The HoS Drink Driving Campaign
October 23rd, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarI received this message on Facebook:
This weekend the Herald on Sunday are launching a major campaign to persuade the Government to lower the drink driving limit from 0.08mg to 0.05mg (of alcohol per 100 ml of blood), the same as Australia, Japan and most of Europe.
Drink driving has devastated the lives of many Kiwis at the hands of drink drivers and they are looking for Kiwis to sign up to a pledge of “two drinks max”.
The aim is to gather thousands of signatures to add weight to their message to Government that the blood/alcohol limit needs to be lowered before more lives are wrecked.
The Herald on Sunday have asked to interview people who are passionate about the cause. If you are interested, please drop me a note via Facebook with your contact details that I may pass onto reporter xxxxxx xxxxxxxx or contact her directly as follows:
I was somewhat amused to also get a call from an HoS staffer today asking if I would join the list of prominent NZers who are endorsing their campaign. I remarked that they must not have read my blog posts on the issue, because in fact I have been somewhat vocal about the lack of evidence for there to be a change.
I am not adamantly against a change. If the research stacks up, then a change from 0.08 to 0.05 might well be justifiable. But we are lacking even the most basic data. The Government has said it is changing the law so this data can be collected, and that is a good thing – then a decision can be made on evidence, not emotion.
The two pieces of data I want are:
- How many deaths and injuries are caused by drivers who currently legally drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08
- How many people drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08
With that data we can work out the costs and benefits of a law change – how many NZers currently drive safely at 0.05 to 0.08 and how many cause accidents at that level.
The only data we have at the moment is the stats on blood alcohol level amongst deceased drivers. They show over the last five years that 18 deceased drivers had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.
But that number is misleading as it includes those aged under 20, for whom it is already illegal to drive with a BAC over 0.03. That knocks it down to 12. That is 12 out of 1,168 deceased drivers or 1% of the total.
Now a lot of research has shown that it is drivers below the age of 25 who cause the most crashes. We used to have different testing requirements for below and over 25 year olds. I would be pretty comfortable with having the current limits for under 20s extend to under 25s.
So I then ask how many drivers aged over 25 were killed with a BAC of 0.05 to 0.08? Just seven? Around 1.4 drivers a year.
Now if we get better data, then I could be persuaded of the desirability of change. What we need is for blood alcohol samples to be collected from all drivers involved in a fatal accident, and also record how many others died in those crashes. Ideally we would also differentiate those cases where a driver may be over 0.05 but is not at fault – ie they get rammed side on by another driver.
We should constantly look at ways to reduce the road toll, but they should be based on good research which includes looking at what inconvenience or damage is done to current law abiding drivers. Unless you take a balanced approach, then you end up with an end point where say no car is physically able to go at over 30 km/hr. This would reduce the road toll by around 95% – but would greatly reduce the benefits most NZers get from motor vehicles.
October 23rd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
So many things wrong with this country and these moron so called “journalists” latch on to an issue like this as important. Kind of symptomatic of the whole country’s pathetic political condition. Fiddling while Rome burns.
MY POV on this is -Go away.
I don’t like the Herald. I do not like the Herald On Sunday. I want them to go broke and disappear from NZ’s media framework. I want all of the journalists and editors fired and I want them out of my life.
It is not the role of journalists and newspapers to advocate for more government, more regulation, and they should never ever be found spruiking for suspicionless searches of innocent citizens at roadblocks such as the lowering of this limit will mandate.
These people are right off message, are a disgrace to journalism and betray that trade by supporting this kind of draconian approach to law enforcement.
Why don’t they show some balls and institute a campaign against drug dealing gangs? That would be doing something worthwhile. Too hard tho ain’t it boys and girls. Much easier to lobby for more laws targeting law abiding road users.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 2:18 pm
I have nothing constructive to add to the actual debate, but it does concern me to see a newspaper “campaigning” for anything. Makes my morning paper’s veneer of neutrality seem even more thin.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 2:20 pm
In my humble opinion it should be a Zero limit for alcohol for all drivers under 21.
And a zero tolerance of all illegal drugs. Period.
I don’t drink so it doesn’t really affect my own lifestyle, but I do not wish to be taken out by ANY age or type of intoxicated driver.
The bigger issue is giving back any Licence after DIC without a Severe Driving Test costing 5kNZD, and only one chance. Then a lifetime ban.
Just my own opinion. However the bigger issue is the lack of Mandatory Car/Road insurance with 3rd Party, Fire and Theft being the absolute minimum in my own view. Ideally it should be Fully Comp and no exceptions. Or they can car share etc.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
WTF is a newspaper doing campaining for a law change? Impartially report the news and FRO out of everything thing else please.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Hear, hear, Redbaiter.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
This has nothing to do with lowering the limit to 0.5, if it was 0.5 these fascists would be pushing for a zero limit. Fuck the lot of the scabby arsed townie fucks. All the problems that plague this country and these holier then thou fucks push for a law change that there is no evidence to support. These wankers would have loved eastern Europe in the good old days, their poxy little rag would be compulsory reading.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 5:01 pm
The alcohol limit is a red herring
Drunks who drive don’t care what the legal limit is. They certainly don’t question thir levels.
Bob is right. It’s just more policce state intimidation.
We now have the lowest road toll in years. Now police are filming lane crossers on highways.
Soon you won’t be able to over take.
The rising price of gas is going to marginalise the roads any way. Then the govt will start cutting back police staff.
All so perdictable.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
DPF, how happy were you to be referred to as a prominent New Zealander?
Agree with all of the above. SHow us the evidence. And a newspaper campaigning…wow.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Hmm – an easy call for the herald given 80% of kiwis want this change from .8 to .5
DPF – what was the number of overseas studies LandTransport presented to the Minister as evidence of the efficacy of the change…50? 150?
[DPF: All the studies only give one side of the picture. They all say there will be less road deaths. But what they don't do is measure how many people drive at that BAC and do not cause accidents, and will be criminalised by this measure.
I think it is a damn good idea to find out how many drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 before making decisions on whether they are an unacceptable risk]
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 6:55 pm
k.jones (120) Says:
October 23rd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
So show us real Kiwi evidence then. Not interested in oversea’s studies. Totally irrelevant to NZ. Most drive on the wrong side for starters.
Vote:Many have much shorter daylight hours, many have better roads, many have worse roads, many have greater levels of personal liability.
Just not the same.
October 23rd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
In the Hawkes Bay Today (today) they have published the monthly drink-driving stats.
112 convictions.
50% unemployed
48% un-skilled labourers
go NZ.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 8:05 pm
“This weekend the Herald on Sunday are launching a major campaign to persuade the Government to lower the drink driving limit from 0.08mg to 0.05mg (of alcohol per 100 ml of blood)”.
Once again we see the continuing ignorance from the media. The current NZ limit is 80 mg (milligrams) per 100 mL blood, which equates to 0.08 g (grams) per 100 mL. What they are really trying to say (but don’t understand it), is to lower the limit from 80 to 50 mg per 100 mL.
If they’re fucking ignorant on the basics, why should I believe they have the ability to understand the other important factors in the debate.
Irrespective of that, detailed analyses show that lowering the limit as they are proposing will not address the real issue, which is a (relatively small) number of people drinking to gross excess, and the problems that consequently arise.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Viking @ 6:55
Try this; you’ll a good summary of comparable countries like Aus Canada Uk etc etc etc etc
Chamberlain E, Solomon R. 2002. The case for a 0.05% criminal law BAC limit for driving. Injury
Vote:Prevention; 8 (III): III1-III17.
October 23rd, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Just proves that the herald is a socialist tabloid paper.
Vote:October 24th, 2010 at 7:26 am
David,
Getting the data on deaths and injuries caused by drivers who currently legally drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 is nigh on impossible. All you will get is data on the number of injuries and deaths of drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. But that won’t tell you the actual cause of the crash. I could have a BAC of 0.05 and another driver crosses the centre line and injures me. The cause of the crash is the other driver’s actions. But the fact that my BAC is 0.05 will mean that I am (wrongly) included in the stats.
An important fact that is overlooked in this debate is that most car crashes are caused by SOBER drivers. I would’ve thought it would be a useful idea to look at why so many sober drivers are causing car accidents. At least drunk drivers have an excuse
Vote:October 24th, 2010 at 7:34 am
> what they don’t do is measure how many people drive at that BAC and do not cause accidents
That is an important question and as I’ve explained, the stats are likely to cloud the issue by assuming that if you’ve got a BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08 and you’re involved in an accident, then it must have been your fault. But that’s not necessarily so.
Vote:October 24th, 2010 at 8:14 am
K.Jones,
The link for the Chamberlain & Solomon paper is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1765494/pdf/v008p0iii1.pdf
I found it interesting that that authors argue for a reduction in the BAC to 0.05 but say that it would only be enforced at a level of 0.07.
Vote:October 24th, 2010 at 8:37 am
what’s with the latest herald poll?
Do they get cretins to think them up? They don’t provide any “reasonable” answers as an option except for the line they are trying to promote.
Fuckers. Then they just try to get a bunch of actors to agree with them. What are we turning into as a country? A bunch of morons led by idiots while it gets harder for anyone with a brain who gives a shit about right and wrong to live here.
Vote:October 24th, 2010 at 8:41 am
It would be nice if the wowsers were honest in the defination of a standard drink. A bottle on wine is 5 glass of 150 ml. I would call a 150 ml glass of wine a standard drink. I believe most pubs would give you a 150 ml glass. I just bought a box of Budweiser. It is 4.9% and 355 ml/bottle. It say on the bottle 1.4 standard drink. These wowsers are deliberately misleading the public on how much you can drink on their proposer lower limit. A standard drink should be a 150 ml glass of wine or a stubbie. There is no way a couple should not be able to share a bottle of wine over a meal and drive home without fear of losing their licence.
This is much like the smacking law. Everyone gets penalised for the actions of a few.
Vote:October 24th, 2010 at 9:35 am
I only joined this to say that the BAC should be 0.00. Remove all ambiguity. I’ve done plenty of drink driving in my time, only in 3rd world countries, so I know how awesome it is.
How about you raw to the core libertarians pick a fight that’s worthwhile.
Vote: