KEY POINTS:
The Alcohol Advisory Council (Alac), Accident Compensation Commission, and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons have endorsed a proposal to cut blood-alcohol limits to almost half their current level for drivers over 20 and to virtually zero for younger drivers.
Police and alcohol watchdogs have been reluctant to say exactly how much drivers could consume to stay within the proposed limits, citing variables such as body mass, food consumed and fatigue. Do you think the drink-drive limit should be lowered? Here is the latest selection of Your Views:
Pita
Tragically lowering the limit will not eliminate the number of alcohol related deaths. Most of drink related fatalities occur when the driver is well over the limit (151-200 ppm), not just a few parts per million. Sadly statistics reveal that those determined to drink and drive will still drink and drive.
John
Absolutely, the alcohol limit should be zero. I honestly think we are too soft in this country. Why are we punishing smokers so much and turning a blind eye to an even bigger problem of alcohol abuse? Which costs this country a bundle$$ but even more with the social costs. These ads on TV are a joke when it says "its not the drink, its how we're drinking" that's like saying "its not the suicide, but how we are committing it". Zero limit.
Chris
I would want to go a bit further seeing that we are heading for a commie-style country, make life for drinkers as expensive, unpleasant and difficult as it is currently for smokers. Very much like smokers are now the having to endure all kinds of punitive actions, let's have the same for booze. Labels and TV ads warning against the hazards of drinking damaging your liver, high taxes, no drinking in public areas, banning advertising, etc. Face it, although there are no statistics about what booze is costing the economy, I do believe it must be staggering, even more so that for smoking. Just go for a trip to your local emergency room at night and see what the count is in injuries due to drink, either directly (falling down, doing stupid things) or indirectly (beatings, accidents, etc). Not to mention the cost in human relations like broken family homes, and direct damage like liver failures, and the impact on living standards due to money going to alcohol instead of basic essentials like food. It would be nice to see a properly researched survey of what the real cost of alcohol consumption is on the economy compared to say for instance smoking.
Rob Bishop
Make it a zero limit! That way there can be no excuses. There would be no "I've only had a few beers officer" you either drive and drink no alcohol, or you have a few and cab it home! Nice and simple!
Nate
Yes, I do believe the drink driving limit should be lowered. However, one does have to ask whether this will make a difference. The media has recently reported, to my disgust, that NZ has one of highest drink driving limits in the OECD. This is not withstanding the fact that we also have some of the harshest punishments for drink drivers. So yeah - lower the limit and again, increase the punishment. Otherwise these bloody idiots are just going to keep killing innocent people.
Hyperborean
Welcome to PD's police-state.
PD
Absolutely! The only way to put the fear of God into people is with draconian measures like in one of the Scandinavian countries. There is you get caught with so much as the merest trace of alcohol in your system the penalty is automatic loss of licence for life and three month on a chain gang. No exceptions! It works, nobody dares to drink and drive. As harsh as it may seem it is the only way to get the message across.
Robert
Good old Nana State to the rescue again. Time and time again the police and the powers that be keep doing the same old things that don't work. They take the easy path of punishing the masses to try to stop a few breaking the law.
Why don't they think outside the square for a change. Bad driving caused by people with poor concentration and hopeless coordination is what causes accidents. I wouldn't move back to NZ anyway so I don't care what they do with the law. It's such a dangerous country to live in what with home invasions, rapes and murders.
Getting hit by a drunk driver is the least of your worries.
Don
One of the main issues surrounding this is the lack of alternative transport in rural NZ. No buses of even taxis in a majority of small towns. The current limits are acceptable to go out and be sociable and drive home under the limit, but if the limit is lowered this would put a large number of people over the limit, who are acting responsibly, while not having an alternative method of getting home. You would shut down small town NZ and discourage community involvement, which may be part of the plan.
Louise Reynolds
Yes, I do think the alcohol limits for driving should be reduced. Alcohol consumption increases the risk of crashes - end of story! Reduce the limits and reduce the crashes, reduce the injuries, reduce the deaths. It isn't rocket science!
Tania W
The studies that supposedly "prove" that this will reduce the road toll are no doubt from countries with good public transport infrastructure. We have no suitable cheap alternative to driving. And given our drinking culture I fear this will go the other way I'm driving but have had one beer and am over the limit, so stuff it I might as well get hammered.
Melissa Raven
The Automobile Association is illogical for saying that it opposes lowering the legal alcohol limit because most New Zealanders did not drink and drive.If most NZers don't drink and drive, the lower limit will have no impact on them apart from making the roads safer.
John Long
Yes drop the limit and take away the vehicles and licence, if they have one, of those caught drunk driving. ie no tolerance given.
Gavin Buchanan
No! Instead lets start with enforcing the current law, including checking driver licences at check points. As a heavy vehicle driver, only once in the last 5 years have I ever been breath tested and licence checked, usually I'm waived through. What really needs to happen, is parliament to increase tenfold drink drive penalties. Eg 1st offence minimum 12 month loss of licence and 90 day vehicle impoundment; 2nd offence min 24 months loss of licence and vehicle confiscated by the crown and any proceeds to charity; 3rd offence indefinite cancellation of licence, vehicle confiscated and minimum 3 months jail. Please leave us some room to exercise our discretion.PS I would love to know what stats there are in NZ concerning serious injury and deaths caused by drivers in the 50mg 100mg levels compared to higher levels.
Alan Wilkinson
Sarah K: Our odds of succumbing to "road carnage" has been steadily reducing in all countries for the last several centuries with improvements in transport technologies. Likewise our life expectancies have correspondingly improved and will continue to do so. Your emotions would be less excitable if you checked out your facts. Unfortunately most voters never do which is why we get the stupid laws we do.
Owen
I believe the limit should be dropped to zero, that way any person caught with any alcohol reading would be prosecuted. Any alcohol in the body causes impairment.
Simon White
The real alcohol-accident rate can be quickly reduced by enforcement/advertising campaigns but history shows many of these have no long-term effect because they are too expensive to keep up and /or because they rely on novelty.
This proposal will criminalise a lot of what is now responsible enjoyment, but I don't see any good evidence of benefits that will outlast the statistics-bending effect of the initial enforcement campaign and the government's self promoting "education" campaign.
Croz
The Police justify lowering the alcohol limit on the basis that the number of people breaking the current limit is on the increase. But hold on a minute, is this a logic response to that state of affairs? This is like saying because the number of people breaking the 50 kph speed limit is increasing, we should lower the speed limit to 40 kph! The people who are not breaking the law but will be under the lower limit are not the problem. So address the problem and enforce the current limit. Lowering the limit to somehow achieve this is illogical.
Ray
Am I the only person who thinks it seems counterintuitive to say that we can reduce the existing drink drive problem by lowering the limit and making more people guilty? Does this sound similar to "banning smacking will make people stop beating their kids to death". Why would someone who is willing to drive at 200 care whether the limit is 80 or 50? Some then say they'll support anything that will reduce the road toll but do they mention ideas like building safer roads or forcing cars to include better safety measures. If you'd support anything why not lower the open road limit to 50kmph and town to 30kmph or ban the private car altogether as that'd hit the road toll pretty hard. I don't care if other places have seen very high readings drop when they lowered the limit. Surely that is a happy accident when just enforcing the original limit properly would have achieved the goal. What about trying some or all of:
- Have the court case at the roadside.
- Videotape failing drivers undertaking a series of tests to show up their state while driving so their excellent presentation in court is shown as a facade.
- Require breathalysers on the ignition.
- Confiscate vehicles as the assumption and require the driver to go to court to get them back.
- Charge anyone more than twice the limit with attempted murder, as that is what it is!
If the limit is lowered we must have a graduated system as a reading of 51 is not the same as 201! Mind you, that is true for 81 too.
Sarah K
Don't worry Alan Wilkinson you'll probably get your way and your kids and grand-children will not see anything but increased carnage on the road, but hey, at least they can have a few eh? Statistics mean nothing and I agree with Wayne.
Paddy Sweeney
Yet again another erosion of our basic freedoms. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However we hear more from the perennial do gooders than we do from the person on the street. Why? Because the perennial do-gooder is a species while it feeds off the public purse, has time to agitate their minority views. In the real world the majority are out there working hard and one way or another producing the stuff that pays the bills and makes it possible for these opposers of democracy to survive with the hand outs. ALAC has a budget of $8 million a year which needs to have an independent audit as to what results it actually produces. While there are issues with drunken driving, stopping the blokes from having three beers on the way home from work will stop none of it. Please convince me otherwise. It will only take from our culture, the right to have a beer with the mates on the way home from work. Where do you stupid mongrels that promote this crap get these warped solutions on how to solve real problems? Go away and look after your daffodil bulbs and leave the masses alone.
Dan
No, and before Sue Bradford gets involved again, can we please get some accurate information that can prove that people that have two or three drinks with dinner kill on our roads? Didn't think so.
Drink drivers who kill usually have several previous convictions, why the hell are they allowed near a car at all. Three months loss of licence, six months? The problem lies in the penalties for those who seem intent on ignoring the laws that most of us abide by. Those who continue to drink heavily and drive must have their licences taken off them for two years min, and be forced to go through an AA or similar program before being considered to be allowed to drive again, that's strike two, it might be your friend or relative who becomes strike three! I have worked in hospitality for ten years and have seen huge changes in peoples attitudes. People are now applauded for not 'having just one more' because they have offered to drive for the night. The campaigns do work, and like anything, do not work for everyone. It's very sad that innocent people die because of others' irresponsible actions, but I do not believe halving the allowed limit will make any difference, except to clog up the courts with otherwise good, tax paying, honest people.
P.S. Bye bye nanny Helen and your gang of super nannies, may history look kindly on your 'good intentions'.
Ted Heath
It's part of my European culture to drink and I enjoy drinking. Why should some do gooders mess with my cultural rights. Driving is pretty well a necessity to move from place to place. I reserve the right to drink to below the legal limit and drive. I think driving drunk is a criminal act it causes carnage and people caught should get the book thrown at them.
Having a few for the road is a European tradition. Don't make me a criminal for a few drinks.
LV
Yes, they should drop the limit of alcohol allowed in a drivers system. No excuses for drinking and driving. As the campaign went
you drink and drive you are a bloody idiot.
Paul Watkins
Why just halve the limit? If lowering it reduces the road toll then once it's at a lower limit we can reduce the toll even more by lowering it again! So let's just jump the middle step and save more lives by having a zero limit.
Rohan Collett
Yes the alcohol limit should be lowered, and should be zero for people under 20. I also believe the people under 25 should not be able to drive turbo cars or high powered cars, and agree with compulsory insurance, not third party.
Mark
The biggest problem in the area of rural mid-Canterbury is the Police. They regularly let local drivers that catch over the limit off with a warning. This is especially the case with young drivers, what sort of message is this country sending out? There is an acceptance that because it's a rural area, with no alternative means of transport that this sort of behaviour is okay. The police/government/and media needs to make drink driving socially unacceptable. Beware if you are a visitor to mid-Canterbury you will be processed for drink driving to make up for letting the locals off. Sort the police out first before lowering the limit otherwise the reduced limit will have no effect.
Alan Wilkinson
Wayne, a marginal 10 per cent reduction in serious drinkers offending is the most that can be claimed from the overseas studies. Probably most of that reduction results from increased enforcement activity by our uniformed tax collectors rather than the limit change itself. Certainly, statistically the impact will be enormous on the innocent and tiny on the culpable. Like the speeding fiasco, which sees millions of tickets issued to people driving perfectly safely in order to get an imperceptible drop in fatalities which actually can't even be distinguished from the other factors such as improved roads, vehicles and medical treatments. So it is you who are offering an opinion unsupported by the facts.
Jos Mason
For those of you that thinks this is all about punishing the masses, 130 people were killed last year by drunk drivers, 3000 drink drivers were processed last year, I hope to goodness that a drunk driver never aims his car at you or your family, because just watch the carnage unfold, it does not stop at the accident or the death. The stats are high enough that this can happen to anybody at anytime. The repeat drunk drivers are driving lethal weapons. I'd like to ask when was the last time three people were killed by a gun? And wouldn't we be horrified!
Get responsible for yourselves, your families, your whanaus and friends. Don't keep expecting the police and the laws to cleanup after the mess that starts in our backyard.
Blondcat
Will decreasing the alcohol limit really work? All the cases of drink-driving I've heard about recently are of people from 1 1/2 to 2 or 3 times over the limit. If they'd had two less beers, what difference would that really make? As another person pointed out, lowering the limit will only make more criminals. I'm all for educating people. Start in the schools and within one generation, attitudes will change. Look what happened to smoking, most young people I come across loath the idea of smoking largely due to education.
Eric
Introducing and enforcing restrictive laws actually dissuades peoples from thinking responsibly. If everything is spelt out in black and white then why should you consider whether and action is appropriate. Unfortunately this dumbing down becomes the general way of thinking, and downward goes the spiral.
Peter W
This government needs to realise that introducing legislation and using enforcement is the lazy approach to societal problems. And it is often counterproductive.
Kathryn Allen
Yes, I think the alcohol limits should be lowered or even eliminated all together. If no-one were allowed any alcohol in their blood when behind the wheel I am sure this would change things.
Dominique
Save innocent lives, lower the limit.
Paul
The level of alcohol permitted is quite suitable and reasonable. Kiwi drinking culture needs to be targeted! Also, judges need to be sending a stronger message. Lowering the amount of breath/alcohol will simply create more criminals while doing nothing to target the recidivist drunk drivers on the roads. Many thanks to our government who are keeping the age limit, at which you can purchase alcohol, so low. That couldn't possibly be adding to the problem.
Steve
No, no and no. What's that going to solve? Nothing. Like everything else it is just knee-jerk, controlling and reactive instead of proactive. Instead they need to double and triple and quadruple the penalties under the existing drink driving law bring in some consequences. Frankly, it is worth the risk to drink drive, so we need to be taking away the risk by exponentially increasing the penalties if caught. Crack down on the existing problem instead of once more penalising the law abiding majority. Seriously, NZ is now effectively a semi-communist state and this kind of legislation is but one example.
Rosemary
For some reason road deaths (400 in New Zealand in the last 12 months) are seen as unavoidable and too common to even be reported in the news. If someone you knew had been killed in a road accident, you would not mind giving up your (responsible) glass of wine in return for increasing your friends and family's safety by 13 per cent.
Ursula Keogh
Yes the limit should be reduced. The New Zealand is far too high and out of step with the rest of the civilised world.
Amanda
The blood alcohol limit is zero here in Japan and it is so restrictive. Half a glass of beer at lunchtime makes a criminal out of you if you drive several hours later. It really is taking it too far. People who drink at that level are not the ones slaughtering people on the roads.
Vaughan-o
Surely to support such a move there would need to be compelling evidence (i.e. a study or accurate statistics) to show a causal link between accidents and a driver with a blood alcohol concentration between the proposed new limit and the current limit? A more focussed approach to enforcing the current limit would be a far more successful strategy. How many fatal accidents do you see where the driver was "just under the limit"? Nope, it's always "twice the legal limit" or "four times over the limit" etc. Those are the people you need to target, not a husband and wife enjoying a couple of glasses of wine over dinner.
Jo J
Once again we have do-gooders hiding behind so called intelligent agencies trying to penalise everyone for the few. Just as the gun laws don't stop nutters shooting people, dog microchipping doesn't stop dogs biting people, anti-smacking law doesn't stop people beating their kids, lowering the driver alcohol limits won't stop people drink driving. Doesn't anyone know that telling people "they can't" means that they just go ahead and try to. Its insane policies that make the country a worse place to live. Too restrictive. What we have are politicians trying to make a name for themselves, police acting as Government tax collectors and organisations such as ALAC treating all of us with contempt as though we are naughty school kids. I drive, I drink but not at the same time. Give me enough credit to do the responsible thing for a change without legislation. I pay my taxes, keep out of trouble, contribute to society and generally try to be a good citizen, don't try and criminalise me for living for goodness sake!
Wayne
For those of you that say that this will not stop drunk drivers from drink driving, and that it will only criminalise innocent citizens having a few drinks, that is a baseless statement based only your opinions. Overseas studies (based on facts and statistics, and not some baseless opinion) have proven that lowering the limit has significantly decreased the number of alcohol related injuries and deaths. Be responsible people, arrange for an alternative ride home, or call a cab if you've been drinking.
Jean Paton
At the last blitz the number of drivers over the present limit was around 2 per cent. Why should 98 per cent of people be ignored and the behaviour of 2 per cent taken into account. Drink driving convictions indicate that these are the same people each time. If they haven't learnt to drink under our present limit (or not at all) what makes the authorities think that making the limit less will inhibit them?
Chuck Bird
I am glad to see the Automobile Association is defending the interests of responsible motorist who might like to share a meal with a bottle of good wine. It would make more sense to concentrate on drunk drivers particularly those who ignore court orders. I have been stopped a number of times at check points but never once asked for my driver's license. Those who have had their licenses suspended would no doubt be aware of this. Checking licenses would help keep these recidivists offenders off the road. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons said they would support any measure that will reduce the road toll. This is ridiculous. If the open road limit was cut to 80k and strictly enforced the road toll would definitely be cut. I doubt if they would support such a measure. There are other measurers that will reduce the road toll such taking action after accidents at black spots. I have read about fatalities at black spots where authorities have been warned. They say that there have not been enough accidents to warrant the expense of correcting the black spot. If insurance was compulsory as it is in just about every other developed country repeat drunk drivers would find very difficult to obtain insurance. Checking licenses and insurance at check points would keep them off the road. People die every year hunting, fishing and boating. Lives may be saved by excessive regulations. But surely in a free society we should attempt to find a sensible balance between preventing needless fatalities and allowing the majority to enjoy life. The proponents of banning people from having two or three glasses of wine with a meal should produce credible evidence that those under the existing limit are actually causing these fatalities. Responsible drivers should not be punished for those unable to stop after a couple of drinks.
James
I think it should be 100mg like it used to be. Every report involving cars and alcohol that I read involves people two and three times the current limit not at 80mg, or 100mg. So why penalise those who are not causing accidents? There may be a statistical correlation between lower limits and accidents. Anecdotally given the reports this is not so. Statistical information can easily be manipulated to support one agenda or another. Let's be honest if we banned fast cars that would have an even greater effect on the road toll. Is that silence I hear? The point is we have to accept that life is a dangerous business. We can ban and restrict many things but what kind of life would that be. The limits are fine as they are!
Trudy Sharplin
I don't think the alcohol limit needs reducing. The same people are going to continue to break the law, they need educating and if caught the consequences should be harsher, try a deterrent as more reduction in the limit this will only affect those people who are responsible.
Concerned
This move will not stop the people who are the real problem. Instead it will put even more rules in place for all the sensible citizens in the country (yes, there are a few still). Punish those who do bad by all means, but having too many restrictive laws is bad for a society.
Alan Wilkinson
It's the usual control-freak story. Sacrifice the rights of 99.5 per cent of people who are not causing any trouble in order to make a minor difference to the 0.5 per cent of people who cause all the trouble. To reduce their offending by a marginal 10 per cent at best we will criminalise responsible and safe behaviour by everyone else. There are no limits to the abuse of freedom from this mentality. The most marginal and debatable benefit is blown into an excuse for ever more severe laws and restrictions. Simply, this is not the kind of society I want to live in, or want my children and grandchildren to live in.
Susan O'Neill
Lower the blood alcohol level will not work, there is a core group of drinkers who will always drink and drive not matter what the limit. By lowering the limit all that will do is create yet more money for the government coffers as people who have had a drink after work with mates and definitely not drunk will be stopped, breath-tested and fined. The hard core group who do drink excessively and drive will always be there, putting the age limit back up to 20 would be start in the right direction, not the answer but a small start. But that will never happen as it is politically expedient to have 18 years allowed to drink, also the tax and GST on popular mixers must be incredibly high. All I know is if the majority of the people don't want the blood alcohol level lowered then that is what we will get, as this democracy is hell bent on not listening to what we want. And no I am not a drinker, but believe people should be able to have 1-2 drinks with friends and still be able to drive!
Ben
While I believe that lowering the limits is a good idea, it is not going to stop people from drink driving. We fail to realise that people break the law all the time. The only way I can see us preventing people from drinking and driving would be to have some device in your car that has to take your alcohol reading before you can start it. That's of course and over the top method but how do you stop people from breaking the law? I mean, we have a war against drugs and what has that achieved? It comes down to common sense from us humans, we need to reinforce the effects that it has, try and touch on the emotions as much as you can in advertising and stuff, but still, some people are heartless and they just don't care about anyone else. Plus, alcohol is 'Liquid Confidence' to some people so they feel that they can drive fine but they can't. People! Grow up!
Wino
Yes! There should be a drop in permitted alcohol limits when driving. It is the mentality that a few beers before driving will be ok that gets people into trouble. I have lived in Sweden for a couple of years where the alcohol level is 150 micrograms/L breath. Almost nobody risks drinking anything except a light beer before driving. I think the knowledge that even 1 5 per cent alc beer might put you over the limit would make most people think twice about drinking and driving. We will however require a much better established, secure and reliable public transport system at night.
Margot
This is entirely another government revenue gathering exercise. The scumbags who get hammered then drive will still do it. Murder is illegal but people still do it. This targets responsible people who like to have a glass or two of wine when out for dinner who remain entirely in control of their vehicle. These 'do gooders' are the devil in disguise.
Victor
Once again the New Zealand reactionary focus on penalising the majority surfaces in the call for lower
