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

[Usarka]

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

Stella and singlets - a bad combination.

[98tls]

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.

Fair call and interesting.

[Mikkel]

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

Goes well with cider, snakebite don't you know

Well, I suppose women would be free from being slapped around if they just learned to shut up for a second every now and again p/t

What inspires people to beat up their spouses I shall never understand. What I do know however is that no matter how much and what I have to drink I have never ever felt in any way inclined to beat up anyone, my partner included. Violent people who lead repressed lives are going to "pop" sooner or later, just because alcohol may prompt this by lowering their inhibitions doesn't mean they wouldn't go and do the same anyway a couple of days later.

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

Haven't we already covered that speed is always a factor in any crash. If you aren't moving you can't crash into to anything.

So with that in mind I am surprised that only 18% of crashes involved speed, or are we talking about the amphetamine kind here?

If not, then we can conclude that if you are speeding then you are 82% unlikely to have a crash (I fucking love statistics... Bismarck was right ya know).

[98tls]

Goes well with cider, snakebite don't you know

Well, I suppose women would be free from being slapped around if they just learned to shut up for a second every now and again p/t

What inspires people to beat up their spouses I shall never understand. What I do know however is that no matter how much and what I have to drink I have never ever felt in any way inclined to beat up anyone, my partner included. Violent people who lead repressed lives are going to "pop" sooner or later, just because alcohol may prompt this by lowering their inhibitions doesn't mean they wouldn't go and do the same anyway a couple of days later.



Haven't we already covered that speed is always a factor in any crash. If you aren't moving you can't crash into to anything.

So with that in mind I am surprised that only 18% of crashes involved speed, or are we talking about the amphetamine kind here?

If not, then we can conclude that if you are speeding then you are 82% unlikely to have a crash (I fucking love statistics... Bismarck was right ya know).

Bullshit,whilst lying on the BBQ seat outside the bar at the March Hare you were not moving but still managed to crash onto the floor.

[McJim]

Bismarck was right ya know).

Bismarck was a herring....

[98tls]

Bismarck was a herring....

Tell me that hedgehog evolution thing again Jimmy..

[candor]

Intent. If there has been but one prior conviction there must have been an inkling this is a crime for a reason. Do it again - that's wilful recklessness.
Problem is high rates of dog level IQ in recidivists due to alcohol syndrome. Dogs chase cats across roads - drink drivers... have their own version. Some have intent, but unless ignoring imediate advice not to drive etc I think its more often toying with suicide than we realise - not personally directed at strangers. Anxiety & depression are common in alcoholics on overseas drink drive rehab courses. Deep dysfunctions & antisocial attitudes aren't changed by fines & tv ads but thats our staple.

Some propaganda is being repeated here generally sourced from types like LTNZ and KISS (keep it simple) educators that any alcohol makes drivers less safe. Several studies have shown something called the grand rapids dip - that lower risk of crashing & culpability than a sobre person exists in one band of blood alcohol levels under 0.05. Dose, tolerance & mental state can result in less or no impairment or even better driving 4 some DD's.

In the long run 0.05 tends to promote disrespect for drink driving laws reviews suggest as it is only an infringement like a speeding ticket. It also does nothing to reduce the behaviour by the harmful high alcohol drink drivers, and prevails on Police time revenue raising when they could be doing loose patrols trouble shooting real drunks.

In Oz 0.05 is put to good use by polydrug drivers as they just add a wee dram, budget to ? pay their 150 bucks for being caught under 0.08, deftly avoid getting drug tested (since alcohol presence gives exemption) then cruise on through chequebook points with demerit despite their liquor / drug cocktail placing them at the same high risk as an extremely high alcohol reading that would normally invoke instant suspension. Its called impaired driving reward points, for cashing in at the funeral.

This mixing preference (seen in most deceased Kiwi drink drivers) is why lower limits in Japan didn't work (European road safety observatory) and why the Irish Medical Board & some say limits are now basicly redundant as a kingpin of policy.

Most countries value road safety more highly and penalties reflect this. Ours send the message its OK, we're forgiving (check over thread) & she'll be right.
If pollies did not think this, why were serious traffic offences suddenly deleted from the new 3 violent strikes bill? Maybe as they realised some drink drivers her have killed 7x & don't think they'd like to throw away the key.
To me tho 7x road killers are worse than 3x hands on assaulters.
Far.. far.... the Arab States would soon sort it with surgical precision.

[Winston001]

Some propaganda is being repeated here generally sourced from types like LTNZ and KISS (keep it simple) educators that any alcohol makes drivers less safe. Several studies have shown something called the grand rapids dip - that lower risk of crashing & culpability than a sober person exists in one band of blood alcohol levels under 0.05.

Interesting - source? The reason for zero alcohol level is to remove the assumption that drinking and driving is perfectly acceptable. At the moment having a limit of 0.08 says exactly that, and invites drivers to gamble they will be just below it.

Zero tells them to drink nothing. Everyone knows where they stand.

This mixing preference (seen in most deceased Kiwi drink drivers) is why lower limits in Japan didn't work (European road safety observatory) and why the Irish Medical Board & some say limits are now basicly redundant as a kingpin of policy.

Source? And recommended alternative law?

[Genestho]

Just got mine today, and there's a discussion on whether we should reduce the limit.... Academics and ALAC believe we should, reduce to 0.05 although many prefer zero.

I've grabbed a few excerpts...

"Unfortunately there is no direct relationship between countries with a reduced BAC and a reduced crash rate.
Studies show in Canada, Austria and Denmark, which have reduced BAC levels, have found that there is a honeymoon period when drivers are consious of the new limit and increased attention.
But, over time, unless there are significant ongoing changes to the drink driving environment, those who ignore the old limit start to ignore the new one too.

Studies on fatally injured drivers have found upto a quarter of fatalities are recidivist drink drivers, Suggesting there is a hardcore of drunk drivers who can't be relied on to be responsible, no matter what the limit might be."

Nice one NZ Police - good to see you trialling those Interlocking Devices!!!

[Winston001]

We can't be too far away from having the technology to not only link breath/alcohol with the ignition but also a valid drivers licence. You'd have to scan your licence (with a chip in it) before the car would start. If your licence was suspended, no start.

[Genestho]

We can't be too far away from having the technology to not only link breath/alcohol with the ignition but also a valid drivers licence. You'd have to scan your licence (with a chip in it) before the car would start. If your licence was suspended, no start.

Yep totally agree Winston, you continue to make good points, bring technology on... there has to be a physical co-relation of prevention, because quite clearly expecting them to be reponsible is an impossible task!

In a yet to be published article, there's some new investigation of research, they summarise the evidence of the contribution of neurocognitive and psycho biological mechanisms, to drink drive behaviour and recidivism, that will lead us to be able to use more targeted intervention technology for these groups.
I watch with interest....

[candor]

I hate technical stuf but the answers unfortunately do lie in the detail...
Trouble finding a full grand rapids link on net but it reported (pre other drug use prevalence) a risk dip between 0.01-0.04 BAC. Below italics quote is an excerpt from a review (p5 I think) at http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1093.pdf

The risk curve reported by Zador et al. also predicted lower risk for those with 0.01 g/dL BAC than for those with zero BAC, similar to the dip found in the Grand Rapids Study by Borkenstein et al. The authors noted that such a dip customarily is assumed to be due to “differing alcohol tolerance between crash-involved and non-crash-involved drivers.” Hurst reported that controlling for self-reported drinking frequency eliminated the dip in the Grand Rapids StuIn a re-analysis of the Grand Rapids data,

Hurst, Harte and Frith (1994) demonstrated that the relative risk curve changed substantially and an observed decrease or dip in risk at low BACs disappeared with an adjustment for drivers’ drinking frequency ie regular drinkers will be more safe at low BACs than any sobre drivers, but this is not applicable to non regular drinkers at low BACs who are simply about the same risk as sobre drivers if at low BACs.

This German study (lnk below) demonstrated that the risk between 0.05-0.08 has been exaggerated once confounding factors takin in account eg tendency of social drinkers leaving restaurants at night to be killed by severely drunk drivers. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15350695

No time just now to find Japan & Irish reference (that one is somewhere on European Road Safety Observatory website from memory).

Recommended alternate law to either 0.08 or O.05 Winston? So many options beyond limit focuses, and many are used worldwide. Change mix so tertiary prevention targets offenders much more here eg compulsory assesment / treatment & no driving without interlock + unproblematic other drug use (for trouble) till healthy road behaviours firmly foreseeable by assessors. Re limits (talking adults only) my personal opinion is that 0.08 is the best scientific one for achieving crash reduction - for sole drinkers in the general population ie most of us.

I think the insubstantial risks at low BACs don't warrant harrassment by state tax collectors. If they could hold water in establishing criminal negligence they'd make 0,05 criminal but they can't (due to a body of credible studies) - hence infringements are proposed as an inappropriate measure to discourage drinking full stop (backfires as other drugs substituted - moving targets). Being a 16 year old driver sobre is about 20x as risk raising as being a sensible under limit adult driver. A criminal limit of 0.03 or 0.05 should apply to past offenders as in some places - effectively encouraging non driving if drinking, plus a raft of other stuff. We need to stop pussyfooting - that'll be the day when we apply scarlet letter number plates like Ohio tho.

The International Council of Alcohol, drugs and traffic safety has in the past recommended imposition of a very low limit like 0.02 or so for illicit drug users who mix (a known big risk), or alternately penalising the illicit drug use in a broad brush approach to reduce averaged risks.

This becomes problematic (not a very focused road safety initiative just like 0.05) if tech is not used to differentiate between recent impairing use versus past inconsequential use eg of cannabis 10 hrs ago. Also risk ratings are raising for over 0.08 limit drivers versus others and under 0.08ers worldwide which was puzzling given safer cars etc until they noticed the increasing polydrugging. I'd suggest that polydruggers over 0.8 be treated as drivers over 1.3 (or whatever the instant suspension & highest penalty/intervention kick in level currently is).

[candor]

Studies on fatally injured drivers have found upto a quarter of fatalities are recidivist drink drivers, Suggesting there is a hardcore of drunk drivers who can't be relied on to be responsible, no matter what the limit might be."

Its more that a quarter in NZ - that is based only on convictions last 4 years I think and only looks at dead divers (not considering those killed by surviving recidivists_. Some research shows its more like over half such fatalities by recidivists (Bailey 1998 looked at loger term record giving much higher figure). Also those caught have usually driven drunk legion times per arrest so on that basis you could even stretch to say its almost all a recidivist based issue.
Mot & LTNZ won't make the true recidivism stats public info for obvious reasons. They also cancelled the traffic record assessment part of the current ongoing deceased drink & drug driver study.

[Usarka]

I'd personally rather see a holistic approach taken to addressing our alcohol culture (zero tolerance may be a part of this) rather than targeting one symptom. It's affecting more areas than just road safety - and if we don't have a balanced approach it's likely to cause problems elsewhere.

Intent. If there has been but one prior conviction there must have been an inkling this is a crime for a reason. Do it again - that's wilful recklessness..

Sure if someone has killed while driving drunk previously I'd agree with that.

But in reality 1,000's of kiwis probably drive pissed each week. That would suggest that actual crashes are quite a low percentage, and deaths even lower. I'd find it hard to accept that someone who regularly drives drunk without ever having had an accident is intending to kill someone when they drive.

BTW - I think if the topic was changed to "should there be a heavy mandatory sentence for repeat offenders" (even if this is had the same penalties as a murder charge) then there probably would be little argument, and a greater chance of getting a result.

Pees scout.

[Genestho]

I'd personally rather see a holistic approach taken to addressing our alcohol culture (zero tolerance may be a part of this) rather than targeting one symptom. It's affecting more areas than just road safety - and if we don't have a balanced approach it's likely to cause problems elsewhere.

Yep, The National Alcohol Plan has an extensive approach to all alcohol related harm, hope to receive feedback as I have made submissions, in one particular area...





But in reality 1,000's of kiwis probably drive pissed each week.
I agree and it's a most preventable choice to make

That would suggest that actual crashes are quite a low percentage, and deaths even lower. I'd find it hard to accept that someone who regularly drives drunk without ever having had an accident is intending to kill someone when they drive.

According to MOT stats
2008
Alcohol/Drugs were contributing factors in
128 fatalities
559 serious injuries
1,777 minors
Percentage of crashes with alcohol/drugs as the contributing factor
30% of fatalities
19% Serious
12% minor
$850 million it cost us, only a fifth of ALL crashes
But these are the choices made, one more for the road
And all preventable numbers!!
BTW - I think if the topic was changed to "should there be a heavy mandatory sentence for repeat offenders" (even if this is had the same penalties as a murder charge) then there probably would be little argument, and a greater chance of getting a result.

Pees scout.

Yea, nah... the thread title was in regards to info supplied, in 60 minutes segment, regarding a landmark murder charge in the states to spark debate, and guage opinions.. the posts have covered all the avenues of law, causation, and any possible or not...solutions...

However you are so right!...that'll be a great title for a thread in the future, cheers