John Key's right, I think!

[Edbear]

I'll see what I can do about that .

Remove the limit entirely. Let's face it, people will drink drive irrespective of laws, fines, punishments etc...

If an incident is caused (non fatal) and one/all of the drivers/riders is intoxicated, 1 month jail instantly. No fucking around, get them portacabbins up and running, 1 month in the road users prison, add the person to the register. Every subsequent intoxicated road incident will cause the previous sentence to be multiplied by 2. 2 offences 2 Months, 3 - 6 months, 4 - 8 months etc...

If an incident is caused (fatal) and one/all of the drivers/riders is intoxicated, 1 year jail instantly. No fucking around, get them portacabbins up and running, 1 year in the road users prison, add the person to the register. Every subsequent intoxicated road incident will cause the previous sentence to be multiplied by 2. 2 offences 2 years, 3 - 6 years, 4 - 8 years etc...

That'd stop me drink driving , it may not stop everyone, but a fine just doesn't cut it, not even close for the recidivists...

Perhaps, but I think realistically, it is not only politically expedient to have a set limit, but what would be publicly acceptable as well. I think the public would resist a zero limit even if many support lowering the limit. If, as the stats seem to show, the vast majority of offenders are well and truly in excess of 400, then targetting them with harsher penalties is the way to go.

[mashman]

Perhaps, but I think realistically, it is not only politically expedient to have a set limit, but what would be publicly acceptable as well. I think the public would resist a zero limit even if many support lowering the limit. If, as the stats seem to show, the vast majority of offenders are well and truly in excess of 400, then targetting them with harsher penalties is the way to go.

I don't care if it's not politically expedient... this is the REALITY of the situation we find ourselves in. Political expediency is not the name of this game. Aren't we trying to discourage people from drinking and driving because they could end up killing someone? Politics should have nothing to do with it. As for the public , erm, that's pretty easy. If you're the govt, whatever limit you set, they'll follow it, they'll have to, it'll be law .

The limit is, almost, pointless. You have 2 ways (obviously more, but 2 at the moment) to catch a drink driver. 1. A checkpoint, 2. After an incident has halted their progress.

Checkpoint Scenario...

Officer: Hi, you've tested positive for alcohol. How many did you have?
Me: 3
Officer: You seem to be slurring your words a bit. Would you please pull your car to the side of the road for 30 minutes and drink some coffee (or another alcohol dispersant?)... and we'll reassess you. You do realise that should you become involved in an incident tonight that you WILL face jail time.

Incident Scenario

Hi, you've tested positive for alcohol. You have the right to remain silent..........

I fully realise that there are other issues involved and that the above may seem unpalatable to some, but tough shit, we do what the govt says anyway ... If drink driving needs to be tackled, just do it, stop fiddling with a limit that people ignore anyway, stop producing legislation that really does nothing other than give a set of guidelines... give a firm solid rule. If you're drink driving and fuckup, you're going inside.

[Juzz976]

That may be your opinion of your ability. Try not to tar everyone with the incompetence brush.

So you can stop in the same distance from 160k as 100k? interesting laws of physics in the world you live in.

Again, what absolute piffle!! Death can occur below the speed limit as well as above it. Look at the statistics. Of all the deaths on the road, where speed is a considering factor, how many of the people 'speeding' were above the posted limit?

They were not driving/riding to conditions most likely, its a limit not a target.
Had they been at a lower speed would they have had a better chance of avoiding accident or limiting the impact and making fatal injuries minor.

The speed limit on the open road is an arbitary figure, not a speed a which you will die when you travel faster than it.
Speed DOES NOT KILL.

Drinking alcohol doesn't either
Both however affect the distance you will travel before coming to a stop or avoiding a hazard therefore compromising safety margins.

A zero breath/blood alcohol limit makes about as much sense as having loss of licence for 1k over speed limit.
Not condoning speeding or drink driving, just amazed about double standards..

[James Deuce]

Drinking alcohol doesn't either

I can assure you that drinking alcohol can in fact be deadly in its own right. It is inherently dangerous. That's part of the point.

As for the comment about speeding and "double standards" you're not vaguely comparing apples with apples. Having said that I've never had a speeding ticket or a speed camera photo.

[Banditbandit]

They would not have to. They would be locked up.
Think of it like this, if they don't evaluate the consequences, it does not matter - as they will be on the road less regardless.
Either by choice (if they are smart enough), or by enforcement (Jail time).

Either way public wins.

Yes - if they are in jail then they are not on the road .. but they don't make the choice not to drive - they drive .. disqualified, drunk, stoned .. whatever .... deterent sentences don't work for many crims ... they don't think they'll get caught ..a dn if they do they go to jail ... a normal part of their life anyway ...

[James Deuce]

Yes - if they are in jaiol then they are not on the road .. but they don't make the choice not to drive - they drive .. disqualified, drunk, stoned .. whatever .... deterent sentences don't work for many crims ... they don't think they'll get caught ..a dn if they do they go to jail ... a normal part of their life anyway ...

Hence death penalty for second offence.

[avgas]

Yes - if they are in jail then they are not on the road .. but they don't make the choice not to drive - they drive .. disqualified, drunk, stoned .. whatever .... deterent sentences don't work for many crims ... they don't think they'll get caught ..a dn if they do they go to jail ... a normal part of their life anyway ...

I agree with the fact that some people wont learn - that is life.
However me having to deal with them simply because "can't be bothered" mentality? Really?
I say lock em up - and keep locking em up for more and more time, and even if they dont change - the chances of me finding them on the road is slimmer.

At the end of the day its about controling these individuals. If they expect it - don't hold back, give it to them. Feed them the whole 9 yards.
They will either choke or die.....but most importantly they won't bothering anyone else.

[Juzz976]

I can assure you that drinking alcohol can in fact be deadly in its own right. It is inherently dangerous. That's part of the point.

What point, water can be dangerous too.

As for the comment about speeding and "double standards" you're not vaguely comparing apples with apples. Having said that I've never had a speeding ticket or a speed camera photo.

So its ok to speed because speed never killed anyone,
and dont drink any alcohol because its dangerous.

......

[Banditbandit]

Hence death penalty for second offence.

Taliban style ???

[James Deuce]

What point, water can be dangerous too.



So its ok to speed because speed never killed anyone,
and dont drink any alcohol because its dangerous.

......

Alcohol is a poison. Part of the thrill of imbibing is that it's not good for you.

As for the second point Evel Kneivel would be proud of your ability to leap chasms of tremendous size without an apparent rocket pack.

[Genestho]

Yes - if they are in jail then they are not on the road .. but they don't make the choice not to drive - they drive .. disqualified, drunk, stoned .. whatever .... deterent sentences don't work for many crims ... they don't think they'll get caught ..a dn if they do they go to jail ... a normal part of their life anyway ...

You're right, anacdotely and officially - there are many specific psychological and criminal profiles on these groups of people.

And in that case - It really shouldn't be whether we can deter a recidivist anymore, when use is not made of sanctions to change behaviour..and it'll be good to see how Interlocks fit in, if used as an option when passed through legislation...

When clearly the mentality is ignorant of lives around them...

At what conviction should it become prominently about the safety and protection of 'my family' and 'my friends' and licensed road users, and not of the poor offender's circumstances?

(rhetorical - please carryon )

[ducatilover]

At what conviction should it become prominently about the safety of 'my family' and 'my friends' and licensed road users, and not of the poor offender's circumstances?

(rhetorical)

It's a stupid system really.

[Dave Lobster]

So you can stop in the same distance from 160k as 100k? interesting laws of physics in the world you live in.

I can stop my motorcycle from 100mp/h in (at a guess) half the distance that a hooded savage or oblivious asian can stop their borderline legal Corolla or bean can exhausted impreza from 100km/h.

They were not driving/riding to conditions most likely, its a limit not a target.
Had they been at a lower speed would they have had a better chance of avoiding accident or limiting the impact and making fatal injuries minor.

Make your fucking mind up. Inside the limit, or to the conditions??

Drinking alcohol doesn't either
Both however affect the distance you will travel before coming to a stop or avoiding a hazard therefore compromising safety margins.

Pulling on the brakes to adjust your speed so you can stop within half the distance you can see is the answer.. not sure of how you can cut the alcohol in your bloodstream, willynilly.

Do you even own a passport??

[candor]

I agree with the fact that some people wont learn - that is life.

Some can learn - they learn scientifically proven methods to pass breathalysers can reduce bac by over 10%. Was informed of this by a recidivist, who twice got through checkpoints well drunk lately, using the techniques shown by studies to lower BAC. The driver was surprised at getting through while "blind - couldn't see".

It wouldn't be so likely in the USA where 0.08 or 0.1 is the limit at which charging is automatic, but where law in most states also allows charges at over 0.04 or 0.05 if observations other than breath eg in "walk the line" tests lead to a finding of DUI.

Also the breath can be over 50% above the alcohol level….a breath tester reading of 0.14% taken from the last part of the breath may indicate that the blood level is only 0.09%.” 9(6) The Champion 16 (1985).

Which means a driver at BAC 0.03 could read a 0.05, but sadly pollies are currently passing the road safety and other matters bill which removes your right to an independent blood sample should you demand Police prove their case by taking one for themselves. So if the samples get mixed up at ESR, and you weren't guilty at whatever the legal limit ends up, you still might be found so!

This stripping of the right to defend oneself happened to youth lately, with no one noticing, slipped by in the latest boy racer vehicle seizure bill.

[twinbruva]

If you don't drink and then hit the road, what have you got to worry about? (Apart from all the 'normal' dangers.)