Zero alcohol for drivers under 20.

[Hiflyer]

its a start, and one that needed to be done. so many teens think that driving drunk makes them a better driver... totally crazy. heres hoping this first step will lead to others in the right direction as far as preventing drink driving in adults as well.

Hey Sunhuntin, just to let you know, i'm not singling you out, yours was the first post that said this,

but if you can find me one person that sincerely believes that drunk driving makes them a better driver... I dunno what I'd do, everybody knows it fuks you up, I'm 19 and absolutely none of my mates think that. Sure it makes you more courageous, but that's only cos you took an extra 50 metres to brake for the corner...




P.S if you find a person that believes this, send them back to school, they obviously didn't pay much attention.

EDIT: I do however reckon that a 0 limit would be better, leaves no room for error, kind of like "A No means NO" attitude from the cops. But why for only under 20's? I wonder how many 21-70 year olds have thought, I'll have a few wines with dinner and drive home but didn't make it?

[Mikkel]

Most countries (if not all..) already enacting this legislation, alongside other policies - enforce a 0.02 level to cover these wine sauce/ aftershave/mouthwash possibilities.

Yes, exactly. My point is that a strict ZERO limit is not in the interest of anyone - won't help road safety either.

Everybody that thinks this zero alcohol limit wont achieve anything is fucked.

What if I know it won't achieve anything? History has proven that particular lesson again and again over the aeons. Hell, why not go full out and ban alcohol altogether? After all, it's a known neuro-toxin, it aggravates a lot of life-style conditions - there's hardly anything good about alcohol besides the way it can make you feel. Same goes, more or less, for all other drugs.

Fuck it, why not just:

BAN EVERYTHING BAD!

It'll be awesome! Life will be so much easier once we don't have to make all these hard choices and take responsibility for our own lives.

IMHO I wouldn't be upset at all if they banned alcohol altogether. It'd leave heaps more tax dollars for more important things from all the money saved from the drunk dicks no longer filling our hospitals, police cells and wasting police time.

Isn't there a tax on alcohol? What do you think would happen if they banned alcohol altogether? Does the name Alphonse Gabriel Capone mean anything to you - besides movies with people in stylish suits driving around in classy old cars and shooting tommyguns?


You can pass whatever laws you want, unless you change people's mentality there will always be people who drive drunk and there will always be people getting killed, through no fault of their own, by drunk drivers. No matter how draconian the law or how oppressive its enforcing - that will never go away.
Oh, and I am not personally overly worried about young drunk drivers - it's their parents who passed down the habit that have me concerned. Just like they passed down their poor driving habits.

[Chrislost]

The Government intends imposing a zero alcohol level on drivers aged under 20, Transport Minister Steven Joyce has confirmed.

He said today it was part of a package aimed at reducing the road death toll, which was 60 per cent per capita higher than Australia's.

Mr Joyce said the zero alcohol level for drivers under 20 still had to be signed off by the Cabinet.

"I think it is likely to get through," he said on Radio New Zealand.

"We do need to take a systematic approach to the issues around young people dying on our roads."

At present teenage drivers have a 30mg alcohol limit.

Mr Joyce said there would also be proposals in the package covering drivers up to age 24.

sweet! im over 20 now, i can still legally fill my camelpack with vodka/lemonade and go for a fang!

[marty]

I


Depends who the subject is. Being very fit I doubt I could have more than 1 if that (so I don't).

being 6'5" and 100kg probably helps.

[davereid]

Seems pretty daft to me.

Any change to the limit should be based on factual data that shows that drivers between 50 and 80 mg are dangerous, AND that a reduction in the limit would result in a drop in the number of people driving between 50-80mg.

The government has already said, it cant find that data. But no doubt it will now have "new"data that can show it.

In reality, some drivers don't drink at all. Some drink, and seriously consider their impairment. Some don't give a toss, and drive regardless.

There is no gauge on the dashboard that says "55 mg" or any other reading.

This will only help the stats show we are all drunk drivers, it actually offers no real solutions.

We already see the lies - "We have the highest rate in the world of deaths and crashes for drivers in the 15-17 year old age group". That is to be expected. As we are comparing ourselves to countries where 15-17 year olds don't drive !

The old "compulsory third party" chestnut will re appear. Ignoring the fact that we already have third party insurance rates as high as countries where it is compulsory. And ignoring the fact that it will massively increase the cost of third party insurance. And ignoring the fact that it wont help, cos even if the boy-racer that crashes into you has insurance, it will be declined, as he will be outside the terms of his licence curfew/no of passengers etc.

And, your current third party insurance covers you, if someone else crashes into you, and its their fault. You will lose that, as litagatious american companies will arrive, and they wont play he knock-for-knock game. So you will need full cover, just to stand still.

[{.bLanK}G_o_D]

Any change to the limit should be based on factual data that shows that drivers between 50 and 80 mg are dangerous, AND that a reduction in the limit would result in a drop in the number of people driving between 50-80mg.

What a waste of money and resources.
We all know that alcohol + driving is bad.
Instead of finding the exact level of intoxication, just lower the level to zero.

[Spearfish]

Zero takes the guess work out it, with a discretion the size of an ants nasty for mouthwash etc.
We had a booze bus outsize our door one night so being an interested (read: nosey bastard) I had a we look at who was being processed, it was old men from the RSA, middle aged men in work vehicles, A taxi driver, a mother with children, a father with child, one young dude failed youth and a carload of bints playing the victim, guess who played up the most?.. the middle aged tradesmen who could do nothing but abuse the cop the whole time... I couldn't believe how prevelent it was and the attitude of the drink drivers.
Its not as simple as "Drink Driving" I think it goes into the psychological.

[motor_mayhem]

First of all, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a fundamental right - as such limiting the group to whom such a privilege is extended has nothing to do with blanket punishment or targeting minorities. Or do you also think that 9-year olds are hard done by for not being allowed to vote, drink, drive and work on equal terms with yourself? Everything you consider a right is most likely a privilege granted to you a guy with a gun.

Secondly, the pre-18 year old drivers can cry me a river. If they need to go to the bank or the post office they can either get on their bike/moped/horse/bus or get their parents to give them a lift. Maybe if kids weren't taxied to school in mobile fortresses they'd be able to handle such stressful situations. It isn't a problem - there's plenty of countries with extensive rural areas where kids aren't allowed to get their license until they turn 18.

Third point, plenty of people survive walking or biking along the road every single day. A moped is - on average - faster than a bicycle and therefore even less dangerous. As someone has remarked on here, perhaps that would teach them a thing or two about appreciation for consideration, before they get their own mobile fortress for taking their own kids to school.

Firstly voting (assuming age appropriate) IS a right hence it being declared so in the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act of 1990. As a side note you might be interested to know that Section 19 of that same act guarantees freedom from discrimination including on the grounds of age.

Secondly, the pre-18 year old drivers can cry me a river - well that obviously proves you have thought about the subject as a whole rather than purely how you think your life might be better off. From my experience the kids in mobile fortresses thing only happens in urban areas like chch, if you journeyed into rural areas you would find that kids tend to go on school buses because it would cost the parents a good portion of their working day to take the children to school. Multiple countries/people/businesses doing something can indicate that the something is a good idea but do not definitively prove it.

On your third point, can you honestly say you would ride a scooter for 2 hours each day to commute to and from local centres on a nice day let alone a crappy one.

[Blackflagged]

Some people can`t see 15 cyclists in High Vize Jackets.And that with out a drop!

[Ixion]

This proposal is driven very little by any genuine regard for the road toll, and very much by the wowser agenda for prohibition by stealth

[riffer]

What a waste of money and resources.
We all know that alcohol + driving is bad.
Instead of finding the exact level of intoxication, just lower the level to zero.

This proposal is driven very little by any genuine regard for the road toll, and very much by the wowser agenda for prohibition by stealth

I have to say, I'm in favour of a zero limit for alcohol and operating a motor vehicle. But don't want it banned. If alcohol came out nowadays I'd very much doubt it would be allowed to go to market. Let's face it, a significant minority of kiwis can't hold their piss - ride, drive or not.

[crazyhorse]

think they should've been more sensible and never lowered the drinking age in the first place. I drove at 15, but never drank alcohol. I believe they should let the driving age stand, and let them get used to one thing instead of throwing them at the same time with drinking and driving age.

[rastuscat]

The problem with having a limit at all is that it leaves people to decide if they are at the limit or not. Lots of people who don't think they are over the limit get prosecuted each year. The current adult level of 80 is a joke, it gives people the problem of having to decide if 2 is okay, or maybe 3 or 4.

The message they want to deliver is that it's easy to exceed the limit, so don't even think about it. Of course, there are those who don't believe they are bad drivers even when sober, so asking them to believe they are worse with a few under their belt is just too much to ask.

Our ability to make wise choices decreases with alcohol, so letting someone have 2 or 3, think they are under the limit, then watching them drive is societal insanity.

Impose a youth limit of 0.01 and that allows for medicinal alcohol only. Anyone having a drink will exceed that. Impose an adult limit of 0.05, that tells adults that more then one drink over dinner will put you over. Simple.

IMHO.

[Scuba_Steve]

this is pointless, the problem people are already 4x over the current limits for booze so making the limit less is only gonna put these people further over the limit. It'll do absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing it in the first place!
Again its another of the governments "band-aid to an artery bleed" fix.

[Mikkel]

Firstly voting (assuming age appropriate) IS a right hence it being declared so in the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act of 1990. As a side note you might be interested to know that Section 19 of that same act guarantees freedom from discrimination including on the grounds of age.

Your bill of rights is a list of privileges extended to you by the government within its sphere of sovereignty. Traditionally this sphere of influence has been upheld by the force of arms and lately by the force of finance - and the force of finance is again backed by the fact that capitalism is supported by USA which in turn has the biggest guns. You can argue until the cows come home but there are no fundamental rights. If China were to grow powerful enough to topple the current state of affairs, do expect your rights to be curtailed somewhat.

Secondly, the pre-18 year old drivers can cry me a river - well that obviously proves you have thought about the subject as a whole rather than purely how you think your life might be better off. From my experience the kids in mobile fortresses thing only happens in urban areas like chch, if you journeyed into rural areas you would find that kids tend to go on school buses because it would cost the parents a good portion of their working day to take the children to school. Multiple countries/people/businesses doing something can indicate that the something is a good idea but do not definitively prove it.

Yes, I do live in an urban area. Kids here have a shorter way to school and the taxing back and forth is as wasteful as it is unnecessary and paranoid. There are plenty of school buses around Chch too - thankfully. And no number of soccermoms in 4x4s taking their kids to school while on the cellphone arranging where to meet up for the morning latte is ever going to make it a "good idea".

On your third point, can you honestly say you would ride a scooter for 2 hours each day to commute to and from local centres on a nice day let alone a crappy one.

I can honestly say I'd rather spend 2 hours on a scooter than spend 8 hours walking each day. And I sure as hell wouldn't have any reservations about making my 15-year old kids do it. Your perspective is screwed up, you are taking for granted that 15-year olds should be allowed to drive cars. There's plenty of data to suggest that letting adolescents drive is generally a bad idea. There are other options and these other options do work in other countries. I still fail to see why it would be crucial that pre-18 year olds in rural areas should have to commute to and from the local centres every day.

this is pointless, the problem people are already 4x over the current limits for booze so making the limit less is only gonna put these people further over the limit. It'll do absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing it in the first place!
Again its another of the governments "band-aid to an artery bleed" fix.

I agree - except I'd compare it to applying tourniquet to the thigh to treat a brain tumour. It's not going to resolve the problem, rather it's going to cause immediate damage that might take your attention of the real problem for a while.