Drink drive law changes

[kevie]

Do we really believe that lowering the limit will stop the drunk drivers???? Personally I don't ... after all, there is a set limit and the drink drivers ignore it ... so what makes the government think lowering that limit will lower the drink drivers? All it will do is make the guy that was 3 times over, 5 times over.

I don't agree with a zero limit, as that kills the wine with the dinner scenario.
But I think they need to look at other options, some suggestions that could be implemented along with a lower limit:
~ the mandatory impound of the driven vehicle on the first offense, (providing the vehicle belongs fully or in part to the offender OR he/she has the owners permission to be driving the vehicle) And a 28 day automatic suspension of license.
~ CRUSH the vehicle on subsequent offenses and the driver goes to prison (or home detention) (again the conditions as above)
~ Reduction in opening hours of ALL liquor outlets including clubs.
~ If a liquor outlet sells to a minor revoke his license to sell for 28 days
~ If a drunk driver injures a person charge him with attempted manslaughter, if the drunk kills another person charge him with manslaughter and sentence them to the maximum sentence. (There has been enough education and there is NO excuse and its as bad as me walking into a mall with a gun and firing it then claiming didn't know it would kill or injure someone).
On the sentencing issue ... I believe violent or repeat 'physical harm' offenses should carry a MINIMUM sentence (as opposed to the current recommended/maximum), so the judge can only sentence the offender to that minimum limit or make it higher; Also they should remove parole for a repeat violent offender.
All harsh you will say, but you try riding with the emergency services and watch them struggling to keep the victim(s) of these drivers alive!! I have been on both sides of that coin, as an ambulance officer for several years and also as a victim of a drunk driver, Where we were hit by a drunk driver, with the spinal injuries I sustained I had 4 other patients in our car to attend to, 2 of them in serious condition........ one of the occupants (A young teenage family friend) in our car died a week later, 20 years later my wife still has problems with the spinal injuries sustained in the crash and the offending driver (who done a runner) was NEVER CHARGED!!!!!

So ....... I make NO Apologies for a tough opinion on drunk drivers !!!!!!!!!!!

[James Deuce]

I don't agree with a zero limit, as that kills the wine with the dinner scenario.

That's why I support the zero limit. Your attitude is the same attitude as the many times over the limit recidivist drunk driver's. There's no difference. My broken neck and back was the result of being t-boned at an intersection by someone who had 1 wine with dinner. He was just over the limit on the one wine.

I can't trust you to not drink and drive so no one will. Death penalty for second DIC.

[Katman]

Harden up and give a fuck people. Stop arguing about the semantics of what quantity of which drug has the least effect on your driving or riding ability (honestly, you may have excellent machine control but you're still a shit rider/driver - accept that and the road toll will go down when you start doing something about it) and start riding or driving like everyone else out there is your dependant.

Amen to that Jim.

[yachtie10]

That's why I support the zero limit. Your attitude is the same attitude as the many times over the limit recidivist drunk driver's. There's no difference. My broken neck and back was the result of being t-boned at an intersection by someone who had 1 wine with dinner. He was just over the limit on the one wine.

I can't trust you to not drink and drive so no one will. Death penalty for second DIC.

What a crock
I find it hard to believe that someone who had one drink was over the limit (and if it was true what part did it have in the accident)

I normally respect what you have to say but "death penalty for second DIC"
Harden up and get on with your life

[Owl]

In Norway I've heard theres a law like no more than 2 drink sales to any customer.

Interesting that with nearly half the alcohol consumption of NZ, Norway have more than twice the alcohol related deaths? Perhaps Nick was involved in those stats?

[Bonez]

That's why I support the zero limit. Your attitude is the same attitude as the many times over the limit recidivist drunk driver's. There's no difference. My broken neck and back was the result of being t-boned at an intersection by someone who had 1 wine with dinner. He was just over the limit on the one wine.

Waits patiently for Katman and co to give a situational awareness rant. C'mon guys you know you want to.

[Katman]

And just to clarify my position - I, too, wouldn't support a zero limit.

Using laws to attempt to change peoples attitudes won't make as solid a difference as working on people's sense of conscience to change their own attitudes would.

[MarkH]

He was just over the limit on the one wine.

How is that even possible? It seems MUCH more likely that the 'over the limit' driver was flat out lying about how much he had been drinking! Was there 'real' evidence that he had in fact only drank 1 glass of wine with dinner?

[Katman]

How is that even possible? It seems MUCH more likely that the 'over the limit' driver was flat out lying about how much he had been drinking! Was there 'real' evidence that he had in fact only drank 1 glass of wine with dinner?

My wife has a wineglass that holds a whole bottle.




(She insists I add that she hasn't used it yet).

[scumdog]

That's why I support the zero limit. Your attitude is the same attitude as the many times over the limit recidivist drunk driver's. There's no difference. My broken neck and back was the result of being t-boned at an intersection by someone who had 1 wine with dinner. He was just over the limit on the one wine.

I can't trust you to not drink and drive so no one will. Death penalty for second DIC.

What was his breath alcohol level?

I bet it WASN'T over the limit with 1 wine - unless it was one BOTTLE.

Maybe you mean he failed the 'sniffer' test at the crash scene?- (which showed he had alcohol in his breath but not the actual amount)

BTW: Almost everybody I've tested assured me they have had "a couple" or sometimes "I've had three" when the reading shows a level of 680 or so and I ask them to honestly tell me how much they have drunk.

Do they think I am going to say "Ah well, in thatcase the machine must be wrong, run along, you're free to drive home"?

[Drew]

What does lowering the limit achieve? People are still more likely NOT to encounter a booze bus driving home, so they'll just keep risking it like they do.

Eventually the general public will view it as a cash gathering by the cops, though they will be wrong as drink driving is a criminal offence and will cost a fucking fortune to process the increase in numbers of cases.

More money will be spent paying for ad's, after shit loads of cash is spent on private companies being paid to find statistics that the government made the right choice.

So, fuck that! Lets just toughen up on the cunts that are driving over the limit. (I don't care if the use of that word offends people, in that context it should only offend drunk drivers).

[Genestho]

Just to clarify I have never lobbied for lower limits, will never lobby for lower limits, and have lobbied for things I think will actually work and could make a difference to RECIDIVIST AND HARDCORE DRINK DRIVERS, the rest is down to education and awareness and personal responsibility, without that as a foundation - we have nothing to base anything on.

Infact, I was one of the few last year to bring up the point that there's no evidence to lower limits. I studied that point very briefly and it was dismissed.

In two years time when research is in to lower limits, then I will be far far away from being involved.

[rastuscat]

My broken neck and back was the result of being t-boned at an intersection by someone who had 1 wine with dinner.

Over the years I have processed hundreds of drink drivers who have claimed to have only had 1 glass of wine, but who have been over the limit.

Having access to the testing machine, I can advise that I have also tested myself (and lots of other Popos) after a wine or 2, or alternative alcohol choices. Our unanimous view is that anyone who is over the limit who says they have had one glass of wine is full of sh**.

People claim to have had less than they actually have in order to deflect blame. It makes the limit look like it is too low, instead of them having had too much to drink. It's a normal human reaction called self-justification.

The limit is too high. I have been at the limit, and would never dream of driving a vehicle. This view is held by everyone who actually has been able to test themselves after drinking.

[candor]

The limit is too high. I have been at the limit, and would never dream of driving a vehicle. This view is held by everyone who actually has been able to test themselves after drinking.

But thats a view about how safe you are based on subjective feelings not one supported by science, feeling dodgy doesn't equal being dodgy;
Nb it is a $300 non criminal infringement MoT proposes
Post 50 shows zip deaths in the proposed infringement range (underrepresented). It is 5x more dangerous to just be a sober youth & they have no subjective feeling of the risk, and more dangerous to drive sober than at 0.04 (solid evidence for this is in the massive real world German study linked below).

In four years 2004-7 only 13 NZ’ers died @ 0.051-8, versus 56 deaths @ 0.01-5 (drugs often compounding risk. Fully 200 died while over the 0.08 limit. Only two of the thirteen 0.051-8 deaths (unlikely alcohol caused mostly) were over 34. So on average only one "senior" person dies, within the proposed infringement range each two years (source BAC bands OIA). Consistent data locally with Grand Rapids Revisited study finding under half a % of tolls can be attributed to alcohol >0.08 in Germany http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/T95/paper/s9p2.htmlge

Also;

The briefing note on BAC given to to the Irish Govt; "In general, in other states, lowering the BAC legal threshold has been accompanied by a significant lowering of alcohol related collisions. This has been demonstrated in the evaluation of the effects of lowering the BAC from 0.10 to 0.08. However the research on reducing from 0.08 to 0.05 has not seen the expected decline in alcohol related collisions". It says experienced drivers won’t suffer adverse effects or raised crash risks at the same BAC as novices. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...6Y1EPh7PnCY-Vx
In Irish Govt debate 25/2/2010 it was noted a limit drops moot in the absence of rural transport. Per “suicide aware” elderly rural people may have their only interaction at the Pub, and isolating them by mingey intake may result in more deaths from suicide than may occur on road if the limits not dropped.

"On 1 March 1998, the Danish per se limit was lowered from 0.08 to 0.05% BAC for motor vehicle drivers...this has not resulted in a marked decrease in the proportion of injury accidents with impaired motor vehicle drivers (BAC>/=0.05%) compared to all injury accidents. On the contrary, the proportion of fatal accidents with drink-drivers compared to all fatal accidents has increased in the after-period - Danish Transport Research Institute. Ref - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12729815

Intensive 0.05 ticketing doubled drink deaths in 21-29 year olds and in those over 40 and made no diff to others in Victoria btw 97-01 (graph 3) as tests had risen to the 2 million + with 45,000 tickets versus say 314,000 with 14,000 fines in 1986.

Prior to the ramp up Homel (Drink-driving law enforcement and the legal blood alcohol limit in New South Wales - Acc Analysis and Prev. Volume 26, Issue 2, April 1994) had just found a small impact on Saturdays but "There was no significant effect of the .05 law on any other day of the week (than Saturday)", and that drink crash reductions were due instead to random breath tests impacts, + that what were then assumed to be small impacts of 0.05 on just Saturday crashes (yeah right) offset by more in week crashes may not have been sustained without RBT. Yeah right - see how RBT "sustained the (SUGGESTED MEAGRE) gain" NOT, when the trial given its full run DOUBLED DEATHS in Victoria; http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/conten...null&pageID=23

And a comprehensive Canadian Govt review, bought to my attention here, given known facts states;“Even if 0.5 caused behaviour change, which requires drivers to know limits and how to stay under, when studies show most don’t, the behaviour being prevented is of itself simply not likely often harmful”. !!! I want Police preventing homicides not civilised dining experiences.

Queensland saw no sustained effect, South Australia drug tests so isn’t comparable, Dutch gains were due to advents of breath and drug testing, Alcohol factored in 19% of Swiss fatalities pre 0.05, now 30% of serious crashes. Harm stayed high when France and Slovakia went to 0.5, so both lately corrected with mass random drug testing. The touted effect of lower average BAC’s only lasts 1-2 years. The much cited Northern Territory miracle of lower average BAC’s… for a minute… took alcohol involvement in fatalities from 48% in 2005* to 74% last year** (NT Police alcohol strategy 2005 doc and 2010 doc)

To top it off the AA is rightly concerned a limit drop will up the toll by distracting from real issues. Media release: 15 November 2010
“Simply lowering the current blood alcohol limit is not going to fix New Zealand’s drink driving problem because these people are already blatantly ignoring the higher current limit, so we don’t see why they would respect or comply with a lower one,” says Mr Noon. And see huge criticism of drink drive tack here as it expands on the submission AA made to safer journeys noting that "Safer Journeys only novelty is one of degree in the scope for issuing infringements. Doing the same thing expecting a different result isn’t rational";
http://www.hardingconsultants.co.nz/...ing__Peter.pdf

Which evidence all supports the views of Officer Phil Robinson of quotas, wimpily defended by bot Paula Rose on Close Up; "we have to take advice of the overseas advisor" (world bank guy Tony Bliss). The Canadian review clearly stated all countries switching to 0.05 quotas did so not on the evidence but under World Bank pressure. MAKE IT PAY - MAKE YOUR PAY

IT'S HARD TO LOOK PAST THE FACTS THAT The UK, NY and Utah are the safest places from drunks - all 0.08 WITH PROPER JUSTICE SYSTEM Support. 0.02c also works but 0.05 is retrograde, and on all credible evidence will set road safety back and spill big blood by distracting from real solutions, while the penny drops that 0.05 isn't, over the 5 years following the newe taxes implementation.