Drink Driving Blitz

December 16th, 2007 at 10:18 am by David Farrar

The SST reports on a drink driving blitz on Friday night which tested 52,000 vehicles and 335 drivers face prosecution.

I was one of those tested, on the on ramp to the Wellington motorway, driving back from a party in Newtown. The police officers were very professional and polite doing a pretty thankless job.

I’d been at the party for around four hours, and had only had three alcoholic drinks (whiskeys) before swapping to fruit juice, so I knew I was well under the limit. But despite that, you always get that nervous clenching feeling in your stomach, until such time as you get a result. Of course it came up negative.

It was the first time I had been breath tested in oh four or five years I think. And that is despite being a regular driver in the evenings.

It got me thinking about how often those who have multiple drink driving convictions, probably actually drive over the limit. If you have just one conviction it might be the only time you were ever over the limit, but what are the chances for multiple convictions.

You see I would estimate that you get breath tested only around one in 200 times you are out driving. So if for example you have four drink driving convictions, that suggests to me that person may have driven over the limit 500 to 1,000 times.

So personally I would actually advocate more resources for more frequent drink driving blitzes. People shouldn’t get away with driving drunk hundreds and hundreds of times.

58 Responses to “Drink Driving Blitz”

  1. vto (803 comments) says:

    andrew w, nature of the rule includes their compliance checking. technical.

    alternatives? Not sure. ban alcohol, like any other drug. wasn’t the point of the point.

    its a steamy hot sunday afternoon – I’m off

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    Hump! included “less than” at the start of that comment and it didn’t appear.

    SW, And the solution is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    Is this your comment?

    {{andrew w, nature of the rule includes their compliance checking. technical.}}

    {{alternatives? Not sure. ban alcohol, like any other drug. wasn’t the point of the point.}}

    {{its a steamy hot sunday afternoon}}

    We’re watched you, Andrew.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    ? Ahh, no, that was vto

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    So it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    Ideologically random breath testing doesn’t fit that well with me ,but I thought I’d play devils advocate in the knowledge that clever people like Red would point to a solution that doesn’t mean that lots of safe and sober drivers aren’t being stopped, and lets face it, intimidated, to catch the drunks.

    No solutions anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    Oh, SW is me! For obvious reasons, I’m acting as an athropologist from Mars, so may not know what is plain illegal/unconstitutional. However, what is appropriate and not according to a strict calculus laid down by unyielding constitutions is best all round.

    1) Even the article author, whom I assume is this DPF, seems to misunderstand how easy it is to push over the limit despite using the trick of washing down with fruit juices. It’s been tried before!

    2) Simply assuming that it is safe to drive after one unit is fallacious. This is merely a guide, even if the driver is able to judge how many units (the equivalent of 10 ml of pure alcohol), and not drinks, have been consumed. A pint of stiff cider may be the equivalent of three of four spirits. Make your operating assumption that to drive after any imbibing requires your proof of competance, and not the converse.

    3) I don’t know how the quoted death figures tally with road journeys, but on the face of it your country is far ahead of the UK.

    If Redbaiter is to be taken to be applying his libertarian nonsense to supporting the status quo viz legislation, it would appear this is a root cause. Should he want his risks, I would suggest he try off-road driving parts of the country where only sheep will witness his smearing his brains across a rocky outcrop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Richard (24 comments) says:

    “Deal harshly with drunk driving if you must, but you cannot complain about the EFB on one hand, and then call for more suspicionless checks on law abiding citizens on the other.”

    Actually, you can. Libertarianz would privatise the roads. I’d sure hope the new road owners would make every effort to keep drunks off the roads I was driving on. The current owner doesn’t. It’s pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    I rarely say this out loud, but I know a lot of good Conservatives. They can be lovely people.

    Libertarians, however, are complete gits.

    Why is it that their definition of free-speech or behaviour doesn’t address the right of others not to be turned to axle-grease by someone with 170 mg?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    “what is appropriate and not according to a strict calculus laid down by unyielding constitutions is best all round.”

    Agree

    This is David Peter Farrar’s blog, he’s the only one posting.

    Everyone in NZ owns a car, the number of pubs/clubs is less than in the UK so home is likely to be more than staggering distance, Kiwi’s aren’t as subserviant to nanny state as poms yet, not always a good thing.
    Probably the biggest difference is the % of under 25’s with a car.

    If by “libertarian nonsense” you mean the expectation that people take responsibility for their own actions, what nonsense do you subscribe to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ben Wilson (321 comments) says:

    I can’t say I got warm fuzzies from getting caught up in the drink driving blitz on Friday. The police blocked off Hobson St, the main feed out of the city, and at midnight it took me 25 mins to get out of the Sky City parking building, and a further 15 to get to the checkpoint. When I got there I was just waved on. And only 1 in 150 people tested was over the limit after all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. baxter (780 comments) says:

    If there was a three strikes and lifetime disqualification Policy, and realistic sentences including vehicle forfeiture, you wouldn’t have drivers on the tenth and upward conviction for the offence still on bail, and still very unlikely to receive a custodial sentence. There is at least one law firm advertising on the radio each day for disqualified drivers to contact them if they want their licence back.It can all be done over the phone and will cost less than $1,000….There is no need for more stops or more resource, just more commonsense applied to the present system

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    Good point baxter, so it’s the same solution as other crimes, deal with offenders properly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    The move in the UK to make drink driving be seen as utterly anti-social predates the Blair years, and their tendancy to central control and authoritarism-lite.

    This is demonstrating the line between the libertarian and the libertine. The matter of public health education programmes, such as the deliterious effects of alcohol or the dangers of driving into a brick wall, are one matter. You have already accepted state control on driving habits viz. licenses, traffic signs, speed limits.

    Neither you nor I nor anyone have the right to drive home after a few jars, for the simple reason that it is very frequently going to be someone else who is turned to mush by the idiot who thought alcohol, in defiance of all neuroscientific knowledge, heightens his reactions.

    This is the difference between ads which show drunk drivers injuring only themselves or those who consciously elected for the risk by entering the car, and those which show bystanders being mown down. This is the difference between your manichean belief that supporters of crack-downs are consigning you to a life of Nobby No-Mates, and one currently showing on British telly of a group of mates going out for a smashing night-out and being driven home by their designated, soft-drink imbibing driver.

    If you were outside a bar and saw a patron stagger out, fumble for his keys and slide into his car, what would you do? Me, I’d judge if I could disuade him. If I thought he’d deck me or something, I would cheerfully call the police.

    A die-hard libertarian may argue that this is his individual choice. Yes, and that choice has consequences. Such as being nicked. I doubt you would be prepared to sacrifice yourself under the wheels to demonstrate the freedom of the common man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. vto (803 comments) says:

    hey sonic-watch, what prob you got with my comment above. what you mean “we’re watched you”?

    and baxter, agree. that’s all that is needed. not more checkpoints. it becomes excessive state control – mind you it seems that’s what about half of new zealand wants. as delivered by herr klark

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    Ben, I am sure there was a great deal of inconvenience. As far as I can see, the NZ approach to drink driving is at that level which the UK’s was 15 or more years ago.

    Social change or community projects, however, can take those 15 years to be realized.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    VTO, no offence intended (well, not there). It’s a reference to a certain blue-rinsed hedgehog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ben Wilson (321 comments) says:

    You mean I’ve got 15 years of this crap to look forward to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    I think Sonic_Watch sees blue hedgehogs everywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    Not if the NZ police cotton on quickly, Ben. A year or two, tops, before they start targetting drinkers and not any old joe driver. Then a few more as daft buggers with 90 or 100 mg get the book thrown at them.

    Then… nirvana.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    A year or two, tops, before they start targetting drinkers and not any old joe driver.

    More than a year, this govt isn’t out till November, the cops can only throw the book that Parliament and the courts give them to throw.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    There will be constitutional and implementational matters which affect it, I know. But, the main objection I detected wasn’t this, but the principle even if the current legislation permitted it.

    If I’m wrong, the solution is clear. Become a colony again and we’ll sort it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. iiq374 (187 comments) says:

    SW –
    Sorry have to disagree that all Libertarians are Gits – and I’ll try and hold myself up as an example to disprove the rule ;-P

    Libertarians, however, are complete gits.

    Why is it that their definition of free-speech or behaviour doesn’t address the right of others not to be turned to axle-grease by someone with 170 mg?

    In my own experience it has tended to be the Libertarians calling for the git that is drunk driving to be hung out to dry while it is the “fuzzy Liberals” more likely to side with the drunk driver giving him a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, …. etc chance to try and smear someone…

    I think the main part where the Libertarian tends to get the bad name on this topic is the necessity to treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent in terms of the checkpoint methodology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    Indeed, iiq374. If the checkpoint mentality were to become entrenched, I would see your point. From what I can judge, though, it is one teething problem with the UK overcame more or less at the start.

    The “fuzzy liberals” you describe demonstrate that fine Christian tradition of getting someone else to turn their other cheek.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. iiq374 (187 comments) says:

    that fine Christian tradition of getting someone else to turn their other cheek.
    Except that in this case it tends to be the judiciary turning their cheek but joe public getting slapped by the car.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. iiq374 (187 comments) says:

    Personally I wouldn’t be as concerned by the checkpoints if the serial and serious offenders were actually taken off the roads as a result – however in the end most of them end up being another form of revenue generation with the book thrown at those most able to pay, and another wet bus ticket for those who can’t.

    Which is why I disagree whole heartedly with DPF on this; his suggestion is the dog chipping all over – until the existing rules are appropriately enforced there is no point in just increasing the frustration

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    All useful points to understanding the NZ process, iiq374. I don’t necessarily have a problem with serious offenders from one social stratum being hammered, but I do have a problem with an inequity where serious offenders from another escape.

    Does NZ operate the same system of penalty points on the license, or is it a simple fine?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. iiq374 (187 comments) says:

    The theory is:
    Drink-driving is considered a serious offence and carries tough penalties, especially for repeat offenders. Third and subsequent offenders face maximum fines of $6,000, prison terms of up to two years, and a one year minimum disqualification from driving.

    http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/factsheets/55.html

    The issue is that judges have shown a predilection towards use of the fine and disqualification provisions – that then lead to the fines being written off when the offender cannot repay; and when caught driving while disqualified just get a longer disqualification and/or fine (see above…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. iiq374 (187 comments) says:

    There was one fairly infamous case here recently where a young driver (16 or 17 y.o.) on restricted license was caught driving outside of hours, drunk and with passengers (so basically breaching every condition of their license they could).

    They were given 6 months disqualification – because they were obeying their license anyway?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. kisekiman (156 comments) says:

    VTO is correct, New Zealand is a nation of pissheads in denial and I got pooh-poohed in a previous thread for saying the 42 below ad implied the the stupidest thing you could do after getting hammered was to molest a cow.

    It’s not. Drink driving is.

    This Government is quite happy to introduce new laws governing the emissions of cars and other safety features. Why not make alcohol sensors and vehicle immobilisers sytems mandatory for WOF. Tough for those who don’t drink drive but so are check points.

    This is not meant to be an overnight band-aid solution but a concept to be considered. In ten years time it could be a reality. Toyota are planning to incorporate such devices in all cars. That’s showing some corporate responsibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (11,911 comments) says:

    “Wait a minute, this can’t be right. In 2004, 135 died due to drink driving on NZ roads:’

    It isn’t. Its a lie. The erosion of civil liberties that is gathering pace in NZ under the Klark government began with attacks on motorists and these attacks were justified by fake stats. Stats aside, I repeat, we need to get back to basics on limiting government powers, and allowing people to go about their lawful business free of police checkpoints is one of the most basic freedoms of all.

    Checkpoints are not justified by fake stats on drink driving. Even if the stats were true, they do not provide any justification for what is an outright attack on an age old traditional right. Mr. Farrar and the Nats should know this, and if they don’t, its no damn wonder the National Party is so confused about what it stands for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    Oh, bloody hell, iiq374. Every authoritarian synapse has just fired off in my brain in a flash of pure heroin-like pleasure. Prison sentances? O-o-o-o-o-o-o.

    Yes, I accept the point about over-reliance on fines and bans. Consistency, as well as changes in attitude will be needed (such as realizing that three whiskeys is probably too much). Taking responsibility for one’s actions involves not assuming that panacea legislation will change the dire situation NZ seems to be in, without effort from individuals.

    As for in situ breathilizers, there are a useful tool but, again, changes in personal attitudes are needed. There was a case (in the USA, I think) where a father got his young daughter to blow in, and subsequently drove her and her sisters into a lake.

    {{It isn’t. Its a lie.}}

    Oh, gosh, that’s that then. Redbaiter says it’s a lie, so it must be.

    Do you have evidence to refute it, by chance, or are you merely presenting one statement which concords with your visage of the truth and firewalling it from verification? I hate to break it to you, but for all your half-baked theories about Orwellianism, he was referring [mostly in his final two books and certain essays] to this attitude and not some piece of plastic which has our fingerprints.

    There are, as I’ve said, issues with implementation and local official attitudes which I do not know. However, your objection is primarily to the principle, not any feet of clay the police and ministers may have.

    {{Even if the stats were true, they do not provide any justification}}

    Once again, a freedom loving driver’s right to get plastered and drive a half tonne lump of plastic and metal at 50 mph does not outweigh my right not to be iced by such contemptible louts. If you feel otherwise, may I suggest finding an old race-track and rediscovered the freedom of man away from others who want to be free to respire?

    {{for what is an outright attack on an age old traditional right.}}

    Bit of a tautology, there. Age-old _and_ traditional? The internal combustion engine mentioned in the Magna Carta. English common law does not allow for the right of yeomen to drive their carriages whilst merry with the occassional half gallon of claret wine.

    As it stands, you want to drive on the same roads as used by other members of the public, you obey some basic manners. If not, what argument do you have against their exercising their age-old and traditional right to life and eliminating the risk from the raving loonie? Or is it (more likely) primary _your_ pursuit of happiness you consider paramount?

    I bet you’re a former hippy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. iiq374 (187 comments) says:

    SW – Did I say that I wanted prison sentences?
    I believe I did hint towards that I’d like fines that didn’t get wiped; and that disqualifying a disqualified driver is hardly going to be effective.

    Personally permanent confiscation of the vehicles being driven by repeat offenders (I think we are both agreeing that 1st time are a more difficult bunch to deal with…) is a good place to start.

    However those people being caught (as per DPF’s original point) for the 4th or 5th time really should be charged with equivalent to attempted murder / unauthorised use of deadly weapons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    4th or 5th time?
    Just shoot them, they’ll never do it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. kehua (81 comments) says:

    If you drink over the limit and drive , you are a fucking idiot, no excuses needed. Simple answer, blow the bag over the limit – remove the driver and passengers if any and send the car to the crusher no ifs no buts. Deterrent always works. Ask any child that has been smacked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    No you didn’t, iiq, but the mere mention of ’em was enough for me to become lost in a Blairite moment of revelry. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Not enough tissues.

    Back to reality (must I?), I find great concordance with the suggestion of confiscating vehicles. Again, it is no-one’s right to own a car but, not being a cruel man, I would agree to some form of monetary exchange.

    Yet, how greatly does this differ from what you rightly identified as futile hand-wringing in issuing endless bans, which offenders will ignore, or fines, which poorer offenders not be able to pay and richer offenders laugh off? All that’s required is for the offender to use his girlfriend’s car, and we’re back to the problem with repeat bans.

    Education above all, with the prospect of the cane.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Redbaiter (11,911 comments) says:

    “English common law does not allow for the right of yeomen to drive their carriages whilst merry with the occassional half gallon of claret wine.”

    You rabbiting witless dipshit. Have you ever actually undergone any sort of educational experience relating to either comprehension or history? For the third time, that is not the issue. The issue is the police stopping people for no good reason.

    “Do you have evidence to refute it,”

    Why do you need to ask something that you should know about if you’re going to argue this issue? If you’d done the lightest of research into the matter, you’d know that these stats are seriously flawed. If a car is parked on the side of the road, and one of the passengers tests positive even for the smallest degree of alcohol after that car is run into by a driver who tests negative for alcohol, it is noted as an alcohol related accident/ fatality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. hinamanu (1,129 comments) says:

    “The issue is the police stopping people for no good reason. ”

    I was told Police definitely have to have a reason to stop a vehicle.

    People are now just so conditioned to being pulled over Police have practically need no justification any more.

    I can’t stand seeing Police pulling over cyclists with no helmets.
    its gestapo all over. Truly appalling Police state tactics.

    But,, say it while you can I spose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. iiq374 (187 comments) says:

    All that’s required is for the offender to use his girlfriend’s car, and we’re back to the problem with repeat bans.
    Except that after losing the girlfriends car (maybe twice) she’s either not going to have another or at least not give it to them!

    And it tends to work well across the monetary spectrum as rich people tend to have commensurately expensive cars 😀

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    I always like it when emotionally-stunted, foul-mouthed trolls call government researched “seriously flawed”. Redbaiter, I have sneezed bigger than you. If you provide me with analysis based on the raw stats, I’ll be happy to listen.

    {{If a car is parked on the side of the road, and one of the passengers tests positive even for the smallest degree of alcohol after that car is run into by a driver who tests negative for alcohol, it is noted as an alcohol related accident/ fatality.}}

    That’s a reasonable criticism, so I used my rapier powers of reason to eviscerate it in seconds. You could, in fact be hiding something, as there’s the strong likelihood that “parked on the side of the road” could include being in the path of oncoming traffic, just as a sober motorist who swerves to avoid a collision with a driving drink driver, and causes a separate collision will likely be exonerated.

    Do you have any evidence that NZ police and judicary, fairly unique amongst Westernized nations, do not define drink driving as being committed by someone doing the drinking? Or are you being, as they say in my parts, a gobby twat?

    As far as I can see, road usage or conditions are little different in NZ and the UK. In the same year, there were 435 non drink related deaths on NZ roads. That is, 31% of road deaths appear drink related.

    http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/media/2005/050101.html

    This compares to the 590 drink driving related deaths out of 3,221 on UK roads in 2004. That is, 18%.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4636913.stm

    So, although road deaths in NZ are still somewhat higher than those in the UK – about 10.9 per 100,000 Kiwis compared to about 5.4 per 100,000 Pommies – drink related deaths _still_ make up a higher proportion of total deaths in NZ.

    {{Except that after losing the girlfriends car (maybe twice) she’s either not going to have another or at least not give it to them!}} iiq374

    But Beth Heke kept going back to Jake the Muss!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (11,911 comments) says:

    Here’s what they say moron-

    “In 2006 driver alcohol/drugs was a contributing factor 1in 99 fatal traffic crashes,”

    Note- “a contributing factor”

    From National Business Review-

    LTSA admits drink-drive deaths drop is bunkum
    Nick Smith

    Transport mandarins admit there is no evidence to show nearly halving the legal drink-drive limit will save lives.

    Land Transport SafetyAuthority spokesman Andy Knackstedt also admits it is attacking the grass roots Kiwi freedom of safely drinking a couple of beers and then driving home.

    The authority is lobbying the government to lower the limit from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg, saying it would save seven lives a year.

    It would promote a zero limit but zero is unenforceable, as some cough remedies or residual alcohol levels from the previous night’s drinking would make a mockery of zero tolerance, Mr Knackstedt said.

    But he admitted the authority could not point to traffic fatalities in which a driver had a level between 50 and 80mg and say alcohol was the defining factor. In short, the very premise of its proposal is based on a fallacy.

    Accidents involving a 50-80mg level could actually be caused by speed, a moment’s inattention, environmental factors, careless driving; any of these or a combination could be the cause of the seven out of 400-plus fatalities each year, he said.

    “You can’t point to any crash [and say alcohol was the cause], it’s the very nature of a fatal crash,” he said.

    Yet the authority is basing its push to nearly halve the limit on the statistical lie that it would save seven lives a year.

    Because research showed alcohol impaired judgment, it was the LTSA view that even a few drinks increases the chance of being in a crash, Mr Knackstedt said.

    “We’re trying to get a culture of people driving sober,” he said while stating a preference for drivers never drinking. “It’s the only way to be 100% sure.

    “But there are all sorts of problems with zero [blood-alcohol level, including cough medicine and residual alcohol levels].”

    Its proposal has been attacked by the Alcohol Advisory Council, road accident researchers, the Hospitality Association, Federated Farmers and the Beer, Wine and Spirits Association.

    All say halving the limit would have no impact on road accident fatalities, with some labelling LTSA advocates as evangelists.

    Indeed, New Zealand’s most experienced traffic accident researcher John Bailey said there wesre 175 factors that can affect fatal accidents, not just alcohol, speed and seatbelts.

    “Most fatal road accidents here and overseas usually involve half a dozen factors, not just alcohol,” Mr Bailey said. “It is naive to put all the blame on one factor.

    “I find that most, if not all drivers [with blood-alcohol levels] between 50mg and 80mg were also speeding.”

    The proposal would affect up to two million adults, the vast majority of whom drive safely and legally.

    Yet these law-abiding motorists would be prevented from meeting socially, having a couple of drinks and then driving home if the government heeds the LTSA.

    There is also a problem with the statistics, as the number of drivers with 50-80mg levels involved in accidents is so small.

    The LTSA is citing 1997-2001 figures showing an average of seven fatalities a year, yet 1996-2000 figures show only four deaths each year.

    Mr Knackstedt said the LTSA’s critics were entitled to their view, as it was, and it was up to the government to decide.

    Transport minister Paul Swain personally favours nearly halving the limit but it is unclear whether it has cabinet support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, I asked for raw data or primary research, not a secondary report. But, let’s make the best of that with which I’m provided.

    {{“In 2006 driver alcohol/drugs was a contributing factor 1in 99 fatal traffic crashes”}}

    I assume this LTSA is part of the Land Transport NZ. Why, I wonder, would one release dispute the stats from another release? Except it doesn’t. Previously, I have referred to road _deaths_. Now you’re attempting to divert attention to fatal _crashes_.

    There is not going to be a directly proportional relationship between RTAs and fatalities. Say, there were 495 RTAs in 2004, from the above one would expect five to have been drink related. Each of those five accidents could have killed 20 or 30 people. One of the effects of alcohol is to reduce inhibition and sense of fear, so making it potentially more likely that drivers will take part in dangerous procedures.

    Get it?

    But, even this is conjecture as, despite your throwing around extraneous information (a common tactic of demagogues, I find), you have not referred to the original study. Was this 1 in 99 of RTAs in the whole of NZ or 1 in 99 in, say, Christchurch?

    As it stands, it has as much worth as the claim that reducing the levels to 50 mg would have automatically saved those seven lives.

    You just googled, and took the first match which conformed to your pre-conceived opinion, didn’t you?

    {{“Land Transport SafetyAuthority spokesman Andy Knackstedt also admits”}}

    Indeed he did not. All we can conclude is that the article authors has interpreted his words as such. Had he, you can bet they would have been placed in quotation marks.

    {{it is attacking the grass roots Kiwi freedom of safely drinking a couple of beers and then driving home.}}

    Oh, please. The same tripe was being put out by the UK press in the 1980s and ’90s. Knowledge of alcohol content and one’s response to it will allow drinkers to “safely” drink “a couple of beers”. It’s the false security, or arrogance, which causes them to think a third beer won’t hurt. Just as UK ads are arguing. No zero limit recommended here.

    Where is this right enshrined? Were you guaranteed it in 1908? Of course you weren’t. It used to be a grass-roots freedom for “no” from a pretty girl to, sometimes, be taken to mean “yes please!”. Are you going to argue against anti sexual violence campaigns next?

    {{“No evidence”}}

    I think you mean the evidence is not conclusive. That seven deaths have been linked to drivers with 5-80 mg _is_ evidence. But, I don’t know where this has come from. I have consistently referred to drink driving according to the 80 mg level, as it is in the UK, and not suggested a lowering of the limit, instead targeting of drivers above 80 mg and public education programmes.

    The same debate took place in the UK ten years ago, and it was decided that the evidence was not conclusive. I agree. Next attempt to change the parameters of the conversation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Redbaiter (11,911 comments) says:

    What pathetic bluster. Drink driving statistics as presented by the NZ gummint are inaccurate and fake. You can write as many words as you want to try and cloud your inept failure to succesfully challenge this assertion. I’m not fooled.

    Just do some research on the name John Bailey you sad ignorant oaf. If you had any real idea on the issue, you wouldn’t be waffling so desperately. You’d know you were done. Its only your ignorance that allows you to continue making such a lame fool of yourself. Geez.. what an abject ignorant propaganda sucker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    {{I can’t stand seeing Police pulling over cyclists with no helmets.
    its gestapo all over. Truly appalling Police state tactics.}}

    Without the immediate beating with truncheons or re-location to work camps, of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    Yes, a yappy yorkshire terrier which thinks it’s s-o-o-o-o-o-o hard.

    {{Drink driving statistics as presented by the NZ gummint are inaccurate and fake.}}

    So provide us with the correct data, and not secondary reports. It shouldn’t be hard. Otherwise you come across as an ill-manered squirt with poor manners.

    Why would I want to “research” any name or read any book you recommend? Data are data and not dictated by who repeats them.

    Incidentially, I see Leonard Cook is returning to NZ from the UK after his periods as National Statistician, Director of the Office for National Statistic and Registar General for England and Wales. I hope he drums some basic knowlege into you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    {{You can write as many words as you want to try and cloud your inept failure to succesfully challenge this assertion.}}

    A gaping counter-factual exists in Redbaiter’s argument and still he dribbles nonsense. Is he always like this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    Red said TLSA said: “In 2006 driver alcohol/drugs was a contributing factor 1in 99 fatal traffic crashes,”

    Sonic_Watch, I think Red slipped the “1” in to deceive and it should have read: “In 2006 driver alcohol/drugs was a contributing factor in 99 fatal traffic crashes,”
    Alternatively alcohol was factor 1 ie. the main factor, in 99 fatal traffic crashes.
    It’s probably the former.

    The SST story states that: “Last year alcohol and drugs played a part in almost a third of all fatal crashes in New Zealand. For every 100 drunk drivers or riders killed in road crashes, 55 of their passengers and another 35 sober road users died with them.”

    So that would mean (with the info available) 190 alcohol related road deaths.

    “there were 435 non drink related deaths on NZ roads. That is, 31% of road deaths appear drink related.”

    190 + 435 = 625

    31% of 625 = 193

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    A gaping counter-factual exists in Redbaiter’s argument and still he dribbles nonsense. Is he always like this?

    As you see, it’s far worse than you realised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. iiq374 (187 comments) says:

    But Beth Heke kept going back to Jake the Muss!
    LOL – however did you not watch to the end??
    And it still avoids the point that they run out of cars! (I wouldn’t change the provision that it is the car that is being driven regardless of ownership)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    Cheers for that, Andrew. I see I was doubly confused as, although I specified the 435 as not drink related, I still had double-think going on in that I thought that a total of 435 died in all RTAs. Possibly, because the actual figure of 625 was close to the 590 drink related deaths in the UK and I associated the two.

    I’ll throw this one open to the libertarians, but I assume a true libertarian (and not delusional libertine) would accept the 135 dead drunks only in a 100% private health care system. As it stands, although I understand NZ has some degree of medi-care, there is still a state element to ER/A&E and subsequent non emergency treatment. So, it is of interest to the the funder (i.e. state and tax-payers) to reduce such ‘expenses’.

    Shamefully, I’ve just realized an example of bias which I was overlooking. We’ve been discussing only RTA deaths, and not injuries which likely make up a greater part of casualities. A drink driver could mount the pavement, thus, and injure six pedestrians, from concussion to amputations, and not be included in the above discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    I haven’t seen WBotBH, iiq. As I remember OWW, doubt was left open at the end. Although Beth had announced her intention never to see Jake again, doubt was left open at the end because of her past behaviour (as distant sirens wailed following the giant fuck-off fight).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    I haven’t seen WBotBH, iiq. As I remember OWW, doubt was left open at the end. Although Beth had announced her intention never to see Jake again, doubt was left open at the end because of her past behaviour (as distant sirens wailed following the giant fuck-off fight).

    {{(I wouldn’t change the provision that it is the car that is being driven regardless of ownership)}}

    You would confiscate stolen cars and charge the victims of the separate crime? That’s the problem in my mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Redbaiter (11,911 comments) says:

    “Otherwise you come across as an ill-manered squirt with poor manners.”

    ..and I should care about your perceptions of me because…???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Andrew W (1,002 comments) says:

    My bad, I should have checked your link, total deaths was 435.
    So a total of 135 dead in 99 drink related crashes,

    From this: “For every 100 drunk drivers or riders killed in road crashes, 55 of their passengers and another 35 sober road users died with them.” I get 52.6% of those killed in such crashes were the drunk drivers, that would be 71 of the 135.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    My window-sill thermometer says it’s -9 oC outside, so my brain juices are starting to freeze. I don’t know who’s right, just that Redbaiter is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. iiq374 (187 comments) says:

    You would confiscate stolen cars and charge the victims of the separate crime? That’s the problem in my mind.

    Ahh, no – as per the current impounding regulations if the car is stolen (requiring a prosecution) then it is immune. However at that point the driver is facing both DD charges and theft charges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Sonic_Watch (32 comments) says:

    But don’t you see, iiq? The girlfriend could plausibly argue that he’d taken her car without her knowledge or under duress, or even that she didn’t know he was banned? I think we both believe that some form of seizure should apply (there are existing laws which could be used in the UK), but a blanket policy would lack natural justice (as you concede with your 1746 hrs post).

    OT, I did have some sympathy for Jake. OWW, I recall, played on the class system within Maori society: Beth’s royal ancestory, and Jake being haunted by his status as a common ground-pounding squaddie. My impression was that he was caught in the narrative set out by seething colostomy bags of liberal guilt (or pretenders such as Sonic, who’re actually little fascists) who elevate non-Western societies to Chosen status. Thus, Jake, having been dealt a lousy hand, took out his rage on others.

    That said, he was still pathetic. In terms of the above, I grieved for him. In terms of his attempting to control the lives of Beth and the kids because of his lack of control of his own life, I wanted to see the police deck him.

    His daughter’s rapist, however, was scum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote