The headline reads "War on drink driving failing". It's a nice way of announcing that something has just got to be done. Something serious.
Drink driving rates are climbing despite a multi-million dollar advertising campaign.
A plea to spend more money. After all, any decent war needs a trillion dollars thrown at it. War on drugs, war on terror, why should New Zealand's wars be any different? There's a serious solution. Spend more money on advertising.
But wait, there's more.
With drink-drive prosecutions going up, it's time to get really serious. The suggestion from National Road Policing Manager Dave Cliff: lower the alcohol limit so we can catch even more people.
Obviously, we'd then be catching them for breaking the law, and not for being drunk. But they'd still be fined for "drunken driving". Maybe we should lobby for a generic offense against the state of "treason", since it would seem strange to be convicted of drunken driving when one was obviously not drunk. Nope, treason would be far more accurate. And it would instantly solve the drink-driving stats. Those particular statistics would plunge to a socialist paradise nirvana result of zero, putting Helen (once she retires) on the European Speakers Circuit for years to come.
So what are some of the cases highlighted in the article that would justify a zero tolerance law?
1. Two sets of tourists speeding in snow. Each with children in their cars!
Strange example, considering they didn't have any alcohol in their blood. Oh well - lower the limit anyway! And they were tourists - quick spend a few more million on TV advertisements, but this time in Norwegian! And think of the children - we must introduce harsher laws, to save them.
2. A speeding Norwegian Tourist. This one did have alcohol on his breath, at twice the legal limit, but no kids.
Well, lowering the alcohol limit in his case would only make him more guilty. But wasn't he guilty enough already? No matter, more advertising will solve this problem.
3. Police caught a drunk driver with 10 previous convictions.
Only 10 you say? Well, more advertising and lowering the threshold will DEFINITELY sort him out. Or actually enforcing the law. But great logic. The statistics don't improve because the same people keep getting caught, so lower the limit to catch more people that will actually respect the law, even as the law disrespects them (for arresting them not for drunk driving, but breaking the law)
4. Police stopped some-one to breath test him. Whilst that was going on, the passengers removed the wheels of the police car.
OK, so how long do breath tests take? And how much concentration does the policeman put into this, as a steady progression of passengers slither out the side door and take to the police car? And again, was the driver actually drunk? The report avoided mentioning that, possibly on the grounds it did not want to incriminate itself. Back to the point - how does reporting the crime of vandalism going to help convince us we need to reduce the legal limits for drivers?
5. Police catch a 15 year old speeding without his car headlights on. He was on the adult limit when breath tested.
So, not only driving dangerously, but under-age drinking. And at that age, the law on alcohol is zero tolerance anyway!
And the argument seems to shoot itself in the foot with its closing paragraph:
So many questions, and I'm not buying the answers that came free on page one of the Dominion Post. This story appears to be a precursor to justifying making criminals of people for breaking the law, not for driving drunk. The same people will flout the law, and a new set of "criminals" will be made to pay the price.
See also: Drink Driving Limits Tested
Drink driving rates are climbing despite a multi-million dollar advertising campaign.
A plea to spend more money. After all, any decent war needs a trillion dollars thrown at it. War on drugs, war on terror, why should New Zealand's wars be any different? There's a serious solution. Spend more money on advertising.
But wait, there's more.
With drink-drive prosecutions going up, it's time to get really serious. The suggestion from National Road Policing Manager Dave Cliff: lower the alcohol limit so we can catch even more people.
Obviously, we'd then be catching them for breaking the law, and not for being drunk. But they'd still be fined for "drunken driving". Maybe we should lobby for a generic offense against the state of "treason", since it would seem strange to be convicted of drunken driving when one was obviously not drunk. Nope, treason would be far more accurate. And it would instantly solve the drink-driving stats. Those particular statistics would plunge to a socialist paradise nirvana result of zero, putting Helen (once she retires) on the European Speakers Circuit for years to come.
So what are some of the cases highlighted in the article that would justify a zero tolerance law?
1. Two sets of tourists speeding in snow. Each with children in their cars!
Strange example, considering they didn't have any alcohol in their blood. Oh well - lower the limit anyway! And they were tourists - quick spend a few more million on TV advertisements, but this time in Norwegian! And think of the children - we must introduce harsher laws, to save them.
2. A speeding Norwegian Tourist. This one did have alcohol on his breath, at twice the legal limit, but no kids.
Well, lowering the alcohol limit in his case would only make him more guilty. But wasn't he guilty enough already? No matter, more advertising will solve this problem.
3. Police caught a drunk driver with 10 previous convictions.
Only 10 you say? Well, more advertising and lowering the threshold will DEFINITELY sort him out. Or actually enforcing the law. But great logic. The statistics don't improve because the same people keep getting caught, so lower the limit to catch more people that will actually respect the law, even as the law disrespects them (for arresting them not for drunk driving, but breaking the law)
4. Police stopped some-one to breath test him. Whilst that was going on, the passengers removed the wheels of the police car.
OK, so how long do breath tests take? And how much concentration does the policeman put into this, as a steady progression of passengers slither out the side door and take to the police car? And again, was the driver actually drunk? The report avoided mentioning that, possibly on the grounds it did not want to incriminate itself. Back to the point - how does reporting the crime of vandalism going to help convince us we need to reduce the legal limits for drivers?
5. Police catch a 15 year old speeding without his car headlights on. He was on the adult limit when breath tested.
So, not only driving dangerously, but under-age drinking. And at that age, the law on alcohol is zero tolerance anyway!
And the argument seems to shoot itself in the foot with its closing paragraph:
The road toll was more than 700 deaths a year in the late 1980s. Last year it was 387 - the lowest in decades.Maybe I need to step back from this report and ask bigger questions. Like, why are readers of newspaper stories so critical nowadays? Will the public ultimately accept tougher drink driving laws trapping a wider pool of innocent people based on these stories?
So many questions, and I'm not buying the answers that came free on page one of the Dominion Post. This story appears to be a precursor to justifying making criminals of people for breaking the law, not for driving drunk. The same people will flout the law, and a new set of "criminals" will be made to pay the price.
See also: Drink Driving Limits Tested