Going beyond the headline
August 1st, 2010 at 9:00 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
A test in which a Weekend Herald staff member knocked back nine beers before hitting the legal limit has brought accusations from health groups that the Government is condoning drink-driving. …
The two staff members who took part in the session, a female reporter and a male photographer, were shocked at how drunk they became before being over the limit. Both said they would not consider driving in that state.
Good. A limit is not a target. The limit is saying you are so impaired it is a criminal offence to drive your car. But that doesn’t mean it is safe to drive under that limit.
For example a speed limit may be 100 km/hr but in certain conditions it is dangerous to go more than 50 km/hr on an open speed road. Limits are not targets.
Photographer Richie Robinson, weighing 85kg, drank nine bottles of lager amounting to 11.7 standard drinks in just under four hours before reaching the limit of 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.
Now that is a lot. But what they also report beyond the headline is
Reporter Beck Vass, at 59kg, remained slightly within the existing limit after drinking five glasses of wine in just under two hours. She would have passed 250mcg on her third glass.
So if the limit was dropped to 0.05, a 59 kg woman would be not able to drive if they have a third glass of wine.
So if a a guy and a girl go out on a dinner date and share a bottle of wine, the girl will be risking a criminal record if she drives afterwards, if the limit is lowered.
If the research shows that there are numerous accidents caused by drivers who are between 0.05 and 0.08, then there could well be a good case for lowering the limit. But at present, the only stat we have is that only one over over 25 driver killed last year had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.
Tags: alcohol, drink driving
August 1st, 2010 at 9:06 am
The other question is whether 9 beers in 2 hours is a normal rate of drinking. Certainly isn’t for me.
If someone is drinking at that ate then they aren’t socialising. They are drinking to get drunk. That’s the stupidity that needs to be addressed.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 9:13 am
But at present, the only stat we have is that only one over over 25 driver killed last year had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08
And for all we know he may have been the innocent party in an accident caused by someone else.
A whole lot of people died in accidents where the BAC of the driver was 0 so following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion – nobody is safe to drive.
In the meantime the Herald is carrying on with its activist campaign to have this law enacted with a sad story of a boy whose mum was killed by a drunk driver.
And here is what the story reveals about the culprit
And anybody who thinks lowering the drink drive BAC would stop low life scum like this from driving drunk needs their head read.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 9:24 am
My wife doesn’t like (and won’t) driving if she has drunk more than a glass of wine. If I go out for a meal I wouldn’t drink more than three glasses of wine and drive afterwards. It’s not difficult to set your own targets.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 9:53 am
You can conclude the Government is serious about drink / driving when they make it a three strikes offence.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 10:03 am
Shows how sick NZ’s media is when they cheer for more power to the state and less to the individual. Ignorant ill-trained traitors to their profession.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 10:10 am
This whole drink driving nonsense is just bullshit. Soon it will be illegal to drive a car if you are just thinking about having a drink. “Oh I would like a g&t right now”. Bang…. instant fine.
‘Drink-drive” accidents are not caused by people who have had a couple of glasses and are normally good drivers. They are caused by assholes who are so blotto that they can hardly see. These people are most likely to be inconsiderate or dangerous drivers when they are sober too and concentrating on harassing sensible ordinary citizens who have had a couple of beers amounts to nothing more than a police state.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 11:07 am
This topic is a bureaucrat’s dream because there is no right answer. It is the legal equivalent to consumables for printers, they will never be out of work. Politicians, cops and lawyers love it.
It is a physical impossibility finding a legal limit that is fair and works equally for all. Everyone has different tolerances depending on many factors which most people know about – weight, sex, food or lack of, level of tiredness etc etc etc. Someone who is sleep deprived is a greater risk than someone who has had four glasses of wine or whatever.
There should be no set alcohol limits, instead the focus should be on impairment tests. Walking a straight line is pretty old fashioned but I’m sure clever people could come up with some new measures (rather than an arbitrary breath test) that would be a more accurate way of testing your ability to drive safely. Isn’t that what this is all about? Safety on our roads?
Then the penalty for impaired driving can reflect the stupidity of what you did and your level of impairment and stupidity. It shouldn’t matter if it was caused by sleeping tablets, drugs, booze or rooting all night.
Vote:I realise this will never happen because it involves some level of common sense and bureaucrats dislike that with intense hatred. Gotta have them rules and regulations.
August 1st, 2010 at 11:08 am
Dave Mann 10:10 am,
Yep, it’s called thought or hate crime, and it’s already here (although maybe not for drink driving yet).
Bash a bloke – you get charged with assault.
Bash a queer – assault charge but with ‘hate’ attached which means a stiffer sentence.
Muslims are already pushing for it to be a (hate) crime (Europe, UK, etc) to associate terrorism (committed by Muslims) with Islam.
Remember, guys, ideas are dangerous – the progressives/socialists are doing their darndest to to eliminate, or at least severely regulate, the expression of ideas deemed ‘hateful’, inappropriate, or anti the current progressive wisdom.
Free Speech won’t be ‘free’ for much longer IMHO.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 11:09 am
“using a commercially available breath-analyser”
Which aren’t always the most accurate of devices. They are, at best, guideline devices only. Had this been conducted on a Police machine, then I would put more store in it. However, even then I would still see this as a scaremongering headline, simply because even the official machines can have varying readouts depending on the person taking the test. Whilst Parliament has legislated that the machine test result is always accurate, we who work in this field (both police and lawyers) know that it isn’t. The alternative is, of course, a lot of challenges by defence lawyers, so Parliament decided to make sure there was no defence there!
Of course, the real point of the article is to try and undermine the Government’s recently (and realistic) decision to maintain the blood alcohol levels where they are. Whoever says the media is impartial is nuts.
Red, you are my hero!
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 11:21 am
A record was kept of about 200 fatal crash victims in 2007 two of them had recorded alcohol readings between .05 and .08. I think I heard this commentary on Q & A this morning but I didn’t take enough notice to remember who did the study or why. Thinking back it may have been on the Justin Newstalk ZB rehash panel discussion this morning.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Good, the limit should be high.
Drink driving is an interesting offence because it doesn’t penalise you for the harm that you have done or intend to do. It penalises you because of the harm that you are statistically more likely to do.
The limit should be at the point where the average person *knows* they have had too much to be driving safely. If they hop in the car anyway then I have no problem throwing the book at them.
But if you need an expensive machine to tell you if you can have that third drink because you are genuinely unsure if you are too drunk… Well that’s the kind of law I think we can do without.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 1:15 pm
“….So if a a guy and a girl go out on a dinner date and share a bottle of wine, the girl will be risking a criminal record if she drives afterwards, if the limit is lowered.”
I am uncertain what your point is here as it seems to contradict the rest of your post. Surely if personal responsibility for sobriety is the aim (i.e. don’t drive if you are impaired) then the legal limit is merely the enforcement mechanism for those who are unable to exercise personal responibility. Any arbitrary limit will always capture some who are “sober” drivers at the lower limit.
Penalising drinkers with larger capacity to process alcohol is a necessary side effect of any drinking limit. There are also some people who should not be allowed to drink anything before they drive. If half a bottle impairs your driving then you a criminal if you drive (at least in my eyes) regardless of what the law says. Equally if you are on medication which reacts to alchohol etc … then the limit is only a guide.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Well, if you murder him, you may get off on manslaughter by using the provocation defence.
I can imagine the hate-filled Kris K fantasising about going around and killing gay people. You are truly evil, Kris K. It’s a pity you don’t really believe the Christian stuff you spout, because then you’d know you were going to Hell. But you’ve never been a Christian, just an evil MF.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Some scary results in the YahooXtra! online poll today –
The question –
Do you drink and drive?
What is wrong with these people that 30% say they sometimes drink and drive? After all the ads on TV and the deaths that have occurred etc. It is hard to understand.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Fletch, it depends on what “drink and drive” refers to. I drink and drive, I don’t see a problem with that, but I don’t get pissed and drive.
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 5:06 pm
@ Fletch – it’s about the same percentage of respondents as Labour is currently polling; co-incidence?
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 5:12 pm
It’s being great watching the hand wringing, wet, we know best tossers doing their nuts because the government kept the old limit. These pricks are totalitarian scum that should be shot at dawn. This latest bullshit has nothing what so ever to do with lowering the road toll, it’s about forcing their world view, their lifestyles on those evil, ill breed drinkers. I’m no fan of drink driving and will do my best to avoid it but on many occasions simply have no choice. I would love to challenge some of these people to get out of beyond the 50k sign posts and see how fucking clever they are then. Well done National !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote:August 1st, 2010 at 5:34 pm
I think what you meant to say was that she would not be allowed to drive if the the limit was lowered.
But you did hit the point. If she is not able to drive, then she shouldn’t.
The real question is it safe to drive with a BAC above 0.05 and how many accidents, injuries and deaths are caused by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.
Most of the arguments against lowering the BAC limit are purely emotional or strawman arguments like it wont stop the recidivist drunk drivers or that only one driver killed himself wiith a BAC of 0.05
It is mostly driven by the perception that you wont be able to drink as much as you do today when you are out an driving. In fact, most people wont be affected by lowering the limit, because they stay under the limit today.
The Herald has shown, in a very limited way though, that that probably isn’t the case
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 1:03 am
To not blood test the participants in this media propaganda seriously mitigates the result and raises questions on the integrity of the activist professor so prominent in the article, let alone the man quoted who sells the devices that check breath levels and will be in demand if the law changes, talk about a vested interest.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 8:18 am
She wont be riskign anything if she doesn’t drive.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 9:23 am
keep trying dpf. On message, but off your head my friend…
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
The greatest thing about these quasi-scientific tests is that you get free piss.When asked that predictable question at the test’s conclusion: ie are you pissed? the answer is : Is’nt it great to be a journalist.
Vote: