Zero Tolerance

[ceebie13]

In the shadow of the double tragedy near Rotorua yesterday, I'm wondering how many of us would support "zero tolerance" drink driving laws in New Zealand?... regardless of whether we believe such legislation would be effective.

[James Deuce]

Quite frankly I'm tired of the lowest common denominator setting the standard by which all others are judged. It is starting to impact quite seriously on general human development.

[Delphinus]

Quite frankly I'm tired of the lowest common denominator setting the standard by which all others are judged. It is starting to impact quite seriously on general human development.

Agreed. And an awful amount of time and money is constantly spent keeping this bottom end up... Survival of the fittest gone well out the door...

[Krusti]

No...I would however support a stronger crack down on present limits and harsher penalties for death or injury to other parties due to drink driving..

[ceebie13]

Quite frankly I'm tired of the lowest common denominator setting the standard by which all others are judged....

I agree too...because it also includes irresponsible bikers who give us all a bad name.

[dogsnbikes]

This is always going to happen.....there will always be some arsehole drinkdriving regardless of limits and laws introduced.....and its always sad well fuckedup that its the innocent that get taken out.......:angry:

I myself set my own limit usually one beer if I know I am driving.......as I am buggered if I will put my life or other peoples lives at risk....just a pity that there is a % of those out there that dont give a toss:sick:

[James Deuce]

I agree too...because it also includes irresponsible bikers who give us all a bad name.

Naughty boy, putting words in my mouth.

The reality is, NZ's drink driving laws are governed and tightened up because of a very small number of people who drive drunk, drive without a license, and drive vehicles that aren't roadworthy, and do all that repeatedly. Stats are used to manipulate public opinion, so silly laws get passed. Always remember you are talking about a country with the population of Hampshire and the land mass of the UK.

The main reason for NZs death toll is driver attitude. Driving is a right, not a privilege, other people sharing the road are annoying irritants, and any situation requiring actual driver skill will probably result in a fatality. Then there is the main reason that people die. Ego combined with Arrogance.

Alcohol is more of a factor for motorcyclists because of the impairment to cognitive and motor skills. I know how it affects me so I very rarely have one beer when I'm on a quiet social ride. The rest of the time it's a no no.

But I'm not going to start imposing my views on other people. Make your own mind up, make your own decisions, we've got to stop fiddling with the parameters of social acceptance before we all become the same, bland, boring, PC drone. Much worse fate than being killed by a drunk driver on the road.

[spudchucka]

Having a zero tolerance won't stop the people who just don't care. They don't care under the current system and they wouldn't care under a zero tolerance system either.

[MSTRS]

Done before - still feel the same.
Zero Tolerance gets hung up with things like breath fresheners etc giving a positive return with the Sniffers, leading to all sorts of problems for the innocent.
Even increasing the penalties doesn't seem a deterrent to so many recidivists. A look at changing the penalties might be more effective.
Perhaps your poll could include a "Cut off their hands" option....

[Stickchick]

Having a zero tolerance won't stop the people who just don't care. They don't care under the current system and they wouldn't care under a zero tolerance system either.

You are completely right my best friends wrist got broken wrestling with a drunk wanting his keys off her then proceeded to drive his car with a friend of my cousins in and smashed into a tree. The driver sustained small injuries where as the passenger lost three of her fingers and is paralysed down right side. And to this day he doesn't really think about his actions and the problems it caused because he is still doing it

Drunks will do what they want without worrying how it affects other people

[Pwalo]

As everyone else has said a law change will not change behaviour. (Look at those damned dogs that keep biting people).

It is also impossible to enforce a zero tolerance regime. It's been mooted before, and discredited. Alcohol is a naturally occuring chemical in the body.

I would like to see all bad driving targeted by our constabulary, but that would require a much larger road presence by the boys in blue.

[davereid]

Agreed. The guy who has a beer after work or a glass of wine while out for dinner is not the problem. Its the guy who has 6 - 60 beers, then hops in and drives. I'm pleased to see the police ticketing drivers who cross the centerline. There was a photo in the Dom, of a plonker complaining for getting ticketed when well over the line. Warmed my heart to see how upset he was. Crossing the line is way more nasty than a few clicks over the limit.

[Hitcher]

So you're saying it's OK then to drive/ride while under the affluence of incohol as long as one is not caught or one isn't involved in an accident causing injury or death, and that choice should be up to the rider/driver who should be capable of monitoring their own level of intoxication?

[ceebie13]

The main reason for NZ's death toll is driver attitude. Driving is a right, not a privilege, other people sharing the road are annoying irritants, and any situation requiring actual driver skill will probably result in a fatality. Then there is the main reason that people die. Ego combined with Arrogance.


Which is why New Zealanders have one of the worst driving reputations on the planet. But what gets me is that they don't seem to care about it!
So we find ourselves back to the lowest common denominator analogy.

[ceebie13]

... who should be capable of monitoring their own level of intoxication?

...or indeed their own lovel of entixicotion!

[ceebie13]

Done before - still feel the same.
Zero Tolerance gets hung up with things like breath fresheners etc giving a positive return with the Sniffers, leading to all sorts of problems for the innocent.

Yeah I remember one guy being done in the UK and it turned out he'd had vinegar on his chips!!

[James Deuce]

Which is why New Zealanders have one of the worst driving reputations on the planet. But what gets me is that they don't seem to care about it!
So we find ourselves back to the lowest common denominator analogy.

They don't. The simple fact is that the enforcement agencies have been given goals by a Government agency, and driver education is not one of those goals.

[MWVT]

I'm of the belief that our current limit is set cautiously high. I've had that belief since passing a breath test (while walking home, just randomly talking to the boys in the check point) when i was firmly convinced i was going to fail and fail badly.

Having said that, it's not necessarily a bad thing. While i would be in favour of people drinking considerably less than the current limit before driving, i think the law of unintended consequences applies. When you reduce the limit significantly there is a danger you 'decriminalise' an offence. Imagine a situation where the debate over drink driving currently resembles the public debate on speeding. At the moment there seems to be an overwhelming public belief that if you drive drunk (i.e. over the legal limit) you are driving dangerously. You have to be very careful not to sacrifice that public support by reducing the limit to the point that a majority of NZers believe you can get done for drink driving but not really be that dangerous. The police have a difficult enough time enforcing a law that the vast majority agree with..... change that too far and enforcement will be far more difficult. The most powerful way to stop a drink driver is for his mates/someone else in the pub to get in his face and say, you've had too much to drink to be driving.

Summary: leave the limit where it is, even though it is (IMO) very high.

[Dodger]

I'm against the whole zero tolerance way of looking at things as it just allows people to no longer use their brains when dealing with "offenders"
There's also the whole "false positive" aspect to look out for.

Personally I'm in favour of adopting the US "Three strikes law" system for drunk driving, how often do we read in the papers about people with over 20 drink driving convictions that are still getting pulled up? :nono:

Should be 3rd offence and in jail. (I think in the Us it's something crazy like 30 years) :shit:

[Ghost_Bullet]

Working with livestock, you need to ensure you select the best genetics, if ya dont fit the mould then you are out.
If some of these idiots that have caused hurt and pain on others went through this process then they would have been culled long ago....It says alot for PC'nis and human rights... big life fuckups(such as killin others) should have a mortal consequence.
I dont think having a zero tolerance will help... it is getting the minority to take responsiblity for there own actions

[Squeak the Rat]

The fact is (imho) that some there are people on the road who are worse drivers sober than others who may have had one glass of wine.

Same argument with speeding. But at least you don't lose your licence for 6 months if you go 110kph. Well, not yet anyway.

[TS99]

The main reason for NZs death toll is driver attitude.

Yep i've seen an arrogant f%%k on the road or two. There's a certain lack of respect in kiwiland for other drivers. Ive seen awesome (by comparison IMHO) driving habits and attitudes in other countries - why do egos rule so many driver's heads here?

[Krusti]

I believe it should be, you drink, you drive, you kill someone, you go to jail the same as if you had killed them by any other means.

[scumdog]

Having a zero tolerance won't stop the people who just don't care. They don't care under the current system and they wouldn't care under a zero tolerance system either.

And with the pathetic penalties dished out for drink driving by judges is it any wonder???

Top fine for 1st and 2nd drink driving conviction is $4,500, when the hell was the last time anybody get much more than what they blow as a penalty??

(i.e. Gave a reading of 680mgm and the fine would be $700 or so - just check the papers).

[scumdog]

They don't. The simple fact is that the enforcement agencies have been given goals by a Government agency, and driver education is not one of those goals.

C'mon, how much education and publicity is out there saying 'don't drink and drive', 'keep left' 'wear your seat belt' 'don't run a red'etc??.


The education needed is: smarten up your driving, don't drive like a dick, don't be arrogant, don't overtake when you can't see enough clear road ahead etc - sort of stuff you and I see as common sense.... maybe that's the problem, people being dumbed down or something.

[MSTRS]

.... maybe that's the problem, people being dumbed down or something.

That's assuming some of them had anything in the first place....

[Macktheknife]

Excuse me while I get on my soapbox here.

Kiwi's are known through most of the world as big drinkers, like the Aussies and the Irish.
But drinking is not the issue, stupid is the issue.
There are few things in life that fuck me off as much as a drunk driver injuring/killing others, and then claiming that somehow this is not his/her fault. Somewhere in our culture we have made it ok for 'drunk' to be an excuse to be an idiot, fair enough, many of us have been there.
But for this to be an excuse for someone else being scarred,paralysed or dead is not.
I have been known to physically prevent people from getting into cars when it is obvious they should not be driving. I have even phoned the cops myself and asked them to stop someone I knew was driving pissed, and told them where to find him.
Before my brother was killed by a drunk driver, I was a bit laid back about the whole issue. I thought that speaking up about this stuff was only going to get me disliked or worse.
Not anymore.
Zero Tolerance alcohol legislation would be a waste of time in NZ, in fact it would probably make things worse.
What we need is a zero tolerance culture to stupid, speak out when you see people doing stupid things that endanger others, they might not listen but someone else might get the idea that this behaviour is not ok/cool/fun/etc.
Speak up, the life you save might be mine or my brother/sister/wife/child, or maybe yours.

descends from soapbox, rant over...... for now

[Pwalo]

C'mon, how much education and publicity is out there saying 'don't drink and drive', 'keep left' 'wear your seat belt' 'don't run a red'etc??.


The education needed is: smarten up your driving, don't drive like a dick, don't be arrogant, don't overtake when you can't see enough clear road ahead etc - sort of stuff you and I see as common sense.... maybe that's the problem, people being dumbed down or something.

Couldn't agree more. I seem to remember being told these things when I was learning to drive/ride, and also being told why you needed to do them.

Nowadays we have lovely little jingles sponsored by ACC/LTSA/whoever. I just love 'Speed kills', and the little ditty about slowing down whenever the conditions change.

I saw al ovely example last Friday when we had a wee bit of rain in the Capital. All the drivers slowed down by 10k or so and promptly closed up all the gaps between cars to a couple of meters. Now that's smart.

Hang on we were talking about zero tolerance for alcohol or something were't we?

[Ixion]

If someone at present is going to drink when they are over the limit, why will they change their behaviour if you reduce the limit?

Indeed , as others have noted , it is more likely that he will drive - because at present the limit is recognised as realistic , others will caution or prevent him. if the limit is seen as unrealistic (which IMHO a zero limit is) then we risk a return to the days when everybody drove after drinking and noone questioned it.

The only validity to such an approach would be if there were significant incidents where people crashed as a result of being impaired by alcohol, but were still under the limit. That would indicate that the limit was too high.

I do not see evidence of that. Most of the crashes due to alcohol impairment, the drivers are WAY over the limit. And usually have a prior history of DIC . Which suggests the real problem is alcoholics, who will not be deterred by any laws. It is an addiction and changing the law isn't going to make any difference to them.

So maybe a law change to require a alcohol/drug dependency assessment , and treatment (if required) after any DUI charge ?

[James Deuce]

C'mon, how much education and publicity is out there saying 'don't drink and drive', 'keep left' 'wear your seat belt' 'don't run a red'etc??.


The education needed is: smarten up your driving, don't drive like a dick, don't be arrogant, don't overtake when you can't see enough clear road ahead etc - sort of stuff you and I see as common sense.... maybe that's the problem, people being dumbed down or something.

Naughty! You know darn well that's not what I'm talking about.

[Grahameeboy]

The fact is (imho) that some there are people on the road who are worse drivers sober than others who may have had one glass of wine.

Same argument with speeding. But at least you don't lose your licence for 6 months if you go 110kph. Well, not yet anyway.

You are right...30% or so of accidents are caused by Drunk Drivers which means that 70% are caused by Sober drivers.........

[Grahameeboy]

Excuse me while I get on my soapbox here.

Kiwi's are known through most of the world as big drinkers, like the Aussies and the Irish.
But drinking is not the issue, stupid is the issue.
There are few things in life that fuck me off as much as a drunk driver injuring/killing others, and then claiming that somehow this is not his/her fault. Somewhere in our culture we have made it ok for 'drunk' to be an excuse to be an idiot, fair enough, many of us have been there.
But for this to be an excuse for someone else being scarred,paralysed or dead is not.
I have been known to physically prevent people from getting into cars when it is obvious they should not be driving. I have even phoned the cops myself and asked them to stop someone I knew was driving pissed, and told them where to find him.
Before my brother was killed by a drunk driver, I was a bit laid back about the whole issue. I thought that speaking up about this stuff was only going to get me disliked or worse.
Not anymore.
Zero Tolerance alcohol legislation would be a waste of time in NZ, in fact it would probably make things worse.
What we need is a zero tolerance culture to stupid, speak out when you see people doing stupid things that endanger others, they might not listen but someone else might get the idea that this behaviour is not ok/cool/fun/etc.
Speak up, the life you save might be mine or my brother/sister/wife/child, or maybe yours.

descends from soapbox, rant over...... for now

It's that annoying 'she'll be right' attitude eh?

[Grahameeboy]

If someone at present is going to drink when they are over the limit, why will they change their behaviour if you reduce the limit?

Indeed , as others have noted , it is more likely that he will drive - because at present the limit is recognised as realistic , others will caution or prevent him. if the limit is seen as unrealistic (which IMHO a zero limit is) then we risk a return to the days when everybody drove after drinking and noone questioned it.

The only validity to such an approach would be if there were significant incidents where people crashed as a result of being impaired by alcohol, but were still under the limit. That would indicate that the limit was too high.

I do not see evidence of that. Most of the crashes due to alcohol impairment, the drivers are WAY over the limit. And usually have a prior history of DIC . Which suggests the real problem is alcoholics, who will not be deterred by any laws. It is an addiction and changing the law isn't going to make any difference to them.

So maybe a law change to require a alcohol/drug dependency assessment , and treatment (if required) after any DUI charge ?

True, however, with a zero tolerance approach it would mean 'no drinking' whereas at the mo you can drink and drive and how many people think they are inside the limit when they are not so if the limit was 'zero' it may make a difference....this is from Sweden.

Alcohol

Even very small amounts of alcohol can affect your driving ability. Sweden has a very strict law that entitles the Police to give a Breathalyzer test, even if there is no reason to suspect that you are driving under the influence of alcohol. If your blood level alcohol content is 0.2 promille or the content of alcohol in your exhaled breath is 0.10mg/l or more, this will result in a stiff fine, a prison sentence or both. You will also lose your driving license. Alcohol also remains in your system the day after you drink it. Do Not Drink and Drive.

See where Sweden are on the attached graph.....seems to make a case.

[mstriumph]

Beat up on me if you like - i'm certainly no angel but i believe that driving or riding on today's roads demands a high level of concentration and focus - and anyone that lowers their ability to do these things - whether thru drink, or drugs, or tiredness, or emotional upset or any other avoidable thing [yep - i'd include drinking hot coffee or eating a hamburger OR TALKING ON THE PHONE] whilst driving is - well - daft.

Problem is, EVERYONE thinks they are an 'above average' driver and can get away with less than full focus 'just this once' ..............

........ but everyone's luck will run out sooner or later

[mstriumph]

.......Kiwi's are known through most of the world as big drinkers, like the Aussies and the Irish.
But drinking is not the issue, stupid is the issue.............What we need is a zero tolerance culture to stupid, speak out when you see people doing stupid things that endanger others, they might not listen but someone else might get the idea that this behaviour is not ok/cool/fun/etc.
Speak up, the life you save might be mine or my brother/sister/wife/child, or maybe yours..................

*borrows soapbox*

the problem is, unfortunately, that from my own observations it is more likely that observers of stupidity will say nothing and not want to get involved and cause a scene .............

i have the attitude that, if you don't speak out and try and prevent something bad from happening then the perpetrator can and will take your silence for approbation and carry right on [this is my stance against bullies and abuse but it works equally well for other forms of nasty]

to me the saddest thing is that the masses cannot distinguish between aggression and intervention and, thus, tend to shrink from confrontation of ANY sort, even when it's the only morally-appropriate behaviour

*descends from soapbox, dusts it off and returns it to Macktheknife*

[Ixion]

True, however, with a zero tolerance approach it would mean 'no drinking' whereas at the mo you can drink and drive and how many people think they are inside the limit when they are not so if the limit was 'zero' it may make a difference....this is from Sweden.

Alcohol

Even very small amounts of alcohol can affect your driving ability. Sweden has a very strict law that entitles the Police to give a Breathalyzer test, even if there is no reason to suspect that you are driving under the influence of alcohol. If your blood level alcohol content is 0.2 promille or the content of alcohol in your exhaled breath is 0.10mg/l or more, this will result in a stiff fine, a prison sentence or both. You will also lose your driving license. Alcohol also remains in your system the day after you drink it. Do Not Drink and Drive.

See where Sweden are on the attached graph.....seems to make a case.

The "no drinking at all so it's simple" argument would make sense if the problem was people a wee bit over the limit crashing . But it's not.

Firstly the present (adult) limit is high enough that anyone who reaches it is definately going to know they're affected. And the double and triple the limit figures that are returned by most alcohol impaired crash drivers, there is no way that they could possibly have thought that they were "still under the limit"

The reality is , that you can pass any law you like, and it won't stop an alcoholic drinking.

The other problem with very low limits (though what is Swedens limit ? Those figures look to actually be higher than our youth rate , definately not zero), is that there is a "when" component, as well as a "much". It takes a long time for lingering traces of alcohol to be completely eliminated from the body. So a zero limit would mean , not only not driving after the party, but not driving the next day, and maybe the one after that too. So it's not just a matter of saying "Oh, people can get a taxi home".

Which of course is why the people propounding a zero limit are almost always wowsers, because they see it as a convenient stepping stone to prohibition.

[Grahameeboy]

We will only achieve a zero tolerance culture if we put in place tools to make it happen, like Zero Tolerance drinking laws as they do in Sweden and the evidence is clear that it works so why do we procrastinate........all this bollocks about civil rights etc just does not cut it because a drunk driver can and does affect the civil rights of innocence people.

So lets stop being a bunch of poofs and just do it and sod those who don't agree cause they are probably some of the offenders.

I even see fellow KBers on rides have 2 or 3 beers......they are all great guys, however, it is a culture and what is wrong we having a few beers at home or walking or nominating a sober driver........can we not have fun sober anymore............

[Squeak the Rat]

Thinking about work distracts me slightly each morning. So does listening to the radio news, or talking to a passenger. Should these be banned while driving?

These are extreme examples and my point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. And it has been. And the majority of accidents involving alocohol have been above the line, so why lower it??????

[Grahameeboy]

The "no drinking at all so it's simple" argument would make sense if the problem was people a wee bit over the limit crashing . But it's not.

Firstly the present (adult) limit is high enough that anyone who reaches it is definately going to know they're affected. And the double and triple the limit figures that are returned by most alcohol impaired crash drivers, there is no way that they could possibly have thought that they were "still under the limit"

Are you sure?

The reality is , that you can pass any law you like, and it won't stop an alcoholic drinking.

Are you sure. Look at Sweden.

The other problem with very low limits (though what is Swedens limit ? Those figures look to actually be higher than our youth rate , definately not zero), is that there is a "when" component, as well as a "much". It takes a long time for lingering traces of alcohol to be completely eliminated from the body. So a zero limit would mean , not only not driving after the party, but not driving the next day, and maybe the one after that too. So it's not just a matter of saying "Oh, people can get a taxi home".

Tough titties.

Which of course is why the people propounding a zero limit are almost always wowsers, because they see it as a convenient stepping stone to prohibition.

What utter bollocks...................................

[davereid]

So you're saying it's OK then to drive/ride while under the affluence of incohol as long as one is not caught or one isn't involved in an accident causing injury or death, and that choice should be up to the rider/driver who should be capable of monitoring their own level of intoxication?

No, I'm saying that you are not measurably impaired at 0.08 and that a zero limit is not necessary.

Pretty clearly we could reduce the drink drive limit to zero. But if it doesnt help then its a waste of time.

For that matter we could reduce the speed limit to 10km/hr.

At NO TIME am I suggesting that drink drive is OK.

[Grahameeboy]

Thinking about work distracts me slightly each morning. So does listening to the radio news, or talking to a passenger. Should these be banned while driving?

These are extreme examples and my point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. And it has been. And the majority of accidents involving alocohol have been above the line, so why lower it??????

Because you will have persistant people who will always drink and drive and some days they are under and some they are not so these people need to be dealt with and if they know that the tolerance is lower they may stop and stop being a potential accident.

[ManDownUnder]

I haven't read it all but...

Cough medicine would put you over the limit.
Repeat drunk drivers won't care anyway (they're breaking the law now... they'll be breaking it then - what difference)
It'll drive the serving of drinks to drivers underground, complicating things and developing a secondary black market industry (per the prohibition years anywhere in the world).

No - education and culture change. If people are likely to listen to their friends more than the cops... make sure the friends have the drink drive bloody idiot mentality.

[Ixion]

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1034732#post1034732)
The "no drinking at all so it's simple" argument would make sense if the problem was people a wee bit over the limit crashing . But it's not.

Firstly the present (adult) limit is high enough that anyone who reaches it is definately going to know they're affected. And the double and triple the limit figures that are returned by most alcohol impaired crash drivers, there is no way that they could possibly have thought that they were "still under the limit"

Are you sure?

Yes. I'm sure.

The reality is , that you can pass any law you like, and it won't stop an alcoholic drinking.

Are you sure. Look at Sweden.

Yes. I'm sure. Ask Alcoholics Anoymous if you like .

[Squeak the Rat]

I'm sick of people parroting swedish laws. Circumstances are different amongst countries and cultures. I'm sure sweden also have much tougher driving tests - do we implement this also, or just assume that it's solely the zero tolerance approach which is helping.

( can some one please post some objective stats on the swedish drink driving death rate vs NZ)


The car reigns supreme in NZ. Any moron can get a licence to drive on our roads. Public transport in our biggest city is a joke, and getting a cab from the suburbs into town and back can easily cost over $100. Repeat drink drive offenders get a slap on the wrist. And add to that our countries drinking culture.

So do you really think the answer to fixing it is to tell people they can't even have one drink? The cop out answer is to say "look at sweden".

[Ixion]

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy


[I]The other problem with very low limits (though what is Swedens limit ? Those figures look to actually be higher than our youth rate , definately not zero), is that there is a "when" component, as well as a "much". It takes a long time for lingering traces of alcohol to be completely eliminated from the body. So a zero limit would mean , not only not driving after the party, but not driving the next day, and maybe the one after that too. So it's not just a matter of saying "Oh, people can get a taxi home".

Tough titties.

Which of course is why the people propounding a zero limit are almost always wowsers, because they see it as a convenient stepping stone to prohibition.

What utter bollocks




We will only achieve a zero tolerance culture if we put in place tools to make it happen, like Zero Tolerance drinking laws as they do in Sweden and the evidence is clear that it works so why do we procrastinate........all this bollocks about civil rights etc just does not cut it because a drunk driver can and does affect the civil rights of innocence people.

So lets stop being a bunch of poofs and just do it and sod those who don't agree cause they are probably some of the offenders.

I even see fellow KBers on rides have 2 or 3 beers......they are all great guys, however, it is a culture and what is wrong we having a few beers at home or walking or nominating a sober driver........can we not have fun sober anymore............




Rest m'case on both counts

[gixermike]

I am quite surprised that it's so easy to get a work licence when you get banned for drink driving. Surely this should be changed to a total ban...for say 6 months / year or whatever.
It's just too easy at the moment. Get caught over the limit, get the wife / mate to give you a lift for a month and you're back in the game then...
Not being able to work / loosing income / your job would be a bigger deterrent than having to get a lift for 28 days....
won't stop everyone...but the people who think they'll get away with it, coz they aren't 'too pissed' and if they get caught they'll just get a lift....might give them more to think about...

[Squeak the Rat]

Looking at other example is a start? Tried to find some NZ stats but seems we don't go into this a great deal...funny that.

So is it a cop out to just rely on changing the culture. How many more people will be the victim of drunk drivers until the culture changes?

If bob drinks and drives today he knows he'll lose his licence for 6 months.

If you implement a zero tolerance - guess what? bob will drink drive tomorrow.

Lowering the tolerance won't change the drinking culture - it'll make us a country of anti-social alcoholics who stay at home getting pissed and beating up the wife.

[mstriumph]

The "no drinking at all so it's simple" argument would make sense if the problem was people a wee bit over the limit crashing . But it's not.

Firstly the present (adult) limit is high enough that anyone who reaches it is definately going to know they're affected. And the double and triple the limit figures that are returned by most alcohol impaired crash drivers, there is no way that they could possibly have thought that they were "still under the limit"

The reality is , that you can pass any law you like, and it won't stop an alcoholic drinking.

........................................
Which of course is why the people propounding a zero limit are almost always wowsers, because they see it as a convenient stepping stone to prohibition.

hey you :angry: watch who you are badmouthing!

i drink ............. and eat hamburgers [not simultaneously it's true ....]

i agree that you won't stop people doing those things and believe it would be gross infingement of people's rights for the state to try

so i certainly wouldn't support prohibition.

nevertheless - although people 'should' be aware they are impaired, the truth is that, the more they drink, the less effective their judgement is likely to be on ALL things ...... INCLUDING whether their level of impairment ......

..... under those circumstances it's an oversimplification to say that people were 'knowingly' drinking over the current limit to the level where they have had a traffic accident

if there was a 0% limit, you'd eliminate this problem at least
- and elimination of ANY part of the drink/drive scenario has got to be helpful?

- that and making it illegal to screen junkfood adverts during children's tv programmes .............

[Ixion]

a) Why
b) Fair enough I didn't read properly. But does not mean it will not stop those who do not go to AA.

Go get plastered to the point that you fail a breath test an hour or so after drinking. then answer your own question

No, it will not stop the one's who DON'T go to AA. Because they are still drinking. An alcoholic has a physical need to drink. He either stops because he decides to stop, period. Or he drinks. And no penalty, no law will stop him. He CAN'T stop.

And most (not all, but most) of the accidents where alcohol is a major part involve alcoholics. Why else would they keep coming back, for the 4th, 5th, 6th DUI charge? Their lives are ruined, they are sent to prision, they hate what they are and what they do, but still they do it. Your zero limit won't make a bit of difference to them. And this may be a good time to mention John 8:7 and 1 Corinthians 13

[mstriumph]

................. I'm sure sweden also have much tougher driving tests - do we implement this also, .......................


YES PLEASE !!!!!:Punk:

[davereid]

If John blew 87 its a fail... but at 13 the other fellas OK

[Grahameeboy]

If bob drinks and drives today he knows he'll lose his licence for 6 months.

If you implement a zero tolerance - guess what? bob will drink drive tomorrow.

Lowering the tolerance won't change the drinking culture - it'll make us a country of anti-social alcoholics who stay at home getting pissed and beating up the wife.

So the anti-social will be the same then!!

[James Deuce]

Sweden is a country where parents have no rights over their children, and taxation consumes 75% of your income directly or indirectly.

Using their zero tolerance policy out of context will just make criminals out of people who use mouthwash.

[ceebie13]

What if.... you have a drink or two...consider yourself to be "safe" and ride/drive home. On the way home a boy racer who is totally sober but driving dangerously causes a minor accident with you (ie: no injuries). However, a witness calls the cops, you are both breathalysed but you are the one ever so slightly over the limit...enough to lose your licence. He gets a fine and a few DPs. You lose your wheels for a few months. Was it worth it?

I'm as guilty as probably most of us for having a beer while out for a scratch...I do it on KB runs as mentioned by someone earlier...but I think I'd endorse the ZT argument because I feel I can enjoy myself just as much without that one or two beers. It matters not to me if I can't have an alcoholic drink at all if I want to drive.

Sorry to mention the "S" word but someone said that Swedish Police can pull you up for no apparent reason and breathalyse you...well, doesn't that happen here and in the UK too?

Interesting to see the voting...seems like a game of catch up is developing.
The result will be fascinating.

[Grub]

Jeez ... I've just seen the poll results where 25 people say it's ok to drink/drive and only 22 say it isn't!

FFS! What is wrong with everyone? Look at the Rotorua crash thread and see the gnashing of teeth and RIP's over a drunk killing 3 bikers and you STILL support drinking & driving?

Jeez, we have a serious problem ... and those 25 who did not vote for zero tolerance *are* the problem. We have to realise, it's *not* the other guy/guyess .... it's *us*

[SlashWylde]

Having a zero tolerance won't stop the people who just don't care. They don't care under the current system and they wouldn't care under a zero tolerance system either.

Aggreed. Preventative detention would probably be a better solution for recidivist drink drivers/unlicenced drivers.

[James Deuce]

Getting strident and shouty about it doesn't change it. Zero Tolerance is just another engine of compulsion in a country losing its economic and social focus to the weight of many other engines of compulsion.

Getting pissed and falling down is a right of passage re-enacted with disturbing frequency.

Want it to stop happening? Make alcohol a dietary supplement used in small quantities and appreciated for its qualities, rather than a means to a vomitous end.

Stop drinking to excess in front of your kids and bragging about it.

[Nasty]

I think this is called blind drinking ... "its only a bit and I am fine" ... "my reaction times have not changed" ... "I would do things the same if drinking or sober" ... all these statements are utter crap.

I am really concerned ... we lose too many riders to consider this "non issue" ... it is easy if you want to drink don't ride or drive .. catch a taxi, bus or train, and consider yourself to have had a good time ... and consider others lucky as you didn't put yourself or them in danger.

As soon as one drink goes through the lips often there is a change .... either to the attitude or to the abilities ... no matter who you are - or how much you can hold your liquor. Have you ever noticed those who are holding their liquor are slurring.

Oh well ... I will continue to not drink and drive and not drink and ride .. and hope others learn without having a death to teach them that it is just stupid.

I said in here don't ride or drive .. cos it doesn't matter which you do .. when drinking you are definately affected. [/rant off]

[Squeak the Rat]

Jeez, we have a serious problem ... and those 25 who did not vote for zero tolerance *are* the problem. We have to realise, it's *not* the other guy/guyess .... it's *us*

I think you'll find a fair proportion of the people voting against zero tolerance are very anti drunk drivers. I just don't believe that a zero tolerance approach will have a positive net gain for NZ, and that the effort is better focused on fixing the root causes, ie the drinking culture (see above).

[ceebie13]

Jeez ... I've just seen the poll results where 25 people say it's ok to drink/drive ....


I think you'll get a few retorts from that statement, Grub. As STR says,
you can't generalise that those against zero tolerance are condoning drink driving.

[Street Gerbil]

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to share an outsider's view on the problem at hand. While driving/riding is definitely a privilege, driving/riding safely is a right and a very important one. If drunk drivers were a threat to themselves only, I'd be the first to say - let Darwin sort them out. Those whose metabolism is good enough will survive, the rest will vacate the gene pool. However, as we were painfully reminded, innocent people are quite likely to suffer from drunk drivers irresponsible acts as well. Therefore, I think DUI must become an absolute and total no-no. A good place to start would be a severe punishment for DUI. The best way I can think of is mandatory confiscation of offender's vehicle. In my opinion this kind of tough measure can actually change the perception of DUI in NZ and make it socially unacceptable (i.e. I am not rich enough to afford DUI).
You can start hurling your rotten tomatoes now.

[Grahameeboy]

Sweden is a country where parents have no rights over their children, and taxation consumes 75% of your income directly or indirectly.

Using their zero tolerance policy out of context will just make criminals out of people who use mouthwash.



Get a hair cut you hippie

[Grub]

I think you'll get a few retorts from that statement, Grub. As STR says,
you can't generalise that those against zero tolerance are condoning drink driving.

Oh, I agree. But maybe that is really what is wrong. I asked a senior policeman why the driver in Rotorua will not be charged with Manslaughter. The response is interesting - and frightening!

"Manslaughter is a Jury trial and because at least half of the jurors drink and drive (just like our poll) there has never been a conviction"

My god, how scary is that! So what I am asking is ... perhaps zero tolerance is in fact the ONLY way for drinkers to understand. If you've had one, it is illegal to drive.

[ceebie13]

... it is easy if you want to drink don't ride or drive .. catch a taxi, bus or train, and consider yourself to have had a good time ... and consider others lucky as you didn't put yourself or them in danger.


Yes but I imagine that there's an element of "I can't be arsed to catch a bus or train" when it comes to decision time about drinking and driving.

Or..."I'm not bloody leaving my car outside the pub all night"

Or..."F**k that, the taxi will cost me an arm and a leg!"

Getting people to change their habits is like pulling teeth. However I'm prepared to change my drinking habits in order to have the convenience of my car/bike sitting outside the pub.

[Nasty]

... However I'm prepared to change my drinking habits in order to have the convenience of my car/bike sitting outside the pub.

Agreed its always which habits should we change ... I go to the pub and have a soda and a good time ... and still ride home .. its easy .. oh and I remember everything the next day .. its great :yes:

[James Deuce]

Oh, I agree. But maybe that is really what is wrong. I asked a senior policeman why the driver in Rotorua will not be charged with Manslaughter. The response is interesting - and frightening!

"Manslaughter is a Jury trial and because at least half of the jurors drink and drive (just like our poll) there has never been a conviction"

My god, how scary is that! So what I am asking is ... perhaps zero tolerance is in fact the ONLY way for drinkers to understand. If you've had one, it is illegal to drive.

Nice stab at turning the poll into a typical www.stuff.co.nz poll. Disagreeing with Zero Tolerance does not make one a drunk driver, anymore than disagreeing with discrimination against disabled people makes you disabled.

[MSTRS]

I won't tick an option because the poll is too polarised to have any real meaning.

>>>everything in moderation - including moderation<<<

[Grahameeboy]

Nice stab at turning the poll into a typical www.stuff.co.nz poll. Disagreeing with Zero Tolerance does not make one a drunk driver, anymore than disagreeing with discrimination against disabled people makes you disabled.

No but suggests that some of those anti zero tolerance feel that their rights are being impinged on so have the potential to drink and drive.

Disagreeing with discrimination against disabled people does not make you disabled? Not sure this is a comparable point although you could be disabled so you could say that disagreeing with zero tolerance means you could be a drunk driver so I guess in an inverted way you have prooved a point:yes:

[mstriumph]

Sweden is a country where parents have no rights over their children, and taxation consumes 75% of your income directly or indirectly.

Using their zero tolerance policy out of context will just make criminals out of people who use mouthwash.


1. do you have stats on the number you would blow after using mouthwash

2. no, we'll have to leave that one - i'm just trying to get my head around the impact children's rights in sweden has with the amount of tax paid and how either of those things impacts their drunk driving laws ......................

[Nasty]

Nice stab at turning the poll into a typical www.stuff.co.nz poll. Disagreeing with Zero Tolerance does not make one a drunk driver, anymore than disagreeing with discrimination against disabled people makes you disabled.

You are right .. instead it shows why people do not get tageted for manslaughter charges when they kill someone when drinking and driving ... with half the jury thinking "oh its just an accident .. s/he didn't mean it" when you get in the car you take responsbility for what you do ... or do you?

[Grahameeboy]

1. do you have stats on the number you would blow after using mouthwash

2. no, we'll have to leave that one - i'm just trying to get my head around the impact children's rights in sweden has with the amount of tax paid and how either of those things impacts their drunk driving laws ......................

I think it is 51% of GDP compared with 36% of GDP for NZ which has half the population so we are quite high up there for small nation of drunk drivers.......whoops did I say that?

[Squeak the Rat]

You are right .. instead it shows why people do not get tageted for manslaughter charges when they kill someone when drinking and driving ... with half the jury thinking "oh its just an accident .. s/he didn't mean it"

Nope, it shows one police officers interpretation of why jury's don't convict. How does he know this? I'm sure the jurors don't say "not guilty, hell i drink and drive all the time".

[mstriumph]

I..............the effort is better focused on fixing the root causes, ie the drinking culture (see above).

i don't agree

there is nothing WRONG with drinking and, therefore, nothing that needs fixing per se?

............ it only becomes a problem when the drinker underestimates the effect it's had on him/her and gets into a car or whatever

[Mr. Peanut]

I ride better after a drink, the small loss in inhibition and gain in confidence makes my riding smoother. I wouldn't touch my bike if I were drunk.

I wonder when we're going to start sending animals to jail? Shameless dirty creatures, acting as if laws didn't actually exist... Oh, wait...

[Pwalo]

Alright let's get this straight. Are you guys arguing about zero tolerance for observing the laws as they stand (ok no problem), are you suggesting that there should be a zero percentage for alcohol for testing (rather awkward)?

These are two different issues which seem to be getting a bit tangled in this thread.

[Squeak the Rat]

i don't agree

there is nothing WRONG with drinking and, therefore, nothing that needs fixing per se?

............ it only becomes a problem when the drinker underestimates the effect it's had on him/her and gets into a car or whatever

Any cops who work in South Auckland want to comment on that?

[MikeyG]

Theres some old guy in Porirua who has Either 20something or 50something drunk driving convictions. They just can't stop him driving. If they take his lisence he drives disqualified. If they take his car he buys a new one. What is a zero tolerance approach going to do to stop people like this.

Only if people who have been drinking but are below the limit are significantly represented in accidents should a zero tolerance law be introduced.

We need harsher penalties for those who repetitively drive over the limit though.

As most perfumes/aftershaves, and some mouthwashes and medications have an alcohol base zero tolerance to alcohol would be very hard to enforce.

[mstriumph]

I ride better after a drink

no, you don't


the small loss in inhibition and gain in confidence makes my riding smoother.

no, it doesn't



I wouldn't touch my bike if I were drunk.

hope not

but interesting post ..... thinking you drive [sing, dance, fight, argue, etc etc 'better after a drink' unquote is a common enough dillusion to be parodied in stand up comedy AND YET NO-ONE ACTS ACCORDINGLY

:no:

[mstriumph]

You are right .. instead it shows why people do not get tageted for manslaughter charges when they kill someone when drinking and driving ... with half the jury thinking "oh its just an accident .. s/he didn't mean it" when you get in the car you take responsbility for what you do ... or do you?

absolutely

if it's one good thing that a 0% permitted level would do it would be to deny idiots the 'oh - i was drunk and didn't know what i was doing' defence

[ceebie13]

I ride better after a drink, the small loss in inhibition and gain in confidence makes my riding smoother....

...and what about the gain in your reaction time?

[Grahameeboy]

Theres some old guy in Porirua who has Either 20something or 50something drunk driving convictions. They just can't stop him driving. If they take his lisence he drives disqualified. If they take his car he buys a new one. What is a zero tolerance approach going to do to stop people like this.

Only if people who have been drinking but are below the limit are significantly represented in accidents should a zero tolerance law be introduced.

We need harsher penalties for those who repetitively drive over the limit though.

As most perfumes/aftershaves, and some mouthwashes and medications have an alcohol base zero tolerance to alcohol would be very hard to enforce.

You will always get exceptions like the old guy who smoked roll ups all his life and lived to 92, however, most smokers will not reach the 'life expectancy'

I do not know but I suspect the limit in Sweden allows for the small amounts of alcohol in medicines and how would perfume/aftershaves and mouthwashes get into the blood system so even if this upset a breathyliser, the blood test would be more accurate.

[NotaGoth]

My very first accident I had when I was 18 was drink driving... (red rep me if you want) Went through a silly stage after losing my father.. Drunk myself silly one night.. I had tried to get hold of my old lady for a lift home.. Couldn't get in touch... So I made the choice to drive home....

Went off the road out Whangaroa, into the harbour.. Just about killed myself.... And no one can understand how I walked away.. The possibility that I could have taken someone elses life now scares me half to death... And it was a HUGE wakeup call...

I was only just over the limit but at the end of the day, one court case later.. I was hugely suprised at the "light slap on the wrist" I recieved.. It felt like I wasn't being punished at all by the law... And that I was only being punished by the damage I had done to myself..

I've learned my lesson from it purely because I had an experience where I'm lucky to be here...

If you get pulled over, and end up with a light slap on the wrist at the end of the day you'll usually just keep doing it.. How many drink drivers bite the bullet and take the risk of driving even if they have been caught before..?

Its only because I'm very lucky to have walked away that I for one won't ever do it again..

I think the penalties should be much much higher if you are caught drink driving.. Not just a "sit in the corner and think about what you've done, 1 minute for each year of your life"

My personal opinion is that something much harsher is in order if you are found over the set limit..

[MSTRS]

- i'm just trying to get my head around the impact children's rights in sweden has with the amount of tax paid and how either of those things impacts their drunk driving laws ......................

I think the point there is the amount of State control/intervention that Swede's enjoy - added to how much the Swede-in-the-street is prepared to 'behave'

[Ixion]

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy
Go get plastered to the point that you fail a breath test an hour or so after drinking. then answer your own question

I don't drink.

I don't drink and drive so I can caste stones.


Which brings me back to my point about wowsers and prohibition

The moderate consumption of alcohol is a civilized practice that enriches our lives (Yes, I know that teetotallers won't agree with that. It's true all the ame).

There is no evidence that a glass of wine with dinner renders anyone unfit to drive. The effect is almost certainly MUCh less than driving home tired out after a day at work

Nor is there any validity in the emotive coupling of drinking equals drunk driving. If "drink driving" = "drunken driving" then it is not valid arguement to equate moderate drinking and driving as "drink driving"



[/B]As soon as one drink goes through the lips often there is a change .... either to the attitude or to the abilities ... no matter who you are - or how much you can hold your liquor. Have you ever noticed those who are holding their liquor are slurring.


Cobblers. Preferably ones with cherry brandy.



No but suggests that some of those anti zero tolerance feel that their rights are being impinged on so have the potential to drink and drive.

Yes. You do not drink. You clearly believe that others should be forced to adopt the same teetotalism. I disagree. You ARE attempting to impinge on my rights.



Jeez ... I've just seen the poll results where 25 people say it's ok to drink/drive and only 22 say it isn't!

FFS! What is wrong with everyone? Look at the Rotorua crash thread and see the gnashing of teeth and RIP's over a drunk killing 3 bikers and you STILL support drinking & driving?

Jeez, we have a serious problem ... and those 25 who did not vote for zero tolerance *are* the problem. We have to realise, it's *not* the other guy/guyess .... it's *us*

What a load of emotive baloney. The poll does not say that 25 people (or any people) are "drink drivers". It says that 25 people disagree with you that the demon drink is unacceptable in any circumstances.

See above above trying to forces your own teetoalism on others. The definition of a wowser.

[Nasty]

Nope, it shows one police officers interpretation of why jury's don't convict. How does he know this? I'm sure the jurors don't say "not guilty, hell i drink and drive all the time".

I am sorry bit it doesn't show one officers reasoning .. unless you know my source better than I do. I think you have an interesting point - but your one after research would show I am right.

[ceebie13]

Lemonade please.

coming up madam! Ice and lemon? :-)

[gixermike]

UK breath tests ask you if you have taken anything..e.g medication / breath fresheners. if you have they wait 20mins then do the test. if you're pissed and are over, you're still over. and if it was a lie to try and get off you still fail,
if your telling the truth, then by that time the little affect it's had has worn off. not hard really.

[NotaGoth]

Think about your family that you'll leave behind if you crash and die on the way home.... The pain you'd put them through is gut wrenching... I made it home (in the end) but absolutely broke my mums heart when she just about lost another..

If you've got kids think about how painful it would be for them to lose a parent.. (Its a really hard thing to go through as a child, I know from experience)

How painful it is for someone to lose a partner...

Think about someone else whos life you could turn completely turn upside down... Someone you may or may not know whos life, and those around thems lives that you could turn completely upside down..

All because you wouldn't find a sober driver, take a taxi, stop at your limit, or simply.... Turn down a few drinks...

Its a pretty selfish act.. And most don't think of the affect it has on those around you..

Stick with the limit.. But enforce heftier penalties on those who are found over..

[MSTRS]

UK breath tests ask you if you have taken anything..e.g medication / breath fresheners. if you have they wait 20mins then do the test. if you're pissed and are over, you're still over. and if it was a lie to try and get off you still fail,
if your telling the truth, then by that time the little affect it's had has worn off. not hard really.

No not hard...but damned inconvenient for the innocent. Would you be happy sitting at the roadside for 20mins+ cos you'd just swigged a teaspoon of cough syrup??

[Grahameeboy]

UK breath tests ask you if you have taken anything..e.g medication / breath fresheners. if you have they wait 20mins then do the test. if you're pissed and are over, you're still over. and if it was a lie to try and get off you still fail,
if your telling the truth, then by that time the little affect it's had has worn off. not hard really.

I know but this is NZ mate........lots of too hard baskets

[scumdog]

UK breath tests ask you if you have taken anything..e.g medication / breath fresheners. if you have they wait 20mins then do the test. if you're pissed and are over, you're still over. and if it was a lie to try and get off you still fail,
if your telling the truth, then by that time the little affect it's had has worn off. not hard really.

Shut up you fool - you're spoiling a perfectly good urban myth.....

To the guy that posted "Got done for having vinegar on his breath" mwahaha...next thing you'll have me believing a story about guys using scent bottles with ether in them to incapacitate unsuspecting women........:whistle: :killingme

[scumdog]

No not hard...but damned inconvenient for the innocent. Would you be happy sitting at the roadside for 20mins+ cos you'd just swigged a teaspoon of cough syrup??

I'll post it the first time I actually see THAT happening.:yes:

[Ixion]

Not saying that. Define moderate which to me would mean you would be over the limit or close to limit so still does not say that because you are close to the limit that you are safe........remember the speed limit is a maximum determined by the road conditions so if it is snowing for eg the maximum speed limit is too high and you should drive slower, so analogy same applies to drinking and driving.


I would have thought it obvious that moderate would NOT put anyone over the (adult) limit. One standard drink per hour will (for most adults) not even register on the breathmeter thingy, it is almost fully matabolised by then. The meters have a "minimum" and the residual falls below that.

To get to the limit you have to drink about 6 drinks within the hour (depends on body mass, sex, if taken with food etc).

So , say , in the course of an evening , 24 bottles of beer. Maybe a couple of bottles of spirits.

And most DRUNK drivers have 2 3 or 4 times the limit. Work it out. We are talking bottles of spirits, cases of beer . Not a glass of wine with dinner.

[Macktheknife]

Jeez ... I've just seen the poll results where 25 people say it's ok to drink/drive and only 22 say it isn't!
FFS! What is wrong with everyone? Look at the Rotorua crash thread and see the gnashing of teeth and RIP's over a drunk killing 3 bikers and you STILL support drinking & driving?
Jeez, we have a serious problem ... and those 25 who did not vote for zero tolerance *are* the problem. We have to realise, it's *not* the other guy/guyess .... it's *us*
Errrmmmm...
I think you have misunderstood the poll.
I do not believe that anyone here has said it's ok to drive drunk. The poll illustrates people's feelings of the efficacy of a zero tolerance legislation.

[gixermike]

Shut up you fool - you're spoiling a perfectly good urban myth.....

To the guy that posted "Got done for having vinegar on his breath" mwahaha...next thing you'll have me believing a story about guys using scent bottles with ether in them to incapacitate unsuspecting women........:whistle: :killingme

must remember to not let the truth get in the way of a good story...sorry "better work story"....bit like 110kph and we're all gonna die eh?...

if you get stopped actually while taking the cough syrup it takes what 1 minute to stop you, 5 minutes to get out the car, check your license / rego etc give you a bollocking / ask you what you've been taking....why you were doing it behind the wheel....so it's only like 14 minutes to wait, and thats if they stopped you the exact moment you took it.....

Also as scummy says it has no effect on the modern machines apparently, but they do the wait just to ensure that it's no defense....so your rightly screwed anyway.

I'm quite happy to wait if it means drunks don't have a defense..I wait 20mins to have less chance of being killed by a drunk.....cheap trade off.

[NotaGoth]

Not a glass of wine with dinner.

One coruba RTD, and one glass of wine... I'd had a meal.. This was at about 9pm.. 3am in the morning I was still just over..

Depends on the person really doesn't it..

A glass of wine with dinner.. For one very small built female could easily put them over the limit..

Everyones body reacts differently to what you put in it..

[Finn]

The moderate consumption of alcohol is a civilized practice that enriches our lives

You've never been to one of Dovers parties I take it?

[Hitcher]

One at least hopes that the public gets some say if any changes are mooted by the Gummint, rather than just having yet another law rammed through "for our own good".

[Kinje]

I tend to agree with the view that some low level is OK, problems seem to be seen when a driver is well over the legal limit. However, I would like to see some objective evidence from NZ crash data that shows no alcohol, alcohol below limit, and alcohol over limit crash rates to make a better decision.

Perhaps with some analysis of the data, an appropriate alcohol level could be found that reflects when a driver becomes at increased risk. This may be what our current level is? or some other value? or zero?

The other common idea I see here is repeat offenders. This suggests that our current penalties are not effective deterrents. I would agree with this, often hearing or reading about multiple convictions. If society is seeing drunk driving as more socially unacceptable, the penalties imposed need to reflect this.

My current position is no to zero tolerance, but I would welcome harsher penalties, that become harder and harder for multiple offences.

[Grub]

Theres some old guy in Porirua who has Either 20something or 50something drunk driving convictions. They just can't stop him driving. If they take his lisence he drives disqualified. If they take his car he buys a new one. What is a zero tolerance approach going to do to stop people like this.

It is going to put him in jail ... where he can't drive, can't buy another car and can't kill anyone else on the road. Oh that's right .... he can't get a drink either!

[ceebie13]

...To the guy that posted "Got done for having vinegar on his breath" mwahaha...next thing you'll have me believing a story about guys using scent bottles with ether in them to incapacitate unsuspecting women........:whistle: :killingme

well, Scummie, it was true!! Probably about ten years old...but true nontheless... there was quite a furore about it in the press at the time.

[Bass]

To get to the limit you have to drink about 6 drinks within the hour (depends on body mass, sex, if taken with food etc).

So , say , in the course of an evening , 24 bottles of beer. Maybe a couple of bottles of spirits.

And most DRUNK drivers have 2 3 or 4 times the limit. Work it out. We are talking bottles of spirits, cases of beer . Not a glass of wine with dinner.

I don't think it works like that. I believe your approximation is pretty right for getting to the limit but your alcohol metabolising rate is constant - so it's only about one more drink per hour to hold you there. So 12 drinks in an evening will hold you at twice the limit. 2 bottles of spirits in an evening is nudging death territory.

[Grahameeboy]

I would have thought it obvious that moderate would NOT put anyone over the (adult) limit. One standard drink per hour will (for most adults) not even register on the breathmeter thingy, it is almost fully matabolised by then. The meters have a "minimum" and the residual falls below that.

But is it obvious.

To get to the limit you have to drink about 6 drinks within the hour (depends on body mass, sex, if taken with food etc).

Depends on whether you have 1 beer (4.5%), 1 glass of wine (12.5%) or 1 glass of spirit (41%) so just 1 whisky could put you close to or over the limit even though you had 1 drink - moderate.

I would say that if you had 2 glasses of wine in an hour which could be construed as 'moderate; you could be over the limit after an hour.
So , say , in the course of an evening , 24 bottles of beer. Maybe a couple of bottles of spirits.

And most DRUNK drivers have 2 3 or 4 times the limit. Work it out. We are talking bottles of spirits, cases of beer . Not a glass of wine with dinner.

You are ill informed. 2 pints would put you close to or over the limit.

......................................

[ceebie13]

...depends on body mass, sex, if taken with food etc.

Woopdedoo!!....sex taken with food!! Now you're talkin! :shutup:

[more_fasterer]

My current position is no to zero tolerance, but I would welcome harsher penalties, that become harder and harder for multiple offences.

I agree with that entirely.


However, we cannot overlook the advantages of implementing a zero-tolerance stance. This stance can be used to make criminals out of the majority of law-abiding citizens. For examples of how this can work, please refer to:
(1) Speed cameras taking happy snaps of people travelling at 110km/h on a dry, well-maintained, straight stretch of open road, or
(2) Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.

The above stance can be effectively used to tax the working class more heavily - e.g. implement a $400 fine for each offence instead of a conviction, and VOILA! Uncle Helen's next pet art project will have all of the funding it needs!

[Ixion]

You are ill informed. 2 pints would put you close to or over the limit.

Humbug. Two pints, sculled, might put you over the limit if measured immediately. Two pints over the course of an hour will register on the meter but be well within the adult limit (not so sure about the youth limit).

Two pints over two hours won't even register for most people.

Verified personally with the assistance of various booze buses over the years. And I've never been done for over the limit.

(I'm assuming two pints of Speights. or weasel piss if you don't drink real beer. Two pints of spirits is obviously another matter.)

And a glass of beer , a glass of wine, and a glass of spirits , all have about the same effect as far as alcohol goes. the reason, obviously , being that the "glass" has a different amount of alcohol in each case. If someone drank in one go a schooner of neat spirits, obviously they'd be over the limit. But no sensible person would. That's not moderate drinking.

And I do know people who can drink a bottle of spirits every few hours all night long.

Read the newspaper accounts of people convicted of DUI. Sometimes they quote what the person drank. You'll find bottles of spirits, dozens of beer. Not a glass of wine.

[ceebie13]

...I'm assuming two pints of Speights, or weasel piss if you don't drink real beer.

Indeed, cos we all know that drinking Speights is like making love in a punt... fuckin' close to water!!

[Mr. Peanut]

no, you don't
no, it doesn't
hope not
but interesting post ..... thinking you drive [sing, dance, fight, argue, etc etc 'better after a drink' unquote is a common enough dillusion to be parodied in stand up comedy AND YET NO-ONE ACTS ACCORDINGLY

:no:


...and what about the gain in your reaction time?

By relaxing and riding smoother, I'm allowing the bike to work better. Thus increasing my traction.

The small loss in reaction time is offset by this, and small enough to cause little difference. Besides, I like to think I leave myself enough space to keep out of harms way.

I'm not talking about being intoxicated, just calming the nerves and allowing the mind to focus on the ride.

[bell]

The main reason for NZs death toll is driver attitude. Driving is a right, not a privilege, other people sharing the road are annoying irritants, and any situation requiring actual driver skill will probably result in a fatality. Then there is the main reason that people die. Ego combined with Arrogance.

Got it in 1 Jim.

IMHO attitude is one of the most important ingredients in the mix as to what makes a driver/rider worthy of getting their licence (or getting it back, as the case may be).

I posted this some time ago in another thread. It raises some valid points.

From twowheels magazine July 06. "John McRoberts is the Assistant Commissioner, Traffic & Operations for the Western Australia Police. He also rides a Hayabusa. He's not one of them, he's one of us. So pay attention."

Attitude: the silent killer

"It was 2am when the patrol car parked in the driveway of a suburban family home. Inside the occupants were fast asleep, totally unaware of the shock they would soon experience. As they crossed the well manicured lawn, the police officers knew there would be tears and disbelief as they explained what had happened and asked who would formally identify the body now temporarily entombed in the city mortuary.

That scenario occurs almost daily somewhere in Australia and all too often involves a motorcycle. Based on the myriad material in magazines, newspapers and, more recently, the internet, one could be fooled into believing some within the motorcycling fraternity view police as the enemy. Let me assure you nothing could be further from the truth. After some 27 years in my profession, I've seen more death and destruction than I care to remember and our efforts focus purely on reducing road trauma and the consequences.

Police are not the sole custodians of the road safety agenda. Each and every one of us has a part to play if we are to achieve a 40 percent reduction in the number of fatalities per 100,000 population by 2010 (The National Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010, Australian Transport Council, Canberra). There is no doubt that is a hard task, but an achievable one if we all commit to it. On the bright side, we've come a long way when you consider the rate is now 8 per 100,000 compared to 30 per 100,000 in 1997.

For some time now, much emphasis has been placed on fatigue, speed, drink driving and seatbelt use as the causal factors of most serious injury and fatal road crashes. There is good reason for that because we know, more often than not, one or more of those factors led to the death or serious injury of someone's friend, relative or loved one. But I believe attitude is the silent killer in many crashes and I have the evidence to prove it.

In Western Australia last year 83 motorcyclists were killed or seriously injured compared with 66 in 2004, representing a 25.8 percent increase. That is an alarming statistic: 22 motorcyclists (including 2 pillion passengers) are no longer with us and the cost to the community is great. Regrettably, I suspect this trend will continue unless some motorcyclists change their attitude.

No doubt riders and motorcycle lobby groups will be quick to point the finger at car drivers. Excuse the pun, but that's a cop out and here's why...Of 20 fatal crashes in WA last year, nine involved single motorcycles with speed identified as the primary cause. Of the remainder, seven were attributed to the car driver. There is no doubt riding fast is a buzz, but it needs to be balanced with road and environmental factors, vehicle condition and, most importantly, the skill and attitude of the rider. For the most part we ride mechanically sound bikes on good roads in ideal weather conditions, which suggests the rider is to blame in many crashes. Simply put - attitude played a part and some riders died as a result.

Still in doubt? Just over 12 months ago a man went to his brothers funeral followed by the traditional wake and, no doubt, a few drinks to say farewell. Later the same night he convinced a companion to join him for a 'quick blast'. With the passenger wearing only a bicycle helmet, both left the family gathering and were never seen again. The bike left the roadway at high speed, hit a tree stump and the rest is history. Two lives lost and one can only imagine the grief for those left behind. Sure, speed and alcohol played their part, but what does it say about attitude?

Worse still is the case of a rider stopped by police doing 101km/h in a 60 km/h zone. The exchange with police over, the 20-year-old took off. Tragically, four minutes and a few kilometres later, he ignored a red traffic light, collided with a 4WD and was killed instantly. The harsh but stark reality is that this man's death need not have occurred but for attitude. Crash investigators concluded that speed and rider error were to blame and that's exactly why police enforce speed limits - to reduce road trauma by changing driver behaviour and attitude.

Speed detection devices are not the most popular road safety equipment west of the Nullarbor and I suspect a similar attitude prevails on the other side of the continent. However, they are a necessary tool in our quest to lower the road toll. Why? Because speed, or should I say attitude, kills.

Fortunately, not all riders who speed will crash. No doubt many have the skill to gracefully manoeuvre their machines down the highway without incident providing all goes well. But what happens when things go wrong? We recently detected a motorcycle travelling at 243 km/h on a metropolitan arterial road (90 km/h zone). Luckily, no one was hurt, but the stopping distance at that speed is more than 300 metres. There is no doubt that a collision at or near that velocity would almost certainly result in death for the rider, but there are potentially fatal consequences for other road users and to ignore that fact demonstrates a serious lack of judgement and a poor attitude.

Riding brings enormous pleasure to thousands of Australians every week, including me. In my humble opinion it's hard to find a better way to forget the office woes, take in the wonderful sights Australia has to offer and enjoy the 'esprit de corps' with fellow bikers. That is a right we all have and one we should enjoy whenever possible, providing of course we do so responsibly. For those who do, there is much fun to be had. For those who don't, there is a possibility it will be your driveway the patrol car is parked in as a police officer prepares to deliver the worst news possible.

So, my friends, next time you saddle up and twist the wrist, take a moment to think of Winston Churchill who said, "Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference". It might just keep you alive!"

[spudchucka]

well, Scummie, it was true!! Probably about ten years old...but true nontheless... there was quite a furore about it in the press at the time.

The passive sniffer test can give a fail on substances other than alcohol. The roadside breath screening test and the evidential test won't. So, nobody has been charged with drink driving when they only had vinegar on their breath, its simply not possible. They could however be required to undergo a breath screen test after giving a failed passive test but it wouldn't go any further than that.

[SPman]

if you get stopped actually while taking the cough syrup it takes what 1 minute to stop you, 5 minutes to get out the car, Mate, if it takes you 5mins to get out of the car, I would assume you're already gonna fail.........


Doesn't Sweden, (along with the other Scandinavian countries), have one of the highest alcoholism rates in the world......

[James Deuce]

Doesn't Sweden, (along with the other Scandinavian countries), have one of the highest alcoholism rates in the world......

It's dark all the time, then light all the time, and all the pretty girls get married to people who live in countries with a proper light/dark cycle.

I'd drink too.

[Maha]

Quite frankly I'm tired of the lowest common denominator setting the standard by which all others are judged. It is starting to impact quite seriously on general human development.


2nd post in this thread and thats all i need to read, agree 100% with ya Jim....

[Edbear]

Drunks will do what they want without worrying how it affects other people


Absolutely correct! How many times is it reported that it was the "umpteenth time" the drunk driver was stopped/ fined/ disqualified, etc.?

[KoroJ]

We already live in one of the most over-regulated countries and zero tolerance won't stop the problem.

Bit like smacking kids, (sorry...child abuse), it needs education not legislation.

Personally, I have set myself a one drink limit when riding but I don't have a problem having a few drinks when driving and judging by most of the rides I've been on, I think most bike riders are the same and treat alcohol with more respect than normal.

[rwh]

See where Sweden are on the attached graph.....seems to make a case.

Does it? Perhaps it would mean something if the y axis was actually labelled with something ...

Richard

[mstriumph]

Got it in 1 Jim.

...............................
Speed detection devices are not the most popular road safety equipment west of the Nullarbor and I suspect a similar attitude prevails on the other side of the continent. However, they are a necessary tool in our quest to lower the road toll. Why? Because speed, or should I say attitude, kills.

Fortunately, not all riders who speed will crash. No doubt many have the skill to gracefully manoeuvre their machines down the highway without incident providing all goes well. But what happens when things go wrong? We recently detected a motorcycle travelling at 243 km/h on a metropolitan arterial road (90 km/h zone). Luckily, no one was hurt, but the stopping distance at that speed is more than 300 metres. There is no doubt that a collision at or near that velocity would almost certainly result in death for the rider, but there are potentially fatal consequences for other road users and to ignore that fact demonstrates a serious lack of judgement and a poor attitude.

...............

talking about speed

whoops ---- freudian slip - i meant 'attitude'

no, it's really a piece about attitude - honest!

--- but let's just slip a justification for speed cameras in here.........

i live in west australia and no, bell, he is NOT one of us
- HE'S just a piss-poor excuse for a lame-brained, grovelling public servant [ha - THAT's a laff!] THAT JUST HAPPENS TO OWN A MOTORCYCLE and, no matter how he tries to dress it up is mindlessly and slavishly following the party line that it MUST be speed that's mostly responsible, right? ..

.. because by pinning the blame on 'speed'

1. it saves us having to THINK about the thousand and one OTHER contributory causes there may have been and which, heaven forfend, we may actually have to DO something about if we acknowledge and

2. it enables us, with a smug, self-satisfied smile on our parlimentary-gourmet-public-funded-diningroom-stuffed fat faces, to gleefully justify continuing with that least discriminating and most cost-effective method of revenue-raising THE SPEED CAMERA

allow a jumped-up, weak-kneed little wannabe like that to claim any form of kinship with ME????? - i'd rather perform an obscene sexual act on a diseased warthog to the strains of 'rule britannia' sung by the paramilitary wing of the luton girls' choir

BASTARD!!! :Punk:

[avgas]

Cant educate people not to drink, only shunning works.
Look at smoking in NZ.

[Toaster]

Having a zero tolerance won't stop the people who just don't care. They don't care under the current system and they wouldn't care under a zero tolerance system either.

Too true. I remember the scores of recidivist drink drivers, usually disqualified that always came up again and again. Selfish would be one way to describe their ambivilent attitudes.

[Toaster]

Absolutely correct! How many times is it reported that it was the "umpteenth time" the drunk driver was stopped/ fined/ disqualified, etc.?

Absolutely true. And they would argue the toss, be difficult during the process and fight it in court. Gutless scum. I remember not long before I left the job catching the same idiot in the space of a few hours. :sick:

[bell]

i live in west australia and no, bell, he is NOT one of us
- HE'S just a piss-poor excuse for a lame-brained, grovelling public servant [ha - THAT's a laff!] THAT JUST HAPPENS TO OWN A MOTORCYCLE and, no matter how he tries to dress it up is mindlessly and slavishly following the party line that it MUST be speed that's mostly responsible, right? ..

Ahh, I see. Cheers for the enlightenment.

[Hitcher]

it needs education not legislation.

I am so over "social marketing" telling me what I should and shouldn't do. A challenge for the "educators" is that the group that they are trying to "educate" is basically the same group -- overweight smokers with domestic violence issues who don't know when enough is enough. In other words, lower socio-economic groups who don't read papers, watch free-to-air television or read magazines.

New Zealand is increasingly becoming a nation of haves and have-nots. And the latter group is becoming increasingly isolated and hard to reach through "traditional" channels. There will be political consequences at some stage in the the not-too-distant future, but I'm not prepared to predict what these may be, other than to state that I believe they will be significant.

[Grahameeboy]

Mate, if it takes you 5mins to get out of the car, I would assume you're already gonna fail.........


Doesn't Sweden, (along with the other Scandinavian countries), have one of the highest alcoholism rates in the world......

Don't know but it doesn't fit with Ixion's logic.

[Quartermile]

Been said a lot but the ones who do it to the extremes just don't care and the law change wont stop them, Just like incidents like the kahui twins aren't going to be stopped by some pissy anti-smacking law, yea yea I know different issue.

Anyway drinking irresponsibly is bad and shouldn't be encouraged, shut up Mike and Bungy

[Chaos83]

Zero tolerance IS an effective solution! It solves the problem of drunk drivers because those who drive drunk and disregard the law are going to.... drive drunk and disregard the law. Oh, did someone think they were going to stop? ahahaha

Zero tolerance. It only takes a few anally PC to observe a minority and punish the majority. Zero tolerance = Anally PC = doesn't solve the problem.

__________________
<br><table bgcolor="white" width="100%"><tr><td><center><img src="http://kias.chaos83.googlepages.com/kiasbikes.gif"/></center></td></tr></table>

[Big Dog]

Totally support heavier penalties for drink drivers.
However I think there is a difference between having the self control to stop at one and drinking till you can barely stand before you get behind the wheel.
I would not give up my right to have a beer with dinner or with freinds after a ride just so they could lock up people who currently would not be too drunk to drive. This definately comes under the punish the innocent to get the guilty category.

[Grahameeboy]

Totally support heavier penalties for drink drivers.
However I think there is a difference between having the self control to stop at one and drinking till you can barely stand before you get behind the wheel.
I would not give up my right to have a beer with dinner or with freinds after a ride just so they could lock up people who currently would not be too drunk to drive. This definately comes under the punish the innocent to get the guilty category.

Surely it is about joint responsibility. We all agree that drinking and driving is a no no, however, at the same time we do not support zero tolerance because it affects our right to have a beer and talk about being punished to get the guilty......so alcohol wins again, however, is is not worth it to try and reduce the problem so that innocent people do not become victims.

We always talk about how it is the minority that affect the majority and by ignoring the idea of zero tolerance we are allowing the minority to do just that when surely it is the majority who should have the say over the minority....mind you, I suspect we would make Greece look like teetotolers so maybe the problem is that the minority is a bit more than that?

I notice a few names on the 'No' side that I see have a few beers during a ride............

[Edbear]

Surely it is about joint responsibility. We all agree that drinking and driving is a no no, however, at the same time we do not support zero tolerance because it affects our right to have a beer and talk about being punished to get the guilty......

I notice a few names on the 'No' side that I see have a few beers during a ride............


Good point! The guilty, are those who drive/ride over the legal limit. If the limit is set for clearly supported medical reasons and for the safety of road users, how can anyone claim they are innocent if they are caught over the limit? If one drinks and drives/rides over the legal limit and are therefore placing themselves and other road users at risk, they deserve the full weight of the law and I have no sympathy.

The issue is two-fold, how to enforce the existing laws more effectively and how to stop racidivist offenders who have no regard for laws at all.

[What?]

Having a zero tolerance won't stop the people who just don't care. They don't care under the current system and they wouldn't care under a zero tolerance system either.

Egg bloody zacktly!

[Grahameeboy]

Having a zero tolerance won't stop the people who just don't care. They don't care under the current system and they wouldn't care under a zero tolerance system either.

How do you know. Do you have evidence? Until we try we don't know but what we do know is that the current system doesn't work so what harm will be done if we try a zero tolerance approach.

Maybe some (not all I admit) may start to care when they know there is a zero tolerance and over time it may change the culture towards alcohol.

Some have ignored the clear message from the Swedes....Ixion said that according to the AA a zero tolerance would not help...then someone said that the Swedes have a high rate of alcoholics yet they still top the charts with a zero tolerance system which shows it does work despite alcoholics.

[scumdog]

How do you know. Do you have evidence? Until we try we don't know but what we do know is that the current system doesn't work so what harm will be done if we try a zero tolerance approach.

Maybe some (not all I admit) may start to care when they know there is a zero tolerance and over time it may change the culture towards alcohol.

When some old soak says "Ah, it's worth the risk, if you get caught only every six or eight years and spread the costs and fines over that length of time it's bugger all and I can live with being disqualified, I even drive at times" - I consider THAT is evidence that the applied penalties are not enough to scare people out of driving drunk.

And the people who ignore the present level shows that they won't care a hoot about the idea of zero tolerance. (just like a certain amount don't care about a WOF, wearing seatbelts, having a licence, paying off their HP, paying rent, having a firearms licence yadda yadda yadda..........The ones that would heed the zero tolerance are very likely the ones heeding the present level imho.

[Finn]

Some have ignored the clear message from the Swedes....Ixion said that according to the AA a zero tolerance would not help...then someone said that the Swedes have a high rate of alcoholics yet they still top the charts with a zero tolerance system which shows it does work despite alcoholics.

That's because they have a very efficient public transport system. Cars are very expensive so the poor people can't buy them, get depressed and turn to alcohol. No problem on the underground. You can't compare Sweden to NZ. Swedes are more educated, intelligent and responsible. Take my lady for example, if she had even a drop, she would never drive, where as me.... weeeeeeeeeeee.

Laws stop nothing Fluffy.

[KoroJ]

And the people who ignore the present level shows that they won't care a hoot about the idea of zero tolerance. (just like a certain amount don't care about a WOF, wearing seatbelts, having a licence, paying off their HP, paying rent, having a firearms licence yadda yadda yadda..........The ones that would heed the zero tolerance are very likely the ones heeding the present level imho.

Hear, hear!!

A very good friend's wife was killed on a StepThru in Chch by a drunk who was driving disqualified and had been picked-up driving, days before.

This wouldn't be an isolated incident, zero tolerance was never going to stop this guy. We're not alowed to castrate them so we live with it as best we can.

Don't penalise me for pricks like that!!

[Grahameeboy]

When some old soak says "Ah, it's worth the risk, if you get caught only every six or eight years and spread the costs and fines over that length of time it's bugger all and I can live with being disqualified, I even drive at times" - I consider THAT is evidence that the applied penalties are not enough to scare people out of driving drunk.

And the people who ignore the present level shows that they won't care a hoot about the idea of zero tolerance. (just like a certain amount don't care about a WOF, wearing seatbelts, having a licence, paying off their HP, paying rent, having a firearms licence yadda yadda yadda..........The ones that would heed the zero tolerance are very likely the ones heeding the present level imho.

Can't we at least try.......


Hear, hear!!

A very good friend's wife was killed on a StepThru in Chch by a drunk who was driving disqualified and had been picked-up driving, days before.

This wouldn't be an isolated incident, zero tolerance was never going to stop this guy. We're not alowed to castrate them so we live with it as best we can.

Don't penalise me for pricks like that!!

I do not disagree, however, what is wrong with trying. If what SD says and highre fines will not deter then surely it is worth trying........what have we got to lose.

And your rights are not being penalised. You can still have a drink but cannot drive. Options are a sober driver with turns taken.


As long as a vehicle is in motion speed will always be considered 'a factor'.

I would, however, be a bit miffed if I couldn't have a glass of wine the next time I took my missus out for dinner, so where do you draw the line? You'll never save people from themselves and protecting the innocent is also nigh on impossible.

I understand, however, I just think we have to look at the bigger picture rather than just ourselves because a driver who just has 1 glass of wine could lose control, hit and kill someone you know......and how do we know that for that split moment it took, that that 1 glass of wine did not contribute.

[Squeak the Rat]

Drink driving can kill.

So can losing control of your vehicle at speed.

I call for a zero tolerance to any speed in a car. We need to reduce the speed culture. It works well in the CAR (Central Republic of Africa), there are hardly any road deaths.

You can drive your car home, but then it must remain at 0kph otherwise you will go to jail.

[Grahameeboy]

Drink driving can kill.

So can losing control of your vehicle at speed.

I call for a zero tolerance to any speed in a car. We need to reduce the speed culture.

You can drive your car home, but then it must remain at 0kph otherwise you will go to jail.

Silly Rat................but it is not always the speed that is the proximate cause, it is about driving attitude.

UK studies put speed 3rd or so on list of causes.

With drink it is the proximate cause because it reduces our responsibility so we cannot make sensible decisions and think we can do anything.

[Squeak the Rat]

With drink it is the proximate cause because it reduces our responsibility so we cannot make sensible decisions and think we can do anything.

So how is a zero limit going to stop these drunk people from driving home from the party? :scratch:

[Grahameeboy]

That's because they have a very efficient public transport system. Cars are very expensive so the poor people can't buy them, get depressed and turn to alcohol. No problem on the underground. You can't compare Sweden to NZ. Swedes are more educated, intelligent and responsible. Take my lady for example, if she had even a drop, she would never drive, where as me.... weeeeeeeeeeee.

Laws stop nothing Fluffy.

There are 505 vehicles per 1000 people in Sweden compared with around 700 vehicles per 1,000 people in NZ.

However, the age limit for driving a car (Category B) is 18 in Sweden and 15 in NZ so this would affect vehicle numbers so still looks like Sweden has something to offer....other than a better transport system.

So she is intelligent etc.....left yourself open there but after my diesel fun I have refrained.


So how is a zero limit going to stop these drunk people from driving home from the party? :scratch:

Sober driver
Taxi...split 4 ways is not expensive.
Dial a Driver
Responsible people..........

Why we do we have this too hard basket mentality.

[avgas]

Hang on a minute here.
"What is zero tolerance mean?"
Do we cut off a hand? Shoot them?
Or just do something pathetic like lock them up or take their licence off them.
I would like it if people lost something everytime they did bad things.
Theft = finger
Rape = *well DUH!
Assault = limb
Murder = Head
Drunk Driving = Eye? Fingers on 1 hand? Oh i know.....AN ASS CHEEK!!!!

[Finn]

There are 505 vehicles per 1000 people in Sweden compared with around 700 vehicles per 1,000 people in NZ.

However, the age limit for driving a car (Category B) is 18 in Sweden and 15 in NZ so this would affect vehicle numbers so still looks like Sweden has something to offer....other than a better transport system.

So she is intelligent etc.....left yourself open there but after my diesel fun I have refrained.

Yes but Fluffy, you can't compare vehicles per 1000 people. The real figure is K's traveled. While many people have cars in Sweden, a majority still use public transport for work and getting pissed.

It's got nothing to do with laws in Sweden. They are just responsible people... or they were until they opened the flood gate to Africa but now they have a smart right winger as a PM, things will get better.

[Grahameeboy]

You mean like drunk driving is like cutting your nose off to spit your face!!

But I thought Kiwi's struggled to drive further than 30 minutes.

Well we do have taxi's, dial a driver etc to accomodate so it's not like we have no options to help us get pissed.

Now where is that basket........I know I put it somewhere

[peasea]

UK studies put speed 3rd or so on list of causes.




As long as a vehicle is in motion speed will always be considered 'a factor'.

Speed needs to be adjusted for the conditions and adding alcohol to the driving/riding equation is playing with fire; it reduces our ability to make sensible decisions, often required in a split second. I've been DIC'd twice (many years ago) with BAL's just over the limit, I thought I was sweet but it doesn't take that much to be 'legally' too drunk to drive and results vary according to the size and metabolism of the person, food intake etc. This is a difficult area; I'm partial to a pint or two when out for a casual ride or on a poker run for example, but in a large group, as the day progresses, I see riders chucking down the grog so I tend to play tail-end Charlie and try to find as much road for myself as I can. Bar-hopping seems to be a part of biker culture for some reason, most likely the 'social' scene, but if you fill your glass with ginger beer nobody knows the difference. Also, I'm meeting more and more bikers who don't drink at all.

Zero tolerance? We've attended the last three Beach Hops at Whangamata. Last year it was a bit damp, the year before the event got hijacked by drunken dickheads fighting, smashing glass and threatening Hop participants left, right and centre. This year the zero tolerance (read high police presence and a total liquor ban) led to a much more orderly event but just as much (if not more) fun. It looked to as if zero tolerance worked there and it's not a small event.

I would, however, be a bit miffed if I couldn't have a glass of wine the next time I took my missus out for dinner, so where do you draw the line? You'll never save people from themselves and protecting the innocent is also nigh on impossible.



Dial a Driver



They are the folk who put my buddy's SV5000 into a tree sideways, destroyed the car and left him with a limp after busting his pelvis.

No thanks.

[Grahameeboy]

[QUOTE=Grahameeboy;1036031]
Dial a Driver


They are the folk who put my buddy's SV5000 into a tree sideways, destroyed the car and left him with a limp after busting his pelvis.

No thanks.

There you go, it doesn't pay to drink does it?

[KoroJ]

And your rights are not being penalised. You can still have a drink but cannot drive.

Pass that man a Tui, someone.

Why don't we make it compulsory for everyone to become Muslims. Then none of us can drink and your problem will be solved.

Zero tolerance (along with anti-smacking) is 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut'

[Ixion]

I do not disagree, however, what is wrong with trying. If what SD says and highre fines will not deter then surely it is worth trying........what have we got to lose.

And your rights are not being penalised. You can still have a drink but cannot drive. Options are a sober driver with turns taken.

Right. And the sober driver is going to drive everyone to work for the next four days. And drive everyone else to wherever they need to go. Because it will be four days before the alcohol level reaches zero. It reaches a very low level quickly, but the last bit takes a long time.That sober driver's going to be a busy man isn't he. Moreover, once the wowsers have zero tolerence for drivers , how long before they demand zero tolerence for passengers too. Because having a drunken passenger in the car can't be safe, can it? Zero tolerance isn't about the road toll, it's about prohibition by stealth.

[Finn]

I understand, however, I just think we have to look at the bigger picture rather than just ourselves because a driver who just has 1 glass of wine could lose control, hit and kill someone you know......and how do we know that for that split moment it took, that that 1 glass of wine did not contribute.

More people are murdered by religion each year than by drinking and driving.

Stop trying to save the world Fluffy. It's a lost cause.

[Paul in NZ]

FFS - a glass of wine MIGHT contribute but so could a thousand other things such as dodgy tyres, stuffed shocks or a failure to account for a wet road.

IF you hurt someone AND you are over the limit then the penalties should be doubled and maybe manslaughter should become murder...

If you are caught over the limit and have committed no other crime (speeding etc) you should be punished but not in the extreme. Multiple offences = serious consequences BUT the fact is some people don't give a shit what you say or the law says etc and will always be dickheads - I don't see why I should pay the price for their utter lack of regard.

Having said that - I believe alcohol bans at major events are a good idea. They seem to work.

[Finn]

Having said that - I believe alcohol bans at major events are a good idea.

Like a beer festival?

[peasea]

[QUOTE=peasea;1036044]

There you go, it doesn't pay to drink does it?

Don't be a smart arse, he thought he was doing the right thing by calling those ninnies. He probably wouldn't have that limp and he might still have his car if he'd driven home, not that I'd say that's very clever.

We have two cars and if we go to a party we take the jappa and just leave it there, taking a cab home. Who cares if some dork pinches your shopping trolley? We also occasionally party with friends who can supply a bed for the night. Simple really, but as SD said earlier, the people you're trying to get at aren't really the problem are they?

[Grahameeboy]

Pass that man a Tui, someone.

Why don't we make it compulsory for everyone to become Muslims. Then none of us can drink and your problem will be solved.

Zero tolerance (along with anti-smacking) is 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut'

Sometimes we need a sledgehammer...............


Right. And the sober driver is going to drive everyone to work for the next four days. And drive everyone else to wherever they need to go. Because it will be four days before the alcohol level reaches zero. It reaches a very low level quickly, but the last bit takes a long time.That sober driver's going to be a busy man isn't he. Moreover, once the wowsers have zero tolerence for drivers , how long before they demand zero tolerence for passengers too. Because having a drunken passenger in the car can't be safe, can it? Zero tolerance isn't about the road toll, it's about prohibition by stealth.

Well it would reduce traffic congestion so 2 for the price of 1..........




Don't be a smart arse, he thought he was doing the right thing by calling those ninnies. He probably wouldn't have that limp and he might still have his car if he'd driven home, not that I'd say that's very clever.

We have two cars and if we go to a party we take the jappa and just leave it there, taking a cab home. Who cares if some dork pinches your shopping trolley? We also occasionally party with friends who can supply a bed for the night. Simple really, but as SD said earlier, the people you're trying to get at aren't really the problem are they?

I have been told I have a smart arse........but serious, apologies....

[peasea]

More people are murdered by religion each year than by drinking and driving.

"Not really a fair comparison."

Why not? Religious freaks are always going on about how peaceful they are and how gentle they are then they jam a bloody bomb up your arse! Read the history books for crying out loud!!! Religion has a lot to answer for and it's all just hollow words, empty rhetoric and meaningless mumbo jumbo. If you want to help the planet get off your keyboard and go shoot the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and any Muslim you clap eyes on.

Now where's my morning bourbon? I'm off for a ride.

[Paul in NZ]

Like a beer festival?

Absolutely - I mean would you trust a bunch of germanics in tight leather short after a few beers? The buxom wenches with foaming jugs are just bait for the trap...

Nah! Ya gotta be sensible but drunken wankers smashing places up is no good. The other option is to arm the Police and encourage them to shoot drunks.

[Grahameeboy]

More people are murdered by religion each year than by drinking and driving.

"Not really a fair comparison."

Why not? Religious freaks are always going on about how peaceful they are and how gentle they are then they jam a bloody bomb up your arse! Read the history books for crying out loud!!! Religion has a lot to answer for and it's all just hollow words, empty rhetoric and meaningless mumbo jumbo. If you want to help the planet get off your keyboard and go shoot the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and any Muslim you clap eyes on.

Now where's my morning bourbon? I'm off for a ride.

Yep but I am not a Religious Freak and not a Roman Catholic or Church of England but agree that Religion does have a lot too answer for....or should I say people who do things in the name of religion....misguided like drink driving so I partially take back my comment.

[Squeak the Rat]

Sober driver
Taxi...split 4 ways is not expensive.
Dial a Driver
Responsible people..........

Why we do we have this too hard basket mentality.

Huh? All these tools are available to us now!

One glass of beer is not enough to cause a normal person to decide to get drunk and drive. To get past the legal limit stage they must already have an attitude that drink driving is acceptable.

A zero tolerance will not change the attitude of people who currently drive over the current limit.

[scumdog]

Right. And the sober driver is going to drive everyone to work for the next four days. And drive everyone else to wherever they need to go. Because it will be four days before the alcohol level reaches zero..

You may well be right but we only forbid somebody to drive for 12 hours after being 'done' for eba, after that you would not (I believe) get a 'reading' on our present testing systems.

BUT since education doesn't work on Kiwis I suggest the penalties be made harsher.

Like if you blow double the limit or more (where the problem drinker levels seem to be) the vehicle you were driving is pulled from under your arse and crushed. No questions.
3 YEARS disqualification (Use to be the minimum in the early 70's)
Mandatory jail for 2nd and subsequent convictions.
No 'work' licences for 2nd or subsequent eba (You'ld be surprised how many truck drivers get done each year - it's their bloody livlihood fgs!)
Get caught driving while disqualified (as a result of eba) and rule 1 penalty applies.


The other option is to arm the Police and encourage them to shoot drunks.

The Government wouldn't agree - they wouldn't be able to pay for the bullets needed!!

[Grahameeboy]

Huh? All these tools are available to us now!

One glass of beer is not enough to cause a normal person to decide to get drunk and drive. To get past the legal limit stage they must already have an attitude that drink driving is acceptable.

A zero tolerance will not change the attitude of people who currently drive over the current limit.

How do we know?

1 drink can still be enough to impair judgement.

[peasea]

You may well be right but we only forbid somebody to drive for 12 hours after being 'done' for eba, after that you would not (I believe) get a 'reading' on our present testing systems.


Not telling you how to suck eggs SD but my brother in law DID blow a bag one morning and got the big slap. Added to that I swallowed a fair old slice of JB on Saturday and my missus wouldn't let me drive on Sunday, she said I reeked!




1 drink can still be enough to impair judgement.

Too true, I've woken up with some horrors!

[Grahameeboy]

The Government wouldn't agree - they wouldn't be able to pay for the bullets needed!!

Yeah but if they were drunk they would not know you were pretending...pow pow k'pow...your dead....count to 100 and if you can'y your nicked


Too true, I've woken up with some horrors!

How is the Wife?.............

[Ixion]

I do not disagree, however, what is wrong with trying. If what SD says and highre fines will not deter then surely it is worth trying........what have we got to lose.



You keep saying "what have we to lose" and "what harm can it do". Implying , nothing and none.

In fact we have a great deal to lose , and it can do a great deal of harm.

We will lose credibility. At present the limit is considered reasonable. People agree that anyone over it deserves punishment. They agree that driving over the present limit is dangerous. A zero limit would not be respected. Only a wowser would believe that driving after a single glass of wine is dangerous. So when people were stopped and prosecuted, their friends would not say "Well, you deserved it, that was silly and dangerous" They would say"Oh bad luck , stupid law, bloody cops".

It would put pressure on the cops to turn a blind eye. Because many of them would not believe in it.

We would probably actually see an increase in driving when actually drunk. Because the people who now stop after a couple "No thanks, I'm driving, and I've already had a couple", will figure "Oh hell, I've already had one, so that's that. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb"

It would be a major detriment to social activities in much of the country. Dial a driver and sober driver sharing etc may work fine in yuppie Devonport. "Oh I'm alright, Maurice and I can just walk down to the cafes". But in a lot of the country social events , even just a meal with the neighbours, mean driving. Because there are no taxis. And the other nearest neighbours are 30km in the other direction.

Even in cities, the disuption to social activities would be great. And not just parties. There are a good many old people who rely on their car to get to church. Where they would , by zero tolerance, be banned from Communion. The communion wine, remember. Zero tolerance means zero. For everyone. Not just zero for other people or zero for activities you do not approve of.

The loss of social grace, of conviviality , is indeed a loss, and society would suffer harm thereby. A wowser society, grey, cruel, Puritan, devoid of friendship , good cheer, and merriment: such a society would indeed be a loss.

And as for the ultimate goal of the wowsers, prohibition? Well, anyone who does not belive that would do no harm needs some compulsary history lessons.

[scumdog]

You may well be right but we only forbid somebody to drive for 12 hours after being 'done' for eba, after that you would not (I believe) get a 'reading' on our present testing systems.


Not telling you how to suck eggs SD but my brother in law DID blow a bag one morning and got the big slap. Added to that I swallowed a fair old slice of JB on Saturday and my missus wouldn't let me drive on Sunday, she said I reeked!

And your brother HAD stopped drinking 12 hours earlier?

(BTW we get heaps done after they have had "just had 4 or 5 hours sleep mate" meaning they finished drinking about 6 or less hours ago... 'sleeping it off' does not work if the sleep is only a few hours).

[Squeak the Rat]

1 drink can still be enough to impair judgement.

Not for decisions about big risks. How many people have one drink and then jump off a building? Answer: only those that were contemplating suicide in the first place.

[peasea]

How is the Wife?.............


Not very good actually, one of the reasons I left her in 01.

[MSTRS]

3 YEARS disqualification (Use to be the minimum in the early 70's)


Whilst I agree with the sentiment (and the other points you made), on which planet was the above? Old drunk I knew back then was pulled for no tail light on his Ford Popular (only had one to start with, I think) - bad boy, he was pissed - wouldn't have known it from his driving tho - he got 6 months disq

[Ixion]

You may well be right but we only forbid somebody to drive for 12 hours after being 'done' for eba, after that you would not (I believe) get a 'reading' on our present testing systems.



Correct. The present testing systems have a "bottom limit". To prevent spurious very low readings . Like speedos that start at 5kph. But the bottom limit is not zero. 12 hours is enough (in most cases) for alcohol levels to drop below the *present* limit - but not to rop to zero. It's one of those curves where the last little bit takes ages - like top speed on a 250.

Personally I have no issue with tougher penalties for those exceeding the present limit. An even tougher ones for those who injure or kill when over the limit. As I have said, the present limit is reasonable, and sufficient for social purposes.

[peasea]

[QUOTE=peasea;1036109]

And your brother HAD stopped drinking 12 hours earlier?



He was an in-law, my brothers are ok, that guys a wanker. Anywayyyyy, I can't recall how much sleep he'd had, probably not 12hrs. He's a shocker, my sister left him and he eneded up doing time for ripping off old ladies in insurance scams. Shows you the type he is and that's the type we want off the roads. (And out of the community.)

I've been a bit isolated the last couple of days, what happened near Rotorua? I heard a Guzzi went down and people died. It hasn't been a happy few days on the road.

[MSTRS]

... And the other nearest neighbours are 30km in the other direction.
....

Those people would be sweet - unlikey to be a checkpoint in their neighourhood

[Ixion]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment (and the other points you made), on which planet was the above? Old drunk I knew back then was pulled for no tail light on his Ford Popular (only had one to start with, I think) - bad boy, he was pissed - wouldn't have known it from his driving tho - he got 6 months disq

IIRC (it's a long time ago) there used to be two possible charges. I can't remember what they were called, but one was drunk driving - driving when incapable. The other was driving under the influence - not driving dangerously, but still under the influence. They used to make you try to walk in a straight line, and say tongue twisters. The 3 years was the figure for the drunk and incapable one.

Sort of like now with speed > 150. You can get done just or the speed, or for speed dangerous.

[Grahameeboy]

You keep saying "what have we to lose" and "what harm can it do". Implying , nothing and none.

In fact we have a great deal to lose , and it can do a great deal of harm.

We will lose credibility. At present the limit is considered reasonable. People agree that anyone over it deserves punishment. They agree that driving over the present limit is dangerous. A zero limit would not be respected. Only a wowser would believe that driving after a single glass of wine is dangerous. So when people were stopped and prosecuted, their friends would not say "Well, you deserved it, that was silly and dangerous" They would say"Oh bad luck , stupid law, bloody cops".

It would put pressure on the cops to turn a blind eye. Because many of them would not believe in it.

We would probably actually see an increase in driving when actually drunk. Because the people who now stop after a couple "No thanks, I'm driving, and I've already had a couple", will figure "Oh hell, I've already had one, so that's that. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb"

It would be a major detriment to social activities in much of the country. Dial a driver and sober driver sharing etc may work fine in yuppie Devonport. "Oh I'm alright, Maurice and I can just walk down to the cafes". But in a lot of the country social events , even just a meal with the neighbours, mean driving. Because there are no taxis. And the other nearest neighbours are 30km in the other direction.

Even in cities, the disuption to social activities would be great. And not just parties. There are a good many old people who rely on their car to get to church. Where they would , by zero tolerance, be banned from Communion. The communion wine, remember. Zero tolerance means zero. For everyone. Not just zero for other people or zero for activities you do not approve of.

The loss of social grace, of conviviality , is indeed a loss, and society would suffer harm thereby. A wowser society, grey, cruel, Puritan, devoid of friendship , good cheer, and merriment: such a society would indeed be a loss.

And as for the ultimate goal of the wowsers, prohibition? Well, anyone who does not belive that would do no harm needs some compulsary history lessons.

You may be right and if I am a wooser that is fine too.

Agree the holy communion thing.....in Sweden there is an allowance so I guess not quite zero tolerance, to allow for medication etc and surely the tea and biscuits after service would help?

But you don't need alcohol to have good cheer matey.............at my wedding I had no alcohol and people thought I was drunk.....mind you 9 years later and seperated I am starting to wonder but another story.....

I am far from a miserable person and hardly drink..........have lots of friends...most of them alcoholics.......being a wowser is pretty good......wowsers riding bikes......surely not...isn't called having fun

[peasea]

Personally I have no issue with tougher penalties for those exceeding the present limit. An even tougher ones for those who injure or kill when over the limit. As I have said, the present limit is reasonable, and sufficient for social purposes.

I'd run with that. I've made my booboo's and being a father who leads by example I don't go on the road drunk. If I did, my kids would be ashamed of me and I'd deserve everything I get if I got nabbed. Everyone makes mistakes and I continue to get speeding tickets (there's that 111 again) but EBA isn't on the agenda. It wasn't even the law that made me see the light though, it was more the realization of what could happen and if I were to cause injury or death could I live with myself?

Especially if I hurt my kids, or someone else's.

[kevie]

Even increasing the penalties doesn't seem a deterrent to so many recidivists. A look at changing the penalties might be more effective.
Perhaps your poll could include a "Cut off their hands" option....

I always recon .... like the high speed chase issue.... take the offender down to the local car crusher, make him drive his car into the machine, then make him press the button crushing his car .... bet that would stop a lot of them, aspecially the boy racers that think tickets are an image status with their mates..... would a square block of metal on their driveway be an equal status.... seeing their pride and joy with its flash mags, ultra expensive sounds and anything else that was in the car get crushed into a nice tidy square block of nothingness..........yeh yeh all the dogooders will say "what about the family... they might need the car" stuff that ..... if they driver drives drunk they have NO REGARD for either their own family or any other road user..... I say get caught as a drunk repeat offender or do a high speed runner .... CRUSH THEIR CAR. And maybe even phone any relevant finance company and tell them its been crushed!
Im also sick of the NZ excuse of law enforcement, speaking to the local copper and he said the youth treat the road as a playground and the law as a joke, tickets are a status and they never pay them and the courts arent enforcing it so cops are repeatedly frustrated in the efforts.
I said to him I recon when someones fines get to 70% of the car value take the car and sell it to pay the fines and make it so no financial interest has a right to repo the car from the new owner.
Tasmania DOESNT HAVE the same problem, if you do anything that resembles a 'boyracer' act your car is instantly gone, no warning, no tollerance at all, I recently spent some time over there and didnt see any act like you do here on the roads..... so a form of zero tollerance works.... but I recon rather than target an across the board thing (like zero alcohol tollerance) take a dam hard line on the few that are the problem ... I didnt hear of any 'drunk driver' problems while over in Tasmania either, mum said if theyre caught their car is gone as well.

BUT ............. the law is a joke anyway .... Im not allowed to drink and drive .... BUT!! If I build a hotel/tavern I (by law) must put in a BIG carpark...... go figure

[peasea]

I always recon .... like the high speed chase issue.... take the offender down to the local car crusher, make him drive his car into the machine, then make him press the button crushing his car .... bet that would stop a lot of them...........Im not allowed to drink and drive .... BUT!! If I build a hotel/tavern I (by law) must put in a BIG carpark...... go figure

Quite right about the carpark, funny that.

Don't know about crushing cars/bikes though. I think that's just wasteful. In the States much of the gear impounded by the cops is onsold to offset costs and so on. It's far better to use the perp's machinery to cash up and put that cash towards catching the next perp.

In NZ import cars are so cheap you can get the 'look' for just a few grand. You simply chop your springs in the back yard, grab a big muffler and vent your turbo pop-off valve to atmosphere and 'whoosh', you're back on track. Impounded cars not collected could also be onsold to dismantlers etc. The police could even have a sort of boy racer 'op shop' where cars/parts are onsold and some of the cash goes to those who suffer because of the BR actions, like local councils who have to clean diesel off the roads etc after a night of illicit burnouts.

Depending on the severity of the crime I'd say the 'three strikes and you're out' is a good rule of thumb. The cost of a few new prisons to house young offenders (like the borstals of old) would probably be less in the long run compared to the social cost of NOT locking them up, surely. And no bloody TV's either!!!!

[scumdog]

Don't know about crushing cars/bikes though. I think that's just wasteful. In the States much of the gear impounded by the cops is onsold to offset costs and so on. It's far better to use the perp's machinery to cash up and put that cash towards catching the next perp.

In parts of California some breaches (street racing etc) of their equivalent of the BR Act result in the car being crushed - regardless of how many dollars are tied up in the car and how many payments the driver still has to make on the car/mags/stereo etc.

[SPman]

A law has to be seen by the majority of the public as being reasonable and fair. If it's not, if it's over the top or regarded as unjust or unreasonable, it comes into disrepute, is ignored and regarded as another form of oppression by a system that cares not a squat about trying to get people to live in harmony with one another, or even, to behave with reason. The "you will do this or else" mentality, that seems to be coming the norm with governments around the world these days!

A "zero tolerance" law, whilst perhaps, meaning well, when it comes to the dynamics of human interaction, aggravates the very thing it is meant to abate. If the population at large do not think it is fair and reasonable, they will not obey it! All the ranting and posturing by authorities or others will not change that fact. Setting "performance criteria" at the lowest possible levels, as in most things, will just piss people off!
When you are trying to win peoples hearts and minds, you don't arrogantly dictate to them - you try to persuade them with reasoned facts and actions. When setting limits for drink / driving, for example, if you don't make allowances for normal human foibles, you will get the opposite effect to that desired.
But then, I've always been a believer in "the law is there for the guidance of wise men and the obediance of fools", and don't take into account "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that"!!

[Grahameeboy]

I see your point SPman.....I guess the situation is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

However, human foibles kill people and I guess unless you have been the victim of a drunk driver you may feel that a zero (well as near as is possible) tolerance is dictating. However, at the same time trying measures however extreme to reduce the problem of drink driving is surely not dictating.

It is a bit like me. I never used to parked in disabled parking bays but never thought further than that. Now I have a disabled Daughter it is the one thing that pisses me off when I see someone who does not have a mobility card just because they are an ATM cripple............when I explain that I have a disabled Daughter blah blah, I get told to fuck off.........given a list of excuses.....the best being "well there is a spare disability space next to me"....I digress but what I am saying is that somehow we need to change peoples attitudes........out of interest Kiwi's are the worst offenders for 'disability parking bays'.....and maybe we have to have a zero tolerance to get Kiwi's to realise what is right and wrong.....not sure that is dictating but obviously fines etc do not deter so maybe we have to frighten people...............that cop in UK who showed a severed head...seems severe but we do need to face reality, and realise our fragility.....

Is it reasonable and fair to have a zero tolerance attitude. I don't think so...........apart from speeding I don't do things just because it is not reasonable and if it is a human thing then we need to change it

[SPman]

I guess things can be "fair & reasonable", right up to the time they impact negatively on you.
It is, of course, about peoples attitudes. The drink thing is always a hairy one, because peoples tolerance and reactions to drink are so varied. As long as the level is realistically low, to take into account all the variables you can get from low levels of alcohol, and the penalties realistically strong, for those who transgress, intentionally or otherwise, peoples attitudes will change, as indeed they have been over the last 20-25 yrs.
Which of course leaves us with those who will drink and drive, regardless of the laws - and the only way you can stop that is having their peers considering it totally unacceptable and having the strength to stop them driving in the first place. It will never happen, unless we have vehicles that blood test you before you can start them, but we are getting a bit closer than in the past.
Cold comfort to those, however, who have experienced the trauma of a drunk driver induced fatal...........

[Ixion]

I am far from a miserable person and hardly drink..........have lots of friends...most of them alcoholics.......being a wowser is pretty good......wowsers riding bikes......surely not...isn't called having fun

I very much doubt that . A person who enjoys a drink is not an alcoholic. If indeed you do have such a large number of alcoholics in your entourage , then , as a Christian, you might do well to wonder why, and what task is perhaps being set you.

I have some experience of alcoholism (no, I'm not one , nor is anyone close to me). It is a terrible affliction , and the effects on the lives of those people can be really tragic.

If you do know an alcoholic (let alone lots), find out what you can do to help them . (Nothing directly, an alcoholic can't be helped until he wants to be). But you may be able to help him (or her) to realise how alcohol is destroying his life , and , usually, the lives of his family and loved ones. Which may be the first step to coming to grips with the addiction. AA can help. But only when the suffererr is ready to seek help.

Alcoholism is not a joking matter.

[peasea]

In parts of California some breaches (street racing etc) of their equivalent of the BR Act result in the car being crushed - regardless of how many dollars are tied up in the car and how many payments the driver still has to make on the car/mags/stereo etc.

Does it work, or do they still street race?

I still can't fathom why the powers that be destroy something that could give them hard cash and then cry poverty! It's bizzarre.

[peasea]

"If you do know an alcoholic..........."

Define 'alcoholic' please.

[scumdog]

Does it work, or do they still street race?

I still can't fathom why the powers that be destroy something that could give them hard cash and then cry poverty! It's bizzarre.

Yep, they still do it - oh, and the wallies still street race.

The powers that be don't cry poverty - they claim (a) the car is crushed so it's too late to moan and (b) "The lil' varmints cain't get their pals ta buy it back for them at the auction, can they?" as quoted to me at Pomona by a cop.

[Ghost_Bullet]

Looking at the poll, it is quite evenly divided opinions on this one.
I was thinking today, ya know, its in NZ's culture to a degree, this drinkin, and some jumping in the car for a drive, and admititly I have been one who has done just that many years ago, knowing that there was a strong possilbility that I was over the limit.

It's kinda like Russian roulette, once upon a time, population was smaller, I guess you drunk, drove and if unlucky most likley woke up in a ditch thinking, fark better be more careful next time.
These days, 4.5mill in the country, your six shooter has five bullets in it, you drink and drive, you might get home ok, but there is a hell greater chance that you are going to hit some other poor bugger or somthing more serious.

The concept of crushing cars... now that is somthing, I have heard words from one young mouth a week or so ago, getting pretty high that he already had some 13k of fines, and was still on his learners.... farked from the start... potential death every time this fella jumps behind the wheel.

[Oakie]

Undecided.
My concern is for those poor schmucks who would get busted having sucked down some cough mixture or similar preparation containing alcohol. (It has happened apparantly). Hell, even my 6 month old grandaughter's teething spray contains alcohol ... not that she's going to be driving anytime soon.
Personally I'd be quite happy with a level that allowed for a glass of wine or a beer with a meal.

[scumdog]

Undecided.
My concern is for those poor schmucks who would get busted having sucked down some cough mixture or similar preparation containing alcohol. (It has happened apparantly).

Hmmmm, when has THAT ever happened? Like REALLY when have you heard of it actually happening???

[avgas]

Now where is that basket........I know I put it somewhere
Now thats the one with my washing in it right? Its also got the wiring for my car and the 'save up and buy a NEW bike'

Funny how no one mentions smoking and swimming here. It should be in same context.
Not to mention running and eating.
Or running with scissors.


Undecided.
My concern is for those poor schmucks who would get busted having sucked down some cough mixture
I had 6 beers in 1 hour, then was breathalized (local cop doing a demonstration)......Im not a big person - but according to the test i was still legal. I would not have driven in my current state (instead i waited another 2 hours) - but it was an eye opener as too how much some people get away with.
I have no sympathy for those who get done for DIC. You dig your own hole with alcohol.

[scumdog]

Re Avgas response above, I have 'experimented' by drinking three large bottles on an empty stomach in one and a half hours.

Blew 320mgm - BUT felt so bad I would NEVER have driven/ridden.

(Had trouble getting down steps/through door-ways)

[bikemike]

I never used to parked in disabled parking bays...
Parkaplegic, "one who has lost the ability to use a regular carpark through lack of spine". (Listener, Wordsworth - May 5-11)

I'm of the hue that agrees in general with the current limits, and that the punishments seem insufficient.

Whilst it might be true that someone under the limit would choose not to drive, and someone over the limit might be too impaired - not just to judge - but even to consider their fitness to drive, it only highlights that this is a problem of respect and responsibility. Whether you have had none or one and you are still 'fit to drive' and fit to judge your ability to drive and you then choose to have another, it is then that you fail to exercise your responsibility to look after yourself, your friends and family and the wider community.

A sufficient message is given with the current limits: drinking in moderation is benign or beneficial to most members and aspects of society, but DO NOT overstep the mark if you are in charge of a motor vehicle...(amongst other things)

Unfortunately, as many have said here, those caught who are not dead in the process are not punished enough.

You can't go making the laws tighter and tighter, always looking to save one more life. Somewhere along that road other liberties and niceties are lost to the common good, and it becomes less and less efficient/effective anyway.

You also can't ignore the fact that having a non-zero tolerance also recognises that intoxicated driving is only one of many factors affecting our ability, our actions, and hence our risk to others whilst in charge. Fatigue obviously, the simple fact of being on night shifts, or rotating shifts - even if you don't feel tired - can reduce your ability to do anything, illness, stress, pain, in car distractions, competence with the vehicle and with the road code, emotional maturity, hunger, dehydration, bladder..., visual acuity, and so on.... the list is endless.

Some of these factors are more critical than others, obviously, and some can be more critical than sub-illegal intoxication.

The changes needed are in education. Yes, the attitude, respect, ability, competence, responsibility side of things. That's what's in the too-hard basket. I think a zero tolerance policy is taking the too-hard basket option; an easy action without tackling the problem, and moreover, which risks removing that level of faith and compliance that there is in the current message and threshold, beyond which we go too far. As others have said.

I personally vary my drinking and driving, sometimes none, sometimes one - depends on overall status / total load. However, I never drink and ride.
Interesting debate is whether that is selfish, naive, or a realistic comparison on the requirements of driving vs riding...

[spudchucka]

Re Avgas response above, I have 'experimented' by drinking three large bottles on an empty stomach in one and a half hours.

Blew 320mgm - BUT felt so bad I would NEVER have driven/ridden.

(Had trouble getting down steps/through door-ways)

I've done the same experiment several times. 7 - 8 pints in two hours and still under, just (380 - 390). A mate about the same size as me did the same experiment and got the same results. Both of us were pissed as maggots though and there was no way either of us would have driven.

[ceebie13]

I've done the same experiment several times...

It's all very well doing experiments but at the end of the day I could never be certain - and I'm not prepared to risk - that I may be "over the limit".

All thoughts of traffic accidents aside for a moment, if I "thought" I was OK to drive after a few beers and I came upon a Highway Patrol Breath Test check point whilst driving home I'd shit myself. Even if I thought I could drive perfectly well, it's still that worry that I might just have had enough to register a positive test that I hate. I think it's this concern, this conscience if you like, that drives home the decision in me that it 'ain't worth it. I'm not prepared to run the guantlet hoping not to meet a cop on the way home.

I know I can have a good time without needing an alcoholic drink to "loosen me up". Sure, I enjoy a drink, and I can have one (maybe two) beer(s) - and I would pass a breath test, but I voted to endorse zero tolerance because regardless of whether it's impinging on my rights or not, it's an easy step not to drink alcohol at all if I want to drive.

Which leads me to wonder if some of those who voted not to endorse zero tolerance would actually find it difficult to go to a pub or restaurant and not have a beer/glass of wine?

Eat all the mashed potato you like...drink as much milk as you like to line your stomach beforehand, but I don't think any of us are 100% qualified to know exactly how much you can drink before being over the limit. As the roadside speed signs say..."It's not a target". Well that can be applied to drink too. So what is the problem with not drinking at all if you want to drive?

As for punishment...sod the three strikes approach...I quite like the "one strike and you're out" idea... the thought of losing your licence and having your vehicle confiscated for a year or more might just deter some people...but then again, it might not!

[Finn]

Statistics prove that more people are killed on the road by sober drivers than by drunk drivers. So if you want to stay safe on the road, alway make sure you've had a few before getting behind the wheel.

Statistics don't lie.

[ceebie13]

Statistics prove that more people are killed on the road by sober drivers than by drunk drivers. So if you want to stay safe on the road, alway make sure you've had a few before getting behind the wheel.

Statistics don't lie.

Furthermore...keep death off the roads...drive on the pavement! :yes:

[Squeak the Rat]

Which leads me to wonder if some of those who voted not to endorse zero tolerance would find it difficult to abstain from the amber nectar at any time if they wish to drive or ride.


Blah blah blah. This leads me to wonder why people who vote no are so happy to use cheap and insulting tactics of saying people who voted no are alcoholics or drive drunk. :zzzz:

I was going to argue rationally, genuinely surprised by scum and spuds posts but can't be arsed now. But if you're questioning mental stability, how many of those who posted no can't go a day without obsesive thoughts of an entity that they've no proof exists.

[Hitcher]

I don't think that "zero tolerance", for the purpose of this thread, has been clearly defined.

There are two possible alternatives:

1. The blood alcohol level for people driving/riding should be zero.
2. The threshold level set for blood alcohol level should be stringently applied: no exceptions.

And there is a big difference between these two. Which are we talking about?

[ceebie13]

This leads me to wonder why people who vote no are so happy to use cheap and insulting tactics

a) I think you meant to say "people who vote yes", Squeak?

b) Just my thoughts...no inference intended. Sincere apologies if you take offence. I include myself amongst those who drink, but I'm not an alcoholic and I'm not suggesting anyone is. I merely can't see why it should be a problem to not drink at all if you wish to drive.

c) Methinks thou couldst protest too much!

[Ixion]

,,,
I was going to argue rationally, genuinely surprised by scum and spuds posts,,,

I'm not surprised. The figures they quote are pretty much what my own experience suggests.

I've said before, I'll say again, the present limit is quite reasonable, and anyone over it has been drinking heavily (not a social glass or two), and certainly will know that they are affected (unless of course they are so sodden they don't know their arse from their elbow any more).

There are no problems with the "glass of wine with dinner " people. Calls for zero tolerance are fixing a problem that doesn't exist an ignoring the one that does, the hard core recidivist drunk driver.

[ceebie13]

I don't think that "zero tolerance", for the purpose of this thread, has been clearly defined.

There are two possible alternatives:

1. The blood alcohol level for people driving/riding should be zero.
2. The threshold level set for blood alcohol level should be stringently applied: no exceptions.

And there is a big difference between these two. Which are we talking about?

Sorry... my originating post should have made it clearer... I'm talking No.1

My comments have been based on zero alcohol in the blood. As we've seen in this debate, No.2 leaves too much open for conjecture in my view. Witness the posts about how much we think we can all "absorb" before reaching the limit etc etc.

[Squeak the Rat]

c) Methinks thou couldst protest too much!

Whether some one has the capacity to have dinner at a restaurant without a glass of wine is completely irrelevant. The argument is whether it is a good idea to make it illegal for them to drive home afterwards.

Am I protesting too much? No it's not as you imply that I have an alcohol problem - it's that I'm genuinely sick of the sheep in this country thinking that the way to solve problems is by the use of restrictive laws targetted at the lowest denominator.

[Ixion]

From today's Harold, regarding the driver who killed the two bikers


Gordon Armstrong's first conviction for drink driving was in 1986, the next in 1997. He was convicted again in 2000 and 2004. * In 2000, he was indefinitely disqualified from driving, meaning he could not renew his licence until he completed a mandatory disqualification period and drug and alcohol counselling.
* Although he finished the counselling, he did not renew his licence once the disqualification ended, and had driven without a licence since.




So, in 2000 , as a recidivist drunk driver he was "indefinately" disqualified (though indefinately does not seem to mean indefinately). Yet in 2004 , with that history, we was convicted again. And received what punishment?




Surely this points to the real problem. People like Gordon Armstrong. Not someone who's had a glass of wine with dinner.

And is anyone going to seriously contend that Armstrong would have been deterred by a zero limit? Or that on all his previous occasions he might have genuinely thought he was under the limit ? "Oh, I didn't mind driving disqualified. And I've no worries about racking up a string of drunk drive convictions. But gee, now they've got a zero limit I'd better stop. Cos before, I really thought every time that I was under the limit" . Tui.

[ceebie13]

...No it's not as you imply that I have an alcohol problem....

Sorry mate, but I repeat...no inference or implication intended. I used the word "couldst" (instead of "doth") quite deliberately so as to not point the finger in any way at anyone contributing to this thread. As road users we're all in the same boat. We live in a democracy where legislation is defined and whether we like that legislation or not we live with it.

Just tell me why (whether it works or not as a deterant) we should not make it illegal to drive with any alcohol whatsoever in our blood.

[Squeak the Rat]

Just tell me why (whether it works or not as a deterant) we should not make it illegal to drive with any alcohol whatsoever in our blood.

That I am happy to do with an example:

Every Friday evening at work we have drinks. Everyone from management, office workers and warehouse staff get together and socialise.
We host this very responsibly. A senior manager is always present keeping a quiet eye on things. Light beer and soft drink is on offer. No one drives after more than two drinks, or if they are showing signs of intoxication.

The simple fact is that people use alcohol to relax. If we didn't allow staff to have a beer then they would simply go home. Whether people are dependant on alcohol is not relevant - the fact is that this friday get together would not continue.

This advantages that I believe the friday drinks provides include:

good teambuilding
a relaxing and fun end to the week
stress relief - people go home to their families happy rather than stressed and grumpy
staff feel valued
issues are resolved face to face in a friendly environment rather than escalating via email
it's good for the company, issues are resolved, staff are happy, and a happy worker is a good worker


So the employees gain, the company gains. The families gain as hopefully their loved ones hopefully enjoy work a bit more. (And to counter an argument, if they continue drinking at home then they would have done this regardless of work drinks).

The downside - there is a small increase in the risk of an accident. But as some one else commented , one beer is probably less likely to cause an accident than driving fatigued or a number of other factors. I'm a worse driver after 4x12 hour days than after one beer.

Is the small risk worth the large gain to our staff and company? Yes. And if it improves our companies performance, is this not good for the economy, and NZ as a whole? Yes. (imho).

[MSTRS]

Just tell me why (whether it works or not as a deterant) we should not make it illegal to drive with any alcohol whatsoever in our blood.

Admittedly it is not necessary to have a glass of wine or a pint with a meal when out, but it is definitely something that the majority enjoy. Heavy-handed legislation would make criminals of these people or deny them a harmless pleasure. One standard measure of alcohol in any form is not the problem.

[placidfemme]

After reading all the debate on the topic, I've realised that I mis-judged the original question.

As mentioned by those above, I don't think making drinking (say a drink or two with dinner etc) should be illegal. I think the limits we have at the moment are good. But the punishments and enforcement of the current system need to be re-viewed and adjusted.

As with the guy who killed those 3 bikers this weekend. There was no "real" punishment for his previous actions... it didn't stop him from drinking, it did stop him from dirving, it didn't stop him from killing 3 innocent people, himself and injuring 3 innocent kids, not to mention the damage he has done to the bikers family/friends as well as his own family and friends.

Stopping people from drinking and driving (note... not driving drunk... there is a difference) won't stop the problem, it'll just create criminals out of everyday people that know thier own personal limits.

You have to remember to keep seperate the everyday person and the continuous drunk.

I originally voted "yes" to the Zero tolerance limit, but after much thought and taking into consideration everything said in this thread, I'm joining the "no" group now.

[ceebie13]

It sounds idyllic...can I come work at your place?


...The simple fact is that people use alcohol to relax.

...and so do I. But after work, at the office with colleagues, i could relax with an orange juice if need be. Wouldn't be the same though I hear you say.

[MSTRS]

.... i could relax with an orange juice if need be. Wouldn't be the same though I hear you say.

Wouldn't you prefer to have the choice? Rather than some faceless law telling you "No"?

[Ixion]

Just tell me why (whether it works or not as a deterant) we should not make it illegal to drive with any alcohol whatsoever in our blood.

Firstly, because you are wanting to curtail the freedom of others. And those who do so should always be viewed with suspicion. Especially when they admit that they themselves will not be affected. And doubly so when they can not point to any objective reason for such a loss of freedom. The "you drunks are inpinging on my freedom etc" argument will not run. This is not a discussion about drunks, or drunk driving. It is a discussion about a social civility. Nobody is arguing that anyone who is pissed should be driving. So, I suggest that you have established no justification for such restrictions.

Secondly, for all the reasons already covered. Here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1036120&postcount=180)for instance

Thirdly because there is good reason to think that some at least of those who put forward the proposal (and some of them here) are not making a good faith proposal. Their real agenda , as it has been for over 100 years, is prohibition. They know that an outright proposal to ban alcohol will never fly (though I recall they came close a while ago). So , they think to achieve their purpose by stealth and degrees.

Fourthly. Because fixing what isn't broken is never wisdom.

Fifthly . Because it is impractical unless still more restrictions be accepted , which go beyond "do not drive after drinking" to "do not drink at all". Which brings us back to thirdly.

[Grahameeboy]

Wouldn't you prefer to have the choice? Rather than some faceless law telling you "No"?

You still have the choice, like speeding you have the choice but get caught speeding and you suffer the consequences.

Maybe we need a faceless law to make our choices for us because we are often like children and do not act responsibly.

[SPman]

We already have too many faceless laws, telling us what we can and can't do.
The more laws and restrictions you put on people, the more they will act according to how they perceive themselves being treated. Treat them like imbeciles and the mass will act like imbeciles. There are too many laws around that use a sledgehammer on the entire community, to try and control the actions of a few. If the law wants respect, it has to treat the society it is intended for, with respect, not be an agent for overbearing governmental control, which is what it is fast becoming in this country and more so in others.
As Benjamin Franklin said in 1775 "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

[Grahameeboy]

We already have too many faceless laws, telling us what we can and can't do.
The more laws and restrictions you put on people, the more they will act according to how they perceive themselves being treated. Treat them like imbeciles and the mass will act like imbeciles. There are too many laws around that use a sledgehammer on the entire community, to try and control the actions of a few. If the law wants respect, it has to treat the society it is intended for, with respect, not be an agent for overbearing governmental control, which is what it is fast becoming in this country and more so in others.

So you want smiley faces on Laws?

I do know what you mean but hey on my death bed I am not going to think about laws and restriction on my life which when added up are a small part of life in the whole scheme of things.

It is the few we complain about and there are more than just a few imbeciles..................my pet subject but a simple illustration but people in NZ are the worst offenders for parking in Mobility Card Only car park space...by a long stretch....so my guess is that there are more than just a few that break the so cold overbearing Laws.

We have to earn respect and perhaps we have to stand back and realise that we have not quite earned it yet.........

I know I will ruffle a few feathers but that is fine..............

[Ixion]

......my pet subject but a simple illustration but people in NZ are the worst offenders for parking in Mobility Card Only car park space...by a long stretch....so my guess is that there are more than just a few that break the so cold overbearing Laws.

..

To take your analogy and expand it.. People park in disabled spaces. It vexes me , too, though at a less personal level.

Now extending that analogy. If ALL parking spaces were made disabled spaces: and a holder of a Mobility card could call up and get any vehicle towed because they wanted to park in that space. "Oh what a wonderful idea" you exclaim.

But what do you think the effect would be after this had happened a few times? Is it not probable that there would be a massive backlash of resentment and anger against the disabed ? I can hear the lunch room buzz "Yeah, the missus had her car towed yesterday. Another of them bastard cripples. She had all the shopping and three kids, half those bloody so called cripples don't look any more disabled than me, if they can't function in society like proper people they shouldn't be allowed out rant rant rant ".

Would that really be a good thing then ?

So likewise with any law that steps beyond society's acceptance. Either it must be draconically enforced (difficult with either zero tolerance or disabled parking); or the backlash will do more harm than the law does good.

[Grahameeboy]

To take your analogy and expand it.. People park in disabled spaces. It vexes me , too, though at a less personal level.

Now extending that analogy. If ALL parking spaces were made disabled spaces: and a holder of a Mobility card could call up and get any vehicle towed because they wanted to park in that space. "Oh what a wonderful idea" you exclaim.

Not sure that is a good analogy..........not all people are disabled but we are all potential drink drivers.

But what do you think the effect would be after this had happened a few times? Is it not probable that there would be a massive backlash of resentment and anger against the disabed ? I can hear the lunch room buzz "Yeah, the missus had her car towed yesterday. Another of them bastard cripples. She had all the shopping and three kids, half those bloody so called cripples don't look any more disabled than me, if they can't function in society like proper people they shouldn't be allowed out rant rant rant ".

Seems from the people I confront in disabled bays that there is a lot of resentment and disrespect for disabled people.....you would be amazed.

Would that really be a good thing then ?

So likewise with any law that steps beyond society's acceptance. Either it must be draconically enforced (difficult with either zero tolerance or disabled parking); or the backlash will do more harm than the law does good.


Mmmm...so society has zero tolerance to drinking and driving but to try and deal with it, it is beyond society to accept a zero tolerance attempt to deal with it?

Backlashe...well if it don't work you have the elections to voice your view.

..........................

[Squeak the Rat]

Not sure that is a good analogy..........not all people are disabled but we are all potential drink drivers.

It was a very good analogy. The poor part was in you're attempt to dismiss it. The truth is:


Not all people are disabled, and not all people are drink drivers.

Likewise, all people have the potential to be disabled, and all people have the potential to be drink drivers.

[Grahameeboy]

It was a very good analogy. The poor part was in you're attempt to dismiss it. The truth is:


Not all people are disabled, and not all people are drink drivers.

Likewise, all people have the potential to be disabled, and all people have the potential to be drink drivers.

Matter of opinion..that is cool.

Well the potential to be a drink driver is much higher than the potential to be disabled.......

[candor]

Grahameeboy.

The zero tolerance idea is one that is a hysterical response usually proposed by people who have lost to a drink driver and who have little understanding of traffic science or addictive medicine.

It is the least likely thing to work. Heres why -

Prohibition did not stop drinking. And prohibition applied to those behind the wheel would not stop impaired driving - no way.

Why - because 3/4 of dead drink drivers also used drugs of abuse. If they had the usual half a brain of a drunk they would simply increase their drug blood level to compensate for the reduced or absent alcohol.

The brain of an addict has a chemical makeup that dictates they must get wasted one way or another. Laws applied to the general population will do nothing to change that. These people often have anti social pesonality disorders which means that changes to the norms of the general population will not influence them one iota.

Banning alcohol with driving also does not address the equal number of people to drink drivers who primarily or solely use impairing drugs. And will clearly swell their ranks, so there will be zero reduction in impaired driving.

It is a myth spread by wowsers that because people can drink some they are likely to misjudge and end a little bit over. NOOOoo, very rare to the point of insignificant. All the troublesome killing drink drivers are absolute gluttons. To imagine they are on average responsible people who might make one mistake is naive to the extreme.

John Bailey (Kiwi scientist) established that in NZ the Lions share of harm is from "hardcore drink drivers" (heavy drinking recidivists) 50% of whom up risk phenomenally by smoking pot (results in 100x crash risk versus about 10-16 x normal at around the limit).

The limit is currently arguably set too low. About right imo but it could be argued its too low since 0.8 consumption in a drug free drinker causes minimal serious crashes as a proportion of all bad crashes in NZ.

They did not reduce the limit to 0.5 when the Land Transport Act was reviewed because the wowsers had only embarrassing statistics to offer which showed that no-one was dying or being killled in NZ thru under current limit drinking. I have the stats somewhere around.

It is a propaganda lie that driving safety is affected with any level of alcohol in the blood. Yes certain changes in performance can be detected but these are not ones that impact on driving badly or up crash risk AT ALL.
Studies that traffic scientists keep tight lipped on as 'we don't want to confuse the public' actually show that low levels of alcohol reduce crash risk in urban drivers. It is believed this is because psychological stress is reduced.

So go to zero tol and you will see more bicycle couriers getting run over in the capital!! And reduced checkpoints / detection!

It is not the limit or the concept of a limit that needs addressing as successful countries know and show.

It is
1) the diversification of substance misuse about now - alcohols contribution to crashes is now overtaken by drugs as of the last couple of years here (per ESR study preliminary results) and in similar countries (says Johan De gier - president of the Inernational Council of Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety)
2) the current inadequate penalties - inadequate to both deter and to reduce recidivism. Our penalties are both the lightest and the stupidest (for stopping recidivism) in the world. Half cos they aren't used and cos diff ones needed

The Government has facilitated this because it is hellbent on keeping prison musters and up front costs down. It is confronted with one of the most violent populations in the world, in tandem with a population that is highly resentful of much imposition of law and particularly imprisonment.

If the same penalties were applied here as typically are for serious crimes like DUI homicide and other violent crimes elsewhere (as the sensible sentencing trut advocates) our indigenous population would not have (from memory) one in 100 members imprisoned at any one time but instead round one in 50, and there would be some heavy resistance, civil unrest and much uproar at the U.N.

Corrections is currently in negotiations to figure out how to use even more restorative justice and even less imprisonment. This is a continuation of the deal struck around 1986 in which Maori via Durie agree to cede legal sovereignty (which they established to the Crown Law Offices satisfaction they still had) provided certain treaty wishes including a restorative justice system were granted in the long term - to be delivered thru current court structures. The main thrust being that imprisonment was to be kept minimal.

This background is important to understand why NZers have been cobnditioned to believe that "jail" is retributive, we do too much of it and we need to do 'other stuff'.

This is why our population is the ONLY one that does not see DUI road homicide as serious and deserving of jail necessarily. It is not even a required minimum for repeat DUI killers here! That is insane - like our Judges.

As Mack the knife says - we've all been programmed by years of tv ads to see drink drivers as just 'bloody isiots' whoich encourages a soft sympathetic approach if we get on juries, and an expectation of forgiveness from victims with a particular emphasis on the system expecting them to cowtow to soft sentencing norms etc.

It is true as someone was told by a cop that manslaughter is not considered because juries are soft on DUI here. But its not true that they have never convicted re DUI for this or tha Police won't use this charge - just reluctantly. It was the preferred chjarge for drink drivers years ago and my friends dad spent 8 years inside in the 1970s for it. Lately a drug or drunk driving speeding kid in Waikato who killed his friends copped a manslaughter and pled guilty. M/S charges will be attempted if media stirs outrage. About it!

But Professor John Miller (Victoria) says that the reason the "careless / dangerous / reckless under influence causing death" charges were bbought in in the UK then here in the last few years ABSOLUTELY was because too many drink drivers facing m/s were let off as juries had got more liberal and sympathetic to offenders after the 70s flower power era.

These charges all enable no jail time, no reparation and only a 5 year max which can not be served as 'non violent' offenders are entitled to parole after 1/3rd. The going rate for DUI causing death for a recidivist drink or drug driver is currently 9-12 months served if they are even imprisoned. The system tries everything to prevent this and it will really only happen if the surviving victims make it very clear they want the dude to see inside.

Rant over, in conclusion I firmly believe what the cops are saying here overall. Toughen up the penalties and make them ones that will in a practical sense stop IMPAIRED driving EG ignition alcolocks, policed disqualifications, licensing conditional on clean drug tests while on long long term probation / supervision, referal to treatment (hard when they closed all rehabs).

In the US they have a fraction of our DUI recidivism as the hardcore gets deterrents, treatment and education that accounts for cognitive impairment and that half of offenders are depressed / stressed etc, and intensive intervention. Kids have a measure of protection in the endangerment laws which hammer impaired drivers who risk kids and make it socially shameful. And maniacs who kill on the road can get seriously deterring sentences like there was one of 70 years (cumulative sentences) for killing several people while driving drugged.

In about 3 months my Mums killer should be out there like Jaws again after a year in jail. He drove drugged in the 2 years awaiting trial, is now on home deention for maybe another couple of months and will (based on his past long record) be back to driving drugged and/or drunk as soon as they rush his anklet off which they can't wait to do.
The Legal system and NZ Parole board has little clue or clearly concern about ways and means to reduce DUI recidivism of the crime which is the leading cause of NZ homicide. Its like the dark ages and beggars belief till you strike it. Luckily the reporter in this latest case has highlighted the systems idiocy.

Most, maybe all of the victims I deal with thru work, find that the system is more to blame than the offender for not having utilised reasonable interventions. We have a 3 strike rule - 3 offenses then jail is supposed to be a deterrent that CAN be used, but its only token as our Judges will avoid being 'punitive' wherever possible.

As someone here said they were appaled at the slap on hand they got when charged. They might be even more appalled at the gentle strokes they'd get even after say 10 offenses. Of 20,000 to DUI each year only 700 occupy cells and this is usually only because they have seriously hurt or killed someone atop a bad record.

Despite the new sentencing regime which allows jail anytime for DUI (even first offense) , impoundment on third offense etc.

[Grahameeboy]

Okay I see your reasoning...............

[candor]

Its only my view. Just think its not an everyone problem really. We're too stupid how we deal with it and people need to lobby hard out to fix it.

Bulgaria: A second conviction results in execution.

Canada: 1st offense for DUI - fine between $50 and $2,000 or jail for 6 months or both. 2nd offense - from 14 days to 1 yr in jail. When the motor vehicle has caused bodily injury- jail up to 10 yrs; death - up to 14 yrs in jail.

Compare to NZ - 1st offense 6 mths license disqual but 99% get it reissued conditionally according to Ron Marks recent parliamentary questions, if injury or death - no jail or up to 5 years (paroled after a third)

Czechoslovakia: Jail up to 1 yr, reformatory measure, loss of drivers license and fines up to 50,000 crowns. A reformatory measure: confiscation of 10-25% of driver's salary. The court may also direct that he will be removed from his present position and employed in a less responsible lower status job :shit: .

El Salvador: First offence is your last - you are shot by firing squad :dodge: .

Finland & Sweden: Jail - 1 year hard labor plus fines. NOTE: in Finland, if an individual yields a vehicle to someone guilty of drunk driving, they will be fined or imprisoned for up to 1 year.

Japan: fine up to 30,000 to 50,000 yen or 3 months - 2 years penal servitude ( imprisonment with hard labor ) or jail.

Malaysia: the driver is jailed and if he is married, his wife is jailed too :love: .

Norway: 3 weeks in jail at hard labor, 1 yr loss of license, 2nd offense within 5 yrs - license revoked for life.

Poland: jail, fines, political lectures :nono: .

[scumdog]

In the mid 70's three of my mates got jail for DIC (ok, it was only a week) but each of them were first time offenders, nobody else was in the car and they had not injured/killed anybody.

Proving a DIC is way easier these days - but the penalties are way easier too.

[Grahameeboy]

Its only my view. Just think its not an everyone problem really. We're too stupid how we deal with it and people need to lobby hard out to fix it.

Bulgaria: A second conviction results in execution.

Canada: 1st offense for DUI - fine between $50 and $2,000 or jail for 6 months or both. 2nd offense - from 14 days to 1 yr in jail. When the motor vehicle has caused bodily injury- jail up to 10 yrs; death - up to 14 yrs in jail.

Compare to NZ - 1st offense 6 mths license disqual but 99% get it reissued conditionally according to Ron Marks recent parliamentary questions, if injury or death - no jail or up to 5 years (paroled after a third)

Czechoslovakia: Jail up to 1 yr, reformatory measure, loss of drivers license and fines up to 50,000 crowns. A reformatory measure: confiscation of 10-25% of driver's salary. The court may also direct that he will be removed from his present position and employed in a less responsible lower status job :shit: .

El Salvador: First offence is your last - you are shot by firing squad :dodge: .

Finland & Sweden: Jail - 1 year hard labor plus fines. NOTE: in Finland, if an individual yields a vehicle to someone guilty of drunk driving, they will be fined or imprisoned for up to 1 year.

Japan: fine up to 30,000 to 50,000 yen or 3 months - 2 years penal servitude ( imprisonment with hard labor ) or jail.

Malaysia: the driver is jailed and if he is married, his wife is jailed too :love: .

Norway: 3 weeks in jail at hard labor, 1 yr loss of license, 2nd offense within 5 yrs - license revoked for life.

Poland: jail, fines, political lectures :nono: .

I understand..............problem here is that drinking and driving has become a culture and the fines, penalties and easy ability to get a work licence (which is basically a 5 min court appearance) have traditionally been too low. Scumdog's eg was 30 years ago.

Agree zero tolerance will not stop current heavy offenders, however, maybe a zero tolerance will make youngsters think more. They are our future and maybe over time a zero tolerance will show benefits.

Problem is that as we have seen, even a life time ban does not stop drink drivers so many of the European penalties would still have no effect.

It certainly is not an overnight fix and could well take a decade to sort out.

[ceebie13]

Phew!! I'm knackered after reading all this stuff. Think I need a stiff drink!

[Squeak the Rat]

Phew!! I'm knackered after reading all this stuff. Think I need a stiff drink!

Drive over here I'll buy you one at the local :niceone:

[Roj]

It seems the division is pretty even on this, I personally believe that drink driving is a problem for a minority of people.

The zero tolerance idea would take a considerable amount of time and effort to effect a change in attitudes, the sooner it is started the better.

Part of this stems from taking personal responsibility for yourself, I will not drive if I have had to much to drink and would like to expect the same from others.:scooter:

[candor]

The criminal justice act bill going through now will result in a completely new sentencing regime. Its goal is to empty prisons out.

A sentencing council is to be set up which will review sentencing for all crimes and make changes that must be approved by Parliament.

A big vote of no confidence in Judges. Crims will have to do 2/3rds of sentences that will accordingly be set shorter sp as not to strain resources.

As the public is not happy with this; For a 2 year or less sentence you get out after half. For over 2 years you get out in a third. So a 2 year sentence is 5 months longer than a 2 year 7 month! Scamming con artists those Judges.

The problem area with this bill is that it will require sentences to be set with regard to the severity and harm of offending.

Traffic offenses including DUI are classed as non violent by the justice department, and treated as trivial currently - so I guess that means a main agenda of this act is to get DUI offenders out of jail free, as they are currently about 10% of the population.

They will likely end on home detention instead. Which removes the deterrent factor of the inoperative but supposed 3 strike rule (jail on third offence) which people fought hard for.

[candor]

I understand..............problem here is that drinking and driving has become a culture and the fines, penalties and easy ability to get a work licence (which is basically a 5 min court appearance) have traditionally been too low.

Agree zero tolerance will not stop current heavy offenders, however, maybe a zero tolerance will make youngsters think more. They are our future and maybe over time a zero tolerance will show benefits.

It certainly is not an overnight fix and could well take a decade to sort out.

It does not need to take a decade - it just takes some resolve. Govt :zzzz: doesn't act till people get busy like the antismackers. The problem is that road safdety protestors usually make a hew and a cry for 6 months then disappear. Seen it time and again. They are not united enough.

But you've got me thinking now. Maybe I would support zero tolerance for under 25s and for those with a prior DUI assessed as alcoholic. As a license condition forever.

I think that has not been tried anywhere, so the the moment a person with a prior gets behind wheel with any alcohol in them they would have to get paranoid. Police resources could be targeted to putting checkpoints in areas of high alcoholism - like they already are, but also on Fred the 20x convicted guys street say 2 random nights a week. He'll soon get sick of regular bursts of jail / home detention. Like training a dog.

[Grahameeboy]

But you've got me thinking now. Maybe I would support zero tolerance for under 25s and for those with a prior DUI assessed as alcoholic. As a license condition forever.




Yep that works for me....at least it targets the youngsters so that hopefully by the time they are 25 they have a different and more responsible attitude to drink driving.

With those on priors, I agree it is a good idea to make it a licence condition, maybe even have a different coloured licence....just to remind the licence holder and the Police if stopped...maybe make it a condition that they have to be subjected to a medical examination every 2 years before they have their licence renewed. If they stay clean for 4 years, this extends to 5 years or something similar.

Also bring in some legislation that all Employers have a legal requirement to check licences where the employee is required to drive a company car although I guess this could run foul of a few things......maybe not for now.