Misleading

October 31st, 2010 at 10:08 am by David Farrar

In the story the HOS report:

The horror smash that injured two picnickers yesterday horrified local MP Darren Hughes.

It came just months after he called on Parliament to decrease the legal blood alcohol limit.

Hughes’ bill mirrors the change the calls for in its Two Drinks Max campaign, to lower the limit from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg.

“There is a problem in that people lose their judgment when they’ve had too much alcohol,” he said.

“It’s no surprise they keep on drinking – because they can’t judge how much they’ve had.”

Hughes said changing attitudes to ensure people had no more than two standard drinks before driving would make a difference.

So presumably the driver who smashed into the picnickers had a BAC between 50 and 80 mg per 100 ml?

Nope – not even close. A separate story reveals:

A 37-year-old man Lower Hutt man tested three times over the legal drink-drive limit.

So that is around five times greater that what the HoS is demanding. I think it is utterly misleading to use this as an example in their campaign to change the law.

This is like calling for the age limit for driving to be increased from 16 to 18 because an 11 year old was caught driving and injured someone.

Tags: ,

51 Responses to “Misleading”

  1. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    I haven’t bought the Herald for years, “The Truth” has more credibility. At least it doesn’t pretend to be serious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    Not misleading – dishonest!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (14,031 comments) says:

    The ginga, wearing his best socialist suit; is always for ducking personaly responsibility and for legislating every and any thing that moves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. gander (91 comments) says:

    Slightly OT but relevant, this article appears in Stuff this morning:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4291036/Govt-loans-for-banned-drivers-nonsense

    The relevant part is this:

    ‘”Inevitably, I find my clients are very pleased to be given a second chance to drive and are relieved when the judge grants them a licence because it means they can go back to work, hold their head up high and earn an income.”‘ (Melanie Coxon, head of law firm 0800 ok2drive, who advocate for drivers disqualified because of drink-driving and accrual of demerit points)

    ‘The director of Otago University’s national addiction centre, Professor Doug Sellman, agreed, saying “the most important thing for drink-driving is treatment” and having people in work can be “therapeutic”.’

    The good professor is perhaps being just a wee bit inconsistent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. pdm (844 comments) says:

    Lowering the blood alchol limit will not stop recivist drink drivers.

    Jail and impounding and selling cars irrespective of ownership might.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    This campaign by the Herald demonstrates they do not have a clue regarding the traditions that underpin the profession of journalism. They are not journalists, they are merely brainwashed socialist apparatchiks producing state approved propaganda and lies. Contemptible.

    Stop buying their paper and stop advertising in it. Who needs these losers? Send them broke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Hughes’ bill mirrors the change the Herald on Sunday calls for in its Two Drinks Max campaign, to lower the limit from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg.

    From memory Hughes bill proposed dropping the limit to 60mg. I am not in favour of that without evidence but this just goes to show the dishonesty of the wowser lobby. It could mean the difference between someone sharing a bottle of wine over a meal losing their licence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. createcoms (16 comments) says:

    I like the idea of recidivist drivers having a special coloured license plate on their registered cars. It’s a form of punishment as it would create a social stigma and also every passing cop is likely to breathalyse them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Do those on the Left even know how to say anything WITHOUT lying and misrepresenting the truth?!

    Three times the limit … THREE TIMES THE LIMIT – did you miss that salient point, Darren?
    Why do we waste our tax dollar on these charlatans?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. MT_Tinman (3,251 comments) says:

    DPF This is like calling for the age limit for driving to be increased from 16 to 18 because an 11 year old was caught driving and injured someone.

    This is exactly the argument that is being used for that purpose and was used for the anti-smoking and anti-smacking campaigns by exactly the same group of thought-control wankers.

    Why the surprise?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. John Gibson (295 comments) says:

    Smoking cigarettes does kill people. If they were invented today they would never be approved for sale.

    As for alcohol: as a non-drinker why should your desire to drink alcohol impinge on my right to road safety. If someoone is happy to spend money on alcohol they can spend money on a taxi or organize a sober driver. Drop the limit to zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    DPF … This posts makes you as bad as Hughes, he’s trying to score political points and you have to “have evidence”.. before …

    The fact is a woman who was completely innocent was killed…everyone forgets about the victim when on a hobby horse

    What you don’t realise is that the selfish idiot who killed this woman may have still crashed no matter what his breath/blood level as.

    It fucks me off no end when even on Kiwiblog, we have people who think its is a “right” to be able to drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel.

    Driving full stop is serious shit and then you throw in our poor roading and alcohol.

    I have read all the arguments about how sensible Kiwiblog readers are and its founder is but the simple fact is the breath/ blood legislation is probably the only legislation in New Zealand that I believe the lowest common denominator should be targeted – and if that means you can only have two glasses of wine with dinner rather than 4, tough luck.

    As for crushing cars etc it wont change a thing, the people to drive 3 times over the limit don’t give a flying fuck about ayone or anything so legislation written by committee men in Welington will have zero effect.

    The only way to prove any point is to start again.

    A very low or no reading at all and then the facts will speak for themselves. If after two years our road toll were to drop 50 -75%, well you have your answer, if on the other hand nothing changed the staus quo could remain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. John Gibson (295 comments) says:

    “Do those on the Left even know how to say anything WITHOUT lying and misrepresenting the truth?”

    Kris K – can you stop spitting on us when you rant ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    “It’s no surprise they keep on drinking – because they can’t judge how much they’ve had.”

    Yes, Darren – clearly, Mr Munter just couldn’t tell that he was shitfaced drunk because the B/A limit is 80 rather than 50. All we have to do is rectify that discrepancy, and next time Munter will realise that drunk driving is bad and won’t do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. vendetta (60 comments) says:

    Redbaiter has a point …

    A little off-topic perhaps, but I found this push by the Herald particularly interesting as it’s the first time I’ve ever noticed a leading news provider openly embarking on a ‘campaign’ to get a law changed, even going so far as to say something along the lines of “we need to do this becuse the Government won’t”.

    It is not, and should not be, the role of the media to change public opinion or use their profile and platform to enact social change. Reporting the news, in an unbiased manner, is the sole purpose otherwise it opens the door for all sorts of open campaigning for all manner of causes,

    This is a rather dangerous slippery slope to go down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Julian (178 comments) says:

    I agree that the drink-driving limit should be based on scientific evidence.

    Isn’t it somewhat misleading to compare a lowering of the drink-drive limit to a lowering of the speed limit though? What I mean by this is that if the speed limit is lowered to, say, 30 kmh, it will take me three times as long to get from A to B (i.e. is a major inconvenience), whereas if the drink-drive limit is lowered I am forced to drink two glasses of wine with dinner rather than four. In other words, it doesn’t really inconvenience me at all. From a cost-benefit point of view, the cost is relatively (extremely?) low, whereas the benefit – a change in attitudes and raised awareness at worst, lives saved at best, is quite high.

    That said, totally agree that it will do nothing to stop recidivist drunk-drivers. They’re not paying attention to any limit at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Vendetta-

    I thinks its great that a newspaper will push a barrow – I just wish they would come and say, we are a left leaning paper generally or a right leaning paper — i.e The Guardian V The Telegraph.

    Unfortunately in NZ we don’t have the population to have more than three newspapers ,who then don’t even put news in but pad themselves with ‘Opinion pieces.

    To get any sort of ground swell here in NZ we need things to start somewhere, why not the papers,? even if you don;’t agree with what is being proposed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tvb (4,494 comments) says:

    I can see an advantage in the “two drinks” campaign in that a person KNOWS that after 2 drinks they are over the limit. Now two drinks means they are still sober and can easily stop. At 4 drinks + they are on the slope of intoxication and cannot stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. John Gibson (295 comments) says:

    Prostitution should be criminalised again: it is a vile industry that poisons morals and exploits men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. James (1,338 comments) says:

    If its between consenting adults just what is immoral about protitution? Is it the sex or the free enterprise that bothers you….?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    “There is a problem in that people lose their judgment when they’ve had too much alcohol,” he said.

    Um, counting isn’t hard when you’re drinking, I don’t think that’s the problem at all. The problem is with people who don’t agree that they’re not safe to drive after more than a few. Like Alison Mary Downer who in the same area killed Frank van Kampen while he was cycling home. Another recidivist offender who fiddling with limits would have had no effect on. It’s like the “toying with thresholds” in relation to speeding, that did wonders for the road toll this Queens Birthday weekend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    It never ceases to amaze me that people think that there is some justification for not lowering the drink limit from 80 to 50. Aparently this was promotedbto cabinet by Joyce and NZTA. Personally I think it is weak. Thebtulebsgouldbsttebifbyou drink do not drive. No decisions then on whether I have had enough or am over the limit.

    If it is 50 back it up with severe penalties. Not some simple slap on the wrist. And no if i drink I don’t drive. It is a straight forward choice made 20years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Manolo (14,031 comments) says:

    “Prostitution should be criminalised again: it is a vile industry…”

    Does the notion of “consenting adults” mean anything to you? Obviously not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mawm (211 comments) says:

    The Herald campaign is dishonest and should be exposed as such.

    Very few fatal accidents occur when the drivers blood alcohol (and there are no other drugs in the blood) is less than .08g/L and even then there is no indication that alcohol was the cause. Recidivist and binge drinkers who are way over the current legal limit are the problem and I don’t believe that they would change their behaviour by reducing the current limit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. John Gibson (295 comments) says:

    Another reason some people should never drink: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10684051

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. John Gibson (295 comments) says:

    “Does the notion of “consenting adults” mean anything to you? Obviously not.” – you have a personal interest in this ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    “This is like calling the age limit for driving to be increased from 16 to 18 because a 11 was caught driving and injured someone”. Go easy David you do realise that some on the lunatic left will be reading and the logic involved here will give them serious headaches. Darren the dropkick and the Herald are fascists’ plan and simple, there is no limit that pleases these types. If it wasn’t alcohol it would be some other noble cause where the many must obey the laws made by the few. This drink driving is an issue that effects more rural residents then those in town. If I had to get a taxi to the pub I would have no money left by the time I got there. Many rural villages are become ghost towns because of drink driving laws and the ferment zeal of townie policemen. I guess this will please the likes of the many that post here but this is greatly effecting the fabric of rural society. The past year we had some 17 suicides by people living in the country in our province. I knew 2 personally, these people would come to pub but had given up. I guess pressure built up at home and with no one to talk to took their own lives. I think our politicians need to think long and hard about laws that have a greater affect on a small minority. Those living in the city can not understand the pressures some are living under in the country, laws proposed like the change in the driving alcohol level just add to these pressures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Bob

    While aware you knew two of the suicides, and I’m not having crack about that but to equate suicides with not being able to go to the pub is drawing a large bow. Who says you have to drink till you are over the limit?

    I live in a very rural location, people still go to the pub, not in numbers like they used but we used to only have one radio station and one TV channel. Times change ,there alot more of the world comes to us now

    But I do know, that no one has been killed driving home from the pub in recent years where 20 years ago you’d get one every couple of years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. John Gibson (295 comments) says:

    bob – alcohol is no cure for mental illness – it is a cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Manolo (14,031 comments) says:

    “Does the notion of “consenting adults” mean anything to you? Obviously not.” – you have a personal interest in this?”

    No, I do not.

    Your controlist mind irks me. Who are you to tell adults what to do with ther sex lives? If they want to visit prosittutes or not, is their choice not yours.

    We are not Saudi Arabia, Iran, or other crazy Islamofacist republic. Live and let live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    About 5 t0 10 years ago the local pubs would be full on the weekends and would have numerous customers during the week. Many are now struggling to survive and yes it’s not only because of the drink driving laws. I have lived in this area all my life a (52 years) and a suicide was never heard of or was extremely rare. It’s now becoming the norm. I’m not saying that going to the pub everyday is the answer but many more people would get together and you would hear of people having problems or struggling. Usually the community would get together to support those with problems, this is now rare as many no longer know whats happening within the district. The same thing happened when the fucking socialist arseholes such down country schools. The heart is being ripped out of rural communities and the support is no longer there for those who need it. I get tied of townie fucking politicians that enact and enforce policies that seem find for those in the city but are turn the country into a wasteland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. calendar girl (1,262 comments) says:

    PaulEB 11.05am:

    When someone tries to strengthen a dogmatic view with a phrase like “.. but the simple fact is .. “, any reader knows that the author’s argument is struggling to find traction. But in your case the reader finds that the phrase is followed by a personal viewpoint, not a “fact” at all – simple or otherwise – just your own belief!

    You and the crusading Herald have much in common.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. vendetta (60 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay

    So newspapers should be nothing more than a vehicle for media owners to push their particular agendas?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. gravedodger (1,568 comments) says:

    Sideshow bob is onto a significant change in social factors that well intentioned city dwellers have no cognisance of as they legislate for the masses.
    Isolation and the coping mechanisms of social gathering are of no consequence to a city dweller who is seeking to escape the pressures of close contact with fellow workers and others in the social contact of busy city life, whereas the more rural based dweller will at days end be in a deficit in the social contact area of life and may well choose to gather for some time of desired social contact. Be it the trading store, pub, weekly stock sale or whatever, the denial of that opportunity as the legislation that modifies the behaviour of the city dweller but causes a desert of social contact to develop in rural areas leads to readily measured outcomes such as the taking of ones life or other coping problems.
    This has no relevance to the people who escape to their splendid isolation of the semi rural setting of the 5/10 acre block as they have the best of both worlds.
    As one who has donated time to telephone counselling and working in ambulance in a rural setting I have known many examples of degradation of the coping mechanisms that have followed from the demise of the village gathering. Talk of lowering the alcohol levels as a target missing response to a problem that is caused in nearly all cases by drivers many times in excess of the existing limits as alledged in the tragic death of the lady stopped for a cuppa beside a road, will just remove more and more of the necessary social contact options,yes often pub based, for the more isolated communities.
    I recall the benefits of social contact in times of economic and weather related stress in my farming career where the acknowledgment that others had the same problems as you was so empowering as the cycle of hopelessness descended and threatened rational response. Remove the pub and you will in many cases leave only the church which has in all probability been sold off and converted into a shop or a home.
    I see absolutely no evidence that drivers with between .05 and .08 are of any significance in road safety and if the wousers are to have any CREDIBILITY then go for zero and stop using the mindless blather of the ginga’s rantings as what they would consider a needed change.
    The problems are those who are many times in excess and enforcement of the law with them should be the target.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Calander Girl

    Below is what I wrote:
    The fact is a woman who was completely innocent was killed…everyone forgets about the victim when on a hobby horse.

    fact: an innocent woman having a coffee was killed by a selfish prick,- that sentence is not lacking traction.

    After that sentence I wrote an opinion which is the point of Kiwi Blog – to garner disparate opinions and views.

    Its not a crusade but from having attended several hundred violent deaths in a previous life, I found I hate waste.

    And Bob and GD
    I know what you are saying about the rural scene, but lets be honest, nothing is stopping anyone going to the pub after a sale and having a couple of pints, you still will not be over the limit. the public has been sold a pup here for years that two or three beers will put you over the limit.

    400 breath / 80 blood is reached after drinking a lot of piss. Most sensible drinkers here, and I’m being generous that you are sensible ,would never contemplate drinking the quantity required to exceed the limit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Does the notion of “consenting adults” mean anything to you? Obviously not.” – you have a personal interest in this.?

    I do…its called protecting my rights and freedoms by protecting those same rights for everyone else.Protitution is a vice…not a crime so is no business of anyone else not wanting it to be.It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg…..so John (how ironic)….again,which part bothers you?…the sex or the free enterprise?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Vendetta

    Please show me a completely non- partisan media out let anywhere in the world.

    Listern to BBC Radio 4 now with the new UK Govt and compare it to 2 years ago.

    Read the Guardian, you’ll be sick but do , it has its agenda as does the Telegraph.

    It is very very difficult to get raw news,( blogs give me a multitude of sources from which you can at least get some balance) most of what is put out as printed news is re-hashed press releases and the rest opinion pieces.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. calendar girl (1,262 comments) says:

    PaulEB @ 6.49:

    No, don’t distort what I said. This is what you wrote earlier that I was commenting on: ” .. but the simple fact is the breath/ blood legislation is probably the only legislation in New Zealand that I believe the lowest common denominator should be targeted – and if that means you can only have two glasses of wine with dinner rather than 4, tough luck.”

    There is no “simple fact”, only your personal opinion – which of course you are entitled to express, and have exposed to those of differing views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Calander Girl

    Without getting totally into semantics, …….it is a simple fact that this legislation is only one that I believe etc etc, not distorting anything.

    It is a fact, the rider in the sentence is.. I believe….

    I believe it so its a fact, not scientific granted ,but fact is a word banded very loosely in this particular forum

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. vendetta (60 comments) says:

    Just because publications display a slight bias (it’s not a perfect world, obviously, and objectivity is pretty hard when we all have our opinions) doesn’t mean openly stating your agenda (in the first few pages of the paper, no less) isn’t a dodgy state of affairs.

    Yes, I’ve read the Guardian – but tey do, at least, tend to keep the agenda-related stuff to the opinions section, and do present opposing arguments (even if only once in a blue moon, and even if they are instantly ripped apart by the commenters).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    The issue of what the limit should be for alcohol in the bloodstream when driving is really no different from that of speed. Obviously, the safest speed limit is zero – ban all cars, and there will never be another car accident again. Why don’t we do this? Because we use a cost-benefit analysis, and it is clear the use of cars have benefits that far outweigh the costs.

    And so it should be with alcohol limits. Cost-benefit analysis. The “safest” level is zero. But is that the whole story?

    Costs of allowing some level of drink-driving: increased chance of crashes (how much?), drinkers can misjudge their intoxication level (whereas if it is zero, everyone will know that drinking anything will put them over)

    Benefits of allowing some level of drinking-driving: economic benefits (sales etc), social benefit (enjoyment of oneself, convenience)

    Any others? What else do we need to know? I’m sick of this being just another bullshit partisan invective-fest.

    All I know, if the limit went to zero, I’d be going out a fuck load less, because there is no way I can afford to traipse around Auckland in a taxi every time I decide to let a bottle of beer touch my lips.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Vendetta

    But whats dodgy?

    Papers are privately owned.

    If anything we should have wonderfully non partisan news from TV1 then shouldn’t we, because its government owned? Bollocks we do.

    Chris Fafooi(sic) was “reporting” on political matters for TV when he had already had the nod for Mana.

    There is no, repeat no, impartial media anywhere, ever, never has been never will be.

    Its up to us to have the intelligence to sort through the bullshit and know when we are getting completly bent over.

    Footys starting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Disgraceful politics using a tragedy to draw a tenuous link for self aggrandisement and political purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. CharlieBrown (1,027 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay

    “It fucks me off no end when even on Kiwiblog, we have people who think its is a “right” to be able to drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel.”

    Does it fuck you off when anyone gets in a car made prior to 2000 as these are far more dangerous than cars made today and those drivers are putting the rest of us at risk?

    Does it fuck you off when people drive 100km when they could drive 80km and reduce the risk to the rest of us?

    It fucks me off when loud mouth morons speak unfounded verbal diahrea (in your case written arse weeze). Life is full of bloody risk – and there are soooo many ways to reduce this but then we would only be existing… not living. So do us all a favour, wrap yourself in bubble wrap and shut the hell up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Charlie

    If you are going to carry on like a prawn at least have the decency to use your spell check

    Anyway if there are ……..so many ways to reduce this……..lets here them, you don’t have to wrap yourself up but lets hear some ideas rather than wank on.

    Also I think you’ll find I havn’t been loud mouthed, my opinions are mine, backed up by dealing a lot with the results of violence.

    Life would be wonderful if we didn’t have to have any legislation but we can’t because there is too much ignorance and selfishness out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. CharlieBrown (1,027 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay – “Anyway if there are ……..so many ways to reduce this……..lets here them, you don’t have to wrap yourself up but lets hear some ideas rather than wank on.”

    Don’t drive, drive 1km, drive 2km, drive 3km… – each km faster means more risk.

    “Life would be wonderful if we didn’t have to have any legislation but we can’t because there is too much ignorance and selfishness out there.”

    Thats the type of thinking some of the most evil men in history has used. Selfishness is a human condition that cannot be leglislated against. And the herald relies on ignorance, especially in this case, that is why they are campaigning with half truths and lies because alot of people are ignorant of the full truth.

    I would say the arrogance of leglislators who think they know best is far worse than the ignorance and selfishness of the general population.

    The fact is, people in the 3-4 drink limit are not the problem – it is people who are well over the current limit that are. And making a law easier to break doesn’t stop people that currently break it from doing so (something the current and the last governments don’t seem to realise). The way around this is tougher, and more restrictive sentences. Why not ban drink drivers from alcohol and make them have to take routine eg, weekly, or even daily, blood tests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    CharlieBrown, you are spot on this issue should logically rather than emotionally. I have no doubt that if the open road limit reduced 10 k or even 5 k/hr this would reduce the road toll. This would not drastically affect a person’s lifestyle like say a 20 k cut would. If it could be shown that this would reduce the road toll more than reducing the alcohol limt to 50 mg I wonder if Pauleastbay and others in favour of dropping the limit would support reducing the speed limit.

    I drink and drive regularly. However in the last 20 years I have not had an accident or traffic ticket. I normally follow at a safe distance. If someone cuts in on the motorway I do not get upset I just slow a little to allow a safe distance again.

    I run a couple of times a week and have a meal out afterwards with one or two glasses of wine. The wine served in most bars is more than the so called standard drinks promoted by the wowsers at the Herald. I also enjoy going out to a nice BYO restaurant with a lady. I take along a bottle of wine. I would possibly have 3 of the 5 normal glasses in the bottle.

    I do not see why my lifestyle should have to change without honest evidence unlike the so called evidence in the Herald to show that I am more likely to have an accident than other traffic offenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. vendetta (60 comments) says:

    Just because the world isn’t perfect (ie, we don’t have impartial media outlets) doesn’t mean this should be accepted as the norm because “that’s what happens anyway”. We don’t legalise things (or shouldn’t, at least) just because ‘people do it anyway’. Neither should blatant campaigning by what is supposed to be a leading provider of NEWS be encouraged.

    An unrealistic ideal, perhaps: but the media should report the news as impartially as possible, not take on the role of lobby group. And certainly not serve as vehicles for their owners’ personal opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. speters (108 comments) says:

    Think you miss the point of Hughes’ comments DPF – if you read what he says, he doesn’t imply at all that the driver was within that range. What he says is that people lose their judgment when they drink, and hence keep on drinking.

    Presumably his thought process is that people hit the 80mg/100ml limit, by which time their judgment is impaired enough that they carry on without a care. Therefore by lowering the limit, people would hit the 50mg/100ml limit and still be coherent enough to stop there.

    I’m not exactly sure how sound the ginga’s reasoning is, but you do yourself a disservice and appear a little hypocritical by putting your own spin on the story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    speters, using Hughes’ logic there are some people who get sexually aroused at the sight of a female who is scantily clad and cannot control themselves. Should we copy the Muslims and have minimum dress code for women?

    In both cases it comes down to individual responsibility. I would be surprised is someone who has had 3 drinks and could not stop has not done so before. If they have done so before and driven then it is their responsibility not to drink if they know they have to drive home.

    These control freaks of the left use this faulty logic all the time. That was one of the arguments they used with the anti-smacking legislation. It sure reduced child fatalities from beatings NOT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. speters (108 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird –

    As I said, I’m not sure how sound the ginga’s reasoning is – in fact, I’m inclined to think its fundamentally flawed. In my opinion, the current limit is fine. I’ve used a home breathalyser and can state categorically that at the point my alcohol level hits 80mg/100ml, my judgment is certainly not impaired to the point that I couldn’t judge how much I was drinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote