Fatal Pursuit

[scumdog]

drunk driving is different from 40+ speeding in that after failing the breath test you must accompany the officer back to the station for evidential breath/blood test - you don't have your licence taken until after turning up in court.

the car is impounded only if the driver of the vehicle (regardless of if they are the owner or not) is on a suspended licence.

Blow over 650 and your licence is gone for 28 days before you even step into the Court.

And if you're a born loser your Court appearance will be 27 days after you get your licence plucked and then you get the mandatory 6-month disqually, total of 7 months, bad luck eh!

Drive during that 28 days and the car/bike is plucked from under your hot little arse and you get six months disqually - then when your drink-driving case comes up? - guess what!

[motorbyclist]

lol yeah it's pretty frightening how stupid some people can be - to actually be over the limit you have to be pretty bloody pissed - but still some people do it regardless of the consequences

One of the country's worst repeat drink drivers is behind bars after clocking up 17 driving convictions.

Carla Reid's a repeat offender who was jailed on Friday for 15 months after being convicted of drink driving for a sixth time and receiving her eleventh conviction for driving while disqualified

.....

Just last week a Tauranga woman, Raquel Kiwi, racked up her eleventh conviction for drink driving and was jailed for 21 months and 71-year-old Alison Downer received a fourth drink driving conviction and a two-year-two-month sentence after she killed cyclist Frank van Kampen.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-s...jailed-3469578

[Patrick]

...drunk driving is different from 40+ speeding in that after failing the breath test you must accompany the officer back to the station for evidential breath/blood test - you don't have your licence taken until after turning up in court.

the car is impounded only if the driver of the vehicle (regardless of if they are the owner or not) is on a suspended licence.

taking the licence on the spot really does nothing but punish as guilty before trial to establish that guilt over innocence. This is not the case for any other charge i am aware of and is NOT how your justice system is meant to work.

Blow over 650 and your licence is gone for 28 days before you even step into the Court.

And if you're a born loser your Court appearance will be 27 days after you get your licence plucked and then you get the mandatory 6-month disqually, total of 7 months, bad luck eh!

Drive during that 28 days and the car/bike is plucked from under your hot little arse and you get six months disqually - then when your drink-driving case comes up? - guess what!

AND.... (you forget, Scummy.... Mr Motorbyclist might like to know....)

Blow over 400 and have a previous drink drive related conviction within 4 years, lose the licence on the spot for 28 days...

Have two or more within 4 years, lose licence and car for 28 days....

and on both occasions, go to court on the 27th day... mandatory loss of licence and forfeiture of car.....

[Genestho]

AND.... (you forget, Scummy.... Mr Motorbyclist might like to know....)

Blow over 400 and have a previous drink drive related conviction within 4 years, lose the licence on the spot for 28 days...

Have two or more within 4 years, lose licence and car for 28 days....

and on both occasions, go to court on the 27th day... mandatory loss of licence and forfeiture of car.....

OH and.....you may finally clock up 20 convictions for the same offence and 35 for disqualified driving...and get two years jail http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10656799 or two and a half http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10657718

As progressive as those sentences are (in comparison to some past) - as they should be - but, maybe a little earlier would send a more apt message...however, kill someone with a history of repeat offences and apparently you'll get the same time!

"the killing was the alcoholic's fourth drink-driving conviction since 1991. She had twice previously blown almost three times the legal breath-alcohol limit"

http://www.3news.co.nz/Widow-disgust...0/Default.aspx

Meanwhile, somewhere over the rainbow....."Suzanne Amelia Carlson, 27, was convicted by a jury in March of second-degree murder under the legal theory that she knew because of her prior drunken-driving convictions that drinking and driving was dangerous but elected to do so anyway.
Carlson had three other convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol"

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/c...ng-turner.html

[Patrick]

Sad but true T.G.W......

Makes us all scratch our heads too..... but at least it is a tool we have to use at the roadside, instantly.... be it only for 28 days.....

The rest is up to the court. They do the sentencing.

And there lies the problem........... looking at the examples above from T.G.W......

[cold comfort]

OH and.....you may finally clock up 20 convictions for the same offence and 35 for disqualified driving...and get two years jail http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10656799 or two and a half http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10657718

As progressive as those sentences are (in comparison to some past) - as they should be - but, maybe a little earlier would send a more apt message...however, kill someone with a history of repeat offences and apparently you'll get the same time!

"the killing was the alcoholic's fourth drink-driving conviction since 1991. She had twice previously blown almost three times the legal breath-alcohol limit"

http://www.3news.co.nz/Widow-disgust...0/Default.aspx

Meanwhile, somewhere over the rainbow....."Suzanne Amelia Carlson, 27, was convicted by a jury in March of second-degree murder under the legal theory that she knew because of her prior drunken-driving convictions that drinking and driving was dangerous but elected to do so anyway.
Carlson had three other convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol"

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/c...ng-turner.html

Agreed the cut off point should have occurred long before that. The stunning thing is people with this number of convictions get a period of disqualification LESS than their jail term!
How about life time bans. They are obviously too thick to connect the dots. Also what is the idea of "interlocks" or zero alcohol level for recidivists? If they are allowed a licence they are STILL going to be recidivists and therefore non-compliant. So don't give them a bloody licence!
The Govt has sold out to the liquor industry with their latest law changes by the look of it despite Aussies experience that a lower lever for all works.

[Genestho]

Agreed the cut off point should have occurred long before that. The stunning thing is people with this number of convictions get a period of disqualification LESS than their jail term!
How about life time bans. They are obviously too thick to connect the dots.
The Govt has sold out to the liquor industry with their latest law changes by the look of it despite Aussies experience that a lower lever for all works.

While I'm concerned at what level the liquor industry plays, yesterday I read an article in the Australian Medical Journal, I don't believe the Govt sold out, I think they saw what was right in front of them.

The evidence from Australia shows lowering limits worked initially, then the numbers rose again.
The available evidence in NZ that started this debate showed any reduction from .8 to .5 was going to be a minimal change at best, that most drivers - infact over half involved in alcohol related fatalities were 2 and 3 times over the limit.

57% of these same stats were either unlicensed, never held a license or incomplete license holders - learners and restricted.
Aside from that we do not have a complete picture with alot of unrecorded levels. We don't have all of the evidence, and we do need research.

With youth measures it's social engineering of a culture change, and working on the repeats - there are a whole load of issues there.
I have no doubt that lowering limits will happen eventually it's all about culture change, and I'm surprised it hasn't, but perhaps finally - they're working on the problem areas.

Giant steps in the right direction.
And for the gutless quotes from Labour - who incidently had the same information, National are already doing something they didn't and were not going to, which was to listen.
Stoked