ALAC on Drink Driving levels

April 5th, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The CEO of ALAC writes in the Herald:

The Ministry of Transport’s Safer Journeys strategy includes a proposal to lower the legal adult blood-alcohol content for driving from 0.08 (80mg alcohol/100ml of blood) to 0.05mg.

In its response to the strategy, the Government approved a number of measures including a zero alcohol tolerance for drivers under 20. It has, however, deferred a decision on the adult level to later this month. It will also consider the option of undertaking more research into the risk posed by drivers with a blood-alcohol content between 0.05 and 0.08.

In my view, the time for more research is past. It is time for action. The evidence for a lower blood-alcohol content is overwhelming.

I disagree. I think the evidence is far from overwhelming. I think a sensible Government would indeed do more research.

The Safer Journeys document suggested:

As an alternative to lowering the adult drink-drive limit, we could do more research on the level of risk presented by drivers with a BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08.

To do this we could replicate, using New Zealand drivers, the overseas studies that look at the impairment effects of alcohol at different levels of BAC while driving.

We could also investigate whether we could better establish the level of crashes that are caused by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. This could involve requiring all drivers involved in crashes to be subject to a compulsory breath or blood test.

I think both those research ideas are laudable. ALAC continues:

Since the 0.08 for adult drivers was set in 1978, New Zealand and international research has consistently demonstrated that an alcohol limit of 0.05 or lower saves lives and prevents serious injuries. In Australia, New South Wales achieved an 8 per cent reduction in fatal crashes, and Queensland achieved an 18 per cent reduction.

The lower one sets the limit, it is likely the fewer crashes there will be. But one has to look at both sides of the equation. One could have a zero blood alcohol limit for all adults, but that will them criminalise most of the population. If you have one drink at work and drive home, you would be breaking the law.

Any advocacy that focuses just one one side of the equation, is unbalanced. One has to look at the benefits and the costs. If one only focuses on road injuries, then you would set a maximum speed limit of 30 km/hr on open roads. It is about a balance between safety and convenience.

Safer Journeys estimates that an adult drink-drive limit here of 0.05 would save between 15 and 33 lives and prevent 320 to 686 injuries every year. This corresponds to an estimated annual social cost saving of between $111 million and $238 million.

Well my reading of the document says:

However, based on the alcohol-related crashes that occurred over 2004–2008, we estimate that adult drivers with a BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08 are responsible for at least 7 deaths, 45 serious injuries and 102 minor injuries of the total 119 deaths, 582 serious injuries and 1,726 minor injuries that were caused by drunk and drugged drivers in 2008.

And if one goes to the actual 2008 crash statistics, we see there were 366 road fatalities. 211 drivers, 107 passengers, 31 pedestrians, 10 cyclists and 7 others.

Now of the 211 drivers killed, 171 were tested for blood alcohol levels.

Of the 171 tested, 58 had blood alcohol levels of over 0.03.

The chart shows that most drivers killed are not even close to the 80 limit. They are at least double it, sometimes triple it. This is where I think the focus should go.

But there were five dead drivers with a BAC between 0.5 and 0.8. So would changing the law save those five drivers, and an unknown number of passengers?

Well no. Two of the five are aged under 20, where their limit is already 0.03. And two more were aged 20 to 24. So only one driver aged over 24 had a BAC of 0.05 to 0.08.

This is why I am unconvinced that a lowering of the limit for adults will have much of an impact on the road toll.

A possible compromise may be to increase the age for the youth limit from 20 to 25. That road safety data shows that 20-29 year olds are still far more prone to fatal crashes, then over 30 year olds at differing levels of blood alcohol.

If an over 30 driver with a BAC of 0 is deemed to have a risk of 1 for a fatal crash, the risks at 0.03, 0.05 and 0.08 are:

0.03 – 2.9 (30+), 8.7 (20-29), 15 (15-19)

0.05 -5.8 (30+), 17.5 (20-29), 30.3 (15-19)

0.08 – 16.5 (30+), 50.2 (20-29), 86.6 (15-19)

If one had a limit of 0.03 for under 20s (status quo), 0.05 for under 30s (a reduction from 0.08) and 0.08 for over 30s (status quo) then you would have a similar level of risk over all age groups.

Tags:

32 Responses to “ALAC on Drink Driving levels”

  1. Nigel Kearney (913 comments) says:

    Someone should do an experiment comparing the coordination, reflexes and judgment of 25 year olds with a BAC of 0.05 to 70 year olds with a BAC of 0.

    Also, at lower levels of intoxication, the way the person actually drives ought to be taken into account. People should have incentives to drive slower when they’ve had a couple of drinks in order to reduce risk, instead of the current incentive which is to take back roads and get home as fast as possible. For example, maybe if someone person has an accident, they can be prosecuted if they are over 0.05 but if they are just randomly stopped, they can only be prosecuted if they are over 0.08.

    And there is no rational basis for age discrimination. If the assertion that young people have more accidents is enough, why not have a lower limit for males, asians, old people and the disabled? If you want young people to behave like mature adults then don’t treat them like children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    This is a classic example of how the Government(s) get things oh so wrong.
    I’m all for under 25′s having a lower level but reducing it for everyone else is just madness.
    Most people who hit todays level are not drunk as such, slightly impaired, possibly, but not drunk.

    If anything I’d increase the level but make the penalties so high that (normal) people just wouldn’t do it.
    Mandatory 3 months jail, loss of vehicle being driven and 2 years loss of licence when out of prison.
    Now would you drive to KFC pissed on a Friday night?
    I think not.
    Problem solved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The Ministry of Transport is another instance of too many bureaucrats, who are too well paid, have too much time on their hands and have too much power. There’s not even any real proof this dept does any good.

    If we had a decent Minister instead of the gormless knock kneed bow legged big eared crosswired shambling knuckle dragging incompetent Stephen Joyce, they’d have been put in their damn place long ago.

    The first thing that should have happened after National were elected was that every damn shiny arsed self serving bureaucrat in this dept should have been asked to write a letter justifying their job. The head of the department should have been asked for a written thesis on how his department has helped bring down the road toll, with real evidence to support the observations and conclusions.

    These fascist bastards are just sucking up money from the hard working families of NZ and giving nothing in return other than self promoting nanny state bullshit. They should be fired en masse and so should the senior police who buy into and act as relays for their disgusting self serving propaganda.

    A collection of self focused spin doctors and con artists. We don’t need them. Shut them down and give us a tax break.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Viking2 (11,244 comments) says:

    Will reducing it solve anything at all? Thats the real question. What will be the ” normal rate” based on people being alive and doing things?
    Most over the limit drivers were never tested anyway and if you lower the limit they still won’t be tested.
    Its is also a matter of dispute over the lowering of the death rate. How much has the changing standards of new vehicles altered that?
    What about the rates of drug intoxication. Plenty of that about.
    No simple answer and apparently no reasonable one.
    I went to the jazz fest here yesterday. Hot and great afternoon. So much so I had one Stella. All they had, but I have a serious doubt that it made me unable to be in charge of a motor car.
    If these loonies get their way I would have to take a taxi home.
    See more near misses almost daily by people sober and unable to drive properly or distracted by kids, cellphones and all the rest. Plenty of oldies who should not be in charge of a car but the last lot of unprincipled pollies gave onto Grey Power and stopped testing them This lot will continue until the spate of accidents gets too much to ignore then poor old Andy of the Knackers yard will be wheeled out to frighten the horses.

    Roll out drug testing first and damm well enforce it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    Look at that chart. There is no apparent relationship between blood alcohol and fatalities until 1.5 times the current limit is reached. Since sober drivers crash, too, the relevant comparsion for the small values below 120mg is whether these deaths are higher than the background rate of sober deaths.

    Who are the people causing the great majority of the damage right now? It is people way over the current drink driving limit. So how about hitting this problem where it hurts: repeat drink drivers. Way less sexy, in this f***ed up country, than further impinging on the freedoms of innocent people by setting a lower limit – but it might actually make a difference. The only discernable effect of a 0.05 limit will be a) the criminalisation of many, many innocent people barely made more likely to drive badly, and b) the needless elimination of safe and enjoyable alcohol consumption by many New Zealanders. People will die at exactly the same rate on our roads after this change than before, its just that anybody who had a drink will get to sweat on whether they have cross a new and needlessly low limit.

    F*** you ALAC, f*** you Steven Joyce, f*** you socialists who will use any excuse, however flimsy, to regulate and take away and tax and ban outright the little things we still enjoy. F*** you all you miserable, sad people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Why is evryone OK with intoxucated driving, we don’t condone a little bit of meth or a little bit of smack, or a little bit of a stabbing.

    Driving is serious shit and we in new Zealand take it for granted. New Zelanders are shit drivers on shit roads, you don’t need alcohol thrown into the mix.

    The Aussies have put up with .05 for years, no big deal.

    Perhaps alot of people on this thread havent lost anyone yet or seen enough corpses – anything that may prevent one death is good.

    Ben you goose how the fuck is not being allowed to drive after drinking a …little thing we still enjoy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Redbaiter 1:36 pm,

    The Ministry of Transport is another instance of too many bureaucrats, who are too well paid, have too much time on their hands and have too much power. There’s not even any real proof this dept does any good.

    [...]

    These fascist bastards are just sucking up money from the hard working families of NZ and giving nothing in return other than self promoting nanny state bullshit. They should be fired en masse and so should the senior police who buy into and act as relays for their disgusting self serving propaganda.

    A collection of self focused spin doctors and con artists. We don’t need them. Shut them down and give us a tax break.

    Absolutely agree, Red.

    I remember when these same useful idiots, and their ilk, stipulated that when the open road speed limit was increased from 80 to 100 k/hr we would see a large increase in speed related deaths on our roads. Of course this never happened; the year immediately following had either the same, or slightly less, open road death toll from memory. They pretty much shut their mouths for a couple of years hoping people would forget this statistic. And once the public had forgotten, they started to push this “speed kills” line as justification to introduce heafty fines and such technologies as hawk radar, lasers, road pads, etc.

    Despite car technology/safety having greatly improved since the open road speed increase, we continue to be told “speed kills”, and are fined accordingly. Let’s be clear; this is nothing but a covert method by which the governent gains additional taxation from the general public – much in the same way as they will if they drop the drinking limit from 80mg to 50mg alcohol/100ml of blood.

    The issue isn’t people exceeding 50 but below 80 mg/100 ml, but rather people who are 2, 3, 4 times the legal blood-alcohol limit. Just as exceeding the speed limit safely by 20-30 ks to overtake someone is not the great crime we are led to believe. It is either driver inattention, or driving beyond ones competency that causes so called ‘speed’ related accidents.

    But whether it’s ‘speed’ or ‘blood-alcohol levels’, let’s not let common sense override the government’s ability to increase the means by which it taxes the nation’s citizens – you and me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Jim (405 comments) says:

    That chart is interesting, pity they left off the left hand side of it (those less than 30mg/100ml) as that would provide a bit more perspective.

    Changing the limit is unlikely to make any difference at all to the toll. The chart tells us that there are two main groups involved in most crashes: those who have nothing to drink, and those who are pissed. If you extended the graph to the left you would see that the lowest point is between these two peaks – around the legal limit. Lowering the limit might skew the results slightly, but the total will probably not be sensitive.

    It would be interesting to compare this chart (accidents) with data from random checkpoints.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Grizz (536 comments) says:

    DPF, your post is flawed. What about the drivers that survived. Have you considered the people who were killed or injured as a result of a drunk driver. Working in the front line emergency service, this is a far too frequent occurance. Often innocent people in another vehicle are the victims of drunk drivers.

    I find it intriguing that we waste so much energy arguing over 0.03mg/100ml blood alcohol when the real issue is that obviously intoxicated people (whether alcohol or drugs) feel it is OK to drive a car in the first place.

    At the end of the day, how many people will the 0.05-0.08 affect anyway. In my observation, you either drive when your pissed because you do not give a fuck about yourself or others, or you do not drive at all.

    [DPF: I'd like to answre your questions but the Govt does not collect that data. That is why I support more research. For example I'd like to see people at checkpoints actually given evidential breathalysers so we can see how many people do drive with 0.05 to 0.08 BAC, and that will allow us to measure their accident rate]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Southern Raider (1,730 comments) says:

    This is just a joke.

    All lowering the limit will do is increase the number of fines (income) and court appearances, while those that are the real cimes will keep on getting away with it.

    The problem isn’t with the person having two beers after work and never has been. It is the dickheads who drink a dozen beers or 3 bottles of wine and have no licence because that have been convicted at least half a dozen times before.

    Lock these pricks up and sell their cars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay

    Ben you goose how the fuck is not being allowed to drive after drinking a …little thing we still enjoy.

    What part of this is unclear? A glass of wine with a meal is what some people call a pleasure. At a limit of 0.08 one can safely enjoy one or perhaps two glasses while safely staying under the limit, even on an empty stomach. At 0.05 some people – and nobody is likely to know in advance who – will be at risk of crossing the new lower threshold. The legal conseqeunces of crossing that threshold are very serious indeed. So what will responsible, moderate drinkers do? Stop enjoying a glass of wine with their meal in case the new limit is accidentally, and apparently quite safely on the available evidence, breached. Needlessly so. Uselessly so. All cost. No benefit.

    I suppose it must be nice living in a world where everything is black and white and one drink of anything makes somebody Pure Evil, but if the goal is to write policy that actually fixes problems then this ain’t it. The 0.5-0.8 range is not where the problems are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Ben, You’d be surprised how much you actually have to drink to get to 50 or 80 mg.

    When I was drinking and had access to a breathalyser, as a test I had drunk 9 stubbies over 2 1/2 hours , and blew 390 (the limit for a breath reading is over 400). And this was waiting 10 minutes after the last drink etc so there was no ta false reading from residue in the mouth.

    One or two glasses of wine will not even show on a reading if taken with food over an hour. I presume from your post that you are reasonably sensible and would not consider getting behind the wheel after 9 stubbies but in the circumstances you may be under the limit.

    Our limit is far to high in NZ, there is so much bull shit talked about what you can and cant drink.

    The easiest way to end this debate is, consumed alcohol, no insurance, tough shit. Whinge all you want.

    The prawns you see and know at work and say they only had a couple and blew 600 mic of alcohol per litre of breath are liars, to blow that amount you have drunk shit loads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    Our limit is far to high in NZ

    Based on what? The evidence simply does not support this. There is no spike in deaths in the 0.5-0.8 range. There is in the 1.2-2.0 range, and that is already illegal.

    Your story is no doubt true for you, but I have heard stories that go the other way: people who had a few drinks over a 3-4 hour period, felt fine, yet blew well over the limit (they weren’t behind the wheel, they asked a policeman they passed as they were walking).

    The point is that people do not deal with the current limit by drinking up to it knowing precisely when they are over or under. They deal with uncertainty by staying well below it to avoid the risk and severe penalties of breaching it. That is costly. While you can argue that reducing the limit will affect people drinking 9 stubbies and stop them at 6, in reality conservative people operating under uncertainty will go from 1 to zero drinks with their meal when driving, just in case. This is an unseen cost, but it is real and needless and fixes nothing.

    If people were dying in numbers in the 0.5-0.8 range I might agree, but that is not happening. There will be no discernable benefit from this change, only large needless and unseen cost. Steven Joyce is an ambitious politician and in NZ’s political system useless gestures that penalize all the wrong people get rewarded. Joyce should be addressing the problem, instead he is going after the moderate drinkers not causing any real issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    You can look at a graph all day, what I am saying and what Grizz, is that why drink and drive at all.

    Also the people who asked a policeman as they were passing – Blowing into a road side breath screening test does not find out if you are over the legal limit, all that does is detect if there is alcohol on your breath.

    That just gives the police cause to require you to accompany them to a machine for a breath test or blood test

    A couple of drinks does not put you any where near the limit, there is simply not enough alcohol in the drinks to do that.

    Most people on this blog would be aghast at dope smokers and theives and benefit fraudsters and the like, but bugger me don;’t let them stop me from having my beers after work and driving home. because I am a sensible person who works and pays taxes not like all those other wankers that kill themselves.

    Its all about disipline, no body is stopping you from having two stubbies at the office and heading off home to suburbia so lowering the limit to .05 wont affect you will it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    No, it will affect me for reasons I have already explained. It will criminalise many people who pose no more danger than a sober driver. That chart is relevant because it tells us alcohol is not a problem in the range being considered here.

    Why allow any drinking and driving? Because it is safe to do so. Because giving people the freedom to drink when they may or may not be driving in the next two hours has value. Because drinking is pleasurable. Because freedom (that doesn’t impinge on others) matters.

    Unlike you, I am not desperate to see the freedom to drink a glass of wine before driving taken away from me at the point of a gun. What sort of person asks to be regulated for no discernable benefit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Chuck Bird (4,748 comments) says:

    How many fatalities occur because someone is way over the limit and is driving while disqualified? I do not have the stats but can recall quite a few.

    I have been though a checkpoint probably on average of 2 or 3 times a year. Sometimes I have had to blow in the machine but usually I don’t. I have not been once asked for my license. I am sure disqualified drivers are aware they will not be asked either. Tough penalties do not deter these people but the likelihood of getting caught does.

    I license check would slow things up a little but would catch a few driving while their license is suspended and hopefully deter a lot more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    More and more wowsers trying to take control and regulate more of our lives.
    I’d ignore and would give these dogooders the fingers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Because we live in a society sadly run for the benefit for the lowest common denominator.

    There are some things that are important and some that are not.

    Being able to drink and drive is not that important, in the scheme of whats important to me it does not even rate.

    Personally, I dont drink so I dont care, you will still be able to have your couple of beers and nothing changes.

    What this may do is it just may stop one person getting carried away and carry on drinking and may stop some one being killed or injured. That to me is important.

    Your right to drink and then drive is shallow compared with the death and injury of a human. The argument tthat those within the range are killing not many is also shallow. DPF has only put up the stats for 2008, other years may tell a different story

    Also having some experience in the road death business if people wear their seat belts they are much much less likely to die, but I suppose something as common sense as this is also impinging on some ones rights.

    Very few things make me take a non consertative approach but this subject is one of them.

    The government has to start somewhere, all the bluster about this and that is just that, bluster. Law and order was one of their elections things, they are doing something, its not to everyones liking but it never is.

    Reading the graph tells me 5 people died with the 51 – 80 mics. Also the graph relates to only 81% of those killed. The missing data may also put another view on this.

    Hell I just hope nobody you know gets smoked over by a fatigued or drunk this Easter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay 6:16 pm,

    Hell I just hope nobody you know gets smoked over by a fatigued or drunk this Easter.

    I trust you’re not also suggesting we legislate for fatigued drivers as well?
    And if so, are you similarly suggesting a zero fatigue limit; however that would be measured?

    I guess we better make sure we all get our eight hours per night so that we’re bright eyed and bushy tailed before we get behind the wheel. And if we have a hard day at the office best leave the car at work and get a taxi home – hope the boss is prepared to pick up the tab.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Viking2 (11,244 comments) says:

    well it just is not a law and order issue. is it? Its a public safety issue at best. PEB.
    Unless someone dissects those stats and tells us how many of those killed were killed by another drunk driver and were not affected by alcohol them selves and until someone also shows us how many of the initiators of those fatal accidents were drunk and disqualified anyway we again won’t know the real picture.
    There’s facts and there’s proper statistical analysis. This is neither.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    What this may do is it just may stop one person getting carried away and carry on drinking and may stop some one being killed or injured. That to me is important.

    The evidence is that it won’t even achieve that.

    Your right to drink and then drive is shallow compared with the death and injury of a human. The argument tthat those within the range are killing not many is also shallow. DPF has only put up the stats for 2008, other years may tell a different story

    Crampton has other evidence on his blog showing the same thing. Neither you nor anybody else at this time can show this restriction will make any difference to lives saved. Yet still you argue for more regulation, more convictions, more interference. Why?

    Very few things make me take a non consertative approach but this subject is one of them.

    You are perfectly entitled to and nobody can question your values. The objection here is you imposing your values onto everybody else at their expense and not yours, without you or ALAC or Joyce being able to demonstrate to any level a benefit from doing so.

    The government has to start somewhere

    Are you kidding? Every single aspect of our lives is regulated. The government controls, either through spending or ownership, 56% of the New Zealand economy. This is what you call getting started?

    Reading the graph tells me 5 people died with the 51 – 80 mics. Also the graph relates to only 81% of those killed. The missing data may also put another view on this.

    So control for the fact that sober people die, and the fact that the current laws are so poorly enforced that drink driver can still be behind the wheel after 6 or more convictions. As a first approximation the number of people saved by this law change will be zero.

    Hell I just hope nobody you know gets smoked over by a fatigued or drunk this Easter.

    And this just misses the point entirely. Actually, no I’m not a monster who argues this because I don’t care, but thanks for the implication, fuckwit. No, the reason I do not like this law is that it will do nothing but add prestige to Steven Joyce and the head of ALAC, who both get to look effective but do so by quietly penalising most responsible drinking New Zealanders.

    Apparently your sole reason for thinking this is a great idea is from the deep philosophical position that you happen to be a teetotaller and won’t be caught anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” anything that may prevent one death is good. ”

    This is one of the most stupid phrases in existence, and whenever I hear it (or read it) I know I’m dealing with some brainwashed shambling socialist zombie without any ability to think logically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Its not political, I thought for a while I may have ben incorrect calling you a goose earlier, but i was right.

    Theres missing data here admit that, we have one year only, and without casting doubt on the integrity of the site compilier Iit appears that this particular set of stats suit his view and yours.

    My not drinking also has fuck all to do with this as I am as likely to get smoked over by a drinking driver as you are after your couple fo beers which you see as your God given right.

    Of course ourlives are regulated, everything is aimed as I said at the lowest common denomintor.

    I fail to see how you are penalised by having only a couple of drinks, you wont be over the limit so whats the problem?

    The government can easily improve enforcement, more cops, more breath testing stops, increase registration ( less cars on the road), more Courts.

    With all of these we will have the concommitant increase in your taxes and then you will really fucking moan, death and taxes Ben, they get us all.

    The head of ALAC is a nobody as is Knackstead (sic) from LTSA its not about prestige.Thes people get trundled out by MSM for a sound bite.

    Instead of being so anti- something like this. Give me something concrete that would bring a road toll down that is anything but an increase in penalties becuase that is totally meaningless with a soft judicary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Jim (405 comments) says:

    Redbaiter: ” anything that may prevent one death is good. ”
    This is one of the most stupid phrases in existence,

    Amen!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Paul, why don’t you just go live in Nth Korea and be done with it. Statist thug.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay, I have explained why uncertainty combined with serious penalties for being over a limit means people rationally respond by conservatively staying way below the limit. I suspect the great majority of the effect of this law change would be concentrated on people who are already well below the limit anyway. All cost. No benefit.

    Yes, there is missing data. But the burden of proof should be on ALAC, Joyce et al to demonstrate their new policy, which is certainly costly, also comes with benefits large enough to justify them. Otherwise New Zealand just gets bad policy. On this and everything else.

    And now I will say something not often said: I am not going to explain how to lower the road toll because it is not clear it is too high. There is an optimum here. The road toll could be eliminated overnight by banning all motor traffic. The fact that we do not tells us an essential fact about human existence: everything is a trade-off, even life itself. Societies everywhere could end road carnage tomorrow by banning all vehicles. That they do not tells us fatalities are in some sense and at current levels a price worth paying for the convenience, enjoyment and value vehicles bring. The road toll is much lower than it was 25 years ago. Interventions and safety innovations have combined to lower the toll. We want only the interventions worth having.

    The road toll could be eliminated with extreme interventions like banning cars outright. I resist that measure for the same reason, fundamentally, that I resist this 0.5 limit: freedom is valuable and the small change in likelihood of causing or receiving injury or death is, in my opinion, not worth paying on the available evidence.

    The sole job of ALAC is to regulate our freedom and if they are allowed to they will. Without limit. They exist only because there are freedoms left to take.

    I am saying NO – 0.5 is too far, a price not worth paying. I strongly prefer not to have to choose between a drink and fear of very serious consequences for what is, on the available evidence, a victimless crime. Public Choice tells us ALAC and Joyce are not arguing this for the right reasons. It is not our interests they have at heart. It is their own, and we should be suspicious and be skeptical of their claims. The burden of proof is on them and they have emphatically failed to show this idea will justify itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Red I wouldnt have the opportunity to have meaningful dialogue !!!!!!!! with with some of you legends here if I was living there drinking brandy and watching porn with dear leader.

    Seriously though, I am a conservative very actually politically and this response by the government is a conservative measure, – my definition of conservative is for the rights of the many not the individual – we have just had 9 years of government where everyone with an arsehole was allowed their opinion.

    If we had a socialist governmentn here dealing with this (right) they would be giving is more cops, spending more money on enforcement and bringing in more laws and regulation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What is happening is a tweak to an existing law preferable I think to more laws,

    Bored now , off to watch the football.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” my definition of conservative is for the rights of the many not the individual ”

    You’ve got it completely arse about face. That is the collectivist credo.

    As I said, emigrate to Nth Korea. I’ve had it up to here with you statist thugs, regulating, thieving, conducting suspicionless traffic stops, brainwashed by Geobellian style statist advertising campaigns and trampling all over our rights in the bogus cause of keeping us safe from ourselves.

    Pfft, you are ignorant collectivist thugs who will destroy everything that is dear and that our grandfathers fought and died for if we allow you. Detestable. You deserve to be subjected to maximum public odium.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Not arse about face Red.

    The majority is more important than the individual, that is not collectivisim, but First past the Post which I believe is preferable to all the INDIVIDUALS we have fuckling up our Parliament.

    Bringing up the – grandfathers that fought and died etc………. brings up the old – Patriotisim is the last resort of the scoundrel, doesn’t it………………………………

    Did you spit on the monitor when you typed Pfft? 735 rants to go Red for the 10K Rock on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    A complete idiot. To think you actually vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    10:30 pm Sunday night Easter.
    9 dead on our roads.
    None from booze that I’ve heard of.
    hmmmm

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

    Behind the Iron Road Safety Curtain Farrar is right, Redbaiter is right. I have studied the limit drop subject for thousands of hours. It is a hoax – if we follow the pattern of deaths seen after introduction in similar cultures it will increase young male deaths. So this is not considering the rights of the many – unless you think it’s a right to die! Urgh, shiver… the limit drop is being pushed for one reason – REVENUE. The quirky little Drs, Quangos and CEOs getting in behind are just spineless solicitors of funding or other Brownie points.

    0.05 is BAD BAD BAD for road safety. It is a distraction from the real issues which are being sanitised under the official suppression policy (MOUs gag Police and partners from significant talk or hyping of non quota issues) – poor road engineering, rampant drug driving and ignorance about fatigue countermeasures, loopy driver training standards, and absolutely zero consequences for criminally negligent drivers – drug drivers aren’t even tackled (20 token prosecutions in 6 months) and one in 20 repeat drunk drivers cars are confiscated; when this is the single most powerful deterrent known to drunkmankind. The AAs compelling submissions as to why 0.05 is way off the road safety topic are not reported – surprise!

    The countries with the lowest drink drive deaths per capita have a 0.08 limit (NY, Utah, UK) bar Victoria which only succeeds under the handicap of a 0.05 limit since it added random drug testing in 2004. It is the scientifically correct adult limit. I was in Berlin to celebrate 20 years ago when the wall came down – the Rugby cup has inappropriately trivialised the theme song and it is really misplaced to use it here given the wall of BS surrounding this Island policy testing station.

    I’m ashamed our media on the whole is artificially truncating debate and framing it in such a way as to beg solutions that will actually exacerbate the real road toll causes – which are being deliberately kept from view. Campbell Lie, The Herald and the Dom Post have easily the most blood on their hands. They’ve been NZTA/Police and lackeys like ALACs mouthpieces, to the absolute exclusion of sane views for a long long time. It’s not public service broadcasting to promote 0.05 it’s public throat slitting. Yes I’m certainly blacklisted with the Herald and I know it. Shame on them all for propping up nutters in uniforms and on the State payrole.

    Even a study to look at drivers 0.05-8 are a problem here is wasted funds and misguided. It is seeking to create evidence and when none is found it’ll just be spun to look like evidence… meanwhile the real toll causes will get no media time. The toll keeps rising, the Minister scratches his butt… and families undergo more unnecessary torture.

    Those at MoT running the pilot model of the Resource Allocation Model (RAM) software which supposedly outputs a set toll based on quota for speed, alcohol, seatbelt and intersection infringements, who are reporting trial outcomes to the World Bank since 2002 , but won’t admit failure and see 0.05 as the big hope are FOOLS trapped in a dsproved paradigm.

    Redbaiters criticism of the road safety bosses is surprisingly spot on, despite tha he lacks knowledge of the real degree of culpability. Quote from National Road Safety Committee member 2003 “I have faith in the study”. MoT said rthey were concerned about implementing it as high risk. Quote from meeting minutes – Robinson has convinced the Police Minister it will work. In 2005 3 intenal MoT reviews showed the software was working in reverse to expectations ie the higher quotas went the higher the crash death and injuries in aggregate. A doubled ACC bill for crash injuries in 5 years to 7B as a result of increasing revenue about 25% to around 1B. What brilliant economists.

    I have a list of people Joyce needs to sack or else he should sack himself. These people are guilty of breaching the unenforceable Nuremberg code (per a Harvard expert) as their research on our population is harmful and is known to be and is non consented – deceptively the speed/alcohol campaigns present form are presented as evidence based. Supporting 0.05 is supporting an extension of that ongoing research program called “to develop and refine a resource allocation model for road safety”. The AA has called for a transparent review of the study – a majorly important call since the newly formed Road Pol (global traffic Police with HQ in Wgtn) is poised to help transfer our failed experiment into other countries.

    This will be a tragedy and result in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths if the NZ lemon is disseminated. But it all appears to be forbidden news in a media controlled by the big boys. Our system is fundamentally flawed and that is where the story is. But it seems some key media have been bought of if it is not genuine dimness. They are complicit with an atrocity. For more about this see these groups belong to

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1004/S00084.htm (Govt road safety killing our families – Akilla Foundation proof re RAM)
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1004/S00075.htm (Roll Road Safety Bosses Heads over RAM – Candor Trust)

    And this letter sent to cabinet is a link Stuff refused to post in comments along with other anti 0.05 evidence our pressure groups submitted. It refects the arguments put by most drunk driver victim groups AGAINST 0.05. But what do we know?
    http://rapidshare.com/files/374098569/Dear_Minister.doc.html

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.