Recividist drink drivers
August 29th, 2010 at 10:46 am by David FarrarThe HoS reports:
The number of repeat drink-drivers caught on New Zealand roads is showing a worrying upward spiral, and is a problem police are struggling to counter.
The number of recidivist drink-drivers has risen steadily over the past three years, and more than 4000 have been prosecuted already this year.
Many of them are involved in fatal crashes.
Figures released to the Herald on Sunday under the Official Information Act reveal 7200 people were convicted of their third or more drink-driving offence in 2009 compared with 6995 in 2008 and 6639 in 2007.
These are the ones who are the real hazards. They do not drive at 0.05 to 0.08 BAC. They drive at two to three times the legal limit. And if they have been convicted three or more times, it probably indicates they have driven drunk 100+ times. And they are also the ones who tend to flee from the Police, and kill people as they do.
The Government has proposed a zero BAC limit for recidivist drink drivers, and off memory are looking at alcohol locks on their cars. I think the alcohol locks are what may make the biggest difference. It won’t stop all of them, but it will stop some of them.
Tags: drink driving
August 29th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Alcohol locks… pffft just the kind of wet weak solution Joyce and his band of shiny arsed desk pilots would go for. Why wouldn’t an offender just drive another car without the lock?
The reason people keep re-offending is because the consequences of doing so are negligible. Not only in drink driving but in all crimes, for example the four hundred plus convictions of the medal thief.
Here’s the problem- weak and incompetent judges, even weaker and even more incompetent politicians, and an arrogant political class shaped by a similarly arrogant media WHO WILL NOT DO WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE ASKED SO MANY TIMES and increase penalties for crime. Alcohol locks are just another sop to the liberal mentality that has seen NZ become one of the most crime affected countries in the world.
We do not need bloody stupid ideas like alcohol locks that make dim ineffective politicians feel good and simultaneoulsy line the pockets of some cronyist business/govt enterprise that is no doubt enthusiastically lobbying shiny arsed parasitical Wellington bureaucrats for their use.
Time for a total clean out of all government departments involved in crime, sacking and replacement of judges and most of all, the retiring of the mincing weak politicians who have shaped this result.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Mandatory minimum penalties,disqualification without exceptions for serious breaches, and disqualification for life where serious injury to another results should replace the damp bus ticket approach of fines which don’t have to be paid and Community Service which doesn’t have to be attended.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 11:29 am
All in favour of tougher response to recidivism (not just drunk drivers). Alcohol locks sound interesting but I wonder about avoidance. Perhaps the first step is to really enforce all the penalties imposed by the courts; ie really ensure that all fines are paid fully and promptly and that all community sentences are carried out as intended. Our lily-livered waiving of court sentences makes a mockery of the whole justice system and unless we tighten up on them we can’t expect to have success with other types of penalty.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 11:29 am
I see GPS is now being fitted to recidivist drink drivers cars, no more bar hopping for some. Only work in cities though.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 11:33 am
The reason people keep re-offending is because the consequences of doing so are negligible.
Spot on Red.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Red, for once I agree with you.
Where do “we” find the replacements?
The only remedy for this is for NZ to get behind seriously harsh penalties for those who put innocent peoples’ lives at risk.
Forget the GPS, alcohol sensors etc. which will do good at all.
Second DIC offense = 1,000 hours “community service” fixing the roads (using picks and shovels) and to be done at 60 hours per week.
Third DIC offense – Let’s cut the bastards right foot off.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 11:42 am
We just need to draw a line and make it clear that if you cross this line, this is what happens to you and it doesn’t include counselling, or phoney rehabilititation, or home detention, or fines that are not enforced, or weekend detention, or ankle bracelets, of GPSs or alcohol locks or any of those ideas that have failed and failed and failed time and time and time again.
Cross this line (wherever it may be drawn) and you do ten years no parole making big rocks into small rocks in the prison quarry. EOS.
The trouble right now is that there is no line.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 11:44 am
backster – if you disqualify people from driving forever, they’ll just drive without a license. I would. It’s hardly a disincentive.
And anyone who thinks that an alcohol lock will stop anyone from drink driving is mad. You’d just buy a new car and register it in someone else’s name! It doesn’t work in Australia and it won’t work in New Zealand.
Bigger penalties do not stop people breaking the law. They just piss people off and promote an “us and them” mentality. Same with harsher laws and regulations, same with coppers over-enforcing laws. Sending someone to jail for ten years for drink driving? Piss off. The jails are already full.
The best solution is to promote personal responsibility, but that’s something that is a bit foreign in New Zealand. And Australia for that matter.
I don’t know how to solve the problem, but I do know that harsher punishment will not.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
David, as a lawyer you would know there are always people who will try to take advantage of any law. When it comes to employment law or tenancy law it is impossible to draft legislation that will not unfairly disadvantage someone.
I have heard of a couple of cases when it sounds to me like employees have been treated very unfairly. One was a case of a woman who left a higher paid job to work in a field she always wanted to – art. It is easy to say with hindsight that this woman was foolish and should not have agreed to the clause. I heard her on the radio and it sounded like she had at least 20 years work experience and had a good work record. It just did not occur to her that she would be dismissed after a couple of weeks.
This law was mainly designed to help people without good work records and/or a criminal history find employment.
This issue of this woman and people like her could be addressed in a couple of ways. Firstly, the government should make it clear that people are not obliged to agree with the 90 day clause and in fact they should give serious consideration to signing it if they have a good employment history and are presently employed or are relocating to take up the job.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
What does that have to do with drink driving?
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
@MT_Tinman – any suggestion for what happens on the 17th offence? Perhaps we should convict the judge!
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Drive the prison laundry cart?
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“Bigger penalties do not stop people breaking the law.”
An idiotic assertion that is typical of the bullshit that is behind the lack of effectiveness of the NZ justice system. See any drug problem in Singapore that compares in any way to the problem we have here? No, and I’ll tell you why, because Singaporeans know the consequences and they know they will suffer those consequences if they break the law.
“The best solution is to promote personal responsibility”
Agree, and that’s exactly what harsh penalties do, rather than wishy washy liberal crap like “collective responsibility” (its not his fault he commits crime, its society’s fault) that blurs the line of crime and also blurs the line on responsibility.
“The jails are already full.”
Good. Let’s build a whole lot more and keep locking the bastards up until they get the message.
“that’s (responsibility) something that is a bit foreign in New Zealand. And Australia for that matter.”
Now you’re getting somewhere. The most prolific destroyer of the concept of personal responsibility is socialism, and most socialist countries where morality and self worth are under constant attack have high crime rates.
“I don’t know how to solve the problem”
Damn right. So until you do, you should shut the fuck up on criticising those who do have an idea. You’re big on responsibility- how much responsibility do you take for supporting a justice and political system that has seen NZ drift from one of the most law abiding countries in the world into a one of the most violent and crime ridden societies in the world?
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
It is for this reason that a 0.05 BAC limit for everyone is needed. The problem is the culture of drinking. Have you tried guessing how many drinks you can have and still drive. Your mind says one more and then you lose count. Lowering the 0.05 BAC limit for everyone will not directly save lives. It will make a firm stance saying “if you have more than one, you do not drive”. For some people 0 or 1 are easier for people to understand than “somewhere between 2 and 8 depending on your body, what you have eaten and which way the wind is blowing”.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
“It is for this reason that a 0.05 BAC limit for everyone is needed.”
That’s right, penalize everyone for the misbehaviour of a few. Let’s have more jack booted cops and more road blocks too.
Jesus, I’ve got a good idea. When cloning reaches its zenith, we can get some DNA off Stalin and reincarnate him too.
Pfft.. so lame, and so typical of the clapped out collectivist approach that is the root cause of the problem. NZers are a society of government addicted morons.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
marynicholehicks – I cannot disagree more. Stopping my wife and I enjoying a bottle of wine with dinner wont change a thing when it comes to the people causing 99% of the problems on the road. If you cannot control your drinking and stop when you know you should, don’t blame “drinking culture” and look at yourself. I am part of the same “drinking culture” and I know when to stop.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
@marynicholehicks – Let’s get the flag-waving guides walking in front of the cars again when we set the open road limit at 6km/h. Think of the improved employment opportunities. Think of the reduced road toll. Next step it’s back to the caves.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
GAZZA:…”backster – if you disqualify people from driving forever, they’ll just drive without a license. I would. It’s hardly a disincentive.
Its a dis-incentive because its so easy for a cop to recognise and pick up a disqualified driver, or the car number is tagged so that every check brings up ‘disqualified’, and far quicker and easier to process and place in the slammer. Judges also tend to be more upset by offenders ignoring disqualification orders that they have imposed.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Look at a few facts
March 21 2010 – North Shore blitz. 8,834 vehicles stopped and 69 over the limit (0.79%)
August 16 2010 – West Auckland blitz. Slightly over 10,000 vehicles stopped and 70 over the limit (0.7%)
July 11 2010 – Blitz as rehersal for Rugby World Cup in AUckland. 12,000 vehicles stopped. 45 over the limit (0.375%)
22 June 2010 – South Auckland Blitz. 13,593 vehicles stopped. 216 over the limit (1.58%)
20 September 2009 – Auckland wide blitz. 40,000 vehicles stopped. 129 over the limit (0.32%)
It goes on and on. Do some of you really want to have laws made on the basis of a percentage of drivers that is barely over 0.5% of all drivers (on average)?
I suspect you stil ring Mum and ask what you should have for dinner as well.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Red – the USA has some of the harshest punishments for drug offences, but I don’t see that fixing their drug problem.
And while you think of a better solution, why don’t you stop spouting abuse at people who have a different opinion than you do? You are hardly a pillar of debate when your response to someone disagreeing with you is to yell and scream.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
“Red – the USA has some of the harshest punishments for drug offences,”
Bullshit. Utter bullshit.Go away and come back when you’ve got some facts. Like you said, you don’t have a clue.
The chances of getting caught for drug us in the US are extremely small, the penalties are lax and jail time is often cut. In other words, the consequences are light and the risk is slight.
If you know so much about the problem, tell me why there’s virtually no drug use in Singapore compared to the US and NZ.
“why don’t you stop spouting abuse at people who have a different opinion than you do? ”
Because I am sick to death of you fucking moron’s stealing my money, electing dumbfucks to government, slowly but steadily destroying everything that was ever good about this country, and generally ruining my quality of life. You should count yourself lucky that abuse (as you term it in your shitty politically correct language) is all you’re getting you wimpering pissant.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
I like the stance in North Dakota, on your 2nd offence you either do 12 months or you can go to the county jail every morning and evening and if you have “any” trace of booze you are locked up. Road toll down 30%, no expensive prison time and it stops all the harm caused by the drinking of the few.
Vote:Bit too innovative for here but a perfectly targeted and cheap system which is working remarkably well.
August 29th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Pongo:
That’s a brilliant idea. An ounce of prevention, a they say… but as others have pointed out, alcohol locks and all the other preventatives tried so far don’t work.
That idea institutes personal responsibility – drink anything and you’ll go to jail, behave yourself and you won’t. That’s the essence of personal responsibility, consequences etc.. you get to choose the outcome of your actions, but make the wrong choice and the outcome is very clear, and not at all soft. I’d say it sounds like the perfect solution.
But I suspect some people will be along shortly declaiming it, because somewhere within them they have this burning desire to know people are being forced to “work 60 hours a week” “making big rocks into small ones”, which gets cloaked in talk of personal responsibility but is essentially thinly veiled sadism… pleasure at the suffering of others.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Personal abuse is not the way to arrive at a meaningful solution to anything and it just reveals the abuser as crass and unintelligent. Those who lash out are those who don’t have the brains to frame a constructive response.
I like the North Dakota idea. I also agree that alcohol locks are unlikely to do much good. The idiots who need one will probably think that finding ways of circumventing it is clever.
My own proposal for the selfish fuckwits who endanger others by trying to outrun the police is to introduce mandatory electronic monitoring for a 10-year period on top of any other penalties. Let’s see how smug the little pricks feel when they have to wear an ankle bracelet for a decade and know their ever move is being recorded.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Red you are a fuckhead.
I don’t live in New Zealand; I left three years ago for more than double the salary in Queensland. I spend a portion of my money in New Zealand and I don’t claim any sort of welfare. I am a net importer of wealth for New Zealand, and a net taxpayer. I voted for the ACT party in the last election, which I admit was a bit of a mistake considering that Mr Hide decided to enjoy the baubles of office instead of making a stand against the socialist regieme of the Key government. My politics are more closely aligned to yours than you might imagine, but I disagree with you on this point. For someone who is a libertarian you have a fucked up sense of morality. Personal responsibility shouldn’t be dictated by the state. Fuck off.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
db:
I both love and hate the idea of electronic monitoring. Love it because I think it’s an excellent way to keep track of all sorts of undesirables. Hate it because I wonder how long it would be before our smug and controlling politicians slipped a “monitoring clause” into just about every Bill they put up.
Forget to print your authorisation statement on an electoral leaflet? Ten years tracking for you. Disturbing the peace by being one of the “haters and wreckers”? Better watch you for a couple of decades. I suspect if the technology had been available to do this in the 80s, things would have evolved to the stage that if Whaleoil is found guilty in September, the penalty would now include having a chip permanently implanted in his brain :-/
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
“Personal responsibility shouldn’t be dictated by the state.”
It should actually. What you get otherwise is the abortion that exists in Australia and NZ, as you suggested above. That is why Singapore works so well, the government does not reward sloth, but encourages independence. A government that dictated “personal responsibility” would always have my preference over one that encouraged dependence and collective responsibility. ie NZ and Australia, thanks to your voting patterns and apathy over the years.
“Personal abuse is not the way to arrive at a meaningful solution to anything and it just reveals the abuser as crass and unintelligent. Those who lash out are those who don’t have the brains ”
Why is it that all you sanctimonious protectors of today’s politically correct social mores are always such rank and stupid hypocrites? You claim that abuse should be avoided and then go on to use labels like “crass, unintelligent, brainless, idiots, selfish fuckwits, and smug little pricks”.
Leaving that unintelligent and self contradictory effort aside, monitoring bracelets are another idiot idea. Not only for the reasons ol bleeding heart Rex points out, and other practical issues, but also because there is once again, not enough consequence involved.
(BTW, going to do the same to Queensland as you did to NZ are you Gazza? Where will you go then?)
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Western Australia. And you are still a fuckwit.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I agree with Garth Mcvicar that a life sentencing or better still the death penalty be reintroduced for people who cause death from drinking and driving .
Vote:Drunken driving first timers, have their cars taken of them and placed in chain gangs with hard labor tent prisons for at least two years and no parole.
As Garth suggest we send our children to compulsory army service as they leave school to teach them respect, to further that respect beforehand, reintroduce canning into the education system and have curfews for any one under the age of 18 years old.
Reintroduce smacking children is a must as how else are to learn how to obey society’s rules of law and order…
Death sentence for all drug dealers, especially marijuana with a bloody good canning before they die sending a message to our kids, zero tolerance to crime like Singapore.
August 29th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Red: My labels were general, applied to a class of sub-humans. Yours were specific, aimed at an individual. That’s the difference that defines abuse and there’s nothing hypocritical or self-contradictory about it. Of course it takes a degree of cognitive ability to apprehend this fact.
After getting past the vitriol, you do at least propose a valid objection to my suggestion. I would respond that being tied to a monitoring bracelet for 10 years has plenty of consequence, especially for the type of personality likely to receive the punishment, it’s just more subtle. Think of Chinese water torture compared to a slap in the face. Of course subtlety may not be your strong suite.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Redbaiter 12:51 pm,
Exactly, Red.
Whether it’s drink-driving, teen drink abuse, drug use, domestic violence … whatever … it all comes down to personal responsibility and people regulating their behaviour. And THAT only works when individuals have a strong moral foundation so that ultimately they have SELF CONTROL and CHOOSE to do the right thing.
BUT as socialism gains more control of a country, and morality/values are increasingly attacked, people (as a result) have less ability to determine the difference between right and wrong – something is ONLY deemed to be ‘wrong’ because the state says it is. So rather than being self regulating in their behaviour, the individual NEEDS the state to regulate their behaviour. Hence we have increasingly MORE intrusive laws and the steady reduction of personal freedom.
If we are only going to do the ‘right’ thing because we are being watched then heaven help us all.
What this country needs is to get back to a Judeo-Christian values based society. And to do that socialism must be routed out of our parliament, our bureaucracy, and all the government agencies which push socialist dogma (the education system, nursing, etc). If we did this we would likely be able to shut 90% of our prisons, reduce policing numbers radically, and seriously downsize the justice system in general.
And while there will always be the odd ‘Graham Burton’, society would be a much more caring and less selfish place than it is today under the current socialist nanny state.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Red: My labels were general, applied to a class of sub-humans. Yours were specific, aimed at an individual. That’s the difference that defines abuse and there’s nothing hypocritical or self-contradictory about it. Of course it takes a degree of cognitive ability to apprehend this fact.
After getting past the vitriol, you do at least propose a valid objection to my suggestion. I would respond that being tied to a monitoring bracelet for 10 years has plenty of consequence, especially for the type of personality likely to receive the punishment, it’s just more subtle. Think of Chinese water torture as opposed to a slap in the face. Of course subtlety may not be your strong suite.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
# krazykiwi (6,217) Says:
August 29th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Third DIC offense – Let’s cut the bastards right foot off.
@MT_Tinman – any suggestion for what happens on the 17th offence? Perhaps we should convict the judge!
YES!!!!!!!!!
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
How do you get caught 17 times anyway. I am a regular driver and I am lucky to get stopped once a year. If you do not speed, break the road rules and draw attention to yourself then you probably will not get stopped. I can only conclude that these recidivist offenders are also bad drivers and the sooner they are off the road, the better.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I think Pongos North Dakota idea has merit.
After the first offence (when you would get Alac counselling and suspended sentence and resit driving liscence anyway).
2nd offence
12 months in jail (or more) or twice a day monitoring (which I presume they pay for?)
No parole of course.
We could do the same for drugs offences too.
It is parole but fail the monitoring and you go to jail for the rest of the term immediately.
More importantly if you are convicted of any other offence you trip the parole and go straight to jail until you go to court for the new offence.
It’s like a “broken windows” and we could insist on ankle GPS anyway (which they pay for).
Why not do it for all small offences, instead of bullshit like community service, say 3 months jail or open parole?
Good idea.
Vote:Now how do we get Neville Key to make it happen?
August 29th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
No MikeNz, not a good idea.
Why jail, which we pay for?
Instead hard unpaid labour (60 hours per week) on “community” projects such as road works while they live on savings, assets and then, when these are exhausted food deliveries.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Lovely bubble some live in. Make new laws, have alcohol locks, have fingerprint startup.
Where do you coqsuckers live? The ‘don’t care’ brigade do not give a rat’s arse about silly restrictions, they just drive/steal another vehicle. Oh we make a law against stealing.
It is the attitude that is the problem. Only one way to fix it, take the maggots out of the community. Jail. How many car chases/accidents can you do while in jail? Innocent people will not be killed while the arseholes are in jail.
Which is best for the taxpayer? send the maggots to jail, or pay for the damage they do (ACC, Insurance, loss of Income, Death)
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
What happend to my post ???
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Gazzmaniac: Redbaiter is an authoritarian, not a libertarian. Promoting Asian authoritarianism as the solution to NZ’s problems and regarding libertarians as contemptible apologists for ill-discipline is entirely in keeping with his philosophy.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Make drink driving a three strikes offence – third conviction should see life-time ban to drive. That fucking simple. What is wrong with these bloody politicians?
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
“Gazzmaniac: Redbaiter is an authoritarian, not a libertarian.”
Aww. Fuck off Mr Tim Darlington, you dole bludging waste of space.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
“Aww. Fuck off Mr Tim Darlington, you dole bludging waste of space.”
Its typical isn’t it? The gutless commie cowards have to tell lies about my views and position before they can manufacture an argument.
Vote:August 29th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Its a shame but the likelihood of national doing anything sensible and practical which actually addresses an issue is rather remote. It seems to me the only Nat who seems to make any progress is Tony Ryall. getting any judge or lawyer to cooperate seems to be an issue aswell.
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 12:07 am
The point about recidivist drink drivers (often with high readings) being a greater issue than the perceived 0.05 to 0.08 drivers is well made.
3rd and subsequent is 2 years maximum. That is fine up to a point but really runs out of sting for a, say, 12 times EBA, especially as a guilty plea attracts a 1/3rd discount (the policy reasons behind this a bit weaker where it is basically an undefendable offense – not driving or not intending to drive being the only real defences left) – so 18 months is maxiumum that can be given. I am not into the simplistic nonsense about bigger penalties being a panacea but at some point society is owed a sustained period of safety from a recidivist drink driver. The maximum penalty should go up to, say, 5 years.
The excitement about disqualification for ever is misplaced. Shock horror people who drink and drive regardless do not tend to be particularly concerned about court orders such as not to drive.
Not sure how much effect driving locks will have. In theory, if you are getting caught drink driving every couple of years your car should be sold and/or an order preventing an interest in a MV for a period of time. And even if ordered to have one these are the generally the same people who don’t obey disqualification orders.
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 7:47 am
Clearly we need to raise the driving age to 20 and restrict the hours that petrol can be sold.
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Red – if Singapore is such a great place, why don’t you move there? They speak English and I’m pretty sure you don’t need a visa to go there.
Everyone else – what exactly are you going to achieve by locking people up for years for smoking pot? Sweet FA if you ask me. And if I lost my license for five years, why wouldn’t I just drive anyway? I have been pulled over twice in 12 years in NZ and it was for speeding. So the chances are pretty slim that you’d be caught without your license. You spout on about how people have no respect for the system yet you intend on using that system for punishing those exact people? Does it not occur to you that the system doesn’t actually work?
People in WA can lose their license for 10 years, so they just move interstate – if NZ took the same stance, everyone who lost their license for that time would just move overseas. Great way to stop the brain drain.
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Higher tariffs on car imports. Higher retail petrol prices. Restrict pub opening hours. Every pub to have a dedicated/cheap/free taxi service. Create a ‘license to drink’ so it’s a privilege not a free-for-all. Convict publicans serving drink-drivers. Stop advertising booze
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 9:01 am
NO to higher tariffs, that is a really, really dumb idea. Poor people can easily afford cars in New Zealand, they cannot in Australia where tariffs are higher, car prices are higher and there’s still a drink driving and hooning problem. Raising the price of fuel? All it will do is further increase the cost of living, to the benefit of the already hugely profitable petrol companies.
Vote:A license to drink? If you can’t buy booze you’ll just brew your own! No amount of regulation will stop people drinking, and nor will prohibition.
August 31st, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Is Red a Libertarian??
Vote: