drinking while driving

[skippa1]

I'm not even sure you know what you're on about at this stage
Lets make the limit zero... but then why stop there?
I say we ban people that wear glasses, they're visually impaired. Vision seems like an important thing to have to drive
Ban people with hearing aids, sound is an important factor in driving
Ban physically impaired, driving requires use of arms, legs & head anyone without proper movement for all of them shouldn't be driving
Ban the colour blind, again vision is important

Serious tho I do hope you never consume any of the products I've previously mentioned before driving lest you be a hypocrite. Also the list is much bigger than just what I've mentioned so might pay to check what you're eating/drinking before driving
Oh & why you're at it, maybee look up the prohibition & let me know how well that worked out for America cause it seems somewhat relevant to your cause

comments like the above are like comparing apples with oranges and saying they are the same because they are fruit

We are talking about drinking and DRIVING.....not prohibition, but hey we're not prone to exaggeration are we......or are we?

[jellywrestler]

comments like the above are like comparing apples with oranges and saying they are the same because they are fruit

We are talking about drinking and DRIVING.....

yes, but you've been insinuating that i have been 'Drunk' while driving most of the way through, there's a vast difference there

[skippa1]

You really haven't mastered the art of debating to try get a point across.

Let me take a logical jump in the dark.

I'm going to assume that you might be tested at your work with some tester that is set to, close to zero. Is that what you are trying to say? -cause it sure ain't clear . If that were the case your argument would at least be stronger. But if we ran a poll most people wouldn't make that assumption. Prove me wrong, as you keep saying.



Ok let's examine the main story a little. Now I wouldn't want my workers turning up drunk. And I don't like the thought of them having a drink before work. But let's cast me as the hypocrite. A work lunch we might go out for a curry. I'll have a beer. We don't have a policy, for alcohol in the workplace. In fact I'm the only one who suggested it.

So this chap is a typical lad let's say. He's been up late and tired and doesn't think he wants to work but ya know? He's not at all drunk but hasn't had breakfast and he's thirsty. On the way he remembers Johno left a can of some hideous piss under the seat. Shit I'll have a swig of that.

Ok this isn't the behavior any of us would recognize. But he may well have had less alcohol than my lunch time beer.

But we're all labeling him a drunkard and a problem drinker.

Maybe we don't know the full facts, and I doubt the journalists care beyond a story.

I'm not really trying to debate the subject, just give an opinion

we do have a policy, zero tolerance, instant dismissal and yes it is with a calibrated breathalyzer. There is no issue for anyone interpreting how much is too much simply because some is too much. Pretty simple, not open to dispute, individuals interpretation of their weight vs how much they've eaten vs standard drinks/hr. Its a pass or fail. Simple.

Go out at night and get smashed, just don't have anything on your breath the next day.

Your curry and beer becomes a curry and coke
.

[skippa1]

yes, but you've been insinuating that i have been 'Drunk' while driving most of the way through, there's a vast difference there

ok....my mistake then, what I am saying though is that impairment is very subjective and the only true way to take any doubt out is to have a zero limit. We don't have an impairment test, only an alcohol detection test.

I have sat down with an empty stomach and had a quick beer or two that has gone to my head, was I to drive at that time I would be under a breathalyser limit but may be too impaired to drive sensibly.........

[OddDuck]

Late to the debate, not really answering anyone, just throwing in my 2c...

There are generational / cultural / infrastructure factors at play here too, drink driving in NZ is a bedded-in problem and it isn't going to go away overnight.

The generation who six o'clock swilled.

Young men competing with each other.

Country living, socialising at country pubs.

People walking around the place with serious substance addiction problems. Or driving while being recidivist drink drivers.

These things endure, they don't change overnight or they don't change at all. They aren't easy problems to solve.

I haven't done a reaction test after having a beer or two, maybe that's worth doing. I doubt that much of the kiwi driving population have even heard of the idea.

I know it's late in the thread but maybe it's also worth pointing out that there are non-alcohol factors which make people into dangerous riders or drivers.

- fatigue
- attitude
- emotion
- competition
- distraction
- impatience
- incompetence

Oh, and the completely legal combination of caffeine, fatty food and sugar.

So, we can have the usual Kiwi head to head smash each other up argument, going nowhere... or we can provide useful information... or maybe sort out positive solutions.

Kiwis fighting each other over every single issue isn't solving anything.

[Scuba_Steve]

comments like the above are like comparing apples with oranges and saying they are the same because they are fruit

We are talking about drinking and DRIVING.....not prohibition, but hey we're not prone to exaggeration are we......or are we?

Prohibition was zero alcohol you're pushing for zero alcohol seems pretty much the same. People can accept limits, people don't accept denial; end result is still the same you deny people something or make stupid/unrealistic rules they will ignore those rules & the problem exaggerates significantly.
There is no logic to your argument it's pure emotion.
You have nothing to show zero limit will increase safety because there is nothing. You seem happy with a Breathalyzer that ignores low percentages of alcohol while claiming the limit should be zero & still consume products containing alcohol, "but it's alright cause they don't show on a device set to ignore them".

[tigertim20]

ok....my mistake then, what I am saying though is that impairment is very subjective and the only true way to take any doubt out is to have a zero limit. We don't have an impairment test, only an alcohol detection test.

I have sat down with an empty stomach and had a quick beer or two that has gone to my head, was I to drive at that time I would be under a breathalyser limit but may be too impaired to drive sensibly.........

You want to remove all doubt on impairment but that doesn't stop at alcohol.
Sleep deprivation, long hours
Overworked
Stressed
Overdoing exercise outside of work etc
Shitty diet
Individual IQ
colds and fevers
Physical disabilities, temporary or permanent

The list goes on of things that may cause some level of impairment, so exactly what kind of unreasonable, unrealistic draconian rule-set are you suggesting here?

You've had a 2-3 page tantrum because some bloke consumed part of one can of low alcohol volume liquid on his way to work. So fucking what?

[skippa1]

Prohibition was zero alcohol you're pushing for zero alcohol seems pretty much the same. People can accept limits, people don't accept denial; end result is still the same you deny people something or make stupid/unrealistic rules they will ignore those rules & the problem exaggerates significantly.
There is no logic to your argument it's pure emotion.
You have nothing to show zero limit will increase safety because there is nothing. You seem happy with a Breathalyzer that ignores low percentages of alcohol while claiming the limit should be zero & still consume products containing alcohol, "but it's alright cause they don't show on a device set to ignore them".

Really, zero breath alcohol is stupid and unrealistic?

You equally have nothing to show that a few drinks then driving is safer than (or as safe as) no drinks and driving.

Why shouldn't there be some emotion, you can analyse the facts out of anything if you want but prove to me that alcohol and driving are a good mix and if you can, please quantify the volume for each of us as individual, or are you saying that the same blanket you don't want thrown over a zero tolerance is acceptable if you throw it over a predetermined "safe" limit?

You do realise that the same breathalyser I rely on as setting the zero limit is the same as the breathalyser you rely on to set the "safe" limit? And you are ok that in your words it ignores the low percentages, therefore the reading on the unit is actually under reporting the "safe" limit?

[skippa1]

You want to remove all doubt on impairment but that doesn't stop at alcohol.
Sleep deprivation, long hours
Overworked
Stressed
Overdoing exercise outside of work etc
Shitty diet
Individual IQ
colds and fevers
Physical disabilities, temporary or permanent

The list goes on of things that may cause some level of impairment, so exactly what kind of unreasonable, unrealistic draconian rule-set are you suggesting here?

You've had a 2-3 page tantrum because some bloke consumed part of one can of low alcohol volume liquid on his way to work. So fucking what?

prone to exaggeration much? expressing an opinion is hardly a tantrum, there are plenty of contributors to the thread....you're welcome too

There are heaps of other contributors to unsafe driving, not denying that but we were discussing alcohol....weren't we?

[Viking01]

Re alcohol: Breath or blood sample

Just for clarity.

Think that you'll likely find a current "zero" reading is not actual zero,
but a "low threshold value". Thus providing some allowance for :

- person having consumed foods, beverages or medications possibly
having some minimal alcohol content
- statistical error inherent in the physical analysis process itself.


It's also interesting to contrast ourselves against other jurisdictions.

The EU is always an interesting region of the world regarding driving,
if for no other reasons than (i) diversity of countries (ii) the EU push
towards increased driver safety.

https://etsc.eu/blood-alcohol-conten...across-europe/

https://etsc.eu/euroadsafetydata/

[F5 Dave]

. . .

You do realise that the same breathalyser I rely on as setting the zero limit is the same as the breathalyser you rely on to set the "safe" limit? And you are ok that in your words it ignores the low percentages, therefore the reading on the unit is actually under reporting the "safe" limit?

We'll clearly not. You never said that. How can you say "you do realise. ." When there has been no clue at all.

But as stated there will be an allowance for silly amounts, that doesn't mean it isn't accurate, just it will display when there is a realistic minimum threshold.

[tigertim20]

There are heaps of other contributors to unsafe driving, not denying that but we were discussing alcohol....weren't we?

We were, but it appears to be your view that there should be a zero tolerance to impairment by alcohol.
The basis of that argument is around the impairment more than the alcohol.
Therefore we are discussing impairment, and whether or not we should be focused on zero limits for impairment.

You seem to argue for a black and white approach to the matter of impairment which is absurd.
Theres very little, if anything related to motoring with zero allowance. Even the holidays allow a 4km/hr speeding tolerance, cbta restricted licence test allows twenty something minor errors before you fail the test, minimum tread depth has an allowance for percentage of the tyre area.
So when we clearly accept that there are allowances in everything else motoring related, including crucial safety elements, why would we want, or need to take a ridiculous zero tolerance approach to one specific factor?

[skippa1]

We were, but it appears to be your view that there should be a zero tolerance to impairment by alcohol.
The basis of that argument is around the impairment more than the alcohol.
Therefore we are discussing impairment, and whether or not we should be focused on zero limits for impairment.

You seem to argue for a black and white approach to the matter of impairment which is absurd.
Theres very little, if anything related to motoring with zero allowance. Even the holidays allow a 4km/hr speeding tolerance, cbta restricted licence test allows twenty something minor errors before you fail the test, minimum tread depth has an allowance for percentage of the tyre area.
So when we clearly accept that there are allowances in everything else motoring related, including crucial safety elements, why would we want, or need to take a ridiculous zero tolerance approach to one specific factor?

Hmm....twisting it a bit there cobber, I said that the only way you can ensure zero alcohol impairment is to have a zero alcohol limit, that way when policing there is no doubt no reading, no impairment, reading, you're sprung.....simple. I'm not intent on this at all, its just an opinion about how you can reliably police it. But have it your way, you seem more intent on having an argument than a discussion.


and what the rest of the dribble refers to is irrelevant when discussing alcohol and driving and alcohol impaired driving.

[skippa1]

We'll clearly not. You never said that. How can you say "you do realise. ." When there has been no clue at all.

But as stated there will be an allowance for silly amounts, that doesn't mean it isn't accurate, just it will display when there is a realistic minimum threshold.

Jesus H Christ, the comment was metaphorical. I was applying a principle. If there is a tolerance in the machine it must apply to not only the minimum but also the maximum. Accordingly, someone could potentially be over what the "safe" limit has been set at?

Again, if that is the case it could be argued that the only reliable way of determining alcohol impairment at a roadside stop would be to have a zero limit, that way, its either pass or fail.

Again, its not necessarily what I am intent on, but how else do you take the subjectivity out of it?

[Viking01]

Hmm....twisting it a bit there cobber, I said that the only way you can ensure zero alcohol impairment is to have a zero alcohol limit, that way when policing there is no doubt no reading, no impairment, reading, you're sprung.....simple. I'm not intent on this at all, its just an opinion about how you can reliably police it. But have it your way, you seem more intent on having an argument than a discussion.


and what the rest of the dribble refers to is irrelevant when discussing alcohol and driving and alcohol impaired driving.

Just for clarity.

Impairment means just that. Impairment. It should be "neutral" as to
the cause (i.e. whether alcohol, drugs, some combination of both, or
(say) a medical condition is involved.)

If you "pass" a roadside breath test, all it means is that you've not
exceeded the legal limit (in terms of you having to hand over your
keys and being liable to be prosecuted).

However, if the nice officer has good grounds to suspect that you
are still somehow "impaired", then he can request you to then do an
impairment test.

But if you fail the impairment test, it still does not indicate whether
your impairment is due to:

- drugs (recreational or therapeutic)
- drugs plus some alcohol (where the latter was found to be below
the legal level during the preceding alcohol test)
- a medical condition

It just means you're deemed to be "impaired" at that point in time,
and should not be driving.


The number of drivers regularly driving around our country on benzos,
opiates and analgesics would be interesting data.

Especially when many drugs and alcohol can have an "accentuated"
(adverse) effect on the body when in combination.