Bryce Johns' submission to the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill select committee

Good afternoon ladies and gentleman.

I'm Bryce Johns, editor of the Herald on Sunday, and I'm taking the unusual step of appearing before you today as a newspaper editor for one simple reason.

My readers are demanding I do.

They are concerned the proposed law changes before Parliament, which you are considering currently, don't include a lowering of the drink-driving limit and they want someone to speak up for them. Our campaign in conjunction with the NZ Herald - launched on Sunday to get people to pledge to drive only if they have had no more than two standard drinks under their belt - has been designed to make the roads safe, but also to put pressure on legislators to reduce the drink-drive limit from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams of alcohol.

I'm no scientist so I don't intend to labour the research point today - though there are a couple of figures that I think it extremely vital I start with. The Government seeks to commit to a two-year research project to analyse whether a reduction in the limit will be a useful tool in making our roads safer.

But Ministry of Transport figures already prove such a move will save lives. Since 2006, 17 drivers have died with an alcohol limit, while behind the wheel, of between 50 and 80mg. Remember, that is the drop that various parties have recommended to lawmakers. If that level had been in place since 2006, and if the drivers had heeded the rules, you would have saved 17 lives - 8 in 2006, 2 in 2007 and 2009 and 5 in 2008. Those statistics are from the Government's own experts and prove real lives have been cut short because drivers were able to legally be on the road while impaired (and any number of studies suggest that is the case). It should also be noted that not all drivers are tested for a variety of reasons, so the lives saved could be higher.

So this is about saving lives and victims from horrific lifelong injuries. Your decisions have the potential to save a life - it might be one life, it will likely be more. It could be your life, or that of your children, or the child of any of those who cast a vote for you at election time. You were put here to make a difference. What more significant difference is there than saving a life?

But as I say, I am no scientist and apart from the incontrovertible, bald facts just mentioned ....... I have few statistics to present you.

I am simply here as a person whose job it has been for more than 20 years to gauge public opinion and, more recently, to help lead businesses where knowledge of what that public opinion means is paramount to success.

In case you are unaware, there have been only two newspapers in this country that have shown consistent audience growth in the past 5 years - the Waikato Times and the Herald on Sunday. I have been editor of both. The HoS is currently newspaper of the year in this country; the Waikato Times was last year.

How does growth happen against the trend?

Knowing your community and reflecting the readers' values.

Readers believe good papers make a difference in their lives.

Papers are under pressure worldwide, and editors can only get growth if they are connected to their community. What is it their readers want and how can the paper help them achieve those goals?

Our Two Drinks Max campaign is a reflection of a new community heart at the Herald on Sunday, and a reflection of reader demand. We spent thousands of dollars commissioning Phoenix research to find out the views of New Zealanders on this issue. Much as other polls have found recently, there is overwhelming support for a reduction in drink drive levels. 38 per cent of the respondents already do not drive after drinking; and another 38 per cent said they would not drive if they had had more than two standard drinks.

When put against other statistically reliable polls from other papers, like the NZ Herald daily, these figures are foolproof. Phoenix says: "These results can reasonably be interpreted as indicating that the Govt may have significantly misread public opinion about blood alcohol levels after drinking, even in small quantities, with the result that many people fall back on the simpler criterion of limiting themselves to two drinks."

Basically, the figures prove the threshold for change has been passed.

People now just want something to help make it happen - and the Herald on Sunday is doing that.

Since Sunday, and bear in mind Monday was a public holiday, more than 4100 people have pledged to Two Drinks Max and about 30,000 have responded to an online NZ Herald poll on the subject, an overwhelming 78 per cent saying their drink/drive habits already back Two Drinks Max. Though this poll is unscientific, the response rate is through the roof and it is a noteworthy coincidence that the figures match the Phoenix poll.

Feedback on this issue is already the second most received by the NZ Herald online team to any campaign in the past (the waterfront stadium debate of last year holds the record).

From a newspaper perspective, I am on to a winner. Readers want it; they will read it; I pledge to continue the fight as long as it takes. But I can't save lives, only you can.

I do need to reiterate that this isn't about selling papers - I and my staff have a personal stake in it. Herald on Sunday has been called "the car crash on Sunday" - reporters here have far too often interviewed grieving families who are victims of drunk drivers. We cover car crashes because readers want to read them - sales show that - and readers want to read those stories because they are relevant to their lives. Almost all Kiwis drive, and we all know we could be victims. The Herald on Sunday would like to never cover another car crash again - and the readers would like to drive without fearing they might be next.

From my own point of view I am someone with a drink drive conviction - I lost control of a car going around a corner and very fortunately ended up stopped next to a police car. I was a very easy catch for the constable that night. This campaign means more to me than most. From memory I was just over the limit that day about 20 years ago - it's a mistake I'll never repeat.

The message our current limit gives is the wrong one - you can have a few, maybe even six - but you're taking a chance. Looking back, I am grateful my lack of understanding did not kill someone.

Two Drinks Max sends the same message as a 50mg limit. It is a very rigid standard. It takes the guesswork out of how much we can drink before we get behind the wheel.

It's a standard that Kiwis are demanding; it will save lives - and it is difficult to see why anyone would not share that view.