A sobering read

[SMOKEU]

But we have all this drama and yet the govt via council still allows pubs and clubs with carparks via resource consents. Overnight they could say you can only enter a bar/restaurant/pub with a recent bus or taxi receipt and ban all cars from CBD drinking areas on fri sat nights etc.
But no our alcohol industry brings in too much tax revenue and doing something costs too many votes...

We don't need any more of a nanny state than we're already in. People should be forced to take much more personal responsibility for their actions than current legislation allows. You fuck up = you suffer the consequences.

Limiting car parks around pubs is like the pathetic attempt the government is using to try to reduce alcohol related harm by reducing opening hours of licensed premises, liquor stores and supermarket alcohol selling hours instead of making the people themselves bear full responsibility for what they do next. The pathetically weak laws we have keep the majority of citizens in line, as they fear getting a criminal conviction and limiting their future job and/or travel opportunities.

The hardcore recidivist offenders don't give a flying fuck about court appearances and convictions, and it's these people who should be prosecuted hard enough to the extent that they are fearful of breaking the laws and the subsequent consequences.

[Edbear]

I think I have blinged you enough. Yup, we already have good laws and people to catch the law breakers. What is needed now, like yesterday, not in 10 years time, are the judges who will apply the law to that extent.

How blatantly obvious is the fact that recidivist drink drivers are not going to stop until they are stopped? The first offence should be mandatory 12mth loss of licence then after that permanent loss of licence and six months jail. Third time? Say two years jail and compulsory AA. Causing injury by accident - same as Aggravated Assault, causing death, mandatory Manslaughter. That carries the same possible penalties as murder. In all cases, no early parole. Full sentence served. I am not too confident of this happening any time soon.

[FJRider]

We don't need any more of a nanny state than we're already in. People should be forced to take much more personal responsibility for their actions than current legislation allows. You fuck up = you suffer the consequences.

True ... ZERO breath / Alcohol limit ... right .. ???

Limiting car parks around pubs is like the pathetic attempt the government is using to try to reduce alcohol related harm by reducing opening hours of licensed premises, liquor stores and supermarket alcohol selling hours instead of making the people themselves bear full responsibility for what they do next. The pathetically weak laws we have keep the majority of citizens in line, as they fear getting a criminal conviction and limiting their future job and/or travel opportunities.

Laws keep the honest ... honest. The rest ... whatever suits at the time. (That includes YOU)

The hardcore recidivist offenders don't give a flying fuck about court appearances and convictions, and it's these people who should be prosecuted hard enough to the extent that they are fearful of breaking the laws and the subsequent consequences.

And the rest should be left alone ... right .. ??

[SMOKEU]

True ... ZERO breath / Alcohol limit ... right .. ???

Laws keep the honest ... honest. The rest ... whatever suits at the time. (That includes YOU)

And the rest should be left alone ... right .. ??

1. I'm not advocating a zero breath alcohol limit.

2. You've got to start looking a bit more at context. I don't go around deliberately causing more danger to other road users than necessary in order to perform the task at hand.

3. Every road user should be placed under scrutiny for any wrongdoing that has major potential implications for safety or traffic flow in the current conditions. If that person has done nothing wrong, then they shouldn't have anything to fear from law enforcement.

[FJRider]

1. I'm not advocating a zero breath alcohol limit.

So you think it's OK to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol .. ???

2. You've got to start looking a bit more at context. I don't go around deliberately causing more danger to other road users than necessary in order to perform the task at hand.

What do you consider as necessary ... your ability to get/drive home after drinking .. ??

You admit you DO drink and drive ... and I have to "Look a bit more at context"

So you admit that you have put other road users at risk ... you might have "accidentally" had a drink or two more than what could be considered safe (as opposed to illegal)... ???

3. Every road user should be placed under scrutiny for any wrongdoing that has major potential implications for safety or traffic flow in the current conditions. If that person has done nothing wrong, then they shouldn't have anything to fear from law enforcement.

By your own admission ... that includes YOU ...

But .. if you are within the law ... it's not wrong ... right .. ???

[Akzle]

The hardcore recidivist offenders don't give a flying fuck about court appearances and convictions, and it's these people who should be prosecuted hard enough to the extent that they are fearful of breaking the laws and the subsequent consequences.

i get the intent. But no. That requires sensible rules to enforce for a start.
Second, for all the illegal shit ive been caught for, theres 90% more i havent.
And i dont give a fuck about any of it, because ive never caused anyone else any harm.

[SMOKEU]

So you think it's OK to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol .. ???

What do you consider as necessary ... your ability to get/drive home after drinking .. ??

You admit you DO drink and drive ... and I have to "Look a bit more at context"

So you admit that you have put other road users at risk ... you might have "accidentally" had a drink or two more than what could be considered safe (as opposed to illegal)... ???

By your own admission ... that includes YOU ...

But .. if you are within the law ... it's not wrong ... right .. ???

What's the point in having a breath alcohol limit if one can't consume any alcohol before driving? How do you propose to drink small amounts of alcohol, to be under the breath alcohol limit, without being under the influence of alcohol in some manner? Explain it to me, as you keep wanking on about it but you offer no explanation as to how your theory works. I tried to test your theory last night by drinking alcohol, but I certainly did become impaired by it even after 1 standard drink (don't worry, I didn't even leave the house). Maybe I wasn't drinking the alcohol properly, but you seem to be the expert on anything and everything so maybe you will have some insight.

When operating any motor vehicle, there is always a potential for the occupant(s) of that vehicle, or other vehicles to come to harm. For example, one could drive a car and have a heart attack, causing the car to go out of control and run down an innocent pedestrian. It's all about mitigating risk. I'm sure the roads will be much safer if the speed limits were 5kmh for all roads, but there's always going to be a balance of safety vs practicality.

I don't know if you're dumb or just trying to troll, but I'll explain this for the last time, and if you can't comprehend it then it's your problem:
1. I do not start drinking alcohol if I haven't eaten a meal recently and have a reasonably full stomach.
2. I plan my travel so if I know that I have to drive, I will generally consume no more than 2 standard drinks over a period of no less than 30 minutes.
3. Each subsequent hour, I will consume less than 1 standard drink.
4. If I feel like I am "too impaired" to drive, I will make alternative travel arrangements.
5. I've been drinking alcohol for long enough to know where my limits are, and how it will effect me.

I know this will keep me well under the breath alcohol limit, as I was once pissed and felt unsafe to drive and I still blew under the limit, and as I had explained before I wasn't operating any sort of motor vehicle at the time.

[haydes55]

Just to add to the convo, if anyone had a DUI recently, once they get their license back, they are strictly on a zero limit. If they get pulled up or in a check point and blow 0.01, they get another slap on the wrist.

I'd like to see drunk drivers having to sit through a scare tactic course about drink driving, with mothers of victims speaking and victim impact statements if victims etc.

You still have to laugh at how there are people who manage to crash a car sober... In my opinion if you can't operate a car sober, you shouldn't have a license at all. Sober drivers kill innocent people as well. Why aren't the people who gave them licenses scrutinised for letting them pass with inadequate skills?

Or at least test drivers capabilities regularly, like a license WOF.

[Katman]

You still have to laugh at how there are people who manage to crash a car sober... In my opinion if you can't operate a car sober, you shouldn't have a license at all.

Same with motorcycles.

[avgas]

This guy has his 18th EBA conviction.
He should be killed.

Why don't they just cut up the license when that happens?

May be thats how it should be - get caught DIC, lose license and have to start over again.
Get caught with no licence, drunk, behind a wheel - go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not pay $200

Do the latter twice and just get dropped in the ocean somewhere and told which direction shore is.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Why don't they just cut up the license when that happens?

.

Cause it doesn't stop them driving.

[SMOKEU]

Why don't they just cut up the license when that happens?

May be thats how it should be - get caught DIC, lose license and have to start over again.
Get caught with no licence, drunk, behind a wheel - go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not pay $200

Do the latter twice and just get dropped in the ocean somewhere and told which direction shore is.

Cause it doesn't stop them driving.

Exactly. Disqualifying people from driving works on most people, but for the repetitive hardcore offenders it's just another typical softcock approach that achieves nothing other than making judges and police happy that they've actually done something.

[TheDemonLord]

Cause it doesn't stop them driving.

But you know what would?

a .308 FMJ travelling at 600m/s ripping through their brain stem.

[ellipsis]

...the poor guy was killed...it was the direct result of a national problem/disease that is rampant... from the lawmakers, judges cops, down to the old ladies playing a bridge tournament to our youth who are just about expected to play the game to be normal kiwis...not one thing other than a complete ban on the stuff is going to make one iota of difference...and even if 90% of the voters ticked the 'prohibition', box on the voting papers, (if it's still on there), the problem would still remain...humans have been troublesome when mixed with alcohol ever since the bloke or blokess that sipped the tainted grape or whatever fruit it was that accidentally changed it's molecular structure...it would be easier to fix public transport and take vehicles off the road altogether than fix the age old problem...the law of not being able to serve an intoxicated person in a licenced premises, if adhered to by the book would mean every drinking establishment in the country would be breaking the law every minute of the day and would be paying enough fines to fix the national debt of the country...all words written or vocalised on the subject are nothing more than ineffectual words...the whole system and psyche of the problem is fucked...lots of money to be made though...

[SMOKEU]

...the poor guy was killed...it was the direct result of a national problem/disease that is rampant... from the lawmakers, judges cops, down to the old ladies playing a bridge tournament to our youth who are just about expected to play the game to be normal kiwis...not one thing other than a complete ban on the stuff is going to make one iota of difference...and even if 90% of the voters ticked the 'prohibition', box on the voting papers, (if it's still on there), the problem would still remain...humans have been troublesome when mixed with alcohol ever since the bloke or blokess that sipped the tainted grape or whatever fruit it was that accidentally changed it's molecular structure...it would be easier to fix public transport and take vehicles off the road altogether than fix the age old problem...the law of not being able to serve an intoxicated person in a licenced premises, if adhered to by the book would mean every drinking establishment in the country would be breaking the law every minute of the day and would be paying enough fines to fix the national debt of the country...all words written or vocalised on the subject are nothing more than ineffectual words...the whole system and psyche of the problem is fucked...lots of money to be made though...

While you do have some valid points, your response seems similar to what the lefties would say. Why punish the majority of people for the actions of a minority? What we should be doing is holding individuals responsible for their own actions. If people prove that they repeatedly cause trouble when under the influence of alcohol, then these people should be imprisoned. The laws should be sufficiently strong so that people no longer want to offend.

I've been to Singapore and done pub missions late at night and in the early hours of the morning on weekends, and there were plenty of young people on the piss, but there was a clear lack of hooliganism that we have here, because people are too scared of the legal ramifications, so they no longer want to do stupid stuff. I'm not saying that we should copy their approach, but the current system is not working. I'm not saying we should treat first time offenders harshly, but if people prove again and again they they can't conduct themselves in a safe and sociable manner when drinking, then it's not the fault of society or anything else, but the entire blame should be put on the offender and they should be punished accordingly.