Petitioning Ministry of Transport regarding recidivist drink driver policy

[The Stranger:Me]

For those interested....we have an online petition on the go.




Petition:
We the undersigned petition Steven Joyce, Minister for Transport NZ, to make these necessary changes for safer roads.

An Enforced Lifetime Driving Ban for Recidivists. The public roads are not the place to treat addictions, and it should never be an option for a repeatedly convicted driver to drive. Consequently New Zealand needs to permanently remove repeat impaired drivers from our road. We believe these people have no respect for the life of others and present a clear danger to all road users.

A life-time ban for third-time offenders is required. If this ban is ignored incarceration as a preventative measure is required. Currently there are over 3,000 repeat drunk drivers on our roads with at least three convictions. Many offenders have 12 or more drunk driving convictions.

Permanent removal of a vehicle for second time offenders. Currently the law allows for a 28 day impoundment of a car for a repeat offender (with two convictions within four years). On day 29 they get their vehicle back. As repeat offending is a clear indicator of addiction and sometimes denial, it makes little sense and is very dangerous, to return a vehicle.

Improved legislation for impaired drivers that kill . The Land Transport Act 1998 (and amendments) needs to be updated. The law is weak in several areas, with minimalist penalties. Currently many drunk drivers who kill are charged with excess alcohol causing death, with a rarely enforced maximum penalty of five years. With stronger legislation impaired drivers that kill could be charged with manslaughter and murder, or with longer penalties they could be kept off our roads longer. In part this could act as a deterant, but more importantly it is for public safety.

Recognition of killing with a car as a violent crime. When a person is killed by a drunk or drugged driver they are not considered a victim of violent crime when the killer is charged with excess alcohol causing death (under the Land Transport Act 1998). The killing is considered a serious traffic offence, not a violent crime. In New Zealand most impaired drivers are convicted of excess alcohol causing death, and not manslaughter. This needs to change; all those killed or seriously injured by an impaired driver in New Zealand should be considered the victim of violent crime.

Early Intervention. Compulsory alcohol and drug problem assessment and comprehensive treatment for first and second time offenders is necessary. Although treatment often does not work, it could prevent many impaired drivers developing into recidivists. Currently very few impaired drivers are assessed and treated and many residential rehabilitation programmes have closed down in New Zealand.

Adoption of Technology. The introduction of alcohol interlocking devices is long overdue. These devices are proven as preventative and educational tools that stop an impaired driver from starting their vehicle. They are proven to have saved lives, and are particularly successful at reducing recidivism. New Zealand stands out as being one nation that has not introduced this technology.

The petition is Here

Cheers

Whilst I am generally in agreement with your intent I have a question and harbour some reservation about number 4.

Hypothetically, if I'm over the limit and driving along the road minding my own business and some sober numb nuts pulls out on me and I take him out.
In the eyes of the law, did I just kill him or did he kill himself?

[MSTRS:Me]

Whilst I am generally in agreement with your intent I have a question and harbour some reservation about number 4.

Hypothetically, if I'm over the limit and driving along the road minding my own business and some sober numb nuts pulls out on me and I take him out.
In the eyes of the law, did I just kill him or did he kill himself?

Part of the risk you take if you drive drug or alcohol impaired. How many are driving 'just fine' and get caught at checkpoints? You want them to get off too?

[The Stranger:Me]

Part of the risk you take if you drive drug or alcohol impaired. How many are driving 'just fine' and get caught at checkpoints? You want them to get off too?

I have no idea how many get caught at check points, I'm sure TGW can help you with that one.
No I don't want them to get off, but I also don't want them to be charged with murder because they were.

[sinfull]

Alcohol, is it an addictive drug ?
Why then is it legal ?

Zero blood alcohol whilst behind the wheel is the only law that would work, if you plan to drive/ride, you don't drink ! We've all seen ppl who can drink a box of RTDs and still blow under, as well as those who have had two drinks and become impaired !

[GOONR]

Signed, #73

[MSTRS:Me]

I have no idea how many get caught at check points, I'm sure TGW can help you with that one.
No I don't want them to get off, but I also don't want them to be charged with murder because they were.

Driving pissed trumps being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Zero blood alcohol whilst behind the wheel is the only law that would work, if you plan to drive/ride, you don't drink ! We've all seen ppl who can drink a box of RTDs and still blow under, as well as those who have had two drinks and become impaired !

Actually, a zero tolerance can't work because many foods etc contain the potential to create alcohol readings, and even cough medicines can contain small amounts of alcohol.
As for readings compared with being visibly affected - 2 different things. I know a guy who is legless after 3 330ml beers - yet there's no way he would blow a fail reading. But you're right about big drinkers who seem fine...they would not be in a blow or blood test however.

[The Stranger:Me]

Driving pissed trumps being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If that is the case then to each his own, but sorry I can't support the petition.
Drinking and driving is wrong for sure and if that causes death then I have no problem with manslaughter. I think murder is a stretch as that to me implies a degree of intent, but hey I don't see that as out of the question entirely.
However each case should turn on it's merits. The simplistic approach of you drank, someone died, it's your fault is wrong.

[spajohn]

Signed #81

[MSTRS:Me]

If that is the case then to each his own, but sorry I can't support the petition.

Your perogative.
However, there is a theory that goes along the lines of...ask for more than you expect, and then 'compromise' on the parts that attract the biggest screams. Everybody's friend Nick is good at that...

[The Stranger:Me]

Your perogative.
However, there is a theory that goes along the lines of...ask for more than you expect, and then 'compromise' on the parts that attract the biggest screams. Everybody's friend Nick is good at that...

Valid point.

[Genestho]

If that is the case then to each his own, but sorry I can't support the petition.
Drinking and driving is wrong for sure and if that causes death then I have no problem with manslaughter. I think murder is a stretch as that to me implies a degree of intent, but hey I don't see that as out of the question entirely.
However each case should turn on it's merits. The simplistic approach of you drank, someone died, it's your fault is wrong.

Each case would continue to turn on it's own merits, as each case would be entirely different circumstantially.

There is NO Murder reference in the petition, nor is it something that is being lobbied for.

Definition of Manslaughter:

# homicide without malice aforethought
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

# An act of killing a human being unlawfully, but not wilfully (as opposed to murder)
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/manslaughter

# An unlawful killing without premeditation or malice. It can be voluntary or involuntary, depending upon the circumstances attending the killing.
www.larsonfoundation.com/SurvivorGlossary3.html

# The killing of a person without intention, premeditation, or malice aforethought.
deathpenalty.procon.org/viewresource.asp

# The deliberate killing of a person without premeditation (or the other circumstances of murder) is manslaughter for which the maximum sentence is ...
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...and-a-day-rule

# is a criminal variation of homicide that normally carries a lesser sentence than murder, due to its lack of malicious intent.
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Manslaughter

The only way to make headroads is to have debate, and if this petition causes debate, and from the debate comes action - it's got to be a good thing.

If you are happy for things to stay the same, then that is your choice, say nothing do nothing

If you are happy to see something come from this, then please - you're welcome to email the author of the petition, email Crossroads or sign the petition. All feedback is valued.

[Genestho]

Your perogative.
However, there is a theory that goes along the lines of...ask for more than you expect, and then 'compromise' on the parts that attract the biggest screams. Everybody's friend Nick is good at that...

From what I have learn't, you are bang on Sir

[The Stranger:Me]

Each case would continue to turn on it's own merits, as each case would be entirely different circumstantially.

There is NO Murder reference in the petition, nor is it something that is being lobbied for.

Improved legislation for impaired drivers that kill . The Land Transport Act 1998 (and amendments) needs to be updated. The law is weak in several areas, with minimalist penalties. Currently many drunk drivers who kill are charged with excess alcohol causing death, with a rarely enforced maximum penalty of five years. With stronger legislation impaired drivers that kill could be charged with manslaughter and murder, or with longer penalties they could be kept off our roads longer. In part this could act as a deterant, but more importantly it is for public safety.

Am I missing something here?

Your comments appear to be at odds with MSTRS as they relate to my original question.
I would be interested to hear at least a police perspective on this side of things.

[MSTRS:Me]

Scummy is all for it, FWIW. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1129716225

[Genestho]

Am I missing something here?

Your comments appear to be at odds with MSTRS as they relate to my original question.
I would be interested to hear at least a police perspective on this side of things.

No that would be me!
I do apologise, I did overlook that particular reference to Murder in the petition before posting my reply.

Knowing the words, I have read them before many times, and the journey well , I assumed that word may have been removed before being written into petition, but it hasn't, and I am ok with that

I think the main point in that line is; could be, which relates back to Mstrs comments, he does speaketh the truth
EBA related crashes and deaths are seen as nothing more than traffic offences in NZ.

Murder has been used successfully recently in the states http://www.drinking-problem.com/drun...drunk-driving/

Kathleen Rice, who prosecuted the case, said, “A 7-year-old girl is beheaded. The driver of the car is crushed to death. I think too many people think about drunk-driving crashes, or accidents as people like to call them, as, you know, driving off the road. Or rolling through a red light. These crimes are incredibly violent.”

"Martin Heidgen was arrested and charged with murder, which hardly ever happens in drunk-driving cases in America, as most people are charged with manslaughter, or accidental killing. Rice explained, “The statute under which he was charged required us to prove that through his actions, he had a completely depraved indifference to human life.”

“His actions made the deaths of Katie Flynn and Stanley Rabinowitz inevitable. It was as inevitable as taking a gun and firing it at an individual who’s standing five feet away from you,” Rice said. She added, “Can you imagine if the law allowed Mr. Heidgen to say, ‘Wait, wait, wait. But I was drunk. So I shouldn’t be responsible.’ What kind of lawlessness would you have if intoxication excused that kind of behavi

In my opinion (and I have had discussions with a couple of lawyers over this), a recidivist drink driver does display intent, by continuing on - you can't tell me, that when attending the required alcohol course, 'you're' not made aware that these actions can and do kill.....before receiving your license back.