Road safety drug driving bill

[Swoop]

Survey of 408 dead Kiwi drivers 2004-2006 (80% of the total dead)
- 53% no alcohol or drugs
- 14.7% alcohol
- 14.95% alcohol and cannabis (often alcohol at low low level)
- 10.05% cannabis
- 5.1% cannabis and other illicits
- 2.2% other illicits

The concerning part is the majority were sober drivers!!!

F*ck that. I'm going to lower my risk by driving pissed all the time now!! Much safer.

[Usarka]

So what you are saying is that someone who has a few beers too many, ie over our legal limit, shouldn't be prsecuted for DIC if they they can still drive OK?

nope didnt say that.

[Jantar]

nope didnt say that.

I believe that is eaxactly what you did say.

I agree to an extent. but what i took from jantars post is that the perp should get a DIC equivalent charge, which shouldnt be the case if there is no decrease in the ability to drive. .....

Here you are saying that a DIC charge or equivilent "shouldnt be the case if there is no decrease in the ability to drive."

if they have drugs, bust them. if they cant drive ok then bust them. But if they can drive ok based on established criteria then dont bust them for a driving offence. .....

Again you are saying they should not be busted "if they can drive ok based on established criteria then dont bust them for a driving offence."

Alcohol is a drug, albeit a legal one so why should we charged with DIC if we can drive OK while over the limit, but with illicit drugs have to show impairment?

[davereid]

Alcohol is a drug, albeit a legal one so why should we charged with DIC if we can drive OK while over the limit, but with illicit drugs have to show impairment?

The alcohol limit has been set pretty carefully by picking a point at which the majority of drivers are impaired.

The government has looked at lowering the limit, but was unable to find any proof that lowering the limit would improve the road toll.

(No doubt that evidence will be found if it exists, or possibly manufactured if it does not.)

IMHO Limits for drugs should be set to realistically make our roads safer - not just as a de-facto way of enforcing drug law.

Lots of things we can't measure will also affect our ability to drive. Tiredness, emotional state, the music on the radio. We can't study them all and ban being in a bad mood while the radio plays heavy metal !

We just have to take sensible steps to make our roads safer, not magic bullet roadside testing !

[Usarka]

I believe that is eaxactly what you did say.

Nope, just how you're belief's and attitudes make you interpret it.

See David's response above, the DIC limit is set based on (reasonably) scientific methods on what level most drivers start to become impaired.

Do the same for drugs and you have my support.

BTW - drug testing will save 80 drivers per year? Bahhaha just like random breath testing is stopping drunk drivers......

[Grahameeboy]

Nope, just how you're belief's and attitudes make you interpret it.

See David's response above, the DIC limit is set based on (reasonably) scientific methods on what level most drivers start to become impaired.

Do the same for drugs and you have my support.

BTW - drug testing will save 80 drivers per year? Bahhaha just like random breath testing is stopping drunk drivers......

This is just crazy.

An athlete is banned for taking performance enhancing drugs.

A driver can drive and have taken drugs but it has to be prooven that it impared his/ her driving otherwise they only get done for drug offences and can still 'drug' and drive again.

How can drugs not affect driving in some way? Even small amounts of alcohol can impair driving yet we have a limit.

Driving a metal cage on a road requires 100% concentration and is a potential lethal weapon. Sober drivers can have impaired driving and you are saying that a driver on drugs may not be impaired to drive.

And we moan about the Bradford Bill??

[Usarka]

I hope you dont suggest our government doesn't take the same liberties making laws as a sports club.

A driver can also drive after drinking and get away with it. If they are under the predetermined legal limit set that shows they are not impaired.

Yes, you can have traces of drugs in your system and be in no way impaired what so ever.

Yes they are illegal. (well unless i fly back from amsterdam then drive - what law have i broken then?)


I see in the paper today that heaps of people are getting caught way over the legal limit for alchohol. I'm sure you lot are the types who think lowering the limit will somehow make these people see sense......

[Grahameeboy]

I hope you dont suggest our government doesn't take the same liberties making laws as a sports club.

Personally I think that there should be zero tolerances, so "Yes".

A driver can also drive after drinking and get away with it. If they are under the predetermined legal limit set that shows they are not impaired.

Evidence suggests that a small amount of alcohol can impair driving so to me limits are just silly. So if a driver kills someone, has had a drink, but is under the limit, that must mean that the alcohol may have impaired his driving.....

Yes, you can have traces of drugs in your system and be in no way impaired what so ever.

How so?


Yes they are illegal. (well unless i fly back from amsterdam then drive - what law have i broken then?)


I see in the paper today that heaps of people are getting caught way over the legal limit for alchohol. I'm sure you lot are the types who think lowering the limit will somehow make these people see sense......

Nothing ventured nothing gained I guess...............

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

[candor]

I see in the paper today that heaps of people are getting caught way over the legal limit for alchohol. I'm sure you lot are the types who think lowering the limit will somehow make these people see sense......
and something about drug driving law won't save 80 lives

That's just spin about drink driving being up heaps as they want to lower limit. It's up a smidgen due to drugs exacerbating very low blood alcohol effects, and vice - versa. Alcohol increases blood THC.

Intro of breath tsts 1993 - 2500 yrly alcohol killer or serious injury crashes
2005 - under 500 KSI crashes with alcohol

Tests seemed to have had a little effect there.

In Victoria the intro of drug testing law (now spread all over Oz) in 2003 helped their toll drop in 2 years from 450 to 346 (2005).
Scandinavian countries have been at it drug testing awhile and have round half our tolls per capita.

In Malaysia piss testing motorcyclists for opiates and "ganga" which was introduced last November saw holiday tolls drop dramatically.
Ops Sikap statistics normally show 16 to 17 daily road fatalities, but on the sixth day of Ops Sikap there were only 11 fatalities including 9 motorcyclists, which Police put down to the introduction of motorcyclist drug tests. 15 motorcyclists tested positive that day, losing their licenses.

Just looking for where the 80 lives saveable came from...