Bill slashing drink-drive limit before Parliament (down to 0.05g per 100ml of blood)

[Trade_nancy]

Well it is a bill being put forward by the Palmerston North MP (and a dick) Lees-Galloway. He was quoted in the Sunday rag recently when asked several key questions about his life preferences. On alcohol: Do u prefer Pinot or Tui - he said Tui. Got to be lacking in a balanced mind and pallet.
and...I've never felt inclined to trust anybody sporting a hyphenated name. Typifies lack of decision-making ability and compromise.
Q. If Lees-Galloway marries Hawthorne-Wilberspoon..... do his children become Less-Galloway-Hawthorne-Wilberspoons? When does it stop...

[scumdog]

Well it is a bill being put forward by the Palmerston North MP (and a dick) Lees-Galloway. He was quoted in the Sunday rag recently when asked several key questions about his life preferences. On alcohol: Do u prefer Pinot or Tui - he said Tui. Got to be lacking in a balanced mind and pallet.
and...I've never felt inclined to trust anybody sporting a hyphenated name. Typifies lack of decision-making ability and compromise.
Q. If Lees-Galloway marries Hawthorne-Wilberspoon..... do his children become Less-Galloway-Hawthorne-Wilberspoons? When does it stop...

Are you drunk????

[mashman]

No you suggested instead of shutting the car down, it should be equipped with a light. Go on, entertain me with how this 'light' will help an innocent road user when Mr drunk driver flies through a red light and cleans him out. Because I can tell you how not allowing the car to start will help them.

If the evidence suggests .08 is too high and that .05 is a better level then I'm happy for a law change. However no amount of law changes or new laws will prevent Mr recidivist drink-driver from getting behind the wheel and driving.

It will alert joe innocent (on foot or driving etc...) to their being someone that has been drinking and is now driving a car. That could be enough of a difference to stop someone from getting wiped at the lights or on the footpath or coming towards you etc... All of those things are accomplished by non-drink driving folk too. Do you honestly believe that where there is a market for bypassing/fooling the gadget that stops your car from starting because of excessive alcohol consumption that that need won't be met? Pulease, engage brain cell man.

So go on, your turn to entertain me. If you have anti-start devices fitted and it has been bypassed, then please tell me how you identify a drunk driver on the road? After all, if the vehicle is moving, then there's a sober person behind the wheel right?

[scumdog]

So go on, your turn to entertain me. If you have anti-start devices fitted and it has been bypassed, then please tell me how you identify a drunk driver on the road? After all, if the vehicle is moving, then there's a sober person behind the wheel right?

Most (if not all) of these devices requires regular inputs of breath - not just a puff before driving off.

And if the flashing lights bulb blows/the wire breaks etc your 'device' is no use.

[mashman]

Most (if not all) of these devices requires regular inputs of breath - not just a puff before driving off.

And if the flashing lights bulb blows/the wire breaks etc your 'device' is no use.

I've no doubt that there are safety measures, but even the best in the world can be bypassed by the smart kids who see that sort of thing as a challenge and a way to make money.

You guys must have estimates for the number of drunk-drivers on the road at any given point in time. What percentage do you think you pull over?

[onearmedbandit]

It will alert joe innocent (on foot or driving etc...) to their being someone that has been drinking and is now driving a car. That could be enough of a difference to stop someone from getting wiped at the lights or on the footpath or coming towards you etc... All of those things are accomplished by non-drink driving folk too. Do you honestly believe that where there is a market for bypassing/fooling the gadget that stops your car from starting because of excessive alcohol consumption that that need won't be met? Pulease, engage brain cell man.

So go on, your turn to entertain me. If you have anti-start devices fitted and it has been bypassed, then please tell me how you identify a drunk driver on the road? After all, if the vehicle is moving, then there's a sober person behind the wheel right?

Guess you should be getting in touch with the various counties in America that have had considerable success with the inter-lock device and tell them it doesn't work because people can by-pass it. And of course people would never disconnect a light or employ a by-pass on those. Oh noes they wouldn't.

[mashman]

Guess you should be getting in touch with the various counties in America that have had considerable success with the inter-lock device and tell them it doesn't work because people can by-pass it. And of course people would never disconnect a light or employ a by-pass on those. Oh noes they wouldn't.

So it doesn't happen? The device has never been bypassed? Why would you disconnect the light? It's not stopping your car from starting and it's not gonna have the fuzz pulling you over. It's a device to alert those around you that you're pissed up, beware.

Edit: from the NZTA

"Violations are breaches of the alcohol interlock licence conditions as defined in the Land Transport (Alcohol Interlock) Regulations 2012. These include:

Tampering with the alcohol interlock.
Failing a breath test due to excess breath alcohol.
Failing to undertake two or more consecutive retests.
Attempting to start the vehicle by circumventing or bypassing the alcohol interlock.
Tampering with the alcohol interlock.
Two or more failures to present the vehicle for scheduled inspection/servicing."

They must have wasted their time coz them thar devices are solid as bru.

[Scuba_Steve]

You would have to down a shit-load of them to get a proper breath-alcohol reading...

Have you tried? I always wanted to know if a ginger beer would register on the breathalyser.

[scumdog]

Have you tried? I always wanted to know if a ginger beer would register on the breathalyser.

MANY 'drinks' will give a reading at the side of the road.."say your name into this device sir" kind of thing.
But you need to have drunk a reasonable amount of alcohol to give a reading above the legal limit back at the cop-shop.

So th ginger beer would have to be as alcoholic as regular beer - and you would have to have drunk over two big bottles to be up around the legal limit.

NB: "Your result may vary"

[Scuba_Steve]

MANY 'drinks' will give a reading at the side of the road.."say your name into this device sir" kind of thing.
But you need to have drunk a reasonable amount of alcohol to give a reading above the legal limit back at the cop-shop.

So th ginger beer would have to be as alcoholic as regular beer - and you would have to have drunk over two big bottles to be up around the legal limit.

NB: "Your result may vary"

but I'm talking if the limit was 0 as some are calling for on this thread; how accurate are the machines, would they make every other person a criminal?

[unstuck]

[QUOTE=Mushu;1130617520]I'm not a drinker so I never get behind the wheel after more than 1 drink and won't touch the stuff at all if I'm on a bike,[QUOTE]


WTF, what you smokin and where can I get some?

[onearmedbandit]

So it doesn't happen? The device has never been bypassed? Why would you disconnect the light? It's not stopping your car from starting and it's not gonna have the fuzz pulling you over. It's a device to alert those around you that you're pissed up, beware.

Edit: from the NZTA

"Violations are breaches of the alcohol interlock licence conditions as defined in the Land Transport (Alcohol Interlock) Regulations 2012. These include:

Tampering with the alcohol interlock.
Failing a breath test due to excess breath alcohol.
Failing to undertake two or more consecutive retests.
Attempting to start the vehicle by circumventing or bypassing the alcohol interlock.
Tampering with the alcohol interlock.
Two or more failures to present the vehicle for scheduled inspection/servicing."

They must have wasted their time coz them thar devices are solid as bru.

Are you reading what you are writing, 'bru'? So your 'light', which intended purpose is to alert those around you that you're pissed up, is not going to have the 'fuzz' pull you over? Seriously? The police are just going to ignore the light, cos it's not for them it's for pedestrians and other road users? And do you not think they have to have legislation that makes it a violation to not just rip the inter-lock out of the car? Nah of course not. Same like they don't need legislation regarding the tampering of ankle-bracelets. Oh wait a second...

Lets propose this scenario. Jimmy Adams, a well like country bloke, has a bit of an issue having a few too many at the local country pub and driving home. So they fit your light. Jimmy drives home one Friday night at 11:30 at night on a dark country road. Up ahead is Bob and Anne driving home along with their 3 darling children. Jimmy is pissed. He has his lights on full. Bob sees an oncoming car with it's lights on full beam and thinks 'bloody idiot', slows down a little then BLAM, head on crash, Jimmy doing 140km/h in his HQ ute, a screech of metal, crunching of chassis's, broken glass. The silence apart from the screaming coming from Anne as she sees her husband slumped over the wheel, and her daughters neck snapped from the force of the impact. Where little Johnny sat is now an empty seat such was the force. How good was your light there in saving this tragedy from happening.

Now lets think about the same scenario with the inter-lock. Jimmy sleeps it off in the carpark. Bob and Anne and their kids make it home.

Sure Jimmy may have tampered with the interlock, but that's a may. With the light it didn't fucking matter whether he tampered with it or not.

How is the light better than an inter-lock?

[ellipsis]

...the open road speed limit is 100kph but it is almost nationally taken to be 109kph...the 0.8 levels seem to be taken quite arbitrarily also...until recently when my nephew, a sworn officer told me how much he estimated I could have as a quiet one after work, I was quite blown away at the copious amount of piss it was...I was always a bit concerned with having imbibed a quarter to a third of this amount and hitting the highway home...I still only have the much lesser amount and still wonder if I am on or bordering on the limit...'cos often it feels like it...

[mashman]

Are you reading what you are writing, 'bru'? So your 'light', which intended purpose is to alert those around you that you're pissed up, is not going to have the 'fuzz' pull you over? Seriously? The police are just going to ignore the light, cos it's not for them it's for pedestrians and other road users? And do you not think they have to have legislation that makes it a violation to not just rip the inter-lock out of the car? Nah of course not. Same like they don't need legislation regarding the tampering of ankle-bracelets. Oh wait a second...

Lets propose this scenario. Jimmy Adams, a well like country bloke, has a bit of an issue having a few too many at the local country pub and driving home. So they fit your light. Jimmy drives home one Friday night at 11:30 at night on a dark country road. Up ahead is Bob and Anne driving home along with their 3 darling children. Jimmy is pissed. He has his lights on full. Bob sees an oncoming car with it's lights on full beam and thinks 'bloody idiot', slows down a little then BLAM, head on crash, Jimmy doing 140km/h in his HQ ute, a screech of metal, crunching of chassis's, broken glass. The silence apart from the screaming coming from Anne as she sees her husband slumped over the wheel, and her daughters neck snapped from the force of the impact. Where little Johnny sat is now an empty seat such was the force. How good was your light there in saving this tragedy from happening.

Now lets think about the same scenario with the inter-lock. Jimmy sleeps it off in the carpark. Bob and Anne and their kids make it home.

Sure Jimmy may have tampered with the interlock, but that's a may. With the light it didn't fucking matter whether he tampered with it or not.

How is the light better than an inter-lock?

Why would the cops stop you? Attaching the light is a warning to other drivers, not a come and arrest me sign. Ergo, it won't be against the law to drink-drive I know, bombshell to take in or what, but the law doesn't stop your scenario from happening, neither does the posted speed limit stop it from happening and it ain't just drunks who speed.

It's not supposed to be a flawless system, but FFS it let's other road user know that someone is drink driving, which is something that doesn't happen. If nothing else it'll help the cops identify who is pissed and there are still laws against erratic driving that they could be charged with.

Question for ya. Why don't you drink and drive? Me, I have done, but only with total confidence that I can and I will do carefully. If I feel "unsafe", I won't. Will that attitude suddenly change just because it's "legal". No. Because I can still get pulled for erratic driving. I understand why there's such a backlash towards the idea, hell I even accept and agree with the reasons for that backlash to a huge extent. However there's still the issue where there's ?thousands? of people on the road at any given point in time with excess blood alcohol that go undetected.

[98tls]

How many years go by and how many people have to die before the drink driving issue will be taken seriously and not just something for politicians to posture over,repeat drink drivers repeat because a fine or pd teaches them nothing.1st offence 6 months jail 2nd 18 months etc,take away the average joes job and ability to pay for the things he needs to ie mortgage/bikes/cars or whatever hes into then its likely most of them will work out drink drivings a bad idea.Wont fix them all but the greater number i believe.