Zero Tolerance

[Street Gerbil]

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to share an outsider's view on the problem at hand. While driving/riding is definitely a privilege, driving/riding safely is a right and a very important one. If drunk drivers were a threat to themselves only, I'd be the first to say - let Darwin sort them out. Those whose metabolism is good enough will survive, the rest will vacate the gene pool. However, as we were painfully reminded, innocent people are quite likely to suffer from drunk drivers irresponsible acts as well. Therefore, I think DUI must become an absolute and total no-no. A good place to start would be a severe punishment for DUI. The best way I can think of is mandatory confiscation of offender's vehicle. In my opinion this kind of tough measure can actually change the perception of DUI in NZ and make it socially unacceptable (i.e. I am not rich enough to afford DUI).
You can start hurling your rotten tomatoes now.

[Grahameeboy]

Sweden is a country where parents have no rights over their children, and taxation consumes 75% of your income directly or indirectly.

Using their zero tolerance policy out of context will just make criminals out of people who use mouthwash.

Get a hair cut you hippie

[Grub]

I think you'll get a few retorts from that statement, Grub. As STR says,
you can't generalise that those against zero tolerance are condoning drink driving.

Oh, I agree. But maybe that is really what is wrong. I asked a senior policeman why the driver in Rotorua will not be charged with Manslaughter. The response is interesting - and frightening!

"Manslaughter is a Jury trial and because at least half of the jurors drink and drive (just like our poll) there has never been a conviction"

My god, how scary is that! So what I am asking is ... perhaps zero tolerance is in fact the ONLY way for drinkers to understand. If you've had one, it is illegal to drive.

[ceebie13]

... it is easy if you want to drink don't ride or drive .. catch a taxi, bus or train, and consider yourself to have had a good time ... and consider others lucky as you didn't put yourself or them in danger.

Yes but I imagine that there's an element of "I can't be arsed to catch a bus or train" when it comes to decision time about drinking and driving.

Or..."I'm not bloody leaving my car outside the pub all night"

Or..."F**k that, the taxi will cost me an arm and a leg!"

Getting people to change their habits is like pulling teeth. However I'm prepared to change my drinking habits in order to have the convenience of my car/bike sitting outside the pub.

[Nasty]

... However I'm prepared to change my drinking habits in order to have the convenience of my car/bike sitting outside the pub.

Agreed its always which habits should we change ... I go to the pub and have a soda and a good time ... and still ride home .. its easy .. oh and I remember everything the next day .. its great

[James Deuce]

Oh, I agree. But maybe that is really what is wrong. I asked a senior policeman why the driver in Rotorua will not be charged with Manslaughter. The response is interesting - and frightening!

"Manslaughter is a Jury trial and because at least half of the jurors drink and drive (just like our poll) there has never been a conviction"

My god, how scary is that! So what I am asking is ... perhaps zero tolerance is in fact the ONLY way for drinkers to understand. If you've had one, it is illegal to drive.

Nice stab at turning the poll into a typical www.stuff.co.nz poll. Disagreeing with Zero Tolerance does not make one a drunk driver, anymore than disagreeing with discrimination against disabled people makes you disabled.

[MSTRS:Me]

I won't tick an option because the poll is too polarised to have any real meaning.

>>>everything in moderation - including moderation<<<

[Grahameeboy]

Nice stab at turning the poll into a typical www.stuff.co.nz poll. Disagreeing with Zero Tolerance does not make one a drunk driver, anymore than disagreeing with discrimination against disabled people makes you disabled.

No but suggests that some of those anti zero tolerance feel that their rights are being impinged on so have the potential to drink and drive.

Disagreeing with discrimination against disabled people does not make you disabled? Not sure this is a comparable point although you could be disabled so you could say that disagreeing with zero tolerance means you could be a drunk driver so I guess in an inverted way you have prooved a point

[mstriumph]

Sweden is a country where parents have no rights over their children, and taxation consumes 75% of your income directly or indirectly.

Using their zero tolerance policy out of context will just make criminals out of people who use mouthwash.

1. do you have stats on the number you would blow after using mouthwash

2. no, we'll have to leave that one - i'm just trying to get my head around the impact children's rights in sweden has with the amount of tax paid and how either of those things impacts their drunk driving laws ......................

[Nasty]

Nice stab at turning the poll into a typical www.stuff.co.nz poll. Disagreeing with Zero Tolerance does not make one a drunk driver, anymore than disagreeing with discrimination against disabled people makes you disabled.

You are right .. instead it shows why people do not get tageted for manslaughter charges when they kill someone when drinking and driving ... with half the jury thinking "oh its just an accident .. s/he didn't mean it" when you get in the car you take responsbility for what you do ... or do you?

[Grahameeboy]

1. do you have stats on the number you would blow after using mouthwash

2. no, we'll have to leave that one - i'm just trying to get my head around the impact children's rights in sweden has with the amount of tax paid and how either of those things impacts their drunk driving laws ......................

I think it is 51% of GDP compared with 36% of GDP for NZ which has half the population so we are quite high up there for small nation of drunk drivers.......whoops did I say that?

[Squeak the Rat]

You are right .. instead it shows why people do not get tageted for manslaughter charges when they kill someone when drinking and driving ... with half the jury thinking "oh its just an accident .. s/he didn't mean it"

Nope, it shows one police officers interpretation of why jury's don't convict. How does he know this? I'm sure the jurors don't say "not guilty, hell i drink and drive all the time".

[mstriumph]

I..............the effort is better focused on fixing the root causes, ie the drinking culture (see above).

i don't agree

there is nothing WRONG with drinking and, therefore, nothing that needs fixing per se?

............ it only becomes a problem when the drinker underestimates the effect it's had on him/her and gets into a car or whatever

[Mr. Peanut]

I ride better after a drink, the small loss in inhibition and gain in confidence makes my riding smoother. I wouldn't touch my bike if I were drunk.

I wonder when we're going to start sending animals to jail? Shameless dirty creatures, acting as if laws didn't actually exist... Oh, wait...

[Pwalo]

Alright let's get this straight. Are you guys arguing about zero tolerance for observing the laws as they stand (ok no problem), are you suggesting that there should be a zero percentage for alcohol for testing (rather awkward)?

These are two different issues which seem to be getting a bit tangled in this thread.