A sobering read

[SMOKEU]

How many chances would YOU want .. ??? that question wasn't answered ...

I doubt you have never operated any vehicle under the influence ... just never (admitted) being caught ..

The same as everyone else.

Yes I openly admit to have often driven under the influence of alcohol, although that's only after 2 or 3 standard drinks with a meal spread out over an hour or more, so I wasn't "drunk" or even close to the breath alcohol limit. Once I was even a passenger being a supervisor for a driver on a 1L since I had my 1F for more than 2 years, and the cop who pulled us over breath tested me too, even though I wasn't driving. I felt quite intoxicated, and I would have not wanted to drive in that state as it wouldn't be safe to do so, yet I came back us being under the limit. So the breath alcohol limit is quite high, and to get caught several times means that someone has a serious problem.

An average adult could still have 5 or 6 standard drinks over the course of an evening and still be under the breath alcohol limit after 3 or 4 hours.

[FJRider]

There is a HUGE difference between 1 DIC (which I have never had btw) and 6 DIC's coupled with deliberately swerving at riders.... The man is obviously sick and can't help himself... hes a fuckin menace...

I posted the link originally because I was horrified...

Now I'm even more horrified... Not one of you even seems to care that what seemed like a decent bloke was effectively killed by this? I thought I might make 10 years of KB but I bloody doubt it...

There was NO mention (I read) that any swerving at any riders WAS deliberate ... YOUR interpretation ...

It however ... doesn't make the result any less serious.

No DIC charges doesn't mean total innocence, just never been caught.

[Katman]

....and 6 DIC's coupled with deliberately swerving at riders.....

That's the second time you've said that.

Is it confirmed that he was "deliberately swerving at riders"?

'Cos I seem to have missed that part in the article.

[Robbo]

That's the second time you've said that.

Is it confirmed that he was "deliberately swerving at riders"?

'Cos I seem to have missed that part in the article.

The original article that i read did state that he swerved at the riders, however it did not say whether it was deliberate or the fact that he was so pissed that he was just veering all over the road. Either way, this bastard should have not been on the roads in charge of a vehicle.
If one of our soft cock judges had done his job properly in the first place this tradgedy would never have happened.

[T.W.R]

Brazil's Lei Seca (dry law) zero tolerance

http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/ll...205403471_text

A good start to get recidivous drink drivers

[FJRider]

The same as everyone else.

Yep ... as many chances as you can ... NO different to HIM ..

Yes I openly admit to have often driven under the influence of alcohol, although that's only after 2 or 3 standard drinks with a meal spread out over an hour or more, so I wasn't "drunk" or even close to the breath alcohol limit. So the breath alcohol limit is quite high, and to get caught several times means that someone has a serious problem.

Under the influence (but not over the limit) is usually the escape clause that voids most insurance policy's ... for a dam good reason. "Legally Drunk" is the best way to explain it. If you are involved in an accident while under the influence (but not over the limit) ... you will be held responsible ... regardless of who "caused " it ..

The admission of more than once .. may mean you have a problem. Your problem hasn't got serious ... yet .. !!!

Will it be a matter of time before YOU get unlucky ...

An average adult could still have 5 or 6 standard drinks over the course of an evening and still be under the breath alcohol limit after 3 or 4 hours.

No such thing as average adult limit. Different amounts affect different people differently ... and especially if they haven't eaten previously to drinking ...

So far ... I think you have been lucky.

NOT clever.

[Virago]

Oh for fucks sake.... Its just a bloody phrase... Yes - occasionally someone gets a DIC for a wierd reason. Stick you sanctimonious tripe up your arses because it happens and while i don't approve a few points over does NOT make most people swerve at oher road users... My post was in response to suggestion anyone with a DIC should be shot which is stupid. There is a HUGE difference between 1 DIC (which I have never had btw) and 6 DIC's coupled with deliberately swerving at riders.... The man is obviously sick and can't help himself... hes a fuckin menace...

I posted the link originally because I was horrified...

Now I'm even more horrified... Not one of you even seems to care that what seemed like a decent bloke was effectively killed by this? I thought I might make 10 years of KB but I bloody doubt it...

Wow. Angry man much?

I'm sorry that my request for clarification was viewed as sanctimonious. As per your request I have printed off the offending post, and am shoving it up my arse at this very moment.

I think you'll find that most of us are as horrified as you over the original link.

Chill.

[pritch]

a few points over does NOT make most people swerve at oher road users...

Some years ago the doctor in charge of the blood testing for the Police went on record as saying that random stopping checkpoints caught the wrong people. He said that the checkpoints tended to catch people marginally over the limit, but that these are not the people causing mayhem on the roads. The people that cause the accidents tend to be several times the limit. Bearing in mind that he was presumably testing blood from corpses and the injured as well as drunks that had been arrested.

So actually Paul does have a point.

[SMOKEU]

Yep ... as many chances as you can ... NO different to HIM ..



Under the influence (but not over the limit) is usually the escape clause that voids most insurance policy's ... for a dam good reason. "Legally Drunk" is the best way to explain it. If you are involved in an accident while under the influence (but not over the limit) ... you will be held responsible ... regardless of who "caused " it ..

The admission of more than once .. may mean you have a problem. Your problem hasn't got serious ... yet .. !!!

Will it be a matter of time before YOU get unlucky ...

No such thing as average adult limit. Different amounts affect different people differently ... and especially if they haven't eaten previously to drinking ...

So far ... I think you have been lucky.

NOT clever.

Any amount of alcohol over a threshold dose for that particular person in those specific circumstances is going to put the drinker "under the influence" to some extent. So even literally 1 standard drink consumed over a period of say, 5 minutes will put an average adult under some level of intoxication, even if it's only at a very minor level that is barely noticeable to the drinker. The only real way to not be under the influence of alcohol to any extent is to not have any alcohol whatsoever in the bloodstream.

The fact that I have not crashed due to alcohol intoxication has nothing to do with "luck". I prefer not be under the effects of alcohol at all when driving, or if I am, it's only after consuming small amounts of alcohol with food, at such a level that I can barely feel any effects from the alcohol.

[Virago]

Some years ago the doctor in charge of the blood testing for the Police went on record as saying that random stopping checkpoints caught the wrong people. He said that the checkpoints tended to catch people marginally over the limit, but that these are not the people causing mayhem on the roads. The people that cause the accidents tend to be several times the limit. Bearing in mind that he was presumably testing blood from corpses and the injured as well as drunks that had been arrested.

So actually Paul does have a point.

I think that such a view can be applied to any crime - i.e. giving your wife a black eye is not as bad as beating her to death.

The key issue is that NZ driving alcohol limits are quite high by international standards. Over the years I've seen a couple of trials on TV where a panel of people steadily consume alcohol and are regularly tested - for both breath alcohol levels and driving impairment. In each case, the participants are stunned at how drunk they had to be to be over the limit.

In my opinion, any suggestion that roadside testing is catching the wrong people is bullshit.

[Wingnut]

Riding a pushbike home at night is with the danger of being attacked by a car load of hoods. People who have biked or walked home have indeed been attacked.

Fuck - I'm glad I dont live where you do then...

[FJRider]

Some years ago the doctor in charge of the blood testing for the Police went on record as saying that random stopping checkpoints caught the wrong people.

Not the wrong people ... just not the target offenders ... . SOME guilty people still got caught though.

[pritch]

In my opinion, any suggestion that roadside testing is catching the wrong people is bullshit.

Well that was the guy who was responsible for running the programme, so I'll give his opinion more weight.

[R650R]

Oh look, and indignant policeman. Obviously not in the same category as a motorcyclist as he's allowed to have a voice in the media. Plenty of people suffer the same way. Most of them get vilified for being a drain on the taxpayer. But a policeman? Brave defender of public freedom? His pain is worse.

Cry me a river.

I think its more a media thing than the man himself. Reporting standards have dropped so much they have to add qualifiers to stories to make them seem more interesting.
Down this way we have a local photographer who does a lot of work for charity and good on him, but every single time he's in the paper they have to bring up the story about his son dying from cancer and the sunrise image he took a few hours later.
Tragic yes but we don't need to read about it repeatedly. Nearly everybody has lost someone close to cancer, the rates are exponentially increasing all the time...

Back to topic I think the drink drive thing is overdone to the detriment of road safety. We should be hammering home how crappy EVERYONES driving is as SOBER drivers cause about 70% of all crashes, and the ones involving alcohol maybe they were due to have a whoopsy anyway drunk or sober.
That repeat drink drivers are still alive after 20 odd times shows that some people can do it, perhaps because they have good driving skills at their core? Meanwhile theirs people who really shouldn't have a license to start with that have an accident just over the limit and DUI is recorded as cause.
If you crunch the numbers when they have these big random stops, only 1-1.5 % are DUI, I'm really concerned still about the driving ability of the other 98.5-99%...
I don't condone DUI and have been hit headon in Truck by one, wasn't nice experience.
But we have all this drama and yet the govt via council still allows pubs and clubs with carparks via resource consents. Overnight they could say you can only enter a bar/restaurant/pub with a recent bus or taxi receipt and ban all cars from CBD drinking areas on fri sat nights etc.
But no our alcohol industry brings in too much tax revenue and doing something costs too many votes...

[FJRider]

I think that such a view can be applied to any crime - i.e. giving your wife a black eye is not as bad as beating her to death.

Yeahh .. ??? scratch: ... she just waits until you're asleep. Then beats the fuck out of ya ...

The key issue is that NZ driving alcohol limits are quite high by international standards. Over the years I've seen a couple of trials on TV where a panel of people steadily consume alcohol and are regularly tested - for both breath alcohol levels and driving impairment. In each case, the participants are stunned at how drunk they had to be to be over the limit.

But felt fine ... right .. ???

In my opinion, any suggestion that roadside testing is catching the wrong people is bullshit.

How can catching guilty people ... be the WRONG people .. ????