Zero Tolerance

[MSTRS:Me]

... And the other nearest neighbours are 30km in the other direction.
....

Those people would be sweet - unlikey to be a checkpoint in their neighourhood

[Ixion]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment (and the other points you made), on which planet was the above? Old drunk I knew back then was pulled for no tail light on his Ford Popular (only had one to start with, I think) - bad boy, he was pissed - wouldn't have known it from his driving tho - he got 6 months disq

IIRC (it's a long time ago) there used to be two possible charges. I can't remember what they were called, but one was drunk driving - driving when incapable. The other was driving under the influence - not driving dangerously, but still under the influence. They used to make you try to walk in a straight line, and say tongue twisters. The 3 years was the figure for the drunk and incapable one.

Sort of like now with speed > 150. You can get done just or the speed, or for speed dangerous.

[Grahameeboy]

You keep saying "what have we to lose" and "what harm can it do". Implying , nothing and none.

In fact we have a great deal to lose , and it can do a great deal of harm.

We will lose credibility. At present the limit is considered reasonable. People agree that anyone over it deserves punishment. They agree that driving over the present limit is dangerous. A zero limit would not be respected. Only a wowser would believe that driving after a single glass of wine is dangerous. So when people were stopped and prosecuted, their friends would not say "Well, you deserved it, that was silly and dangerous" They would say"Oh bad luck , stupid law, bloody cops".

It would put pressure on the cops to turn a blind eye. Because many of them would not believe in it.

We would probably actually see an increase in driving when actually drunk. Because the people who now stop after a couple "No thanks, I'm driving, and I've already had a couple", will figure "Oh hell, I've already had one, so that's that. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb"

It would be a major detriment to social activities in much of the country. Dial a driver and sober driver sharing etc may work fine in yuppie Devonport. "Oh I'm alright, Maurice and I can just walk down to the cafes". But in a lot of the country social events , even just a meal with the neighbours, mean driving. Because there are no taxis. And the other nearest neighbours are 30km in the other direction.

Even in cities, the disuption to social activities would be great. And not just parties. There are a good many old people who rely on their car to get to church. Where they would , by zero tolerance, be banned from Communion. The communion wine, remember. Zero tolerance means zero. For everyone. Not just zero for other people or zero for activities you do not approve of.

The loss of social grace, of conviviality , is indeed a loss, and society would suffer harm thereby. A wowser society, grey, cruel, Puritan, devoid of friendship , good cheer, and merriment: such a society would indeed be a loss.

And as for the ultimate goal of the wowsers, prohibition? Well, anyone who does not belive that would do no harm needs some compulsary history lessons.

You may be right and if I am a wooser that is fine too.

Agree the holy communion thing.....in Sweden there is an allowance so I guess not quite zero tolerance, to allow for medication etc and surely the tea and biscuits after service would help?

But you don't need alcohol to have good cheer matey.............at my wedding I had no alcohol and people thought I was drunk.....mind you 9 years later and seperated I am starting to wonder but another story.....

I am far from a miserable person and hardly drink..........have lots of friends...most of them alcoholics.......being a wowser is pretty good......wowsers riding bikes......surely not...isn't called having fun

[peasea]

Personally I have no issue with tougher penalties for those exceeding the present limit. An even tougher ones for those who injure or kill when over the limit. As I have said, the present limit is reasonable, and sufficient for social purposes.

I'd run with that. I've made my booboo's and being a father who leads by example I don't go on the road drunk. If I did, my kids would be ashamed of me and I'd deserve everything I get if I got nabbed. Everyone makes mistakes and I continue to get speeding tickets (there's that 111 again) but EBA isn't on the agenda. It wasn't even the law that made me see the light though, it was more the realization of what could happen and if I were to cause injury or death could I live with myself?

Especially if I hurt my kids, or someone else's.

[kevie]

Even increasing the penalties doesn't seem a deterrent to so many recidivists. A look at changing the penalties might be more effective.
Perhaps your poll could include a "Cut off their hands" option....

I always recon .... like the high speed chase issue.... take the offender down to the local car crusher, make him drive his car into the machine, then make him press the button crushing his car .... bet that would stop a lot of them, aspecially the boy racers that think tickets are an image status with their mates..... would a square block of metal on their driveway be an equal status.... seeing their pride and joy with its flash mags, ultra expensive sounds and anything else that was in the car get crushed into a nice tidy square block of nothingness..........yeh yeh all the dogooders will say "what about the family... they might need the car" stuff that ..... if they driver drives drunk they have NO REGARD for either their own family or any other road user..... I say get caught as a drunk repeat offender or do a high speed runner .... CRUSH THEIR CAR. And maybe even phone any relevant finance company and tell them its been crushed!
Im also sick of the NZ excuse of law enforcement, speaking to the local copper and he said the youth treat the road as a playground and the law as a joke, tickets are a status and they never pay them and the courts arent enforcing it so cops are repeatedly frustrated in the efforts.
I said to him I recon when someones fines get to 70% of the car value take the car and sell it to pay the fines and make it so no financial interest has a right to repo the car from the new owner.
Tasmania DOESNT HAVE the same problem, if you do anything that resembles a 'boyracer' act your car is instantly gone, no warning, no tollerance at all, I recently spent some time over there and didnt see any act like you do here on the roads..... so a form of zero tollerance works.... but I recon rather than target an across the board thing (like zero alcohol tollerance) take a dam hard line on the few that are the problem ... I didnt hear of any 'drunk driver' problems while over in Tasmania either, mum said if theyre caught their car is gone as well.

BUT ............. the law is a joke anyway .... Im not allowed to drink and drive .... BUT!! If I build a hotel/tavern I (by law) must put in a BIG carpark...... go figure

[peasea]

I always recon .... like the high speed chase issue.... take the offender down to the local car crusher, make him drive his car into the machine, then make him press the button crushing his car .... bet that would stop a lot of them...........Im not allowed to drink and drive .... BUT!! If I build a hotel/tavern I (by law) must put in a BIG carpark...... go figure

Quite right about the carpark, funny that.

Don't know about crushing cars/bikes though. I think that's just wasteful. In the States much of the gear impounded by the cops is onsold to offset costs and so on. It's far better to use the perp's machinery to cash up and put that cash towards catching the next perp.

In NZ import cars are so cheap you can get the 'look' for just a few grand. You simply chop your springs in the back yard, grab a big muffler and vent your turbo pop-off valve to atmosphere and 'whoosh', you're back on track. Impounded cars not collected could also be onsold to dismantlers etc. The police could even have a sort of boy racer 'op shop' where cars/parts are onsold and some of the cash goes to those who suffer because of the BR actions, like local councils who have to clean diesel off the roads etc after a night of illicit burnouts.

Depending on the severity of the crime I'd say the 'three strikes and you're out' is a good rule of thumb. The cost of a few new prisons to house young offenders (like the borstals of old) would probably be less in the long run compared to the social cost of NOT locking them up, surely. And no bloody TV's either!!!!

[scumdog]

Don't know about crushing cars/bikes though. I think that's just wasteful. In the States much of the gear impounded by the cops is onsold to offset costs and so on. It's far better to use the perp's machinery to cash up and put that cash towards catching the next perp.

In parts of California some breaches (street racing etc) of their equivalent of the BR Act result in the car being crushed - regardless of how many dollars are tied up in the car and how many payments the driver still has to make on the car/mags/stereo etc.

[SPman]

A law has to be seen by the majority of the public as being reasonable and fair. If it's not, if it's over the top or regarded as unjust or unreasonable, it comes into disrepute, is ignored and regarded as another form of oppression by a system that cares not a squat about trying to get people to live in harmony with one another, or even, to behave with reason. The "you will do this or else" mentality, that seems to be coming the norm with governments around the world these days!

A "zero tolerance" law, whilst perhaps, meaning well, when it comes to the dynamics of human interaction, aggravates the very thing it is meant to abate. If the population at large do not think it is fair and reasonable, they will not obey it! All the ranting and posturing by authorities or others will not change that fact. Setting "performance criteria" at the lowest possible levels, as in most things, will just piss people off!
When you are trying to win peoples hearts and minds, you don't arrogantly dictate to them - you try to persuade them with reasoned facts and actions. When setting limits for drink / driving, for example, if you don't make allowances for normal human foibles, you will get the opposite effect to that desired.
But then, I've always been a believer in "the law is there for the guidance of wise men and the obediance of fools", and don't take into account "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that"!!

[Grahameeboy]

I see your point SPman.....I guess the situation is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

However, human foibles kill people and I guess unless you have been the victim of a drunk driver you may feel that a zero (well as near as is possible) tolerance is dictating. However, at the same time trying measures however extreme to reduce the problem of drink driving is surely not dictating.

It is a bit like me. I never used to parked in disabled parking bays but never thought further than that. Now I have a disabled Daughter it is the one thing that pisses me off when I see someone who does not have a mobility card just because they are an ATM cripple............when I explain that I have a disabled Daughter blah blah, I get told to fuck off.........given a list of excuses.....the best being "well there is a spare disability space next to me"....I digress but what I am saying is that somehow we need to change peoples attitudes........out of interest Kiwi's are the worst offenders for 'disability parking bays'.....and maybe we have to have a zero tolerance to get Kiwi's to realise what is right and wrong.....not sure that is dictating but obviously fines etc do not deter so maybe we have to frighten people...............that cop in UK who showed a severed head...seems severe but we do need to face reality, and realise our fragility.....

Is it reasonable and fair to have a zero tolerance attitude. I don't think so...........apart from speeding I don't do things just because it is not reasonable and if it is a human thing then we need to change it

[SPman]

I guess things can be "fair & reasonable", right up to the time they impact negatively on you.
It is, of course, about peoples attitudes. The drink thing is always a hairy one, because peoples tolerance and reactions to drink are so varied. As long as the level is realistically low, to take into account all the variables you can get from low levels of alcohol, and the penalties realistically strong, for those who transgress, intentionally or otherwise, peoples attitudes will change, as indeed they have been over the last 20-25 yrs.
Which of course leaves us with those who will drink and drive, regardless of the laws - and the only way you can stop that is having their peers considering it totally unacceptable and having the strength to stop them driving in the first place. It will never happen, unless we have vehicles that blood test you before you can start them, but we are getting a bit closer than in the past.
Cold comfort to those, however, who have experienced the trauma of a drunk driver induced fatal...........

[Ixion]

I am far from a miserable person and hardly drink..........have lots of friends...most of them alcoholics.......being a wowser is pretty good......wowsers riding bikes......surely not...isn't called having fun

I very much doubt that . A person who enjoys a drink is not an alcoholic. If indeed you do have such a large number of alcoholics in your entourage , then , as a Christian, you might do well to wonder why, and what task is perhaps being set you.

I have some experience of alcoholism (no, I'm not one , nor is anyone close to me). It is a terrible affliction , and the effects on the lives of those people can be really tragic.

If you do know an alcoholic (let alone lots), find out what you can do to help them . (Nothing directly, an alcoholic can't be helped until he wants to be). But you may be able to help him (or her) to realise how alcohol is destroying his life , and , usually, the lives of his family and loved ones. Which may be the first step to coming to grips with the addiction. AA can help. But only when the suffererr is ready to seek help.

Alcoholism is not a joking matter.

[peasea]

In parts of California some breaches (street racing etc) of their equivalent of the BR Act result in the car being crushed - regardless of how many dollars are tied up in the car and how many payments the driver still has to make on the car/mags/stereo etc.

Does it work, or do they still street race?

I still can't fathom why the powers that be destroy something that could give them hard cash and then cry poverty! It's bizzarre.

[peasea]

"If you do know an alcoholic..........."

Define 'alcoholic' please.

[scumdog]

Does it work, or do they still street race?

I still can't fathom why the powers that be destroy something that could give them hard cash and then cry poverty! It's bizzarre.

Yep, they still do it - oh, and the wallies still street race.

The powers that be don't cry poverty - they claim (a) the car is crushed so it's too late to moan and (b) "The lil' varmints cain't get their pals ta buy it back for them at the auction, can they?" as quoted to me at Pomona by a cop.

[Ghost_Bullet]

Looking at the poll, it is quite evenly divided opinions on this one.
I was thinking today, ya know, its in NZ's culture to a degree, this drinkin, and some jumping in the car for a drive, and admititly I have been one who has done just that many years ago, knowing that there was a strong possilbility that I was over the limit.

It's kinda like Russian roulette, once upon a time, population was smaller, I guess you drunk, drove and if unlucky most likley woke up in a ditch thinking, fark better be more careful next time.
These days, 4.5mill in the country, your six shooter has five bullets in it, you drink and drive, you might get home ok, but there is a hell greater chance that you are going to hit some other poor bugger or somthing more serious.

The concept of crushing cars... now that is somthing, I have heard words from one young mouth a week or so ago, getting pretty high that he already had some 13k of fines, and was still on his learners.... farked from the start... potential death every time this fella jumps behind the wheel.