Zero Tolerance

[scumdog]

UK breath tests ask you if you have taken anything..e.g medication / breath fresheners. if you have they wait 20mins then do the test. if you're pissed and are over, you're still over. and if it was a lie to try and get off you still fail,
if your telling the truth, then by that time the little affect it's had has worn off. not hard really.

Shut up you fool - you're spoiling a perfectly good urban myth.....

To the guy that posted "Got done for having vinegar on his breath" mwahaha...next thing you'll have me believing a story about guys using scent bottles with ether in them to incapacitate unsuspecting women........

[scumdog]

No not hard...but damned inconvenient for the innocent. Would you be happy sitting at the roadside for 20mins+ cos you'd just swigged a teaspoon of cough syrup??

I'll post it the first time I actually see THAT happening.

[Ixion]

Not saying that. Define moderate which to me would mean you would be over the limit or close to limit so still does not say that because you are close to the limit that you are safe........remember the speed limit is a maximum determined by the road conditions so if it is snowing for eg the maximum speed limit is too high and you should drive slower, so analogy same applies to drinking and driving.

I would have thought it obvious that moderate would NOT put anyone over the (adult) limit. One standard drink per hour will (for most adults) not even register on the breathmeter thingy, it is almost fully matabolised by then. The meters have a "minimum" and the residual falls below that.

To get to the limit you have to drink about 6 drinks within the hour (depends on body mass, sex, if taken with food etc).

So , say , in the course of an evening , 24 bottles of beer. Maybe a couple of bottles of spirits.

And most DRUNK drivers have 2 3 or 4 times the limit. Work it out. We are talking bottles of spirits, cases of beer . Not a glass of wine with dinner.

[Macktheknife]

Jeez ... I've just seen the poll results where 25 people say it's ok to drink/drive and only 22 say it isn't!
FFS! What is wrong with everyone? Look at the Rotorua crash thread and see the gnashing of teeth and RIP's over a drunk killing 3 bikers and you STILL support drinking & driving?
Jeez, we have a serious problem ... and those 25 who did not vote for zero tolerance *are* the problem. We have to realise, it's *not* the other guy/guyess .... it's *us*

Errrmmmm...
I think you have misunderstood the poll.
I do not believe that anyone here has said it's ok to drive drunk. The poll illustrates people's feelings of the efficacy of a zero tolerance legislation.

[gixermike]

Shut up you fool - you're spoiling a perfectly good urban myth.....

To the guy that posted "Got done for having vinegar on his breath" mwahaha...next thing you'll have me believing a story about guys using scent bottles with ether in them to incapacitate unsuspecting women........

must remember to not let the truth get in the way of a good story...sorry "better work story"....bit like 110kph and we're all gonna die eh?...

if you get stopped actually while taking the cough syrup it takes what 1 minute to stop you, 5 minutes to get out the car, check your license / rego etc give you a bollocking / ask you what you've been taking....why you were doing it behind the wheel....so it's only like 14 minutes to wait, and thats if they stopped you the exact moment you took it.....

Also as scummy says it has no effect on the modern machines apparently, but they do the wait just to ensure that it's no defense....so your rightly screwed anyway.

I'm quite happy to wait if it means drunks don't have a defense..I wait 20mins to have less chance of being killed by a drunk.....cheap trade off.

[NotaGoth]

Not a glass of wine with dinner.

One coruba RTD, and one glass of wine... I'd had a meal.. This was at about 9pm.. 3am in the morning I was still just over..

Depends on the person really doesn't it..

A glass of wine with dinner.. For one very small built female could easily put them over the limit..

Everyones body reacts differently to what you put in it..

[Finn]

The moderate consumption of alcohol is a civilized practice that enriches our lives

You've never been to one of Dovers parties I take it?

[Hitcher]

One at least hopes that the public gets some say if any changes are mooted by the Gummint, rather than just having yet another law rammed through "for our own good".

[Kinje]

I tend to agree with the view that some low level is OK, problems seem to be seen when a driver is well over the legal limit. However, I would like to see some objective evidence from NZ crash data that shows no alcohol, alcohol below limit, and alcohol over limit crash rates to make a better decision.

Perhaps with some analysis of the data, an appropriate alcohol level could be found that reflects when a driver becomes at increased risk. This may be what our current level is? or some other value? or zero?

The other common idea I see here is repeat offenders. This suggests that our current penalties are not effective deterrents. I would agree with this, often hearing or reading about multiple convictions. If society is seeing drunk driving as more socially unacceptable, the penalties imposed need to reflect this.

My current position is no to zero tolerance, but I would welcome harsher penalties, that become harder and harder for multiple offences.

[Grub]

Theres some old guy in Porirua who has Either 20something or 50something drunk driving convictions. They just can't stop him driving. If they take his lisence he drives disqualified. If they take his car he buys a new one. What is a zero tolerance approach going to do to stop people like this.

It is going to put him in jail ... where he can't drive, can't buy another car and can't kill anyone else on the road. Oh that's right .... he can't get a drink either!

[ceebie13]

...To the guy that posted "Got done for having vinegar on his breath" mwahaha...next thing you'll have me believing a story about guys using scent bottles with ether in them to incapacitate unsuspecting women........

well, Scummie, it was true!! Probably about ten years old...but true nontheless... there was quite a furore about it in the press at the time.

[Bass]

To get to the limit you have to drink about 6 drinks within the hour (depends on body mass, sex, if taken with food etc).

So , say , in the course of an evening , 24 bottles of beer. Maybe a couple of bottles of spirits.

And most DRUNK drivers have 2 3 or 4 times the limit. Work it out. We are talking bottles of spirits, cases of beer . Not a glass of wine with dinner.

I don't think it works like that. I believe your approximation is pretty right for getting to the limit but your alcohol metabolising rate is constant - so it's only about one more drink per hour to hold you there. So 12 drinks in an evening will hold you at twice the limit. 2 bottles of spirits in an evening is nudging death territory.

[Grahameeboy]

I would have thought it obvious that moderate would NOT put anyone over the (adult) limit. One standard drink per hour will (for most adults) not even register on the breathmeter thingy, it is almost fully matabolised by then. The meters have a "minimum" and the residual falls below that.

But is it obvious.

To get to the limit you have to drink about 6 drinks within the hour (depends on body mass, sex, if taken with food etc).

Depends on whether you have 1 beer (4.5%), 1 glass of wine (12.5%) or 1 glass of spirit (41%) so just 1 whisky could put you close to or over the limit even though you had 1 drink - moderate.

I would say that if you had 2 glasses of wine in an hour which could be construed as 'moderate; you could be over the limit after an hour.
So , say , in the course of an evening , 24 bottles of beer. Maybe a couple of bottles of spirits.

And most DRUNK drivers have 2 3 or 4 times the limit. Work it out. We are talking bottles of spirits, cases of beer . Not a glass of wine with dinner.

You are ill informed. 2 pints would put you close to or over the limit.

.

.....................................

[ceebie13]

...depends on body mass, sex, if taken with food etc.

Woopdedoo!!....sex taken with food!! Now you're talkin!

[more_fasterer]

My current position is no to zero tolerance, but I would welcome harsher penalties, that become harder and harder for multiple offences.

I agree with that entirely.


However, we cannot overlook the advantages of implementing a zero-tolerance stance. This stance can be used to make criminals out of the majority of law-abiding citizens. For examples of how this can work, please refer to:
(1) Speed cameras taking happy snaps of people travelling at 110km/h on a dry, well-maintained, straight stretch of open road, or
(2) Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.

The above stance can be effectively used to tax the working class more heavily - e.g. implement a $400 fine for each offence instead of a conviction, and VOILA! Uncle Helen's next pet art project will have all of the funding it needs!