Experts back proposal to cut blood alcohol limit

[davereid]

The data is really unclear for any change in the levels, although I am sure that the government will move just to be seen to be doing "something". In 2008, police investigated blood alcohol levels in 211 fatal crashes.

113 had no detectable alcohol
7 drivers were between 30-80
4 drivers were between 80-120
47 were over 120.

There is an obvious spike above 120, but nothing outstanding at lower levels. Certainly the 50-80 area does not identify as a problem.

Part of the difficulty is that in the above sample, 99.98% of drivers were wearing underpants. Does this mean underpants are causing crashes ? God forbid they ban them, or put a size restriction on them !

[Tink]

The data is really unclear for any change in the levels, although I am sure that the government will move just to be seen to be doing "something". In 2008, police investigated blood alcohol levels in 211 fatal crashes.

113 had no detectable alcohol
7 drivers were between 30-80
4 drivers were between 80-120
47 were over 120.

There is an obvious spike above 120, but nothing outstanding at lower levels. Certainly the 50-80 area does not identify as a problem.

Part of the difficulty is that in the above sample, 99.98% of drivers were wearing underpants. Does this mean underpants are causing crashes ? God forbid they ban them, or put a size restriction on them !

Why can't they just say NO ALCOHOL WHEN DRIVING... any trace is an offence!

[The Stranger:Me]

Why can't they just say NO ALCOHOL WHEN DRIVING... any trace is an offence!

Why do that. From the figures davereid posted there is nothing to suggest that will save a single life.
Hell the number without alcohol were greater then either the 30-80 or 80-120, from that we should be encouraging some alcohol consumption.
Why erode our freedoms even more?
Don't willingly give up your freedoms for no benefit.

[motor_mayhem]

Why can't they just say NO ALCOHOL WHEN DRIVING... any trace is an offence!

Did you read whats been written in this thread in its entirety or just the last page?

Products that contain trace alcohol
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7112239AANIHZ2

[Tink]

Did you read whats been written in this thread in its entirety or just the last page?

Products that contain trace alcohol
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7112239AANIHZ2

The first line of every thread, I speed read...I might not take it all in, so thats just my opinion... if it has been stated before no harm done really.

A comment in the link: Hello, a drug test like that doesn't exist, your employer or whoever is testing you is lying to you to scare you. There is no possible way to detect trace amounts of alcohol 80 hours later. Trace amounts of alcohol are TOTALLY gone from your system within a few hours. What type of test are you taking (urine, blood) and what are you having to take it for?

Fair enough alcohol is in dishes, mouth washes etc.

[p.dath]

Why do that. From the figures davereid posted there is nothing to suggest that will save a single life.

They should do it for youths because the limit is so low for them already that they often can't have even a single drink without being over the limit.

In the 2020 submissions they said that having a non-zero limit often gave youths the false impression they could have 'a' drink. The result is that a lot of prosecutions occur when the youths didn't realise that having even one drink put them over the limit. My impression is this is the why a zero limit was proposed, as opposed to saving more lives.

By making the limit zero it is crystal clear that they can't have even one drink and drive.

[Tink]

They should do it for youths because the limit is so low for them already that they often can't have even a single drink without being over the limit.

In the 2020 submissions they said that having a non-zero limit often gave youths the false impression they could have 'a' drink. The result is that a lot of prosecutions occur when the youths didn't realise that having even one drink put them over the limit. My impression is this is the why a zero limit was proposed, as opposed to saving more lives.

By making the limit zero it is crystal clear that they can't have even one drink and drive.

Its like bad driving... drunk driving is not only youth, a lot of middle age people drive drunk! Proof comes with woman over 50... recently tried in court! What is the real answer people... I don't know...

[davereid]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10637535

One of the country's worst repeat drink drivers is back behind bars after clocking up her 11th conviction for drink-driving and her sixth for driving while disqualified.
Raquel Kiwi has this time been jailed for 21 months after appearing in Tauranga District Court.
Kiwi also lost her licence for a further two years from October 14, 2013, although she remains indefinitely disqualified for life, unless she gets permission from the director of Land Transport Agency to resit her licence.
Kiwi, 30, of Te Puna, in the Bay of Plenty, has an unenviable record, including being jailed for killing her child in a drink-drive smash in 2004, the Bay of Plenty Times reported.
In her latest offending, Kiwi was caught drink-driving at about 1.55pm on December 2 after a member of the public saw her staggering from her vehicle in Takitimu Drive, Tauranga, and alerted police.

When breathalysed, Kiwi had an excess breath alcohol of 1370 micrograms - well over three times the adult limit of 400.

Indefinitely disqualified at the time, Kiwi was driving a stolen Mazda Familia which she had taken from an associate's house the day earlier, the court was told.

- NZPA

[boman]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10637535

One of the country's worst repeat drink drivers is back behind bars after clocking up her 11th conviction for drink-driving and her sixth for driving while disqualified.
Raquel Kiwi has this time been jailed for 21 months after appearing in Tauranga District Court.
Kiwi also lost her licence for a further two years from October 14, 2013, although she remains indefinitely disqualified for life, unless she gets permission from the director of Land Transport Agency to resit her licence.
Kiwi, 30, of Te Puna, in the Bay of Plenty, has an unenviable record, including being jailed for killing her child in a drink-drive smash in 2004, the Bay of Plenty Times reported.
In her latest offending, Kiwi was caught drink-driving at about 1.55pm on December 2 after a member of the public saw her staggering from her vehicle in Takitimu Drive, Tauranga, and alerted police.

When breathalysed, Kiwi had an excess breath alcohol of 1370 micrograms - well over three times the adult limit of 400.

Indefinitely disqualified at the time, Kiwi was driving a stolen Mazda Familia which she had taken from an associate's house the day earlier, the court was told.

- NZPA

A prime example, that even a zero limit, would not stop this kind of person. A bullet would, but sod all else will. Rule .303.

[Coldrider]

Rule .303.

Breaker Marant (TM)

[boman]

Breaker Marant (TM)

Yea, thats the one.

[MarkH]

The reference was to your statement

The point being that it would NOT "have pretty much finished processing the alcohol by then".

My point was that it WOULD! 2 RTDs = 1.3 x 2 = 2.6 std drinks. 3 - 4 hours later the body would have processed most of the alcohol and be pretty much finished by then.

I do realise that my blood alcohol would not have been on zero, but I don't think there would have been enough to give a reading on the police testers. It certainly would be well below the proposed 50mg/100ml that we are talking about here - therefore it would NOT be a fail!

As I said - I don't care if they lower it to 50mg - I have never ridden or driven with any where near that. As a limit of zero isn't even up for consideration I would never have failed either under the current law or the proposed one. The idea of making it illegal to drive with a teaspoon of cough syrup in your system (even for youth) does not seem particularly clever to me. For youth drivers I would rather see a limit of 10mg than 0mg - no way cough syrup would be enough to take the alcohol in the blood above 10mg and I don't believe 10mg is enough to impair the judgement of even a young driver in any meaningful way.

[Jonno.]

They should do it for youths because the limit is so low for them already that they often can't have even a single drink without being over the limit.

In the 2020 submissions they said that having a non-zero limit often gave youths the false impression they could have 'a' drink. The result is that a lot of prosecutions occur when the youths didn't realise that having even one drink put them over the limit. My impression is this is the why a zero limit was proposed, as opposed to saving more lives.

By making the limit zero it is crystal clear that they can't have even one drink and drive.

I'm pretty sure the average person will get away with more then one drink. I've been tested with 4 std drinks in 2 hours and been under the legal limit (and I'm a little fucker: 5'9 70kgs).

[davereid]

I'm pretty sure the average person will get away with more then one drink. I've been tested with 4 std drinks in 2 hours and been under the legal limit (and I'm a little fucker: 5'9 70kgs).

Remember we don't have a gauge on the dashboard that shows the exact level of blood alcohol.

The data appears to show that there are different types of drinkers.

Type a) Either don't drink, or drink moderately, they fall in the under 80 bracket, which is either not associated with an increased risk or only a moderate increase. Sometimes, as there is no meter on the dash, these drivers stray up to 120. This shows a moderate increase in risk, but doesn't stand out as a clear primary accident cause.

Type b) Don't care and will drink as they wish. They reach 150 + and drive without any consideration of the rules.

I remain unconvinced that a lower limit will affect group b). I'm also unconvinced that a lower limit will change the road toll, as group a) will continue to self monitor. The only difference will be more of them will be convicted of drink drive.

You could make a similar argument for lowering speed limits.

How many lives would we save by lowering the open road speed limit from 100 to say 50 ?

[Swoop]

How about the majority of crashes? Stone cold sober drivers appear to be a far greater problem.