Yay!
July 26th, 2010 at 5:39 pm by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
The Government has decided not to lower the blood-alcohol limit for drink driving for the moment.
It had been considering lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit from from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. But Transport Minister Steven Joyce said today that the Government will first do some New Zealand-specific research on the level of risk posed by drivers with a blood alcohol limit between 0.05 and 0.08.
I am so pleased about this. I am not 100% opposed to a reduction in the BAC limit, but have strongly submitted that there was not enough research to justify a change.
I have previously blogged at how there was only one driver aged over 25 killed in a road accident who had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. What we don’t know is how many people do actually drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, and hence what the cost of a law change would be measured against the benefits.
The Government has also announced:
- A zero drink drive limit for recidivist drink drivers.
- A zero drink drive limit for drivers under 20 years of age.
- Much tougher penalties for serious offences causing death and drink driving causing death.
- The introduction of alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-drivers.
The zero limit for recidivist drink drivers is a very good idea, as are the alcohol interlocks. Far better to prevent an accident, than punish someone afterwards with sensible targeting of recidivist offenders.
I’m pleased to see the Government exercise independent judgement on this issue, and not just do everything that the (taxpayer funded) lobby groups demand.
Related posts:
- Zero alcohol for under 20 drivers
- Recividist drink drivers
- A stupid editorial
- HoS on drink driving limits
July 26th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
I think travel penalties would be very effective against under 20 drink drivers….
Vote:July 26th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Good moves by Mr Joyce.
If the bloody Gestapo wern’t so fixated on revenue gathering they could have been gathering stats on .05 vs .08 for ages and been able to have made a case based on evidence instead of emotion.
The police seem to be unusually clever at alienating the public with arbitary speed limits, likewise with Alcohol levels and lately with the distance some poor bloody sucker enters a buslane to make a left turn.
MUPPETS
[DPF: To be fair to the Police they need a law change to collect the stats.]
Vote:July 26th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
The “bloody Gestapo” don’t want to have statistics like that gathered and publicised because they know they will show that there is no factual reason for criminalising people who are slightly over their arbitrary limit.
I notice Stuff headlined this story Govt Backs Down
Typical slime crap.
Vote:July 26th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
But will it be Policed? Those with no License and many convictions will continue to offend, they do not give a shit.
The Govt will do some NZ specific research, yeah! That means no more tripping all over the planet to find out how they do it in Phuket or Paris.
Vote:But where is the Govt going to gather money now?
July 26th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
DPF – Good stuff.
Vote:The rural vote was crucial in fighting off the beltway bandits on this issue.
Caucus gave Joyce a very strong “NO” message. The proposed research will need to be carefully proscribed to ensure it is not driven by wowsers like Palmer.
July 26th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Could old Nanny State finally be in the palliative care ward, seeing out her last days? One can only hope.
MT_Tinman notes:
There aren’t many things which cause me to feel sympathy for our politicians but this is one of them. Any time you change your mind, however slightly, the headlines will scream “U Turn!”. Thinking, adjusting your opinion in the light of evidence (or even a persuasive argument) and listenig to your consituents is not a weakness, it’s a strength. But the MSM never portray it as such, thus helping lock our politicians in to stances they perhaps wish they’d never taken.
Hopefully people here who applaud this move will take the trouble to write a letter to the editor amd/or call talkback to say so, thus giving our pollies the confidence to listen to reason in future, too.
Vote:July 26th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
The Stuff headline is just flat wrong. The Government said months ago that there were two options – to lower the limit ro do more research. They have merely chosen one option – this is not a backdown like the mining proposal was.
Vote:July 26th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
No they don’t, sometimes they call it a flip flop, sometimes they cal it an embarrassing reversal. Seems last weeks descriptions on the mining have been re-used – do they still think they are using lead and can save some money re-cycled.
This government announcement is the end result of an example of how democracy can work at it’s best. Someone doesn’t seem to remember or care about democratic process and common sense though:
“The Government has attempted to kick the issue of drink driving into touch by postponing a decision on whether to lower the blood alcohol, Labour says.”
Vote:July 26th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
• A zero drink drive limit for recidivist drink drivers
•A zero drink drive limit for drivers under 20 years of age
• Much tougher penalties for serious offences causing death and drink driving causing death
•The introduction of alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-drivers.
Cabinet has also asked for more work to be done on penalties for the most serious repeat drink drive offenders.
“By targeting those identified as most likely to break the law – namely those with a history of offending and young people – we’re confident we’ll have a significant impact,” says Mr Joyce.
Looks good on paper. There are huge grey areas where the pigs will play though:
What kind of sentence does a first time young person get for d/driving causing injury/death as compared to a recidivist in the same circumstance?
How does an interlock system stop a drunk borrowing his mates car?
The penalties for drink driving are already fairly stern. They just don’t get enforced by the courts. It’s absurd that a person can even become a recidivist d/driver.
and an extra consideration for for the mentally impaired:
If teaching kids to drink alcohol with food is good training for future moderation, should we be teaching drivers under the age of 20 how to drive sensibly while half cut?
Vote:July 26th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
So they need evidence to reduce the threshold for reducing from 0.08 to 0.05, but do they not need more evidence for stopping 20 year olds drinking anything.
It doesn’t affect me, and I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. (It’s probably a good idea). But surely they should state the evidence, it looks like they’re picking on kids to look to be doing something, but ignoring adults because they’re a larger voting group.
Vote:July 26th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Dear God – we are looking for evidence before changing a Law – could this catch on? What would have happened to the ETS and the Anti-smacking Law if this had been the approach. Interesting to see an article on the approach of Lord Palmerston to making laws as quoted in the NBR last Friday.
Vote:July 27th, 2010 at 9:32 am
hmm I got this wrong – DPF, any idea on the Cabinet divisions? (Joyce, and PM were obviously once on the side of reason, as we know). Brownlee/English/McCully cabel Vs???
I may be wrong but I thought that Land Transport had done the analyis on 50+ studies and we were inline to save $200M and a handful of NZers lives each year with a drop to .5 BAC?
Vote:July 27th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Excellent decision..Profiling and targeting the problem, while enabling the majority of law abiding adults to continue to enjoy a special occasion or a quiet drink. Lets see more problem specific laws.
Vote:July 27th, 2010 at 9:47 am
* A zero drink drive limit for recidivist drink drivers.
* Much tougher penalties for serious offences causing death and drink driving causing death.
* The introduction of alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-drivers.
Excellent
* A zero drink drive limit for drivers under 20 years of age.
Someone who is legally able to purchase alcohol, and has a full licence, should be under the same restrictions as everybody else with this status. Imo
Vote:July 27th, 2010 at 9:59 am
I understand the sentiment, but as this is one of the highest risk groups for driving accidents and drinking too much it is better to target them than just put on tougher limits across the board. It will hopefully instill a culture of not drinking and driving from the start.
Vote:July 27th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Put the purchase age up to 20 as well?
While I agree with ALL of the above changes, especially having an evidence based approach to law changes (a refreshing change as others have mentioned), I believe if the government is going to be consistent with setting a zero BAC for under 20 year old drivers, that it ALSO needs to set the drinking in public and purchase age to 20.
This approach would deal with BOTH youth drink driving issues AS WELL AS youths drinking in public and creating a public nuisance. The government do themselves no favours by allowing this inconsistency to remain, IMHO.
Vote:July 27th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
The Government has carefully targeted their measures at people who abuse alcohol. The extreme comments like the Government will have blood on their hands etc from some lobbyists suggests to me they are not rational people and will deal themselves out of the game. Reducing the existing limit for adults needs careful research and the Government has set in place a rational approach to this. The zero tolerance for recidivists and the young makes perfect sense. But there might have to be some process for people who have cough medicine/breath refresher/medication. I assume these products would not register on an evidential breath test, but I am not that familiar with the science on this. My understanding is air from lungs mixes with alcohol in the bloodstream and that gives the reading. Mouthwash would probably not give much of a result in these circumstances.
Vote:July 27th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
The only thing I would add is the zero tolerance for adults should be backdated to the date of their last conviction so if you are on no2 conviction then the 3 year period starts for that date of the conviction. This would mean that a person would have to be 3 years clear backdated to the date of the last conviction before they could drive with any alcohol on their breath. Have a lead time, gives lots of helpful advice – including the safe to drive advice regarding drinking from the night before – 24 hours from the last drink??
Vote: