Drink Driving Deaths
September 21st, 2010 at 10:23 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
The Government chose not to lower the drink-driving limit despite receiving advice that doing so could save lives, papers show.
Of course it could save lives. Having a speed limit of 30 km/hr will save lives. Having a zero blood alcohol limit will save lives.
The sensible question is how many lives could it save, and how many drivers will be affected negatively by a policy change. A 30 km/hr speed limit would save probably 300 lives a year but would affect three million motorists every day.
Advice from the Ministry of Transport said a lower limit would save up to 33 lives a year.
An email from a ministry employee said statistics showed people with a blood alcohol level between 0.8 and 0.5 caused 30 deaths between 2006-2008.
From 2006 to 2008, 21 drivers involved in fatal accidents were found to have a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. That probably relates to the 30 deaths.
However, what is overlooked is that some of those deaths involved younger drivers who already have a BAC of 0.03 – ie they were already breaking the law, and a law change would have no impact on them.
If you exclude under 25s (who should have pretty much a zero alcohol limit), then the number of drivers involved in fatal crashes with 0.05 to 0.08 BAC is six – or two drivers a year on average.
So on current knowledge, a law change might result in two less fatal crashes a year – around a 1% reduction. That is assuming those drivers would change their behaviour in response to a law change.
But what we don’t know, and what the Government has sensibly decided to find out, is how many drivers such a law change would criminalise? In other words how many drivers do actually drive at that level, and what is their rate of accidents?
Once we have that data, a decision can be made more reliably.
a Cabinet paper said keeping the same level would mean the goal of reducing the level of drink driving fatalities to the Australian rate would not be met.
A reduction to the Australian rate is a fine target, to aim for. But a reader has pointed out to me, does this mean we need joint exercises with the Aussies.
The Police talk of Operation Unite here.
Acting Assistant Commissioner Win Van der Velde, Specialist Operations, Police National Headquarters, said the combined New Zealand and Australia police jurisdictions Operation Unite has reinforced the message that police, partner agencies and the public need to work together to reduce alcohol related harm on both sides of the Tasman.
My reader writes:
NZ /Aust Police and customs unite to enforce drug law, money laundering, terrorism and other shared border threats or Inter -pol related matters but it’s not as if the 2 country’s police forces need to be on alert for offender’s driving drunk between the 2 continents!
Aside from the mixed messages and a negative spin in police reporting of less than a 1% nabbed – yet police are still disappointed, I can see the merit in police unity with partnership agencies, community and public but can’t see a cross border risk with the need for uniting Aussie and NZ forces
Our police and the Aussie police are autonomous – I’m sure each country’s police can operate these blitzes – they are pretty standard in the way they are administered, managed and performed aren’t they? – autonomously and within their own HQ’s without any need for conference or consultation and I fail to see sense in the fraternity of this campaign.
Or, does it serve for funding trips to Aussie for our boys in blue?
I think she has a fair point. There are many many logical things for Australian and NZ Police to combine forces on. But drink driving blitzes is not one of them – unless someone builds a bridge from Waitemata to Hobart.
I’m not arguing against drink driving blitzes – I think there should be more of them. I just don’t see how this is an issue needing international co-ordination.
Related posts:
- The HoS Drink Driving Campaign
- Youth drink-driving
- HoS on drink driving limits
- ALAC on Drink Driving levels
September 21st, 2010 at 10:31 am
“I’m not arguing against drink driving blitzes – I think there should be more of them.”
Sorry to hear you say that. These kind of suspicionless stop and search roadblocks should never occur in a civilised and free country.
If penalties and enforcement are needed to ensure road laws are followed then fine, but road blocks where innocent people are stopped going about their legal business is a fascist concept. The politicians who passed this law and who continue to support it have no business in the parliament of a free country.
As for further draconian legislation, anyone calling for it should just take the bus if they are so afraid, and leave other drivers not so paranoid alone.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 10:35 am
How many deaths would be prevented if we demanded higher levels of driver competence?
Our roads are filled with people who are a risk to themselves and others in an absolute sense.. long before factors such as road quality, quality of vehicle, environmental factors (wind, raid, darkness) and alcohol come in to play.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 10:39 am
The effectiveness of reducing alcohol from .08 to .05 not only depends on changes in behaviour, it also depends on whether alcohol had anything to do with the crash in the first place. 2 per year is so low as to possibly be comparable to the background sober crash rate.
The government is optimising to the wrong objective. If the goal is to minimise death on roads then any and all policy which achieves that is inevitably adopted, and any arguments for policies which buy a lot less criminalisation or more freedom in exchange for a few more deaths in expectation will be automatically rejected.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 10:40 am
Sorry to hear you say that. These kind of suspicionless stop and search roadblocks should never occur in a civilised and free country.
I wonder if you’ll still think that after a drunk driver plows into your kids.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 10:45 am
So just how many deaths are acceptable to you? 30, 60, 120…
The fact that you resort to stupid arguments like a 30km/hr speed limit shows how weak your argument is.
[DPF: Are you unable to read? I have said that the number of deaths has to be weighed up against the impact on all motorists. A 30 km/hr limit would save perhaps 300 lives a year but massively impact all motorists. My point is you need to look at the impact on motorists, not just the reduction in deaths]
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 10:46 am
@ben – I think a principled government could be accused optimising to the wrong objective. Sadly most governments we’re subjected to have an increasing focus on the polls (ie how initiatives will be interpreted), and a diminishing focus on the principles that underpin an issue.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 10:49 am
I” wonder if you’ll still think that after a drunk driver plows into your kids.”
You obviously have trouble with the concept of principles.
1) Leaving aside the incorrect inferences of such a statement, I would think it no matter what. Freedom to travel without suspicionless searches is a key plank of a civilised and free society and should only be infringed upon during periods of war.
2) Dealing with the incorrect inferences, if my hypothetical kids were hit by a hypothetical drunk driver, this would not make me call for suspicionless searches because I do not think such searches do what is necessary to deal with the problem.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 10:56 am
“If you exclude under 25s (who should have pretty much a zero alcohol limit)”
WTF?
Vote, fight, die etc but not have a drink and be able to drive home?
[DPF: Our current license system has tighter restrictions on under 25s. And driving is a privilege, not a right - you have to pass a competency test etc]
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:03 am
I suspect the foremost consideration for the Government is working out how to lower the drink-driving limit without attracting allegations of nanny state-ism. They played that card pretty effectively against the last Government, so they have to be careful about it now. Probably no bad thing, but there will be a price to pay.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:05 am
We live in an age of spin.
“The govt chose not to….” ,that makes the govt responsible for drink driving deaths,not the criminal who chose to drink and drive.
As to cross Tasman stuff ,that’s just “policing by sound bite”,it sounds good, it makes it look as if we’re all working hard together to keep you safe,
I wish they’d just do what they’re paid to,target the crims ,not the general public. The cops know who they are. It’s the same with burglars ,drug pushers and robbers .
They did this with exceeding the speed limit some years ago > Hammer everyone to bring the average excess speed down by x amount and you save 3 possums. But piss off the mums and dads who generally support the cops while the real crims continue to speed and say “put it on the tab ,eh bro”,when they get stopped. That policy seemed to be being pushed partly at least by “partner agency” ACC and no doubt a compliant police “management ” that thought they could look good going along with that bollocks. Where did it get them?it’s been quietly put to bed>
Vote:Same with another “cause”….domestic violence.Cops have incredible powers in this regard . FRightening.Meanwhile gangs rule the streets and cops get shot by them.
This rant does not apply to ordinary police, just senior “management “and their political masters,and paymasters in “partner agencies”.
September 21st, 2010 at 11:05 am
Freedom to travel without a drunk smashing you up is a key plank of a civilised and free society.
“If you exclude under 25s (who should have pretty much a zero alcohol limit)”
Zero limits would be better being based on how long someone has held a license, whether first time or after a disqualification.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:07 am
“Advice from the Ministry of Transport said a lower limit would save up to 33 lives a year.
An email from a ministry employee said statistics showed people with a blood alcohol level between 0.8 and 0.5 caused 30 deaths between 2006-2008.”
There appears to be a conflict of information from the MoT advisors – one refers to 33 lives per year, while the other refers to 30 lives per 3 years (a discrepancy of approx 200%).
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:07 am
The big problem I see with this argument is that it appears there are no stats on how many drivers with a BAC of between 0.5 and 0.8 are stopped by Police – that’s why the Govt want to gather that info over the next 2 years. If 30 deaths were caused by drivers with a BAC of between 0.5 and 0.8 over a three year period then that is 10 per year not 33. Also, the media are assuming that by lowering the limit the police will magically remove all those drivers with BAC 0.5 – 0.8 off the roads. Yeah Right. Even if the Govt lowers the limit, how many 0.5 – 0.8 drivers will get caught? What is the social cost of those drivers losing their licences? Might as well lower the limit to zero and be done with it. Oh , and while they’re at it the might as well ban alcohol and tobacco also – think of the social cost they will save!!!
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:11 am
So is the freedom of my wife to not have her handbag stolen. Shall we ban handbags to assure this freedom?
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:12 am
“Freedom to travel without a drunk smashing you up is a key plank of a civilised and free society.”
Actually, it isn’t. All driving on public roads involves some element of assumption of the risk that something may go wrong, be it mechanical, human or nature related. This issue is, as DPF refers to, what is an acceptable level of risk versus the benefits to society that comes about from permitting activity that is inherently risky.
What you are talking about, Pete, is a key plank of a protectionist, paternalistic society. You may prefer such a society. I don’t.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:14 am
No, ban handbag snatchers. Address the attention at those doing dangerous and illegal things.
FE Smith – are you suggesting there should be no drink driving restrictions? Or just balancing the risk with freedoms?
I’m actually happy with the level where it is now.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:14 am
Are his crazed attempts at logical parallels worth the effort of a response Krazy?? He’s the master of the strawman. All commies do it, for without such strawmen, they cannot reduce the argument to the intellectual level they are comfortable with. (You know- left good, right bad)
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:29 am
The second of your questions, Pete. And I am as well.
I just don’t accept your earlier statement.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:30 am
The level is far too high as present, I can drink 9 beers in a few be hours and still legally be under the limit, a bit ludicrous given I could safely drive 11kmh over the limit at 2am but be breaking the law whereas my being an extreme danger at 2am with 9 beers under my belt would not receive any punishment.
A limit which would take into account responsible drinking, ie a couple of glasses of wine or 3-4 beers would be more appropriate, however incorporating infringement notices with high demerits for those who are slightly over this limit before it becomes criminalised at a higher level.
And David, these childish interjections of Redbaiter are just detracting from what could be a useful debate, is he really needed here with his sophmoric pathetic drivel about the ‘commies’, you can’t take him seriously and he just appears to be trolling for a response.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:31 am
You are actually missing the point.
Vote:A reduction to .5 in itself means a reduction in the number of folk who will drive after consuming alcohol. The .8 margin has given drivers more leeway, as those who think they are within the safety of .8 have more often than not been over the limit by an unacceptable margin. The .5 by itself will clearly dissuade folk from drinking if they intend to drive, or ensure they are more watchful in their consumption. That in itself is the main thrust of the .5 limit. To go down the Minister Joyce road of research as to accidents caused by those between .5 and .8 will prove little. Where the research should be carried out is on drivers who were actually above .8, ask them if they thought they were within the .8. Quite simply this is the advantage of the .5, drivers will have less leeway.
I agree with MikeG:
“The fact that you resort to stupid arguments like a 30km/hr speed limit shows how weak your argument is”
September 21st, 2010 at 11:44 am
“The level is far too high as present, ”
No it isn’t. See- assertions are easy and anyone can make them.
“I can drink 9 beers in a few be hours and still legally be under the limit,”
So good. How you imagine this claim represents any kind of logical argument though baffles me. You’re under the limit, you’re no danger, and if you do not have an accident, what is the problem?
“a bit ludicrous given I could safely drive 11kmh over the limit at 2am but be breaking the law whereas my being an extreme danger at 2am with 9 beers under my belt would not receive any punishment.”
Sorry. This seems completely incoherent to me. For example, how do you leap to the conclusion that being under the legal limit you are an “extreme danger”? Could you try again please?
“A limit which would take into account responsible drinking, ie a couple of glasses of wine or 3-4 beers would be more appropriate, however incorporating infringement notices with high demerits for those who are slightly over this limit before it becomes criminalised at a higher level.”
You really need to brush up on your English if you’re going to contribute to discussion here Dexter. That really is just more poorly expressed incoherent rubbish. Furthermore, the opinions you have posted here are extremely subjective in nature, but it is important that you recognise this, and do not fool yourself that you have actually made any case. The expression of subjective opinion is welcome, but facts and data to support those opinions are always helpful.
Good luck with future contributions. Hope you can raise the standard though.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:48 am
well, your persistance is admirable DPF – working hard against the overwhelming tide of public opinion and global evidence
[DPF: Public opinion yes. And long may I continue to not just go along with something because it is popular. As for evidence - this is exactly what I am calling for - evidence of both the costs and the benefits of a law change - the wowsers refuse to supply the former]
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:48 am
Is it just me – or does anybody else get a little edgy when they hear people on pedestals claim “If 18 year olds have the right to fight and die for their country” then they should yadadadada….
I am all for laws being applicable equally to recognise the hypocrisy in treating 18 year olds differently however every time I walk past a Union or lefty organisation proclaiming the above analogy it makes me want to inquire as to their service number and history… I’m starting to think the “fight and die” claim is beginning to be one of convenience for those who would never commit to the greatest service one could give…
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:51 am
Alot of effort Russell and an effort to be civil, 10+ years of sustained constant trolling, numerous bans and your actually going to finally make an effort not to resort back to type? Things must really be dull in Tauranga eh.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:55 am
Dexter, are you going to present a solid fact based argument for your proposition that the drink driving limit should be lowered or just make nasty off topic attacks on other posters? Didn’t you just above complain to Mr. Farrar about this very thing? I wish you would clarify the purpose of your presence here.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:56 am
How much do you think that would be the case?
I aim at erring on the safe side, because there’s no way I want a conviction. If I go out for a meal I’d limit myself to 2-3 wines or equivalent and feel relaxed about that. If the level was dropped I’d think far more carefully about going out at all, just in case. I guess that would reduce the risk of road accidents if a lot more people were “encouraged” not to go out as much, the drunks would have less people to hit.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Russell, lets not even pretend you have a thin skin, and I’ve already stated what I believe should happen with infringements and demerits imposed to target the group in question and the facts and figures have already been presented as to the fatalities and accidents they cause. And given all you have done so far is rant and rave about suspicionless searches and how fascist it all is while branding anyone who disagrees with you a commie, your not exactly in any position to talk about keeping things on topic or making a contribution.
Now please stop derailing this discussion even further, I’m sure there are still a couple of boards you haven’t been banned from yet if you want to sling names and get into a personal argument.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Good Red, while you’re in your reasonable fact based persona…
What do you think is necessary? With a solid fact based argument for your proposition
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I note that the advice in the story was tendered in the form of an email from someone in Ministry of Transport (MoT) to the Minister
Hon Steven Joyce says the MoT favours decreasing the limit.
What is really interesting is whether the MoT did a cost benefit analysis (which is really what DPF has done here in a rudimentary form) The Herald story doesn’t tell us whether other advice from the MoT contains such work. One would hope it did: any new rule will create both benefits and costs.
If the MoT didn’t not do such work that raises a number of questions. First they may not be competent or it may not be possible to do it. Second they may not believe it’s their role as an “advocate” for rule making for road safety (advocacy trumps other considerations). This may be the role of someone else in Govt – say the Police or Corrections or Justice.
It’s a worry with 860million being spent on policy advice.
Just as interestingly is the recent case of the Ministry of Justice. Here key elements of Justice policy are by passing this particular Ministry (three strikes and Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill). It would appear that because the Ministry take a “line” on these proposals (or their Minister does, or they are under resourced and therefore can’t do the work or are they regarded as not being competent by the politicians) they are sidelined.
It’s a bit of a problem when Govt departments consider themselves as “advocates” for sectional interests groups or the regulation of sectional interests. Or a Minister essentially says that they feel so strongly about an issue that policy work that needs doing contrary to their position cannot be done by their Department. In the case of blood alcohol levels it begs the question as to whose advice Hon Steven Joyce is actually relying on given his own statement regarding the position of the MoT.
In terms of mess ups DPF should check out the Officials work on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill in Clause 16. Every individual donation (however small) from a corporate entity will require a statement about associated entities. Thus $20 per month from a doctors limited liability company practice account MUST be accompanied by this statement each time. Failure not to return such a donation within twenty days absent such a statement results can result criminal prosecution. The actual cost of administrative systems to handle could well exceed the value of the donation whether retained with statement or returned absent one. It’s nutty stuff. It is bureaucracy gone mad.
In this case the Ministry of Justice clearly sees itself as the advocate of regulating political competition. The implication behind this particular rule is that corporate donations are essentially a scheme of arrangement to avoid donor disclosure. That there is something illicit about a voluntary contribution from corporate entities.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Dexter / Tinakori / k.jones / (others)
The legal limit (be it 0.08, 0.05 or any other number greater than zero) is not intended to be some paternalistic, nanny state measure to tell you it is ok to drive. It is the limit at which you can be prosecuted simply for driving with a level of alcohol in your blood stream.
If you have 1, 2, x drinks and feel that you are not capable of safely driving then you SHOULD NOT drive, irrespective of whether or not you are under the legal limit.
The law does not demand that you hop into your car and drive if you are under 0.08mL/L. Try exercising some personal responsbility instead of demanding that the law live your life for you.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Its a lack of evidence steven “ridiculous” joyce appears to be holding on to. In a remarkable piroutte, he’s stating, somehow, that the 15 other developed countries with lower BACS than ours cant be logically extrapolated into a NZ context, despite analsyis from officials.
DPF, I would’ve thought your occupation precludes regulary running contrary to overwhelming public opinion, unless there was some trade off being made somwhere….
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:16 pm
“Now please stop derailing this discussion even further,”
I am sorry, but you are the one doing the derailing. Apart from one emotionally based and subjective attempt at argument, your contributions have demonstrated an unhealthy obsession with Redbaiter, so intense it suggests derangement. If you have a fact based argument for the support of your proposition then let’s hear it. Third time I have asked now and yet you continue to produce nothing other than personal attacks upon myself. Get over your strange obsession. Try not to make this about Redbaiter. Address the issue.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“Hon Steven Joyce says the MoT favours decreasing the limit.”
Joyce will do what the bureaucrats tell him to do. The worst kind of Minister. Apparently completely unaware of who his real employers are. With such an attitude he should be in Labour, not National.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:26 pm
So long as hair brained schemes such as this are being dreamed up, I will continue to advocate government has too many employees.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Redbaiter at 12:19 pm “Joyce will do what the bureaucrats tell him to do. The worst kind of Minister.”
If you have a fact based argument for the support of your proposition then let’s hear it.
Vote:On this issue it’s apparent that Joyce has not done what the bureaucrats favour, contrary to your assertion.
September 21st, 2010 at 12:33 pm
“What do you think is necessary?”
Its not rocket science. The current campaign is unsuccessful because its motive for existing is completely wrong. It exists to give Dexter and other such idiots something to talk about and discuss while NZ goes to hell in a hand basket with serious crime and welfare addiction. It exists to give the illusion to the public that big government has some worth. It exists to impress upon the average citizen that the government has enormous power. It does not exist to control drink driving.
Drink driving can be controlled by the simple expedient of attaching an extra level of punishment to any crime where the perpetrator fails a breath test conducted immediately after the event.
So the normal sentence is applied for what ever the offence, but if the offender has exceeded the allowable alcohol limit, he is jailed for five years. (for example, and conditional upon the level of the offence). This would get recidivist offenders off the streets and help by the severity of the penalty, reinforce the perception that drink driving is a bad thing.
They system we have today is just a sop to the socialist drongoes who think they know how to run a country. Big government freaks and fascists who have a short memory or are ignorant in regard to history. Government should be held on a very short chain by the people. Giving police the power to conduct suspicionless searches is a big mistake. Uneducated people, or those ignorant of history would not know this.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:34 pm
I haven’t read the comments on this post so this (my) point may have already been covered.
I regard that advice above as erroneous. There is no way of ever knowing whether a drunk driver caused an accident, let alone a death. That is why there is no general offence of drink driving causing death. It is usually manslaughter, or careless/dangerous driving causing death. The driver may be pissed out of their mind, but evidentially (and legally) it is virtually impossible to say their drunkenness caused (legally) the death of the other person.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Yes David, I can read thank-you but your posts are spinning so much lately that it is sometimes hard to make real sense of them.
In my view (and a lot of others) a lowering of the limit would have very little impact on sensible drivers – the main impact would be on drivers that it is intended to have an impact on.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:36 pm
“If you have 1, 2, x drinks and feel that you are not capable of safely driving then you SHOULD NOT drive, irrespective of whether or not you are under the legal limit.”
Trouble with that logic is; you’re asking someone who’s thought processes are already impaired to make a rational decision.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:37 pm
There needs to be a full analysis of the road safety issues of being 0.05 to 0.08. Is the impairment significant for an adult. The social effects of this change will be significant and compliance with the new law will be poor which negates the real effectiveness of the change.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:44 pm
“DPF, I would’ve thought your occupation precludes regulary running contrary to overwhelming public opinion, unless there was some trade off being made somwhere….”
Kaaa pow!
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:44 pm
“On this issue it’s apparent that Joyce has not done what the bureaucrats favour,”
That remains to be seen. My view is that in the end he will do it. He is weak and as far as I can see, has no political principles to help him make such judgements. He criticises Soviet Russia yet conducts himself in the manner of, and seeks the favour of, the Nomenklatura. I think he is exactly the kind of politician we do not need, in Labour or National. (Or though as I said, his “big government” approach makes him much more suitable for Labour. Especially when he acts so contrary to what he says in public)
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:47 pm
“Giving police the power to conduct suspicionless searches is a big mistake. Uneducated people, or those ignorant of history would not know this.
My recollection of history is that when I was young drink driving was widely accepted as normal by the public. Subsequent measures, including “suspicion-less searches” (breath testing), have successfully changed the bulk of society to look on drunk driving as unacceptable and dangerous. I’m certain their would be only a small minority of people that would support going back to the laxness that existed then.
How many countries do you know of that don’t have drink driving checkpoints as one of their tools, and have drink driving under control?
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“My view is that in the end he will do it. “
That isn’t a fact based assertion, it’s a subjective guess at what might happen in the future.
It’s interesting that you are so negative and pessimistic about a politician that is looked on more favourably than most by political pundits. Who of the existing MPs would you consider to be acceptable?
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:53 pm
I think that it’s time for a disclosure of interests from DPF:
1. What shares do you (or your companies/trusts) hold in the alcohol/hospitality industry?
2. What freebies have you (or your companies/trusts) received from the alcohol/hospitality industry in the last couple of years?
3. What clients does Curia have that are working in the alcohol/hospitality industry?
I’m sure he’ll tell me to mind my own business, but it’s worth asking.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 12:53 pm
“That isn’t a fact based assertion, it’s a subjective guess at what might happen in the future.”
A somewhat superfluous declaration given that the substance is prefaced with the phrase “My view is”.
You’re lazy Pete George. You should advance propositions and not attempt interrogations underpinned by your atrocious comprehension skills.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 1:02 pm
For instance you should clearly express your belief that there are no countries or other people or groups that reject traffic stops or object to suspicionless searches, and then I will have the satisfaction of proving you wrong. That of course is why you don’t do it and why you so arrogantly demand answers to your presumptuous and often falsely premised questions, because you lack the courage and the knowledge and the mentality to adopt any kind of defined position.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Red, you were saying how others should base their assertions with facts, then avoid doing the same. Lazy. Or you can’t. And then express hurt when sometimes it’s suggested you are a hypocrite.
And now at 1.02 you get super lazy, instead of backing your assertions with facts you claim it’s up to others to prove you wrong. One of your old tricks when trying to wheedle your way out of an embarrassment. And back to the normal attack attach attack, because you have no defense to speak of.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 1:10 pm
“And then express hurt when sometimes it’s suggested you are a hypocrite.”
As usual this is a completely false allegation that you make only as a result of your atrociously incompetent comprehension skills. The subject of what the Minister may do in the future cannot be supported by facts, it is always going to be predictive. To asks for supporting facts in such a matter is complete idiocy. Again, it is why I prefaced the substance with “it is my view”. You’re just a slow witted waste of time and bandwidth, so desperate to apply your badge of “hypocrisy”, the Progressive’s greatest shame, it drives you to the point of irrationality and insanity. Go away. You’re not here to discuss the issue but only (like Dexter), to attack Redbaiter with false allegations and smears.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 1:19 pm
“MikeG:
I think that it’s time for a disclosure of interests from DPF:
1. What shares do you (or your companies/trusts) hold in the alcohol/hospitality industry?
2. What freebies have you (or your companies/trusts) received from the alcohol/hospitality industry in the last couple of years?
3. What clients does Curia have that are working in the alcohol/hospitality industry?
I’m sure he’ll tell me to mind my own business, but it’s worth asking.”
This is interesting in three ways. First dropping the blood alcohol level isn’t about safety which necessarily involves trade offs between the costs of rule making and the safety benefits. It’s actually about the crusade against alcohol.
Second is MikeG in receipt of taxpayer money like almost all the organised voices campaigning to make alcohol solely a public health issue and its policy treatment like tobacco. Most of these groups are entities on the taxpayers tit from the Ministry of Health. Often they are also charitable entities. Now they are engaged in political campaigning which is inconsistent with their charitable status.
Third, these questions assumes that DPF can be brought by a drink or two or some work. Apart from his notorious love of imbibing what is evident from this post is his interest in stats. At any rate no pollster is worth their salt if they simply weathervained for a client.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Red: I asked for supporting facts when you said: “Joyce will do what the bureaucrats tell him to do. The worst kind of Minister. ” You didn’t preface the substance with “it is my view”.
You also said “Especially when he acts so contrary to what he says in public” – no facts.
And you also said: “If you have a fact based argument for the support of your proposition then let’s hear it. Third time I have asked now and yet you continue to produce nothing other than personal attacks upon myself.”
And also “you so arrogantly demand answers to your presumptuous and often falsely premised questions”.
It’s obvious you are a hypocrite. Supported by facts. Amusingly.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 1:31 pm
To put your mind at rest Chris, I am not, never have been, and never intend to be a member of any organised group/campaign against alcohol. I am not in receipt of taxpayer money.
For you to write off the lowering of the limit as a crusade against alcohol is somewhat simplistic at best.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 1:43 pm
“It’s obvious you are a hypocrite.”
If you so badly desire it to be so, then so shall it be. I’ve got no more time to waste on your self serving pedantry, your mincing determination to force circular logic into a square hole, and your overall insane obsession with Redbaiter. You’re clearly another who is completely off your rocker.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Curious… Was this level of diligence done before the “Boy Racer” laws were introduced? (making it a crime to use a given road “too often” – too often, that is, in someone’s opinion. And only if you look like a bit of a scrote.) What about before Judith Collins started talking about crushing boy racer cars?
But oh, how the Nats look after their own, (“their own” being middle-aged money-making folk, who drink when they eat out and are accustomed to driving home afterwards) whenever a law change might actually affect their own.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Maybe they’re learning RM, or maybe different MPs have different standards.
Some “boy” racers are a risk, maybe something needs to be done about them, but I was dubious about that legislation. And I though the crushing comment was over the top and stupid (I think Collins may have learnt from that).
Sure I’m self interested when it comes to drink driving, being the male in a partnership with supposedly higher tolerance I get to take the risk when we go out, but I don’t think I will ever be a drink driving risk, I haven’t been for a long time.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 1:57 pm
and your overall insane obsession with Redbaiter.
Referring to yourself in the third person is so scientologist.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 2:08 pm
MikeG
Then your posts begs the question as to why you imply DPF has an ulterior motive for posting on this issue. Again nasty leftwing stuff. Playing the person not the ball. Its irrational.
Focus on the issue. All rule making has both costs and benefits. What are the safety benefits from a rule that substantially lowers the blood alcohol. As DPF says one could have a rule that says no blood alcohol and all cars must travel at the speed of walking (with a man with a flag walking in front) However that would have substantial costs in enforcement with probably limited overall improvements in safety. The opportunity cost of enforcing such a rule would mean less spent health treatment less education spend etc. The criminal justice system would be clogged up and likewise the jails. Or do enforcement costs come cost free from the money tree. New Zealand would be poorer because personal mobility was inefficient.
Remember life is risky. All assessments of risk require tradeoffs. Stick to that rather than implying someone is brought by the booze barons.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Lowering the limit to 50 is a good idea. Any limit is arbitrary, and there’s no particular logic in setting a particular limit. However, the number of deaths and injuries which would be avoided with a lower limit make it worth doing. If you drink and drive you necessarily put others at risk, it’s as simple as that. A limit of 80 sends a message that it’s OK to drink and drive. Lowering it to 50 essentially says that one or two drinks is the absolute limit.
I would also lift the purchase age of alcohol back to 20, on and off licence.
Anyone who has been touched by a drink driving accident will understand this better than an army of liberal theorists.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Deleted.
Don’t need to respond to any more of the Redbaiter obsessives clogging this thread with off topic shit.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I believe the Goverment looked at 300 Overseas Reports b4 they came to their decision, they are going to leave it for another 2 years and get a more localised study done, ie to intensively study “The Drinking and Driving Habits of the Kiwi in the Contemporary Society”, should be interesting reading.
I am a convicted drink driver however my opinion is now i have matured a little bit is we should have a lower limit or a zero limit like Japan, then there are no grey areas. However if we had a proper Public Transport system maybe people would be more inclined to use it instead of loading the gun and jumping behind the wheel.
However in NZ if you do get caught or kill someone it’s not a big deal so you’ll probably get away with it, or a worst case senario may be 2-3 years in jail for manslaughter.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Getting caught, killing someone and spending any time in jail are big deals for me, and I suspect for most people. Even dinging my car is a big enough deal for me, it’s a hassle, it can be costly, and it would be bloody embarrassing.
It is the problem recidivists that don’t seem to give a stuff, or they are too consumed by alcoholism to act sanely and safely.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 2:23 pm
“What are the safety benefits from a rule that substantially lowers the blood alcohol” – simple – less deaths. What more do you want? If you had read my earliers comments on this thread you would have seen that was the point I was trying to make, but Farrar (and Joyce) continue to argue against existing research etc.
It was Farrar that once said that ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’, so what are you (on behalf of Farrar) afraid of?
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 2:23 pm
It could equally be said that there is no real need for different Australian states to hold crack-downs on alcohol-fuelled violence and drink driving on the same day. The reason why it’s organised across all Australian jurisdictions and New Zealand is because police ministers and commissioners councils are organised on an Australasian basis. Presumably, the idea was raised by one police force at one of these meetings and all decided they should do it on the same day so they’d get more media coverage. About a month ago they did the same thing with anti-terrorism exercises.
Other things are organised across both countries due to similar trans-Tasman organisational structures, National Rail Safety Week is an example.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Chris D: “Playing the person not the ball. Its irrational.” And you accused me of being in the pay of some tax payer-funded lobby group!!!!
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 4:24 pm
bhudson says:
And that’s why I’m opposed to breath testing as a tol to criminalise a percentage of the population based on a completely arbitrary measure (as is the speed limit).
Watch a few episodes (if you get them in NZ) of “RBT” – a series screening in Australia at present. Some people who fail the test at just above the 0.05 margin imposed in Australia were clearly incapable before they hit that point, judging by their behaviour (indeed, some strike me as being highly dangerous stone cold sober given their apparent IQ).
Others are coherent, co-ordinated and genuinely shocked that they’ve failed the test as they clearly don’t fee intoxicated and nor do they act it.
“Sobriety tests” are the answer. They needn’t be as crude as the “stand on one leg and touch your nose” versions used in the US – a hand-held reaction time tester could be the first filter, administered through the car window as quickly as a breath test.
That way you decide whether you’re fit to drive. You take the responsibility, not a machine. And you pay the price if you’re wrong.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:32 am
MikeG:
Oh dear you are tooooooo thick to be in anyone’s pay. You are the one attacking DPF’s honesty. You don’t seem to be aware that what I did to you was to merely do what you were doing to someone else. And being anonmous you bravely declare you are not in the pay of the taxpayer. Actually I am not interested even if you are.
Yes. What Safety gainst by dropping the limit and at what cost is the issue.
Or do you not accept that such a rule dropping the allowable blood alcohol level will have costs in terms of enforcement. You may be happy about bearing those costs but they are there. Do you not accept there is a tradeoff or balancing between costs and safety gains? That is the point of DPF’s post whether or not he is the pay of booze barons.
Yes. There would be hugely reduced risks of one driver killing another by reducing allowable car speed to walking pace and having a zero blood alcohol limit – do you not accept there would be huge costs accociated with this? Does asking this type of question necessarily mean that this person is corrupt?
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 8:31 am
Yes, Rex, I agree completely.
To say that “From 2006 to 2008, 21 drivers involved in fatal accidents were found to have a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.” is a completely spurious propaganda statistic aimed at ultimately lowering the legal limit to nil on idealogical grounds. You might as well say that 97% of these drivers had used tootpaste in the past 12 hours for all the relevace it has…. because there is no way of telling whether this small amount of alcohol had ANY effect on their driving ability or not.
How many accidents are there every year where alcohol is not in the equation? I bet it is the vast majority. If somebody switches lanes without warning in front of you at 100kph and causes a three-car pileup when they are completely sober, are we then going to blame coffee for their actions rather than their bloody stupid behaviour?
Vote: