Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Drink driving and the NZ law

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    UK-NZ-OZ-UK !!
    Posts
    1,937

    Default

    I tend to look at it this way..........

    Having a driving licence is a privilege, not a right and to obtain one and keep it you must prove that you are responsible in the handling of what I consider to be a potentially lethal weapon.

    You also need a licence to carry a gun - another potentially lethal weapon.

    I KNOW that if I was carrying a gun and I had been drinking even a small amount of alcohol that I personally would be a danger to others.

    I'm not prepared to put that same scenario to the test whilst driving my car.

    For me, it's nothing to do with getting caught by the police and paying the consequences - for me, it's knowing that being the cause of an RTA would be bad enough without the added guilt of knowing I'd had a drink.

    I'm in the zero tolerance camp on this one .......

    Julie

    xx

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA=>Welly=>BoP=>USA
    Posts
    368

    Default

    I don't know what the limit should be, but 'zero tolerance' really isn't very reasonable for all of the reasons stated above. It's an easy slogan to prescribe to, but what does it mean? Are you guilty if you ate a spice of Granny's rum cake and headed home an hour later?

    None of the regulations do much good if something isn't done to help the repeat offenders understand that driving when inebriated is not acceptable or tolerated.

    Maybe stocks in the village square or a big, red "DD" on the forehead would convince more drunk drivers than taking away their licenses...and then letting them drive anyway.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    California/Calabasas Hills
    Posts
    395

    Default

    barryp,
    So, you're saying that we should adjust the tolerance level beacause NZ has a shortage of jail, courts?
    The first thing I would be concerned about is peopless safety, and not making a favor for a drunk driver.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    87

    Default Drinking and Driving

    When the subject of what the rules should be for intoxication levels and driving I always ask the same question:

    What should the maximum blood alchohol level of the pilot flying the airliner you are in be?

    If it is different than what you should be allowed to have when you are driving a car, why?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    UK-NZ-OZ-UK !!
    Posts
    1,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfordjasiri View Post
    When the subject of what the rules should be for intoxication levels and driving I always ask the same question:

    What should the maximum blood alchohol level of the pilot flying the airliner you are in be?

    If it is different than what you should be allowed to have when you are driving a car, why?


    Ooooh - good question.......

    Zero alchohol level in my very humble opinion.

    Julie

    xx

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wellington NZ
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swissmissdesigner View Post
    barryp,
    So, you're saying that we should adjust the tolerance level beacause NZ has a shortage of jail, courts?
    The first thing I would be concerned about is peopless safety, and not making a favor for a drunk driver.
    I'm not saying that at all. The existing legal threshold represents a reasonable compromise (though we can and do debate the specifics) between costs and public safety. It isn't zero tolerance at all - it's a tradeoff, like all laws.

    If we are interested only in people's safety, we would outlaw private cars altogether. Death by car use is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely than death by flying, walking, or bicycling. If you drive a car, ever, you are putting yourself and your fellows at risk of injury and death. Again, a tradeoff - no one makes this argument in a serious way, but weighs those risks against the benefits of driving.

    Zero-tolerance would mean that people who have consumed no alcohol whatsoever would be subject to arrest. (Alcohol levels in blood do not come exclusively from imbibing alcoholic beverages, though of course that's the major source.) There are also plenty of other causes of dangerous driving that would not be addressed at all, as the jails filled - driving whilst smoking is quite risky too, as are driving whilst angry or in a rush. Tailgating is very dangerous but not a behaviour associated with alcohol use.

    By the way, 0.08 is not 'drunk' by any rational definition. No reasonable person would ever argue that it is OK for drunk people to drive. But the link between low BAC and public safety is very weak. And I'll say again that when the local paper posts the names of drink-drivers, you'll see quite a few names with BAC levels far, far in excess of 0.08; that's a sign of a serious problem.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hawkes Bay, NZ
    Posts
    946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith C. View Post
    I'll agree that alcohol affects your judgment and your driving ability. It would be hard to state otherwise. I will also bet that I drive much better with one or two drinks in me than most other people do without any (although worse than I drive without any). My driving record bears this out.
    Ok then, lets just find the very worst driver on the road and everyone can drink as much as they like provided their driving is better. What logic is this?!?! You admit you are a worse driver with one or two drinks inside you, so why have one or two drinks?

    It's not about who is the best driver but in what state are you best fit to drive. There are loads of grey areas to do with divided attention etc, etc. Alcohol affects reaction times and judgement and should therefore not be consumed when driving. That's the message a 'no drink driving' law would give out, instead of this current mixed message of some is ok for some people, perhaps not for others and blah, blah, blah. The status quo encourages a macho culture, imo, of people who think they're ok to drive with a drink or two inside them, even if others aren't.

    The whole 'we can't have zero tolerance because people can have trace blood alcohol levels for numerous reasons' is ridiculous hair splitting. We should have zero tolerance for anyone that drinks and drives. If you have a drink and get in a car you know that you have consumed a toxic substance that will impair your ability to drive. That is surely wrong

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Browns Bay, North Shore
    Posts
    863

    Default

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10456103

    I am in the no tolerance camp. If I go out and I am driving I will not drink at all. To say that one doesn't affect you is totally untrue. I am a big bloke who has been known to sink a pint or two of best bitter but can tell that my reactions are much slower after just one pint.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Eastern Auckland (from UK '05)
    Posts
    3,182

    Default

    One thing to bear in mind as well, is that there are regular road blocks and random testing.... I got stopped at 10am one day on the way to coffee group, obviously I was OK, but it was a nervous moment getting pulled by the police!

    The guy in the link specky posted must have been completely out of it, cos the breath test is easy!!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    4,455

    Default

    If you want to compare levels in the various countries then this link seems pretty comprehensive:- Blood Alcohol Limits Worldwide

    Interesting to note that UK, USA and NZ all have the same level.

    Ian

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •