drinking while driving [Archive]

Voltaire

17th December 2018, 16:11

That's a definite non-story, he wasn't drunk so it really didn't rate a mention.

There was another today about a woman who decided to ride an electric scooter home pissed, crashed and broke her neck. She says there ought to be a law against it. There is a law already, Darwin wrote it.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/109396676/she-fractured-her-neck-falling-off-a-lime-scooter-and-is-calling-for-regulations

I saw that, its never anyone's fault these days.
Newton also wrote some law that apply too.

I got buzzed by a E Skootah this morning, you don't hear them coming and if you suddenly changed direction it would be a tad messy.

Moi

17th December 2018, 16:24

Now you're assuming things here, tell me what is the difference between consuming the same drink, and getting into a vehicle and driving, or drinking the same drink, using a cup holder provided by the vehicle manufacturer while driving?????

My point is he's done nothing illegal or wrong here, the media thinks it's leading news.

The only thing I could be assuming is that he's drinking on an empty stomach, hence my "possibly on an empty stomach".

Difference between "drinking and driving" and "driving and drinking"? Possible similar level of impairment of driving, doing while driving could be lack of focus on the road/traffic as in "distracted driving".

Do you consider that to be acceptable on our roads?

Yes, he was under the limit when he was tested after he was required to wait for an hour. But that doesn't mean his driving was not impaired.

jellywrestler

17th December 2018, 16:47

Do you consider that to be acceptable on our roads?

.

of course, otherwise they'd fail you at warrant of fitnees time for having cupholders in your car.
is drinking a can more disracting than lighting a cigarette, or changing a tape or CD or tuning your gps? it's not, on what grounds could the cops hold him for an hour?
it's just a nothing story
oh, how come mcdonalds are allowed to serve drinks at a drive through, surely if it were against the law to drive drinking they wouldn't be able to?

Autech

17th December 2018, 16:56

the man is 'cought' drinking a can of bourbon while driving, so what's wrong with it, absolutley nothing I say, just bullshit reporting here and sensationising something out of nothing....

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/109405186/thirsty-builder-busted-drinking-bourbon-on-way-to-work-in-otago

Yeah I don't think he should have been on the way to work, that's a bit extreme, but the man broke no laws so why write a blurb.

The open can rule only applies here in liquour ban zones.

Moi

17th December 2018, 17:04

of course, otherwise they'd fail you at warrant of fitnees time for having cupholders in your car.
is drinking a can more disracting than lighting a cigarette, or changing a tape or CD or tuning your gps? it's not, on what grounds could the cops hold him for an hour?
it's just a nothing story
oh, how come mcdonalds are allowed to serve drinks at a drive through, surely if it were against the law to drive drinking they wouldn't be able to?

Whatever...

But you did say in your first post: "the man is 'cought' drinking a can of bourbon while driving, so what's wrong with it, absolutley nothing I say, just bullshit reporting here and sensationising something out of nothing...."

and asked what is wrong with him drinking bourbon while driving...

Why don't you ask the local Queenstown police what's wrong with him drinking bourbon while driving?

And while you're at it, ask the local volunteer fire brigade and local volunteer ambulance crews...

If you are serious in your belief that there is nothing wrong with him driving and drinking alcohol, then that's fine. But I don't think it is fine.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Drew

17th December 2018, 17:20

I drink a beer while I drive, very often in fact.

I dont do it in liquor ban areas though, that's illegal.

Get the law changed, or suck it.

jasonu

17th December 2018, 17:31

I drink a beer while I drive, very often in fact.

I dont do it in liquor ban areas though, that's illegal.

Get the law changed, or suck it.

Really? In NZ you can drink booze while driving in some areas but not others? This belongs in the Shithole thread.

tigertim20

17th December 2018, 18:02

Whatever...

But you did say in your first post: "the man is 'cought' drinking a can of bourbon while driving, so what's wrong with it, absolutley nothing I say, just bullshit reporting here and sensationising something out of nothing...."

and asked what is wrong with him drinking bourbon while driving...

Why don't you ask the local Queenstown police what's wrong with him drinking bourbon while driving?

And while you're at it, ask the local volunteer fire brigade and local volunteer ambulance crews...

If you are serious in your belief that there is nothing wrong with him driving and drinking alcohol, then that's fine. But I don't think it is fine.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
driving while drunk, and having a drink while you drive are two different things.
same as 'driving at speed' and 'speeding' are two different things.

He had 1.something standard drinks, and by the pathetic article's account, no suggestion that there was even any other alcohol in the vehicle.

Im fine with police working to keep the roads a bit safer, but for fuck sakes, a least find something newsworthy and of real concern to report about

Swoop

17th December 2018, 18:03

Really? In NZ you can drink booze while driving...

I've always been led to believe that an open container (can / bottle / goon) = :nono: which then leads to ... :spanking: by :Police:

sidecar bob

17th December 2018, 18:10

Really? In NZ you can drink booze while driving in some areas but not others? This belongs in the Shithole thread.

I was advised by a police officer friend to time my swigs so other motorists didn't see them, as he was tired of chasing people about that we not over the limit, even if I was just drinking coke.

AllanB

17th December 2018, 18:28

Trying to find out. In 2013 it was legal.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10869614

If I consume two cups of black coffee and head out on my motorcycle fast things will happen. They just do - OK.

jellywrestler

17th December 2018, 18:29

If you are serious in your belief that there is nothing wrong with him driving and drinking alcohol, then that's fine. But I don't think it is fine.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. if there was something wrong then why wasn't he ticketed? my point is it's no different to drinking the same then driving, provided it's within the legal limit.

russd7

17th December 2018, 18:45

While driving over the Devil's Staircase on SH6?

he wouldn't be following me on my bike for very long along the devils staircase, heaps of passing opportunities for a bike that don't exist for a car. but I get what you are saying.

bikaholic

17th December 2018, 19:51

Really? In NZ you can drink booze while driving in some areas but not others? This belongs in the Shithole thread.
Yep, even here our Police Commissioner has a drink drive conviction.
This story in no different to someone having a beer at a pub then driving home under the limit, as the law set out t.o acheive.
The devils staircase is a non event, even in ice.

Autech

17th December 2018, 23:22

Yep, even here our Police Commissioner has a drink drive conviction.
This story in no different to someone having a beer at a pub then driving home under the limit, as the law set out t.o acheive.
The devils staircase is a non event, even in ice.It's actually better too as I read somewhere that it hits you harder after a time period than when first consumed as it enters your blood.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

nzspokes

18th December 2018, 05:41

So drinking at 7.30am? Alcoholic.

Also would you want somebody thats been drinking on your worksite?

F5 Dave

18th December 2018, 06:20

I drink a beer while I drive, very often in fact.

I dont do it in liquor ban areas though, that's illegal.

Get the law changed, or suck it.
That's not a good practice. If you get pulled and breath tested you will fail. After one sip. If you are lucky enough to get them to test you after say 15 min maybe with a water gargle you might pass with no reading.

But will be a hella hassle in the meantime. Stays in your saliva and gives high false readings. Like sitting on one beer all night then last sip jump in car, breath gest at end of street. Fail.

Drew

18th December 2018, 07:08

F5 Dave

18th December 2018, 11:55

Borrow a breath tester. Stupid high reading just after drinking that reduces to the true breath reading.

Scuba_Steve

18th December 2018, 12:01

It's actually better too as I read somewhere that it hits you harder after a time period than when first consumed as it enters your blood.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

Yea think it's something like half hour for the effects to kick in

husaberg

18th December 2018, 12:30

So drinking at 7.30am? Alcoholic.

Also would you want somebody thats been drinking on your worksite?

Not only that he was doing it to stay awake? on the way to starting work.
I'd would say he would have failed the screen for a start or the was some sort of protocol the police must follow re timing of last drink as the do ask when your last drink was,(Well they used to)
Making him wait a full hour so he has to explain to boss why he was waiting a full hour might be interesting.

Alcotest® 7510

Requirements of the test subject
– Observe a waiting period of at least 15 minutes after the last oral alcohol intake!
Residual alcohol in the mouth can distort the measurement. Distortions can also occur with
aromatic beverages (e.g. fruit juice), alcoholic mouth sprays, medicines and drops, and
after burping and vomiting. Also observe a waiting period of at least 15 minutes in these
cases. A mouth rinse with water or non-alcoholic beverages does not replace the waiting
period!
– The device can detect residual mouth alcohol during the delivery of the breath sample, if
this option is activated. If residual mouth alcohol is detected, the measurement is aborted
and a relevant message is displayed.

FJRider

18th December 2018, 14:00

the man is 'cought' drinking a can of bourbon while driving, so what's wrong with it, absolutley nothing I say, just bullshit reporting here and sensationising something out of nothing....

No mention of failing a breath test ... but if he was involved in an accident ... "under the influence" might mean more blame in the court case. Under the influence can also void some insurance policy's ... as under the influence is not necessarily being over any maximum limit.

rastuscat

18th December 2018, 14:31

Just had a look into a teacup, and there was a storm going on.

husaberg

18th December 2018, 15:02

Just had a look into a teacup, and there was a storm going on.
Are you sure it wasnt an Irish coffee in a travel mug?

tigertim20

18th December 2018, 16:13

That's not a good practice. If you get pulled and breath tested you will fail. After one sip. If you are lucky enough to get them to test you after say 15 min maybe with a water gargle you might pass with no reading.

But will be a hella hassle in the meantime. Stays in your saliva and gives high false readings. Like sitting on one beer all night then last sip jump in car, breath test at end of street. Fail.
sounds like bullshit.

In the early days of breath testing there were yarns about peoples aftershave setting off the testers, I know a guy who failed a test (stone cold sober) driving his car home after he had finished painting it - fumes from the paint set off the tester. Explained to cop who obliged ad re-tested him upwind of the car, and passed.

But, those days are gone, the testers used now are much better at avoiding false positives.

again, theres no story here, it was just a slow news day

F5 Dave

18th December 2018, 19:15

Fair to challenge. Call out what smells.

But two stories. OK one. My gf now wife had some deluded idea of becoming a cop. She went along for a ride along. They wand tested some chick. After a previous failed customer she then failed. Back to station. Process. Passed easily.

Back out on beat. So will you use that wand again. Yeah of course.

That was one of the reasons she didn't join.

Well that and deplorying violence. Anyhoo.

I bought a fuel cell tester when the level changed. Turns out my imposed limit was pretty much the new limit. But heck I noticed if I tested myself not long after a sip.

Autech

18th December 2018, 20:32

sounds like bullshit.

In the early days of breath testing there were yarns about peoples aftershave setting off the testers, I know a guy who failed a test (stone cold sober) driving his car home after he had finished painting it - fumes from the paint set off the tester. Explained to cop who obliged ad re-tested him upwind of the car, and passed.

But, those days are gone, the testers used now are much better at avoiding false positives.

again, theres no story here, it was just a slow news dayUsed to work at Burger Fuel in Hamilton and used meths to clean the stainless steel. Heaps of us failed on the booze bus stops on the way home as it went ape shit at the meths all over us. The blowy things were ok just the sniffer ones not so iirc.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

bikaholic

18th December 2018, 21:09

One standard unit of alcohol is converted by the average male in a hour.
Handy fact to know when leaving a bike rally and going through a checkpoint. Still some don't.

bikaholic

18th December 2018, 21:28

No mention of failing a breath test ... but if he was involved in an accident ... "under the influence" might mean more blame in the court case. Under the influence can also void some insurance policy's ... as under the influence is not necessarily being over any maximum limit.
Under the influence sounds wonderful but the link has to made and proven.

F5 Dave

19th December 2018, 06:02

I'm sorry I was speeding, but I was under the influence. Of Jesus.

and he told me to Fucking Nail it!:devil2:

Viking01

19th December 2018, 07:53

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/108920268/vision-zero-lethal-drunk-and-drugged-drivers-an-increasing-menace-on-our-roads

Swoop

19th December 2018, 08:42

So drinking at 7.30am? Alcoholic.

What if that person worked nightshift and had a beer "after work"?

F5 Dave

19th December 2018, 12:19

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/108920268/vision-zero-lethal-drunk-and-drugged-drivers-an-increasing-menace-on-our-roads

Yeah saw that along with zero level shock headlines.

Two Australians selling watermelon off the back of a truck. Buying them from the growers at $1 and selling them for $1. One says to the other. "Hey we're not making much money"
"Yeah. We need a bigger truck".

Same thing. Stuck on a path and can't see its not working. Let's try more of the same, but More so .

And don't get me wrong. Impaired drivers should not be on our roads. But this clearly isn't working.

It is hard to change people's behavior. The stick doesn't work unless you are virtually omnipresent. Peer pressure can , and has. Except a bunch of these prices peers are the same dick heads.

george formby

19th December 2018, 12:33

Years ago I did a reaction test to show the effects of alcohol. Bit of an eye opener. In more recent years I had a wake up call after drinking 2 4%beers over 3 hours.
I will not drink at all if I have to drive these days. I may pass a breath test but knowing the subtle influence of a couple of beers, my conscience won't let me.

This is the first reaction test (https://www.ukessays.com/essays/sciences/alcohol-reaction-time.php) I found online, produced by a student, but it does show a change after 2 units of vodka.

We all metabolise differently and I'm a cheap night out. It is worth considering for those who regularly have an afterwork beer (or before), especially on an empty stomach.

pritch

19th December 2018, 13:34

It is hard to change people's behavior. The stick doesn't work unless you are virtually omnipresent. Peer pressure can , and has. Except a bunch of these prices peers are the same dick heads.

Things have changed a lot. In my youth someone who "drank with the flies" was considered to have a serious problem. The grossly excessive amounts we drank were believed to be "social". Now nobody I know goes out to drink much at all, drinking alone is a better way to keep your licence.

Some years ago a group of us had travelled to a sports event and following the events of the day we had been sitting in the motel having a few drinks and yakking for an hour or two. The subject of drink driving came up. One of our number who had considerable experience in the use of breath testing equipment, and who just happened to have a supply of the required hardware with hm, decided we would all surely fail a test. We all had a blow and nobody blew green which was pretty much as big a surpise to us as it was to him. He then asked one guy to take another mouthful and retest. Green!

I've never had "one for the road" since then.

russd7

19th December 2018, 16:32

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/108920268/vision-zero-lethal-drunk-and-drugged-drivers-an-increasing-menace-on-our-roads

they need to differentiate between drunk and drugged, it could be that drunk is down and drugged is up which is what I would suggest.
people have been aware for a long time that being caught under the influence of alcohol is easy with a blow of the bag so to speak but roadside testing of drugs is not common so more likely to get away with it, unless of course they crash

skippa1

19th December 2018, 16:49

FJRider

19th December 2018, 17:19

Just make the limit zero. If its zero, there is no tolerance everybody knows the limit.

Fuck people drinking and driving, there is already enough death on the road without letting dickheads decide what is acceptable before thyey hit the road.......or one of your kids, or a friend,or one of your family.

Too many entitled wankers on the road without impairing themselves with alcohol or drugs. So many people getting killed by fucktards that drive impaired and feel entitled.

Fuck em I say :blink:

Speed limits are ignored by most if it suits. As are the drug/alcohol limits by far too many. People are going to jail for an excessive number of drink driving convictions ... often it's not for the first time.

The one's that would adhere to these limits you've proposed ... were never the problem drivers with the current limits.

F5 Dave

19th December 2018, 17:26

FJRider

19th December 2018, 17:28

Under the influence sounds wonderful but the link has to made and proven.

Just think ... if a few glasses of beer might slow your thinking down by half a second ... just think of a few close calls in your own driving/riding history. How many time would that last half second make it a life or death thing ... ???

pritch

19th December 2018, 17:44

Speed limits are ignored by most if it suits. As are the drug/alcohol limits by far too many. People are going to jail for an excessive number of drink driving convictions ... often it's not for the first time.

The one's that would adhere to these limits you've proposed ... were never the problem drivers with the current limits.

The guys who collect multiple drink driving convictions have a substance abuse problem. If permanently banned they will still drive. If their car is impounded they will have another in a week or two.

Most people that get caught in drink driving check points are only slightly over the limit, the NZTA's own doctor said they are not the guys causing the accidents. Then again the average kiwi driver has a pretty modest level of ability and their having that impaired at all is a worry.

Having undergone decades of behaviour modification already, a zero limit wouldn't bother me. There might be more barbecues at my place though?

:drinkup:

skippa1

19th December 2018, 18:00

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 18:13

skippa1

19th December 2018, 18:15

that's about as sensible as a zero speed limit
Sounds to me you're trying to justify your own behaviours? And nothing like a zero speed ,limit....what a crock of shit......

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 18:17

We all had a blow and nobody blew green which was pretty much as big a surpise to us as it was to him. He then asked one guy to take another mouthful and retest. Green!

well that's just dumb, most breath testers if they're any good will tell you to wait a quarter an hour.

Viking01

19th December 2018, 18:26

they need to differentiate between drunk and drugged, it could be that drunk is down and drugged is up which is what I would suggest.
people have been aware for a long time that being caught under the influence of alcohol is easy with a blow of the bag so to speak but roadside testing of drugs is not common so more likely to get away with it, unless of course they crash

Well, those out doing policing on the road do differentiate between drunk
driving and drugged driving.

In that if you are stopped for driving in an erratic manner - and you pass
an alcohol test (but are still suspected of not being in a fit state to be
driving), you may then be requested to undergo an impairment test.

Police officers loitering on this website can state the operational process
better than I.

But you have just pointed to some of the underlying issues re being tested
(and maybe prosecuted) for drunk driving and drugged driving. The point of
my post.

The alcohol metabolism process is very well understood, and the metabolic
rate by the body well known.

The effects of alcohol on the body (in terms of impairment) is also well
understood. Variation will occur according to factors such as body mass.

Hence the ease in setting of blood and breath alcohol limits.

And why there is calibrated breath and blood testing equipment available
that can be used on the roadside. Technology and cost thresholds have been
met.

The same cannot be said for drugs, whether they be recreational or medicinal.

Drug metabolism processes are not necessary well understood, metabolic rates
are not necessarily well known, nor how such drugs actually cause impairment.

A level of one drug that might cause impairment in one individual may have
little or no effect on another. Causing authorities some difficulty in the
setting of a level at which some-one may be deemed to be "impaired"
("over the limit").

Drugs may also have been taken in conjunction with alcohol, which just
complicates the situation.

Hence largely why the more recent roadside impairment test was introduced
into NZ.

In some cases (marijuana, ecstacy and methamphetamine), roadside test
kits are available. Deployed in parts of Australia (e.g. Queensland and NT).

But I understand that test kits for a wide range of other drug types (e.g.
prescribed drugs such as sedatives and analgesics) currently fall into one
of the following :

- tests are not yet available (saliva, blood, urine samples),
- testing is not able to be performed in a timely manner on the roadside,
- test kits are not yet cost effective

bikaholic

19th December 2018, 18:37

Just think ... if a few glasses of beer might slow your thinking down by half a second ... just think of a few close calls in your own driving/riding history. How many time would that last half second make it a life or death thing ... ???
A few glasses of beer, being under the limit but under the influence clearly does not compute. A few glasses and your over the limit. Over several hours, body breaking down 1 standard unit of alcohol an hour, still hard to be over the limit.
We have a new lower legal limit inline with most countries, the 3 lives saved by lowering the limit has not happened. Why, because they extrapolated the 30 mg difference across the whole drink driving population, multiplied it with 1000% fairy dust. Those way over the limit crash, kill and dont give a fuck about any arbitary legal number.
Did the biker that killed his passenger on the Pike River Tribute run consider that number at any stage of the ride?, or the possible likelyhood or outcome? No, and the newer legislation just picks the low lying fruit who arent the problem, hence the drink drive road toll increases.

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 19:14

Sounds to me you're trying to justify your own behaviours? And nothing like a zero speed ,limit....what a crock of shit......

how many people between zero and the current limit have accidents that a proved to be due to alcohol? it's the cunts who don't give a shit about how much they drink so why drop to zero and fuck over all those that adhere to the rules?
that's about as good as the 4% tolerance over xmas too
and yio, i sometimes have abeer while driving, i don't drink coffee and need to make sure i get value for money from my cup holder.....

skippa1

19th December 2018, 19:20

how many people between zero and the current limit have accidents that a proved to be due to alcohol? it's the cunts who don't give a shit about how much they drink so why drop to zero and fuck over all those that adhere to the rules?
that's about as good as the 4% tolerance over xmas too
and yio, i sometimes have abeer while driving, i don't drink coffee and need to make sure i get value for money from my cup holder.....

Cause it's all about you aye

Scuba_Steve

19th December 2018, 19:25

Just make the limit zero. If its zero, there is no tolerance everybody knows the limit.

Fuck people drinking and driving, there is already enough death on the road without letting dickheads decide what is acceptable before thyey hit the road.......or one of your kids, or a friend,or one of your family.

Too many entitled wankers on the road without impairing themselves with alcohol or drugs. So many people getting killed by fucktards that drive impaired and feel entitled.

Fuck em I say :blink:

How Zero is Zero?
Remember if it's true Zero there's no Ginger Beer, Lemon lime bitters, Kombucha, Apple Juice, Orange Juice, Grape Juice, Burger buns, rolls, Vinegar, etc etc etc

Fun Fact: the limit has never been the problem & no study has shown any discernible difference between .8 .5 & 0 limits vs road tolls

skippa1

19th December 2018, 19:40

skippa1

19th December 2018, 19:42

How Zero is Zero?
Remember if it's true Zero there's no Ginger Beer, Lemon lime bitters, Kombucha, Apple Juice, Orange Juice, Grape Juice, Burger buns, rolls, Vinegar, etc etc etc

Fun Fact: the limit has never been the problem & no study has shown any discernible difference between .8 .5 & 0 limits vs road tolls
I haven't heard of anyone failing from ginger beer, apple juice, grape juice, burger buns, rolls, vinegar, please ....prove me wrong

bikaholic

19th December 2018, 19:51

Liquor is regarded as 2 parts percent of alcohol proof, equates to 1.14% or higher.
That includes liquor ban areas, as anything less is not liquor.
One might be able to exceed the legal drinkdrive limit in a few hours but it would be hard to keep it up.

F5 Dave

19th December 2018, 19:57

I haven't heard of anyone failing from ginger beer, apple juice, grape juice, burger buns, rolls, vinegar, please ....prove me wrong
Are you Hard of Reading? He used the word "if"

So we don't have a Zero limit now.

If we did. A true one. Virtually anything with alcohol could put you over.

Look I understand you are obviously passionate about people not smashing innocent people up through preventable actions, but as a society we should look at what is the real driver here. Wasting effort in noble but ineffective pursuits won't do anything positive.

Scuba_Steve

19th December 2018, 19:58

I haven't heard of anyone failing from ginger beer, apple juice, grape juice, burger buns, rolls, vinegar, please ....prove me wrong

Aren't you talking a 0% limit over the current .5 or previous .8?
All those products mentioned contain alcohol thus all those products would be above Zero

skippa1

19th December 2018, 20:14

Are you Hard of Reading? He used the word "if"

So we don't have a Zero limit now.

If we did. A true one. Virtually anything with alcohol could put you over.

Look I understand you are obviously passionate about people not smashing innocent people up through preventable actions, but as a society we should look at what is the real driver here. Wasting effort in noble but ineffective pursuits won't do anything positive.
But that's crap. I get brethalised daily and have never failed once.....not even a little bit......with any of those

We should all be passionate.....not just me....if there is tolerance ce, there is doubt.

skippa1

19th December 2018, 20:15

Aren't you talking a 0% limit over the current .5 or previous .8?
All those products mentioned contain alcohol thus all those products would be above Zero
But that's crap. I get brethalised daily and never fail with one of those substances.

I say fuckin bullshit.

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 20:18

Cause it's all about you aye

not at all, this thread is all about a headline that is nothing, someone is pulled over with an open drink, no crime anywhere, just a shit like if they reported a man driving five km'h under the speed limit.

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 20:19

Its beside the point how any have, if you take the guess work out, the majority wont guess.....

i'v taken the guess work out, and brought a breath tester, like i have taken the guess work out of how fast i'm going, i have a speedo and a gps.

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 20:21

But that's crap. I get brethalised daily and have never failed once.....not even a little bit.....

what prison are you in?

skippa1

19th December 2018, 20:25

not at all, this thread is all about a headline that is nothing, someone is pulled over with an open drink, no crime anywhere, just a shit like if they reported a man driving five km'h under the speed limit.
As far as I know that is a crime, and if it's not, at that time of the morning on the way to work it should be and trying to justify it is, as much a crime in my mind. My family drive that road daily to work.....why should they run the risk of having an accident with that fuckwit? And therein lies the beauty of a forum,its about opinion and mine is as valid as yours in a forum. It's a shame for you that I'm right and you're embarassed by that.

skippa1

19th December 2018, 20:26

what prison are you in?
A real job

skippa1

19th December 2018, 20:27

i'v taken the guess work out, and brought a breath tester, like i have taken the guess work out of how fast i'm going, i have a speedo and a gps.
So it's a habit for you drink driving, must do if you're that paranoid

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 20:39

So it's a habit for you drink driving, must do if you're that paranoid

not at all, haven't driven in doubt for years, the breath tester is for the morning after as it's easy to monitor intake if i'm intending to drive, and no i don't 'drink drive' as i have a machine that i use if i think my level is questionable.

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 20:41

A real job
what sort of monkies do you work with where they feel the need to test you every day, or is it part of your parole/bail conditions?

Scuba_Steve

19th December 2018, 20:55

But that's crap. I get brethalised daily and never fail with one of those substances.

I say fuckin bullshit.

Because the limit is higher than Zero...
Do you think your car can't exceed the speed limit too because you pass a speed camera without it going off??? :scratch:

FJRider

19th December 2018, 20:56

A few glasses of beer, being under the limit but under the influence clearly does not compute. A few glasses and your over the limit. Over several hours, body breaking down 1 standard unit of alcohol an hour, still hard to be over the limit.
We have a new lower legal limit inline with most countries, the 3 lives saved by lowering the limit has not happened. Why, because they extrapolated the 30 mg difference across the whole drink driving population, multiplied it with 1000% fairy dust. Those way over the limit crash, kill and dont give a fuck about any arbitary legal number.
Did the biker that killed his passenger on the Pike River Tribute run consider that number at any stage of the ride?, or the possible likelyhood or outcome? No, and the newer legislation just picks the low lying fruit who arent the problem, hence the drink drive road toll increases.

Then consider ... that being "Under the influence of alcohol" is a factor that affects a persons riding/driving. Most accidents (for want of a better word) are caused by more than one factor. Add a dash of speed as another factor. Then add another rider/driver getting it wrong near you ... and you have all the necessary's for an accident. The rider/driver not over the legal limit ... going a bit quick ... and another motorist does something silly ... and somebody dies. Then in court ... which motorist was responsible for the death ... ???

How many lives were saved by those that didn't drink ... due to the new lower limit .. ?? You don't know. And ... have no chance of proving it (either way).

Did any rider on any ride consider the pint at each stop wasn't putting them over any limit ... but the alcohol level in his system wasn't dropping. And ... afterwards ... did they consider the death may NOT occurred if they had not been drinking ... ?? The accident may still have happened if it was instigated by another motorist ... just not the same outcome. Or would it ... ???

The simple truth is ... booze is still an important/common factor in (too ??) many road death accidents. Possible outcomes are always considered by riders/drivers that have been drinking ... but it won't happen to THEM. They can handle their booze ... and too good a rider/driver. AND ... they are careful ... too careful for that to happen.

Yeah right ...

skippa1

19th December 2018, 20:57

not at all, haven't driven in doubt for years, the breath tester is for the morning after as it's easy to monitor intake if i'm intending to drive, and no i don't 'drink drive' as i have a machine that i use if i think my level is questionable.
You're full of it

skippa1

19th December 2018, 21:00

Because the limit is higher than Zero...
Do you think your car can't exceed the speed limit too because you pass a speed camera without it going off??? :scratch:
If it's set at zero,its set at zero, prove me wrong. My job relies on it.

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 21:02

What a load of self believing bullshit. If there's no doubt ....why bother? Cause you're a lying hypocite?

there is doubt simply, hence the use of a machine, the body reacts to the same amount of alcohol differently depending on a lot of factors.
a lot of things in this world have limits, and driving is full of them. why would any sane person who has a jar or two not take advantage of the technology? i use a gps as it's more accurate than a speedo, especialy when i drive several differnt vehicles and the gps maps the differnt limits along the way, same thing, driving within the legal limits.
neither tool means i feel i have to drive at the limit all the time, just know when i'm near them
are you God or something?

FJRider

19th December 2018, 21:07

Yeah but who said this Turkey was a recidivist or one that has excessive convictions?

If this turkey has had a regular habit of drink driving/riding ... (and even if he never had any issue before with it) ... could he still be considered a recidivist drink driver ... ???

And how many drink driving convictions are needed now to be considered excessive ... ???

skippa1

19th December 2018, 21:08

there is doubt simply, hence the use of a machine, the body reacts to the same amount of alcohol differently depending on a lot of factors.
a lot of things in this world have limits, and driving is full of them. why would any sane person who has a jar or two not take advantage of the technology? i use a gps as it's more accurate than a speedo, especialy when i drive several differnt vehicles and the gps maps the differnt limits along the way, same thing, driving within the legal limits.
neither tool means i feel i have to drive at the limit all the time, just know when i'm near them
are you God or something?
I repeat.....make the limit zero and take the guess work out of it.....(unless you're some pious wealthy fuckwit that can afford a personal breathalyser)

Are you really that fixated in being able to drink and drive?

skippa1

19th December 2018, 21:09

If this turkey has had a regular habit of drink driving/riding ... (and even if he never had any issue before with it) ... could he still be considered a recidivist drink driver ... ???

And how many drink driving convictions are needed now to be considered excessive ... ???
Does it matter? You wanna share the road with him?

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 21:16

I repeat.....make the limit zero and take the guess work out of it.....(unless you're some pious wealthy fuckwit that can afford a personal breathalyser)

Are you really that fixated in being able to drink and drive?

yip, and stop everyone driving then there will be no road deaths,
as for being pious wealthy, my unit cost me $500 or so, it's a known brand that does the job properly, i brought it through my business, get the gst back and don't pay tax, so probably owes me $350-$375 or so, the penalty for being between 250 and 400 is $250 fine, half your license gone through demerits, forbidden to drive for twelve hours and if you're stopped on a motorway or similar they'll tow your wagon costing how much??? think insurance policy, if you can actually think.
i'm not hell bent on 'drink driving' whatsoever, but do drink and give a shit about the consequences.
either way, they still seem to think it's not unsafe to put drivers caught between 250 and 400 back on the road or they would take peoples license off them now wouldn't they.
making the limit zero won't stop people drinking and driving at all.

FJRider

19th December 2018, 21:17

... Having undergone decades of behaviour modification already, a zero limit wouldn't bother me. There might be more barbecues at my place though?

:drinkup:

On the subject of Behavior modification ... I recall the thoughts and comments of smokers (and Publicans) that were made when legislation was set to be introduced ... regarding NO SMOKING in Pubs ... It'll NEVER happen they said ... ;)

FJRider

19th December 2018, 21:18

Does it matter? You wanna share the road with him?

:no: :no: :no: :no:

skippa1

19th December 2018, 21:21

yip, and stop everyone driving then there will be no road deaths,
as for being pious wealthy, my unit cost me $500 or so, it's a known brand that does the job properly, i brought it through my business, get the gst back and don't pay tax, so probably owes me $350-$375 or so, the penalty for being between 250 and 400 is $250 fine, half your license gone through demerits, forbidden to drive for twelve hours and if you're stopped on a motorway or similar they'll tow your wagon costing how much??? think insurance policy, if you can actually think.
i'm not hell bent on 'drink driving' whatsoever, but do drink and give a shit about the consequences.
either way, they still seem to think it's not unsafe to put drivers caught between 250 and 400 back on the road or they would take peoples license off them now wouldn't they.
making the limit zero won't stop people drinking and driving at all.
Read all your posts...I think you might be hell bent on drink driving you care about the consequences for you...not so much anyone else.

Dont fuck up.....especially with one of my family....I dont have much to lose

Scuba_Steve

19th December 2018, 21:40

If it's set at zero,its set at zero, prove me wrong. My job relies on it.

I'm not even sure you know what you're on about at this stage
Lets make the limit zero... but then why stop there?
I say we ban people that wear glasses, they're visually impaired. Vision seems like an important thing to have to drive
Ban people with hearing aids, sound is an important factor in driving
Ban physically impaired, driving requires use of arms, legs & head anyone without proper movement for all of them shouldn't be driving
Ban the colour blind, again vision is important

Serious tho I do hope you never consume any of the products I've previously mentioned before driving lest you be a hypocrite. Also the list is much bigger than just what I've mentioned so might pay to check what you're eating/drinking before driving
Oh & why you're at it, maybee look up the prohibition & let me know how well that worked out for America cause it seems somewhat relevant to your cause

bikaholic

19th December 2018, 21:41

Then consider ... that being "Under the influence of alcohol" is a factor that affects a persons riding/driving. Most accidents (for want of a better word) are caused by more than one factor. Add a dash of speed as another factor. Then add another rider/driver getting it wrong near you ... and you have all the necessary's for an accident. The rider/driver not over the legal limit ... going a bit quick ... and another motorist does something silly ... and somebody dies. Then in court ... which motorist was responsible for the death ... ???

How many lives were saved by those that didn't drink ... due to the new lower limit .. ?? You don't know. And ... have no chance of proving it (either way).

Did any rider on any ride consider the pint at each stop wasn't putting them over any limit ... but the alcohol level in his system wasn't dropping. And ... afterwards ... did they consider the death may NOT occurred if they had not been drinking ... ?? The accident may still have happened if it was instigated by another motorist ... just not the same outcome. Or would it ... ???

The simple truth is ... booze is still an important/common factor in (too ??) many road death accidents. Possible outcomes are always considered by riders/drivers that have been drinking ... but it won't happen to THEM. They can handle their booze ... and too good a rider/driver. AND ... they are careful ... too careful for that to happen.

Yeah right ...the simple fact is the new lower limit is assessed as being a safer one. Putting lipstick on a pig doesnt change it. The young fellow was under the limit. Since the limit was lowered more people are dying from alcohol related crashes according to those that create the laws. A National MP is proposing to introduce a members bill putting back the limit back to what it was as it is not working as intended. Some people should never consume alcohol for any reason.
Edit I was wrong, NZ First MP Darroch Ball.

jellywrestler

19th December 2018, 21:53

the simple fact is the new lower limit is assessed as being a safer one. Putting lipstick on a pig doesnt change it. The young fellow was under the limit. Since the limit was lowered more people are dying from alcohol related crashes according to those that create the laws. A National MP is proposing to introduce a members bill putting back the limit back to what it was as it is not working as intended. Some people should never consume alcohol for any reason.

yip, and how many times is the first thing you hear 'speed and alcohol' they smell a beer, or someone says it was going fast and the judge and jury have decided, but how many times are those actually a factor in the crash, i'm not saying they're not sometimes, but it's an easy blame in a lot of situations. we ride round to 100km'h speed limit, that doesn't man that we are killers when we do 101 on most roads on bikes capable these days of sometimes three times that, that's the limit they have set.
They have set the drink limit to what they believe is right, how can it be right for each and every individual, it isn't, but they had a to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and we have to adhere to that.
i'm fucking tired of them dumbing down our road speeds round here meaning we're now driving round bored out of our skulls, and not able to pass other vehicles cause it's to easy to get snapped, more boredom follows..., then in attention, staring at your speedo instead of the road etc.
there was a national news case a few weeks ago where a gavin hawthorne who'd kille four drinking and driving got done again for over 400, a week later it came out he'd been done recently for between 250 and 400, receiving a fine
what's wrong with our system that that guy could do that, why wern't flags raised when he got pinged the first of those times, why hasn't he with his record got a lifetime zero? if they can't impose that on him then why should they try and fit it on the rest of us.

bikaholic

19th December 2018, 21:57

yip, and how many times is the first thing you hear 'speed and alcohol' they smell a beer, or someone says it was going fast and the judge and jury have decided, but how many times are those actually a factor in the crash, i'm not saying they're not sometimes, but it's an easy blame in a lot of situations. we ride round to 100km'h speed limit, that doesn't man that we are killers when we do 101 on most roads on bikes capable these days of sometimes three times that, that's the limit they have set.
They have set the drink limit to what they believe is right, how can it be right for each and every individual, it isn't, but they had a to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and we have to adhere to that.
i'm fucking tired of them dumbing down our road speeds round here meaning we're now driving round bored out of our skulls, and not able to pass other vehicles cause it's to easy to get snapped, more boredom follows..., then in attention, staring at your speedo instead of the road etc.
there was a national news case a few weeks ago where a gavin hawthorne who'd kille four drinking and driving got done again for over 400, a week later it came out he'd been done recently for between 250 and 400, receiving a fine
what's wrong with our system that that guy could do that, why wern't flags raised when he got pinged the first of those times, why hasn't he with his record got a lifetime zero? if they can't impose that on him then why should they try and fit it on the rest of us.
Anytime in NZ we have a problem, the only way we think we can cure it, is to apply a sledgehammer to crack a nut.Why, because that effects the majority.

In January a beer is being released called First Responder Beer, by Blackdog and Tuatara Breweries. 17 kegs of it is being donated to Wellington Free Ambulance as a fundraiser. So there ya go, we are not all a bunch of fuddy duddys, bet FJ wont have a bar of it.

F5 Dave

19th December 2018, 22:04

If it's set at zero,its set at zero, prove me wrong. My job relies on it.
You really haven't mastered the art of debating to try get a point across.

Let me take a logical jump in the dark.

I'm going to assume that you might be tested at your work with some tester that is set to, close to zero. Is that what you are trying to say? -cause it sure ain't clear . If that were the case your argument would at least be stronger. But if we ran a poll most people wouldn't make that assumption. Prove me wrong, as you keep saying.

Ok let's examine the main story a little. Now I wouldn't want my workers turning up drunk. And I don't like the thought of them having a drink before work. But let's cast me as the hypocrite. A work lunch we might go out for a curry. I'll have a beer. We don't have a policy, for alcohol in the workplace. In fact I'm the only one who suggested it.

So this chap is a typical lad let's say. He's been up late and tired and doesn't think he wants to work but ya know? He's not at all drunk but hasn't had breakfast and he's thirsty. On the way he remembers Johno left a can of some hideous piss under the seat. Shit I'll have a swig of that.

Ok this isn't the behavior any of us would recognize. But he may well have had less alcohol than my lunch time beer.

But we're all labeling him a drunkard and a problem drinker.

Maybe we don't know the full facts, and I doubt the journalists care beyond a story.

bikaholic

19th December 2018, 22:25

The story is on the pigs facebook. Just a one liner, the rest is up to Stuff.
There is also a story on qtown pigs friendly game of football against qtown airport staff, again, not much info, why, cos they lost.

skippa1

20th December 2018, 07:58

I'm not even sure you know what you're on about at this stage
Lets make the limit zero... but then why stop there?
I say we ban people that wear glasses, they're visually impaired. Vision seems like an important thing to have to drive
Ban people with hearing aids, sound is an important factor in driving
Ban physically impaired, driving requires use of arms, legs & head anyone without proper movement for all of them shouldn't be driving
Ban the colour blind, again vision is important

Serious tho I do hope you never consume any of the products I've previously mentioned before driving lest you be a hypocrite. Also the list is much bigger than just what I've mentioned so might pay to check what you're eating/drinking before driving
Oh & why you're at it, maybee look up the prohibition & let me know how well that worked out for America cause it seems somewhat relevant to your cause

comments like the above are like comparing apples with oranges and saying they are the same because they are fruit

We are talking about drinking and DRIVING.....not prohibition, but hey we're not prone to exaggeration are we......or are we?

jellywrestler

20th December 2018, 08:02

comments like the above are like comparing apples with oranges and saying they are the same because they are fruit

We are talking about drinking and DRIVING..... yes, but you've been insinuating that i have been 'Drunk' while driving most of the way through, there's a vast difference there

skippa1

20th December 2018, 08:03

You really haven't mastered the art of debating to try get a point across.

Let me take a logical jump in the dark.

I'm going to assume that you might be tested at your work with some tester that is set to, close to zero. Is that what you are trying to say? -cause it sure ain't clear . If that were the case your argument would at least be stronger. But if we ran a poll most people wouldn't make that assumption. Prove me wrong, as you keep saying.

Ok let's examine the main story a little. Now I wouldn't want my workers turning up drunk. And I don't like the thought of them having a drink before work. But let's cast me as the hypocrite. A work lunch we might go out for a curry. I'll have a beer. We don't have a policy, for alcohol in the workplace. In fact I'm the only one who suggested it.

So this chap is a typical lad let's say. He's been up late and tired and doesn't think he wants to work but ya know? He's not at all drunk but hasn't had breakfast and he's thirsty. On the way he remembers Johno left a can of some hideous piss under the seat. Shit I'll have a swig of that.

Ok this isn't the behavior any of us would recognize. But he may well have had less alcohol than my lunch time beer.

But we're all labeling him a drunkard and a problem drinker.

Maybe we don't know the full facts, and I doubt the journalists care beyond a story.

I'm not really trying to debate the subject, just give an opinion

we do have a policy, zero tolerance, instant dismissal and yes it is with a calibrated breathalyzer. There is no issue for anyone interpreting how much is too much simply because some is too much. Pretty simple, not open to dispute, individuals interpretation of their weight vs how much they've eaten vs standard drinks/hr. Its a pass or fail. Simple.

Go out at night and get smashed, just don't have anything on your breath the next day.

Your curry and beer becomes a curry and coke
.

skippa1

20th December 2018, 08:11

yes, but you've been insinuating that i have been 'Drunk' while driving most of the way through, there's a vast difference there

ok....my mistake then, what I am saying though is that impairment is very subjective and the only true way to take any doubt out is to have a zero limit. We don't have an impairment test, only an alcohol detection test.

I have sat down with an empty stomach and had a quick beer or two that has gone to my head, was I to drive at that time I would be under a breathalyser limit but may be too impaired to drive sensibly.........

OddDuck

20th December 2018, 08:34

Late to the debate, not really answering anyone, just throwing in my 2c...

There are generational / cultural / infrastructure factors at play here too, drink driving in NZ is a bedded-in problem and it isn't going to go away overnight.

The generation who six o'clock swilled.

Young men competing with each other.

Country living, socialising at country pubs.

People walking around the place with serious substance addiction problems. Or driving while being recidivist drink drivers.

These things endure, they don't change overnight or they don't change at all. They aren't easy problems to solve.

I haven't done a reaction test after having a beer or two, maybe that's worth doing. I doubt that much of the kiwi driving population have even heard of the idea.

I know it's late in the thread but maybe it's also worth pointing out that there are non-alcohol factors which make people into dangerous riders or drivers.

- fatigue
- attitude
- emotion
- competition
- distraction
- impatience
- incompetence

Oh, and the completely legal combination of caffeine, fatty food and sugar.

So, we can have the usual Kiwi head to head smash each other up argument, going nowhere... or we can provide useful information... or maybe sort out positive solutions.

Kiwis fighting each other over every single issue isn't solving anything.

Scuba_Steve

20th December 2018, 10:15

comments like the above are like comparing apples with oranges and saying they are the same because they are fruit

We are talking about drinking and DRIVING.....not prohibition, but hey we're not prone to exaggeration are we......or are we?

Prohibition was zero alcohol you're pushing for zero alcohol seems pretty much the same. People can accept limits, people don't accept denial; end result is still the same you deny people something or make stupid/unrealistic rules they will ignore those rules & the problem exaggerates significantly.
There is no logic to your argument it's pure emotion.
You have nothing to show zero limit will increase safety because there is nothing. You seem happy with a Breathalyzer that ignores low percentages of alcohol while claiming the limit should be zero & still consume products containing alcohol, "but it's alright cause they don't show on a device set to ignore them".

tigertim20

20th December 2018, 10:53

ok....my mistake then, what I am saying though is that impairment is very subjective and the only true way to take any doubt out is to have a zero limit. We don't have an impairment test, only an alcohol detection test.

I have sat down with an empty stomach and had a quick beer or two that has gone to my head, was I to drive at that time I would be under a breathalyser limit but may be too impaired to drive sensibly.........
You want to remove all doubt on impairment but that doesn't stop at alcohol.
Sleep deprivation, long hours
Overworked
Stressed
Overdoing exercise outside of work etc
Shitty diet
Individual IQ
colds and fevers
Physical disabilities, temporary or permanent

The list goes on of things that may cause some level of impairment, so exactly what kind of unreasonable, unrealistic draconian rule-set are you suggesting here?

You've had a 2-3 page tantrum because some bloke consumed part of one can of low alcohol volume liquid on his way to work. So fucking what?

skippa1

20th December 2018, 10:56

Prohibition was zero alcohol you're pushing for zero alcohol seems pretty much the same. People can accept limits, people don't accept denial; end result is still the same you deny people something or make stupid/unrealistic rules they will ignore those rules & the problem exaggerates significantly.
There is no logic to your argument it's pure emotion.
You have nothing to show zero limit will increase safety because there is nothing. You seem happy with a Breathalyzer that ignores low percentages of alcohol while claiming the limit should be zero & still consume products containing alcohol, "but it's alright cause they don't show on a device set to ignore them".

Really, zero breath alcohol is stupid and unrealistic? :brick:

You equally have nothing to show that a few drinks then driving is safer than (or as safe as) no drinks and driving.

Why shouldn't there be some emotion, you can analyse the facts out of anything if you want but prove to me that alcohol and driving are a good mix and if you can, please quantify the volume for each of us as individual, or are you saying that the same blanket you don't want thrown over a zero tolerance is acceptable if you throw it over a predetermined "safe" limit?

You do realise that the same breathalyser I rely on as setting the zero limit is the same as the breathalyser you rely on to set the "safe" limit? And you are ok that in your words it ignores the low percentages, therefore the reading on the unit is actually under reporting the "safe" limit?

:blink:

skippa1

20th December 2018, 11:00

You want to remove all doubt on impairment but that doesn't stop at alcohol.
Sleep deprivation, long hours
Overworked
Stressed
Overdoing exercise outside of work etc
Shitty diet
Individual IQ
colds and fevers
Physical disabilities, temporary or permanent

The list goes on of things that may cause some level of impairment, so exactly what kind of unreasonable, unrealistic draconian rule-set are you suggesting here?

You've had a 2-3 page tantrum because some bloke consumed part of one can of low alcohol volume liquid on his way to work. So fucking what?

prone to exaggeration much? expressing an opinion is hardly a tantrum, there are plenty of contributors to the thread....you're welcome too :lol:

There are heaps of other contributors to unsafe driving, not denying that but we were discussing :argue: alcohol....weren't we?

Viking01

20th December 2018, 11:16

Re alcohol: Breath or blood sample

Just for clarity.

Think that you'll likely find a current "zero" reading is not actual zero,
but a "low threshold value". Thus providing some allowance for :

- person having consumed foods, beverages or medications possibly
having some minimal alcohol content
- statistical error inherent in the physical analysis process itself.

It's also interesting to contrast ourselves against other jurisdictions.

The EU is always an interesting region of the world regarding driving,
if for no other reasons than (i) diversity of countries (ii) the EU push
towards increased driver safety.

https://etsc.eu/blood-alcohol-content-bac-drink-driving-limits-across-europe/

https://etsc.eu/euroadsafetydata/

F5 Dave

20th December 2018, 11:58

. . .

You do realise that the same breathalyser I rely on as setting the zero limit is the same as the breathalyser you rely on to set the "safe" limit? And you are ok that in your words it ignores the low percentages, therefore the reading on the unit is actually under reporting the "safe" limit?

:blink:

We'll clearly not. You never said that. How can you say "you do realise. ." When there has been no clue at all.

But as stated there will be an allowance for silly amounts, that doesn't mean it isn't accurate, just it will display when there is a realistic minimum threshold.

tigertim20

20th December 2018, 12:30

There are heaps of other contributors to unsafe driving, not denying that but we were discussing :argue: alcohol....weren't we?

We were, but it appears to be your view that there should be a zero tolerance to impairment by alcohol.
The basis of that argument is around the impairment more than the alcohol.
Therefore we are discussing impairment, and whether or not we should be focused on zero limits for impairment.

You seem to argue for a black and white approach to the matter of impairment which is absurd.
Theres very little, if anything related to motoring with zero allowance. Even the holidays allow a 4km/hr speeding tolerance, cbta restricted licence test allows twenty something minor errors before you fail the test, minimum tread depth has an allowance for percentage of the tyre area.
So when we clearly accept that there are allowances in everything else motoring related, including crucial safety elements, why would we want, or need to take a ridiculous zero tolerance approach to one specific factor?

skippa1

20th December 2018, 12:45

We were, but it appears to be your view that there should be a zero tolerance to impairment by alcohol.
The basis of that argument is around the impairment more than the alcohol.
Therefore we are discussing impairment, and whether or not we should be focused on zero limits for impairment.

You seem to argue for a black and white approach to the matter of impairment which is absurd.
Theres very little, if anything related to motoring with zero allowance. Even the holidays allow a 4km/hr speeding tolerance, cbta restricted licence test allows twenty something minor errors before you fail the test, minimum tread depth has an allowance for percentage of the tyre area.
So when we clearly accept that there are allowances in everything else motoring related, including crucial safety elements, why would we want, or need to take a ridiculous zero tolerance approach to one specific factor?

Hmm....twisting it a bit there cobber, I said that the only way you can ensure zero alcohol impairment is to have a zero alcohol limit, that way when policing there is no doubt no reading, no impairment, reading, you're sprung.....simple. I'm not intent on this at all, its just an opinion about how you can reliably police it. But have it your way, you seem more intent on having an argument than a discussion.

and what the rest of the dribble refers to is irrelevant when discussing alcohol and driving and alcohol impaired driving.

skippa1

20th December 2018, 13:01

We'll clearly not. You never said that. How can you say "you do realise. ." When there has been no clue at all.

But as stated there will be an allowance for silly amounts, that doesn't mean it isn't accurate, just it will display when there is a realistic minimum threshold.

Jesus H Christ, :facepalm:the comment was metaphorical. I was applying a principle. If there is a tolerance in the machine it must apply to not only the minimum but also the maximum. Accordingly, someone could potentially be over what the "safe" limit has been set at?

Again, if that is the case it could be argued that the only reliable way of determining alcohol impairment at a roadside stop would be to have a zero limit, that way, its either pass or fail.

Again, its not necessarily what I am intent on, but how else do you take the subjectivity out of it?

Viking01

20th December 2018, 13:16

Hmm....twisting it a bit there cobber, I said that the only way you can ensure zero alcohol impairment is to have a zero alcohol limit, that way when policing there is no doubt no reading, no impairment, reading, you're sprung.....simple. I'm not intent on this at all, its just an opinion about how you can reliably police it. But have it your way, you seem more intent on having an argument than a discussion.

and what the rest of the dribble refers to is irrelevant when discussing alcohol and driving and alcohol impaired driving.

Just for clarity.

Impairment means just that. Impairment. It should be "neutral" as to
the cause (i.e. whether alcohol, drugs, some combination of both, or
(say) a medical condition is involved.)

If you "pass" a roadside breath test, all it means is that you've not
exceeded the legal limit (in terms of you having to hand over your
keys and being liable to be prosecuted).

However, if the nice officer has good grounds to suspect that you
are still somehow "impaired", then he can request you to then do an
impairment test.

But if you fail the impairment test, it still does not indicate whether
your impairment is due to:

- drugs (recreational or therapeutic)
- drugs plus some alcohol (where the latter was found to be below
the legal level during the preceding alcohol test)
- a medical condition

It just means you're deemed to be "impaired" at that point in time,
and should not be driving.

The number of drivers regularly driving around our country on benzos,
opiates and analgesics would be interesting data.

Especially when many drugs and alcohol can have an "accentuated"
(adverse) effect on the body when in combination.

skippa1

20th December 2018, 13:19

Just for clarity.

Impairment means just that. Impairment. It should be "neutral" as to
the cause (i.e. whether alcohol, drugs, some combination of both, or
(say) a medical condition is involved.)

If you "pass" a roadside breath test, all it means is that you've not
exceeded the legal limit (in terms of you having to hand over your
keys and being liable to be prosecuted).

However, if the nice officer has good grounds to suspect that you
are still somehow "impaired", then he can request you to then do an
impairment test.

But if you fail the impairment test, it still does not indicate whether
your impairment is due to:

- drugs (recreational or therapeutic)
- drugs plus some alcohol (where the latter was found to be below
the legal level during the preceding alcohol test)
- a medical condition

It just means you're deemed to be "impaired" at that point in time,
and should not be driving.

The number of drivers regularly driving around our country on benzos,
opiates and analgesics would be interesting data.

Especially when many drugs and alcohol can have an "accentuated"
(adverse) effect on the body when in combination.

absolutely....

Scuba_Steve

20th December 2018, 13:31

Really, zero breath alcohol is stupid and unrealistic? :brick:

Until self-drive vehicles come about, absolutely... and even then...
Just like zero booze in the prohibition era was stupid & unrealistic; it'll just cause more problems than it solves

You equally have nothing to show that a few drinks then driving is safer than (or as safe as) no drinks and driving.

There's plenty of stats out there showing no discernible diff between diff booze limits & fatalities caused by booze, alot of these were pointed out during the whole dropping the limit to .5 here, as again it's the drunks that cause the problems. The limit is simply a "look we're doing something vote for us" with no actual results (other than more of that sweet cash moneys for the Govt)

Why shouldn't there be some emotion, you can analyse the facts out of anything if you want but prove to me that alcohol and driving are a good mix and if you can, please quantify the volume for each of us as individual, or are you saying that the same blanket you don't want thrown over a zero tolerance is acceptable if you throw it over a predetermined "safe" limit?

You do realise that the same breathalyser I rely on as setting the zero limit is the same as the breathalyser you rely on to set the "safe" limit? And you are ok that in your words it ignores the low percentages, therefore the reading on the unit is actually under reporting the "safe" limit?

:blink:

I'm saying it won't detect minuscule amounts of booze, just like your speedo won't detect minuscule amounts of movement (usually under 5-7km/h) your bathroom scales prob won't detect the 1st 5kg or so & almost certainly won't detect grams but doesn't mean they ain't there...
So how Zero is Zero? I can roll a stop sign but have my speedo show 0km/h. Do the products I've previously mentioned mean you can't drive under your system because they contain alcohol or do we ignore them for hypocritical convenience?
As for a "safe" limit, I was fine with .08 we had previous, as again no discernible variation in road toll over .05 & 0. However I accept the roads as a dangerous place & choose to operate dangerous vehicles such as motorbikes & vans. I'm less worried about someone driving at .08 than I am at the sober driver doing her lipstick in the mirror or most the daily drivers out there. Drunk drivers are a different issue tho & they need more serious seeing to

Also if your against drink & drive do you also make sure never to drive for the 4-6hrs most pharmaceutical drugs do their stuff for? We tend to ignore the effects they can have unless specifically noted in bold DO NOT DRIVE OR OPERATE MACHINERY WHEN USING THIS DRUG; just wondering where you've decided to draw your sand line

skippa1

20th December 2018, 14:02

Until self-drive vehicles come about, absolutely... and even then...
Just like zero booze in the prohibition era was stupid & unrealistic; it'll just cause more problems than it solves

There's plenty of stats out there showing no discernible diff between diff booze limits & fatalities caused by booze, alot of these were pointed out during the whole dropping the limit to .5 here, as again it's the drunks that cause the problems. The limit is simply a "look we're doing something vote for us" with no actual results (other than more of that sweet cash moneys for the Govt)

I'm saying it won't detect minuscule amounts of booze, just like your speedo won't detect minuscule amounts of movement (usually under 5-7km/h) your bathroom scales prob won't detect the 1st 5kg or so & almost certainly won't detect grams but doesn't mean they ain't there...
So how Zero is Zero? I can roll a stop sign but have my speedo show 0km/h. Do the products I've previously mentioned mean you can't drive under your system because they contain alcohol or do we ignore them for hypocritical convenience?
As for a "safe" limit, I was fine with .08 we had previous, as again no discernible variation in road toll over .05 & 0. However I accept the roads as a dangerous place & choose to operate dangerous vehicles such as motorbikes & vans. I'm less worried about someone driving at .08 than I am at the sober driver doing her lipstick in the mirror or most the daily drivers out there. Drunk drivers are a different issue tho & they need more serious seeing to

Also if your against drink & drive do you also make sure never to drive for the 4-6hrs most pharmaceutical drugs do their stuff for? We tend to ignore the effects they can have unless specifically noted in bold DO NOT DRIVE OR OPERATE MACHINERY WHEN USING THIS DRUG; just wondering where you've decided to draw your sand line

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::lol::lol::lol::killin gme:killingme:killingme You're a fucking idiot. I drew my line in the sand when I got out of hospital after 7 days in ICU and 7 days on the ward with a missing leg and got the full prescription, Gabapentin for phantom pain, Tramadol for mild pain for a broken back, Zoplicone sleeping pills because lying on my side to sleep wasn't an option, 50mg codeine cause it stings when yah rip yah leg off just the usual's. I stood in the Chemist on crutches waiting for my prescription and the doctor came through, I asked her if I could drive with any one of these or a combo, she said no and I threw the cunts away.

That's where I draw the line :blink:

Scuba_Steve

20th December 2018, 14:31

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::lol::lol::lol::killin gme:killingme:killingme You're a fucking idiot. I drew my line in the sand when I got out of hospital after 7 days in ICU and 7 days on the ward with a missing leg and got the full prescription, Gabapentin for phantom pain, Tramadol for mild pain for a broken back, Zoplicone sleeping pills because lying on my side to sleep wasn't an option, 50mg codeine cause it stings when yah rip yah leg off just the usual's. I stood in the Chemist on crutches waiting for my prescription and the doctor came through, I asked her if I could drive with any one of these or a combo, she said no and I threw the cunts away.

That's where I draw the line :blink:

so you drove in pain? That's worse than driving within the limit after booze... fuck I love peoples moral compasses lol
Also if your missing a leg I hope you ain't operating vehicles cause you're as in control as again someone within the limit after booze, but hey I'm sure it's fine cause "you drive an automatic" or something & your moral compass says it's cool :rolleyes:

FJRider

20th December 2018, 14:42

They have set the drink limit to what they believe is right, how can it be right for each and every individual, it isn't, but they had a to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and we have to adhere to that.

It's setting the limits for the lowest common percentile ... ie: the local village idiot. If he/she survives ... it must be safe for everybody else.

skippa1

20th December 2018, 14:49

so you drove in pain? That's worse than driving within the limit after booze... fuck I love peoples moral compasses lol
Also if your missing a leg I hope you ain't operating vehicles cause you're as in control as again someone within the limit after booze, but hey I'm sure it's fine cause "you drive an automatic" or something & your moral compass says it's cool :rolleyes:

Like I said before you're a fuckin idiot, also now an ignorant cunt

as you were

FJRider

20th December 2018, 14:50

The young fellow was under the limit. Since the limit was lowered more people are dying from alcohol related crashes according to those that create the laws.

You mean more people are being reported as dying from alcohol related crashes ... Nowadays ... was he/she been drinking ???

That's the first question crash investigators ask at any incident ... If the answer is yes ... ;)

jellywrestler

20th December 2018, 15:28

ok....my mistake then, what I am saying though is that impairment is very subjective and the only true way to take any doubt out is to have a zero limit. We don't have an impairment test, only an alcohol detection test.

I have sat down with an empty stomach and had a quick beer or two that has gone to my head, was I to drive at that time I would be under a breathalyser limit but may be too impaired to drive sensibly.........

my machine isn't my only judgement device, there are times when i've blown under the limit but not been prepared to drive, there are times when i've blown over and felt ok to drive but have not.
i wonder how many people of late have brought a breathalyser and used it purely as the final benchmark, a lot i fear.
i'm not an idiot and care more about the consequences to others and the guilt resting on me, than i do about myself simply

sidecar bob

20th December 2018, 15:56

The most pissed I've ever ridden was leaving a Police social.
The acting traffic sergeant got me to blow in the machine & pronounced me good to go.
That's the night I nearly wrapped my R100rs into a pole.
I'm quite glad the drink drive limit has been lowered, it was ridiculously high.

pritch

20th December 2018, 16:04

It seems that Skippa's zero reading proposal is considered earthshakingly radical. Unless I'm mistaken (entirely possible) zero is already the limit applied to young people. All the PTB would be doing is extending it to the rest of us.

Anyhow. Here's another nothing story. OK the offending driver is a twat no argument, and whoever was on duty at the police station may very well need a rocket up the arse, but to jump to the conclusion exhibited in the headline on the basis of a single incident is absurd. Even though it may very well be true. There is rather more evidence to suggest newspapers may be competing to print the silliest traffic story.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/109508531/taranaki-driver-captures-perilous-passing-manoeuvre-on-video

Ok the editor must have sobered up. The original headline was to the effect that Taranaki drivers are the worst in the country.

F5 Dave

20th December 2018, 17:12

Like I said before you're a fuckin idiot, also now an ignorant cunt

as you were
Actually I considered he was making a rational argument. In fact if scoring points I'd say he was well above your, now abusive, rants.

skippa1

20th December 2018, 17:21

Actually I considered he was making a rational argument. In fact if scoring points I'd say he was well above your, now abusive, rants.
That's nice dear.....now go and rip a leg off and enjoy having the piss taken out of your capability to drive with a disability.

Enjoy that, maybe rate it as self appointed points keeper.

I expressed an alternative opinion for fucks sake...hardly a rant

F5 Dave

20th December 2018, 17:26

You did call him a fucking idiot first.

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 17:41

You mean more people are being reported as dying from alcohol related crashes ... Nowadays ... was he/she been drinking ???

That's the first question crash investigators ask at any incident ... If the answer is yes ... ;)

Hey FJ, as your so over the top, please tell me what part of the law the driver in question, turkey according to you, did not comply with, if not, why was he not charged.
Also, why are all drivers with a positive reading but not over the limit not detained for one hour for retesting.
Also why did the queenstoned cops not accept the reliability of the eba equipment that are used for evidential purposes, and because not, why should the general public not also question their reliability.

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 17:42

skippa1

20th December 2018, 17:57

for one legged you sure can dig a good hole.
Every now and then.....if you spend 52 years running around on 2 legs and then some fuckwit cleans you up and not only wrecks your bike but your mobility...you get a tad sensitive about stupidity.

When you get the piss taken out of you for it, .......yep.......sometimes it gets a bit close to the bone so to speak.

But hey, my bad

Scuba_Steve

20th December 2018, 18:03

That's nice dear.....now go and rip a leg off and enjoy having the piss taken out of your capability to drive with a disability.

Enjoy that, maybe rate it as self appointed points keeper.

I expressed an alternative opinion for fucks sake...hardly a rant

So that's what got ya panties in a twist. Well I wasn't taking the piss & don't find it funny
But I do find it highly hypocritical that the physical impairment of lacking a limb is somehow "safer" in your moral compass than the potential mental impairment of a couple drinks.
But see the physical impairment personally affects you so you'll "justify" the shit out of "how it's better", I can only guess alcohol caused the limb loss? which would be why you will "justify" the shit out of a "zero being good" regardless of rationality or lack thereof. If I am correct in that a booze driver put you in hospital, your argument would almost certainly be based purely on emotion & is what would be commonly called a "Knee-jerk reaction"
In-fact if it was a drink driver that put you in hospital was he/she within limits? My guess would be they were well above again leading to the fact a zero limit is overreaction to a problem that doesn't exist & would again cause more problems than it solves

In my opinion driving takes 4 working limbs & a working head/neck to do at full capacity so anything less than that is no better than a few drinks & probably even worse; automagics are already an impairment on anyone who drives them regardless of limb count (& so sayeth studies to back that up) so not having a gear arm or clutch leg with an automagic doesn't make the impairment a non-issue

None of this is an attack or piss take on you, your physical impairment, or anyone else with an impairment. It's an attack on your irrational & IMO stupid 'zero limit' stance. It makes no sense outside of an idealistic "on paper" utopia, would cause more problems than you're looking to solve, & who decides how zero zero is?

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 18:07

Every now and then.....if you spend 52 years running around on 2 legs and then some fuckwit cleans you up and not only wrecks your bike but your mobility...you get a tad sensitive about stupidity.

When you get the piss taken out of you for it, .......yep.......sometimes it gets a bit close to the bone so to speak.

But hey, my bad
Yep, cry poor me, i just thougth you were ADD, then you put in why, that is your story, but that is no excuse for acting like a retard expecting to get away with it. You claim an opinion, then debate to death anyone that challenges you. Your lose of a leg is not a prop.

skippa1

20th December 2018, 18:13

So that's what got ya panties in a twist. Well I wasn't taking the piss & don't find it funny
But I do find it highly hypocritical that the physical impairment of lacking a limb is somehow "safer" in your moral compass than the potential mental impairment of a couple drinks.
But see the physical impairment personally affects you so you'll "justify" the shit out of "how it's better", I can only guess alcohol caused the limb loss? which would be why you will "justify" the shit out of a "zero being good" regardless of rationality or lack thereof. If I am correct in that a booze driver put you in hospital, your argument would almost certainly be based purely on emotion & is what would be commonly called a "Knee-jerk reaction"
In-fact if it was a drink driver that put you in hospital was he/she within limits? My guess would be they were well above again leading to the fact a zero limit is overreaction to a problem that doesn't exist & would again cause more problems than it solves

In my opinion driving takes 4 working limbs & a working head/neck to do at full capacity so anything less than that is no better than a few drinks & probably even worse; automagics are already an impairment on anyone who drives them regardless of limb count (& so sayeth studies to back that up) so not having a gear arm or clutch leg with an automagic doesn't make the impairment a non-issue

None of this is an attack or piss take on you, your physical impairment, or anyone else with an impairment. It's an attack on your irrational & IMO stupid 'zero limit' stance. It makes no sense outside of an idealistic "on paper" utopia, would cause more problems than you're looking to solve, & who decides how zero zero is?
All of your assumptions are completely wrong and opinions thefefore irrelevant but fuck it, whatever

Whether you like it or not, it is personal attack and piss take....I never took a stance, I offered opinion and because it doesnt fit your views and you sense some emotion you keep at it. Knock yourself out, I deal with it daily

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 18:15

By the way skippa, the only element that can be calibrated for zero is H20. Everything else has to have a reliable known small amount, and a known reliable larger amount. The measuring device is linearised between those sources.
Therfore anything lowerer than the lowest source would be inaccurate and irrelevant, and used to be for a eba just say 0, which used to less than 150 on breath when 400 was the limit.

Berries

20th December 2018, 18:15

Your lose of a leg is not a prop.
You sick bastard.

skippa1

20th December 2018, 18:16

Yep, cry poor me, i just thougth you were ADD, then you put in why, that is your story, but that is no excuse for acting like a retard expecting to get away with it. You claim an opinion, then debate to death anyone that challenges you. Your lose of a leg is not a prop.
:laugh: at last some humor...I like the prop thing...that's fuckin funny:laugh:

skippa1

20th December 2018, 18:18

You sick bastard.
Fuckin funny:killingme

skippa1

20th December 2018, 18:19

FJRider

20th December 2018, 18:21

layton

20th December 2018, 18:23

I had a beer on the way ��home

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 18:23

Blinded me with science....:laugh:
Thats my job, but glad you see the funny side.

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 18:25

Have you been drinking ... ??? And who are the queenstoned cops ... in which of your booze filled fantasy's did you find them ... ??

What has the post you quoted got to do with the rambling above ... ???was not this the start and purpose of the thread, and who answers a question with a question.

FJRider

20th December 2018, 18:26

was not this the start and purpose of the thread, and who answers a question with a question.

Was it really ... ????

tigertim20

20th December 2018, 18:28

Have you been drinking ... ??? And who are the queenstoned cops ... in which of your booze filled fantasy's did you find them ... ??

What has the post you quoted got to do with the rambling above ... ???

ahh, the classic response of ignoring legitimate questions and instead attacking the spelling / grammar / etc of an adversary in an attempt to disguise the fact that someone has found holes in your logic.

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 18:29

Was it really ... ????
Did you read post #1 and the link to the Stuff article.

layton

20th December 2018, 18:30

who's thirsty? Feeling abit parched myself.

russd7

20th December 2018, 18:30

; automagics are already an impairment on anyone who drives them regardless of limb count (& so sayeth studies to back that up)
?
post the studies or its BS.

In my opinion driving takes 4 working limbs & a working head/neck to do at full capacity so anything less than that is no better than a few drinks & probably even worse
Really gonna call BS on that statement as well, I know and have known amputees who drive way better than a lot of "able bodied" people,

skippa1

20th December 2018, 18:32

who's thirsty? Feeling abit parched myself.
Slowly quenching it

layton

20th December 2018, 18:33

Yeah I call BS on the driving with all limbs, I watched a one armed guy at burt munro challenge who was mid field and doing bloody well IMO

russd7

20th December 2018, 18:42

Yeah I call BS on the driving with all limbs, I watched a one armed guy at burt munro challenge who was mid field and doing bloody well IMO

he only had one leg as well, 1/2 was his number, did the hill climb and beach race as well, unfortunately he died earlier this year, nice fella to talk to. An Aussie he was.

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 18:44

Was it really ... ????
FJ, is there an appenticeship in Kiwibiker, 12794 posts, say 3mins each, not including hours of reading and not understanding, equals almost 640 hours of posting, 640 hours, i mean that is, 640 hours of your life.

Scuba_Steve

20th December 2018, 19:21

post the studies or its BS.

ok I'll concede that one, I looked it up again & while manual does show some greater attention on scans due to the enhanced involvement, there's no evidence to suggest they increase driver ability in the real world (other than 1 [to be replicated] study into ADHD drivers where they did much better with a manual). However it is suggested that the not so good drivers will naturally migrate towards automagics.

Really gonna call BS on that statement as well, I know and have known amputees who drive way better than a lot of "able bodied" people,
I did say at full capacity & most drivers are pretty fucking useless so wouldn't surprise me if the amputees put in more effort.
If you're missing some ability you're automatically at a disadvantage, you might get by in a normal day-to-day (but so to does someone with a couple drinks, which was my point. A couple drinks ain't the problem) but when the shit hits the fan you don't have the full ability to take control (course too all this is moot when you just panic & freeze, which TBH is prob most peoples reaction).

Viking01

20th December 2018, 19:42

Hey FJ, as your so over the top, please tell me what part of the law the driver in question, turkey according to you, did not comply with, if not, why was he not charged.
Also, why are all drivers with a positive reading but not over the limit not detained for one hour for retesting.
Also why did the queenstoned cops not accept the reliability of the eba equipment that are used for evidential purposes, and because not, why should the general public not also question their reliability.

Could I try and answer your questions on FJ's part ?

We don't have access to the full facts of the incident, but from what was
presented in the news article, my "guess" is:

- that he did fail the first (evidential) breath test ;
- that he then claimed he had "only just taken" a mouthful of beverage,
which pushed his then-current breath alcohol reading over the limit ;
- that the nice officer told him to wait an hour for his breath alcohol
level to "equilibrate", then do a repeat breath test [ which he passed ]

[ If he took only a mouthful, the alcohol content of that swig would have
been much less than that of one standard drink. There would have caused a
rapid but short term peak in his breath alcohol.

The beverage would have then passed through his stomach and into his small
intestine, where the alcohol would have been absorbed into his blood stream.
And in a short time, that blood would be passing through his lung capillaries,
and breath and blood alcohol levels would soon be in synch. ]

If he had already been "well over the limit" before having taken a mouthful,
it's most likely his breath alcohol - after the one hour delay - would have
still been high enough to cause another failed breath test.

[ His short term breath alcohol peak would have passed, but his now-current
breath alcohol level - coming from his lungs - would be representative of
that in his blood stream. So a failed breath re-test would likely mean a
failed blood test as well ]

If anything, a long delay between breath re-tests was to his advantage, as
alcohol was being metabolised by the body - and his blood (and equivalent
breath) alcohol levels would have both been falling over that time.

But in this chaps case, he didn't fail the retest, and the officer obviously
accepted his explanation. And so he was not charged.

I'm not quite sure why you think that it was an equipment failure. The Drager
equipment commonly used on roadside stops has been in use for many years.

And the "customer" always has the option of requesting a blood sample to be
taken, if they're not happy with the evidential breath result.

But just remember that the associated costs charged will also be higher if found
guilty.

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 19:43

You sick bastard.he can tell me himself if i have upset him, but in the long run, anyone that treats him as any less becomes the problem.

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 19:53

Could I try and answer your questions on FJ's part ?

We don't have access to the full facts of the incident, but from what was
presented in the news article, my "guess" is:

- that he did fail the first (evidential) breath test ;
- that he then claimed he had "only just taken" a mouthful of beverage,
which pushed his then-current breath alcohol reading over the limit ;
- that the nice officer told him to wait an hour for his breath alcohol
level to "equilibrate", then do a repeat breath test [ which he passed ]

[ If he took only a mouthful, the alcohol content of that swig would have
been much less than that of one standard drink. There would have caused a
rapid but short term peak in his breath alcohol.

The beverage would have then passed through his stomach and into his small
intestine, where the alcohol would have been absorbed into his blood stream.
And in a short time, that blood would be passing through his lung capillaries,
and breath and blood alcohol levels would soon be in synch. ]

If he had already been "well over the limit" before having taken a mouthful,
it's most likely his breath alcohol - after the one hour delay - would have
still been high enough to cause another failed breath test.

[ His short term breath alcohol peak would have passed, but his now-current
breath alcohol level - coming from his lungs - would be representative of
that in his blood stream. So a failed breath re-test would likely mean a
failed blood test as well ]

If anything, a long delay between breath re-tests was to his advantage, as
alcohol was being metabolised by the body - and his blood (and equivalent
breath) alcohol levels would have both been falling over that time.

But in this chaps case, he didn't fail the retest, and the officer obviously
accepted his explanation. And so he was not charged.

I'm not quite sure why you think that it was an equipment failure. The Drager
equipment commonly used on roadside stops has been in use for many years.

And the "customer" always has the option of requesting a blood sample to be
taken, if they're not happy with the evidential breath result.

But just remember that the associated costs charged will also be higher if found
guilty.pure specualtion, but it is, FJ that is debating with ME, why his opinion matters more than mine, without facts. If he wants to continue his beef with me, I am sure he is able, if he needs you to act on his behalf, he has withdrawn from the debate. Just like FJ you have invented a story around a story, if he was over the limit, he would have been charged.
Just like Rastas said, an ex cop, a storm in a teacup, i'd add, without tea leaves. Kiwibiker is hell bent on creating law that does not exist.

pritch

20th December 2018, 20:28

Kiwibiker is hell bent on creating law that does not exist.

If you got this far and that is what you took from the thread, you just may have a problem?

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 20:35

If you got this far and that is what you took from the thread, you just may have a problem?
That may well be why KB has so few regular contributors nowdays, compared to active rider forums.

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 20:56

Did you read post #1 and the link to the Stuff article.The stuff article stated from the police, he was not over the drink-drive limit, so was not charged, hence Kiwibiker overdrive.

Viking01

20th December 2018, 21:45

The stuff article stated from the police, he was not over the drink-drive limit, so was not charged, hence Kiwibiker overdrive.

Extract from the Stuff article :

"The man was made to wait at the checkpoint for an hour and was then retested.
He was not over the drink-driving limit, so was not charged."

You asked a reasonable question, and I gave you a reasonable answer (which I
thought explained the likely circumstances). I'll make no further comment. Cheers.

bikaholic

20th December 2018, 22:27

Extract from the Stuff article :

"The man was made to wait at the checkpoint for an hour and was then retested.
He was not over the drink-driving limit, so was not charged."

You asked a reasonable question, and I gave you a reasonable answer (which I
thought explained the likely circumstances). I'll make no further comment. Cheers.beats being in disagreement with Kim Jung-un like his uncle and being shot by anti-aircraft gun.

jasonu

21st December 2018, 03:36

Yep, You claim an opinion, then debate to death anyone that challenges you.

This is the KB way described to a tee...
Haha you ain't been around these parts long have you podna...

FJRider

21st December 2018, 07:43

The stuff article stated from the police, he was not over the drink-drive limit, so was not charged, hence Kiwibiker overdrive.

The alcohol impairment in anyone does not just begin at the legal limit. As I have already stated ... being under the influence and over the the limit are two entirely different things.

I recall a "Memorial Ride" quite a few years back ... for a club president that died (in a non motorcycle accident). I was previously a member of that club ... and had done that ride on a few occasions. Stops were planned at pubs ... and in between those were stops at various scenic spots for a "Top-up" from their own "bring your own" supply. I don't drink and ride so I stopped doing the run.

A few years later the run was done and one rider showed up with a borrowed bike (with no WOF) ... wife on the back. About half way ... he got into the gravel on the left and lost control.

Wife died. Kids lost their mother.

Was breath tested and was under the limit.

Aside from the fact he didn't have a license ... he had been drinking and would have had some impairment with his riding.

Being legal and being entirely safe ... are not necessarily the same things.

The debate on a zero limit is a personal issue for most ... and regardless how many times anybody has ridden after drinking alcohol ... under the limit or not ... one day there may be an extra factor in the accident you are involved in. At fault (ie:your fuck-up that instigated the mess) or not ... you might need all the time you have to make decisions that might save your's and/or a loved one's life.

A lost half second or two can and has made differences MANY have regretted for the rest of their lives.

Thought for the day ... does being LEGAL also ALWAYS mean NOT (even partially) at fault ... ???

skippa1

21st December 2018, 08:12

I did say at full capacity & most drivers are pretty fucking useless so wouldn't surprise me if the amputees put in more effort.
If you're missing some ability you're automatically at a disadvantage, you might get by in a normal day-to-day (but so to does someone with a couple drinks, which was my point. A couple drinks ain't the problem) but when the shit hits the fan you don't have the full ability to take control (course too all this is moot when you just panic & freeze, which TBH is prob most peoples reaction).

I have had 37 years of riding bikes, driving cars, excavators, materials handlers, trucks and various other bits of machinery with two arms and legs. I have also had three years of driving cars (and have ridden bikes on occasion) missing one leg so I think I am qualified to comment unlike some that make assumptions based on half the knowledge.

A car fitted out appropriately for the disability, driven by the person it is fitted out for, means you have no less ability than anyone else.

Scuba_Steve

21st December 2018, 13:52

I have had 37 years of riding bikes, driving cars, excavators, materials handlers, trucks and various other bits of machinery with two arms and legs. I have also had three years of driving cars (and have ridden bikes on occasion) missing one leg so I think I am qualified to comment unlike some that make assumptions based on half the knowledge.

A car fitted out appropriately for the disability, driven by the person it is fitted out for, means you have no less ability than anyone else.

Nothing to do with the thread or arguments going on but just out of interest, how'd ya ride the bike? was it an automagic so gear leg not required or?

skippa1

21st December 2018, 14:13

Nothing to do with the thread or arguments going on but just out of interest, how'd ya ride the bike? was it an automagic so gear leg not required or?
right leg gone so not an issue with gear shifts, rode a GSX1000S, an old xr500 off road and a HD Dyna. I can lock the prosthetic knee at different angles so that I can weight bear on it when I stop without it folding.

Scuba_Steve

21st December 2018, 15:12

right leg gone so not an issue with gear shifts, rode a GSX1000S, an old xr500 off road and a HD Dyna. I can lock the prosthetic knee at different angles so that I can weight bear on it when I stop without it folding.

Sweet, how does it go with feel for the brakes? do you have progressive pressure or is it more an on/off sort of thing?

skippa1

21st December 2018, 18:05

Sweet, how does it go with feel for the brakes? do you have progressive pressure or is it more an on/off sort of thing?
Dont use the rear brakes at all as there is no feel. And just to pre empt any query about setup for a disability, no bike has been set up for my disability, I have jumped on mates bikes thay are good enough to let me have a go.

And I can still pop a decent wheelie

russd7

21st December 2018, 19:05

right leg gone so not an issue with gear shifts, rode a GSX1000S, an old xr500 off road and a HD Dyna. I can lock the prosthetic knee at different angles so that I can weight bear on it when I stop without it folding.

I rode a ZX12 that had been set up for a guy that had lost his left leg, the rear brake was disconnected and the gear shift set up on the right, I very rarely use the rear brake so that was not an issue and I got used to the gear change surprisingly quickly

buggerit

21st December 2018, 20:24

ok I'll concede that one, I looked it up again & while manual does show some greater attention on scans due to the enhanced involvement, there's no evidence to suggest they increase driver ability in the real world (other than 1 [to be replicated] study into ADHD drivers where they did much better with a manual). However it is suggested that the not so good drivers will naturally migrate towards automagics.

I did say at full capacity & most drivers are pretty fucking useless so wouldn't surprise me if the amputees put in more effort.
If you're missing some ability you're automatically at a disadvantage, you might get by in a normal day-to-day (but so to does someone with a couple drinks, which was my point. A couple drinks ain't the problem) but when the shit hits the fan you don't have the full ability to take control (course too all this is moot when you just panic & freeze, which TBH is prob most peoples reaction).

Got a mate in a wheelchair(electric) so far have converted a 2nd transit van, canam side by side and flat bottom lake boat for him, handles them as well
as anyone ,oh and the 2nd Transits repowered with a blown 351, 395kw, 800nm and 500kgs of wheelchair hoist gear definitely gets the power to the ground.
His attitude is most most things are just an engineering challenge waiting to be solved, fucking awsome!

pritch

22nd December 2018, 20:02

FJRider

22nd December 2018, 21:32

While not completely relevant to the topic the thought process is similar.

Y'all will be aware there has been a major drama with some drones causing major delays at Gatwick airport in the UK. There was an article in The Guardian postulating that the answer to the problem was tougher regulations for drone users. Apparently it has escaped their notice that the person or persons responsible were completely ignoring all of the the existing regulations. So no change to the regulations could reasonably be assumed to have any effect whatsoever.

Some journalists get their money too easily.

I would have thought you might have noticed a similar situation ... when with the toughening of the gun laws (anywhere) ... people still die from firearms.

However ... drinking alcohol and riding/driving while under the legal limit ... might be deemed unwise by some (me included) ... but totally within the law.

How would you think the cops feel ... when some turkey kills somebody's loved one (sometimes theirs) in/on their (or another) vehicle on the road ... gets a positive reading in the breath test ... and they then have to let them walk. Then the public social media outcry when they read about it in the papers ...

But ... tougher rules and penalties may encourage the same (or at least some) turkeys ... to not repeat it ... or (in reality) it may change nothing.

But public vote seekers will want to try (public hero and all that). I'm guessing the suggestion of rule tightening in this regard ... will be raised.