New Drink Driving Limits

Forums › Off topic › New Drink Driving Limits

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Mad Scientist
29770 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#788423 28-Mar-2013 09:49

time to get shot but here goes

my opinion:

everyone down to 0.05

proper motorways raise speed limit to 110 (hey not suggested by me it's headlines news today)

networkn

Networkn
32359 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#788424 28-Mar-2013 09:49

Geektastic:
Zeon: I know when I should and shouldn't drive after drinking and I don't drive at times when I am most definitely under the limit from my own personal choice. Can not more people do the same?

I have applied a very simple rule since passing my test 28 years ago. I don't drive if I have drunk alcohol. As you say, can't more people do the same?

If I had had only one beer and I crashed and killed someone, I would spend the rest of my life wondering if I would have avoided it had I not drunk that beer.

This! Also... If you can afford to drink, you can afford a Taxi, if you can't afford both, you can't afford either.

Actually it's one of the many reasons I drink nothing and never have.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#788436 28-Mar-2013 10:08

old3eyes:Leave the guy who had a bear or wine over lunch alone..

Bears are protected species. Anyone who has one of these for lunch should be going to jail!

Bung

6498 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#788437 28-Mar-2013 10:09

Drivers that crash are very unlikely to have had 1 beer as the cause, they could just be bad drivers.

The Police stats on drivers tested are depressing for the 100's caught around the .08 limit there are 1000's in the 1.0 - 2.5 range especially in the 25-29 age group. As an example across all ages there were almost 15,000 people caught in the 1.2-2.0 range compared with 3,500 just over the limit (.08). A complete ban is like saying the hedge is too high so we'll fix it by cutting it off at ground level because the gardeners (Police and Courts) have no idea how to trim the top.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#788462 28-Mar-2013 10:52

Bung: Drivers that crash are very unlikely to have had 1 beer as the cause, they could just be bad drivers.

The Police stats on drivers tested are depressing for the 100's caught around the .08 limit there are 1000's in the 1.0 - 2.5 range especially in the 25-29 age group. As an example across all ages there were almost 15,000 people caught in the 1.2-2.0 range compared with 3,500 just over the limit (.08). A complete ban is like saying the hedge is too high so we'll fix it by cutting it off at ground level because the gardeners (Police and Courts) have no idea how to trim the top.

If you had one beer, crashed on the way home and killed a person walking home in the process, would you not spend the rest of your days wondering 'What if I had not drunk that beer?"

b0rg

94 posts

Master Geek

#788466 28-Mar-2013 11:13

The thing I find funny about these conversations is that everyone is so fast to jump on the anti-drink-driving bandwagon while ignoring the blatant lies told by police and the media, using statistics that have been worked to make it look worse than it is.

They say alcohol is involved in X amount of accidents, as though it was the cause of them all. What they don't mention is that their stats include all accidents where alcohol was involved.

If you have one beer, and someone crashes into you, that counts and boosts the "accidents involving alcohol" stats. If someone gets drunk and steps in front of a cab, that's another alcohol related vehicular accident. If you've had five drinks, and someone runs a red light and hits you, whether or not you get charged as at fault, if the cops get a hold of you and record alcohol on your breath, that's another alcohol related accident.

The stats are hyped up WAY more than they should be. I'm not saying getting wasted and driving should be legal- I almost guarantee someone will try to put such a spin on this post- but the campaign of terror about drink driving is designed to justify persecution of those who do drink and drive.

A more sensible approach would be to consider the time of day, the distance from the place of drinking to home, and the types of roads that will be travelled. A guy driving home six city blocks from the pub on a cold or wet winter night, at 12pm on a weeknight, along well lit streets, with six beers in his belly, poses very little danger. He knows the roads, he drives them regularly, possibly every few nights in the same state. A guy going to an afternoon party in Howick, then driving back to Henderson on the motorway at 7pm Saturday with the same six beers in him... that's different.

I'd like to think that the anti-drink-driving campaign is in our best interests, but when they lie and twist the stats to demonise it, with wild campaigns of carnage and death, it makes me wonder if they have an ulterior motive.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29770 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#788469 28-Mar-2013 11:21

Geektastic:
Bung: Drivers that crash are very unlikely to have had 1 beer as the cause, they could just be bad drivers.

The Police stats on drivers tested are depressing for the 100's caught around the .08 limit there are 1000's in the 1.0 - 2.5 range especially in the 25-29 age group. As an example across all ages there were almost 15,000 people caught in the 1.2-2.0 range compared with 3,500 just over the limit (.08). A complete ban is like saying the hedge is too high so we'll fix it by cutting it off at ground level because the gardeners (Police and Courts) have no idea how to trim the top.

If you had one beer, crashed on the way home and killed a person walking home in the process, would you not spend the rest of your days wondering 'What if I had not drunk that beer?"

you would think so, but people are not so easy to predict - they'd probably don't remember after a year or two or would be drinking so much it drowns any other details in their life

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#788495 28-Mar-2013 11:54

just my 5 cents

a lot of people think that 0 limit is a great idea.

I can assure you - that it's impossible to have 0 alco in you blood and breath. even if you drink a fortnight before you drive, alcohol still could be determined in the blood.

0 limit causes so much trouble in Russia, not only because people had a beer during lunch, but for these who are on medicine which contains alco.

and various products like chocolate candy could have liquire in them, or breath fresher or you name these...

I have a girl friend in Russia, who drinks couple times a year (on New Years and her birthday), once she was stopped by police for usual check, she then was asked to take a alco breath test which she wailed... then all usual stuff to go to police station and do more proper test, blood sample.

And you know what? She failed second breath test but blood test was OK. contains like 0.0001 alco in the body. and breath machine detected her super mint chewing gum... *face palm* it took her 3 hours from initial breath test in the car till they took her blood, issued her with temporary licence and 3 days till blood sample test result arrived.

She got her licence back.

so really, 0 limit?

helping others at evgenyk.nz

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#788567 28-Mar-2013 13:02

Geektastic:
Bung: Drivers that crash are very unlikely to have had 1 beer as the cause, they could just be bad drivers.

The Police stats on drivers tested are depressing for the 100's caught around the .08 limit there are 1000's in the 1.0 - 2.5 range especially in the 25-29 age group. As an example across all ages there were almost 15,000 people caught in the 1.2-2.0 range compared with 3,500 just over the limit (.08). A complete ban is like saying the hedge is too high so we'll fix it by cutting it off at ground level because the gardeners (Police and Courts) have no idea how to trim the top.

If you had one beer, crashed on the way home and killed a person walking home in the process, would you not spend the rest of your days wondering 'What if I had not drunk that beer?"

Probably not. Or at least no more than if I hadn't had a beer, crashed on the way home and killed a person walking home and wondering "What if I was going 50 instead of 54?", "What if I wasn't changing radio stations?", "What if I wasn't a rubbish driver?".

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#788573 28-Mar-2013 13:07

bazzer:
Geektastic:
Bung: Drivers that crash are very unlikely to have had 1 beer as the cause, they could just be bad drivers.

The Police stats on drivers tested are depressing for the 100's caught around the .08 limit there are 1000's in the 1.0 - 2.5 range especially in the 25-29 age group. As an example across all ages there were almost 15,000 people caught in the 1.2-2.0 range compared with 3,500 just over the limit (.08). A complete ban is like saying the hedge is too high so we'll fix it by cutting it off at ground level because the gardeners (Police and Courts) have no idea how to trim the top.

If you had one beer, crashed on the way home and killed a person walking home in the process, would you not spend the rest of your days wondering 'What if I had not drunk that beer?"

Probably not. Or at least no more than if I hadn't had a beer, crashed on the way home and killed a person walking home and wondering "What if I was going 50 instead of 54?", "What if I wasn't changing radio stations?", "What if I wasn't a rubbish driver?".

Well, much of that is true and much of it caused by the very poor standards of driver training in NZ in comparison to other OECD nations, in particular much of the EU.

I see no reason to handicap an already acknowledged poorly trained driver base by allowing them to drink alcohol.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#788595 28-Mar-2013 13:16

Geektastic:
bazzer: Probably not. Or at least no more than if I hadn't had a beer, crashed on the way home and killed a person walking home and wondering "What if I was going 50 instead of 54?", "What if I wasn't changing radio stations?", "What if I wasn't a rubbish driver?".

Well, much of that is true and much of it caused by the very poor standards of driver training in NZ in comparison to other OECD nations, in particular much of the EU.

I see no reason to handicap an already acknowledged poorly trained driver base by allowing them to drink alcohol.

So what excuse will you use if it ever happened to you? I guess you needn't worry, it's just one of those unlucky things that happens. What do they call it, an accident, I think?

jonb

1772 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#788597 28-Mar-2013 13:20

I remember this story from the Herald last year:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10835869

I'm a bit of a lightweight drinker, but after 4 bottles of Heineken (1.3 standard units each) I would still be under the drink drive limit but I would be 'wasted'. 2 bottles and I still wouldn't feel safe to drive.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29770 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#788749 28-Mar-2013 16:05

limit vs drinks is very unreliable

basically amount (rate) of absorption of ethanol from intestines (not stomach) vs volume of distribution of entire body

amount/volume = concentration

depends on so many factors

so if you have quick stomach empyting like - empty stomach and you drink a jug and you get tested straightaway - you will have low blood concentration coz hasn't had time to absorb yet

quick stomach emptying, drink a jug, get tested at 90 mins - you will be BUSTED

huge guy with slow stomach emptying (full of fatty food) or some other reason, drink a jug, you may not be busted when ever you get tested because if you let bits of alcohol into the intestines slowly it gets distributed to a big body volume = low concentration

but take a huge guy, drink a jug along with fatty food, get tested the next morning - watch out! (here it depends on the rate of ELIMINATION of drug ... i don't know what the rate is sorry, or whether it is highly variable between persons but presumably it is, like most things)

but the most important factors are stomach emptying rate, body size, time from consumption to breath test

alasta

6707 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#788947 28-Mar-2013 20:34

There have been a couple of occasions when I have been breath tested after having drunk the maximum safe amount according to my guidelines (which isn't very much) and on both occasions I was able to see the 'no alcohol' reading on the display.

So, even if we did impose a zero limit I would suspect that the limitations of the detection equipment used would make it impossible to enforce.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789190 29-Mar-2013 11:49

bazzer:
Geektastic:
bazzer: Probably not. Or at least no more than if I hadn't had a beer, crashed on the way home and killed a person walking home and wondering "What if I was going 50 instead of 54?", "What if I wasn't changing radio stations?", "What if I wasn't a rubbish driver?".

Well, much of that is true and much of it caused by the very poor standards of driver training in NZ in comparison to other OECD nations, in particular much of the EU.

I see no reason to handicap an already acknowledged poorly trained driver base by allowing them to drink alcohol.

So what excuse will you use if it ever happened to you? I guess you needn't worry, it's just one of those unlucky things that happens. What do they call it, an accident, I think?

It simply won't happen to me.

I never drink ANY alcohol if I know I am driving.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6