Proposal to lower drink/drive limit

[schrodingers cat]

I've added this to the 'Drink drive Law Change Thread' but feel it got lost a bit.
I'd really like to know peoples thoughts on this idea.

Presently it is being mooted to lower the allowable blood alcohol limit to 50mg/100ml of blood from its current 80mg/100ml.

http://www.alcohol.org.nz/InpowerFil...5fc2ee4ded.pdf

In principle I don't have a problem with that but was wondering what people thought the pros and cons of having a 'soft landing' would be.
Heres how it could work.

If over 80mg/100ml apply status quo
If over 50mg/100ml the driver recieves an infringement notice and lots o demerit points.
More alcohol, more points/money up to the 80mg cut off
If a driver recieves 3 strikes in 2 years over 50mg but always under 80mg then they have to undergo drug and alcohol counselling.

In this way you would achieve a lower threshhold of alcohol level in the good sized group of law abiding citizens. Should someone get it wrong and overimbibe a little then they would surely get an almighty wake up call

IMO 'soft landings' work because a firm cutoff (79mg - lawful citizen, 81mg - baby seal killer) makes the 'crime bigger than it is.

They already do it with speed so there is a precedent already.

As I see it, there is plenty of research that show other factors (tiredness for instance) impairs folks driving as much or more than alcohol. These things can't be legislated against so why simply demonise alcohol?

So tell me wise ones - Why wouldn't this work?

[fossil]

I've added this to the 'Drink drive Law Change Thread' but feel it got lost a bit.
I'd really like to know peoples thoughts on this idea.

Presently it is being mooted to lower the allowable blood alcohol limit to 50mg/100ml of blood from its current 80mg/100ml.

http://www.alcohol.org.nz/InpowerFil...5fc2ee4ded.pdf

In principle I don't have a problem with that but was wondering what people thought the pros and cons of having a 'soft landing' would be.
Heres how it could work.

If over 80mg/100ml apply status quo
If over 50mg/100ml the driver recieves an infringement notice and lots o demerit points.
More alcohol, more points/money up to the 80mg cut off
If a driver recieves 3 strikes in 2 years over 50mg but always under 80mg then they have to undergo drug and alcohol counselling.

In this way you would achieve a lower threshhold of alcohol level in the good sized group of law abiding citizens. Should someone get it wrong and overimbibe a little then they would surely get an almighty wake up call

IMO 'soft landings' work because a firm cutoff (79mg - lawful citizen, 81mg - baby seal killer) makes the 'crime bigger than it is.

They already do it with speed so there is a precedent already.

As I see it, there is plenty of research that show other factors (tiredness for instance) impairs folks driving as much or more than alcohol. These things can't be legislated against so why simply demonise alcohol?

So tell me wise ones - Why wouldn't this work?

Zero % for learner and restricted license holders. .05 for full license holders ?
Personally I think the add campaign that went "if you drink and drive your'e a bloody idiot" should have been "if you drink and ride". We all know that it takes more skill and competence to ride a bike than to drive a cage and the amount of piss you can legally drink should reflect this.