The drink driving limit
The Press reports:
A Government call on dropping the breath-alcohol limit for drivers will go down to the wire, with lobbyists fearing a “scandalous” backdown in a decision that could be announced as soon as Monday.
I don’t have any idea what the Government will do, but they always said that one option is to try and gain more NZ specific research into the impact of driving with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.
This is my preferred option. In the last year, only one driver aged over 25 who died in a car crash had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.
I’m not 100% against a law change, but I don’t think there is enough information to justify such a change.
But it is understood the proposal has met fierce resistance from some Cabinet ministers.
Good. This is a major change that could criminalise tens of thosuands of New Zealanders.
Within the next couple of weeks – possibly as early as Monday – ministers will have to agree on either lowering the breath-alcohol limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg, or to allowing police to breath test every driver involved in an accident. The breath tests would provide the “definitive” picture on the effect a lowering of the limit would have, Transport Minister Steven Joyce says.
So the lobbyists (inevitably all taxpayer funded) are against the Government gathering better quality research on the impact of any proposed change. Why? Are they scared that the results may not support their advocacy?
July 24th, 2010 at 11:14 am
I can confidently predict the wowsers will win and the alcohol limit will be lowered to the delight of the control-freaks around us.
Key’s “brave” government will cave in, again.
July 24th, 2010 at 11:34 am
iPredict says 81% likely to lower the limit. Was 90% a week ago.
July 24th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Key won’t do what’s ‘right’ on the BAC issue. He’s not interested in the concepts of right, or best, or appropriate, or just
All that matters is perception and impact on voter allegiances.
You see, once every three years we go to the polls to elect a dictator, and the winner is the one who convinces the masses that he/she cares about something other than continued rule.
July 24th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Has the Govt considered dropping a BAC allowance for under 20′s? If a change was to happen, I believe it should be age targeted as well as acceptable levels. There is research to suggest that younger drivers who believe they are legally allowed “2 or so beers” before driving is seriously flawed in that many don’t know their own limits and how alcohol affects their judgement.
Germany has a 0 BAC level for under 20′s. Does it work? I don’t know, more info is needed – you’re right.
I’ve written an article with a few of these issues on my blog.
http://duncanjessep.blogspot.com/p/articles.html
July 24th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
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.
In Europe, Belgium achieved a 10 per cent reduction in all alcohol related fatalities and France achieved a 30 per cent reduction in alcohol related fatal crashes.
Most countries with legal blood alcohol limits set a limit of 0.05 or lower, which is also the limit recommended by the World Health Organisation as key to reducing alcohol related deaths and injuries.
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.
One objection to lowering the blood alcohol content is that there is insufficient evidence that driving between levels of 0.05 and 0.08 is unsafe. However, the evidence is clear that compared to a sober driver, a driver aged over 30 is 16.5 times more likely to have a fatal crash at 0.08 and 5.8 times more likely at 0.05.
– http://www.nzherald.co.nz/driving-offences/news/article.cfm?c_id=179&objectid=10636339
July 24th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Why? Are they scared that the results may not support their advocacy?
Damned straight they are.
This is being pushed not to achieve anything significant but so the fun-haters can make other peoples’ lives as humourless as their own.
The bitch about drunk drivers is not that they kill themselves – the Darwin principle at work – but that they pose a danger to innocents abroad.
This change won’t save one more innocent life.
July 24th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
What they should do is publicly execute one or two drink drivers.
I’m pretty sure that would reduce offending.
July 24th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I would like to see the evidence. Who did the study – some global warming believer? I do not think the NZ Herald is a valid reference.
I wonder if this will be decided by a “conscience” vote. We all know that MPs have a greater conscience that us peasants –Yeah Right.
July 24th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
What a load of crap. I’veraalways drivening betorr when ihave had afew groggs.
Whatthe fuckeryou lookingat arsehole?
Wantago doyou? Winker. Eh?
July 24th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
I’d like to see it reduced to zero for a year. Results would show if drunk driving increased, stalled or decreased and who and where the worst offenders were. Small sacrifice for some definitive data to finally end a major issue.
“…You see, once every three years we go to the polls to elect a dictator, and the winner is the one who convinces the masses that he/she cares about something other than continued rule.”
That’s true, but if the suggestion of not voting is made the same people will say if you don’t vote you can’t complain. Heaven forbid they give up the right to moan.
July 24th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Didn’t stop Key and the Nats on Sue Bradford’s smacking law change.
July 24th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
“Results would show if drunk driving increased, stalled or decreased and who and where the worst offenders were.”
Yes, what do you expect to happen?
I predict the worst offenders are young males without a university education and middle-aged people of both sexes uniformly spread throughout socio-economic groupings with a slight concentration in the lower sectors but not that much.
So IMO we already know that but regardless, trying to confirm that hypothesis by seeing where the holes appear is a bit like trying to discern a face inside a negative plaster casting, the casting of course, being those of us who die or suffer as a result of your policy.
July 24th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Yet another risky political type rope for National…. too risky to cross.
No safety net below… pass.
July 24th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
“…being those of us who die or suffer as a result of your policy.”
che? You didn’t get to drive after drinking some beer so you died… of what? Boredom?
Look, people have been rattling on about drink driving since Ugh-Burt the caveman ate a fermented apple and rode a land turtle into deadman’s canyon. And no one’s ever had the brains to get some decent data. They all stop short with arguments like yours – oh we already know, it’s ABC and DEF and those uneducated poor XYZ’s … or any other stereotype they care to mention. If we were really serious, we’d get serious. Like any serious solution you need to start at the beginning. No guesswork, no cutting corners.
Conspiracy #233948: I suspect that the Powers That Be don’t want drink driving to end. Too many organisations getting funding/making money “fighting” it.
July 24th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
“oh we already know, it’s ABC and DEF and those uneducated poor XYZ’s … or any other stereotype they care to mention”
er, that’s not a stereotype that’s a hypothetical set of demographics that is worth finding out more about. If in your mind you associate something negative with such profiling, then I suggest you reconsider because it makes life really hard when you can’t classify things or people.
July 24th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Who really believes that this would make any difference?
The wowsers never give up do they. Always want to find ways of turning people who do things they don’t approve of into criminals.
July 24th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Well said Johnboy, excellent comment. I suspect the townie fun hating wowsers will win again, bunch of fucks. What a shit hole of a country this place is becoming. I would like to see some of these bastards live way out in the country. Shit these laws are killing rural NZ, many small public houses are going bust, why, because people are to scared to drive. It’s all fine in the big city though where these wankers can waddled off to the local caff for a class over priced beer. These pricks won’t rest till we are all safely tucked up in our little boxes and we are only to be let out in the morning to earn enough to pay our taxes to keep these fucks employed. I hate these arseholes with a passion.
July 24th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
“I hate these arseholes with a passion.”
We townies hate you guys as well, Bob.
July 24th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
a few years ago, the cops came to the golf club I was at as a sort of awareness trial!! one of the boys (Wednesday night after twilight 9 holes) had had about 5 stubbies and about 3 pints in the club-rooms. He did the volunteer blow and failed youth. He was a little surprised as he was fairly slightly tiddly.
I also saw a trial on telly 2-3 years ago when a group of people were served stubbies while driving on PlayStation. One woman knocked back 9 stubbies and was all over the place (aren’t they all) and was still under.
The issue is that I would be pissed off if I couldn’t have a few beers/wines on a night out and get done because the law Nazis dropped the level by too much (whatever too much is). At 105kg and as an experienced drinker, I can handle my piss a lot better than a skinny 60kg athlete.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
But this is not enough to draw any conclusion. The question is not how much BAC a driver had when he died, but how many accidents, injuries and deaths were caused to others and himself and what the BAC was
You, of all people, should know better than repeating this strawman argument.
Here is one studies that I found on the net around lowering BAC. It also makes references to other studies:
http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/12522/
July 24th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
How ironic. That is more the forte of the religious nutbars.
Never mind that this is not a discussion about whether one approves of something or not, but more around facts.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I predict the worst offenders are young males without a university education and middle-aged people of both sexes uniformly spread throughout socio-economic groupings with a slight concentration in the lower sectors but not that much.
because young and old women don’t offend “badly”
and university students drink sensibly
and once people hit middle age, they go alcoholic
all offences uniformly spread, except for the lower levels, where it’s more uniformly spread that the rest
and socio-economic factors decide all truths
and poor people are usually drunk
that’s not a stereotype that’s a hypothetical set of demographics
Of course it is. reid, are you drunk?
July 24th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Never mind that this is not a discussion about whether one approves of something or not, but more around facts.
Correct. While this is being studied, people need to drive drunk so there is something to study. So please, nobody do anything out of the ordinary!
July 24th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Why do we allow any limit? Why not just make it zero, never, none, ever?
July 24th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
eszett thats a load of bollocks – the problem is my friend that there are crashes where people haven’t been drinking, But if one of those involved in an accident has been drinking it becomes an alcohol related accident by definition. Alcohol may have played no part, the driver who has been drinking may even be the innocent party.
And reducing the limit may reduce the number of people on the roads who have had a drink or two and thereby lower the number of “alcohol related accidents” without the number of accidents dropping at all.
In truth there is a group of hard core recidivist drink drivers who do cause problems and accidents and these people serve a useful purpose for activist wowsers who want to interfere in law abiding citizens lives.
July 24th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
SSB’s 3:07 point is a valid one however because the only way rural people can ever get together is from miles away in all directions. You can’t share a driver.
Normally I’m against subsidies, but in this case, I wouldn’t mind spending 10-20 million p.a. (and it should take less) subsidizing taxis to take these guys home on one night a week.
Not to make it free, but within reasonable limits.
July 24th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Reid,
Because we don’t live in a totalitarian state, yet.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
There are no taxis in many rural areas reid.
A limit of zero would be highly impractical. How many days after drinking does it take to get to zero?
They have to resist limiting the vast majority of people who drink a bit and drive safely because a few drink far too much and still drive.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
You are embarrassing yourself, andrei. The evidence is there how alcohol impairs ones ability to drive. Read the study that I linked. Granted it’s just one, but it has references to six other studies.
You are just not prepared to accept evidence, so you argue on a purely emotional basis.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Are there any studies which measure how an recent argument with your wife “impairs your ability to drive No?
Or being old impairs your ability to drive let’s ban the over seventies from driving or even the over sixties because their reactions are a lot slower than those in their twenties.
Give me the funding and I will show how eating big macs impairs your ability to drive.
Which would please the food nazis who no doubt would link to it in blog threads
July 24th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
“Because we don’t live in a totalitarian state, yet.”
Yes but we don’t allow: period; a number of things for our own safety.
What’s special about this?
July 24th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Hence my suggestion.
Depends on what sort of a pisshead you are Pete. Anything from overnight to four maybe five days for a real blinder, I reckon.
July 25th, 2010 at 1:44 am
Never mind that this is not a discussion about whether one approves of something or not, but more around facts.
Actually it’s not. The debate is around political tolerance for risk and public expectations of what is an acceptable death rate. Plainly that tolerance is higher than zero. Plainly it is less than thousands per annum. What facts are supposed to tell you what the right answer is?
July 25th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
MT_Tinman (868) Says:
July 24th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
The bitch about drunk drivers is not that they kill themselves – the Darwin principle at work
.
/Facepalm
.
A lot of drink drivers have kids.
July 25th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
“However, the evidence is clear that compared to a sober driver, a driver aged over 30 is 16.5 times more likely to have a fatal crash at 0.08 and 5.8 times more likely at 0.05.”
The usual (deliberate?) gross misinterpretation of statistics. How could such a statistic be measured? Most likely by measuring the alcohol levels of drivers who have crashes. But then all the issues arise.
First, the number of drivers who have readings exactly 0.05 and 0.08 will be vanishingly small, so those numbers will have to be augmented by including readings around those values. How big were those ranges, how accurate were the readings and how consistent were the timings of the samples relative to the accident? Were the numbers contaminated by very drunk drivers whose blood samples were taken too long after the accident?
Second, how accurately is the population of drivers with those alcohol readings known? If you don’t know that you can’t calculate relative probabilities of crashing. Also you have to know how that population varies with time of day/week and that has to be matched up with the crash data times. Highly unlikely this can be done with any accuracy.
Finally, what is the evidence that all drivers have the same likelihood of reacting to alcohol with the same pattern of crash probability? The evidence is all contrary. Women have different tolerance than men, size matters, anti-social and reckless people do not assess and manage risk.
July 25th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
You’re dead right Alan. The stats are all twisted to suit the objective. But facts do not matter to this regime. The country is in the hands of a leftist cabal that is in one manifestation only slightly less dangerous than the other, and they will tread right over reason in their pursuit of power.
Just as in the US, it is only we the people who will bring about change.
Get angry and get in the faces of these collectivist swine.
July 25th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
# reid (4,484) Says:
July 24th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Why do we allow any limit? Why not just make it zero, never, none, ever?
I’m informed that even non-drinkers can have naturally produced alcohol in their system and zero is not feasible.
Given the standard of driving out there it might be better to demand at least 80 rather than have that as the maximum.
Questlove, fuckwits breed?
How unusual.
July 26th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“But it is understood the proposal has met fierce resistance from some Cabinet ministers. This is a major change that could criminalise tens of thosuands of New Zealanders” . EXACTLY, including those Cabinet Ministers
There had been some discussion on zero rate for under 20′s – but the Catholic church has made a submission or passed comment to the media that communion wine will show a reading (could incriminate a good Catholic choir boy)
Some cough medicines may also show a reading.
I agree more comprehensive research and analysis in needed before legislation passed to quieten emotive lobbyists.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Yet another blogger who has absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Alan is actually wrong. I suggest that instead of making assumptions as to how those statistics were collected/interpreted, that you go and look at the research report(s). The information is all there for you if you would just look.
The majority of drink driving offences that go through our courts are middle aged males… not under 20′s.
Go and look at the stats for yourself.
I’m all for making the blood alcohol limit while driving absolute 0, for every age group. No one is an exception when it comes to something as serious as this.
Wise up please.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Also to add, there are already over 60 studies that support these findings. You think that’s not enough? Seriously?
That’s National supporters for you.