drinking while driving

[skippa1]

Because the limit is higher than Zero...
Do you think your car can't exceed the speed limit too because you pass a speed camera without it going off???

If it's set at zero,its set at zero, prove me wrong. My job relies on it.

[jellywrestler]

What a load of self believing bullshit. If there's no doubt ....why bother? Cause you're a lying hypocite?

there is doubt simply, hence the use of a machine, the body reacts to the same amount of alcohol differently depending on a lot of factors.
a lot of things in this world have limits, and driving is full of them. why would any sane person who has a jar or two not take advantage of the technology? i use a gps as it's more accurate than a speedo, especialy when i drive several differnt vehicles and the gps maps the differnt limits along the way, same thing, driving within the legal limits.
neither tool means i feel i have to drive at the limit all the time, just know when i'm near them
are you God or something?

[FJRider]

Yeah but who said this Turkey was a recidivist or one that has excessive convictions?

If this turkey has had a regular habit of drink driving/riding ... (and even if he never had any issue before with it) ... could he still be considered a recidivist drink driver ... ???

And how many drink driving convictions are needed now to be considered excessive ... ???

[skippa1]

there is doubt simply, hence the use of a machine, the body reacts to the same amount of alcohol differently depending on a lot of factors.
a lot of things in this world have limits, and driving is full of them. why would any sane person who has a jar or two not take advantage of the technology? i use a gps as it's more accurate than a speedo, especialy when i drive several differnt vehicles and the gps maps the differnt limits along the way, same thing, driving within the legal limits.
neither tool means i feel i have to drive at the limit all the time, just know when i'm near them
are you God or something?

I repeat.....make the limit zero and take the guess work out of it.....(unless you're some pious wealthy fuckwit that can afford a personal breathalyser)

Are you really that fixated in being able to drink and drive?

[skippa1]

If this turkey has had a regular habit of drink driving/riding ... (and even if he never had any issue before with it) ... could he still be considered a recidivist drink driver ... ???

And how many drink driving convictions are needed now to be considered excessive ... ???

Does it matter? You wanna share the road with him?

[jellywrestler]

I repeat.....make the limit zero and take the guess work out of it.....(unless you're some pious wealthy fuckwit that can afford a personal breathalyser)

Are you really that fixated in being able to drink and drive?

yip, and stop everyone driving then there will be no road deaths,
as for being pious wealthy, my unit cost me $500 or so, it's a known brand that does the job properly, i brought it through my business, get the gst back and don't pay tax, so probably owes me $350-$375 or so, the penalty for being between 250 and 400 is $250 fine, half your license gone through demerits, forbidden to drive for twelve hours and if you're stopped on a motorway or similar they'll tow your wagon costing how much??? think insurance policy, if you can actually think.
i'm not hell bent on 'drink driving' whatsoever, but do drink and give a shit about the consequences.
either way, they still seem to think it's not unsafe to put drivers caught between 250 and 400 back on the road or they would take peoples license off them now wouldn't they.
making the limit zero won't stop people drinking and driving at all.

[FJRider]

... Having undergone decades of behaviour modification already, a zero limit wouldn't bother me. There might be more barbecues at my place though?

On the subject of Behavior modification ... I recall the thoughts and comments of smokers (and Publicans) that were made when legislation was set to be introduced ... regarding NO SMOKING in Pubs ... It'll NEVER happen they said ...

[FJRider]

Does it matter? You wanna share the road with him?

[skippa1]

yip, and stop everyone driving then there will be no road deaths,
as for being pious wealthy, my unit cost me $500 or so, it's a known brand that does the job properly, i brought it through my business, get the gst back and don't pay tax, so probably owes me $350-$375 or so, the penalty for being between 250 and 400 is $250 fine, half your license gone through demerits, forbidden to drive for twelve hours and if you're stopped on a motorway or similar they'll tow your wagon costing how much??? think insurance policy, if you can actually think.
i'm not hell bent on 'drink driving' whatsoever, but do drink and give a shit about the consequences.
either way, they still seem to think it's not unsafe to put drivers caught between 250 and 400 back on the road or they would take peoples license off them now wouldn't they.
making the limit zero won't stop people drinking and driving at all.

Read all your posts...I think you might be hell bent on drink driving you care about the consequences for you...not so much anyone else.


Dont fuck up.....especially with one of my family....I dont have much to lose

[Scuba_Steve]

If it's set at zero,its set at zero, prove me wrong. My job relies on it.

I'm not even sure you know what you're on about at this stage
Lets make the limit zero... but then why stop there?
I say we ban people that wear glasses, they're visually impaired. Vision seems like an important thing to have to drive
Ban people with hearing aids, sound is an important factor in driving
Ban physically impaired, driving requires use of arms, legs & head anyone without proper movement for all of them shouldn't be driving
Ban the colour blind, again vision is important

Serious tho I do hope you never consume any of the products I've previously mentioned before driving lest you be a hypocrite. Also the list is much bigger than just what I've mentioned so might pay to check what you're eating/drinking before driving
Oh & why you're at it, maybee look up the prohibition & let me know how well that worked out for America cause it seems somewhat relevant to your cause

[bikaholic]

Then consider ... that being "Under the influence of alcohol" is a factor that affects a persons riding/driving. Most accidents (for want of a better word) are caused by more than one factor. Add a dash of speed as another factor. Then add another rider/driver getting it wrong near you ... and you have all the necessary's for an accident. The rider/driver not over the legal limit ... going a bit quick ... and another motorist does something silly ... and somebody dies. Then in court ... which motorist was responsible for the death ... ???

How many lives were saved by those that didn't drink ... due to the new lower limit .. ?? You don't know. And ... have no chance of proving it (either way).

Did any rider on any ride consider the pint at each stop wasn't putting them over any limit ... but the alcohol level in his system wasn't dropping. And ... afterwards ... did they consider the death may NOT occurred if they had not been drinking ... ?? The accident may still have happened if it was instigated by another motorist ... just not the same outcome. Or would it ... ???

The simple truth is ... booze is still an important/common factor in (too ??) many road death accidents. Possible outcomes are always considered by riders/drivers that have been drinking ... but it won't happen to THEM. They can handle their booze ... and too good a rider/driver. AND ... they are careful ... too careful for that to happen.

Yeah right ...

the simple fact is the new lower limit is assessed as being a safer one. Putting lipstick on a pig doesnt change it. The young fellow was under the limit. Since the limit was lowered more people are dying from alcohol related crashes according to those that create the laws. A National MP is proposing to introduce a members bill putting back the limit back to what it was as it is not working as intended. Some people should never consume alcohol for any reason.
Edit I was wrong, NZ First MP Darroch Ball.

[jellywrestler]

the simple fact is the new lower limit is assessed as being a safer one. Putting lipstick on a pig doesnt change it. The young fellow was under the limit. Since the limit was lowered more people are dying from alcohol related crashes according to those that create the laws. A National MP is proposing to introduce a members bill putting back the limit back to what it was as it is not working as intended. Some people should never consume alcohol for any reason.

yip, and how many times is the first thing you hear 'speed and alcohol' they smell a beer, or someone says it was going fast and the judge and jury have decided, but how many times are those actually a factor in the crash, i'm not saying they're not sometimes, but it's an easy blame in a lot of situations. we ride round to 100km'h speed limit, that doesn't man that we are killers when we do 101 on most roads on bikes capable these days of sometimes three times that, that's the limit they have set.
They have set the drink limit to what they believe is right, how can it be right for each and every individual, it isn't, but they had a to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and we have to adhere to that.
i'm fucking tired of them dumbing down our road speeds round here meaning we're now driving round bored out of our skulls, and not able to pass other vehicles cause it's to easy to get snapped, more boredom follows..., then in attention, staring at your speedo instead of the road etc.
there was a national news case a few weeks ago where a gavin hawthorne who'd kille four drinking and driving got done again for over 400, a week later it came out he'd been done recently for between 250 and 400, receiving a fine
what's wrong with our system that that guy could do that, why wern't flags raised when he got pinged the first of those times, why hasn't he with his record got a lifetime zero? if they can't impose that on him then why should they try and fit it on the rest of us.

[bikaholic]

yip, and how many times is the first thing you hear 'speed and alcohol' they smell a beer, or someone says it was going fast and the judge and jury have decided, but how many times are those actually a factor in the crash, i'm not saying they're not sometimes, but it's an easy blame in a lot of situations. we ride round to 100km'h speed limit, that doesn't man that we are killers when we do 101 on most roads on bikes capable these days of sometimes three times that, that's the limit they have set.
They have set the drink limit to what they believe is right, how can it be right for each and every individual, it isn't, but they had a to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and we have to adhere to that.
i'm fucking tired of them dumbing down our road speeds round here meaning we're now driving round bored out of our skulls, and not able to pass other vehicles cause it's to easy to get snapped, more boredom follows..., then in attention, staring at your speedo instead of the road etc.
there was a national news case a few weeks ago where a gavin hawthorne who'd kille four drinking and driving got done again for over 400, a week later it came out he'd been done recently for between 250 and 400, receiving a fine
what's wrong with our system that that guy could do that, why wern't flags raised when he got pinged the first of those times, why hasn't he with his record got a lifetime zero? if they can't impose that on him then why should they try and fit it on the rest of us.

Anytime in NZ we have a problem, the only way we think we can cure it, is to apply a sledgehammer to crack a nut.Why, because that effects the majority.

In January a beer is being released called First Responder Beer, by Blackdog and Tuatara Breweries. 17 kegs of it is being donated to Wellington Free Ambulance as a fundraiser. So there ya go, we are not all a bunch of fuddy duddys, bet FJ wont have a bar of it.

[F5 Dave]

If it's set at zero,its set at zero, prove me wrong. My job relies on it.

You really haven't mastered the art of debating to try get a point across.

Let me take a logical jump in the dark.

I'm going to assume that you might be tested at your work with some tester that is set to, close to zero. Is that what you are trying to say? -cause it sure ain't clear . If that were the case your argument would at least be stronger. But if we ran a poll most people wouldn't make that assumption. Prove me wrong, as you keep saying.



Ok let's examine the main story a little. Now I wouldn't want my workers turning up drunk. And I don't like the thought of them having a drink before work. But let's cast me as the hypocrite. A work lunch we might go out for a curry. I'll have a beer. We don't have a policy, for alcohol in the workplace. In fact I'm the only one who suggested it.

So this chap is a typical lad let's say. He's been up late and tired and doesn't think he wants to work but ya know? He's not at all drunk but hasn't had breakfast and he's thirsty. On the way he remembers Johno left a can of some hideous piss under the seat. Shit I'll have a swig of that.

Ok this isn't the behavior any of us would recognize. But he may well have had less alcohol than my lunch time beer.

But we're all labeling him a drunkard and a problem drinker.

Maybe we don't know the full facts, and I doubt the journalists care beyond a story.

[bikaholic]

The story is on the pigs facebook. Just a one liner, the rest is up to Stuff.
There is also a story on qtown pigs friendly game of football against qtown airport staff, again, not much info, why, cos they lost.