Minimum drinking age of 21 saves lives, study finds

[Genestho]

Just released...

ScienceDaily (July 3, 2008) — One of the most comprehensive studies on the minimum drinking age shows that laws aimed at preventing consumption of alcohol by those under 21 have significantly reduced drinking-related fatal car crashes.


Specifically, the study published in the July 2008 issue of the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention found that laws making it illegal to possess or purchase alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 had led to an eleven percent drop in alcohol-related traffic deaths among youth; secondly, they found that states with strong laws against fake IDs reported seven percent fewer alcohol-related fatalities among drivers under the age of 21.

The study, led by James C. Fell, M.S., of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), accounted for a variety of factors, such as improved safety features in cars, better roadways and tougher adult drunk driving laws, that are supposed to have contributed to a reduction in fatalities involving underage drivers who have consumed alcohol. Fell's research controlled for more variables than any other previous study on the topic, accounting for regional and economic differences, improvements in roadways and vehicles, and changes that lowered the illegal blood alcohol content for driving to .08. Yet, according to Fell, the eleven percent drop in youth fatalities is a "conservative" figure.

Fell notes that his research is more sophisticated and comprehensive than previous studies that have looked at the drinking age. "There has been evidence since the 1980s that an increase in the drinking age to 21 was having an impact on traffic deaths," Fell said. "But this is the first time we've been able to tease out the real effect, free of the variables that had been used to question the validity of the evidence."

In addition to providing comprehensive evidence of the life-saving impact of minimum drinking age laws, the authors of the new study found that tougher sanctions against fake identification cards may represent the second-best legislative tool that states have in combating drunk driving deaths among young people.

"States that merely confiscate a fake ID, or just give a slap on the wrist to the user, are passing up a significant opportunity to save lives," said Fell. "We found a seven percent drop in youth alcohol-related fatalities in states that are willing to take strong actions, such as automatically suspending the driver's license of a young person caught with a fake ID."

Minimum legal drinking age of 21 (MLDA 21) laws have many components, which target outlets that sell alcohol to minors; adults who provide alcoholic beverages to minors; and minors who purchase or attempt to purchase, possess, or consume alcohol. In addition, there are companion laws that provide for lower blood alcohol content (BAC) limits for underage drivers and other legislation, such as laws that require registration of beer keg purchases and make hosts liable for the actions of underage drinking guests. The authors report great variability in how states use, adopt and implement legislation to reduce underage drinking. Such laws vary considerably from state to state, and no one state has adopted all the pieces of legislation aimed at preventing young people under the age of 21 from consuming alcohol.

The researchers looked at data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting system (FARS) (a database of all police- reported motor vehicle crashes resulting in at least one fatality) between 1982 and 1990 and then assessed the strength of each state's legislation (using a scoring system) aimed at preventing underage drinking. Based on the FARS data for each state, the authors were able to determine the impact of the state's individual laws on underage drinking and driving fatalities.

Background

To reduce youth drinking and alcohol-related problems, the federal government passed legislation in 1984 that provided for a uniform minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of 21 throughout the United States. Threatened by the loss of federal highway funds, by 1988, every state that had a lower MLDA had raised its minimum legal age for both the purchase and possession of alcohol to 21. All the states and the District of Columbia also have passed laws prohibiting the furnishing or selling of alcohol to those younger than age 21, many at the same time as they passed the two "core MLDA laws."

Considerable evidence exists that such laws can influence underage alcohol related traffic fatalities. From 1988 to 1995, alcohol-related traffic fatalities for youth aged 15€ declined from 4187 to 2212, a 47% decrease, with wide variability in these declines between states. But until now, Fell said, it had been difficult for researchers to pinpoint the precise effect of the change in the drinking age because of other confounding factors.

"Some have argued that the declining numbers are due to a general decrease in drunk driving, or because of the lowering of the BAC limit, or better cars and better roads. But we controlled for all of these to the extent possible in this study."

According to MADD, in 2008 the following states have introduced legislation to lower the drinking age: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Kentucky (for military), South Carolina (for military), Vermont (to study lowering the MLDA), South Dakota (as a ballot initiative) and Missouri (as a ballot initiative).

The study was funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (SAPRP) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

[smokeyging]

just goes to show how thick the goverment is when they missed this.

[Bren]

Lower the age to 16...then we can see all these boy racers take emselves out....no more boy racers!

[Swoop]

Sadly, our gubbinment will take no notice of this because they generate large amounts of tax dollars from the sale of alcohol to persons in this age bracket. Statistics, and facts, be damned.

[Swoop]

Lower the age to 16...then we can see all these boy racers take emselves out....no more boy racers!
If they survive, we are saddled with the bill for recovery and rehabilitation. The taxpayer loses once again.

[Motig]

Stop the pussy footing . Lets just raise the age to 80. That will stop the problem.

[Dakara]

Lower the age to 16...then we can see all these boy racers take emselves out....no more boy racers!

Yea take themselves out and anyone unfortunate enough to be on the road with them.

I was 16 or 17 when they lowered it to 18 but to be honest it didn't really make a difference, it wasn't exactly hard to buy it underage.

If they did raise it back to 21, what would happen is we'd see less of them in town, and more street parties as the clubs are a lot stricter on ID than Liquor stores.

Which is the lesser evil, I don't know. But people who are stupid enough to drive while pissed really don't care how old they are.

[FJRider]

18 year olds can vote... after the election...???

[sidecar bob]

Sadly, our gubbinment will take no notice of this because they generate large amounts of tax dollars from the sale of alcohol to persons in this age bracket. Statistics, and facts, be damned.

They also pay a poultice in tax dollars to repair the broken bodies, Bury the victims of the carnage & to support those left behind with young families.

[Hitcher]

With a voting age of 18, it's hard to mount any reasoned argument why other issues relating to legal franchise or personal liberties should be any different.

The issue is more to do with attitudes towards the consumption of alcohol, rather than any nominal age restriction.

[BIHB@0610]

Agree - but to me that's just a good reason to raise the voting age to 21 .....

[Hitcher]

And the age of marriage, military service, driving license age...

[scumdog]

And the age of marriage, military service, driving license age...


But how is it that a 22 year old student still has to provide proof of Mummy and Daddys income when applying for certain financial assistance when they're meant to be independent in every other way?? eh?

Raise the drinking age to 21 and to hell with the false logic of "Oh but they can vote/fight for the country/wank at 18".

Notice how many more liquor-ban areas have sprung up since the drinking age was lowered??

18 = maturity and responsibility? "Yeah Right" (pffft!)

[CookMySock]

The study was funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (SAPRP) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.uh, while I agree with you completely, be aware of studies funded by those who are trying to achieve a particular outcome from them.

Ahh did I mention I agree with you completely? ah yes I did. ;)

Alcohol is stupid stuff anyway. Makes people incoherent and unduly bravado - not a good combination.

Anyway, agree with you completely here. ;)


Steve

[Dave Lobster]

How many 'youths' die in alcohol related crashes anyway?
And how many would an 11% drop be? Double figures? I doubt it.

And.. existing laws are adequate, if policed correctly.

[AllanB]

Lets face it they are more likely to introduce a big fat TAX on under 21 year old drivers than to raise the age.

Taxing voters is the only thing this government understands.

[CookMySock]

How many 'youths' die in alcohol related crashes anyway? Ah yeah quite a few do. And if they are not killed in the actual car, they are run over outside a party by one.. or fall into a river and drown, or get into a fight and get knifed, or... :confused:

Teens + Alcohol - Supervision = Death.

DB

[Dave Lobster]

Wouldn't:

Teens + Alcohol - (Supervision or sense of responsibility) = Death.

be more accurate? I got pissed in my youth shit loads of times. And I dare say a lot of people here did too. None of my friends died of anything to do with alcohol.. none of them did the drinking and driving thing.. etc.

I pretty convinced it's not anything to do with alcohol, more to do with teenage attitudes to life these days that is the problem.

[Flatcap]

Ah yeah quite a few do. And if they are not killed in the actual car, they are run over outside a party by one.. or fall into a river and drown, or get into a fight and get knifed, or... :confused:

Teens + Alcohol - Supervision = Death.

DB

Yes, and a change to the purchase age will be the needed silver bullet?

I think not

[Dealer]

so a total ban on alcohol in the under 21 age group only gave a decrease of 11%? Is that a good figure? still 89% of fatalities by my reckoning.
Its not the drinking thats killing them, its the drinking and driving.
We need to eliminate that, and not just in that age group.

[sidecar bob]

How many 'youths' die in alcohol related crashes anyway?
And how many would an 11% drop be? Double figures? I doubt it.

And.. existing laws are adequate, if policed correctly.

Yeah, I suppose its barely worth worrying about unless it can hit double figures eh. (idiot)
Going by what ive learned from a friend lately, it would be worth it if it saved just one heartbreak.
Maybe you need to have a chat to that really nice guy Harry, That had his daughter mowed down in Christchurch, I rekon i could actually arrange that for you too.

[Dave Lobster]

Sooo.. if the age that people were allowed to buy booze was higher, that wouldn't have happened?

What nonsense. If youths want to buy booze, they will, whether it's legal or not.

[sidecar bob]

Sooo.. if the age that people were allowed to buy booze was higher, that wouldn't have happened?

What nonsense. If youths want to buy booze, they will, whether it's legal or not.

Only because our Policing is piss weak.
Try doing something illegal in Singapore & see if you get away with it. (Yes, I have lived there)

[Dave Lobster]

Only because our Policing is piss weak.


Exactly.

word count..

[alanzs]

Stop the pussy footing . Lets just raise the age to 80. That will stop the problem.

Better yet, lets just outlaw it completely. It's worked for cannabis and other things Mummy doesn't want you to do. And, remember, Mummy always knows whats best for her children, who can't think on their own. :baby:

[davereid]

Increasing the drinking age to 21 may reduce accidents and deaths.

Increasing the driving age to 21 would have the same effect.

Banning motorcycles would be another very effective way of reducing accidents and death.

[James Deuce]

I reckon banning people over the age of 70 from driving would save more.

[scumdog]

Only because our Policing is piss weak.
Try doing something illegal in Singapore & see if you get away with it. (Yes, I have lived there)

That's because NZ has become a crappy over-PC-and-everybody-has-got-rights namby-pamby country where they give you police but not the teeth or the autonomy...

[scumdog]

Sooo.. if the age that people were allowed to buy booze was higher, that wouldn't have happened?

What nonsense. If youths want to buy booze, they will, whether it's legal or not.

Sure - but when the age was 21 you didn't have bunches of drunken gobby 16 to 20 year olds standing around/driving around doiing what they wanted like the world owed them a living.

The under 21s did drink, I know I did - but we did it a whole lot more discretely and ran for it if a cop car hove into sight.

[James Deuce]

The under 21s did drink, I know I did - but we did it a whole lot more discretely and ran for it if a cop car hove into sight.

Only because they'd tell your Mum & Dad. Now Mum & Dad get arrested or "cautioned" if they look at their kids wrong.

[scumdog]

Only because they'd tell your Mum & Dad. Now Mum & Dad get arrested or "cautioned" if they look at their kids wrong.

Or say "fuck-off pig, he's doing nothing wrong.."

[Her_C4]

That's because NZ has become a crappy over-PC-and-everybody-has-got-rights namby-pamby country where they give you police but not the teeth or the autonomy...


Yep - Lets take all the responsibility and personal choice away from the nation as a whole. Lets address the problems of the wider social economic groups that make up New Zealand by smashing them with a sledgehammer instead of isolating the actual problem and addressing that :bash:......

Here is an idea, while we are at it why don't we take away the whole of parental and social responsibility and the idea that we can teach our kids to be contributing members of society by givng that role to the Police as well :blink:.

Of course we can't possibly give them (the Police) the tools or the support to do this job properly - we will just pass the sledgehammer over and wait for a miracle to occur.

Oh you mean we already do? WHAT a surprise - NOT. Pfffft:shutup::Pokey:

[James Deuce]

Or say "fuck-off pig, he's doing nothing wrong.."
Sorry, yes, I forgot about that.

[Ixion]

One notes that the study cited by the OP is a USian one. It's relevance to New Zealand is undetermined .

Why not abolish the drinking age, no amount of twiddling with it seems to make much difference , and bring back some of the old prohibitions and sanctions. Like, being drunk in a public place. Parents responsible for underage children being under the influence (let alone drunk). maybe curfews on younger teens.

[BIHB@0610]

How many 'youths' die in alcohol related crashes anyway?
And how many would an 11% drop be? Double figures? I doubt it.

And.. existing laws are adequate, if policed correctly.

OMG just saving one life would be enough motivation to seriously think about the issue - I'm not saying I agree with raising the age, I don't know enough about it. But it should be considered seriously. Just imagine if one of the 'youths' that died was your own child? No-one, not one person, should ever have to bury their child, statistics be damned.

[Flatcap]

OMG just saving one life would be enough motivation to seriously think about the issue - I'm not saying I agree with raising the age, I don't know enough about it. But it should be considered seriously. Just imagine if one of the 'youths' that died was your own child? No-one, not one person, should ever have to bury their child, statistics be damned.

If it's all about saving one life then all activity should be banned.

Life is inherently risky - people die

[James Deuce]

OMG just saving one life would be enough motivation to seriously think about the issue - I'm not saying I agree with raising the age, I don't know enough about it. But it should be considered seriously. Just imagine if one of the 'youths' that died was your own child? No-one, not one person, should ever have to bury their child, statistics be damned.

Distressingly post-modern attitude.

200 years ago, most men who reproduced buried more than one child and wife.

People die. People don't care. Get over it.

[rwh]

Bring in Drinking Licences.

You can apply for it at 18, and if you drink responsibly you'll be fine. Do anything stupid and you get it suspended. It's a serious offence to fake a licence or supply alcohol to someone without one.

That should sort out a few of the drunk drivers - most of us would know driving drunk is stupid when we're sober, but I suspect many change their minds once they've had a few.

Richard

[sidecar bob]

That's because NZ has become a crappy over-PC-and-everybody-has-got-rights namby-pamby country where they give you police but not the teeth or the autonomy...

That wasnt intended as a sideswipe at the Police Scummy, More at the Govt that is driving them.
Start by giving back the Police the right to clip some young smartarse around the ear again, & go from there.

[Flatcap]

Bring in Drinking Licences.

You can apply for it at 18, and if you drink responsibly you'll be fine. Do anything stupid and you get it suspended. It's a serious offence to fake a licence or supply alcohol to someone without one.

That should sort out a few of the drunk drivers - most of us would know driving drunk is stupid when we're sober, but I suspect many change their minds once they've had a few.

Richard


I once knew a fellow who drove without a drivers license.....

[sidecar bob]

Distressingly post-modern attitude.

200 years ago, most men who reproduced buried more than one child and wife.

People die. People don't care. Get over it.

Youre a legend pal. Get back to us with your thoughts after you have buried a wife or child & let us know your how you feel then.
Your comment smacks of immaturity & a total lack of life expierence.
Incidentally, the person who's post you quoted on that has buried a child so maybe she is one up on you there.
It may surprise you to realize that people do care, I care.

[James Deuce]

Youre a fuckin legend pal. Get back to us with your thoughts after you have buried a wife or child & let us know your how you feel then.
Your comment smacks of immaturity & a total lack of life expierence.
Incidentally, the person who's post you quoted on that has buried a child so maybe she is one up on you there ya tosser.

Yes, that would be it. Immaturity and a lack of "life experience".

Yes.

Definitely.

[scumdog]

Yep - Lets take all the responsibility and personal choice away from the nation as a whole. . Pfffft:shutup::Pokey:


Yup, 'personal reponsibilty' is working so well it's a wonder we need any form of control at all, after all peopl always know/do the right thing and if they (unlikely) DO screw up they take it on board and don't do it again eh??:msn-wink:

[sidecar bob]

Yes, that would be it. Immaturity and a lack of "life experience".

Yes.

Definitely.

Well i dont know you, But thats sure as hell what it looks like.
Maybe im wrong & youre just an incredible hard arse that cant be got to & has absolutely no empathy & feeling for others.
If so, then i pity you.

[Mom]

We all know that you can obtain booze regardless if you are legally able to buy it or not. I have managed to get two kids through their teens despite the drinking age being lowered.

Both of them have a totally staunch and non-negotiable attitude to drinking and driving - IT NEVER HAPPENS!!! They would not even remotely consider getting behind the wheel of a car, or on a bike after having had anything to drink. No grey areas for them at all, no drinking if driving. This attitude extends to getting in a car with someone that has had a drink.


We live in a rural area, we dont have pubic transport and our taxi service is woeful. People live long distances apart. Making a poor decision to get in a car to get home would have been very easy and tempting I am sure. My daughter would have a party at home, all the kids would come in and hand me their car keys as they arrived. There was a confirmed culture of sober driving. All parents were contacted and they knew alcohol would be there, nothing hidden, all up front. I would end up with a houseful of teenagers in the morning, who would get on with the clean up and then go home.


I had a contract with my kids that I would come get them if they were faced with a non-sober driver as their only means of getting home. I never, ever got a call! What it did mean though was I had to let them stay the night at a much younger age than I probably would have liked, restricted drivers licenses and the night time curfew played a part in this as well to be fair.

They both now live in cities that have good taxi services (they cant afford them) and good public transport. They do go out drinking and always have a designated sober driver.

This attitude comes about from good communication with your kids, compromise between you and educating them about the dangers and risks.

I am very proud of them! Youngest daughter is now coming up 17, so far so good with her too.

[RantyDave]

his attitude extends to getting in a car with someone that has had a drink.
This was the only hard and fast rule ever applied to me when I was a teenager. My mum - smart woman - knew how to make a point when it mattered.

Dave

[Mom]

This was the only hard and fast rule ever applied to me when I was a teenager. My mum - smart woman - knew how to make a point when it mattered.

Dave

See now, I think you have hit the nail fair and square on the head there. Kids need to know what is ok and what is not, and what is totally not acceptable in any circumstances. Hells teeth, my kids even told me they used me as their excuse for not doing something that was not right. My Mom is a bitch, you have no idea what she is like! I told them, blame me, make me be the baddy! It works, I could care less what some dick kid thinks about me, but I knew my kids were safe.

[rwh]

I once knew a fellow who drove without a drivers license.....

You still need to enforce it, of course.

Richard

[Swoop]

A vicious cycle.

Alcohol makes people appear beautiful,
So, now even ugly teenagers can get laid,
so, more teenage pregnancy,
More dole/dpb bludgers,
= Just what the looney labourite sect need - more voters for them!

:jerry::jerry:

[Genestho]

Woa, when I posted this newly released American study I didn’t expect so much controversy, wow.
Interesting to see so much debate! Good stuff! Cheers!!

The stats provided by MOT show that 32% of road fatalities for the age group 15-19 have alcohol/drugs as the contributing factor.
The interesting stats start from the 20-24 age group – 46% of road fatalities in this group have alcohol/drugs as a contributing factor.
The percentage then jumps to 51% alcohol/drugs being the contributing factor for the next age group 25-29

I personally believe as has been said here in this thread, at the age of 18 if you can vote, fight for your country, and get married then you should be entitled to a drink. I also believe that teens will find another way to purchase alcohol if the age was lifted. Haven’t they always?

The facts are that 184 drink drivers took 103 passengers with them and another 72 road users with them in the years 2004 – 2006.

359 people unnecessarily lost their lives in preventable road smashes.

The police and sentences (which could be more stiffly imposed, the laws are available – maximum sentence for drink driving after 2nd conviction is two years…) clean up our mess.

I’ve been given some new research figures, at any one time in NZ we have 8000 recidivst drink drivers on our roads and 30,000 disqualified drivers….scary

We need to be responsible for ourselves, our friends and family – who drink and then drive.

[alanzs]

Drink driving laws should be made much stricter. 1st offense, lose your licence for one year and the car you were driving permanently, go to jail for a month, mandatory alcohol awareness courses for one year, $20,000 fine. After that, the sentences should get substantially more punitive.
Treat any fatality that occurs while drink driving as voluntary manslaughter, minimum sentence 15 years, no parole, sentences should be served consecutively for multiple fatalities.
Yeah, right! :beer:

[Forest]

With a voting age of 18, it's hard to mount any reasoned argument why other issues relating to legal franchise or personal liberties should be any different.

The issue is more to do with attitudes towards the consumption of alcohol, rather than any nominal age restriction.

I agree with this. The problem is essentially one of cultural immaturity.

[Dave Lobster]

The stats provided by MOT show that 32% of road fatalities for the age group 15-19 have alcohol/drugs as the contributing factor.
The interesting stats start from the 20-24 age group – 46% of road fatalities in this group have alcohol/drugs as a contributing factor.
The percentage then jumps to 51% alcohol/drugs being the contributing factor for the next age group 25-29


Curious then that 'speed' is rammed down out throat as the number one cause of crashes, and policed accordingly.

[sidecar bob]

Curious then that 'speed' is rammed down out throat as the number one cause of crashes, and policed accordingly.

Thats an easy one to answer.
You cant point a device at an oncoming car that will tell you exactly how pissed or disqualified the driver is.
Maybe when they introduce compulsory personal microchipping that will change.

[CB ARGH]

Nothing will stop them. Just because they're not allowed to doesn't mean they won't do it. Doing bad stuff is cool these days.

Instead of taking the alcohol away, EDUCATE them. :blink:

[avgas]

Young, alcohol, vehicles are a combination that was always set to destruction.
However i ask you, at what point is the law responsible, before, or after the parents provide all 3 in combination to society?
"Its not my fault" i hear far to often these days.

[avgas]

Nothing will stop them. Just because they're not allowed to doesn't mean they won't do it. Doing bad stuff is cool these days.
So you rape children, enjoy gay anal, murder small animals, rob banks, gamble, drink 500 cups off coffee a day, set vehicles on fire and dance the macarena?
All of these things are stuff you should not do, some are not allowed - all are considered "bad stuff". I'm sorry i understand what you are saying - but it is society that has made the rebel look 'cool'. However things can change - look at smoking?

[Genestho]

Drink driving laws should be made much stricter. 1st offense, lose your licence for one year and the car you were driving permanently, go to jail for a month, mandatory alcohol awareness courses for one year, $20,000 fine. After that, the sentences should get substantially more punitive.
Treat any fatality that occurs while drink driving as voluntary manslaughter, minimum sentence 15 years, no parole, sentences should be served consecutively for multiple fatalities.
Yeah, right! :beer:

I believe that drink driving laws should be stricter, we should know better these days! And if we dont then we should learn the hard way!!!

I like the idea of loosing cars permanently, but do you know it all comes down to how many votes will be lost?
If they take cars they'll loose votes! And I have been told this in no uncertain terms..I like Jail time as a wakeup call - and especially to protect other road users!

But there is a bigger picture here, no matter how much we may want tougher sentencing in all areas, theres not enough space, not enough prisons, costs too much to build more. I believe there are other ways to get around that too...

The interesting thing is that if there was more attention paid to the 85% in jails that are drug or alcohol dependant - we may free the prisons up.

The other thing is that if we expect Jail alone to be a detterent, we are wrong. Drink driving may be cured by stricter sentences but recidivism wont.

So I am also all for long term mandatory alcohol awareness AND psychological assesment..and Interlocking Devices as part of this long term program.

I have been passed on information that just last week the Government has directed officials from the Ministry of Transport and a number of other relevant Government agencies to undertake a comprehensive review of
processes relating to section 65 of the Land Transport Act 1998 (this
is the legislation that relates to "indefinitely disqualified" drivers).

Ive put my two cents worth forward to the person running the review...it'll be interesting to see what comes of this..

[NOMIS]

Lower the age to 16...then we can see all these boy racers take emselves out....no more boy racers!

Thats got to be the dumbest thing ive read on kiwibiker .. evverr ( im hoping your joking )

I would applause the government to raise the drinking age.. 25 would suit me Fine.. :-) New Zealanders drink to much i was one of thoes idiots who complimented my self on how much I could knock back and all kiwis are the same. Stupid

[Genestho]

As a result of recommendations from multi-agency work that was presented to Cabinet last week (2 July), the Ministry of Transport has been directed to undertake a comprehensive review of s65 of the Land Transport Act 1998, and to look at the possible use of alcohol interlocks in vehicles for repeat drink drivers in New Zealand. The Ministry of Transport will be leading this work and will take a multi-agency approach to it.

The scope of the review has not yet been agreed, but it is likely to incorporate looking at the information that is given to offenders about accessing treatment, and earlier intervention for first and second time drink drivers (although this is not covered by s65).

The Ministry has been asked to report back to Cabinet on this work by the end of September 2008.

[sidecar bob]

As a result of recommendations from multi-agency work that was presented to Cabinet last week (2 July), the Ministry of Transport has been directed to undertake a comprehensive review of s65 of the Land Transport Act 1998, and to look at the possible use of alcohol interlocks in vehicles for repeat drink drivers in New Zealand. The Ministry of Transport will be leading this work and will take a multi-agency approach to it.

The scope of the review has not yet been agreed, but it is likely to incorporate looking at the information that is given to offenders about accessing treatment, and earlier intervention for first and second time drink drivers (although this is not covered by s65).

The Ministry has been asked to report back to Cabinet on this work by the end of September 2008.

Legendary one girl.
Thats just what youve been working for!!

[firefighter]

With a voting age of 18, it's hard to mount any reasoned argument why other issues relating to legal franchise or personal liberties should be any different.

The issue is more to do with attitudes towards the consumption of alcohol, rather than any nominal age restriction.

I dunno when I was in the U.S, generally the drunk people around the place were a lot more in control of themselves- i'm not sure if that's just to a culture change or whatever but iv'e never seen drunks that well behaved (by comparison obviously)

[scumdog]

I dunno when I was in the U.S, generally the drunk people around the place were a lot more in control of themselves- i'm not sure if that's just to a culture change or whatever but iv'e never seen drunks that well behaved (by comparison obviously)

True.

NZ seems to be overloaded with youngsters that can't handle themselves, boozed or not.

[Genestho]

Legendary one girl.
Thats just what youve been working for!!


Thankyou Buddy!! Apparently this review is going through Cabinet today, Minutes from cabinet due back this arvo sometime..fingers crossed this review will be confirmed and official! This particular area is one of many that needs a good looking into - at the very least!

[Dave Lobster]

Wouldn't it be more effective to stop people driving cars until they're 21?

[Sanx]

I often found that during the few months I spent in the States, aged 20 and 21, most of them went out drinking with the sole purpose of getting as wasted as possible.

Being from the UK, I found this kinda odd, as even on student Wednesdays, you went out with your mates for a good time, and if you got pissed as a result, fine. But the intention was to have a good time, not drink yourself into oblivion. And the minimum drinking age in the UK is 18.

And then you compare it with the attitudes in France, where the minimum drinking age is, I think, 5. I certainly had no trouble buying beer aged 13 (and I looked 13). Because wine with a meal is commonplace, kids don't think alcohol is anything special, and therefore don't feel the need to 'prove' themselves later on by consuming as much of it as humanly possible.

So - don't raise the drinking age. Drop it to 12 or so. But at the same time, introduce much stricted penalties from drink driving, drunk and disorderly and other alcohol-related offences, plus enshrine parental responsibility in legislation so that, to paraphrase some old book, the sins of the children are visited on the parents. And then give the Police the teeth to enforce it.

It might take a few years, but the long-term advantages from bringing about a culture shift might well outweigh the short-term vote-winning gain of increasing the drinking age.

Oh - how stupid of me. Vote-winning. Guess what's going to happen then.

[sidecar bob]

The binge drinking culture was created by the government in the '70's with 6 o'clock closing.
The fashion was to get out of work on the dot of 5.00 & rush to the nearest pub & down as much piss in the 50 minutes you had, as you possibly could.
My guess is that France had no such ridiculous legislation & in doing so, Taught their people a different way of drinking.

[carver]

who is the government to tell us what we can do with our bodies?

[scumdog]

who is the government to tell us what we can do with our bodies?

Quite right dude - YOU tell'em: "leave out those stitches, don't DARE put a cast around my arm (leg/schlong whatever) and just LEAVE that bloody gravel embedded in my hands 'cos I had a bloody expensive bin getting it there, and as for those spinal fractures? - they're mine and well it's my body so leave them there buddy, just leave them alone ok?":Pokey:

[carver]

Quite right dude - YOU tell'em: "leave out those stitches, don't DARE put a cast around my arm (leg/schlong whatever) and just LEAVE that bloody gravel embedded in my hands 'cos I had a bloody expensive bin getting it there, and as for those spinal fractures? - they're mine and well it's my body so leave them there buddy, just leave them alone ok?":Pokey:

nothing wrong with medical staff dude, ever heard of medical insurance and private hospitals?

[scumdog]

nothing wrong with medical staff dude, ever heard of medical insurance and private hospitals?

So, it sems you're rich enough for those things, I bet the premiums cost level is reflected by the job/hobbies you have.:yes:

Not all can afford private medical insurance and since the 'premium' paid by most other NZ citizens only entitles them to el cheapo medical care the gubbmint doesn't want people doing TOO much dumb stuff that causes a drain said medical facilities .

[carver]

So, it sems you're rich enough for those things, I bet the premiums cost level is reflected by the job/hobbies you have.:yes:

Not all can afford private medical insurance and since the 'premium' paid by most other NZ citizens only entitles them to el cheapo medical care the gubbmint doesn't want people doing TOO much dumb stuff that causes a drain said medical facilities .

you get my drift though..

[scumdog]

you get my drift though..

Likewise.

Imagine no ACC etc - THEN how much would it cost for individual accidenr/injury insurance.??

And after the first claim imagine again how your premium would rise.. :doh:

[brendonjw]

I dunno when I was in the U.S, generally the drunk people around the place were a lot more in control of themselves- i'm not sure if that's just to a culture change or whatever but iv'e never seen drunks that well behaved (by comparison obviously)

I was in the US for 5 months in 2006 (went all over the place, west and east coasts) and i have to say that the drinking culture and the attitude in the clubs was miles ahead of what it is over here. I think there are too many wannabee tough guy/girl attitudes over here, its a load of crock, how to fix it, well thats a whole new topic. As for raising the drinking age, sure, put it back up, we survived fine (if not better) when it was at 21.

[BIHB@0610]

The binge drinking culture was created by the government in the '70's with 6 o'clock closing.
The fashion was to get out of work on the dot of 5.00 & rush to the nearest pub & down as much piss in the 50 minutes you had, as you possibly could.
My guess is that France had no such ridiculous legislation & in doing so, Taught their people a different way of drinking.

Shall we all go to Paris then? Research the legislative impact ... very important before setting policy......:niceone:

[avgas]

Imagine no ACC etc - THEN how much would it cost for individual accidenr/injury insurance.??
about $500-$1500 per year depending on you 'activities', ACC doesn't sound so cheap when you do the figures.

[sidecar bob]

Shall we all go to Paris then? Research the legislative impact ... very important before setting policy......:niceone:

Sounds great, M.F.E paying again are they mate?

[BIHB@0610]

Sounds great, M.F.E paying again are they mate?

Not for you hehe :bleh: guess we will just have to do some research in Christchurch this weekend with Joni :niceone:

[scumdog]

about $500-$1500 per year depending on you 'activities', ACC doesn't sound so cheap when you do the figures.


Hmm, a private company and no competition ....and mutiple claims...I'd like to see how the figure add up then.

[avgas]

Hmm, a private company and no competition ....and mutiple claims...I'd like to see how the figure add up then.
I dont see people crashing cars just cos they have insurance????? yet it seems perfectly fine to "be a man" and get yourself into all sorts of shit.
Safety net? or hammock?

[scumdog]

I dont see people crashing cars just cos they have insurance????? yet it seems perfectly fine to "be a man" and get yourself into all sorts of shit.
Safety net? or hammock?

Noooo...but you do see habitual bike-binners, rugby injured and other similar repeat claimers of ACC..

[slofox]

the clubs are a lot stricter on ID than Liquor stores.
.

Not my liquor store they ain't...........:Police:

[Dakara]

Not my liquor store they ain't...........:Police:

Haha :whistle:

At the ripe old age of 25, I get asked for I.D. 99% of the time upon entrance to a club where the doorman don't know me, casual bars virtually never, and I think the last time I was asked for it at a bottle store I was 16 and managed to talk my way out of it. :blink:

My Local supermarket has the right attitude though, the cashie cant sell Alcohol or ciggies without imputing my D/L number and getting the manager to swipe their card.... although after a while starts to get a tad annoying.

[Jeremy]

Did anyone else read the report and think it was an obvious as that banning bread reduces the number of bread related injuries?

Sure raising the drinking limit to 21 is going to reduce the number of alcohol related accidents in the age group under 21.

It gets the results, but in the most stupid way. If you ever apply logic like this you might as well blanket apply it. Raise the drinking age to 90, and you'd be certain to see a reduction in the alcohol related accidents in the under 90 age group...
But see you wouldn't be very happy with that would you?

Why not ban beer and wine? Surely you'd find that they were involved in most alcohol related crashes. How about banning bread? I'd imagine most murderers ate it the same week they killed someone.

I could go down the road, buy a bottle of Absolut Vodka. Drink the entire bottle at once. Drive home.

Which point did it go wrong? Obviously it wasn't purchasing the bottle. By itself drinking the bottle has few adverse effects other than that if I don't drink a considerable amount of water along with it I'll feel terrible in the morning. It was the point where I decided to drive when it was unsafe to do so.

If you really want to make a difference, start saying that it's wrong to have a SINGLE glass of wine and drive home. Because that impairs your ability to drive. Don't start making excuses, start getting really serious about this if you think it's that important. Why is it suitable to drive a car under situations where it would not be considered safe to pilot an aircraft? Raise the bar if you're really concerned about the safety of these things. Start considering that if you wouldn't consider it suitable for someone else, why on earth would you consider it okay behaviour for yourself?

If someone told me that tomorrow that the maximum blood alcohol limit for everyone was going to be the same as a 15 year old, I'd be perfectly fine with that. Can you give me one good reason why you're not happy with that?

If you can't do it, why the hell do you expect them to?

[Sanx]

The bread analogy is a bit daft for one very simple reason; eating bread does not impair one's ability to drive. Drinking alcohol does.

But the majority of the points you raised are entirely right; raising the drinking age will have absolutely zero effect on the drink-drive incidents. The under-21s who want to drink will obtain alcohol from other places and drink it regardless. Evidence from countries that already have high legal drinking ages shows this; with supporting evidence that lowering the age makes alcohol consumption less of a rebellious act, and therefore something that isn't done to impress.

One method of reducing drink drive rates would be to lower the acceptable blood alcohol level down to a level that effectively means you cannot have a drink and drive, rather than the existing system whereby you can have a beer or maybe two, possibly three, before being rendered unfit to drive.

I have no evidence for this, but I imagine that many drink drive convictions are not the recidivist drunk driver types, but plain ordinary Joes who had a couple of drinks after work and thought they were OK to drive home. Doesn't take much mis-calculation to go from being just under the limit and pretty much sober to a bit over the limit and a little bit impaired. Obviously, this change would have to co-incide with an education campaign aimed at re-inforcing the message that one drink = conviction. Increased enforcement during the same period (and possibly in the run up to it) would also pay dividends, especially if enforcement was targetted towards educating people in a positive way.

Take this for example. The law is passed to make any blood / breath alcohol level illegal. The date on which the new rules come into force, say three months from the time the amendment to the Land Transport Act is passed, is heavily advertised on television, radio and in print. In the preceeding thress months, the cops step up their anti-drink drive enforcement campaign. Where drivers are detected with alcohol on their breath, and the evidentiary breath alcohol test shows them to be existing under the limit, they are not prosecuted (obviously; they've done nothing illegal) but are told that as of the date the new rules will come into force, had they been caught in identical circumstances, they'd be prosecuted, face loss of licence, plus increased insurance costs etc. Some leniency may be shown after the date too, so the rule change comes acros not as an excuse for the cops to remove licences and generate revenue, but a safety measure.

There could also be some more measures taken:


Free shuttle buses back from clubs or entertainment areas, together with free parking for the cars of inebriated drivers.
Many clubs stamp your hand on entry as a proof of age or entrance check. Have a designated driver stamp, entitling the driver to free drinks, but no alcohol.
Double rego fees for anyone with a drink driving conviction, which expires five years after the date of the conviction. If no further conviction has been recorded, the excess is refunded.
Make alcohol awareness courses easier to come by, along with mandatory (and enforced) attendance following a drink drive conviction.
Jail for recidivist drivers. No home detention. No community service. Jail.
Make presentation of ID to buy alcohol mandatory no matter the apparent age of the purchaser. Only NZ driving licence and proof of age card acceptable. Should a drink drive conviction (possibly more than just one conviction) be recorded against the person, that information is prominently displayed on the licence / proof of age card and no alcohol can be sold to that person. it won't stop them obtaining alcohol, but it will make it more difficult to obtain.

I'm sure there are more ideas out there too. Essentially the trick is to effect a culture change, as that's the only thing that will lower the drink drive rates, and therefore casualties, in the long term.

[slofox]

Haha :whistle:

At the ripe old age of 25, I get asked for I.D. 99% of the time upon entrance to a club where the doorman don't know me, casual bars virtually never, and I think the last time I was asked for it at a bottle store I was 16 and managed to talk my way out of it. :blink:

My Local supermarket has the right attitude though, the cashie cant sell Alcohol or ciggies without imputing my D/L number and getting the manager to swipe their card.... although after a while starts to get a tad annoying.

I have ID'd 40 year olds a couple of times......:stupid:...usually because of what they were wearing obscuring the face or something. One even had her daughter with her...:shit:..Often enough they feel great about it and I feel like a dork....:drool: In fact, someone like myself cannot afford to take the risk. The DLA and local constabulary operate a lot of CPO's (read "stings") here and you really do not know if you are being entrapped or not - so you ask for ID. Personally I would like to see ALL purchases subject to ID (makes it easier for me...) but when I suggested this to a local MP (who wanted to raise the purchase age) he said "Oh I don't think the voters would like that!".......so he was more interested in votes than the "youth harm" he was banging on about.......funny that.....

[Sanx]

Personally I would like to see ALL purchases subject to ID (makes it easier for me...) but when I suggested this to a local MP (who wanted to raise the purchase age) he said "Oh I don't think the voters would like that!".......so he was more interested in votes than the "youth harm" he was banging on about.......funny that.....

Typical politician bullshit. Self-preservation and gravy-train continuance far more important about doing anything positive.

[slofox]

Make presentation of ID to buy alcohol mandatory no matter the apparent age of the purchaser. Only NZ driving licence and proof of age card acceptable.

I agree about the mandatory ID. (see previous post). But I would have to say that the New Zealand driver's license is a very poor form of ID - mainly because the photo is not large enough nor clear enough. The pic is often years old as well and the holder can look very different. I had a license presented to me by a 21 year old female whose photo looked nothing like she did. Her hair was the opposite colour, length, curl etc etc. The photo had been taken when she was sixteen, so was totally out of date. Not good enough for positive ID. I used other cues to satisfy myself that she was legit and proceeded with the sale. At other times I have asked for a signature to compare with that on the license...much to the disgust of the holder but hey, it's MY livelihood, not theirs.....18+ card is much better but much rarer unfortunately....

[Sanx]

I agree about the mandatory ID. (see previous post). But I would have to say that the New Zealand driver's license is a very poor form of ID - mainly because the photo is not large enough nor clear enough. The pic is often years old as well and the holder can look very different. I had a license presented to me by a 21 year old female whose photo looked nothing like she did. Her hair was the opposite colour, length, curl etc etc. The photo had been taken when she was sixteen, so was totally out of date. Not good enough for positive ID. I used other cues to satisfy myself that she was legit and proceeded with the sale. At other times I have asked for a signature to compare with that on the license...much to the disgust of the holder but hey, it's MY livelihood, not theirs.....18+ card is much better but much rarer unfortunately....

The types of ID I stated were simply based upon what I thought might be most common. You're at the coal-face so you'd know for sure. But haven't the newer driving licences got a bigger photo, albeit with something overprinted on them?

[slofox]

I haven't seen one like that yet, but the embossing over the top is a pain in the arse, especially on the small formats. I also raised this issue with the politician and he wasn't very interested in that either...wanker....

[slofox]

Typical politician bullshit. Self-preservation and gravy-train continuance far more important about doing anything positive.

He is my local MP - guess he gets one less vote this time round huh?.....:spanking:

[Flatcap]

The bread analogy is a bit daft for one very simple reason; eating bread does not impair one's ability to drive.

Unless said bread is wrapped around a pattie and you are driving with your knees while stuffing it in your cake-hole

[Genestho]

The bread analogy is a bit daft for one very simple reason; eating bread does not impair one's ability to drive. Drinking alcohol does.

But the majority of the points you raised are entirely right; raising the drinking age will have absolutely zero effect on the drink-drive incidents. The under-21s who want to drink will obtain alcohol from other places and drink it regardless. Evidence from countries that already have high legal drinking ages shows this; with supporting evidence that lowering the age makes alcohol consumption less of a rebellious act, and therefore something that isn't done to impress.

One method of reducing drink drive rates would be to lower the acceptable blood alcohol level down to a level that effectively means you cannot have a drink and drive, rather than the existing system whereby you can have a beer or maybe two, possibly three, before being rendered unfit to drive.

I have no evidence for this, but I imagine that many drink drive convictions are not the recidivist drunk driver types, but plain ordinary Joes who had a couple of drinks after work and thought they were OK to drive home. Doesn't take much mis-calculation to go from being just under the limit and pretty much sober to a bit over the limit and a little bit impaired. Obviously, this change would have to co-incide with an education campaign aimed at re-inforcing the message that one drink = conviction. Increased enforcement during the same period (and possibly in the run up to it) would also pay dividends, especially if enforcement was targetted towards educating people in a positive way.

Take this for example. The law is passed to make any blood / breath alcohol level illegal. The date on which the new rules come into force, say three months from the time the amendment to the Land Transport Act is passed, is heavily advertised on television, radio and in print. In the preceeding thress months, the cops step up their anti-drink drive enforcement campaign. Where drivers are detected with alcohol on their breath, and the evidentiary breath alcohol test shows them to be existing under the limit, they are not prosecuted (obviously; they've done nothing illegal) but are told that as of the date the new rules will come into force, had they been caught in identical circumstances, they'd be prosecuted, face loss of licence, plus increased insurance costs etc. Some leniency may be shown after the date too, so the rule change comes acros not as an excuse for the cops to remove licences and generate revenue, but a safety measure.

There could also be some more measures taken:


Free shuttle buses back from clubs or entertainment areas, together with free parking for the cars of inebriated drivers.
Many clubs stamp your hand on entry as a proof of age or entrance check. Have a designated driver stamp, entitling the driver to free drinks, but no alcohol.
Double rego fees for anyone with a drink driving conviction, which expires five years after the date of the conviction. If no further conviction has been recorded, the excess is refunded.
Make alcohol awareness courses easier to come by, along with mandatory (and enforced) attendance following a drink drive conviction.
Jail for recidivist drivers. No home detention. No community service. Jail.
Make presentation of ID to buy alcohol mandatory no matter the apparent age of the purchaser. Only NZ driving licence and proof of age card acceptable. Should a drink drive conviction (possibly more than just one conviction) be recorded against the person, that information is prominently displayed on the licence / proof of age card and no alcohol can be sold to that person. it won't stop them obtaining alcohol, but it will make it more difficult to obtain.

I'm sure there are more ideas out there too. Essentially the trick is to effect a culture change, as that's the only thing that will lower the drink drive rates, and therefore casualties, in the long term.

You are correct in many areas, the numbers of dd offences are 29000 convicted with a third being recidivists. So there are two types to deal with

I have bought up the idea of dd details on licenses at Parliement, with repeat offenses or disqual details restricting access to purchase of second hand cars, much like the idea of handguns with projectiles - too expensive.
I have bought up getting rid of cars and selling them - targets too many people - a vote looser.
Zero tolerance? Too hard to Police.
Severe punishment? Prisons are full
I also support cheap subsidised public transport. And If I can get a hand with BADD, the idea is to have membership with discounted public transport for members.
Education should be pushed on whats in a standard drink and the amount per glass both by milligrams of pure alcohol. I have seeked help from Alac in this area and they have been extremely minimally forthcoming (50 brochures for - going by last years run numbers of 400 riders) and when I asked for graphics on whats in a standard drink my email was ignored...

In a review about to be conducted by the Govt looking into section 65 of the landtransport acttheyre looking into A and D treatment programs being more readily accessed by first and second time offenders, amongst other iniatives.

I bought up many of your exact ideas, and then some at Parliament, and the answers were too expensive, targeting majorities or vote loosing iniatives..

I suggest a novel idea being that we sentence according to our laws we have already, but we dont see that very often either..

However, please do write to your local MP or Newspaper with your ideas, all help is much appreaciated.:Punk:

[avgas]

Noooo...but you do see habitual bike-binners, rugby injured and other similar repeat claimers of ACC..
Do they continue if the personal policy costs continue to increase?
Rather than say increasing the whole country's policy? aka notice rego costs lately