, if the vehicle is moving, then there's a sober person behind the wheel right?

Guess you should be getting in touch with the various counties in America that have had considerable success with the inter-lock device and tell them it doesn't work because people can by-pass it. And of course people would never disconnect a light or employ a by-pass on those. Oh noes they wouldn't.

[mashman]

Guess you should be getting in touch with the various counties in America that have had considerable success with the inter-lock device and tell them it doesn't work because people can by-pass it. And of course people would never disconnect a light or employ a by-pass on those. Oh noes they wouldn't.

So it doesn't happen? The device has never been bypassed? Why would you disconnect the light? It's not stopping your car from starting and it's not gonna have the fuzz pulling you over. It's a device to alert those around you that you're pissed up, beware.

Edit: from the NZTA (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/58/alcohol-interlocks.html)

"Violations are breaches of the alcohol interlock licence conditions as defined in the Land Transport (Alcohol Interlock) Regulations 2012. These include:

Tampering with the alcohol interlock.
Failing a breath test due to excess breath alcohol.
Failing to undertake two or more consecutive retests.
Attempting to start the vehicle by circumventing or bypassing the alcohol interlock.
Tampering with the alcohol interlock.
Two or more failures to present the vehicle for scheduled inspection/servicing."

They must have wasted their time coz them thar devices are solid as bru.

[Scuba_Steve]

You would have to down a shit-load of them to get a proper breath-alcohol reading...<_<

Have you tried? I always wanted to know if a ginger beer would register on the breathalyser.

[scumdog]

Have you tried? I always wanted to know if a ginger beer would register on the breathalyser.
MANY 'drinks' will give a reading at the side of the road.."say your name into this device sir" kind of thing.
But you need to have drunk a reasonable amount of alcohol to give a reading above the legal limit back at the cop-shop.

So th ginger beer would have to be as alcoholic as regular beer - and you would have to have drunk over two big bottles to be up around the legal limit.

NB: "Your result may vary"

[Scuba_Steve]

MANY 'drinks' will give a reading at the side of the road.."say your name into this device sir" kind of thing.
But you need to have drunk a reasonable amount of alcohol to give a reading above the legal limit back at the cop-shop.

So th ginger beer would have to be as alcoholic as regular beer - and you would have to have drunk over two big bottles to be up around the legal limit.

NB: "Your result may vary"

but I'm talking if the limit was 0 as some are calling for on this thread; how accurate are the machines, would they make every other person a criminal?

[unstuck]

[QUOTE=Mushu;1130617520]I'm not a drinker so I never get behind the wheel after more than 1 drink and won't touch the stuff at all if I'm on a bike,[QUOTE]


WTF, what you smokin and where can I get some?:confused:

[onearmedbandit]

So it doesn't happen? The device has never been bypassed? Why would you disconnect the light? It's not stopping your car from starting and it's not gonna have the fuzz pulling you over. It's a device to alert those around you that you're pissed up, beware.

Edit: from the NZTA (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/58/alcohol-interlocks.html)

"Violations are breaches of the alcohol interlock licence conditions as defined in the Land Transport (Alcohol Interlock) Regulations 2012. These include:

Tampering with the alcohol interlock.
Failing a breath test due to excess breath alcohol.
Failing to undertake two or more consecutive retests.
Attempting to start the vehicle by circumventing or bypassing the alcohol interlock.
Tampering with the alcohol interlock.
Two or more failures to present the vehicle for scheduled inspection/servicing."

They must have wasted their time coz them thar devices are solid as bru.

Are you reading what you are writing, 'bru'? So your 'light', which intended purpose is to alert those around you that you're pissed up, is not going to have the 'fuzz' pull you over? Seriously? The police are just going to ignore the light, cos it's not for them it's for pedestrians and other road users? And do you not think they have to have legislation that makes it a violation to not just rip the inter-lock out of the car? Nah of course not. Same like they don't need legislation regarding the tampering of ankle-bracelets. Oh wait a second...

Lets propose this scenario. Jimmy Adams, a well like country bloke, has a bit of an issue having a few too many at the local country pub and driving home. So they fit your light. Jimmy drives home one Friday night at 11:30 at night on a dark country road. Up ahead is Bob and Anne driving home along with their 3 darling children. Jimmy is pissed. He has his lights on full. Bob sees an oncoming car with it's lights on full beam and thinks 'bloody idiot', slows down a little then BLAM, head on crash, Jimmy doing 140km/h in his HQ ute, a screech of metal, crunching of chassis's, broken glass. The silence apart from the screaming coming from Anne as she sees her husband slumped over the wheel, and her daughters neck snapped from the force of the impact. Where little Johnny sat is now an empty seat such was the force. How good was your light there in saving this tragedy from happening.

Now lets think about the same scenario with the inter-lock. Jimmy sleeps it off in the carpark. Bob and Anne and their kids make it home.

Sure Jimmy may have tampered with the interlock, but that's a may. With the light it didn't fucking matter whether he tampered with it or not.

How is the light better than an inter-lock?

[ellipsis]

...the open road speed limit is 100kph but it is almost nationally taken to be 109kph...the 0.8 levels seem to be taken quite arbitrarily also...until recently when my nephew, a sworn officer told me how much he estimated I could have as a quiet one after work, I was quite blown away at the copious amount of piss it was...I was always a bit concerned with having imbibed a quarter to a third of this amount and hitting the highway home...I still only have the much lesser amount and still wonder if I am on or bordering on the limit...'cos often it feels like it...

[mashman]

Are you reading what you are writing, 'bru'? So your 'light', which intended purpose is to alert those around you that you're pissed up, is not going to have the 'fuzz' pull you over? Seriously? The police are just going to ignore the light, cos it's not for them it's for pedestrians and other road users? And do you not think they have to have legislation that makes it a violation to not just rip the inter-lock out of the car? Nah of course not. Same like they don't need legislation regarding the tampering of ankle-bracelets. Oh wait a second...

Lets propose this scenario. Jimmy Adams, a well like country bloke, has a bit of an issue having a few too many at the local country pub and driving home. So they fit your light. Jimmy drives home one Friday night at 11:30 at night on a dark country road. Up ahead is Bob and Anne driving home along with their 3 darling children. Jimmy is pissed. He has his lights on full. Bob sees an oncoming car with it's lights on full beam and thinks 'bloody idiot', slows down a little then BLAM, head on crash, Jimmy doing 140km/h in his HQ ute, a screech of metal, crunching of chassis's, broken glass. The silence apart from the screaming coming from Anne as she sees her husband slumped over the wheel, and her daughters neck snapped from the force of the impact. Where little Johnny sat is now an empty seat such was the force. How good was your light there in saving this tragedy from happening.

Now lets think about the same scenario with the inter-lock. Jimmy sleeps it off in the carpark. Bob and Anne and their kids make it home.

Sure Jimmy may have tampered with the interlock, but that's a may. With the light it didn't fucking matter whether he tampered with it or not.

How is the light better than an inter-lock?

Why would the cops stop you? Attaching the light is a warning to other drivers, not a come and arrest me sign. Ergo, it won't be against the law to drink-drive :shit: I know, bombshell to take in or what, but the law doesn't stop your scenario from happening, neither does the posted speed limit stop it from happening and it ain't just drunks who speed.

It's not supposed to be a flawless system, but FFS it let's other road user know that someone is drink driving, which is something that doesn't happen. If nothing else it'll help the cops identify who is pissed and there are still laws against erratic driving that they could be charged with.

Question for ya. Why don't you drink and drive? Me, I have done, but only with total confidence that I can and I will do carefully. If I feel "unsafe", I won't. Will that attitude suddenly change just because it's "legal". No. Because I can still get pulled for erratic driving. I understand why there's such a backlash towards the idea, hell I even accept and agree with the reasons for that backlash to a huge extent. However there's still the issue where there's ?thousands? of people on the road at any given point in time with excess blood alcohol that go undetected.

[98tls]

How many years go by and how many people have to die before the drink driving issue will be taken seriously and not just something for politicians to posture over,repeat drink drivers repeat because a fine or pd teaches them nothing.1st offence 6 months jail 2nd 18 months etc,take away the average joes job and ability to pay for the things he needs to ie mortgage/bikes/cars or whatever hes into then its likely most of them will work out drink drivings a bad idea.Wont fix them all but the greater number i believe.

[onearmedbandit]

Why would the cops stop you? Attaching the light is a warning to other drivers, not a come and arrest me sign. Ergo, it won't be against the law to drink-drive :shit: I know, bombshell to take in or............ that go undetected.

I've just re-read all your posts in this thread and this is the first time you mention that in your vision drink-driving is no longer a crime. Way to form an argument....

But I see where you're going with this. Not only the outcomes that you present but also think of the reduced load on the courts, the jails and the tax payer. In fact where do we stop? Laws against murder, rape, theft etc have also obviously proven ineffective (as these crimes are committed on a daily basis). Lets just put a light or a sign on offenders identifying people that they are in the presence of a criminal rather than locking them up. Then those people are aware and can take action and get away. Well those who happen to be looking at all times for these lights or signs, those who are in a position to get away (sorry mums with kids in tow), those who are strong enough to make their escape.

I'm not arguing that the current system is flawless, pulease. But it does act as a deterrent to most people. As do the current drink drive laws. Agree with their decision making process or not, but I've heard more people say they won't drink and drive because they need their license than those who say they are not safe to be behind the wheel.

[mashman]

I've just re-read all your posts in this thread and this is the first time you mention that in your vision drink-driving is no longer a crime. Way to form an argument....

But I see where you're going with this. Not only the outcomes that you present but also think of the reduced load on the courts, the jails and the tax payer. In fact where do we stop? Laws against murder, rape, theft etc have also obviously proven ineffective (as these crimes are committed on a daily basis). Lets just put a light or a sign on offenders identifying people that they are in the presence of a criminal rather than locking them up. Then those people are aware and can take action and get away. Well those who happen to be looking at all times for these lights or signs, those who are in a position to get away (sorry mums with kids in tow), those who are strong enough to make their escape.

I'm not arguing that the current system is flawless, pulease. But it does act as a deterrent to most people. As do the current drink drive laws. Agree with their decision making process or not, but I've heard more people say they won't drink and drive because they need their license than those who say they are not safe to be behind the wheel.

You didn't ask. Way to make assumptions ;).

:killingme@murder, rape etc... the lights are on but no-one's home.

True. Still doesn't stop too many though eh. If a light system was to be implemented there'd likely be a fuckload more thought that'd go into it... and we'd likely end up with some form of hybrid, a light for below the limit (whatever that would be). Hopefully there'd be tougher penalty's to accompany the "solution".

[oldrider]

I grew up when drunk driving was not an offence as it is today. (It was even used as an excuse)

The only ones who have responded to the change in law and attitude are the type of responsible drivers who realise how dangerous it is anyway.

The same types who were always dangerous and recidivous drink drivers then are still dangerous recidivous drink drivers today! ... "WHY"?

The :Police: Police do their job and smart arse lawyers and soft cock judges undermine their efforts and allow the offenders to get away with it ... again ... and again!

$$$$ it's easy money ... their basic rice bowl! They wont volunteer to change their ways! :oi-grr:

Put the smart arse lawyers and the soft cock Judges in jail and watch how quickly the repeat offenders list "diminishes" for a change! :kick:

[McFatty1000]

Saw some research the other day which suggested that a persons ability to perceive their own driving ability was diminished at 0.08 and they were more confident about how 'safe' they were than when they were a 0.05ml. (Of course, can I find the article now?? :brick:)

So, the feeling of 'safe' on the road after one has been drinking may not have a huge amount to do with how well they're actually driving in reality - how this fits in with the proposal, meh, but its something to keep in mind.

And a zero limit, while unlikely to show much difference in ability vs a low set limit, would take all the guess work out of the decision making for the driver as to if they were under the limit/impaired by alcohol. (Not saying I think it'd work overall, cause, you know, humans...)

The light on top of the car would only work if it was in conjunction with an interlock system - a drunk driver tries to start the car; car doesn't go and a light turns on showing everyone around that the person is over the limit and still trying to drive. Worth a thought.

[ellipsis]

...or the light could work in conjunction with 400 volts being let loose on either, the over limit drivers nuts or nipples...that would give them the impetus to walk or cab it, I bet...'less ya like that kinda shit...

[onearmedbandit]

You didn't ask. Way to make assumptions ;).

When presenting an argument it is kind of important to include key critical facts.


:killingme@murder, rape etc... the lights are on but no-one's home.

It's a common tactic to take someone's flawed argument to extremes to highlight the failings in it.


True. Still doesn't stop too many though eh. If a light system was to be implemented there'd likely be a fuckload more thought that'd go into it... and we'd likely end up with some form of hybrid, a light for below the limit (whatever that would be). Hopefully there'd be tougher penalty's to accompany the "solution".

Stops plenty. I go to my local most nights, maybe 1 out of 100 times I hear someone refuse a drink because they don't feel safe to drive. The other 99 times it's a fear of losing their license.

Anyway, this is moot. Your idea wouldn't see the light of day for numerous reasons.

[mashman]

When presenting an argument it is kind of important to include key critical facts.

It's a common tactic to take someone's flawed argument to extremes to highlight the failings in it.

Stops plenty. I go to my local most nights, maybe 1 out of 100 times I hear someone refuse a drink because they don't feel safe to drive. The other 99 times it's a fear of losing their license.

Anyway, this is moot. Your idea wouldn't see the light of day for numerous reasons.

That is true. I thought it obvious and credited you with some nouse. My bad.

I have no issue with that... I often use it for fun.

Not arguing that... but in ways it's disappointing that that is the response over being responsible.

True, the world doesn't respond well to common sense.

[Ender EnZed]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/9360519/Drink-drive-limit-lowered

No surprises.

At least getting caught between the old and the new limit is only demerits and a fine.

[Gremlin]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/9360519/Drink-drive-limit-lowered

No surprises.

At least getting caught between the old and the new limit is only demerits and a fine.
Looks like it's still proposed however, changes going through parliament etc. Oh well, sooner the better, and public opinion is behind it, so lets hope they get on with it.

[MD]

Nanny state strikes again. This thread is similar to the other where plonkers want to ban fireworks.

What dumb logic. Lets punish 99.5% of the well behaved population because a few idiots excel at ignoring common sense and the law. Hello! these idiots will still ignore the law and still behave like idiots. How dare they tar the rest of us with the same brush and try to classify us all as offenders. Drunks die by other clever misadventures so best be safe and ban all forms of alcohol.

Three mountaineers have died in the last 2 weeks, so lets ban mountains while we're at it.

I smell a rat here. This reeks of just another money grab.

[sil3nt]

Nanny state strikes again. This thread is similar to the other where plonkers want to ban fireworks.

What dumb logic. Lets punish 99.5% of the well behaved population because a few idiots excel at ignoring common sense and the law. Hello! these idiots will still ignore the law and still behave like idiots. How dare they tar the rest of us with the same brush and try to classify us all as offenders. Drunks die by other clever misadventures so best be safe and ban all forms of alcohol.

Three mountaineers have died in the last 2 weeks, so lets ban mountains while we're at it.

I smell a rat here. This reeks of just another money grab.If 99.5% of the population is well behaved then this law won't affect them? Or do you considering drunk driving and not getting caught "well behaved".

[Scuba_Steve]

Wow so theyve found another way to illegally extort money from innocent NZers
How nice of them to ommit the court & thus proof of offence.

[scumdog]

Wow so theyve found another way to illegally extort money from innocent NZers
How nice of them to ommit the court & thus proof of offence.

Cry me a freaking river.....:rolleyes:





ANd do they also legally extort money from guily NZers???:wacko:

[mashman]

ANd do they also legally extort money from guily NZers???:wacko:

Yup.........

[Scuba_Steve]

Cry me a freaking river.....:rolleyes:





ANd do they also legally extort money from guily NZers???:wacko:

I am,
and no they're either behind the extortion (case in point) or they goto jail

[MD]

If 99.5% of the population is well behaved then this law won't affect them? Or do you considering drunk driving and not getting caught "well behaved".

That's not what I said and you know it.

Drunk = [Oxford Dict.] affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one’s faculties or behaviour

I think most of us know the difference between 'had a few drinks' and drunk. By had a few drinks I mean what the average person can drink under the current level and still drive while in control of themselves. The current level is adequate since it does not allow someone to drive if they're in such an intoxicated state that they fit the description above of drunk.

I agree someone that has lost control of their faculties shouldn't be driving. The line in the sand needs to be fair and reasonable to the majority.