KEY POINTS:
Here is a selection of your views on the topic :
Michael McCarthy
Lowering the level will not stop serious drink-drivers like the man who killed the motorcyclists.
This will just suck more money from the honest.
Makes me laugh how Dave Cliff pulls figures out of the air on how many lives he thinks he can save. Harder punishment and education to the repeat drink-drivers.
Charlie Grant
If the authorities really want to make a real impression on drink-driving , then in addition to the existing penalties, the impounding of the car that the offence of exceeding the alcohol limit occurred in for a minimum period would, I'm sure, have a major impact. (If owned by the offender's employer, then tough!)
If the driver is, say, 10 per cent over the limit, then the vehicle is impounded for a month. If, say, 25 per cent over, then three months, and so on up to confiscation of the car for serious excesses or a second offence happening within, say, five years.
Removing the vehicle would also in most cases remove the offending driver from the road and therefore have an immediate effect on secondary offending. It would, hopefully, in the longer term reduce the drinking-and-driving road toll.
A good number of people drive up to and in excess of the speed limit (the 10 per cent tolerance on the open road could also be reduced) and no doubt the same occurs with the alcohol limit.
As I and many others have done both, I'm certain that the threat of the car being impounded/confiscated would make people tread very carefully where drinking-and-driving situations occur.
I know that the possible impounding of my car would make me much more conscious of my drinking and driving than I am at present.
John Pearce
The Herald has Superintendent Cliff advocating lower blood-alcohol limits. He is quoted as saying we are still seeing lives needlessly lost because of repeat drink-drivers.
And all linked to recent accidents by drivers over the existing limits.
Mr Cliff's logic is flawed. If the lives are lost because of repeat drink-driving over the present limit, how will lowering the limit help?
It would be more to the point if the police and the Government were to support effective education on sensible drinking.
The police, like politicians, are the prime example of people who believe in coercion as the only way to change behaviour.
It's a shame they have never learned anything about competent management-motivation is at rewarding good behaviour, not coercion.
Before breath analysers, the police prosecuted drunk drivers on the basis of their ability to drive safely.
But now, it's a numbers game, like speeding tickets.
And behind it all is the dishonest publicity about speed limits. Research showed that speed is actually quite a minor - about 25 per cent - cause of accidents.
But it's convenient for the police to avoid these facts, because it is easy to measure.
I understand that it is a very hard job dealing with dead and maimed drivers daily.
But the response of coercing the whole population of more than 4 million to avoid 14 deaths per year (perhaps in the first year, and less each subsequent year if Mr Cliff had presented his statistics honestly) seems out of proportion to the benefits of a good education programme, and thorough enforcement of the present laws.
Let's get real. Citizens (including policemen and politicians) enjoy a drink, and lots of policemen drive over the limit from time to time. And taxes on alcohol support the politicians. Most responsible citizens don't drive drunk. Even the police acknowledge it's a small minority.
So the proposed solution of spoiling 4 million citizens' enjoyment of a few beers, to satisfy an illogical policeman and politicians who don't care enough to really try to change our culture, seems typical of the arrogance and stupidity of the public service.
I have been trying to get some sensible discussion about traffic policing since 2004, without success.
Wally Francis
In my opinion there should be a zero tolerance for drink-drivers on our roads. To give these irresponsible drunkards an option is totally unacceptable.
You cannot replace lives, but that is the least of the concern of the ones who commit the crimes on the road that we have been witnessing lately.
To put the decision in the hands of the transport minister must be a joke. What these individuals are doing is legalised murder. Get real.
John Beaver
I must say Dave Cliff's comment is something of a knee-jerk reaction. It is impossible to forecast how many lives would be saved anyway.
Wouldn't the traffic cops serve us better if they used more unmarked cars and nailed the lane weavers, speedsters, drug addicts and cellphone users?
Don't get me wrong, I am not defending drunk drivers, but it seems to me to be utterly stupid to blame a guy who might be just over the limit who is involved in an accident caused by a fool not looking where he is going.
The only ones who will win with Mr Cliff's suggestion are the ever-hungry lawyers.
Though the accidents caused by the stupid "give way to the right" rule are not usually serious, they are often misunderstood, even by the police themselves, and should be looked, as should a free left turn at traffic lights.
Alison Seaborne
I totally agree with Dave Cliff's statement to drastically cut NZ's breath and blood limits. We are losing far too many innocent New Zealanders to accidents with drunk drivers.
Thanks to the Herald for putting this article on the front page. Surely Mr Cliff's statement makes sense to all New Zealanders. Let's legislate quickly.
Janet Bailey
Once again it is the majority being punished because of the minority. The people who choose to drink and drive will do so regardless of any legislation to lower the limit. It is like changing the dog laws, which will not stop the people who don't register or care for their dogs.
How many police will it take away from serious crime just to convict someone drinking two glasses of wine with dinner!
Yve Dara
So "Top cop" Dave Cliff says there were 130 people killed last year by drunk drivers.
The fact that they were "drunk" implies that they had ignored current legislation and were over the limit. So explain, please, how changing the legislation (and limit) will help?
No social problem has ever been cured by legislation because it will never alter the number of idiots in society.
I advocate stronger penalties rather than changing the limit. I lived for many years in Germany (which has the same alcohol limits as NZ).
There, the first drunk-driving conviction incurs a fine of $2000 to $5000 and disqualification for up to 12 months.
A second conviction for any alcohol-related offence (whether driving or not) means indefinite disqualification until the person can prove that he has addressed his alcohol problem.
This means thousands of dollars and psychological counselling over one, two or more years, until the psychologist is satisfied he or she is able to professionally state that there is no longer an alcohol problem.
Driving while disqualified because of a drunk-driving offence incurs a mandatory sentence of 30 days' imprisonment, and usually permanent disqualification as well.
It's unbelievable to read of someone here in NZ on his fifth or sixth conviction being warned that if he goes on this way prison will be inevitable!
