John Key's right, I think!

[Edbear]

Lowering the drink-driving allowance won't make a jot of difference! He said it was the racidivist and heavily drunk driver that is the problem, and this article tends to support that.

Many driver's caught are considerably over the limit and are repeat offenders. While I am not one who will drink and drive myself, it is plain that even small amounts do affect you and I'd prefer a zero limit since so many drivers are incompetent even when stone-cold sober! However Key is correct the there needs to be a concerted effort to target heavy and racidivist drinkers who drive, not those who have only had a couple.

http://clearnet.co.nz/news-story.html?national~799245

[Oakie]

Agreed. If you're going to make an effort, at least put the effort where it's most needed. (Personally though, I wouldn't mind if the limit was dropped a little.)

[yachtie10]

Agree totaly

[Edbear]

Agreed. If you're going to make an effort, at least put the effort where it's most needed. (Personally though, I wouldn't mind if the limit was dropped a little.)

Personally I'd like it at zero, but that may be impracitcal. More publicity, ie: education about the effects of drugs and alcohol on driving ability would probably be better. Encouraging sober driving. Does anyone know whether the designated driver ads are actually having any effect?

It's high time the courts started making the punishment fit the crime too!

[DEATH_INC.]

Agree totaly

Me too. It makes sense...

[Scuba_Steve]

yep but anti booze orgs keep thinking by lowering it they'll somehow stop the people already 3-4x the current limit all lowering the limit will do is start criminalizing otherwise innocent people.
The big problem with current law is the judges they need to start handing out some real sentences but they like these people coming back to their court cause each time they do its one step closer to a cushy job at the top for the judge

[James Deuce]

Personally I'd like it at zero, but that may be impracitcal. More publicity, ie: education about the effects of drugs and alcohol on driving ability would probably be better. Encouraging sober driving. Does anyone know whether the designated driver ads are actually having any effect?

It's high time the courts started making the punishment fit the crime too!

How is zero impractical? Norway has 0.1mg/ml as a limit. Anything over 0.02 is automatic imprisonment. I'd like to see that as a minimum. It effectively means you can have 1 low alcohol beer. One.

NZ has been "encouraging" sober driving for 30 years and it hasn't worked.

I think the recidivist driver theory is a myth. I've been nailed by a drunk driver. His first offence. In his 70s. My wife was mowed down on a crossing by a motorcycle. 1st time offender, just over the limit. My brother-in-law was run over on the footpath by a first time offender.

It's a myth because anyone who thinks they can drive after any alcohol at all has the mind set of the worst recidivist drink driver. Most of those people above probably had a couple of beers when they were out without being caught for years, completely unaware that they were both over the limit and unfit to drive.

The massive flaw in the testing process is how BMI and brain chemistry affect your ability to absorb alcohol and how you respond to its effects. One person could drink spirits all night and not pop the limit on the test. Some women I know are over the breath alcohol limit hours after one wine.

I'd love to organise a modern day equivalent of the Survivor's Motorcycle Club Steinlager test and populate it with motorcyclists who can't see the point of dropping the alcohol limit. 1 Steiny fucks up your reaction times. 2 starts to affect balance. 3 starts to effect your perception of velocity.

Ask Andrew Templeton if you're doing your BHS or any rider training (yeah, right) in Wellington about that test and he'll describe how very competent motorcyclists turned into bumbling nincompoops after one beer.

I'd like to see the limit as 0 and I'd like to see jail terms for first time offenders and the death penalty for your second offence. Recidivism fixed.

I don't believe in banning alcohol, however neither do I think anyone should kid themselves that they're fine to drive after one standard drink. Remove the doubt and the game playing and make the limit 0.

[Owl]

I'd like to see the limit as 0 and I'd like to see jail terms for first time offenders and the death penalty for your second offence.

That sheep really fucked you up didn't it?

[Edbear]

How is zero impractical? Norway has 0.1mg/ml as a limit. Anything over 0.02 is automatic imprisonment. I'd like to see that as a minimum. It effectively means you can have 1 low alcohol beer. One.

NZ has been "encouraging" sober driving for 30 years and it hasn't worked.

I think the recidivist driver theory is a myth. I've been nailed by a drunk driver. His first offence. In his 70s. My wife was mowed down on a crossing by a motorcycle. 1st time offender, just over the limit. My brother-in-law was run over on the footpath by a first time offender.

It's a myth because anyone who thinks they can drive after any alcohol at all has the mind set of the worst recidivist drink driver. Most of those people above probably had a couple of beers when they were out without being caught for years, completely unaware that they were both over the limit and unfit to drive.

The massive flaw in the testing process is how BMI and brain chemistry affect your ability to absorb alcohol and how you respond to its effects. One person could drink spirits all night and not pop the limit on the test. Some women I know are over the breath alcohol limit hours after one wine.

I'd love to organise a modern day equivalent of the Survivor's Motorcycle Club Steinlager test and populate it with motorcyclists who can't see the point of dropping the alcohol limit. 1 Steiny fucks up your reaction times. 2 starts to affect balance. 3 starts to effect your perception of velocity.

Ask Andrew Templeton if you're doing your BHS or any rider training (yeah, right) in Wellington about that test and he'll describe how very competent motorcyclists turned into bumbling nincompoops after one beer.

I'd like to see the limit as 0 and I'd like to see jail terms for first time offenders and the death penalty for your second offence. Recidivism fixed.

I don't believe in banning alcohol, however neither do I think anyone should kid themselves that they're fine to drive after one standard drink. Remove the doubt and the game playing and make the limit 0.

Well... maybe not the death penalty, but certainly if the courts started dishing out near maximum's rather than the minimum's they're imposing now, it would be a start!

[Pussy]

Well... maybe not the death penalty

Why not? A lot of innocent victims have paid it!

[James Deuce]

That sheep really fucked you up didn't it?

If it hadn't been drunk and driving a Hilux at the time I'd probably be less fucked up.

[Edbear]

Why not? A lot of innocent victims have paid it!

That's why drink-driving causing death should start at a manslaughter charge and be upgradable to murder depending upon circumstances. If everyone knew they would be facing a mandatory charge of manslaughter even on first offence it may help. Especially if they also knew the minimum penalty would be near maximum, say 80% of maximum.

[Shadowjack]

The point of ingesting alcohol is to alter your states of consciousness.
The effects of this on driving are well documented.
To have any sort of allowance over a 0.00 blood-alcohol level is to (as a society) accept that it is OK to drive in an negatively-altered state of consciousness, and that it is OK (as a society) to live (or not) with the results. I entertain the optimistic hope that, one day, TPTB may want to grasp this particular nettle.

0.00 for me.

[Edbear]

The point of ingesting alcohol is to alter your states of consciousness.
The effects of this on driving are well documented.
To have any sort of allowance over a 0.00 blood-alcohol level is to (as a society) accept that it is OK to drive in an negatively-altered state of consciousness, and that it is OK (as a society) to live (or not) with the results. I entertain the optimistic hope that, one day, TPTB may want to grasp this particular nettle.

0.00 for me.

Well put.

[yachtie10]

The point of ingesting alcohol is to alter your states of consciousness.
The effects of this on driving are well documented.
To have any sort of allowance over a 0.00 blood-alcohol level is to (as a society) accept that it is OK to drive in an negatively-altered state of consciousness, and that it is OK (as a society) to live (or not) with the results. I entertain the optimistic hope that, one day, TPTB may want to grasp this particular nettle.

0.00 for me.

Might be the point to you but I can assure its not to me
0.00 is moronic IMHO, but some people would also have us stoned to death for religeous reasons and they think therey are right too