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
Today in the Dominion Post there was a list of all the DIC convictions of the week. Interestingly, one guy was caught twice - in one week. He's still driving - even though he has been disqualified for a while.
ReplyDeleteThis has damn-all to do with preventing drunk driving.
ReplyDeleteOnce citizens (or, in our case "subjects") are surrounded and hemmed in by a myriad of laws then it becomes impossible for otherwise law-abiding folk to live normal lives without breaking them.
Once that point is reached then our freedom and our possessions are held at the pleasure of the State.
We are then no more than slaves.
Er, sure, it's all a dastardly plot to make us slaves. That's much more likely than the alternative - that it's just easier to hassle people like us and claim to be "sending a message" than to try and tackle the bastards actually behind the problem.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, that's exactly what we're looking at here. Hardly any deaths are caused by people with blood alcohol levels of between 50 and 80, so lowering the permitted level to 50 achieves next to no reduction in deaths. It does however offer rich pickings in terms of fines issued, and the resulting key indicators that say "We're doing a good job" at performance review time. The much harder approach of targeting the multi-offending disqualified drivers at 2 or three times the limit is difficult, dangerous and likely to be pretty unrewarding in terms of key indicators at performance review time.
Sure, PM be dismissive and superior as you like--it's that attitude that's helped governments and bureaucrats grab more and more power and reduce us to mere taxpaying units or wards of the State.
ReplyDeleteYou'll still be sneering when free speech and freedom of movement and association are distant memories.
"...it's that attitude that's helped governments and bureaucrats grab more and more power and reduce us to mere taxpaying units or wards of the State."
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to the golden, non-governed, non-taxpaying days of... er, when exactly? You can call it sneering if you like, I prefer to call it asking you to actually think about what you're saying.
PM - It is also worth considering the point that the *effect* of law changes can make us virtual slaves to the state.
ReplyDeletePlaying the "conspiracy theory" card in an attempt to dismiss this line of thought ignores the actual consequences of such laws, and a little bit of passion over this is exactly what is required to send a message back to these people suggesting such types of policy.
Slavery may merely be a side effect of the truly misguided left wing socialist do-gooder type that watches policy fail and concludes "more of same" is necessary, but a loud shout back is required to get something through to their one track brains, I think.
If they are going to shout "think of the children" and "worsening problem" messages, it might be appropriate to respond in kind.
But I gather from your comments you are actually in agreement with the point of the post. More of the same, on the flimsiest of reasons will criminalize good people who are acting responsibly, who will pay the fines and do the community service for "breaking the law" as distinct from "driving drunk" only to have the police shake their heads in disbelief as the same fools that are caught in excess of the limit, driving whilst disqualified etc continue to flout the laws, to whatever degree they are issued.
"As opposed to the golden, non-governed, non-taxpaying days of... er, when exactly? "
ReplyDeleteIf you read what I wrote above very, very carefully you'll see that I didn't suggest that there was ever such a period.
But that doesn't mean that thousands of laws that have been added to the statute books won't have the effect I described.
And you don't need to ask me to think, PM. I'm not a lefty. :-)
A great many laws are aimed at the lowest common denominator of societal behaviour. Most people are perfectly well behaved law-abiding individuals who would get along with their neighbours very well indeed with virtually no laws--they just prefer to behave decently.
So the laws aimed at controlling behaviour are for a subset of society that will never behave decently in any case, no matter what laws are passed yet the laws affect all of us in various ways.
Politicians and bureaucrats will use laws to attempt to control the population because it's in their nature to seek power and then to exercise that power.
Which means that we all end up living under the yoke of the State regardless.
Which was the point of my comment. Now, if you can refute that point, go ahead--it'll be an improvement on sneering and inviting me to think.
I saw the drink driving beat up story on tv a few days back.
ReplyDeleteOut of 28000 breath tested, just 200-plus were over the limit- that is less than 1%.
Considering the tests were done friday when many would have had a few bevvys after work, I would say the low % of offenders shows exuisting laws work pretty well.
The police should be happy that over 99% of motorists are not offending.
DarrenG
Zen - yes, absolutely in agreement with the point of your post.
ReplyDeleteWe've seen something similar with the S59 repeal - criminalising the rest of us is much easier than stopping the people actually causing the trouble, so it's the first handle they reach for. It will supposedly "send a message," although who it sends a message to, and what that message is, is very much open to debate.
Similar also to the last dangerous dogs panic: thinking up new laws against vicious dogs is way easier than the unpleasant and largely thankless task of actually enforcing the existing laws, which tend to bring you up against owners even more vicious than their dogs.
That said, I'm not interested in any partisan bollocks about this being a left-wing trait - right-wing govts also have bureaucracies, and those politicians and bureaucracies also always take the easiest way out. I wouldn't expect National to overturn any of this stuff, I'd expect them to simply add to it as usual.
I would quite happily see the limit reduced to zero... But then I will admit my point of view is coloured from attending funerals of friends and family members who were killed by drunk drivers... And in two cases the drunken *&^% were not blindly drunk but were "law abiding citizens" who thought that "just one with dinner will be fine" and then "Ok another won't hurt as I have just eaten"
ReplyDeleteI have said it before and will say it again. Keep the limit as is and enforce the law - adding some new ones along the following lines:
ReplyDeleteFirst Offence: $1,000 minimum fine and 6 months disqualification. No partial restoration for work.
Second Offence: $5,000 minimum fine 1 year disqualification with no partial restoration for work, confiscate and sell car irrespective of ownership, unless stolen.
Third Offence: 6 months gaol, disqualified for life, impound and sell car irrespective of ownership, unless stolen.
For first and second offences fines would be scaled to upwards to reflect readings.
Surely this would have an impact without impinging on those who have a social drink and drive safely under existing limits.
"Surely this would have an impact without impinging on those who have a social drink and drive safely under existing limits."
ReplyDeleteI hate this delusion... Even one drink impairs the driver’s ability to respond to hazards, and their judgement…
Socrates, I've been working off an assumption that under 400 (if that's the limit) is small enough to make little difference.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that the drunk drivers that have killed family and friends had alcohol in their blood, but were "legal" ?
Zen - Yes
ReplyDeleteBoth were technically under the limit (from blood and breath). One by 40, the other 55.
Done for rcd but not dic.. Even though the police noted impaired behaviour... They were drunk.. Everyone knew it.. But legally not so..
Thanks for the info Socrates. Well that puts a completely different spin on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why the police and papers go to all the trouble with rabbiting on about cases where the amounts were excessive, and cannot present crash data where alcohol was a factor, even if the amount was "legal"?
Reasonable people are prepared to consider reasonable information - the style of reporting in the Dom Post came across as anything but reasonable.
I shall do further research on this!
I've driven impaired by any number of things apart from drugs - strong emotions, the many distractions of passengers (especially children), answering the phone, changing tapes/CDs, looking at scenery, sexual molestation, thinking about problems, eating and drinking, surely there are others. Once in my younger days I smacked my car into a bank while trying to up the bass on a particularly cool Jimi Hendrix track - without having touched a drop of alcohol, I might add. All of these impairments make a glass of wine with dinner pale into insignificance, many of them have undoubtedly caused fatal accidents, and yet so far no-one's thought to legislate against them.
ReplyDeleteGood points PM. My mind is playing "Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand..." and I liked the Deep Purple version too for that matter.
ReplyDeleteOne of the points you raise is that people cause crashes (note that I avoid the use of the word accident) for all sorts of reasons, and ultimately we are expecting people to take responsibility for their actions. The justice system is failing us here, where many people also expect an element of punishment to be included in the sentence.
nd yet so far no-one's thought to legislate against them.
Well, certainly against alcohol where there is a direct correlation with drunkenness and crashes; a push to legislate against use of mobile phones (hand operated) which have been banned in other countries; and a move to legislate against other drugs (once the detection technology catches up.
The only thing we haven't legislated against is stupidity. But some academics are trying to suggest even that (with mass-contraception delivery in the water).
Seems to me the solution is to continue with the blitzes and the TV campaigning, and making the sentences harsher for repeat offenders. Coupled with that, it's getting easier to purchase breath analyzers to self-test. I might try one out on myself to see where two glasses of wine get me and compare that to how drunk I "feel".
It was probably Voodoo Chile (Slight Return), the unthinking metaller's traditional favourite, but I've often thought (while cursing exactly how stupidly inattentive I was being) that the difference between bending the front guard on a bank and ending up on the wrong side of the road came down to the random fact that the road bent right at that point. There but for the grace of God etc (apt turn of phrase for this blog).
ReplyDeleteMy bottom line is there's no logical reason to ban alcohol levels below the current levels if you won't also ban car stereos, conversations with passengers, and all the other things that line you up for a crash. At some point we have to accept that driving involves risk, and there's a limit on how far we should curtail people's freedoms for the sake of minimising risk.
Actually, re-reading that, I suspect the statement "...there's a limit on how far we should curtail people's freedoms for the sake of minimising risk," contradicts everything the current govt stands for.
Psycho Milt
ReplyDeleteAs you say "My bottom line is there's no logical reason to ban alcohol levels below the current levels if you won't also ban car stereos, conversations with passengers, and all the other things that line you up for a crash."
I agree, but the things you mention are already illegal - called careless or dangerous driving. Had your close call (we probably have ALL had them) caused an injury accident it would likely have resulted in a charge
Well, in that sense, being minutely impaired by a glass of wine is also already illegal, so there's no need for any additional legislation. Can't see that logic prevailing though - perhaps we'll live to see Police checkpoints in place to measure your anger levels, monitor your passenger activity or check that you aren't secretly carrying an illegal stereo or pack of cigarettes.
ReplyDeleteOr sugar.
ReplyDeleteOr meat pies (illegal to the under 16s)
I think we are mixing things up here. Are we dealing with recidivist drink drivers in which case my post should have an effect or are we dealing with all accident causes?
ReplyDeleteI believe these to be two very separate issues.
pdm: the original post was about LTSA's enthusiasm for reducing the permitted blood level of alcohol for driving, thus criminalising a large proportion of the population for little gain.
ReplyDeleteThe comments thread has largely had two themes:
1. The failure of the authorities to address the real problem, which is the relatively small number of extremely drunk or recidivist drunk drivers (which your comment was addressing)
2. The fact that any impairment we might conceivably suffer from a blood alcohol level of 50 is insignificant compared to the many more serious impairments we often suffer while driving, and for which no-one so far has seriously suggested giving us a criminal record. (my comments)
I think both strands are relevant to the original post.
As I have said my view is highly biased by experience so I acknowledge my probable lack of objectivity when discussing this. As such I will leave one last post as I know that I will probably not convince you and you will never convince me.
ReplyDeleteThat being said one last plug for a complete ban.
Milt nearly all of what give as impairments are transitory distractions, i.e. ones that will impact on your ability to drive for a few moments only. Alcohol will impact on your ability to drive for your entire trip. That I think is a difference. Further you say “My bottom line is there's no logical reason to ban alcohol levels below the current levels”, except I would point to the many studies that have proved that even one drink impacts on your perceptions, reaction speeds and ability to make judgement calls. Sure some have said that these effects are negligible, however I still think negligible is to much.
Anyway, I will leave you with one thought. If you are driving, and thinking of having that just one drink, please pause for a moment and think. Do you really need to drink that much. Will your enjoyment of the evening be so diminished by having a non-alcoholic beverage? I hope you never have to sit where I have sat, and never find yourself in the position to have caused someone else to be there.