Drink Driving Causing Death. It's murder, so why don't we do this here?

[slowpoke]

I'm suprised at the black and white mentality regarding some of this discussion....awww shit, no I'm not.

Life is all about shades of grey, with every situation different from the next. To make blanket statements regarding laws or certain types of behaviour is just asking for a case or person to step forward that straddles wherever you've drawn the line.

Every drink driver in an accident is a murderer? Someone blows 0.01mg/l over the limit they are a murderer, the next guy blows 0.01 under and it's an accident. It's farcical, especially when you throw mandatory sentencing into the mix.

What of the person who sleeps it off in the carpark, wakes up and drives off in the morning, has an accident and is still over the limit. Is he a murderer? He deliberately tried to do the right thing.

And surely drink driving is a symptom, as is domestic violence amongst others, of an inability of society to cope with alcohol. Why not ban the cause itself: alcohol? Surely if a substance is known to be harmful it's the Governments duty of care to remove the hazard?

Besides how can you expect someone to display good judgenment when the very thing that they are legally allowed (and often encouraged) to consume is known to impair judgement? It's like allowing people to use pepper but then making sneezing illegal. They are inextricably linked, one begets the other.

Edit: I like a beer as much as the next bloke, and I'm thankful it's not but there really is no defence as to why alcohol is still legal. It is the root cause of a lot of problems, where most if not all "solutions" only address the effect.

[98tls]

Until the lawmakers make the punishment for drink driving a punishment then the carnage will continue,there inability to do so is beyond belief,millons spent on ads etc but no punishment to back it up,pathetic really.Guys with 4-5 convictions are still being handed out a paltry few months pd,if per chance they kill someone it jumps up to an even more pathetic 2-3 years of which they will only do 1/2 anyway.Hard to understand really.

[LBD]

On the one hand we have a group of KBers who accept the situation of being prepared to ride on the road with others who have had their judgment impaired with even legal amounts of alchol, the same who may make you an injured victim of their impaired judgment. You will not have the choice to accept or reject the harmful consequences…

On the other hand we have a vast majority of KBers who would strongly object to approaches by any members of the zealous religiously inclined types because they are attempting to impose their beliefs and opinions onto others, even though it is in a harmless manner that you can chose to accept or reject…

Many KBers will have a foot in both camps…is that not contradictory?

[HenryDorsetCase]

On the one hand we have a group of KBers who accept the situation of being prepared to ride on the road with others who have had their judgment impaired with even legal amounts of alchol, the same who may make you an injured victim of their impaired judgment. You will not have the choice to accept or reject the harmful consequences…

On the other hand we have a vast majority of KBers who would strongly object to approaches by any members of the zealous religiously inclined types because they are attempting to impose their beliefs and opinions onto others, even though it is in a harmless manner that you can chose to accept or reject…

Many KBers will have a foot in both camps…is that not contradictory?

No it isnt

see my previous post with a youtube link as to why not.

[Winston001]

No it isnt

Look, I told you once!

[EatOrBeEaten]

Everybody knows that alcohol impairs your ability to drive. Everybody. In this decade there can be no human being in the western world who is not aware of this. Therefore, anybody who drinks alcohol and gets behind the wheel is aware that they are impaired and will not be driving to the full limit of their capabilities. They are aware that they are more likely to cause an accident. They are aware that they are more likely to kill and injure themselves or others than if they were sober.

When you make the decision to drive under the influence you have chosen to put yourself and other road users at increased risk. As a result, if you cause an injury or a death to someone else under the influence, then the fact you consciously decided to put others at risk should be reflected in the sentence handed down to you.

There really is no fucking excuse, none at all, for killing someone because a driver couldn't say no to a few beers.

[Winston001]

So if people speed and drive they are incapable of being able to control themselves and also should be done for murder if they kill someone....?

Yes. But its very rare because the intent to kill has to be proven. Usually a manslaughter charge. No alcohol or drugs required.

Life is all about shades of grey, with every situation different from the next. To make blanket statements regarding laws or certain types of behaviour is just asking for a case or person to step forward that straddles wherever you've drawn the line.

Well said and that's why we have discretion in terms of charges laid, and sentencing. One size does not fit all.

Every drink driver in an accident is a murderer? Someone blows 0.01mg/l over the limit they are a murderer, the next guy blows 0.01 under and it's an accident. It's farcical, especially when you throw mandatory sentencing into the mix.

Excellent point and illustrates why zero alcohol is the much clearer option.

What of the person who sleeps it off in the carpark, wakes up and drives off in the morning, has an accident and is still over the limit. Is he a murderer? He deliberately tried to do the right thing.

Not in my opinion.

And surely drink driving is a symptom, as is domestic violence amongst others, of an inability of society to cope with alcohol. Why not ban the cause itself: alcohol? Surely if a substance is known to be harmful it's the Governments duty of care to remove the hazard?

The community acceptance of alcohol is the reason why we don't have harsher drink/drive laws. Unless that changes, the penalties will stay the same.


However, just discussing the topic exaggerates the problem. Don't know the stats but it seems like there are far less drinking drivers today than there used to be. So possibly the ones who are caught only represent a very small section of the community - and there will always be lawbreakers.

Incidentally, how can we ever prevent a person (outside a prison) from driving a vehicle if they decide they want to? We do not want to live in a police state.

[98tls]

Yes. But its very rare because the intent to kill has to be proven. Usually a manslaughter charge. No alcohol or drugs required.



Well said and that's why we have discretion in terms of charges laid, and sentencing. One size does not fit all.



Excellent point and illustrates why zero alcohol is the much clearer option.



Not in my opinion.



The community acceptance of alcohol is the reason why we don't have harsher drink/drive laws. Unless that changes, the penalties will stay the same.


However, just discussing the topic exaggerates the problem. Don't know the stats but it seems like there are far less drinking drivers today than there used to be. So possibly the ones who are caught only represent a very small section of the community - and there will always be lawbreakers.

Incidentally, how can we ever prevent a person (outside a prison) from driving a vehicle if they decide they want to? We do not want to live in a police state.

Good post mate,theres a device that can be fitted rendering a car in-operable if booze is detected,i imagine car makers would cry to expensive etc but have often wondered if built on a mass scale if it wouldnt be cheaper to be goverment funded to every vehicle in the long run.

[EatOrBeEaten]

The community acceptance of alcohol is the reason why we don't have harsher drink/drive laws. Unless that changes, the penalties will stay the same.


However, just discussing the topic exaggerates the problem. Don't know the stats but it seems like there are far less drinking drivers today than there used to be. So possibly the ones who are caught only represent a very small section of the community - and there will always be lawbreakers.

Incidentally, how can we ever prevent a person (outside a prison) from driving a vehicle if they decide they want to? We do not want to live in a police state.

You can't, just like if someone REALLY wants to rape or murder then we can't really stop them. What stops the vast majority of people from rape and murder is the threat of consequences, the moral code of our society and personal ethics. If drink-driving was seen as socially abhorrent and carried a stiff penalty then would as many people do it?

[Usarka]

Hey I'm not arguing that drink driving is ok, just that it's hypocritical of many who ride at excessive speeds that are viewed dangerous by most of the population to say another group that we deem dangerous should be tried for murder if they fuck up.

If you start messing with the murder laws to include activities that carry risk but don't have intent then you're opening a can of worms that could swim up your arse crack and bite you on the roots of your pubes.....

[Mikkel]

And surely drink driving is a symptom, as is domestic violence amongst others, of an inability of society to cope with alcohol. Why not ban the cause itself: alcohol? Surely if a substance is known to be harmful it's the Governments duty of care to remove the hazard?

Besides how can you expect someone to display good judgenment when the very thing that they are legally allowed (and often encouraged) to consume is known to impair judgement? It's like allowing people to use pepper but then making sneezing illegal. They are inextricably linked, one begets the other.

Edit: I like a beer as much as the next bloke, and I'm thankful it's not but there really is no defence as to why alcohol is still legal. It is the root cause of a lot of problems, where most if not all "solutions" only address the effect.

Yes, I agree let's remove anything dangerous, tricky or tempting from our lives. It really is unfair of life to pose all of these difficult choices for the individual to deal with, let's pray that society some day gets it act together and ban everything that is bad (in anyone's opinion whatsoever), life would be much better then.

For the dim-witted that was sarcasm.

I'm sorry but you can not relegate any of the blame for wife beating or drink driving upon alcohol itself. There is a thing called individual resposibility and society is already doing way too much to remove it from our existence entirely.

[McJim]

It's another symptom of the carcentricity of New Zealand. Cars are a right not a privilege in the eyes of many here. Many of us are used to countries where a viable option is available. Everyone goes out together, gets pissed and then shares Taxis, tubes and night buses home after the pubs shut.

Unless you have serious quantities of disposable income getting home from say Central Auckland to Botany Downs at 3:00am is completely out of the question. Since New Zealand's economy is based on absolute subsistance salaries this means people WILL drink and drive. We need meaty salaries to drive the economy.... that and a decent public transport system!

[98tls]

Hey I'm not arguing that drink driving is ok, just that it's hypocritical of many who ride at excessive speeds that are viewed dangerous by most of the population to say another group that we deem dangerous should be tried for murder if they fuck up.

If you start messing with the murder laws to include activities that carry risk but don't have intent then you're opening a can of worms that could swim up your arse crack and bite you on the roots of your pubes.....

How can you compare spending the time (premeditated) pissing up then driving to oversteeping the speed limit?

[McJim]

I'm sorry but you can not relegate any of the blame for wife beating or drink driving upon alcohol itself. There is a thing called individual resposibility and society is already doing way too much to remove it from our existence entirely.

So you've never had a pint of Wife Beater (Stella Artois) then?

[Usarka]

How can you compare spending the time (premeditated) pissing up then driving to oversteeping the speed limit?

Define overstepping. Most of the population would say anything over 120 is dangerous. And anything over this speed is premeditated, you don't accidentally go over 120 (and if you do then you aren't in control and shouldn't be riding/driving). Of course I don't go this fast so am just giving my outside opinion.

As an aside I've been trying to dig up some stats unsuccessfully, but so far, in Nelson only, in 2005:

1. Crashes with alcohol as a factor: 9%
2. Crashes with speed as a factor: 18%

According to the stats, speeding is twice more likely to result in an accident. And as we all know it is more likely to cause a bigger mess (semi p/t).

My point is that if we make drink driving a murder charge, and if this significantly reduces offences then there WILL be a new bogey man and a precedent will have been set where intent to kill is not a pre-requisite for a murder charge.