Grahameeboy.
The zero tolerance idea is one that is a hysterical response usually proposed by people who have lost to a drink driver and who have little understanding of traffic science or addictive medicine.
It is the least likely thing to work. Heres why -
Prohibition did not stop drinking. And prohibition applied to those behind the wheel would not stop impaired driving - no way.
Why - because 3/4 of dead drink drivers also used drugs of abuse. If they had the usual half a brain of a drunk they would simply increase their drug blood level to compensate for the reduced or absent alcohol.
The brain of an addict has a chemical makeup that dictates they must get wasted one way or another. Laws applied to the general population will do nothing to change that. These people often have anti social pesonality disorders which means that changes to the norms of the general population will not influence them one iota.
Banning alcohol with driving also does not address the equal number of people to drink drivers who primarily or solely use impairing drugs. And will clearly swell their ranks, so there will be zero reduction in impaired driving.
It is a myth spread by wowsers that because people can drink some they are likely to misjudge and end a little bit over. NOOOoo, very rare to the point of insignificant. All the troublesome killing drink drivers are absolute gluttons. To imagine they are on average responsible people who might make one mistake is naive to the extreme.
John Bailey (Kiwi scientist) established that in NZ the Lions share of harm is from "hardcore drink drivers" (heavy drinking recidivists) 50% of whom up risk phenomenally by smoking pot (results in 100x crash risk versus about 10-16 x normal at around the limit).
The limit is currently arguably set too low. About right imo but it could be argued its too low since 0.8 consumption in a drug free drinker causes minimal serious crashes as a proportion of all bad crashes in NZ.
They did not reduce the limit to 0.5 when the Land Transport Act was reviewed because the wowsers had only embarrassing statistics to offer which showed that no-one was dying or being killled in NZ thru under current limit drinking. I have the stats somewhere around.
It is a propaganda lie that driving safety is affected with any level of alcohol in the blood. Yes certain changes in performance can be detected but these are not ones that impact on driving badly or up crash risk AT ALL.
Studies that traffic scientists keep tight lipped on as 'we don't want to confuse the public' actually show that low levels of alcohol reduce crash risk in urban drivers. It is believed this is because psychological stress is reduced.
So go to zero tol and you will see more bicycle couriers getting run over in the capital!! And reduced checkpoints / detection!
It is not the limit or the concept of a limit that needs addressing as successful countries know and show.
It is
1) the diversification of substance misuse about now - alcohols contribution to crashes is now overtaken by drugs as of the last couple of years here (per ESR study preliminary results) and in similar countries (says Johan De gier - president of the Inernational Council of Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety)
2) the current inadequate penalties - inadequate to both deter and to reduce recidivism. Our penalties are both the lightest and the stupidest (for stopping recidivism) in the world. Half cos they aren't used and cos diff ones needed
The Government has facilitated this because it is hellbent on keeping prison musters and up front costs down. It is confronted with one of the most violent populations in the world, in tandem with a population that is highly resentful of much imposition of law and particularly imprisonment.
If the same penalties were applied here as typically are for serious crimes like DUI homicide and other violent crimes elsewhere (as the sensible sentencing trut advocates) our indigenous population would not have (from memory) one in 100 members imprisoned at any one time but instead round one in 50, and there would be some heavy resistance, civil unrest and much uproar at the U.N.
Corrections is currently in negotiations to figure out how to use even more restorative justice and even less imprisonment. This is a continuation of the deal struck around 1986 in which Maori via Durie agree to cede legal sovereignty (which they established to the Crown Law Offices satisfaction they still had) provided certain treaty wishes including a restorative justice system were granted in the long term - to be delivered thru current court structures. The main thrust being that imprisonment was to be kept minimal.
This background is important to understand why NZers have been cobnditioned to believe that "jail" is retributive, we do too much of it and we need to do 'other stuff'.
This is why our population is the ONLY one that does not see DUI road homicide as serious and deserving of jail necessarily. It is not even a required minimum for repeat DUI killers here! That is insane - like our Judges.
As Mack the knife says - we've all been programmed by years of tv ads to see drink drivers as just 'bloody isiots' whoich encourages a soft sympathetic approach if we get on juries, and an expectation of forgiveness from victims with a particular emphasis on the system expecting them to cowtow to soft sentencing norms etc.
It is true as someone was told by a cop that manslaughter is not considered because juries are soft on DUI here. But its not true that they have never convicted re DUI for this or tha Police won't use this charge - just reluctantly. It was the preferred chjarge for drink drivers years ago and my friends dad spent 8 years inside in the 1970s for it. Lately a drug or drunk driving speeding kid in Waikato who killed his friends copped a manslaughter and pled guilty. M/S charges will be attempted if media stirs outrage. About it!
But Professor John Miller (Victoria) says that the reason the "careless / dangerous / reckless under influence causing death" charges were bbought in in the UK then here in the last few years ABSOLUTELY was because too many drink drivers facing m/s were let off as juries had got more liberal and sympathetic to offenders after the 70s flower power era.
These charges all enable no jail time, no reparation and only a 5 year max which can not be served as 'non violent' offenders are entitled to parole after 1/3rd. The going rate for DUI causing death for a recidivist drink or drug driver is currently 9-12 months served if they are even imprisoned. The system tries everything to prevent this and it will really only happen if the surviving victims make it very clear they want the dude to see inside.
Rant over, in conclusion I firmly believe what the cops are saying here overall. Toughen up the penalties and make them ones that will in a practical sense stop IMPAIRED driving EG ignition alcolocks, policed disqualifications, licensing conditional on clean drug tests while on long long term probation / supervision, referal to treatment (hard when they closed all rehabs).
In the US they have a fraction of our DUI recidivism as the hardcore gets deterrents, treatment and education that accounts for cognitive impairment and that half of offenders are depressed / stressed etc, and intensive intervention. Kids have a measure of protection in the endangerment laws which hammer impaired drivers who risk kids and make it socially shameful. And maniacs who kill on the road can get seriously deterring sentences like there was one of 70 years (cumulative sentences) for killing several people while driving drugged.
In about 3 months my Mums killer should be out there like Jaws again after a year in jail. He drove drugged in the 2 years awaiting trial, is now on home deention for maybe another couple of months and will (based on his past long record) be back to driving drugged and/or drunk as soon as they rush his anklet off which they can't wait to do.
The Legal system and NZ Parole board has little clue or clearly concern about ways and means to reduce DUI recidivism of the crime which is the leading cause of NZ homicide. Its like the dark ages and beggars belief till you strike it. Luckily the reporter in this latest case has highlighted the systems idiocy.
Most, maybe all of the victims I deal with thru work, find that the system is more to blame than the offender for not having utilised reasonable interventions. We have a 3 strike rule - 3 offenses then jail is supposed to be a deterrent that CAN be used, but its only token as our Judges will avoid being 'punitive' wherever possible.
As someone here said they were appaled at the slap on hand they got when charged. They might be even more appalled at the gentle strokes they'd get even after say 10 offenses. Of 20,000 to DUI each year only 700 occupy cells and this is usually only because they have seriously hurt or killed someone atop a bad record.
Despite the new sentencing regime which allows jail anytime for DUI (even first offense) , impoundment on third offense etc.
Reply With Quote
.
.
.
.
Originally Posted by candor
doesn't act till people get busy like the antismackers. The problem is that road safdety protestors usually make a hew and a cry for 6 months then disappear. Seen it time and again. They are not united enough.
Bookmarks