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

**onearmedbandit** · 28th September 2013, 14:23

Originally Posted by mashman

Why would the cops stop you? Attaching the light is a warning to other drivers, not a come and arrest me sign. Ergo, it won't be against the law to drink-drive

I know, bombshell to take in or............ that go undetected.

I've just re-read all your posts in this thread and this is the first time you mention that in your vision drink-driving is no longer a crime. Way to form an argument....

But I see where you're going with this. Not only the outcomes that you present but also think of the reduced load on the courts, the jails and the tax payer. In fact where do we stop? Laws against murder, rape, theft etc have also obviously proven ineffective (as these crimes are committed on a daily basis). Lets just put a light or a sign on offenders identifying people that they are in the presence of a criminal rather than locking them up. Then those people are aware and can take action and get away. Well those who happen to be looking at all times for these lights or signs, those who are in a position to get away (sorry mums with kids in tow), those who are strong enough to make their escape.

I'm not arguing that the current system is flawless, pulease. But it does act as a deterrent to most people. As do the current drink drive laws. Agree with their decision making process or not, but I've heard more people say they won't drink and drive because they need their license than those who say they are not safe to be behind the wheel.

**mashman** · 28th September 2013, 15:25

Originally Posted by onearmedbandit

I've just re-read all your posts in this thread and this is the first time you mention that in your vision drink-driving is no longer a crime. Way to form an argument....

But I see where you're going with this. Not only the outcomes that you present but also think of the reduced load on the courts, the jails and the tax payer. In fact where do we stop? Laws against murder, rape, theft etc have also obviously proven ineffective (as these crimes are committed on a daily basis). Lets just put a light or a sign on offenders identifying people that they are in the presence of a criminal rather than locking them up. Then those people are aware and can take action and get away. Well those who happen to be looking at all times for these lights or signs, those who are in a position to get away (sorry mums with kids in tow), those who are strong enough to make their escape.

I'm not arguing that the current system is flawless, pulease. But it does act as a deterrent to most people. As do the current drink drive laws. Agree with their decision making process or not, but I've heard more people say they won't drink and drive because they need their license than those who say they are not safe to be behind the wheel.

You didn't ask. Way to make assumptions

.

@murder, rape etc... the lights are on but no-one's home.

True. Still doesn't stop too many though eh. If a light system was to be implemented there'd likely be a fuckload more thought that'd go into it... and we'd likely end up with some form of hybrid, a light for below the limit (whatever that would be). Hopefully there'd be tougher penalty's to accompany the "solution".

**oldrider** · 28th September 2013, 15:43

I grew up when drunk driving was not an offence as it is today. (It was even used as an excuse)

The only ones who have responded to the change in law and attitude are the type of responsible drivers who realise how dangerous it is anyway.

The same types who were always dangerous and recidivous drink drivers then are still dangerous recidivous drink drivers today! ... "WHY"?

The

Police do their job and smart arse lawyers and soft cock judges undermine their efforts and allow the offenders to get away with it ... again ... and again!

$$$$ it's easy money ... their basic rice bowl! They wont volunteer to change their ways!

Put the smart arse lawyers and the soft cock Judges in jail and watch how quickly the repeat offenders list "diminishes" for a change!

**McFatty1000** · 28th September 2013, 17:14

Saw some research the other day which suggested that a persons ability to perceive their own driving ability was diminished at 0.08 and they were more confident about how 'safe' they were than when they were a 0.05ml. (Of course, can I find the article now??

)

So, the feeling of 'safe' on the road after one has been drinking may not have a huge amount to do with how well they're actually driving in reality - how this fits in with the proposal, meh, but its something to keep in mind.

And a zero limit, while unlikely to show much difference in ability vs a low set limit, would take all the guess work out of the decision making for the driver as to if they were under the limit/impaired by alcohol. (Not saying I think it'd work overall, cause, you know, humans...)

The light on top of the car would only work if it was in conjunction with an interlock system - a drunk driver tries to start the car; car doesn't go and a light turns on showing everyone around that the person is over the limit and still trying to drive. Worth a thought.

**ellipsis** · 28th September 2013, 17:34

...or the light could work in conjunction with 400 volts being let loose on either, the over limit drivers nuts or nipples...that would give them the impetus to walk or cab it, I bet...'less ya like that kinda shit...

**onearmedbandit** · 28th September 2013, 19:02

Originally Posted by mashman

You didn't ask. Way to make assumptions

.

When presenting an argument it is kind of important to include key critical facts.

Originally Posted by mashman

@murder, rape etc... the lights are on but no-one's home.

It's a common tactic to take someone's flawed argument to extremes to highlight the failings in it.

Originally Posted by mashman

True. Still doesn't stop too many though eh. If a light system was to be implemented there'd likely be a fuckload more thought that'd go into it... and we'd likely end up with some form of hybrid, a light for below the limit (whatever that would be). Hopefully there'd be tougher penalty's to accompany the "solution".

Stops plenty. I go to my local most nights, maybe 1 out of 100 times I hear someone refuse a drink because they don't feel safe to drive. The other 99 times it's a fear of losing their license.

Anyway, this is moot. Your idea wouldn't see the light of day for numerous reasons.

**mashman** · 28th September 2013, 19:05

Originally Posted by onearmedbandit

When presenting an argument it is kind of important to include key critical facts.

It's a common tactic to take someone's flawed argument to extremes to highlight the failings in it.

Stops plenty. I go to my local most nights, maybe 1 out of 100 times I hear someone refuse a drink because they don't feel safe to drive. The other 99 times it's a fear of losing their license.

Anyway, this is moot. Your idea wouldn't see the light of day for numerous reasons.

That is true. I thought it obvious and credited you with some nouse. My bad.

I have no issue with that... I often use it for fun.

Not arguing that... but in ways it's disappointing that that is the response over being responsible.

True, the world doesn't respond well to common sense.

**Ender EnZed** · 4th November 2013, 17:57

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/9360...-limit-lowered

No surprises.

At least getting caught between the old and the new limit is only demerits and a fine.

**Gremlin** · 4th November 2013, 18:03

Originally Posted by Ender EnZed

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/9360...-limit-lowered

No surprises.

At least getting caught between the old and the new limit is only demerits and a fine.

Looks like it's still proposed however, changes going through parliament etc. Oh well, sooner the better, and public opinion is behind it, so lets hope they get on with it.

MD · 4th November 2013, 19:35

Nanny state strikes again. This thread is similar to the other where plonkers want to ban fireworks.

What dumb logic. Lets punish 99.5% of the well behaved population because a few idiots excel at ignoring common sense and the law. Hello! these idiots will still ignore the law and still behave like idiots. How dare they tar the rest of us with the same brush and try to classify us all as offenders. Drunks die by other clever misadventures so best be safe and ban all forms of alcohol.

Three mountaineers have died in the last 2 weeks, so lets ban mountains while we're at it.

I smell a rat here. This reeks of just another money grab.

**sil3nt** · 4th November 2013, 19:50

Originally Posted by MD

Nanny state strikes again. This thread is similar to the other where plonkers want to ban fireworks.

What dumb logic. Lets punish 99.5% of the well behaved population because a few idiots excel at ignoring common sense and the law. Hello! these idiots will still ignore the law and still behave like idiots. How dare they tar the rest of us with the same brush and try to classify us all as offenders. Drunks die by other clever misadventures so best be safe and ban all forms of alcohol.

Three mountaineers have died in the last 2 weeks, so lets ban mountains while we're at it.

I smell a rat here. This reeks of just another money grab.

If 99.5% of the population is well behaved then this law won't affect them? Or do you considering drunk driving and not getting caught "well behaved".