[Debbie]

Does anyone know what the legal limit is in NZ. OH and I have looked at this and the answer OH found seems too mad to be true.
OH was told he could have 4 of these standard drink measures in the first hour (small bottle of beer) and then 1 per hr after that. As I said, that sounds like madness.
Debbie

[phatsharpie]

The legal blood alcohol limit is .08 (80 milligrams of alcohol for every 100mls of blood):
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/road-user-safety/motorists/drink.html

The limit is the same as in the UK and the US currently:
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/drunk%20driving/artcl--drunk-driving-0005--global-BAC-limits.htm

Brian

[jubjub]

It is higher here than in UK, and I had heard that thing about 4 beers, and still be able to keep drinking too, like you say, utter madness.

They did a trial on the news last year, they had a guy drink 3 beers, and he passed the test, he went off drank a couple more, and he failed.

Here is the link for the NZ Law on the subject http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/road-user-safety/motorists/drink.html

On a side note, a friend of mines hubby has just started policing and he stopped a guy one night, he was over the limit, he stopped the same guy two nights later, yup, over the limit again, some people just don't learn.

[barryp]

A 'standard drink' is a specific quantity of ethanol - 10g. Most 'small bottles of beer' actually offer more than one standard drink; 1.2-1.5 is more typical.

I'd be well within the legal limit with 2.5 bottles of Radler with a meal in the first hour, and less than one bottle for every additional hour. So it's not mad at all for me to do that, and no one else would have reason to fear me on the road afterwards.

However, a small person with slow metabolism consuming the same amount of alcohol on an empty stomach would doubtless be over the limit, and in the overwhelming majority of cases would exercise judgment accordingly - by making the correct choice not to drive.

The drink driving problem here is almost identical to the one in the USA; an entire nation is hectored by state propaganda about the evils of drink driving, and lives in fear of having half a glass too much Chardonnay with dinner, thus gaining a trip to jail. Meanwhile, there is a small number of people who GREATLY exceed the legal limit on a regular basis, endangering themselves and others. (Ironically, and tragically, being drunk reduces one's personal risk of injury in a car crash, compared to the sober people involved in the same crash.) I find the idea that the same person could be apprehended drunk twice in the same week really frightening, though; that means the system is broken. Is that socially acceptable in parts of NZ?

[Debbie]

Phatsharpie, Thanks for those links, I was amazed to find out NZ and UK had the same limit. The perception of what you can safely drink here and then drive is a lot different from that in the UK.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Debbie

[crispyking]

... should be zero ... why should it be 'acceptable' to risk the life of others and/or yourself ??:eek:

as noted in other threads zero tolerance is the best approach, complete loss of license may show that the general consensus is that drink driving is not to be tolerated ...

perception is not the issue (or perhaps it is mis-perception), stupidity/lack of responsibility is much more relevant ...

[Timbo]

I heard on the local (Hauraki) radio today that a guy has just recieved his 9th DIC ( drunk in charge ) conviction in a 7 week period.
His punishment....22 months jail and an 18 month driving ban. So, theoretically he will have finished his driving ban BEFORE leaving jail.

Words fail me on this one!!

[Lupin]

I am usually not in favour of zero tolerance approaches (being quite left inclined :laugh ) but for drink driving I think zero tolerance is the only way to go. Drinking impairs your judgement, end of.

Personally I NEVER drink alcohol and drive, not even below the limit because should I be involved in an accident where I was driving and someone else was hurt I'd want to be certain for the rest of my life that I was fully responsive and not be left forever wondering whether I'd have been a better driver that day if I hadn't had a beer or glass of wine ...

I refuse to be a passenger with anyone that's had a drink or allow my kids to.

It's something I feel very stongly about. Alcohol is just a drink, why not just go without if you're driving and be sure you're at the best you can be to drive?

:cheers

[ellenmelon]

I am usually not in favour of zero tolerance approaches (being quite left inclined :laugh ) but for drink driving I think zero tolerance is the only way to go. Drinking impairs your judgement, end of.

Personally I NEVER drink alcohol and drive, not even below the limit because should I be involved in an accident where I was driving and someone else was hurt I'd want to be certain for the rest of my life that I was fully responsive and not be left forever wondering whether I'd have been a better driver that day if I hadn't had a beer or glass of wine ...

I refuse to be a passenger with anyone that's had a drink or allow my kids to.

It's something I feel very stongly about. Alcohol is just a drink, why not just go without if you're driving and be sure you're at the best you can be to drive?

:cheers

definately agree with you there lupin..

[benandclare]

Aye favour the zero option too

Ben

[holland]

Here Here Lupin!

[marcia]

Lupin you have put it so well - totally agree with you! Its definately one of my 'soap box' things is drink driving, I could go on and on about it.

I'm lucky becasue Kev doesn't drink at all, (he;s daft enough without it! :laugh ) So when we go anywhere i drink and he drives!!! Sorted!! :nice1

[james the mechanic]

If you drink you don’t drive, I agree unequivocally.
Sadly however you will never abolish the problem; while you have alcohol and cars you will always have drunk driving. These people are so arrogant/ ignorant that the vast majority of them can see nothing wrong with it. Many of them seem to think it’s their right to drink and drive and cant understand what the fuss is all about as it won’t happen to them.
I have a name for such people…

[diforsyth]

Unfortunately the law really doesn't help here. After having your licence revoked for DIC, you can apply for a licence during your disqualification period which will allow you drive to work although not for pleasure:uhoh

David.

[Keith C.]

Zero tolerance, eh? That seems rather harsh.

Cars are a huge danger. They're big and they move fast. People don't want to be hit by a ton of steel moving at a high rate of speed. Fair enough.

I'll agree that alcohol affects your judgment and your driving ability. It would be hard to state otherwise. I will also bet that I drive much better with one or two drinks in me than most other people do without any (although worse than I drive without any). My driving record bears this out. Should you take away my license, or throw me in jail?

Other things also affect your driving ability. Should older people be prohibited from driving? How about younger people who are influenced by all those hormones? What about people on cell phones? How about people who carry on conversations while driving? Changing the radio station while driving certainly detracts from your concentration on the road. Outlaw radios.

Laws generally reflect a compromise between how the different segments of society feel about given issues. The blood alcohol limits currently in force seem just about right to me. I can easily see how others might disagree, especially if they had a loved one seriously injured or killed. I certainly don't advocate drunken driving.

I've replied to this thread knowing that I'm going against the mainstream of opinion expressed thus far, but I've seen too many zero tolerance programs of one kind or another. They are almost always promulgated by well-intentioned people who are doing what they think is best.

[swissmissdesigner]

No alcohol while driving! No exceptions!

[aggelon]

No alcohol while driving! No exceptions!

That's the law in the Czech Republic (Who are the world's heaviest consumers of beer) also cellphones are banned while driving, including handsfree.
Also if you are involved in an accident while changing radio stations it becomes automatically your fault whatever the situation (unless the other driver is drunk or on a cellphone - it's like trumps)

[SarahEDH]

Laws generally reflect a compromise between how the different segments of society feel about given issues.



Sometimes, but not always. Legislation may surge ahead of a perceived timeframe for identifying a "compromise" position to a dangerous or unjust situation (if compromise is even possible), if those in power are convinced society needs an urgent remedy and if there are vocal proponents to raise the issue to a level that legislators dare not ignore.

Zero tolerance policy isn't interested in assessing whether you are a better driver with a couple of drinks in you than someone else may be without any. (I like the other drivers' exercise of judgment much better, knowing nothing else about their abilities or yours.) Zero tolerance says, here's the bright-line rule (the .08 measurement) for how the law decides you are impaired. If you break the rule, penalties follow because the harm you may cause is too great, you can't fix it, and we aren't going to tolerate a wholly preventable cause of it.

[IanW99]

Never believed in drink driving, and would be more than happy with zero tolerance (that is how I treat this issue anyway - regardless of the law).

That said, just like to point out that technically zero tolerance is not practicable even non alcoholic drinks actually contain traces of alcohol, so the best that could be done would be to lower the limit (substantially).

I personally think that they should increase the penalties substantially, If you knowingly drink and drive it should carry the same penalties as attempted manslaughter regardless of whether you actually have an accident or not ... :exit

Ian

[barryp]

Zero tolerance may be a fine basis for personal decision-making, but it's an absurd basis for public policy. There are only so many police, courts, and jail spots available - and NZ is chronically short of all three, having the second highest incarceration rate in the free world.

That's an entirely different matter than using an objective measurement that may not be 'fair' to all people. Some people might be fine blowing 0.10, others might not be at only 0.05 - but 0.08 represents a reasonable, justifiable compromise. And in any event, chronic offenders are usually FAR more pickled than that - just check the numbers when you read a drink-driving arrest story in the newspaper.

[zardell]

I tend to look at it this way..........

Having a driving licence is a privilege, not a right and to obtain one and keep it you must prove that you are responsible in the handling of what I consider to be a potentially lethal weapon.

You also need a licence to carry a gun - another potentially lethal weapon.

I KNOW that if I was carrying a gun and I had been drinking even a small amount of alcohol that I personally would be a danger to others.

I'm not prepared to put that same scenario to the test whilst driving my car.

For me, it's nothing to do with getting caught by the police and paying the consequences - for me, it's knowing that being the cause of an RTA would be bad enough without the added guilt of knowing I'd had a drink.

I'm in the zero tolerance camp on this one .......

Julie

xx

[Nathan]

I don't know what the limit should be, but 'zero tolerance' really isn't very reasonable for all of the reasons stated above. It's an easy slogan to prescribe to, but what does it mean? Are you guilty if you ate a spice of Granny's rum cake and headed home an hour later?

None of the regulations do much good if something isn't done to help the repeat offenders understand that driving when inebriated is not acceptable or tolerated.

Maybe stocks in the village square or a big, red "DD" on the forehead would convince more drunk drivers than taking away their licenses...and then letting them drive anyway.

[swissmissdesigner]

barryp,
So, you're saying that we should adjust the tolerance level beacause NZ has a shortage of jail, courts?
The first thing I would be concerned about is peopless safety, and not making a favor for a drunk driver.

[sfordjasiri]

When the subject of what the rules should be for intoxication levels and driving I always ask the same question:

What should the maximum blood alchohol level of the pilot flying the airliner you are in be?

If it is different than what you should be allowed to have when you are driving a car, why?

[zardell]

When the subject of what the rules should be for intoxication levels and driving I always ask the same question:

What should the maximum blood alchohol level of the pilot flying the airliner you are in be?

If it is different than what you should be allowed to have when you are driving a car, why?



Ooooh - good question.......:nice1

Zero alchohol level in my very humble opinion.

Julie

xx

[barryp]

barryp,
So, you're saying that we should adjust the tolerance level beacause NZ has a shortage of jail, courts?
The first thing I would be concerned about is peopless safety, and not making a favor for a drunk driver.

I'm not saying that at all. The existing legal threshold represents a reasonable compromise (though we can and do debate the specifics) between costs and public safety. It isn't zero tolerance at all - it's a tradeoff, like all laws.

If we are interested only in people's safety, we would outlaw private cars altogether. Death by car use is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely than death by flying, walking, or bicycling. If you drive a car, ever, you are putting yourself and your fellows at risk of injury and death. Again, a tradeoff - no one makes this argument in a serious way, but weighs those risks against the benefits of driving.

Zero-tolerance would mean that people who have consumed no alcohol whatsoever would be subject to arrest. (Alcohol levels in blood do not come exclusively from imbibing alcoholic beverages, though of course that's the major source.) There are also plenty of other causes of dangerous driving that would not be addressed at all, as the jails filled - driving whilst smoking is quite risky too, as are driving whilst angry or in a rush. Tailgating is very dangerous but not a behaviour associated with alcohol use.

By the way, 0.08 is not 'drunk' by any rational definition. No reasonable person would ever argue that it is OK for drunk people to drive. But the link between low BAC and public safety is very weak. And I'll say again that when the local paper posts the names of drink-drivers, you'll see quite a few names with BAC levels far, far in excess of 0.08; that's a sign of a serious problem.

[Lupin]

I'll agree that alcohol affects your judgment and your driving ability. It would be hard to state otherwise. I will also bet that I drive much better with one or two drinks in me than most other people do without any (although worse than I drive without any). My driving record bears this out.

Ok then, lets just find the very worst driver on the road and everyone can drink as much as they like provided their driving is better. What logic is this?!?! You admit you are a worse driver with one or two drinks inside you, so why have one or two drinks?

It's not about who is the best driver but in what state are you best fit to drive. There are loads of grey areas to do with divided attention etc, etc. Alcohol affects reaction times and judgement and should therefore not be consumed when driving. That's the message a 'no drink driving' law would give out, instead of this current mixed message of some is ok for some people, perhaps not for others and blah, blah, blah. The status quo encourages a macho culture, imo, of people who think they're ok to drive with a drink or two inside them, even if others aren't.

The whole 'we can't have zero tolerance because people can have trace blood alcohol levels for numerous reasons' is ridiculous hair splitting. We should have zero tolerance for anyone that drinks and drives. If you have a drink and get in a car you know that you have consumed a toxic substance that will impair your ability to drive. That is surely wrong :confused:

[speckythecky]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10456103

I am in the no tolerance camp. If I go out and I am driving I will not drink at all. To say that one doesn't affect you is totally untrue. I am a big bloke who has been known to sink a pint or two of best bitter but can tell that my reactions are much slower after just one pint.

[jubjub]

One thing to bear in mind as well, is that there are regular road blocks and random testing.... I got stopped at 10am one day on the way to coffee group, obviously I was OK, but it was a nervous moment getting pulled by the police!

The guy in the link specky posted must have been completely out of it, cos the breath test is easy!!

[IanW99]

If you want to compare levels in the various countries then this link seems pretty comprehensive:- Blood Alcohol Limits Worldwide (http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/drunk%20driving/artcl--drunk-driving-0005--global-BAC-limits.htm)

Interesting to note that UK, USA and NZ all have the same level.

Ian

[Croft]

Unlike the majority on this thread, I'm afraid I'm not in favour of 'zero tolerance'. Maybe 'zero tolerance' of those that exceed the legal limit, but not a total ban.

When I got out for lunch or dinner, I do like to have a glass of wine or a pint of beer. It's been proven that drinking with food drastically reduces the level of alcohol in your bloodstream (although has the same effect on your liver!). I'll usually have it at the start of the meal and won't drive for at least another hour, usually more.

Yes, I admit I am now at a higher risk of having an accident - a very small risk I'd argue. I recognise the arguments that the car is a complex piece of machinery that should not be operated by those with any alcohol in their bloodstream - my wife is certainly in that camp, but she'd be the first to stop me if she had any worries about me behind the wheel.

As a society we always strive to strike a balance between risk minimisation and other factors. For example, we could put a fire station, hospital A&E departement and police station on every corner but that would clearly be impractical and cost the earth. We there balance the risk of an incident taking place against cost and practicality.

I personally think we could reduce it to 0.5 (a definite one drink/2 units) rather than the current 0.8 (a possible 2 drinks) in the UK and NZ, and rigidly enforce that rule.

[Paul]

Unlike the majority on this thread, I'm afraid I'm not in favour of 'zero tolerance'. Maybe 'zero tolerance' of those that exceed the legal limit, but not a total ban.

When I got out for lunch or dinner, I do like to have a glass of wine or a pint of beer. It's been proven that drinking with food drastically reduces the level of alcohol in your bloodstream (although has the same effect on your liver!). I'll usually have it at the start of the meal and won't drive for at least another hour, usually more.

Yes, I admit I am now at a higher risk of having an accident - a very small risk I'd argue. I recognise the arguments that the car is a complex piece of machinery that should not be operated by those with any alcohol in their bloodstream - my wife is certainly in that camp, but she'd be the first to stop me if she had any worries about me behind the wheel.

As a society we always strive to strike a balance between risk minimisation and other factors. For example, we could put a fire station, hospital A&E departement and police station on every corner but that would clearly be impractical and cost the earth. We there balance the risk of an incident taking place against cost and practicality.

I personally think we could reduce it to 0.5 (a definite one drink/2 units) rather than the current 0.8 (a possible 2 drinks) in the UK and NZ, and rigidly enforce that rule.

Very well put.

I think everyone agrees that drunk driving is very wrong, however I doubt if my driving is any worse with one beer and a meal inside me than it is driving into work after a sleepless night with my 4 week old?????? What should we do ban people with new babies from driving as well?!
May sound silly but I bet my reaction times are slower after 3 hours sleep than if I have 8 hours so whats the difference?

I agree with zero tolerance but only zero tolerance to any exceptions over the prescribed legal limits - people have to be reponsible for their own actions not dictated every little detail on how to live their lives by a nanny state.....

[Keith C.]

Ok then, lets just find the very worst driver on the road and everyone can drink as much as they like provided their driving is better. What logic is this?!?! You admit you are a worse driver with one or two drinks inside you, so why have one or two drinks?

It's not about who is the best driver but in what state are you best fit to drive.


If I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, I should only drive if I'm at my peak - not when I'm overly tired, not when I'm overly aggressive due to too much coffee, not when I have a cold, etc. I agree that this would be the optimal state of affairs. However, if I understand your argument correctly, if I knowingly drive below my optimal ability, I should be put in jail or fined, regardless of whether I still drive competently.

It's not a matter of macho, at least not for me. I have plenty of respect for those of you who refuse to drive after drinking; however, I disagree with your hard-line approach to those who differ from you.

[Lupin]

If I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, I should only drive if I'm at my peak - not when I'm overly tired, not when I'm overly aggressive due to too much coffee, not when I have a cold, etc. I agree that this would be the optimal state of affairs. However, if I understand your argument correctly, if I knowingly drive below my optimal ability, I should be put in jail or fined, regardless of whether I still drive competently.

It's not a matter of macho, at least not for me. I have plenty of respect for those of you who refuse to drive after drinking; however, I disagree with your hard-line approach to those who differ from you.

No, you shouldn't drive when "overly tired" or when you're "overly aggressive due to too much coffee" (!!!!) and neither should you drive if you have a cold that effects you badly. You especially shouldn't drive if you've taken a toxic substance known to effect your reaction times and judgement.

Driving isn't a 'right', it's a responsibility.

[movefromus]

I agree with Paul and co. I don't see a need for zero tolerance in this matter. I feel that as in most things there needs to be a balanced approach. In an idealic world we would never drive except when we were at our best. In a realistic world we have jobs, children who go to school, chores that need doing, etc., etc. If people start having accidents all over the place while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 then I'm sure the gov. will reconsider the level. Up til now I don't believe that this is the case and so I see no reason to change it.

[IanW99]

I agree with Paul and co. I don't see a need for zero tolerance in this matter. I feel that as in most things there needs to be a balanced approach. In an idealic world we would never drive except when we were at our best. In a realistic world we have jobs, children who go to school, chores that need doing, etc., etc. If people start having accidents all over the place while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 then I'm sure the gov. will reconsider the level. Up til now I don't believe that this is the case and so I see no reason to change it.

You have too much faith in governments.

When driving with a blood alcohol level over the current limit of 80mg, you are sixteen times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a sober driver*. The current level allows for serious impairment of essential driving skills.

Almost all countries that have lowered their blood alcohol concentration to 50mg or lower have experienced reduced crashes, injuries and fatalities. Taking international reductions into account New Zealand could expect to save between 16-72 lives and between 640-1280 injuries a year. This is a substantial opportunity given that our road toll is stuck above 400 deaths per year and the goal is no more than 300.

Williams says that while lowering blood alcohol limits is an effective tool targeting the whole of the population, additional specific measures are needed to combat the hard core of repeat offenders.

There is strong public support for lowering the drink drive limits. Nearly 70% of submitters on the National Road Safety Strategy 2010 supported lowering the blood alcohol limits.

Other countries such as OZ have already reduced their BAC to 0.05.

If the estimates of saving 16-72 lives per year isn't enough reason to reduce the BAC then what is?

Ian