F'wit drunks on our roads. (Is there any other kind of drunk driver?)

[peasea]

We catch 'em, put 'em on front of the Courts and Judges unleash a volley of wet-bus-ticket-slapping. i.e. 17 year old troublesome little cowl with breath level of 716mgm get 40 hours community work and 6 months disq.

Jail and a fine of up to $4,500 could be dished out for 1st and 2nd offenders - when was the last time THAT ever happened??

(Back in the mid 70's for the first bit - I know of three drink-drivers sent to jail and it was their first offence of any sort)

Oh, and the old man said that while it was harder to prove DIC in the 60's it was a mandatory FIVE years disqualification on conviction.

Penalties seem to have gone down, maybe too many influential people were getting caught??

Oh, ho, ho...... any police on that list?

You do have to wonder though; the penalties these days are not as tough as I got for a first offence back in 1980. $400 and 12 months and I was only just over the limit. That was a lot of hay back then and most first offenedrs only get six months these days. (And no, I didn't give the cop any lip.)

Go figure; maybe the judges are protecting themselves......

[Genestho]

So, I spent a day with a mate of a mate in the states a few months back. He had an interlock in his car and had to breathe into it every ... half hour or so? Something like that. He had, IIRC, three DUI convictions and said the interlock, and I quote:

So, yeah, bring that shit on - we'll have those.

Dave

Wow interesting, a few of us have conducted quite a bit of research into this, we found mostly pro's over con's, good to hear specific feedback like that dude. Cheers. What state, is your friend in over there?

From what I hear the Interlocks sound like they will be going ahead here in NZ, as part "penalty" (if you like)

I'll wait for the official announcement, AND at what point of conviction/s they'll be introduced, whether mandatory alcoholism assessment and rehabilitation will be part and parcel.

It'll be a little costly, but not as costly as smashes, or deaths caused by drink driving, there'll be a bit of balking but only by the recidivist offenders, it should only affect a smallish minority, and, the way it's "done" overseas, is user pays installation and maintenance.

So, we shall see! Worth a crack anyway Nige!

[Genestho]

Oh, ho, ho...... any police on that list?

You do have to wonder though; the penalties these days are not as tough as I got for a first offence back in 1980. $400 and 12 months and I was only just over the limit. That was a lot of hay back then and most first offenedrs only get six months these days. (And no, I didn't give the cop any lip.)

Go figure; maybe the judges are protecting themselves......

Yea you do have to wonder eh?
No lip? True? hehe.

[McWild]

At least we can take some solace in knowing that that 17 year old's insurance is fucked here on in.

Actually scratch that, third party isn't compulsory. So now we probably just gained another uninsured driver.

...wow this thread just got even more depressing.

[peasea]

Yea you do have to wonder eh?
No lip? True? hehe.

It' true. I remember being arrested, he was really cool about it. I wasn't speeding or doing anything stupid, just had a couple o' beers too many. He got back what he gave. I had a blood test back at Pearce (sp) House in Welly, thought I'd pass actually, but there you go...........

[scumdog]

... thought I'd pass actually, but there you go...........

Ah, how many times have I heard THAT??

[Genestho]

For those interested, I recieved an email today from MOT's senior adviser.

" The Minister considered the (Interlock) report and asked a few questions which I have provided the answers for. He is now considering the answers and hopefully his office will get back to me next week with the green light to go ahead.
I’ll let you know when I hear more."

[ynot slow]

March 2000 had a few beers after work no tea,driving out of carpark it 3.45am Saturday flashing lights,nice cops ask reason for driving?answer too pissed to walk.

Blew 828mg in station(2nd test),license taken on the spot,offered to give me ride home,and drop my car off as well 3.5km from town,moral of story there was be humorous and calm and they look after you.

Next thing is court time $800 plus costs$130 and 6 mth disq,then another $550 for work license.Worked out taxi costs were $10-12 at time,so was basically 2 weeks pay for fine those days.

Annoying when on highway patrol last night under 20 blew similar(but his level was 150 not 400mg) and got 80hours and 6 months.Where is deterent there.

[Genestho]

With all due respect to officers down in the coal face, here's a few observations I'd make about youth.

Alot of youth are only interested in a few things:
Sex, Parties and associated dramas with youthlifestyle.

Not true in all cases, I've met some smart, responsible teenagers.

We have to realise that youth, probably don't watch the news, or keep upto date with current affairs, have any idea what a "150" limit is, nor how easy it is to breach that limit. We have to actually break into that world.


Here's what I don't understand, we educate youth through SADD - Don't Drink and Drive, but then we leave them a limit.
Don't and Drive in the class, but on the roads you can have little bit ...you just don't know what that little bit is.

Which then becomes undefinable and uncomprehendable to them.
It took me a bit to get my head around.

I don't have a problem with "Don't and Drive in the class", but why leave them a limit on the roads, they can't guage, adults can't, so why expect youth?

It would make sense to me, up the drinking age, to zero the youth limit, then this would make nothing to understand, you just don't do it.
(Yes some will get through the cracks on both issues, you won't catch everyone)


I'd go as far, as to suggest, that 3.3 million we spend on anti dd advertising, that may get attention the first few times, eventually fades on the radar months after they're played...(ask any "man" on the street)

-Would be best spent getting SADD into schools, in school hours, somehow accrediting it to NZQA, and breaking into their worlds, so they understand, consequences, limits, and penalties. Thus building change in generational thinking, sending them off with complete understanding!

I presented a video, and speech a few months back, and had the teens staring with big eyes, and there were tears, AND THEN they came out and looked at the bikes, there was alot of eff words, and hands clasped over heads. I didn't expect that, but I'm glad...that was a bunch of youth that understood the carnage.

Currently SADD rep's have to work in lunch hours and after school, at a time they're trying to study for NCEA quals. (that's a schooling issue from what I understand - not a Roadsafety issue)

One of our friend's, of whom was killed in our accident, her daughter is all but running SADD in her school. I've told her she needs to concentrate on NCEA, that is what will help her future, but her passion is also to prevent this happening to other families.

I mean how serious are we, we seem concerned every couple of months in the media, prosecution numbers are trotted out "EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT JUST NOT GETTING THROUGH" - but it doesn't relate to what we're doing to change things, the deterrents and education aren't able to reflect the concern shown.

The youth limit undermines the youth education.

[davereid]

" The Minister considered the (Interlock) report and asked a few questions which I have provided the answers for. He is now considering the answers and hopefully his office will get back to me next week with the green light to go ahead."

About a year ago my company had some dealings with a K. Maciver from Land Transport regarding manufacturing these interlocks locally if they ever became a requirement.

A friendly lady, but we sort of got fobbed off - its early days, write back later etc etc.

I can't remember exactly what happened, but I formed the opinion that

(a) There were no specification for what they wanted, thus making it impossible for a New Zealand manufacturer to offer a compliant product.
(b) Nothing was ever going to happen anyway.
(c) if it ever did, a device was going to be purchased from overseas so everyone could visit the factory on a fact-finding mission, and
(d) Industrial Levin was not on the places to visit list.

Maybe things are moving again ?

[Genestho]

Interesting! Thanks!

That's the lady I've had alot of contact with, like you say, nice lady, tried to fob me off too, until I'd told her a couple of things, in a nice way

I'd heard through an MTA rep that there were enquiries run past there too, so I knew things were rumbling in the background.

They've been doing a fact finding mission, to prepare the report - ready for the Minister, along side some cited research myself and a few others had submitted.

So I wasn't too worried that thing's wern't moving along in that department.

Regarding specs, and implementation.

As a fellow lobbyist says, when you lobby for a specific thing, and you leave it in the hands of Govt, things get a little twisted, we need to be involved right to the bitter end. I hope they continue to listen!

Sounds like they didn't, but did they ever get back to you?

I wonder if there are reports on outsourcing and manufacturing in NZ...you'd think for a variety of reasons, manufacturing in NZ would be the go.

[Ixion]

About a year ago my company had some dealings with a K. Maciver from Land Transport regarding manufacturing these interlocks locally if they ever became a requirement.

A friendly lady, but we sort of got fobbed off - its early days, write back later etc etc.

I can't remember exactly what happened, but I formed the opinion that

(a) There were no specification for what they wanted, thus making it impossible for a New Zealand manufacturer to offer a compliant product.
(b) Nothing was ever going to happen anyway.
(c) if it ever did, a device was going to be purchased from overseas so everyone could visit the factory on a fact-finding mission, and
(d) Industrial Levin was not on the places to visit list.

Maybe things are moving again ?

I am interested (and somewhat perplexed) how such devices are to work.

Most (if not all) recidivist drink drivers will be alcoholics. Now, for an alcoholic (one who has not managed to make the break through to total abstention) , there is no decision as to whether to drink or not .He (or she) must have drink and will have drink.

So the interlock will present no inhibitory factor. It will not make the person whose car it is fitted to NOT drink. The only way it can work is to prevent the person being able to start or drive the car.

Passing by such obvious evasion methods as having a friend blow into it, or using canned air (though I fail to see how the device can cope with such basic circumvention), how is it to stop the vehicle being used?

On a modern car (or bike), prhaps. They have computers and such like.

But my Pajero is simple. Points, coil, battery. You can fit every fancy device under the sun. All I need do is diconnect the wire at the ignition coil. Connect a short length of wire from that terminal to the battery. The car will start (I might need one more length of wire, from battery to starter solenoid). And it's manual transmission , so forget about doing clever dickery with the auto transmission interlocks. So likewise, are most of my bikes.

You could maybe do something with an electro-hydraulic valve in the brake circuit that locked the brakes on. But such a device would have to fail into the locked on position (since otherwise it could be negated just by cutting the wire to it). So, if it failed whilst the vehicle was in motion, the brakes would immediately lock up and could not be released (and bear in mind it might not be the drink driver driving at the time!). You would need to be bloody certain that it was not going to fail.

I think this is another example of legislation that is only effective with regard to the people who pose no need for it. The sober, non-alcoholic legislators think "oh, yes, that would stop me drinking to excess. And if I did slip up and have one to many , I would not be able to start the car, so that would be good. Problem solved". But people who think like that are no problem anyway.

The problem is the devious folk who would think (if they did think the matter through, which they don't of course), "Well, I must have drink. And once I have it, I will end up drunk. But I must have transport. So how can I disable this stupid thing they have fitted to my car?" .

Show me your interlocks. And give me a day. I bet I can get round them .

I sympathise, and empathise, with the intention. Which is entirely laudable and noble. I just don't see that it will work

[Genestho]

Shit, I'm having a coffee, after packing the car before I head off the weekend, and I have to read this LMAO.

Firstly, Thankyou Ixion, that's fine, and I see what you're saying.

This is really a rather complex subject, an answer to those questions is just as complex to speal..as you can gather.

The only answer to all of those questions, is pull together the cited research I have with highlights that address these concerns, which is what I tried to do for MOT.

It is at this point, that the interest was peaked enough for them to do their fact finding mission to present a report to the minister!

There a few other specific initiatives, regarding penalties and rehab, which MUST be addressed for this to work at its best.

The bottom line is it cured 60-80% of recidivism, paired with specific rehab, and monitoring, in studies conducted out of Aus, Canada (eh?) Sweden and the US.

What I can do - if you want to understand more, is after my weekend away (I really should be gone already!) pull out the research and point out specific answers to your questions, as cited by the research!

In two years of looking into this, I don't see at this point any other option, around the world that is researched and proven effective, apart from comments thrown round, which aren't condusive, or available, nor ever will be.

So, it's worth a crack nige!

[Drew]

The piss weak penalties, are just another product of the bleeding heart, cant take away peoples rights brigade.

A drivers licence is not a right, but a privilage. A comodoty, afforded to those who prove themselves worthy. Be flippant with it, and have it actually cost something. If people lose their joobs, (I did for demerit points loss of licence), so fuckin be it.

Taking responsibilty for action is no longer common place.

[davereid]

I am interested (and somewhat perplexed) how such devices are to work.

Passing by such obvious evasion methods as having a friend blow into it, or using canned air (though I fail to see how the device can cope with such basic circumvention), how is it to stop the vehicle being used?

Show me your interlocks. And give me a day. I bet I can get round them .

The easiest tampering is merely to drive another car. Get a $200 wreck and just ignore the law.

We did some very preliminary design work, and we were sure that any mechanically competent person would be able to bypass virtually any system that we could install. However, we were also sure we could detect any tampering.

We didnt seriously consider stopping a car - just inhibiting starting, as we didnt want to be blamed for a car cutting out while passing a truck, or half way over a railway crossing.

Some of the ideas we came up with were..

Multiple sensors - test for alcohol, test air temperature and test carbon dioxide to ensure a live human was performing the test.

Random repeats of the test while car is being driven, which if failed would be logged, and possibly reported via GPRS or similar.

We looked at ways of detecting a tamper. It seemed pretty easy to detect that a vehicle has started in spite of a test being failed or not made at all.

We also considered logging all driver behavior - rpm, speed, etc etc and making it available as a download for enforcement, or automatically reported via GPRS.

Of course, all this costs money, and NZ being an egalitarian society, any system we produced would have to be cheap, so the poorest alcoholic could afford one, not just the rich drunks.

Otherwise it would soon become a system to allow the rich to keep driving, while the poor walked.