Zero alcohol for drivers under 20.

[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.

[Swoop]

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.

An important point. By the suggested raising of the driving age to 16, this pushes the two issues closer together (driving-alcohol).
I wonder if the age of alcohol purchase may be going up in the near future?

[motor_mayhem]

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.

So if there are no rights, why would you think you have the right to demand that young people don't get to drive? let alone you having the right to have an opinion or the right to live even?

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".

Exactly - Just like no number of countries having a higher driving age proves that it is a good idea.

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.

I am sure you would rather spend 2 hours on a scooter than spend 8 hours walking each day but I bet you wouldn't do either. My perspective is probably more balanced than yours because I have lived in a rural area before where it would seem you have not so I know the difference a licence can make to working etc. There's also plenty of data to prove that young people learn quicker and are able to digest more info than old people. If you move the licence age all you will do is have the same group of learners drivers but a few years older.

[Ixion]

The driver licence age was 15 because that was previously the school leaving age. And it was recognised that once people left school and got jobs, they needed to be able to get to those jobs.

Getting to school was not an issue, because even (actually, especially) in rural areas, there are school buses. But non-school transport in rural areas is pretty much non existent.

But now the leaving age has been raised to 16 . So 15 year olds will still be at school. And can get there on the school bus. So it is logical to raise the driver licence age. Whether doing so will achieve anything is another matter. I rather doubt it myself. But politicians must be seen to be doing something, and clobbering youf is always popular with the electorate.

[Patrick]

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.

Had the unemployed mother with three kids in her "Hummer" go off the other night. More concerned over her Hummer being left at the side of the road than driving pissed with kids on board. Still stumped how an Unemployed can own a Hummer, let alone pay for the gas....

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.

Simple really. But like any good idea, it will have to go through the complicator a few times before it is put into use..... only to be an arse and be unworkable, probably......

[CookMySock]

Better not eat a ripe banana then. Has alcohol in that!

I also wonder how accurate their test gear is around the tending-to-zero point.

Steve

[Mikkel]

So if there are no rights, why would you think you have the right to demand that young people don't get to drive? let alone you having the right to have an opinion or the right to live even?

Well, if you want to extrapolate, be my guest. Sure, I have no right to demand that young people don't get to drive - and neither am I demanding it. I am merely putting it forward as reasonable suggestion - backed by statistical data - as a way of improving some of the traffic-related issues that are tainting NZ.

I have the right to have an opinion and a right to live only in-so-far no one is able to suppress me - and I am being ensured, to some degree, that no one significantly suppresses me by the government and the law. That's privilege, not rights - otherwise everyone, everywhere would be free.

Exactly - Just like no number of countries having a higher driving age proves that it is a good idea.

You are quite right it doesn't prove anything. But the road-toll in those countries are significantly lower per capita than in NZ - that shows us that there could be a correlation between the two. Now considering causality, I feel fairly confident that I can claim that the legal driving age doesn't vary as a result of the road-toll (in that case it should vary from year to year - which it doesn't) - rather the causal relationship goes the other way, i.e. driving age is a determining factor in road-toll per capita. (Ask yourself why the vast majority of western countries have a legal driving age of 18 - unlike here. And please try and think a bit further than John Farmer and his son having to get to the supermarket.)

I am sure you would rather spend 2 hours on a scooter than spend 8 hours walking each day but I bet you wouldn't do either.

Well, until I move somewhere where that is relevant and become approximately 15 years younger I guess we won't get that bet resolved. But I do know that, since you do not know me, you are making unsupported assumptions.

My perspective is probably more balanced than yours because I have lived in a rural area before where it would seem you have not so I know the difference a licence can make to working etc.

You perspective is probably less balanced, I base that observation on the fact that you are making assumptions about things of which you have no knowledge and put the forward with surety. So, while I myself have not lived in a rural area I have had considerable commuting distances and also family and friends living in more remote areas. They made do with mopeds and bicycles - commuting every day rain or shine.

There's also plenty of data to prove that young people learn quicker and are able to digest more info than old people. If you move the licence age all you will do is have the same group of learners drivers but a few years older.

That's disputable. Yes, you'll pick-up base skills more easily as a young child - but from that observation you should be suggesting dropping the legal driving age to 10. However, driving requires focus and maturity - and young kids are both easily distracted and not risk-aware. I don't care how good drivers they might become 10 years down the track if they run me over today because they either didn't focus on the task at hand or didn't consider the potential consequences of their actions.

You are of course right about the learners being older - but that is what we want because, on average, they will be more mature.

[avgas]

Felt like one of those moments

[Maha]

Better not eat a ripe banana then. Has alcohol in that!

I also wonder how accurate their test gear is around the tending-to-zero point.

Steve

Pretty accurate Steve, I know a female that tested positive one night, she said ''fuck that thing must real sensitive because I have'nt had a drink for two years''.

[crazyhorse]

An important point. By the suggested raising of the driving age to 16, this pushes the two issues closer together (driving-alcohol).
I wonder if the age of alcohol purchase may be going up in the near future?

Doubt it - they're dumb fuckwits in the first place having lowered it! That is one of the factors there are so many problems. Its hard enough now having a learner driver. My daughter is 17 and the opportunity for driving is hardly there. She does not want to go with me anwhere, and I sure aren't gonna go with her to do her thing with her mates, so the older they get, the harder it is for a learner. And they want to extend that by 6 months! Bet all the people making these decisions are old fuddy duds

[scumdog]

Pretty accurate Steve, I know a female that tested positive one night, she said ''fuck that thing must real sensitive because I have'nt had a drink for two years''.

People mistake a roadside 'sniffer' test for a breath test, shoot, shitloads of stuff will give a positive result - but a screening test (the next roadside test) will soon sort it out.

[motor_mayhem]

Well, if you want to extrapolate, be my guest. Sure, I have no right to demand that young people don't get to drive - and neither am I demanding it. I am merely putting it forward as reasonable suggestion - backed by statistical data - as a way of improving some of the traffic-related issues that are tainting NZ.

I have the right to have an opinion and a right to live only in-so-far no one is able to suppress me - and I am being ensured, to some degree, that no one significantly suppresses me by the government and the law. That's privilege, not rights - otherwise everyone, everywhere would be free.

But there are statistics to prove that people tend to crash a fair bit when they are driving, but you can clearly see that considering driving is about more than safety or noone would not be doing it. Or what about the people who believe ACC have shown them the stats to prove the motorcycles are too dangerous so should be taxed off the road.

You are quite right it doesn't prove anything. But the road-toll in those countries are significantly lower per capita than in NZ - that shows us that there could be a correlation between the two. Now considering causality, I feel fairly confident that I can claim that the legal driving age doesn't vary as a result of the road-toll (in that case it should vary from year to year - which it doesn't) - rather the causal relationship goes the other way, i.e. driving age is a determining factor in road-toll per capita. (Ask yourself why the vast majority of western countries have a legal driving age of 18 - unlike here. And please try and think a bit further than John Farmer and his son having to get to the supermarket.)

Yeah you also find that they tend to be skewed just like many poor countries have less road crash fatalities per capita because they have less roads and less cars.

Well, until I move somewhere where that is relevant and become approximately 15 years younger I guess we won't get that bet resolved. But I do know that, since you do not know me, you are making unsupported assumptions.

I am making assumptions, I am just using support the same way you are supporting your arguments. Why don't you find me a person who does travel a hour each way on a scooter to their work and does so purely for the safety reasons.

You perspective is probably less balanced, I base that observation on the fact that you are making assumptions about things of which you have no knowledge and put the forward with surety. So, while I myself have not lived in a rural area I have had considerable commuting distances and also family and friends living in more remote areas. They made do with mopeds and bicycles - commuting every day rain or shine.

And yet you make assumptions about what you believe I know or don't know. I will assume you have no experience living in a rural area because if you had a) you would have mentioned it already and b) you would be understanding my view, rather completely dismissing it. If you had to ask two generic people whether rugby is an enjoyable game, are you likely to take the word of the one who has watched it or the one who has watched it and played it?

That's disputable. Yes, you'll pick-up base skills more easily as a young child - but from that observation you should be suggesting dropping the legal driving age to 10. However, driving requires focus and maturity - and young kids are both easily distracted and not risk-aware. I don't care how good drivers they might become 10 years down the track if they run me over today because they either didn't focus on the task at hand or didn't consider the potential consequences of their actions.

You are of course right about the learners being older - but that is what we want because, on average, they will be more mature.

So expanding your "maturity" reasoning we should really hold off giving people licences until they're 35. Off course I am not talking about giving 10 year olds a licence. But you need to consider that with the current system you get your learners at 15, restricted at 15 + ½ and if you do a defensive driving course you can have your full licence at 16 + ½. You realise that lots of people of all demographics crash and yet I don't hear you crying out that everyone should be banned from driving. The fact is driving would not be done if it was purely about safety. But it isn't. For some it's a very necessary tool, for others it's something they do for enjoyment and for independance but for most it's all of the above. I think a change in the law will (as usual) take rights away from the people who obey it and the people who don't obey the current will most likely just ignore the new one as well. I wouldn't say the current system is perfect but I don't think increasing the driving age will do anything except penalise law abiding people.

As a final query did you go through the graduated licence system? If so how old were you/how long ago?

[Genie]

Oh and how about they raise the age for drinking back to 20.
Glad to see the licence age is up a bit too, though I tend to think it's more an education and boundary issue. Set limits for the darlings when they are young so that by the time they are 12 they have some understanding of how far is enough.

[Genestho]

Doubt it - they're dumb fuckwits in the first place having lowered it! That is one of the factors there are so many problems. Its hard enough now having a learner driver. My daughter is 17 and the opportunity for driving is hardly there. She does not want to go with me anwhere, and I sure aren't gonna go with her to do her thing with her mates, so the older they get, the harder it is for a learner. And they want to extend that by 6 months! Bet all the people making these decisions are old fuddy duds

Should parents get in amongst it with their kids, what's so hard about -" I bought you this car, (of course I'm assuming you bought it?) so the deal is, until you pass your restricted - you drive with me in the car, no deal? don't like it? no car." Isn't that what used to happen?

Could it be that simple? Or am I just being an idealist?

[crazyhorse]

Should parents get in amongst it with their kids, what's so hard about -" I bought you this car, (of course I'm assuming you bought it?) so the deal is, until you pass your restricted - you drive with me in the car, no deal? don't like it? no car." Isn't that what used to happen?

Could it be that simple? Or am I just being an idealist?

No, she bought the car herself, but has not really wanted to drive it. Now its just in the too hard basket to go places I go.......... but I hear you. She has now had her learners for 2.5 years!