Zero Tolerance

**ceebie13** · 30th April 2007, 10:04

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Done before - still feel the same.
Zero Tolerance gets hung up with things like breath fresheners etc giving a positive return with the Sniffers, leading to all sorts of problems for the innocent.

Yeah I remember one guy being done in the UK and it turned out he'd had vinegar on his chips!!

**James Deuce** · 30th April 2007, 10:12

Originally Posted by ceebie13

Which is why New Zealanders have one of the worst driving reputations on the planet. But what gets me is that they don't seem to care about it!
So we find ourselves back to the lowest common denominator analogy.

They don't. The simple fact is that the enforcement agencies have been given goals by a Government agency, and driver education is not one of those goals.

**MWVT** · 30th April 2007, 10:39

I'm of the belief that our current limit is set cautiously high. I've had that belief since passing a breath test (while walking home, just randomly talking to the boys in the check point) when i was firmly convinced i was going to fail and fail badly.

Having said that, it's not necessarily a bad thing. While i would be in favour of people drinking considerably less than the current limit before driving, i think the law of unintended consequences applies. When you reduce the limit significantly there is a danger you 'decriminalise' an offence. Imagine a situation where the debate over drink driving currently resembles the public debate on speeding. At the moment there seems to be an overwhelming public belief that if you drive drunk (i.e. over the legal limit) you are driving dangerously. You have to be very careful not to sacrifice that public support by reducing the limit to the point that a majority of NZers believe you can get done for drink driving but not really be that dangerous. The police have a difficult enough time enforcing a law that the vast majority agree with..... change that too far and enforcement will be far more difficult. The most powerful way to stop a drink driver is for his mates/someone else in the pub to get in his face and say, you've had too much to drink to be driving.

Summary: leave the limit where it is, even though it is (IMO) very high.

**Dodger** · 30th April 2007, 10:43

I'm against the whole zero tolerance way of looking at things as it just allows people to no longer use their brains when dealing with "offenders"
There's also the whole "false positive" aspect to look out for.

Personally I'm in favour of adopting the US "Three strikes law" system for drunk driving, how often do we read in the papers about people with over 20 drink driving convictions that are still getting pulled up?

Should be 3rd offence and in jail. (I think in the Us it's something crazy like 30 years)

**Ghost_Bullet** · 30th April 2007, 10:44

Working with livestock, you need to ensure you select the best genetics, if ya dont fit the mould then you are out.
If some of these idiots that have caused hurt and pain on others went through this process then they would have been culled long ago....It says alot for PC'nis and human rights... big life fuckups(such as killin others) should have a mortal consequence.
I dont think having a zero tolerance will help... it is getting the minority to take responsiblity for there own actions

**Squeak the Rat** · 30th April 2007, 10:52

The fact is (imho) that some there are people on the road who are worse drivers sober than others who may have had one glass of wine.

Same argument with speeding. But at least you don't lose your licence for 6 months if you go 110kph. Well, not yet anyway.

**TS99** · 30th April 2007, 10:58

Originally Posted by Jim2

The main reason for NZs death toll is driver attitude.

Yep i've seen an arrogant f%%k on the road or two. There's a certain lack of respect in kiwiland for other drivers. Ive seen awesome (by comparison IMHO) driving habits and attitudes in other countries - why do egos rule so many driver's heads here?

**Krusti** · 30th April 2007, 11:11

I believe it should be, you drink, you drive, you kill someone, you go to jail the same as if you had killed them by any other means.

**scumdog** · 30th April 2007, 11:25

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Having a zero tolerance won't stop the people who just don't care. They don't care under the current system and they wouldn't care under a zero tolerance system either.

And with the pathetic penalties dished out for drink driving by judges is it any wonder???

Top fine for 1st and 2nd drink driving conviction is $4,500, when the hell was the last time anybody get much more than what they blow as a penalty??

(i.e. Gave a reading of 680mgm and the fine would be $700 or so - just check the papers).

**scumdog** · 30th April 2007, 11:32

Originally Posted by Jim2

They don't. The simple fact is that the enforcement agencies have been given goals by a Government agency, and driver education is not one of those goals.

C'mon, how much education and publicity is out there saying 'don't drink and drive', 'keep left' 'wear your seat belt' 'don't run a red'etc??.

The education needed is: smarten up your driving, don't drive like a dick, don't be arrogant, don't overtake when you can't see enough clear road ahead etc - sort of stuff you and I see as common sense.... maybe that's the problem, people being dumbed down or something.

**MSTRS:Me** · 30th April 2007, 11:35

Originally Posted by scumdog

.... maybe that's the problem, people being dumbed down or something.

That's assuming some of them had anything in the first place....

**Macktheknife** · 30th April 2007, 11:50

Excuse me while I get on my soapbox here.

Kiwi's are known through most of the world as big drinkers, like the Aussies and the Irish.
But drinking is not the issue, stupid is the issue.
There are few things in life that fuck me off as much as a drunk driver injuring/killing others, and then claiming that somehow this is not his/her fault. Somewhere in our culture we have made it ok for 'drunk' to be an excuse to be an idiot, fair enough, many of us have been there.
But for this to be an excuse for someone else being scarred,paralysed or dead is not.
I have been known to physically prevent people from getting into cars when it is obvious they should not be driving. I have even phoned the cops myself and asked them to stop someone I knew was driving pissed, and told them where to find him.
Before my brother was killed by a drunk driver, I was a bit laid back about the whole issue. I thought that speaking up about this stuff was only going to get me disliked or worse.
Not anymore.
Zero Tolerance alcohol legislation would be a waste of time in NZ, in fact it would probably make things worse.
What we need is a zero tolerance culture to stupid, speak out when you see people doing stupid things that endanger others, they might not listen but someone else might get the idea that this behaviour is not ok/cool/fun/etc.
Speak up, the life you save might be mine or my brother/sister/wife/child, or maybe yours.

descends from soapbox, rant over...... for now

**Pwalo** · 30th April 2007, 11:50

Originally Posted by scumdog

C'mon, how much education and publicity is out there saying 'don't drink and drive', 'keep left' 'wear your seat belt' 'don't run a red'etc??.

The education needed is: smarten up your driving, don't drive like a dick, don't be arrogant, don't overtake when you can't see enough clear road ahead etc - sort of stuff you and I see as common sense.... maybe that's the problem, people being dumbed down or something.

Couldn't agree more. I seem to remember being told these things when I was learning to drive/ride, and also being told why you needed to do them.

Nowadays we have lovely little jingles sponsored by ACC/LTSA/whoever. I just love 'Speed kills', and the little ditty about slowing down whenever the conditions change.

I saw al ovely example last Friday when we had a wee bit of rain in the Capital. All the drivers slowed down by 10k or so and promptly closed up all the gaps between cars to a couple of meters. Now that's smart.

Hang on we were talking about zero tolerance for alcohol or something were't we?

**Ixion** · 30th April 2007, 12:08

If someone at present is going to drink when they are over the limit, why will they change their behaviour if you reduce the limit?

Indeed , as others have noted , it is more likely that he will drive - because at present the limit is recognised as realistic , others will caution or prevent him. if the limit is seen as unrealistic (which IMHO a zero limit is) then we risk a return to the days when everybody drove after drinking and noone questioned it.

The only validity to such an approach would be if there were significant incidents where people crashed as a result of being impaired by alcohol, but were still under the limit. That would indicate that the limit was too high.

I do not see evidence of that. Most of the crashes due to alcohol impairment, the drivers are WAY over the limit. And usually have a prior history of DIC . Which suggests the real problem is alcoholics, who will not be deterred by any laws. It is an addiction and changing the law isn't going to make any difference to them.

So maybe a law change to require a alcohol/drug dependency assessment , and treatment (if required) after any DUI charge ?

**James Deuce** · 30th April 2007, 12:21

Originally Posted by scumdog

C'mon, how much education and publicity is out there saying 'don't drink and drive', 'keep left' 'wear your seat belt' 'don't run a red'etc??.

The education needed is: smarten up your driving, don't drive like a dick, don't be arrogant, don't overtake when you can't see enough clear road ahead etc - sort of stuff you and I see as common sense.... maybe that's the problem, people being dumbed down or something.

Naughty! You know darn well that's not what I'm talking about.