Experts back proposal to cut blood alcohol limit

[scumdog]

I guess it doesn't really matter what the limit is. There will still be those that claim "I'm ok to drive regardless of how many I've had", who will drive time and time again, and won't stop until they either kill themselves or some one else.

We already have limits and there are people up in court on the same charge for 8th and 9th time - some even pregnant!!!

FFS.

Gouge their eyes out after the third offence.

The won't do it again.

Problem solved

[Toaster]

Yep, it will the usual muppets that disregard the law anyway and drive drunk no matter what.

Same goes for smacking kids. The same people will beat up their children no matter what the law says.

[Conquiztador]

Tightening the laws will solve nothing. Changing peoples attitudes will. But that is too much like hard work. So lets just change the laws and make it look like we are doing something. At the same time we will clog up courts with dads who had a beer after their game of footy.

Is there any statistics showing that drivers that were 1/2 way of the legal limit have more accidents than the ones who had no alcohol in their blood? I doubt it...

[Genestho]

The first thing I was asked when an indefinately disqualified 4x prior recidivist drink driver that tried to resit his license 2 years prior - and failed, before killing my hubby and mates was "do you think lowering the limits would stop this kind of thing happening" (huh?)

I'll say again, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

There is no way in hell him or his ilk would respect a lower limit, if he couldn't comply with the current limit.

One of the prime movers of lowering the limit, will have you believe that recidivism is not a problem.

And that infact only cases highlighted recently in the media make it appear so...


"Recent highly publicised cases of repeat drink drivers recording very high blood alcohol levels are reinforcing the ‘urban myth’ that drink driving is mainly a recidivist problem, says the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC)."

“The fact that a drink driver is more likely to be a first time offender, than a recidivist, is consistent with the findings from surveys looking at alcohol use and driving,” he said.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1003/S00478.htm

However: "A first time drunk driving offender on average has driven drunk 87 times prior to being arrested". Reference:Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.


Here's some facts that anyone can source:
[05 -07] 57% of driver fatalities involving alcohol were either; never licenced, learner licensed, restricted, and disqualified
Not all fatalities and injuries are tested for alcohol and co-lated into crash stats (the human element, not always the first job in terms of keeping people alive! And fair enough)

I quote Ministry of Transport....

[on 05-07 driver fatality BAC readings] "Many of the drivers killed had blood alcohol levels well in excess of the legal limit 80mg/100ml, over half of those who tested positive had a blood alcohol level of over 150mg/100ml."

Which was why there was a request from all concerned at the purpose of lowering limits - to deferr lowering the legal limit, as evidence is lacking in NZ, until research based on fact - not surveys - was undertaken on risk levels between 0.05 - 0.08, which seem, looking at the data - to be a very small slice of the overall pie.

Not only that; we don't enforce penalties that we do have - permanent car confiscation is available at courts discretion, eba causing death, if we did enforce the true sentence, seems the penalties are severely out of step with the rest of the world anyway.

There is no doubt that a first time timer can be just as dangerous to road users as repeats, but it's clear the public want Meaningful Solutions, not a bandaid.

[scumdog]

Gotta agree with the above post - most of the EBAs I get are first-time offenders.

The recidivists tend to give the highest readings though.

[MadDuck]

Don't like alcohol and riding. Make the limit zero and avoid the ambiguity.

I NEVER drink when I am on the bike even at the Puhoi which is less than 20kms from home yet I am happy to have a beer and drive the car....NOT over the limit. So whats the damn difference? I have actually never asked myself that......but am now.

[rustic101]

The answer is simple - Have a zero limit. From this there is no ambiguity if you have had even one drink you are not safe to drive.

I have taken part of the controlled testing of the current Police Breathalyzer, at Police Calibrations . After six RTD's, two beers and a standard glass of wine I still blew under the Youth Limit/ four hours with food. My flatmate picked me up and was pissing herself with laughter at my state. There was no farking way I would have been safe behind the wheel of a vehicle let alone a bike....

What amazes me is individuals three or four times over the limit and driving...Further more are those individuals that think they are safe the day after and still blow over the limit, unfortunate but still a risk to us all.

[MarkH]

It's the same bullshit, the amount of drink drivers caught close to or just under the limit pales in comparision of recidivist drink drivers twice, and thrice the legal limit. Do something about that first.

I have no problem with them lowering the 80 down to 50 and making youth 10 or 20 (margin for error and driving an hour or two after 1 bottle of beer) - it wouldn't cause me any problems because I don't think I have EVER driven/ridden with 10mg let alone 50. I have had a couple of RTDs and then driven about 3-4 hours later - but my body would have pretty much finished processing the alcohol by then (I couldn't feel any effect any more).

But I have to also agree with Jonno - do something about those recidivist drink drivers before they kill someone (like some others already have). I am fine with 6 months loss of license and a fine on the first offence - but they should seriously ramp up the penalties on subsequent offences. The 2nd offence should be fairly harsh - maybe 5 years loss of license and $50,000 fine? The 3rd offence should carry a mandatory prison term. When you read a case of someone done for their 17th offence you have to wonder how little respect that driver has for the law & for the lives of others on the roads! Get these fuckers off the road before they kill someone!!!!!

[slofox]

I'm also of the school that thinks changing the limit won't affect the carnage caused by drink driving. I would predict that changing the law will have NO affect on road deaths. Because, as others have said, the worst drink drivers ignore the rules anyway. All lowering the limit will do is create more criminals and generate more revenue from fines...

Yes, I'm a cynic.

[The Stranger:Me]

I guess it doesn't really matter what the limit is. There will still be those that claim "I'm ok to drive regardless of how many I've had", who will drive time and time again, and won't stop until they either kill themselves or some one else.

We already have limits and there are people up in court on the same charge for 8th and 9th time - some even pregnant!!!

FFS.

What are you smoking? Lowering the limit will make these people see reason and stop them from ever doing it again.
We all know that chipping dogs stops dog attacks and anti smacking laws stops child abuse. I don't see how this is any different.

[F5 Dave]

The answer is simple - Have a zero limit. From this there is no ambiguity if you have had even one drink you are not safe to drive.
. . . ll.

The answer is not simple. You could get nabbed having drunk the night before very easily.

But none of that is relevant. You could have a negative limit; so that your blood has to reduce the level of alcohol just by by touching it - so everyone tested would fail

& you will still get these same feckers that would break our current limits driving.

[boman]

As has been said before, lowering the limit will NOT change a bloody thing. We could make the limit Zero, but, you will still get the disqualified drink drivers, and the lifetime drink drivers, ruining other peoples lives. These oxygen thieves do not give a f@#k that they might hit and kill somebody, because the system will only hit them with the same wet bus ticket they have been hit with before. It is a sham that the punishments in this country do not fit the crimes for which they have been handed down. As an Officer of the law once told me, unfortunately the system we have is the only one we got, so we have to live with it. In my opnion, we need to make the penalties alot harsher so these .... are unable, and possibly unwilling, to reoffend.

But I am not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

[The Stranger:Me]

The answer is simple - Have a zero limit. From this there is no ambiguity if you have had even one drink you are not safe to drive.

You are right, that is a simple answer. Cough syrup and some deodorants contain alcohol. How would you account for that with a "no ambiguity" zero limit?

[Ixion]

I have no problem with them lowering the 80 down to 50 and making youth 10 or 20 (margin for error and driving an hour or two after 1 bottle of beer) - it wouldn't cause me any problems because I don't think I have EVER driven/ridden with 10mg let alone 50. I have had a couple of RTDs and then driven about 3-4 hours later - but my body would have pretty much finished processing the alcohol by then (I couldn't feel any effect any more).

..

FAIL!. With a zero limit you'd lose your licence. It takes four DAYS for the body to completely eliminate all alcohol, down to zero.Yes, days. Because it's one of those asymptotic graphs, where the last bit takes forever to get rid of.

Sure, the last couple of days the amount will be (literally) microscopic, and you won't notice any effect at all. But, it's not zero. Zero means zero. Not 'just a little'. Zero.

As ALAC and the other wqowsers full know, a zero limit means no drinking at all . Ever. Unless you don't drive . Ever. It's prohibition by stealth.

[rustic101]

You are right, that is a simple answer. Cough syrup and some deodorants contain alcohol. How would you account for that with a "no ambiguity" zero limit?

Each of these situations; Irish Moss or High concentration of perfume may fool the initial screening device but the full CBT eliminates this. Failing that you are also able to provide a blood sample in which case either of these two situations will be completely eliminated. This include surgical hand wash and antiseptic.