Originally Posted by
movefromus
I agree with Paul and co. I don't see a need for zero tolerance in this matter. I feel that as in most things there needs to be a balanced approach. In an idealic world we would never drive except when we were at our best. In a realistic world we have jobs, children who go to school, chores that need doing, etc., etc. If people start having accidents all over the place while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 then I'm sure the gov. will reconsider the level. Up til now I don't believe that this is the case and so I see no reason to change it.
You have too much faith in governments.
When driving with a blood alcohol level over the current limit of 80mg, you are sixteen times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a sober driver*. The current level allows for serious impairment of essential driving skills.
Almost all countries that have lowered their blood alcohol concentration to 50mg or lower have experienced reduced crashes, injuries and fatalities. Taking international reductions into account New Zealand could expect to save between 16-72 lives and between 640-1280 injuries a year. This is a substantial opportunity given that our road toll is stuck above 400 deaths per year and the goal is no more than 300.
Williams says that while lowering blood alcohol limits is an effective tool targeting the whole of the population, additional specific measures are needed to combat the hard core of repeat offenders.
There is strong public support for lowering the drink drive limits. Nearly 70% of submitters on the National Road Safety Strategy 2010 supported lowering the blood alcohol limits.
Other countries such as OZ have already reduced their BAC to 0.05.
If the estimates of saving 16-72 lives per year isn't enough reason to reduce the BAC then what is?
Ian