Bill slashing drink-drive limit before Parliament (down to 0.05g per 100ml of blood)

**Scuba_Steve** · 27th September 2013, 08:35

I'm yet to see a valid argument for lowering it, the closest on this forum so far is James Deuce but even those in his story were ABOVE current limits; so again no-ones brought forth a good argument of why it should be .05 over .08 & there is not definitive evidence that says it'll do anything cept make the Govt more money.
As for 0 limit, thats fucking retarded. Might be worth doing some Goolgleing & seeing how well prohibition's worked in the past might give you an idea of how well a 0 limits gonna work. Also those saying a 0 limit best never operate a vehicle on any prescription medicine, drugs, cough medicine, without glasses/contacts (where applicable), tired, sick etc lest you be a hypocrite

**p.dath** · 27th September 2013, 08:52

I think the limit probably does need to be reduced, but also also agree with many others that the impact won't be as great as indicated in the article, as a lot of the problem is with repeat drink drivers, and if they are already exceeding the limit now, they'll simply be exceeding the new lower limit and nothing will have changed.

The new limit will however impact those that respect the law and don't have an alcohol addiction. Part of the problem is two different people can consume the exactly the same amount of alcohol, but the impact on those two people can be quite different. The limit change will reduce the impact in this group of people - but not uniformly.

**scissorhands** · 27th September 2013, 10:14

At zero, being breathalysed going to work in the morning after a few drinks the night before, will make you a criminal.

Fermentation problems in the gut can make ones intestines produce alcohol, even if none consumed. At least that could be exploited by in court as an excuse

**Scuba_Steve** · 27th September 2013, 10:31

Originally Posted by scissorhands

At zero, being breathalysed going to work in the morning after a few drinks the night before, will make you a criminal.

Fermentation problems in the gut can make ones intestines produce alcohol, even if none consumed. At least that could be exploited by in court as an excuse

don't forget too dependant on how "tolerant" the devices are/become fruit can be alcoholic especially bananas left in the sun; Bundaburg Ginger Beer & Lemon, Lime, Bitters are both alcoholic (as is any brewed drink); cough syrup/lollies can be alcoholic; listerine/mouthwash is alcoholic...

**SMOKEU** · 27th September 2013, 10:45

Originally Posted by scissorhands

Fermentation problems in the gut can make ones intestines produce alcohol, even if none consumed. At least that could be exploited by in court as an excuse

I read of a case recently where a guy very nearly died because of that, and he wasn't drinking any alcohol recently before the incident.

**oldrider** · 27th September 2013, 11:49

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

They need to just stop wasting time & money, leave this alone & work on actually doing something about the problem. Giving repeat drunk drivers the keys back time & time again while they constantly drive 4x the limit isn't helping anyone yet what do they do? Just try to make it so they're 5x the limit & leave it at that

Spot on ... fix the current problems like repeat drunk drivers and soft cock judges before trying to strangle those that abide by the laws anyway FFS!

**pzkpfw** · 27th September 2013, 12:11

Originally Posted by p.dath

...
The new limit will however impact those that respect the law and don't have an alcohol addiction. Part of the problem is two different people can consume the exactly the same amount of alcohol, but the impact on those two people can be quite different. The limit change will reduce the impact in this group of people - but not uniformly.

I agree with your post (including the bit snipped) but wanted to point out this bit is basically the same as speed limits.

Sure, some of us can go faster than the posted speed limit in some conditions, in/on some vehicles - and be "safe". But they can't set laws based on that. Letting people go whatever speed they want will just result in innocent lives being lost due to people who mis-judged their own "safety". So speed limits are set, and have to be based on some kind of average. Would it really be practical to have different limits for different people? (The different limit for trucks, and cars towing trailers, is already mostly ignored.)

I see the drink-drive thing the same way. You can't have a system based on "be responsible". You need limits. And those limits need to be good "on average", and they need to be practically enforceable. (So I don't think "zero" is a practical limit).

So to the current thing I say say "Meh". Someone has decided 0.5 is better than 0.8. Yeah, go for it.

(For the record: as a good Kiwi binge drinking teenage boy I drove smashed a few times, and was a passenger of a smashed driver several times. It's pretty much pure "luck" we didn't kill each other - or innocent people. As an adult, I may have a beer or two when I have my car somewhere, but generally I just avoid having my car (or being the driver) if I'm in a situation where I know there'll be beer. If I'm on my bike - I set myself a ZERO limit; and have found that easy to do.)

Edit: and yes - how the heck do people get to double-digits on drink-drive convictions? How does "the system" let that happen??

**Ender EnZed** · 27th September 2013, 13:16

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

I agree with your post (including the bit snipped) but wanted to point out this bit is basically the same as speed limits.

The difference between the alcohol limit and speed limits (and a big part of the reason why many people are opposed to lowering it) is that no one actually knows what they're at until they blow into a breathalyzer. When the speed limit is 109 you can drive at 109 and know you're not risking a ticket.

It may well be that the point at which I decide I've had enough to drink is <0.5 but I like to have a decent margin of "safety" in the sense that I know I'm not risking a DWI. At the current adult limit there are very few people that are ever going to be surprised to discover that they're over it, if it's lowered to 0.5 there will be more.

**MisterD** · 27th September 2013, 13:50

Originally Posted by Scouse

your opinion does not count cos your not from here your a yarpie so you have no rights to comment

Posted by someone called "Scouse"...you're not in Liverpool now Barry.

**Mushu** · 27th September 2013, 14:20

I'm not a drinker so I never get behind the wheel after more than 1 drink and won't touch the stuff at all if I'm on a bike, so a law change wouldn't affect me at all.

I still think is a stupid idea as has been said they need to do far more about repeat offenders, how about 3 times = permanent loss of license, there's really no excuse for it anyway.

**scumdog** · 27th September 2013, 17:19

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

don't forget too dependant on how "tolerant" the devices are/become fruit can be alcoholic especially bananas left in the sun; Bundaburg Ginger Beer & Lemon, Lime, Bitters are both alcoholic (as is any brewed drink); cough syrup/lollies can be alcoholic; listerine/mouthwash is alcoholic...

You would have to down a shit-load of them to get a proper breath-alcohol reading...

**onearmedbandit** · 27th September 2013, 17:20

Originally Posted by mashman

So the cops are gonna catch 'em all eh? I guess you find it more fun for people to be surprised when a boozed up fucknugget appears from nowhere and kills someone? You wouldn't want to know that the cunt approaching you is pissed behind the wheel? yeah, let'spass another law coz that's realy proactive. Ain't you got a cave to dwell in.

No you suggested instead of shutting the car down, it should be equipped with a light. Go on, entertain me with how this 'light' will help an innocent road user when Mr drunk driver flies through a red light and cleans him out. Because I can tell you how not allowing the car to start will help them.

If the evidence suggests .08 is too high and that .05 is a better level then I'm happy for a law change. However no amount of law changes or new laws will prevent Mr recidivist drink-driver from getting behind the wheel and driving.

**scumdog** · 27th September 2013, 17:20

Originally Posted by Mushu

I'm not a drinker so I never get behind the wheel after more than 1 drink and won't touch the stuff at all if I'm on a bike, so a law change wouldn't affect me at all.

I still think is a stupid idea as has been said they need to do far more about repeat offenders, how about 3 times = permanent loss of license, there's really no excuse for it anyway.

How about gouging their eye-balls out?
THEN they wouldn't do no repeat drink-driving.

And shit.

**onearmedbandit** · 27th September 2013, 17:22

Originally Posted by Mushu

I still think is a stupid idea as has been said they need to do far more about repeat offenders, how about 3 times = permanent loss of license, there's really no excuse for it anyway.

You'll find a lot of repeat offenders don't care whether they have a license or not.