Drink drive law changes

[Genestho]

Many of you will know, myself and a few others have been lobbying for awhile , particularly with regards to Recidivist Drink Drivers.

Dependant on what happens with public consultations and select committee hearings, legislation could be changed early next year.

What became clear in the final months was that the issues of prevention and deterrents had come down to lowering the limit across the board, which started in the media as soon as the crash that killed 3 Motorcyclists by a four times prior drink driver, started me on my journey began - or, targeting repeats.

Through public consultation - results released at the beginning of the year - The top issues adressed were repeats, what couldn't be agreed on was lowering the limit.

It became an extremely passionate debate for all involved.

In the end, amongst a storm of controversy - Government announced on Monday:

Alcohol Interlocking Devices - proposed at Judges discretion possibly from second offences - user pays.
Zero tolerance for repeat drink drivers.
Zero tolerance for youth drivers.
Doubling the Penalty for Drink Driving causing Death from 5-10 years.
Edit:Cabinet has also asked for more work to be done on penalties for the most serious repeat drink drive offenders.



There is still alot of work to be done to get these laws working right legislatively, a few loopholes need closing, avoidance issues need adressing, current and future changes need to be enforced.

Anyway, well done to those on KB that have supported the cause through wearing the T-shirt, attending BADD events, reported on the cause, assisted in some way, put up with Rants , or been a friend along a really tough road

Alot of hard yards have been put in from alot of people both here and offline, so thankyou all.

We never gave up.

[Gremlin]

the adult level still needs to be lowered

[mashman]

Dogged and relentless, I like it... superb work TGW, I hope you get everything you want

[onearmedbandit]

the adult level still needs to be lowered

Serious question. Is there any info on the number of crashes where the driver was within say 30% either way of the limit? I'm just curious as to whether the majority of alcohol-related crashes are caused by those grossly over the limit etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'm strongly opposed to drink driving.

[Gremlin]

Serious question. Is there any info on the number of crashes where the driver was within say 30% either way of the limit? I'm just curious as to whether the majority of alcohol-related crashes are caused by those grossly over the limit etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'm strongly opposed to drink driving.

Dun look at me for them fancy numbers stuff... I simply believe you can be too impaired to drive while still under the limit.

But then, I don't drink, so the limit could be zero for all I care

[rastuscat]

Hmmmmmmmmmm. TGW, maybe you can answer a question on this.

If a cop stops someone, the cop will have to know the drivers previous conviction list before being able to apply differential readings i.e. if the driver is over 20, the Popo will have to know if they have previous, as the test result will have different outcomes for someone with convictions.

It seems to me that this is going to be the end of passive breath testing on large checkpoints, as you can't find out a drivers history very quickly.

Secondly, what constitutes a recidivist? One conviction in the last 5 years? Two?

The practicalities of this are a bit hard to picture. Your advice appreciated.

[caseye]

This is news of great importance and a result of mammoth proportions. Considering all that had to be discussed, dissected, analyzed etc etc the result is one which will affect the lives of many and which will! make sure many more don't have to die needlessly on our roads.Well done T.G.W and all of the others who represented and stood tall.

[davereid]

Good work that girl, I have watched your input, and well done.

I am unconcerned about the limit staying where it is.

Drivers don't have a "drink speedo" to read, and in my opinion they fall into two camps - the 2 beers after work, or a wine at dinner guys, and the I don't give a fuck I'm driving anyway group.

So, if it were a speed limit, we have those doing 45, 50, 60 and those doing 160 as it were. While it can no doubt be proven that dropping the speed limit to 30 would save lives, its the 160 km/hr chap that needs the attention, particularly if it is a habit.

You work on catching the major, recidivist offender is the important bit.

[Toaster]

Good work that girl, I have watched your input, and well done.

I am unconcerned about the limit staying where it is.

Drivers don't have a "drink speedo" to read, and in my opinion they fall into two camps - the 2 beers after work, or a wine at dinner guys, and the I don't give a fuck I'm driving anyway group.

So, if it were a speed limit, we have those doing 45, 50, 60 and those doing 160 as it were. While it can no doubt be proven that dropping the speed limit to 30 would save lives, its the 160 km/hr chap that needs the attention, particularly if it is a habit.

You work on catching the major, recidivist offender is the important bit.

Exactly right.

Same goes for crime. Just because it is illegal, that doesn't stop some from doing it and they are the problem.

Much of it is just a bandaid on a large wound. Recidivist drink-drivers will still find ways around it such as using other cars they own or that of or friends and relatives (as they already commonly do). They keep driving drunk and while disqualified with little regard for the law or the safety of those wanting to use the roads and get to their destinations unharmed.

I say 2nd offence should be forfeiture of the car to the Crown, and goodbye freedom for a month and compulsory rehab.... one less drunk on the roads at least while behind bars.

I am tired of seeing large multiples of repeat disqualifications handed down laid and extentions to disqualifications that they ignore anyway!

[schrodingers cat]

I hear that there is discussion whether or not 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?

[SMOKEU]

I wonder who the retard is who came up with the idea of alcohol interlock devices to be fitted to vehicles. And people wonder why the government is fucked when there are muppets like that trying to rule the country.

[porky]

Dun look at me for them fancy numbers stuff... I simply believe you can be too impaired to drive while still under the limit.

But then, I don't drink, so the limit could be zero for all I care

x2

.....limit should be zero..... but ive got an axe to grind.....

[rastuscat]

I wonder who the retard is who came up with the idea of alcohol interlock devices to be fitted to vehicles. And people wonder why the government is fucked when there are muppets like that trying to rule the country.

Interlocks need to be fitted to the EBA retards, not the vehicles. Anyone can see that a car with an interlock will just sit in the driveway while the other car is used.

Or am I out of sync with the real world?

[Spearfish]

Hmmmmmmmmmm. TGW, maybe you can answer a question on this.

If a cop stops someone, the cop will have to know the drivers previous conviction list before being able to apply differential readings i.e. if the driver is over 20, the Popo will have to know if they have previous, as the test result will have different outcomes for someone with convictions.

It seems to me that this is going to be the end of passive breath testing on large checkpoints, as you can't find out a drivers history very quickly.

Secondly, what constitutes a recidivist? One conviction in the last 5 years? Two?

The practicalities of this are a bit hard to picture. Your advice appreciated.

The passive is the one they do in the car to determine if you have been drinking at all, if it fails you are required to undergo the evidential without delay but like you say how do cops know at that stage who should be at 0 and who is ok up to 400 breath alco level, but then they have different limits for youth etc
So if they sniff any alco you will have to wait for a radio check for your history, yes its just a min or so to wait but its not going to be a quick wave on even after a legal drink.
After a few months of being stopped by TAG units the general public will find it much easier just not to drink anything at all (the best outcome for us that have lost family to pisshead vehicular murder). So because the overpaid wet blankets in the beehive cant bring themselves to pass a law lowering the drinking level (because of public backlash?) by stealth they will have zeroed it.
I guess it depends on how cynical you are if you think the govt did it by design or blunder.
Considering the real outcome of the mining in NZ national parks bullshyt, I would say design.

A piss-head, social outcast, potential murderer completing a forfeiture of licence could be given a special licence with conditions that the popo can read then and there rendering this post as nothing more than a rant.

[Genestho]

I also forgot to add in the announcement:
Cabinet has also asked for more work to be done on penalties for the most serious repeat drink drive offenders.

To be honest, I didn't realise the outcome would be "either/or"

I lobbied for what I did because I couldn't see how lowering limits were going to prevent hardcore drink drivers.

A hardcore drink driver is indicated as having high level BAC, and/or repeat offences.


Treatment specialists have been saying for a few years now with OIA's to back the claims - that assessment is not mandatory, in 2006: 52% are on their 4th or 5th offence before judges order assessment and only 5% of all drink drivers were required to attend A &D counselling , so we have had no way of knowing who's a problem drinker, or who is simply a binge drinker and could be educated.

Spear fish - you're correct, other countries recognise a recidivist offender on an interlock program by issuing Interlock licenses for on the spot recognition.

Rastus - I believe a recidivist would be a repeat offence within 5 years, and there is an option called SCRAMX link to monitor alcohol thermally every half hour, to make sure zero tolerance is adhered to, circumvention is logged, and how this is dealt with depends on who monitors this, and what the penalty is.
Car avoidance can be monitored through the IID technology, usually dealt with in general as a penalty, swiftly and severely, and further enforced through courts, dependant - case by case.

Studies in New Mexico show those who tried avoidance techniques in court who were given a selection of more unsavoury sanctions, showed 70% of drink drivers opted into Interlock programs.

Again in New Mexico - In 2005 after installing mandatory interlocks to all DUI's first timers with high BAC readings - after using them for 10 years on recidivists, they have seen a 35% reduction in all alcohol related fatalities.

I refer to New Mexico because they have a hard drinking culture, quite rural and spread out, and the first to use IID's on recidivists, with 11 states in the US following suit, Canada, Europe, Sweden and Australia, NM has most successful outcomes based on a combination of factors, and best look back detail.

Files attached, you will note in one that 57% of license classifications are incomplete - learners, restricted, never held a license or disqualified so we can see that's part of the problem as Toaster referred to.

There's no magic bullet here, but a combination of education, rehab, technology, sanctions, monitoring, and most importantly community involvement - is proven to work.