Two drinks max

October 24th, 2010 at 8:30 am by David Farrar

The has launched its drink driving campaign. It is primarily focused on persuading individual NZers to pledge two drinks max, with the objective of a law change less prominent.

I have no problems with people pledging not to drive after a certain amount of alcohol. I would note that a flat limit which takes no account of time period seems rather simplistic. Sometimes I may go to the Backbencher at 6 pm and stay on for Backbenches, and after that head into town until 2 am. Over those eight hours I might have four standard drinks (and a lot of non alcohol drinks and food), but would be well under 0.05 BAC.

I do take issue with one part of their story:

Science, too, is on our side. Last year, 129 people died on New Zealand roads as a result of alcohol-related crashes. Many – the transport ministry projects 150-33 lives a year – could be saved if the drink-drive limit was lowered from 80mg to 50mg.

I presume the 150 is a type, and it is meant to be 15-33. I point out again what the official stats tell us:

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.

12 over five years is 2.4 a year. The number of dead drivers is over half the number of total dead on the roads, so I would say 4 – 5 people a year would be “saved” by a law change – that is if assuming those drivers would not have driven if the law changed.

As I said yesterday, I am willing to be persuaded that a change is desirable – but to do that we need to collect better data and not have nonsense claims about 33 lives a year, hen only 1.4 deceased drivers a year test between 0.05 and 0.08.

While I think the two drink max limit is a bit simplistic, I understand the need for simplisticity in mass media campaigns. If the HoS campaign helps reduce the road toll voluntarily – then good on them. I suspect though that it will mainly affect the low risk drivers, and have little impact on the recividist drunk drivers who cause so much of the damage.

Actually, that would be an interesting stat – and one I am do not know of. How many of those drivers who die in fatal car crashes have a conviction for driving over the limit?

Tags: ,

52 Responses to “Two drinks max”

  1. Pete George (22,804 comments) says:

    Why the fixation with 0.08 v 0.05? Shouldn’t they consider the cutoff that provides the best balance of freedom and safety? Maybe 0.06 or 0.065 would be a better compromise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Lindsay (141 comments) says:

    Do we know if the drivers who died with between 0.05 and 0.08 BAC were the culpable drivers?

    I never drink more than two at the current limit anyway. And there are probably a number of people who adopt that limit but don’t want to see 0.08 lowered. If we go to 0.05 the next call will be to go to zero. That will mean no drinking at all within 8 or so hours of driving. Anyone who had a few drinks the night before will probably be over the limit in the morning. And if you don’t think the revenue gatherers will exploit that, then you are wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. m@tt (587 comments) says:

    It’s amazing how much spin a donation can buy you. Go Hospitality Association. Helping kiwis kill themselves since ages ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,793 comments) says:

    An even more telling statistic might be the number of total road deaths per capita in countries where the legal limit is 0.05 compared with those here.

    My guess is that tinkering with the legal limit will have absolutely no effect on the end result.

    Yet another example of deluded dolts being led by pseudo experts. It’s time these people werre directed into profitable work, like sweeping the streets.

    You see, dear readers, pissheads will still get pissed and drive, no matter what laws are enacted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. k.jones (210 comments) says:

    What more to say?

    A 0.05gm/100ml BAC limit is standard in most of the industrialised world,
    and those jurisdictions that have lowered the limit have experienced general reductions in
    drinking and driving and alcohol-related deaths and injuries. Twenty-seven countries
    including Australia and 25 out of 29 European countries have a BAC of 0.05gm/100ml or
    less for adult drivers. When Sweden lowered its BAC level from 0.05gm/100ml to
    0.02gm/100ml in 1990, fatal alcohol-related accidents dropped by 10 percent, similar to the
    experience of Austria, Belgium and France.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yvette (2,689 comments) says:

    David, I would question your removing a third of those dead, with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, because they are under 20 and should not have passed 0.03.
    Regardless of what the law says, they were killed in the 0.05-0.08 margin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. MT_Tinman (2,989 comments) says:

    Adolf NZ has unique driving conditions so I doubt other countries data would be relevant and also suspect that had that data backed up the slime’s current obsession you would have read it there this morning.

    This bullshit is townie tossers wanking at the expense (eventually) of those of us that live in paradise.

    Resist! Mightily!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. CharlieBrown (905 comments) says:

    The herald doesn’t let facts get in the way of the truth. Their editors are a bunch of know-all condescending c^nts out to propogate half truths to push their own agenda.

    Consider the following:
    * How many people in the 0.05 to 0.08 category would have crashed if sober anyway (I’m guessing nearly all of them)?
    * How many people in the 0.05 to 0.08 category were at fault?

    It is all about removing personal responsibility from ones lives. The fact is, most car crashes are caused by bad driving… not speeding or alcohol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Lindsay (141 comments) says:

    Yvette, What is being established is how many of the number driving LEGALLY died with a BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08. That is because the assumption is being made that those people will lower their alcohol intake if the law changes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Brian Smaller (3,989 comments) says:

    More lives will be saved if people pledged to not pass other cars when the car in front is already doing 100kph. In fact – make helmets compulsory in cars and the road toll would probably be reduced by over half. If it is good enough to force them on cyclists then why not car drivers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. eszett (2,333 comments) says:

    It is all about removing personal responsibility from ones lives. The fact is, most car crashes are caused by bad driving… not speeding or alcohol.

    How come you don’t consider speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol bad driving?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. CharlieBrown (905 comments) says:

    eszett -

    Driving drunk comes under the category of bad driving – Speeding only comes under that category when drivers drive too fast for the conditions.

    Consider this… it is legal to drive 100km around a real sharp bend when you are on the open road… is it safe… of course not., that is bad driving. Yet driving 105km on a flat, straight, long piece of road this weekend is illegal… go figure.

    And the idiots at the herald obviously think that driving drunk is equal to driving with 0.05 BAC.

    It is deeply concerning that a main-stream newspaper is lobbying for a law change that has nothing to do with free-speech. Especially when you consider that mainstream media shapes public opinion. We are heading for PC hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nick Kearney (1,068 comments) says:

    Unfortunately the Herald has the same misunderstanding that others do when it comes to drinking and driving. There is no blanket limit.

    It is possible for someone to drink all day, provided they eat all day also. If the person is male, the ability to absorb alcohol is improved. If they are a large male, it improves even more. A slightly-built female, who eats nothing, is far more susceptible.

    And so on.

    This the main reason I am against lowering the limit. It can be somewhat of an artificial indicator.

    Indeed, the Herald’s position suffers from the same misunderstanding. If a slightly-builtfemale had two glasses of wine with nothing to eat, in, say the space of thirty minutes, and then drove, I suspect they would be in some problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. deanknight (263 comments) says:

    Surely you’re understating the likely effect of the proposed change by focusing solely on the 0.8 – 0.5 range, when a change to 0.5 will probably also affect behaviour under 0.5 through a chilling effect?

    That is, if the very generous limit which allowed people to drink without impunity (because one had to drink so much to pass it) is changed, then people will need to consider and monitor there intake more carefully. Faced with a lower limit, I suspect folk will err on the side of caution and will stop drinking sooner than the limit was more generous.

    It seems to me you’re asking the wrong question if you’re focusing solely on the 0.5 – 0.8 and also need to build in additional changes in behaviour from any lowering of the limit.

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

    “Why the fixation with 0.08 v 0.05? Shouldn’t they consider the cutoff that provides the best balance of freedom and safety? Maybe 0.06 or 0.065 would be a better compromise.”

    What a coward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. labrator (1,745 comments) says:

    What a coward.

    What exactly is cowardly about that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. labrator (1,745 comments) says:

    @charliebrown The most disgusting ad on TV at the moment is the ad with the young man in the blue Toyota. It features him coming around a corner at 60 km/hr and losing control because of an opening car door. It shows where he ends up if he’d been doing 50km/hr and then he hits the pole and presumably dies because he was doing 60 km/hr. The message is basically that you can do anything you like on the road as long as you’re under the speed limit. This is an inherently dangerous message that the government is pushing.

    There is no safety provided by the speed limit. Staying under 100km/hr on the open road will not save your life just as going over it will not guarantee your death. Any number of circumstances ( a lot more realistic too) could’ve played out in that ad. New Zealand desperately needs to improve driving standards and stop messing with statistics. We die in moderately large numbers on our roads because we’re bad drivers who don’t take responsibility for how we drive nor do most of us actually know how to drive defensively.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. CharlieBrown (905 comments) says:

    labrator – Very true. I change channel whenever a government agency has an ad eg, ACC ad’s, smoking ad’s etc as I know it is only half the truth and full of propoganda.

    But at least we will be able to sleep easy at night knowing we are thouroughly safe driving on the road now that the alcohol limit has decreased. Who cares about the fact that I can no longer have a bottle of wine with my wife at dinner and drive home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. redeye (631 comments) says:

    Be warned! Get pissed and kill or injure anyone of my family while driving and the law will be the last thing you should be worried about.

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

    “The most disgusting ad on TV at the moment ”

    What kind of lame moron watches a TV channel showing ads that disgust him/her?

    I would turn it off and leave it off.

    TV One is a propaganda organ of the fascist socialists.

    You watch it, you’re being used and manipulated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. eszett (2,333 comments) says:

    Speeding only comes under that category when drivers drive too fast for the conditions.

    And that is not bad driving?
    You arguments just make no sense.

    You seem to think that you are the sole judge what speeds are safe and what speeds aren’t. Your argument about driving 100 kmh around a sharp bend is silly. A legal limit is not a target. You could thereby equally argue that it is legal to drive a 100kmh on a straight road in heavy fog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. eszett (2,333 comments) says:

    The message is basically that you can do anything you like on the road as long as you’re under the speed limit.

    Classic strawman argument. That is not the message at all. It’s just the message that you would like to see in it, because you can easily dismiss it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. labrator (1,745 comments) says:

    What kind of lame moron watches a TV channel showing ads that disgust him/her?

    What kind of lame moron tries to influence society by abusing people engaging in debate?
    What kind of lame moron presumes I watch TV just because I’ve seen an ad?
    What kind of lame moron avoids a point of debate to attack a person?

    TV One is a propaganda organ of the fascist socialists….

    You watch it, you’re being used and manipulated.

    Well for you to know that it’s propaganda you must have been used and manipulated too. Unless of course you are a more powerful human than I am. One that can see the truth and the way and the light in everything.

    Why is it that I get the feeling that you’re attacking me because I questioned you calling Pete George a coward without any justification. Seems you like you want to hold the rest of the world accountable but not yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Nick Kearney (1,068 comments) says:

    I think what CharlieBrown is saying is that speeding itself is not dangerous – Formula One drivers go at ridiculous speeds. You could drive at 160 km/h down the motorway @3am on a Tuesday morning and it would be pretty safe.

    Do it in a heavy urban area near schools and the situation is very different.

    Having said that, going 160km/h would get you a dangerous driving charge, irrespective of the time of day, location etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. labrator (1,745 comments) says:

    @charliebrown I don’t watch a lot of TV but I’m the same as you, it’s channel change or mute if those ads are on.

    @eszett The ad says “If he’d been doing 50 km/hr he would have stopped here” Which happens to be on the other side of the road and could’ve easily killed a number of people lawfully there. It then goes on to say “But he wasn’t” And the car is dragged into a pole through the drivers door where he is presumably terribly injured and/or dies.
    50 km/hr = alive
    greater than 50 km/hr = dead.
    Which part of this message am I confusing?
    What part am I dismissing?
    What is the ad really trying to tell me?

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

    The debate should be about whether a newspaper should be advocating for such a thing. These fake journalists at the Herald should be drawing fire for initiating such a propaganda campaign, but instead (as this discussion shows) lame NZers just allow themselves to once again be so easily manipulated by the mainstream media.

    You really are a country of pathetic socialist arsewipe lamers and you deserve everything that befalls you. I am sure there’s hardly a person left in NZ with a functioning brain, and who sees themselves as an individual rather than a whitebait. Just a big blob of mindless school fish darting this way and that way as the media commands. Hopeless brainless morons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. labrator (1,745 comments) says:

    The debate should be about whether a newspaper should be advocating for such a thing. These fake journalists at the Herald should be drawing fire for initiating such a propaganda campaign…

    I agree with this portion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. CharlieBrown (905 comments) says:

    “eszett (810) Says:
    October 24th, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Speeding only comes under that category when drivers drive too fast for the conditions.

    And that is not bad driving?
    You arguments just make no sense. ”

    If you cannot make sense of it then you probably don’t have enough sense to drive safely either. So lets make it real simple:
    Driving to fast for conditions is bad
    Driving faster than 120km on a straight, dry, flat road is NOT bad
    Driving drunk is bad
    Driving after half a bottle of wine and dinner is NOT bad

    make sense yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. CharlieBrown (905 comments) says:

    “The debate should be about whether a newspaper should be advocating for such a thing. These fake journalists at the Herald should be drawing fire for initiating such a propaganda campaign…”

    Agree as well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Brian Smaller (3,989 comments) says:

    You really are a country of pathetic socialist arsewipe lamers and you deserve everything that befalls you. I am sure there’s hardly a person left in NZ with a functioning brain, and who sees themselves as an individual rather than a whitebait. Just a big blob of mindless school fish darting this way and that way as the media commands. Hopeless brainless morons.

    I agree with this portion as well. I can understand why Red is so fed up.

    I read about this online this morning and my first thought was why was a paper doing advocacy. So much for journalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. CharlieBrown (905 comments) says:

    Perhaps calling the herald a newspaper is a bit generous now. Its more of a tabloid magazine printed on cheap newsprint.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. labrator (1,745 comments) says:

    Actually the Herald has become what it has despised so much a blog. What is the difference between some amalgamated blog sites and the NZHerald? The articles aren’t really up to any journalistic standard. You can comment at the bottom of them. Embedded videos and opinion polls are used to drive up readership and they promote causes that they think will be popular. The NZHerald really is just an amalgamated blog which has a daily dead tree edition as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    You really are a country of pathetic socialist arsewipe lamers and you deserve everything that befalls you. I am sure there’s hardly a person left in NZ with a functioning brain, and who sees themselves as an individual rather than a whitebait. Just a big blob of mindless school fish darting this way and that way as the media commands. Hopeless brainless morons.

    Where the hell do you live RB?! And where do you get off insulting NZ like that?
    Most here would agree that it’s not a paper’s business to be running social campaigns.

    It’s not NZ at fault – populations always have a herd mentality. You are the epitome of following stereotypical beliefs without regard for any logic. Look at your support of retards like Sarah Palin! You blindly believe everything you read in your “far-right-wing” news media, then insult others for believing something else. Are you completely oblivious to this?

    You seem to spend your whole life reading what you want to believe, entrenching already extreme and likely incorrect views, in a great big self-justifying circle!

    Anyway, “Two Drinks Max” is a handy slogan to remember, but I don’t see how it relates to BAC. Surely a 50kg woman vs. a 120kg man have different volumes of distribution for alcohol. And that’s not forgetting that a glass of wine at a restaurant may contain 3 standard drinks. I’d like to see Nicki Watson pulled over with a level of 0.06 for drinking 2 wines at the trashy Euro restaurant. The campaign is only supported by ring-in celebrities who will put their name on any list just to see it in the paper. Anyone who’s spent time with any NZ celebrities will see how much drug taking goes on, so I do slightly resent being told to stick to 2 drinks by these guys.

    But it’s the usual story: “we need to do something!” – so it’s easier to lower the alcohol limit than stop the assholes who repeatedly drive at >3x the limit without a licence. These guys need to be locked up – the cost of keeping them in jail will pale in comparison to the cost to letting them continue to risk others’ lives.

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

    Yawn… lamer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mjwilknz (612 comments) says:

    I think the people at the Herald deserve plaudits for, instead of complaining that the Gov’t wasn’t helping some problem, getting off their chuffs and actually doing something about it! Too much, in my humble opinion, the NZ public looks to our Gov’t to “fix” perceived wrongs. If the Gov’t isn’t up to trying to, great on someone for saying, righto, let’s have a crack ourselves!

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

    “If the Gov’t isn’t up to trying to, great on someone for saying, righto, let’s have a crack ourselves!”

    Yeah great alright having a quasi-state run media of soft headed Liberals and Progressives doing the government’s work for them without even the slightest degree of compulsion.

    Man this country so badly needs a real media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    What a load of crap. My driving skills have always improved after a drink or three. Ask any of my sheep if you don’t believe me.

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

    Lots of strange and interesting comments here. I don’t believe it is neccesary to get bogged down in how many injuries avoided and lives saved. Lowering the BAC level for drivers will establish that the Government recognises that drink driving is bad practice. All amounts of alcohol impair driving. The Herald drawing attention to this is a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. mjwilknz (612 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, settle down, mate, my name’s not Tristan. NZ is (still) a socialist country; like us or loath us, we are what we are. Although you’re not saying the Gov’t should do anything, maybe you’re another who could get off their chuff and actually do something about a perceived problem, rather than just complaining about it. Don’t like NZ’s media? Are you up to setting your own media outlet up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    “ike us or loath us, ”

    I will always go for “loathe” given a choice. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. wat dabney (3,671 comments) says:

    What CharlieBrown said. These stats include everyone who happened to have a certain level of blood alcohol even if there is no evidence that they caused the accident or were in any way to blame.

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

    “Are you up to setting your own media outlet up?”

    I’m just hoping like hell FOX buys TVNZ when its finally put up for sale.

    As for myself- invest in a media outlet??? Forget it, I’ve got better things to do with my money, and why the fuck would anyone waste dollars trying to get any small government individual responsibility message through to the mostly mindless bludging dependency addicted socialist trash that today typifies your average NZer?? Mindless half educated morons without a brain between the lot of them.

    The mainstream media in NZ is a dying industry that the left have totally destroyed. As they destroy everything they gain control of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. mjwilknz (612 comments) says:

    Johnboy, I don’t imagine you’re the only one on here who chooses “loathe” at every opportunity. Come on, guys; I’m not feeling any love! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    Yvette is pretty keen I believe. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. mjwilknz (612 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, you gotta calm down, mate! Like I said, I’m not feeling the love! ;-) Seriously, there’s not much point in getting so riled about things; you’ll just amuse those you’re complaining about. The safest approach for one’s long term mental health, I believe, is to say, “well, people are saying some silly things, but hey, at least it’s not worse – I’m not living in North Korea!” (You may of course beg to differ on that last point. ;-)

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

    “Seriously, there’s not much point in getting so riled about things;”

    What the fuck is it with all you commies that you believe someone has to be angry before they can offer any direct criticism? Grow some balls man. I’m not angry, I’m merely forthright. You need to stop fucking apologising for yourself and get over your brainwashed pre-occupation with what you perceive as offensiveness. Honestly, if you’re an example of how NZers are currently thinking, a pathetic timid whispering little apologist for a dysfunctional society, then the country is much worse off than I originally imagined. If that is possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. mjwilknz (612 comments) says:

    For pete’s sake, Redbaiter, I wasn’t taking offence – as far as I’ve noticed, you’ve meant none to me (except maybe in your last comment); look at all my smiley faces! I was just telling you to calm down a bit. If you think I’m a pathetic, timid apologist, take a quick glance at the number of times mjwilknz appears in the comments on this Kiwiblog post: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/07/the_robin_bain_did_not_do_it_documentary.html. Those comments might also show you that there’s little chance of me being an example of how NZers are currently thinking!

    I think you need to back off and pick your battles a bit better, man! I have yet to see any major way I’d disagree with you. (I would of course have informed you had I seen one!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. MikeG (392 comments) says:

    It’s a shame that Farrar doesn’t apply the same amount of statistical analysis to other transport policies e.g the holiday highway north of Auckland that Joyce is so fond of. If he did he might find areas where Goct money could be saved or at least diverted to other more deserving projects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. v (11 comments) says:

    What a crock of shit!

    Every idiot in this country knows 2 drinks is the safe limit any time.

    I was preaching this to my kids years ago

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

    “I was just telling you to calm down a bit. ”

    I’m perfectly calm. This is another example of what I am talking about. Why is it that NZers have to assume that because someone disagrees and is emphatic and unapologetic about that disagreement, they have to be expressing anger?

    What is the norm..??

    “err ahhh excuse me sir but do you mind terribly if I take this opportunity to whisper in my most timid voice that i think that what you are saying is right in some ways but wrong in others and by this I mean that there are certain aspects of what you have said that I might differ with but I want you to know that I am disagreeing in the most humble and sycophantic manner possible because what is most important is that you are not offended by means of my disagreement blah blah fucking blah..”

    Fuck that. NZers are a bunch of limp wristed fucking wimps when it comes to arguing a point. They’re like that because they’re brainwashed dicky licking socialists, made that way by a sick PC doctrine that sits over the country like a leaden blanket, and that I as a non brainwashed SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL totally reject, and I shall tell them that and if they’re offended then TOO FUCKING BAD.

    The media in this country says jump and NZers scramble to ask how high. Pathetic snivelling socialist lemmings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Sandy (47 comments) says:

    Lift your game K. Jones boy – your following comment is complete propaganda and I know you got it from a media outlet from which the State and liquor industry can get the best feature articles money can buy.

    “What more to say?

    A 0.05gm/100ml BAC limit is standard in most of the industrialised world,
    and those jurisdictions that have lowered the limit have experienced general reductions in
    drinking and driving and alcohol-related deaths and injuries. Twenty-seven countries
    including Australia and 25 out of 29 European countries have a BAC of 0.05gm”

    Time to deconstruct your sad case of brain washing and disinformed wish for conformity.
    1. 0.05 may well may be standard as is a criminal threshold of 0.1 in 0.05 ticket lands (so we’re stricter), but only as the World Bank is said in several Govt reviews to have exerted pressure on most beholden countries to go the 0.05 infringement way as docs show it pressures here.. 0.05′s a bonza for the consolidated fund.
    BUT
    A) The countries with lowest drink drive death rates per capita are the UK (0.08), Utah (0.06 tho mormonism is an aid) and NYC which hammered drunk tolls with a strict blanket car confiscation policy right up to ther Merc as it’s zero homicide policy was applied in the broken windows sense. Fought at Supreme Court level as disproportionate punishment the answrer came back as “not for threatening life with a deadly weapon.
    B) If you go through all the 0.05 countries most have higher drunk tolls than here, and in Denmark in 1998 and in Victoria and the Northern Territory 0.05 increased deaths involving alcohol up to 200%. In Netherlands no effect was seen that wasn’t attributable to other causes, in Switzerland it upped the toll and the list goes on and on, which is why an Irish Road Safety Authority Report 2007 said euphemistically that 0.05 hasn’t seen the expected decline in injuries and death. In multitude ways it works against road safetyy – but in summary and simplest form it may be said there is an opportunity cost of focussing on the wrong targets.
    The alcohol industry is backing 0.05 including the yellow journalism which has included lies so bold as that the UK sits at 0.05… because according to inside sources a deal was done to support it in return for no hassles over advertising, price and other stuff. It had no problem agreeing to 0.05 (bar some small interests like restaurant unions) as consumption levels are not impacted by 0.03 – static in Oz, France and others after 0.05 was bought in.
    This is merely a scripted friendly battle of good and evil (liquor and good citizens versus a slow to act Government) in order that the public will think that IT steamrolled the foregone conclusion change and the Govt can look like good guys by announcing a limit drop policy pre-election. Meanwhile they are distracted from moaning about real issues of commercialisation and bargain prices. Win win for booze interests and Govt which cherishes the introduction of a new fine, but lose – lose for the poor road users who’ll be subject to worse risks out there due to 0.05 being substituted for a focus on truly successful anti dui policies. Only a DUI task force that bans bureaucrats (preferably placed in dungeons) can bring sanity.
    What the Herald has done is a journalistic crime, that should be used as a study of modern application of Nazi propaganda theory for joutnalism students. They haven’t missed a single recommendation made by the chief propaganda Minister in Germany for successful indoctrination. Fascinating level of disinformation bombardment. They even have a youth arm which will be out emotively blackmailing ill informed citizens to sign up their own death warrants this weekend. Only 7000 signatures for all that investment in the best featire articles and headers money can buy, and the Ed tells select committee he is representing his readers – what a tiny circulation it must have, and shrunk by one at least I can say. Maybe we’re not such baa baa’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Sandy (47 comments) says:

    Correction: Meant to say Utah is 0.08 as is NYC and the UK

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.