John Key's right, I think!

[Juzz976]

You can't switch your impared judgement on and off, like you can adjust your speed.

Yes you can, you can choose to break the law or not break the law.
Riding/diving at 160km/h has more risk than at 100km/h, similarly driving impaired presents more risk than un-impaired.

It doesn't matter which limit you are over, speed or alcohol.
Death can occur when either is exceeded and in both cases preventable by not exceeding these limits.

[avgas]

I would like to drop the limit a little but more importantly I wan the penalties increase.

Fuck this 6 months BS.
Give a whole year for first offense......and double for every future one.
All these fuckers who get 3 times are looking at very substantial times without wheels.
Fourth offense is easy - Jail for 2 years. With a doubling effect on that if they repeat.

Sort the men from the boys.

[Edbear]

Do you even know what the maximum penalty for Manslaughter is ?

Do you understand the differnece between Manslaughter and Murder and what has to be PROVEN to gain a conviction for Murder ?

We discussed it in another thread a while ago and I looked up NZ law on it. It's not as simple as one might think but very eye-opening as to the flexibility of the legal definitions and what is possible under the law. I can review it and post if you'd like.

[Genestho]

Do you mean license forfeiture Avgas?

If so - the only problem with license forfeiture is that if (it's said) 50 - 75% of disqualified drivers continue to drive.

Source: DUI Offenders Delay License Reinstatement: A Problem. July 2010 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research (ACER), an academic journal.

And this from corrections NZ:

"Each year a considerable number of offenders are sentenced to prison in New Zealand for either disqualified driving or drink-driving (these two offences make up 95% of all traffic offences resulting in imprisonment). While the overall rate of re-imprisonment for traffic offenders is 43 percent, a significant difference emerges between drink-drivers (34% reimprisonment rate) and disqualified drivers (54%). Many disqualified drivers are in fact persistent offenders with extensive criminal histories, of which disqualified driving is just one aspect.

When such offenders are imprisoned for disqualified driving, they are typically also (concurrently) convicted of other offences, such as drink-driving, burglary, car conversion, theft or violence."

http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resea...ence-type.html


If convicted drink drivers do not feel threatened by the loss of their licenses, and continue to drive - then the license disqualification sanction, is not effective in its intended purpose of restricting road use to those who abide the laws

[avgas]

errr....nope....
license disqualification for first offenses....getting exponentially worse
then prison time.....which gets exponentially worse depending on amount of time done.

e.g
1 - lose license for 1 year
2 - lose license for 2 years
3 - lose license for 4 years
4 - 2 years prison time
5 - 4 years prison time
6 - 8 years prison time
7 - 16 years prison time....

They can accumulate as much as they want (with the exception of them being in prison - bit hard to drive there). After all the offense is for drunk driving not killing anyone. I figure if someone hasn't learnt not to drink drive after 14 years in prison, and 21 years without a license......putting them in the slammer for another 16 might do it. At which point they are nearing their 60's.....

[Dave Lobster]

Riding/diving at 160km/h has more risk than at 100km/h.

That may be your opinion of your ability. Try not to tar everyone with the incompetence brush.

It doesn't matter which limit you are over, speed or alcohol.
Death can occur when either is exceeded and in both cases preventable by not exceeding these limits.

Again, what absolute piffle!! Death can occur below the speed limit as well as above it. Look at the statistics. Of all the deaths on the road, where speed is a considering factor, how many of the people 'speeding' were above the posted limit?

Yes you can, you can choose to break the law or not break the law.

The speed limit on the open road is an arbitary figure, not a speed a which you will die when you travel faster than it.
Speed DOES NOT KILL. Inappropriate speed.. blah blah blah..

[Genestho]

Right gotcha, maximum penalty for 3 plus EBA's is 2 years, 11th, 24th etc, is two years.

EDIT: Despite other things coming through, that have taken over 3 years to lobby for] - I have tried to push that particular wall further, but unless public opinion weighs in behind and a few Judges make comments, it won't budge. You can kill and serve a rarely enforced max of 5 (at the mo - until next year) and serve around 2 years, seems out of step to me.

Furthermore I know of two recent cases where drink drivers have killed, served minimal time, had license's disqualified and are still being caught driving, one being caught with an alledged EBA of 1370mgs this year (limit is 400) and sentenced to 21 months jail.

[avgas]

Right gotcha, maximum penalty for 3 plus EBA's is 2 years, 11th, 24th etc, is two years.

I have tried to push the wall further, but unless public opinion weighs in behind and a few Judges make comments it won't budge.

You can kill and serve a rarely enforced max of 5 (at the mo - until next year) and serve around 2 years, seems out of step to me.

Furthermore I know of two recent cases where drink drivers have killed, served minimal time, had license's disqualified and are still being caught driving, one being caught with an alledged EBA of 1370mgs this year (limit is 400) and sentenced to 21 months jail.

The law is not designed for repeat offenses. And drink driving is often a repeat offense (along with speeding and fraud).
Therefore repeat offenders already know what is coming and have already evaluated int their minds it is worth it.
The game has to be changed, just like when you were a kid. First offense ya mum would growl ya, second was time out, 3rd you got your arse kicked.
As the risks get higher - most people evaluate that its not worth it.
As it currently stands the law can not cope with this - and the judge can only act on what the law allows.
The game needs to change. The perspective needs to shift.

[Genestho]

The law is not designed for repeat offenses. And drink driving is often a repeat offense (along with speeding and fraud).
Therefore repeat offenders already know what is coming and have already evaluated int their minds it is worth it.
The game has to be changed, just like when you were a kid. First offense ya mum would growl ya, second was time out, 3rd you got your arse kicked.
As the risks get higher - most people evaluate that its not worth it.
As it currently stands the law can not cope with this - and the judge can only act on what the law allows.
The game needs to change. The perspective needs to shift.

Exactly, you got it

[Swoop]

Shit - people agreeing with John Key. Skyryder would be going mental.

Well, labour had nine years to solve this problem.

[Paul in NZ]

The only fact that matters is that it is a rather unfortunate occurance that all people are so utterly 'individuals' that no number other than zero is going to be equal to all. Some people can handle booze, some cant, some people are really good riders who even impaired are better than I (no excuse of course) so any number set to 'tolerate' a couple of drinks is at best going to be a compromise.

Even as we age, or experience physical / emotional harm as we go through life changes the effects of alcohol on us. Having to adopt a gluten free diet has meant I cant drink beer (have you seen the cost of GF beer, no thanks) and suddenly wine has a completely different effect on me, it really stuffs me up! Then look at the USA. 20 ex soldiers per day are killing themselves (sorry, cant find the source again) and the weapon of choice is a car crash so families keep benifits. Depression and problems with drink being a leading cause.

These are just silly examples to illustrate a shakey point which is that maybe the time has come to think about a zero limit OR man up and introduce some really harsh options?

[Edbear]

The only fact that matters is that it is a rather unfortunate occurance that all people are so utterly 'individuals' that no number other than zero is going to be equal to all. Some people can handle booze, some cant, some people are really good riders who even impaired are better than I (no excuse of course) so any number set to 'tolerate' a couple of drinks is at best going to be a compromise.

Even as we age, or experience physical / emotional harm as we go through life changes the effects of alcohol on us. Having to adopt a gluten free diet has meant I cant drink beer (have you seen the cost of GF beer, no thanks) and suddenly wine has a completely different effect on me, it really stuffs me up! Then look at the USA. 20 ex soldiers per day are killing themselves (sorry, cant find the source again) and the weapon of choice is a car crash so families keep benifits. Depression and problems with drink being a leading cause.

These are just silly examples to illustrate a shakey point which is that maybe the time has come to think about a zero limit OR man up and introduce some really harsh options?

Well said. I think the climate is right for seeing some real penalties if not for a zero level.

[Ocean1]

Some people can handle booze, some cant, some people are really good riders who even impaired are better than I (no excuse of course) so any number set to 'tolerate' a couple of drinks is at best going to be a compromise.

One can only guess how Her Majesty's jolly old Tars managed swinging around in the rigging 120ft above the deck. Ships grog was watered spirits, (rum for preference) at the rate of half a pint a day. That's half a pint of Rum, ladies, served with the mid-day meal. Use makes master.

[Swoop]

One can only guess how Her Majesty's jolly old Tars managed swinging around in the rigging 120ft above the deck. Ships grog was watered spirits, (rum for preference) at the rate of half a pint a day. That's half a pint of Rum, ladies, served with the mid-day meal. Use makes master.

The usual ration was an eighth of a pint, diluted 2:1 with water (3:1 until World War II).

[Ocean1]

The usual ration was an eighth of a pint, diluted 2:1 with water (3:1 until World War II).

P'raps the later Royal Navy.

But, from your source: "Following Britain's conquest of Jamaica in 1655, a half pint or "2 gills" of rum gradually replaced beer and brandy as the drink of choice".