Kiwiblog

Giles Brown at The Press reports:

A young mother was caught in Christchurch driving with nearly twice the drink-drive limit, sipping from a cup of rum and with two children in the car, police say.

Southern Canterbury area commander, Inspector Malcolm Johnston, said it was one of the worst cases of drink-driving he had seen in 30 years.

He said the 21-year-old woman was caught in Riccarton Rd about 8.15pm on Saturday after police spotted her driving erratically. Her 25-year-old partner was in the front passenger seat with an unrestrained two-year-old boy on his lap, Johnston said, and a baby boy was in a restraining seat in the back.

Johnston said that while the mother was being spoken to by police she was drinking rum from a cup.

I’m not sure what is worse – the drink driving with kids in the car, the holding of the boy on a lap, which is guaranteed to kill him in a crash, or carrying on drinking while the Police are talking to you.

Regardless, the combination of such moronic behaviour has me conclude that there is no way they can be safe parents.

Dean Knight blogs:

RadioNZ reports that Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce, says “more evidence is needed before the Government will consider lowering the general drink-driving limit”.  Others such have David Farrar have echoed the claim that specific evidence is needed that lowering the drink drive limit will have an instrumental effect on the number of road deaths and accidents.
Baloney.

Yes, changes to laws should be justified.  But, no, the justification need not be specific evidence.

Both Joyce and Farrar are ignoring the precautionary principle.  In general terms, this principle says that, in relation to risky activities where there is scientific or empirical doubt about the nature and extent of the risk, policy- and law-makers should favour the course of action which avoids the risk.  That is, in the face of uncertainty, the burden shifts to those undertaking the risky activity to demonstrate it is not harmful. 

I call baloney on Dean’s baloney.

First of all, transport policy is not about eliminating risk, it is about balancing it – a point he admits later. Without that balance, then one would easily conclude that driving at faster than 30 km/hr is dangerous (and it is) and should be banned.

So, we know that drink driving is a risky activity.  That’s why we prohibit driving above the current blood-alcohol level (80mg).  If there’s doubt about whether driving while above a reduced limit of 50mg (which I not sure there is doubt about when looking at international practice), then the precautionary principle would favour lowering the limit anyway and collecting data to demonstrate it is not risky or has no instrumental influence on road accidents and deaths – not the other way around!

Dean ignores one crucial point – if you lower the limit now, you will never ever be able to collect data on the prevalance of legally driving at a BAC of 0.05 to 0.08, and its associated risk.

Ultimately, these things involve a cost-benefit calculus. There are seldom king-hits in law- and policy-making. A balance must be drawn.

Joyce and Farrar et al are, however, underplaying the benefit (risks avoided) of lowering the limit by proclaiming uncertainty about their nature and extent.  In this context, though, we’re entitled to assume there is a risk associated with driving with a blood-alcohol of over 50mg, unless evidence shows otherwise.  This means, for the purpose of the cost-benefit calculus, we can assume lowering the limit is beneficial   

Yes there is a risk driving with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.05.  Lowering the limit would lower that risk. But there is also a risk in allowing people to drive at faster than 30 km/hr. There is a risk at allowing people to drive with passengers in their car, as they can be distractions.

Banning passengers and lowering the speed limit to 30 km/hr would also be “beneficial” if you only are focused on the road toll.

Of course, on the other side of the ledger, we can also say there is negligible cost associated with lowering the blood-alcohol limit. 

That is nonsense. There is significant cost associated with such a lowering. It could mean that many more people will be unable to legally drive, and in rural areas especially could even lead to the closure of pubs, where public transport is not a viable option. It may also impose extra costs on people who then take taxis home. Now you may think that is a good thing, but it is also a cost. And again I’d like to know the costs before a decision is made.

And here is the problem – we currently do not measure at all what the “cost” would be of lowering the limit, because we do not know how many people currently drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, and hence we can’t calculate what the cost will be of a law change.

I want the Government to be able to answer a few simple questions before they make a decision:

1. What is the current prevalance of drivers with BAC between 0.05 and 0.08
2. How many drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 are involved in accidents
3. What then are the accident rates for drivers with a BAC below 0.05, betwene 0.05 and 0.08 and above 0.08
4. How many accidents and fatalities are caused by adult drivers with a BAC betwene 0.05 and 0.05

Once you have that data, then you can make a sensible decision about whether the benefits of reducing the BAC to 0.05 is worth the cost.

If you go down Dean’s path, then we will never ever be able to gain that knowledge. His precautionary principle plea, is in fact a cloak for making a decision that one could never later challenge.

MacDoctor highlights this HoS story:

The Australian Transport Council this week released a discussion document calling for the national alcohol limit to be reduced to 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. Some states, such as Victoria, already have a limit of 50mg, which is 30mg lower than New Zealand’s 80mg.

The council called for a “major shift in thinking by governments and the community”. It said in Sweden there was a 10 per cent reduction in drink-driving fatalities when the limit was cut from 50mg to 20mg.

At 20 mg, a woman who had a single glass of wine probably become a criminal if she drove afterwards. A male who had 2 beers over two hours would also probably be a criminal.

Tracy Watkins reports:

EVIDENCE HAS emerged that 72% of all alcohol-related deaths on the roads are caused by drivers who are either blind-drunk or repeat offenders.

The research comes during debate over whether the drink-driving limit should be lowered, and ahead of the release of a report investigating drivers who cause the most mayhem.

And remember to be a repeat offender, you have probably driven drunk 50+ times, as at best you only get checked 1 in 50 times you are driving.

The Transport Ministry research shows that in 2009 88 deaths – 72% of all alcohol-related deaths – were caused by 73 drivers who were either at least 50% over the current limit, or who already had a previous conviction.

Of those 88 deaths, 34 people were killed in crashes where the driver at fault had a previous conviction and 57% – or 50 out of 88 deaths – were caused by drivers with twice the legal alcohol limit.

In 2008, 108 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes and 28 of those – 26% were caused by drivers with a previous drink-driving conviction, while 77 deaths – 62% – were caused by drivers who had consumed more than twice the legal alcohol limit.

This is where the focus should go, and it is. Compulsory alcohol interlocks on vehicles owned by a convicted drunk driver are well overdue.

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 Herald on Sunday 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.

The Herald on Sunday 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?

I 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:

1. How many deaths and injuries are caused by drivers who currently legally drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08
2. 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.

I am not a fan of Glenn Beck. I do like many of the Fox News presenters (long live Hannity), but Beck is just too over the top with the language he uses against the Obama Government, and holding them responsible for everything bad.

It occurred to me, that we now have our online equivalent in New Zealand of Glenn Beck. This goes to No Right Turn for declaring the Government is a Cabinet of murderers for not lowering the blood alcohol limit for driving. He even states:

So, Cabinet decided to kill 66 people and pay more than $500 million so the liquor industry could continue to make money. They’re murderers, nothing more.

This is extremism that goes beyond even the Glenn Becks of this world.

I guess by NRT’s logic, the last Labour Government decided to kill around 300 people by also not lowering the limit.

The 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.

The HoS reports:

The number of repeat drink-drivers caught on New Zealand roads is showing a worrying upward spiral, and is a problem police are struggling to counter.

The number of recidivist drink-drivers has risen steadily over the past three years, and more than 4000 have been prosecuted already this year.

Many of them are involved in fatal crashes.

Figures released to the Herald on Sunday under the Official Information Act reveal 7200 people were convicted of their third or more drink-driving offence in 2009 compared with 6995 in 2008 and 6639 in 2007.

These are the ones who are the real hazards. They do not drive at 0.05 to 0.08 BAC. They drive at two to three times the legal limit. And if they have been convicted three or more times, it probably indicates they have driven drunk 100+ times. And they are also the ones who tend to flee from the Police, and kill people as they do.

The Government has proposed a zero BAC limit for recidivist drink drivers, and off memory are looking at alcohol locks on their cars. I think the alcohol locks are what may make the biggest difference. It won’t stop all of them, but it will stop some of them.

The Herald reports:

National Party MPs might be allowed a conscience vote on a Labour Party bill that proposes lowering the drink-driving blood alcohol limit, Prime Minister John Key said today.

The Government decided last month not to lower the limit from 0.08 milligrams to 0.05 milligrams per millilitre of blood, saying it needed to collect data for the next two years to find out what the effect would be and to demonstrate to the public that a change would be effective. …

Labour MP Darren Hughes has drafted a member’s bill that proposing lowering the limit to 0.06mg, saying the Government is “dithering” and there is already clear public support for the change.  …

However, Mr Key said at his post-cabinet press conference today drink-driving issues were usually dealt with by conscience votes.

“I imagine it would be a conscience vote,” he said.

“I know there’s a wide range of views within our caucus.

“So that’s something I would have to take to caucus, but off the top of my head I’m not proposing to stand in its way.”

While I am against lowering the BAC limit, at least until we have some specific NZ research on the prevalence and accident rate of those driving with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, I think National should allow a conscience vote on the issue of Darren gets lucky with the ballot. I’d rather hear National MPs genuinely give their views for or against any change, rather than be whipped on it.

Hopefully Labour would also do the same, and allow their MPs to vote against should they wish to do so.

The Herald reports:

A test in which a Weekend Herald staff member knocked back nine beers before hitting the legal limit has brought accusations from health groups that the Government is condoning drink-driving. …

The two staff members who took part in the session, a female reporter and a male photographer, were shocked at how drunk they became before being over the limit. Both said they would not consider driving in that state.

Good. A limit is not a target. The limit is saying you are so impaired it is a criminal offence to drive your car. But that doesn’t mean it is safe to drive under that limit.

For example a speed limit may be 100 km/hr but in certain conditions it is dangerous to go more than 50 km/hr on an open speed road. Limits are not targets.

Photographer Richie Robinson, weighing 85kg, drank nine bottles of lager amounting to 11.7 standard drinks in just under four hours before reaching the limit of 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

Now that is a lot. But what they also report beyond the headline is

Reporter Beck Vass, at 59kg, remained slightly within the existing limit after drinking five glasses of wine in just under two hours. She would have passed 250mcg on her third glass.

So if the limit was dropped to 0.05, a 59 kg woman would be not able to drive if they have a third glass of wine.

So if a a guy and a girl go out on a dinner date and share a bottle of wine, the girl will be risking a criminal record if she drives afterwards, if the limit is lowered.

If the research shows that there are numerous accidents caused by drivers who are between 0.05 and 0.08, then there could well be a good case for lowering the limit. But at present, the only stat we have is that only one over over 25 driver killed last year had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.

The Herald reports:

The Government has decided not to lower the blood-alcohol limit for drink driving for the moment.

It had been considering lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit from from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. But Transport Minister Steven Joyce said today that the Government will first do some New Zealand-specific research on the level of risk posed by drivers with a blood alcohol limit between 0.05 and 0.08.

I am so pleased about this. I am not 100% opposed to a reduction in the BAC limit, but have strongly submitted that there was not enough research to justify a change.

I have previously blogged at how there was only one driver aged over 25 killed in a road accident who had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. What we don’t know is how many people do actually drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, and hence what the cost of a law change would be measured against the benefits.

The Government has also announced:

• A zero drink drive limit for recidivist drink drivers.
• A zero drink drive limit for drivers under 20 years of age.
• Much tougher penalties for serious offences causing death and drink driving causing death.
• The introduction of alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-drivers.

The zero limit for recidivist drink drivers is a very good idea, as are the alcohol interlocks. Far better to prevent an accident, than punish someone afterwards with sensible targeting of recidivist offenders.

I’m pleased to see the Government exercise independent judgement on this issue, and not just do everything that the (taxpayer funded) lobby groups demand.

The Press reports:

A Government call on dropping the breath-alcohol limit for drivers will go down to the wire, with lobbyists fearing a “scandalous” backdown in a decision that could be announced as soon as Monday.

I don’t have any idea what the Government will do, but they always said that one option is to try and gain more NZ specific research into the impact of driving with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.

This is my preferred option. In the last year, only one driver aged over 25 who died in a car crash had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.

I’m not 100% against a law change, but I don’t think there is enough information to justify such a change.

But it is understood the proposal has met fierce resistance from some Cabinet ministers.

Good. This is a major change that could criminalise tens of thosuands of New Zealanders.

Within the next couple of weeks – possibly as early as Monday – ministers will have to agree on either lowering the breath-alcohol limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg, or to allowing police to breath test every driver involved in an accident. The breath tests would provide the “definitive” picture on the effect a lowering of the limit would have, Transport Minister Steven Joyce says.

So the lobbyists (inevitably all taxpayer funded) are against the Government gathering better quality research on the impact of any proposed change. Why? Are they scared that the results may not support their advocacy?

An interesting idea from MacDoctor:

There is plenty of evidence that lowering the legal Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) reduces accident rates, injuries and fatalities in an almost linear fashion (at least below about 0.1%). Here is a link to the very latest meta-analysis.

The point is that the effect of alcohol is fairly linear. In fact, there is evidence that the largest deterioration in performance occurs at quite low levels of intoxication (0.01-0.03%) but this does not initially translate into increased accidents (One assumes that the deterioration – although large proportionately – is still not enough to cause a noticeable increase in risk). Because the increase in risk is quite linear, it follows that the setting of  a new BAC at 0.05% is entirely arbitrary.

And it about balancing risk to costs. If risk is the only factor we would set the speed limit at 30 km/hr and ban people from driving if they have consumed any alcohol at all.

Indeed, the Japanese have shown that dropping the limit from 0.05% 0.03% produces a significant drop in accident and fatality statistics. It will therefore not be long after a drop to 0.05% that people (particularly ED doctors who bear the brunt of traffic accident injuries) will be calling for a further drop. It is not logical to go to all this trouble to fix the legal BAC at yet another arbitrary limit. There is no “safe” level of drink driving.

Just as there is no “safe” speed to drive at. Again it is balancing risk vs cost.

The point here is that an arbitrary limit for alcohol intoxication is inadequate for determining whether someone is safe to drive. Even at a zero level of alcohol, other drugs may make the driver decidedly dodgy behind a wheel. It is also doubtful that any movement of the BAC limit, even to zero, will make any difference to the kind of people who get behind the wheel of a car with a BAC 0f 0.18%. As I have posted before, the only solution to that kind of fool is to change the current drink driving laws from a minor punishment to a draconian deterrent.

It is reprehensible that you have drivers with 10 or more convictions for being plastered while driving, and they get minor slaps on the hands.

MacDoctor has a somewhat radical suggestion. Let us scrap the legal limit for alcohol altogether. Instead, we should substitute a legal requirement to be “fit to drive”. Should you be stopped at a police checkpoint and the cop has any reason to believe you may be impaired in your ability to drive (including checking your breath alcohol), he can insist that you take a “fit to drive” test. Failure (to take or pass the test) will get you arrested. The test could be administered using driving simulators in the back of a police van (basic tests administered by cops – such as walking a straight line – are simply too imprecise).

The advantage of a “fit to drive” test is that it catches all the impaired drivers, not just the ones impaired by excessive alcohol. It also avoids the problem of the margin where the person with the BAC of 0.052% is carted off to jail, despite being only mildly impaired, and the person with the BAC of 0.048% is let go, despite being high on cannabis and a liability on the road. It also standardises the drug tests that the new drug driving laws propose – making them considerably more objective. It will also prevent people from using portable breathalysers so that they can drink “to the limit” regardless of how capable they are of driving.

This is a very worthy idea. It would probably be inefficient to make every driver pulled up randomly undergo such a test, but one could do a screening test for alcohol and drugs, and any non-zero response has to do the impairment test.

I doubt the Government will go this way, as Government like objective tests, not subjective ones. But it could go a long way towards having a less arbitrary system, where people are punished only if they are actually impaired to a level which presents an unacceptable risk.

John Tamihere writes in the Sunday News:

There are over 700,000 New Zealanders who have been convicted of drink driving. This is a huge number and while drinking habits and driving habits have changed considerably in the past 30 years we must move to ensure not just the safety of our young, predominantly male drivers, who drink but more particularly we must also protect the innocent driver who often gets caught up in accidents created by young drink drivers. …

It does not matter whether we lower the breath alcohol level, any drink before driving must be met with a severe penalty.

As a consequence, it is pointless having any benchmark that one might risk endeavouring to reach.

It’s better to put all risk out of the way and make it a general rule that any consumption of alcohol means it is illegal to drive a vehicle.

I am surprised John wrote that column without mentioning he has four convictions for drink driving. Now the last one was in 1995, and I don’t mention this to beat up on him. But his column could have been far more powerful if he had mentioned his own past, and how he has learnt the hard way that you shouldn’t drink and drive.

Is it just me, or has there been an article appear almost daily in the media for the last few weeks, advocating a drop in the legal blood alcohol level for driving?

If this is not an orchestrated campaign, it’s a bloody coincidence.

Today the Press reports:

Health experts have joined the call for a lower drink-driving limit after a horror week on New Zealand roads.

The pressure comes weeks before a Cabinet decision on whether it will lower the blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres to 50mg as part of its 10-year road-safety strategy, called Safer Journeys.

Twenty-one people have died in 14 road accidents over the past seven days, with an elderly woman pedestrian killed when she was struck by a vehicle in the Bay of Plenty town of Paengaroa the latest victim.

Police said alcohol was believed to have played a part in five of the crashes.

And in how many of them did the driver had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08?

In the official stats for 2008, only one (yes one) driver aged over 25 killed in a car crash had a blood alcohol level between 0.05 and 0.08.

Here is the research I would want the Government to undertake, before making a law change:

1. How many drivers currently drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. This will quantify how many people may be criminalised by a law change. This can be determined by collecting data at random checkpoints.
2. How many accidents (fatal and non fatal) are caused by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. The existing data is incomplete. We need at least a year where an effort is made to get this data for every crash.
3. What has happened in countries where the BAC is lowered from 0.08 to 0.05 (and no other road safety change occurred at the same time) in terms of number of prosecutions for having excess blood alcohol, and number of accidents. In other words did it change behaviour, or just lead to more people prosecuted?

The CEO of ALAC writes in the Herald:

The Ministry of Transport’s Safer Journeys strategy includes a proposal to lower the legal adult blood-alcohol content for driving from 0.08 (80mg alcohol/100ml of blood) to 0.05mg.

In its response to the strategy, the Government approved a number of measures including a zero alcohol tolerance for drivers under 20. It has, however, deferred a decision on the adult level to later this month. It will also consider the option of undertaking more research into the risk posed by drivers with a blood-alcohol content between 0.05 and 0.08.

In my view, the time for more research is past. It is time for action. The evidence for a lower blood-alcohol content is overwhelming.

I disagree. I think the evidence is far from overwhelming. I think a sensible Government would indeed do more research.

The Safer Journeys document suggested:

As an alternative to lowering the adult drink-drive limit, we could do more research on the level of risk presented by drivers with a BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08.

To do this we could replicate, using New Zealand drivers, the overseas studies that look at the impairment effects of alcohol at different levels of BAC while driving.

We could also investigate whether we could better establish the level of crashes that are caused by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. This could involve requiring all drivers involved in crashes to be subject to a compulsory breath or blood test.

I think both those research ideas are laudable. ALAC continues:

Since the 0.08 for adult drivers was set in 1978, New Zealand and international research has consistently demonstrated that an alcohol limit of 0.05 or lower saves lives and prevents serious injuries. In Australia, New South Wales achieved an 8 per cent reduction in fatal crashes, and Queensland achieved an 18 per cent reduction.

The lower one sets the limit, it is likely the fewer crashes there will be. But one has to look at both sides of the equation. One could have a zero blood alcohol limit for all adults, but that will them criminalise most of the population. If you have one drink at work and drive home, you would be breaking the law.

Any advocacy that focuses just one one side of the equation, is unbalanced. One has to look at the benefits and the costs. If one only focuses on road injuries, then you would set a maximum speed limit of 30 km/hr on open roads. It is about a balance between safety and convenience.

Safer Journeys estimates that an adult drink-drive limit here of 0.05 would save between 15 and 33 lives and prevent 320 to 686 injuries every year. This corresponds to an estimated annual social cost saving of between $111 million and $238 million.

Well my reading of the document says:

However, based on the alcohol-related crashes that occurred over 2004–2008, we estimate that adult drivers with a BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08 are responsible for at least 7 deaths, 45 serious injuries and 102 minor injuries of the total 119 deaths, 582 serious injuries and 1,726 minor injuries that were caused by drunk and drugged drivers in 2008.

And if one goes to the actual 2008 crash statistics, we see there were 366 road fatalities. 211 drivers, 107 passengers, 31 pedestrians, 10 cyclists and 7 others.

Now of the 211 drivers killed, 171 were tested for blood alcohol levels.

Of the 171 tested, 58 had blood alcohol levels of over 0.03.

The chart shows that most drivers killed are not even close to the 80 limit. They are at least double it, sometimes triple it. This is where I think the focus should go.

But there were five dead drivers with a BAC between 0.5 and 0.8. So would changing the law save those five drivers, and an unknown number of passengers?

Well no. Two of the five are aged under 20, where their limit is already 0.03. And two more were aged 20 to 24. So only one driver aged over 24 had a BAC of 0.05 to 0.08.

This is why I am unconvinced that a lowering of the limit for adults will have much of an impact on the road toll.

A possible compromise may be to increase the age for the youth limit from 20 to 25. That road safety data shows that 20-29 year olds are still far more prone to fatal crashes, then over 30 year olds at differing levels of blood alcohol.

If an over 30 driver with a BAC of 0 is deemed to have a risk of 1 for a fatal crash, the risks at 0.03, 0.05 and 0.08 are:

0.03 – 2.9 (30+), 8.7 (20-29), 15 (15-19)

0.05 -5.8 (30+), 17.5 (20-29), 30.3 (15-19)

0.08 – 16.5 (30+), 50.2 (20-29), 86.6 (15-19)

If one had a limit of 0.03 for under 20s (status quo), 0.05 for under 30s (a reduction from 0.08) and 0.08 for over 30s (status quo) then you would have a similar level of risk over all age groups.

Whale Oil has long suggested (OK, this is Whale – he stated) that some of the more bizarre texts and e-mails from North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams occur while he is under the influence. This has always been denied. Today’s story in the SST by Jonathan Marshall, kills the credibility of those denials:

By chance, the Star-Times observed Williams drinking barside at Takapuna’s GPK bar and restaurant around 10pm on Thursday. He talked to a couple at the popular eatery and could be heard referring to himself in the third person. He said he was North Shore’s mayor and enjoyed his role.

And has been having an extended sulk that mean old Rodney and the Government have taken his job away.

Inquiries with two bar staff revealed Williams had been drinking red wine at the establishment since 4pm. Six hours later Williams left GPK alone and headed down Hurstmere Rd towards the offices of the North Shore City Council, where he has been mayor since 2007.

On his way he stopped, pulled down his trousers and urinated on a tree outside the council offices.

Having the Mayor down trou and take a piss outside the Council offices just makes your city a laughing stock.

And you have to wonder how pissed one has to be to do such a thing, considering he could have gone inside to use their toilets.

Williams then headed for the council underground carpark, collected his mayoral vehicle and drove home to Campbells Bay, a 6km trip.

Williams appears to have got home without incident.

This is potentially the most serious aspect. Now it is possible to drink for six hours and be under the legal limit. However the urinating outside the Council offices strongly suggests a considerable degree of drunkenness.

Shortly after Williams arrived home he sent an email to members of his council’s executive team in which he commented on a scheduled visit the following day by Hide and acting Housing Minister Maurice Williamson.

“These two individuals deserve any and all appropriate comments in relation to the rape and pillage of the North Shore by this Auckland takeover. I have only utter contempt for both of them,” Williams’ email, sent at 11.38pm, says.

I understand the North Shore Council staff were in fact totally professional, and very embarrased by the e-mail their drunken Mayor had sent out to them all.

But eight hours later, when Williams appeared on TV1′s Breakfast, co-host Paul Henry asked the mayor if he respected Williamson.

“Maurice is a good guy, I like Maurice,” Williams replied.

So either he is lying, or he was so drunk when he wrote the e-mail, he does not remember it. Unless he often says “I have only utter contempt” about people he says he likes and is a good guy.

Yesterday, outside his home, Williams told the Star-Times he had not been drinking on Thursday night but a few minutes later said he might have been, he just couldn’t “recall”.

He said he didn’t know if he had been drinking at GPK, and when challenged he responded: “Oh really? That’s interesting.”

So he denied he had been drinking initially and then said he can’t recall. To be fair to him, it is possible he can’t recall.

Asked if he had been working on Thursday evening, Williams replied: “I can’t recall. I might have been. I go to meetings every day, every night.”

Meetings? Like these:

Further inquiries that evening at GPK revealed the mayor was a “very frequent visitor”, “possibly one of our most regulars”, said one waitress.

That’s a lot of meetings.

Questioned about why he urinated on his way to collect his mayoral vehicle, Williams said: “I’m not going to talk about it.”

Maybe he genuinely can’t remember it also? That happens when you have drunk to excess.

When news broke last year of Williams’ early morning texts to Key – which the country’s leader branded “aggressive” and “obnoxious” – the mayor blamed painkillers.

He denied suggestions the texts were sent because he was drunk, saying he had not been intoxicated since his 21st birthday.

So he decided to take a piss outside the Council offices stone cold sober?

Maybe he was also on painkillers on Thursday!

In August 2008 Williams collapsed at a Devonport Naval Base function and lashed out at attending ambulance officers. He was hospitalised. Williams later insisted he had “no recollection” of it and was just “exhausted” from an overseas trip.

There does seem to be a real pattern here.

The Herald reports:

A teenage boy who feared for the safety of his 12-year-old sister and her friend confiscated his drink-driving mother’s car keys and a partly consumed bottle of gin, then called police. …

The police prosecutor, Sergeant Ian Collin, said Jefferies drove to pick up her 15-year-old son at 7.30pm and had her daughter and daughter’s friend in the car with her.

“She had been drinking vodka and was intoxicated.”

Mr Collin said Jefferies drove from the New World car park in Wanaka towards her home.

“Her 15-year-old son realised his mother was highly intoxicated after she started to drive towards on-coming traffic.

“He feared for the safety of all and made her stop the car.

“He seized a partly consumed bottle of gin, the keys to the vehicle and a cellphone to call for help.”

The teenager called police and then told his mother, who ran away. She was found almost five hours later.

I am so impressed. He put his sister’s safety first and made the right call.

“She admitted she was an alcoholic and needed some assistance.”

Hopefully she will get it.

There is a table of probable first actions for the Government’s Safer Journeys Strategy. They are:

Raise driving age to 16.

I support this one, as I have always seen it as linked to the school leaving age.

Make the restricted licence test more difficult to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice.

More supervision before you drive solo sounds good to me. However 120 hours may be a bit too high. That means a (probable) parent spending two hours a day week supervising their kid for 60 weeks.

Introduce a zero drink-drive limit for drivers under 20.

I do support this one, and not just because I am over 20. I think it will be beneficial to have a clear message saying if you are under 20 you should never drive if you have been drinking alcohol. The crash statistics show too many young people don’t know when to stop, so a zero limit makes it easier for friends to intervene also.

Investigate vehicle power restrictions for young drivers.

Not so sure about this, but will be interested to see the research.

Address repeat offenders and high level offending through Compulsory alcohol interlocks and a zero drink-drive limit for offenders.

I prefer solutions that target the problem, and don’t hassle or criminalise the vast majority who are not causing a problem, so supportive of these measures for repeat offenders.

Either, lower the drink-drive limit to BAC 0.05 and introduce infringement penalties for offences between 0.05 and 0.08
Or
Establish the level of risk posed by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 – 0.08.

I remain quite opposed to the first option, even though I note they are talking infringement not criminal penalties. Quite simply the 2007 crash statistics show just two drivers killed in car crashes had blood alcohol limits in the .05 to .08 range. I’ve seen some media reports suggesting 20 to 30 lives a year could be saved by such a change.  This is propaganda.

The second looks like a we’ll do it later version of the first option, but one can hope there is an open mind on the issue.  I certainly would like to see some good research on the risk posed by adults with a BAC of 0.05 to 0.08, but also on the prevalence of adults who drive at that level so one can have an idea of how many people a change may affect, and what the benefits will be.

Develop a classification system for the roading network

That would be useful to know which roads are safest and least safe.

Change the give way rules for turning traffic.

This will be a major change, but I think it is overdue.

In an ideal world we would also change to driving on the right hand side of the road, so tourists who come here don’t pose such a danger, and vice-versa for NZers overseas. However the transition costs would be immense.

How weird. The Herald reports:

A leading unionist has attacked Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe over the company’s “grubby deal” with police that has led to staff caught drink-driving being penalised twice.

Andrew Little, secretary of the Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union and also president of the Labour Party, said the police had circumvented privacy and information laws and the airline had co-operated. …

Mr Little said that “Mr Fyfe’s response was less one of management heroism and more one of anger that the grubby deal had blown up in the airline’s face”.

He said that under that deal, airline staff processed for drink-driving faced criminal prosecution, appropriately, but also had the facts disclosed to Air NZ, so it could “exact a second punishment, usually dismissal, for the same offence”.

So the Labour Party President EPMU National Secretary thinks that it is a despicable thing that the Police tell Air New Zealand if a pilot gets charged with drink driving. Presumably Andrew thinks that it is nothing for Air New Zealand to worry about, as the drink driving took place in a car instead of a plane. This means that it is only *after* a pilot has also flown a plane while drunk, that Air New Zealand should be able to take action.

The Herald reports:

The Government intends imposing a zero alcohol level on drivers under 20, Transport Minister Steven Joyce has confirmed.

He said today it was part of a package aimed at reducing the road death toll, which was 60 per cent per capita higher than Australia’s.

Mr Joyce said the zero alcohol level for drivers under 20 still had to be signed off by the Cabinet.

“I think it is likely to get through,” he said on Radio New Zealand.

Heh, I doubt Steven would be announcing it unless he knew it would get through

“We do need to take a systematic approach to the issues around young people dying on our roads.”

At present teenage drivers have a 30mg alcohol limit.

Mr Joyce said there would also be proposals in the package covering drivers up to age 24.

I am supportive of a zero blood alcohol limit for under 20 year old drivers.

The current limit of 30mg sends out a mixed message. It is close to a de facto zero limit (a couple of quick drinks could put you over) but it means that the message is you can drink a bit and drive.

For teenagers, whose crash stats are appalling, a simple message does better – simply if you are the driver, you should not drink at all.

The HoS reports:

Alcohol watchdogs are calling on the Government to fast-track drink-drive reforms after a Herald on Sunday test showed adults could consume almost a six-pack of beer and still beat the breathalyser. …

Two adults – one male and one female – drank several bottles of beer and still tested under the limit during a controlled test at Pukekohe Park.

However, instructors rated their driving after having the drinks as “very aggressive” and “not safe”.

This is such a beatup.

First of all they do not tell us how many bottles or cans were consumed, how big the bottles were, what strength the beer was, over what time period was it consumed, was there food also, and how big or small the people were.

One can not make any sort of meaningful conclusion without that information.

The crash statistics show that most fatal accidents involving alcohol, had the driver at around three times the legal limit. These are the people that should be targetted, rather than hundreds and thousands of law abiding New Zealanders.

On average only one fatal crash every six months has the driver with a blood alcohol limit of between 50 and 80. Lowering the limit will do very very little to lower the road toll in my opinion, but will result in many more people being prosecuted.

UPDATE: I’ve been told the print edition of the HoS has much more info, spread over three pages, and this covers many of my criticisms about the test. I’ll go buy a copy later today.

The Herald reports:

Transport Minister Steven Joyce yesterday described existing legal alcohol limits for drivers as “ridiculous”.

Speaking to a conference of traffic experts in Auckland, Mr Joyce said he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine in 90 minutes yet still have every chance of being under the legal alcohol limit for adult drivers.

Shouldn’t the test be how impaired one would be at a blood alcohol level, as well as what that means in terms of actual drink.

I see this going the same way as the cellphone debate – a kneejerk reaction with little proof it will actually make a difference to crash statistics.

The Dom Post has a story today that quotes overseas reseach suggesting the cellphone ban will not lead to safer roads – it will just lead to people getting fined for continuing to use their cellphones.

I kept asking on this blog if anyone can quote empirical evidence of a cellphone ban actually leading to fewer crashes, rather than greater fines, but no-one has done so.

Anyway back to Steven Joyce:

But he said heavy advertising when the existing adult limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood was introduced in 1978 had made it difficult for him to gain popular acceptance for a further cut.

“A huge amount of advertising was done at the time which said it was just a couple of drinks and then one an hour.”

The result was a popular misconception that reducing the limit to 50mg – one of 61 ideas suggested in a Ministry of Transport discussion paper – would restrict motorists to little more than one standard drink if they wanted to drive home.

I don’t think that, but the rough test for me is that a couple should be able to share a bottle of wine over dinner, and not be breaking the law by driving home afterwards.

A bottle is almost eight standard drinks.

The discussion paper gives six drinks as the allowance for a man of average height and weight. For a woman, the limit is four drinks.

It says a limit of 50mg of alcohol, based on Australian guidelines, would allow an average man to have two drinks in the first hour and one an hour thereafter.

And presumably a woman would be two thirds of that. So let us say a man would have five standard drinks and a woman three standard drinks from a bottle of wine. At a 50 mg limit they would be breaking the law unless the dinner lasted four hours.

But that isn’t een the most important test. The question that (in my opinion) the Minister should ask is how many accidents are caused by drivers with blood alcohol between 50 and 80. In other words how many crashes would potentially be prevented if the limit was lowered, and how many people would be criminalised for having a bottle of wine over dinner. Again I’d like non-emotional study of the benefits and costs of any lowering.

This 2007 report from Transport on blood alcohol levels of drivers killed in car crashes finds the following:

• 60 drivers found to have a detectable level of alcohol (above 30), and 137 had under 30
• By far the most common level (36/60) had a level of 200 – 300 – around three times the legal limit
• Only three drivers were marginally above the limit (80-100) and they were all under 25 so in fact they were well over their limit of 30
• Only two drivers were in the 51 – 80 range

So most drunk drivers who end up dead are totally plastered. A lowering of the limit to 50 would possibly result in one less fatal crash every six months.