The drink drive limit
The Herald reports that the Government is going to look at lowering the drink drive limit – maybe from 0.8 grams per litre to 0.5.
Before they go too far down the track, they should look at the accident statistics. Very very few crashes have a druver at just below the 0.8 limit. In fact not that many have them justover it either. Many or most are totally trollied and 50% over or double or more over the limit.
So a lowering of the limit may result in few benefits, but lead to many more convictions.
Despite a halving of the road toll in the past 20 years, which is mainly attributed to the campaign against drink-driving, police figures show that the number of people being caught for drink-driving has risen in the past five years – up from 25,133 in 2003 to 34,700 in the first 11 months of last year – after being stable for 15 years.
That shows then that you have a problem with people obeying even the current limit. So lowering the limit will create more criminals, but not greatly lower the road toll.
Many of the crashes are younger drivers also who already have an even lower limit of 0.3.
I think it is nice to be abl to go out with a partner to a good restaurant, dine for three to four hours, and enjoy a bottle of good wine between you during that time. You can do that legally at a 0.8 limit but not on a 0.5 limit.
If the statistics showed lots of crashes caused by people with bllod alcohol between 0.5 and 0.8, I’ be in favour of dropping it. But they don’t.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Too true. All that article did was compare with other countries. At no point was any evidence suggested that would show the lower limit would in fact improve matters. Pretty lazy reallly.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Damn nanny state Government!!!
before you know it they will be telling petrol companies to lower their prices
January 7th, 2009 at 9:55 am
This is nothing more than a case of a new minister being herded by the faceless fukwits in his department. Over the break the uniform branch of the tax department ran a big roadblock breath testing campaign in Orewa and caught NOBODY.
Using their ridiculous methods we should be calling for an increase in the limit.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am
There are far more accidents caused by sober drivers in this country than drunk drivers.
This is an undeniable fact
so based on Statistics we stand a much better chance of getting Home safley after a huge piss up that staying sober?
That is the problem with Statistics.
Rather than lower, it should be the same or Zero.
Let’s not mess about. At least we know where we all stand then.
Smoking got removed from Public Places, (except Luigis Office of Course!)
If there was zero tolerance, then Taxi Companies would benefit. There is a case for taxis being slightly subsidised by the ACC levy actually
January 7th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I still think the lowered road toll is mor to do with advances in car safety than in drink driving campaigns, speeding campaigns or intersection campaigns. A head on at 50km twenty years ago was a recipe for death. Now you will more than likely survive, albeit hurt to some degree – possibly very badly. When we go out to dinner I usually have a couple of beers or two or three glasses of wine. If I can’t do that then I wont go out. I don;t have enough money for $100 for dinner for the two of us and $100 of taxi rides to get into Wellington and home again. Restaurants wil get hurt by this.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Im not a big drinker anyway so I wouldnt personally see much difference in a lower limit. However, I still think its a terrible idea, all youd start doing is convicting people driving the next morning after being drunk the night before.
Wouldnt stop any accidents either, as DPF said, people who crash because theyre drunk usually arnt only slightly drunk.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Brian Smaller said..”If I can’t do that then I wont go out.”
Yeah right.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Think BB is correct, this has all the Hallmarks of Political Brainwashing by the Civil Service.
They have been politicised for a decade, and you can see their kneejerk reaction.
The current laws should stay, why do we need extra laws all the time.
My view is that any DIC caught with over a percentage (to be determined), should have their ability to drive removed for 3-5 years.
Completely, and if they re-offend. Then it should be a lifetime ban.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Who knows? Maybe a lower limit would cause more people to be wary about ever drinking and driving – perhaps convictions would plummet?
January 7th, 2009 at 10:26 am
these two statements appear contradictory, but really they add up to saying that lack of driver skill (or some other influence) causes more crashes than excess alcohol over any limit up to 1.2g/L
I thought National were going to streamline our justice and court processes. This is just going to clog the courts up unecessarily. The John Key Compromise solution may be to issue instant fines for excess alcohol, much like speeding fines, on a graduated scale. However, I personally find that idea stupid. It’s just as thieving as the whole speeding fine thing, but at least the courts don’t waste their time on trivial matters when poor old Taito is still waiting to be tried.
Then the control freaks can have their little orgasm while drinkers can just budget for a fine.
While anyone who suggests they actually become a better driver legally half drunk is probably a nut, I wouldn’t go so far as to use a huge amount of government resources in the form of legislative change to prove that they are. If John Key wants to know where all our taxes are being wasted, it’s on a multitude of trivial matters like this. It’s not cheap, wasting ministerial time.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Police Assistant Commissioner Viv Rickard says New Zealand’s limit is too high and out of step with other countries, “so we need to change that”.
The police are hired to uphold the law and as such MUST be told to “shut the f*ck up” and just do their bloody job and leave law making to the law makers.
NZ is way too far down the police state highway.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I have been concerned about this proposal for some time but if they followed the Australian model (court appearance, conviction, dsq etc for over .08) and an infringement ntoice fine for .05 to .08 I could probably cope. It would be a nonsense to simply lower the limit and have people fined and losing their licences for six months for under .08.
I would also note that it takes a fearsome amount of alcohol to get over .08 from the experiments I, and others, have done.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:41 am
GM says “Think BB is correct, this has all the Hallmarks of Political Brainwashing by the Civil Service.”
Damn, that was quick! They have only had their hands on the ministers for a few weeks. Before the elections the new ministers indicated scepticism about the civil service. Are you really suggesting that Gerry Brownlee and the others are so weak minded that they got captured by the Sir Humphreys in just three weeks?
January 7th, 2009 at 10:54 am
MT_Tinman – Why shouldn’t the police voice opinion and comment on drink driving – hell they are the ones who have to pick the pieces up every day on the roads.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Sean sarcastically wrote
We only go out to dinner a few times a year. Birthdays is about it. So yes, if we have to take cabs from Hutt to Wellington and back then I wont go out to dinner in town.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:06 am
I think this is a bit more complex than DPF makes out.
Let’s say there are 2 classes of drink drivers. The first don’t care – they’re the hard core recidivists who will ignore any limit. No law change will touch them. The second do care, in the sense that they either (i) drink to what they think is a “safe” level (ie below .08) but actually exceed it; or (ii) after drinking to .08 lose their caution and keep drinking anyway (ie alcohol depresses their higher reasoning skills). It is not unreasonable to think that reducing the legal limit to .05 will reduce the number of drink drivers in this second class (or, if they do still unwittingly exceed the limit, they will do so at a lower breath level than previously … someone who used to drive after 5 glasses of wine in an evening will now only do so after drinking 3).
In other words, even if there are not many accidents in the .05 to .08 range, reducing the “safe” limit may still lower deaths by reducing the number of drivers who drive with greater than .08 readings. That needs factored in to any assessment of this policy change, otherwise you’re just torching a straw man.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:06 am
For some time now I have had a personal mantra – If I drink I don’t drive – this means that when I drink I tend to drink quite a lot, but that is another issue. My personal rationale for this is that if I were to have an accident and I had been drinking no matter how little I do not think I would cope with the self doubt very well. In the spirit of keep it simple I say set the level to zero. If you drink don’t drive its a simple rule easy to be interpreted. (Except for those who use alcohol rubs and drink lots of cough mixture)
There have been huge cultural changes around drinking and drink driving over the past 40 years. In my teenage years I dont think drink driving had been invented whoever was too drunk to play the guitar usually drove home. I find teenagers today far more responsible regarding drink than I ever was at that age, I believe this has resulted from law changes, education and cultural changes. A zero level would undoubtly result in further curtural change, hopefully more bars within walking distance perhaps leading to more people connecting with the community they live in, better public transport maybe.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I recall an enforcement blitz in Canterbury (?) towards the end of last year.
The policeman said that, because the caught a lot of people over the limit, the limit should be lowered.
And I said, Huh?
January 7th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Lyndon.
Read my post at 11.06.
No doubt, if you were a cop who constantly heard the refrain “I didn’t think I was over the limit” from someone pissed as a newt, you too might think it a good idea to bring it down.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:53 am
“this means that when I drink I tend to drink quite a lot”
Maurieo, Why should the rest of us who may like to share a bottle of wine over a meal have their freedom restricted because people such as you have a problem drinking responsibly?
January 7th, 2009 at 11:54 am
AG, but if you were aq cop who constantly heard that refrain, you would know that:
1. They’re talking bullshit, they knew but “didn’t want to know”; and
2. Even if true, they wouldn’t know if they were over .08 or .05, so no difference
People who are “as pissed as a newt”, (a slur on all sober newts if I ever heard one), never think they are actually under the limit, they either don’t care, hope to get home anyway, or don’t think at all. None of those will be affected by a change in the law, so what is the point ?
As has been pointed out, the problem I see is that this is aimed squarely at those who drink moderately, very moderately as .05 is only about 2 glasses of wine for many, and then drive, and not at serious problem drinkers. Now, how many of these moderate drinkers are actually involved in accidents as a consequence of that level of alcohol ? Until we can see good quality research (that is, something other than the rubbish pushed by the police to date) on this factor, changing the laws is foolish. At least, that’s my opinion
January 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Chuck Bird
Your freedom is already restricted the question is by what degree. I believe most people accept that drinking alcohol even in small amounts impairs your reaction time and consequently your ability to drive. The legal limit then determines what level of impairment we are prepared to accept. I believe we need every driver to be at their best when driving on the road as a courtesy to all the other drivers who are not driving under the imapring influence of alcohol. I believe drinking responsibly involves organising a ride home with a driver who is not impaired by alcohol. I understand airline pilots have a time period before flying in which they should not drink I recommend that as a benchmark.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
A stupid suggestion from a politician trying to be seen to be doing something.
The country went through this process a few years ago and I’d hoped we’d seen the last of it.
The problem I see with drink driving is persuading people that it is “wrong”. No one has a problem(except the thousands in jail of course) with the concept that bashing and stealing is wrong because it leaves clear cut victims. Unless you’re so wasted you crash and hurt someone, drink driving leaves no victims. It is deemed wrong because of what “might” happen. Not even what would have happened like in a conspiracy case.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
New Zealand drivers a generally terrible sober or not so anything that improves that has got to be good.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Ed,
Read my post at 11.06. A lower limit need not actually be aimed at those with a reading of between 0.05 and 0.08. It may, quite reasonably, be targeted at those who drive at over 0.08. So your basic assumption in criticising this move might well be faulty.
Take the example of someone who drinks to what they think is the limit, but exceeds it by 0.02. At the moment, they end up driving at 0.1 – a significantly impaired state. Under they lower limit, they would drive at 0.07. So the same result (a drunk driver), but a better outcome in road safety terms.
And, yes, it comes at the cost of the rest of us “only” being allowed two glasses of wine in an evening (if we want to drive). Tough.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I agree with most of the comments…This is tired old Liabour party control policy and thinking. It is aimed at revenue gathering. It will be politically unpopular. It will achieve nothing except to impoverish drivers and the restaurant trade. It will hinder economic revival. There are far more progressive and vital matters with which the Minister and also the Police should pre-occupy themselves. As has been mentioned if they are going to lower it then make it zero…..Discl. I don’t drink and drive though I used to do so often.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
IMHO, National and Co need to stomp on this sort of nanny statism as quickly as possible before they turn in to Labour version 2. I’ve had a visitor from overseas at my place for the last couple of weeks and it is embarrassing watching TV and seeing the same “don’t speed” advertisement six or seven times in an evening. Along with a shit load of other obvious information for retarded people, like “learn to swim” and “don’t get surburned”. She laughs and insinuates that Kiwis are like children that need to be patronised by a lecturing government to a point that far exceeds any reasonable persons tolerance for boredom. I apologise and explain that maybe the contracts were signed by the outgoing government and that, once they’ve run their course, we’ll be treated like adults again. But I’ve noticed the gates closed at parliament this week and worry that National have gone off on their holidays and lost momentum.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“Your freedom is already restricted the question is by what degree.”
Maurieo, I agree with you on that point. However there are other things that can distract a driver. Cell phone use is one even hands free. Smoking also can. I am sure there have accidents when a cigarette has dropped and lighting one can cause a distraction. Accidents have been caused by all sorts of distraction from adjusting a radio to eating or drinking a coffee. Should all these things be banned as well?
The issue is one of balance. Some toddler gets run over in the drive. Do we pass more laws? Someone leaves a pram unattended and a baby dies. Do we pass more laws?
See article below by Miranda Devine.
Your suggestion of organising a non drinking driver is not practical. Did you read my post?
I like to share a bottle of wine over a meal. I live in Papakura, South Auckland. I ask a lady in West Auckland or the North Shore out to a BYO. It is not possible to have non drinking driver. The cost of taxis would be prohibitive. The added risk I would pose would be no greater than many other things people do while driving. Have you ever driven after an argument or in a distressed state for any reason like a relative has been killed or in an accident? There are many things that impair ones ability to drive and have a small amount of alcohol is just one of them.
Like DPF I would like to see the accident rate of caused by people with blood alcohol between 0.5 and 0.8.
http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2008/12/05/1228257316539.html
Hollow solace in red tape after tragedy
Miranda Devine
December 6, 2008
Every time there is a mishap or tragedy, the call goes out for new laws, rules, prohibitions or licences to prevent similar harm to anyone else ever in the future. Politicians, eager to be seen to “do something”, seize the opportunities offered by an apparently clamouring public, sometimes gouging new taxes along the way. Off they trot to parliament with great fanfare to pass a “Myrtle’s Law” or a “Boris’s Law”, and speak in reverent tones of how the new legislation is a “legacy” to the departed.
Thus the politician feels popular and useful, the absolute safety of the public is assured and another layer of red tape is added to an already over-elaborate bureaucracy, with unforeseen consequences erupting inevitably down the line. That is not to say that good has not come from knee-jerk legislation, or that regulations don’t save lives. Australian initiatives on seatbelts and random breath testing are examples in which a bit of nanny stateism proved its worth. But there are things in life over which we have no control, accidents that are nobody’s fault, or tragedies in which human error is the cause, but from which no benefit can come from punishing a person already racked with guilt.
Take, for example, the death of 20-year-old Emma Hansen, crushed on a Kogarah footpath last year by an out-of-control car with learner Rose Deng at the wheel. A Sudanese refugee, suffering post-traumatic stress from her wretched life in a war zone, Deng was so distressed at the accident scene she punched herself in the face and pulled out clumps of her hair.
Hansen’s family is, of course, grief-stricken. Another man has lost a leg. Deng’s poor neighbour John Tittmarsh, who was teaching her to drive in his car as an act of kindness, is as shattered as anyone.
It was simply a tragic, meaningless accident, a split-second on a weekday afternoon when a series of unfortunate events led to disaster. There are no obvious lessons to be learnt, yet the call went out from all sorts of bright sparks during the inquest this week for impractical new regulations to prevent accidents. Licensed drivers should obtain special permits and undergo training before teaching L-platers; all cars should be fitted with kill switches. To his credit, the coroner resisted the temptation for grand gestures and just recommended a new spiel be added to learner driver logbooks.
Similarly, when three toddlers died in recent weeks in two backyard pool drownings, do-gooders dreamed up draconian new regulations, the most extreme of which was to ban pools. From harsher fines and mandatory movement sensors to compulsory CPR training and council spot checks, we heard the lot, but very little about the imperative for more diligent adult supervision. Sure, technology exists to wire up every pool to sound an alarm when a child falls in. But technology, like fences, is not perfectly reliable. It is prone to human error, just as pool gates can be propped open with clothes pegs.
And while the 1992 Swimming Pool Act requiring pools be fenced was an example of worthwhile legislation that did save lives, we cannot outsource human responsibilities entirely. Too much reliance on regulations and fences leads to complacency. In Adelaide, where two babies have drowned after their prams rolled down a riverbank, there were calls to fence the river to prevent such incidents, when the obvious way to stop a pram tumbling into a river is to keep a tight grip on it.
When a man and his two small sons died after falling from a wharf while fishing one night last month in the South Coast town of Tathra, there were immediate calls for the “death wharf” to be fenced. One newspaper asked: “How safe are our wharves?” and quoted someone: “It’s law to have a fence around swimming pools; it should be the same for wharves and fishing platforms.” Imagine the expense, inconvenience and potential for new dangers, of fencing every wharf in NSW, for minimal, if any, benefit. There is no useful lesson to be drawn from the Tathra calamity except, perhaps, that children in unsecured prams have no place on wharves, which is tragically obvious.
In Britain, where an even greater obsession with health and safety regulations is dubbed “elf and safety”, none other than the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents sounded the warning bell last month. Tom Mullarkey told a meeting of safety experts their industry had gone too far, after a British council banned doormats as a tripping hazard.
“The application of common sense and balance is much more reasonable than the seeking of mindless increments towards ‘absolute safety’ … Whether walking in the hills or mowing the lawn, people need to be able to get on with it themselves.”
Here I have to admit that the media are part of the problem, myself included. So often, after a calamity, the natural human reaction is to comfort the bereaved by trying to make a senseless death “mean something”. Therefore we campaign for laws to prevent such tragedies. In cases such as the Port Arthur massacre, a media campaign to ban semi-automatic rifles paid off. But knee-jerk campaigns on every human misfortune are futile and lead to bad law by approbation-hungry politicians who fail to exercise judgment. The problem is you cannot legislate for a perfect world.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
“So yes, if we have to take cabs from Hutt to Wellington and back then I wont go out to dinner in town.”
I have a simple solution to your problem Brian S – don’t live in the f*cking Hutt Valey.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Chuck Bird
Re the lady problem you posed, with a zero level you would not be able to drive and would have a good excuse to stay the night, although you would be advised to drink responsibily as driving is not the only thing alcohol impairs.
I see a zero level as reducing the overall volume of law. It would take less law to have a zero level than it does to have a prescribed limit. Part of my preference for the zero level is that it is so simple and clear, dont drink and drive. Yes there are a number of other things that impair driving and I am not for legislating about them “every time you make something idiot proof you just invent a better idiot”. I am in favour of education on those issues and by and large education has had some effect regarding these other driving issues you mention, that you were able to raise them so readily testifies to that. The zero limit would in my opinion improve the existing law and if given the option it is what I would vote for. I accept that you would not vote for it, so be it.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
It would be great if we both had chance to vote on such a law change. I would hope that if there is to be a change that it is not a free vote so that parties are held accountable. There is no chance for a zero limit but a 50 limit is a possibility.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
AG – your analysis is probably the only good policy position for lowering the limit to 0.5. What I do know is that the original 0.8 was set as being the level where driver impairment kicks in to make the person a hazard. Between 0.5 and 0.8 they are still likely to have sufficient capability to drive with due care. We have however built up a safety culture which targets zero at any cost, ratehr than considering what is the optimal level of safety for society and still enables society to carry out the activities that have higher social benefits resulting in perverse outcomes (note this applies to safety in the wider concept than just road safety e.g. trampolenes, swimming pool rules resulting in less people beign bale to swim and therefore more drownings, anti-vaccination campaigns because of some small risk of a small level of slightly adverse outcomes).
The 0.5 target comes from some Australian states, but empirical evidence has previously shown that the rate of 0.5 or 0.8 makes no difference to safety stats or picks up more drivers. Why is this? Something missing in this discussion is that there is already regulation for drink driving via car insurance. Insurance companies include a clause in there cover allowing them to not pay out if the driver is impaired. Impaired does not require 0.8, it could be one glass of wine to be used by the insurance companies. Not everyone knows this, but most people either choose to be a completely sober driver or will be very specific about limiting themselves to one/two glasses of wine with dinner. But if they are out drinking will arrange to catch a taxi home or have a sober driver.
The hard core offenders will drink and drive and are insensitive to any regulatory obligations. The hard core are the target group of road safety where there has been little improvement.
The last review of road safety interventions in 2005 (Ministry of Transport) in table 5 shows that the facotr that has done the most to improve road safety is vehicle improvements. There has been some improvement due to government road safety interventions but the biggest return is provided by better cars. Road engineering improvement has also contributed significantly see table 5 and para 16 of Evaluation of Raod safety outcomes http://www.transport.govt.nz/evaluation-of-road-safety-outcomes-to-2005/
So the challenge for the Minister is to ask his officials – what is the extra road safety improvement provided by new regulation when there is already contractual regulation? Given the road safety statistics – lowest road toll, ongoing trend of decline the marginal cost of additional regulation may easily outweigh the benefits. It may also be that existing regulation via insurance and social norms already achieves the outcome desired by the safety officials. They maybe then better targetted to look at how to work with car manufacturers and road engineering to provide greater safety returns.
Also targetting of the hard core through a different set of incentives shoudl be considered. This group may require quite different tools than the current hit everyone on the head with regulation approach.
There are regular road safety statistics availabel but you would need to OIA Ministry of Transport and the Land Transport Authority.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
cocamc007 asks:
Why shouldn’t Immigration officials start expressing opinions on who should and shouldn’t be allowed across our borders? Why shouldn’t some Defence staff officer start publicly deriding the government for sending our soldiers overseas? Why shouldn’t someone working for IRD tell the media he doesn’t think we’re paying enough tax?
Because they are public servants, hired to implement the will of Parliament which (in theory at least) should reflect the will of the people.
They are not – however much they might behave as though they think they are – our overlords.
Secondly, even if we as a society wish to listen, how long are they going to trot out the same, failed, strategies time after time, with ever-decreasing numbers attached? In WA the RAC (the local AA) have just headed off a Police / Road Safety Council master plan to arbitrarily lower all speed limits by 10 km/h. That’s right – a dead straight five lane freeway or winding dual carriageway with no safety lane were to be treated exactly the same.
Australia’s National Road Safety Strategy estimates that improving roads would save about 350 lives a year; improving vehicle safety would save around 175 lives; and improving driver behaviour would save 150. In other words, road improvements would save more than twice as many lives as measures aimed at drivers – which is not to say that improving driver behaviour shouldn’t be an aim of any strategy.
As for safer cars, why is it that vehicle buyers often have to pay up to $8000 extra for what ought to be standard safety features (i.e. every safety enhancement ought to be standard). A government serious about road safety would be doing something about making safer vehicles more affordable.
With NZ’s winding and often poorly maintained roads, the proportion of lives which could be saved by roading improvements versus driver-centred strategies is probably higher than that in Australia (i.e. more than twice).
Perhaps when I hear a cop, moustache bristling indignantly, say “New Zealand’s roads are, in many cases, badly designed and maintained death traps and out of step with other countries, so we need to change that”, I might begin to take them seriously on the issue.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Ah but Rex….a lower speed limit will save the planet!
Or so I am told by the Greens.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Drink driving is now a moral and no longer a risk issue. Its treatment is not based on the related risks of drink driving behaviour rather by a bit of a moralist and puritanical mindset. Just to be clear getting behind the wheel when incapable of safely driving is wrong – I am not supporting it. But if we looked at driving risks then ….
1) driving twice the legal limit should be viewed as approximately 10 times worse than being just over the legal limit as you’re about 10 times more likely to have an accident when you’re that drunk – 2 1/2 times the legal limit is even worse it’s something like 30 times more likely to have an accident (these figures are from memory) – it is not treated that way
2) driving an SUV means you are much more likely to kill the passengers in the car you crash in to
3) Turning right at junctions (left in right hand drive countries) is the most dangerous thing you can do
4) Being young is dangerous
5) Using a cellphone increase your chances of an accident by about fourfold
6) we don’t really know the stats against dope smoking but it’s pretty obvious that it affects reaction time enormously (though it’s hard to kill someone at 5 miles an hour as the old joke goes)
7) Putting a roo bumper on a car pretty much guarantees killing the pedestrian you run over
8 going 40 k over the limit in a built up area (not the motorway note) is equivalent to driving well over the limit in terms of risk
9) there are known death traps on the road
Drink driving policing has hit diminishing returns – by targeting high risk areas (Weekend nights in and out of a city) they can’t seem to get the hit rate below about 2%. Most people have got it – it’s risky behaviour – those that don’t are unlikely to change their behaviour with a limit change. This seems like the police targeting easy stuff ie drop the limit therefore more convictions
So, if we being consistent – the 22 year old person driving an SUV, over the speed limit, while being on the phone, having just finished a toke and then turning right at a junction should be hung drawn and quartered – after they have lost their license for 6 months of course
The police claim that 1/2 of death reductions relate to improvements in drink driving is completely and utterly without foundation.
but let’s not facts get in the way of a bit of moralism and lazy policing
January 7th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Is the road toll more than our infanticide toll bro? Got a spear washing machine as the house is crowded bro. What’ s the limit?
January 7th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
If National agrees to this they are no better than Labour.
People who follow the current limit, have a couple of cold ones and drive home aren’t the issue so why the collective punishment.
Drunk drivers will continue to do so as they have no regard for the law or others. Take their licences and they will still get behind the wheel.
The real issue is the repeat offenders who the judges seem loath to punish. “Sir you have only driven drunk nine times and even though you were told last time you would go to jail I think you’re nice man and deserve another chance”
January 7th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
We do not need to lower the drink drive limit at all, the problem here is our pathetically lenient sentences for those who are convicted.
Six months for a first offender and a small fine that you can pay off at $1.50 a week from your dole/DPB/Sickness/Invalids benefit.
When I lived in the UK a good mate of mine was done for her first DIC, she received an eighteen months loss of licence and a 4500 pound fine that had to be paid in full within 21 days.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
big bruv I agree that we need to review penalties and then enforce them. I suggest something along these lines with increased penalties of say 50% for say every 25% over the limit.
Offence 1: $5,000 fine, disqualified 1 year and warning what next offence penalties will be if within say 5 years.
Offence 2: $10,000 fine, 3 months jail (no time off for good behaviour), vehicle impounded and sold irrespective of owner, diqualifeied for five years.
Offence 3: $10,000 fine, 1 year jail (no time off) vehicle impounded and sold irrespective of owner, disqualified for life.
Lets get the recidivist offenders off the roads and let the sensible social drinkers have the same leeway they enjoy now but knowing if they go over the limit the penalty is severe and will be enforced.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
pdm:
Agree with all bar the “irrespective of owner” bit. My stepdaughter left her keys on the kitchen table, a visitor with a disqualification offered to take her partner to work and drop the car back (the partner didn’t know he was disaqualified), they got pinged and she had to find $600 to get her car back from the impound – hardly punishing the guilty party (he, I’m guessing, got a longer disqualification – which he’ll ignore – and one of those “pay it off at $1.50 a week” fines big bruv mentions).
What about seizing the vehicle if registered to the offender, or adding a set amount to the total fine if they don’t have a vehicle to offer in lieu?
Since I don’t see how many people could produce ~$12,000 in less than a month as big bruv’s mate had to, I’d suggest another rider saying time payment will be accepted… but the “interest” will be paid off in periodic detention for each week the debt remains unpaid. Then let them spend their weekends with a shovel and mop helping the police clean up accident scenes.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
heh Big Bruv a truly moralistic response – but looking at facts again;
EBT (drink driving) convictions have remained static while deaths on the road go down – someone marginally over the limit is as about as bad a driver as someone who is driving with a nasty head cold, or whilst sleep deprived and less a bad driver than someone texting – however, someone driving at twice the legal limit is a bomb waiting to go off.
It’s not about an over the top response it’s about a graduated response as Southern Raider points out – considering the variables – weight, metabolism, food – it’s easy to think you are under a limit of 3 drinks but be marginally over it whilst someone who then pours the turps down gets the same punishment
I do agree with your point around the 20 cents a week pay off after the 400th offence, having sat around the legal system for a week or two and watched how the bulk of convictions are against those with some sort of benefit and are repeat offenders and disqualified and …… but the treatment is the same as the 1st offender – except 1st offenders not on the benefit had to pay off immediately.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Rex
While the impounding of the vehicle irrespective of its ownership does sound a bit harsh I can assure you it does not take long for the message to sink in.
If you live in the UK for long enough you soon learn that “”borrowing” a mates car is simply not something you would ask of somebody or something they would ask of you.
It just takes a change on culture, when I first went to the UK to play cricket I suggested that we as a team had a beer in the changing rooms straight after the game as we did back in NZ, they all thought that was a splendid idea but had to run the car home first…lol
January 7th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I worry about people like simon power where has he been hiding. The real world mr power most decent people do have a drink and you want your nanny state to sit outside their houses waiting for them to emerge from their BBQ’s. You are in the wrong party, you should be in the labour party?
January 7th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Geez big bruv… that’s because the English don’t know the meaning of “mateship”
But really, what a wowserish existence 
Mind you, the cops should think themselves bloody lucky that the worst they have to witness us doing is driving drunk… not like the Aussies:
January 7th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Oh good grief it’s not just confined to in-car entertainment, either.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
“Magistrate Sue Oliver says the driving was bizarre to say the least and conduct she expects of someone much younger.”
Yeah but he was an Aussie…
January 9th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Regarding “let’s look at the statistics…”
A great deal of work was done some years ago by a DSIR researcher (Dr J P M Bailey, now deceased) on New Zealand accident statistics and the relationship with blood alcohol levels, which included discussion on the impact of lowering the drink driving limit. If my memory serves me correctly (and I’m pretty sure it does), the conclusion was that lowering the limit would not achieve the desired effect as a factor in by far the majority of accidents/fatalities was alcohol impairment well over the legal limit. I recollect, also, that this was not a message the MOT (as it was) and, later, Police, wanted to hear as it did not sit well with their objectives.
If lowering the limit is to come under Select Committee discussion, the Committee would do well to review Dr Bailey’s reports and conclusions from his research. I doubt that anything significant has happened since this work was done to negate his conclusions.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
ProjectMan, you are correct on the John Bailey info, I have researched his work (amongst others) and have put forward this in submissions.
The International Traffic Injury Foundation with combined data from Australia, Canada and Sweden has a piece regarding the lowering bac debate;
“The rationale behind lowering BAC is fundamentally flawed as it fails to make connection between a lower BAC limit and alcohol related crashes.
There is a process involved in changing drink drive behavior that includes drivers becoming aware of the law, becoming motivated to comply with the law and understanding how to comply with the lower limit, there is little evidence to suggest that the introduction of a lower BAC limit has an effect on this process, hence, there is little reason to expect a reduction in alcohol related crashes.
In addition the rationale for a lower BAC limit fails to acknowledge the powerful influence that alcohol abuse or dependence has on behavior, People with alcohol problems account for the majority of alcohol related crashes.
Their drinking behavior and subsequent driving is not easily changed.
Regardless of a lower BAC limit this high risk group will continue to drink heavily and drive afterwards, lowering the limit is a measure directed at the wrong group of drivers”.
This “magic bullet” addressing lowering bac will be a tragic misfire, in punishing the general public that would do well to be better educated and understand the standard drinks concept and variables that increase bac. Also uneducated drivers with residual alcohol that only “last night” had a sober driver, but “this morning” drives to work still over the limit.
Whilst we recycle recidivists with multiple convictions back onto our roads.
Id also like to address the fact that 2/3′s of “other” smashes are non alcohol related but I dont believe we have any data on recidivist cell phone offenders that crash…what we do know, is that its not rocket science – your driving skills will be severely impaired with alcohol.
When my husband and our friends were killed by a man with 20 years of drinkdriving history and four prior convictions, the first headline by police were : “calls to lower bac saves 14 lives a year”
Now Im not silly, I know lowering Bac would not have stopped this man drinking and driving, and it will not stop the others on our roads like him.
I congratulate the Editors blog in yesterdays Herald in recognising the issues.
April 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
the time has come for drink drivers to wise up the cost is maddness is the cost of a taxi or sorting a sober driver worth losing your licence your job or maybe worse killing or injuring someone it could be your wife your kids your best mate.we have made a start to help people drinking learn their limits look out for our breath testing machines coming to a pub or club near you they are accurate when used as per instructions . if you like the idea check out http://www.alcomatic.co.nz