Drink Driving limit to be lowered

The government has announced that they are going to lower the drink driving limit.

Prime Minister John Key says cabinet has agreed to lower the blood alcohol limit for all drivers.

The limit will fall from 0.08ml per 100ml of blood to 0.05ml.

Key said the new lower limit would give fines to drivers caught between the old limit and the new one.

He said the government had a strong track record for road safety, with the road toll falling by about 100 deaths a year while in government.

“The work is not over, no death is acceptable.”

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee said the decision was striking a balance of showing that the government was serious about alcohol in driving, while deciding whether drivers were criminals.  

Drivers in between the limits would incur 50 demerit points, meaning two offences in two years would result in licenses being lost.

It was not expected drivers having a drink after work or a wine with dinner, Brownlee said, saying he expected having “one or two” would probably fall below the limit.

It was hard to assess how much court time would be taken up if breaches of the lower limit would see offenders taken to Court.

Brownlee said the AA had indicated support of the policy.

It sounds like the government has obtained some evidence to support lowering the limit…this is a good thing rather than emotive law changes.

Research on whether the lower limit would lead to lower accidents and deaths had come back in the last six to eight weeks.

Brownlee said the two year review of the impact of lowering the legal blood alcohol limit by 30 milligrams suggests 3.4 lives will be saved a year and 64 injury causing crashes avoided – and save $200 million in social costs over 10 years.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Dick Brown

    And the court cases currently pending between the limits?

  • Toryboy

    I think the limit should be Zero.

    • Muffin

      Would be easier

    • Hazards001

      I think you should have park up the cordial and grow up.

      • Toryboy

        Pardon? that doesn’t make sense

        • Hazards001

          Sure it does. I’ve watched a number of your posts. You come off as a naive silver spoon in mouth type.

          No offence intended maybe I’m wrong but you give an impression of youth and seem to ask the type of questions I expect from youths.

          • Toryboy

            That is very flattering. Thank you Hazards001

          • He’s trying to sell his transference bud …

          • Hazards001

            You been on the weed again?

          • You hiding behind a fake personality again ?

            Did you know I’ve met the digger operator you scabbed this personality from ?

          • Hazards001

            Really? Want my picture you dimwit?
            Send me your email. Ask petal for it.

          • For F’sake Paul, you repeat entire passages of speech, word for word from a 33 year old conversation and you expect me not to notice ?

            I.E. You were speaking the same stolen crap when you where 10 Paul.

          • Hazards001

            You really do need to get help you poor deluded bastard..
            Whoever Paul is he has obviously fucked with your mind something horribly. Now go have a lie down.

          • Wouldn’t surprise me, poor bastard, Travis tells me you were drinking your own piss a month ago … How’d that work out for ya ?

          • Hazards001

            You really are pathetic..which is interesting in itself. I see your post’s and some I find rather amazing. You are obviously highly intelligent. I guess the drugs and Paul just fucked you up huh?
            You cry baby bitch!

          • Honki

            oh come on grow up people. go on facebook or summat.

          • Toryboy

            Oh I get it – he just got paroled and can go online now; that explains it!

          • Hazards001

            See…not to bright are you?

          • Hazards001

            It wasn’t!

          • TomTom

            Haha and you sound like a right nutter… so I guess we can leave it at that.

          • Hazards001

            Go give your boyfriend a cuddle you one issue one trick puppy.

          • TomTom

            I would… but I don’t have one :( Perhaps you could be mine?

          • Hazards001

            lmao..probably not..but I’d go have a beer with ya…you drive

          • Rodger T

            Lol……

          • Hazards001

            Umm? Ya think?

          • Kimbo

            Yes. Hold on while I get comfortable with a bucket of popcorn.

          • Honki

            i know i’m a bit late but dang that was intense. so many issues in so few sentences!

          • Kimbo

            yep, there is an entire Ph D thesis in the psychology of repressed anger in that exchange!

    • Pissedoffyouth

      Why do you think this?

      • Toryboy

        Because it is subjective – I do not really understand what 0.05 means; how many drinks that is, how pissed you would be at that limit.

        Just been watching the news where Mr Brownlee was saying it entirely depends on the person and their body shape.

        With so much confusion I think it would be better to have it at zero – then no one need wonder if they are under the limit.

        • Pissedoffyouth

          That would make that easier legally but there needs to be some kind of tolerance to a drink, the guy who has a craft beer with dinner shouldn’t be punished for the idiocy of the guys who have a box of Lion for lunch. Would be interesting to see statistic on who has caffeine in their blood when they crash, because if its over 50% we should ban coffee drinking and driving. I know I’ve had caffeine which has made me pretty damn alert

          • Toryboy

            Okay, so why 0.05 or 0.08? why not 0.056 or 0.051 or 0.96? the figures are too subjective, too arbitrary.
            For all I know half a bottle of wine and I would still be under the limit; or is it 2 glass, or 3, or 3 glass and 1 sip?

          • Bunswalla

            0.05 brings us into line with Australia, UK and a lot of other similar countries, so it’s a logical level.

            How much you can drink depends on a lot of factors:
            – Your sex (I assume nothing)
            – Your height/weight
            – When you last ate
            – When you last drank
            – What you drank

            So, take some responsibility for learning about laws that affect you, figure out roughly what your tolerance is, and make sure you stay inside that limit.

            It’s really not that hard.

          • Anonthemouser

            Growing up in Oz with the .05 limit we had many advertisements that stated, for the average woman, to remain under the limit, she could have one standard drink per hour and remain under the limit. For the average male, it was two drinks initially, then one drink every hour. Then later ads went on to teach you what a ‘standard’ drink meant (you’ll find it listed on the side of wine bottles). I have a spouse who doesn’t drink so I’m always sweet but it’s a good guide.

          • pukakidon

            That is fine you have no alcohol before you drive that’s up to you. But that doesn’t give you or your nanny boys and girls the right to dictate whether or not we can control ourselves. I know I can have a couple of standard beers and be totally ok, have done in NZ and Aust. I like the fact that in your case you understand that when you have had a glass of Tia maria and milk you are not able to drive, good on you. Blankets bans is a leftist nanny state controlling option, grow up for goodness sakes.

        • Hazards001

          And that is exactly what I mean..you don’t understand..this is you’re problem..you don’t seem to understand a lot of things..but you have an opinion!

        • Kopua Cowboy

          Interesting. What body shape would you say Mr Brownlee is?

          • Rae

            Well he bears a striking resemblance to Eric Cartman,

    • Flegin

      My wife just sent me to the supermarket to get some flour for the gravy, I had just finished my first beer, a zero limit would mean no gravy for the roast as she had just had a rum & coke. One beer had not impaired me in any way, I’m far more worried about driving home after a 12 hour nightshift, perhaps we could legislate for that too.

      • Toryboy

        Ha ha – jeepers! I express an opinion on whaleoil and have 108 people criticising me haha.

        • Flegin

          Sorry Tory, I just think zero is extreme, mouthwash for example contains alcohol, I would hate to get pinged on the way to work because I like to have fresh breath. Although like you I have no idea how much is too much in regards to a 0.05 or 0.08 limit.

        • island time

          I understand why you say 0%, but do not really agree. But I am not going to abuse you for it. Its a good point as how the hell are we to judge what our limit is especially when it also depends on what you may have eaten as well as how quickly you have had the drink etc. So to avoid doubtt the easiest way is not to drink at all if driving.

        • Hazards001

          “Ha ha – jeepers! I express an opinion on whaleoil and have 108 people criticising me haha.”

          Welcome to the world of having an uninformed opinion!

      • Mr Cracker

        Perhaps in the future your wife could call you before you get home to get odd bits here and their, before you hit the piss…?!?!? Lamer

        • Flegin

          I’ve been home all day, sleeping in fact, just finished a 13 night stint of 12 hour nightshifts. Unfortunately she only remembered that she used the last of the flour for a stew the other day when it was time to make the gravy, and even if I had been working dayshift I would have been home before she was ready to make the gravy, and chances are I would have already started a beer.

          • Honki

            why did you feel the need to explain yourself to old uncle cracker?

        • Hazards001

          I take it you have a job you fucking dimwit? You sure as fuck don’t have a personality!

          • Mr Cracker

            Certainly not when it comes to idiots that drink even just one and drink, not so much risking their OWN lives, but more so putting other peoples at risk, As a NZ Born European that has traveled ALOT, I can say with from experience NZer’s are wanker drivers compared with many many other countries, then comes alcohol in the mix, and yeah hey more negative stats… so yeah on your push bike to the shops cunt… or your wife, bet she probably needs the exercise, hahahahah

    • Michael

      The UAE has a zero limit, and the worst road death statistics in the world. As does Brazil, who have the second worst road death statistics in the world. Romania is third, also with a zero limit. Slovakia and the Czech Republic also have a zero limit, want to guess where they rank? None of the countries in the top ten have limits over 0.05%.

      The UK has the best road death statistics in the world, with a 0.08 Limit. In the Top 10 they range from 0.05% to 0.08%.

      • Muffin

        I know a lot about Brasil, and they have heaps of rules and laws….. Just fuck all enforcement, everyone drives tanked there almost no chance of getting in trouble for it unless you crash

        • ex-JAFA

          And that’s why I don’t know how lowering the limit here can be said to save x.xx lives a year. Does the research show that a number of people were knowingly between the current and proposed limits, decided “she’ll be right”, then went out and killed? I’d imagine that pretty much all alcohol-related road deaths are caused by people who are well fucked by any standard and whose decision to drive would be unaffected by reducing the limit. The difference between tipsy and a wee bit squiffy can be very hard for an individual to judge for themselves.

    • unitedtribes

      I just can’t drive when I’m completely sober

      • Toryboy

        HAHAHAHA! – comment of the day

  • Daniel Church

    I still think it’s a kneejerk reaction. How will this deal with the people who are actually causing the problems – those who are already driving over the current 80 milligrams limit? They won’t be deterred by lowering the limit, or setting it to zero, as an alarming number of people think we should be doing. That’s the other thing; it is always a slippery slope pandering to the wowsers. Lower it to 50, and there will inevitably be a push for 40, 30, 20…

    • tspoon

      If you drink ( a bit ) and drive you’re a bloody…. bit poorer.

      Not to mention, when are the ads going to reflect the actual picture a bit better. You don’t see many ads that aren’t featuring males of a particular age and ethnicity. But when I peruse the MSM I’m hearing about dpb mums with kids not strapped in etc. Where’s their ad? “Put up with my sh*t, accept my demon spawn of unknown origin and stop me driving drunk? Bloody legend!” (Actually complete fool, but that’s another subject)

      • Daniel Church

        Indeed, when we hear about DPB mums with kids not strapped in and the like, we are fed this left-wing spin about how it’s not really her fault. She lives in ‘poverty’ or some bollocks, this mean National government MADE her do it, and things like this would be prevented if we expanded the welfare state and implemented more socialist policies. *vomit*

  • Hazards001

    Once more the wowsers and nanny stateists win the day. All in all a bit of a limp change but to be fair the whole thing is a crock of shit.
    To be taken seriously the drink drive limit needs to go hand in hand with a sobriety test.

    • Rodger T

      Thats me fucked ,I can`t walk in a straight line when I`m sober let alone pissed.

  • Pissedoffyouth

    So lets face it, having a small amount of booze in you won’t cause an accident, if you do have an accident you can’t say 100% its the booze.

    What they should be focusing on is the ones that cause the biggest problems, the fuckers 4x over the limit who seem to get off with a slap on the arse with a wet tissue

    How about making anyone caught more than once over the limit immediately go to jail? do not pass go?

  • JC

    I understand it, but I don’t like it. What the Govt is saying is that it will punish people who are responsible for about 1% of road deaths whilst fully sober drivers kill 40%.

    JC

  • It’s adjusting the law at the end where the problems don’t exist.

    To someone with .2 blood alcohol this adjustment makes no difference.

    With fines, this means 1) revenue gathering, 2) turning well (until now) well behaved citizens that know their limits into law breakers, 3) kicking the hospitality industry in the chops as less people will take the risk of a drink with dinner.

    It is a pointless law that won’t deal with the actual problem of drink driving.

    I’m disappointed with this Government for this, and it is of the same calibre as microchipping dogs to *prevent* attacks.

    • The youth limit is already zero, which covers most of the people who drink too lower inhibition, resulting in “maniac behind the wheel” syndrome.

      It wont make a blind bit of difference to the 95% who have matured enough not to drink for those reasons.

      The rest will likely find a new drug and continue the carnage anyway…

      • Pissedoffyouth

        The idiots who are 55 and drink a carton of countdowns finest don’t care about the law anyway

    • Kopua Cowboy

      The same thing is happening with their new shiny Arms Amendment Act- does not deal with the actual problems, despite the ministers spin.

  • meow

    That means all those chardonnay socialists will only be able to have one bottle before driving instead of the usual two.

  • out2lunch

    Useless legislation which penalises those who drink in moderation and responsibly. This is going to clog up our courts something chronic. We should be addressing the issue of recidivist drink drivers and those multiple times over the limit. Well done nanny state NZ

    • island time

      It wont clog up the courts. Its an instant fine and/or demerit points

      • pidge

        DIC goes to court, as it has a possible prison sentence. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-limits/alcohol-and-drugs-limits.html

        • island time

          Ok. In article posted by Whale it is Key that says this lower level only gets a fine…????

          • pidge

            Whoops! Missed that bit!

      • out2lunch

        As it stands, around 32,000 people are convicted each year. Under the new bill this is expected to reach up to 70,000, as noted by Judith Collins

        • island time

          Really? So a fine and demerit points leads to a conviction? No point in changing the rules in that case. Mind you, it is up to the individual as to how they manage their drinking and driving. I wonder if some people think having a personal limit of say 3 drinks with a meal means they are safe are only safe because they have not been tested yet?

  • Dave

    bloody Good Idea. If this drops the road toll by one innocent motorist, its well worth it. Brings NZ inline with Aussie, which has had a 0.05 limit for years. Motoring enthusiasts might remember the late Peter Brook’s number. 0.05 !!

    To those that think its an issue, if you can aford to drink, you can afford a cab, or to have a mate drive you.

    • Callum

      Interesting argument. Do you support lowering the speed limit to 80km/h? That would save far more lives so the cost of saving one innocent motorist would be well worth it.

      • Dave

        Callum, interesting point. There ewill always be innocent people killed, and whilst it would be good to get to Nil, we would almost need to stop doing anything, and then we al perish in any case.

        No, I don’t support the lowering of the speed limit, I support raising it but with conditions. My preference, if for an ADVANCED license, issued every 5 years to proven advanced drivers, those drivers with a suitable car, say under 5 years old or one that meets a much higher standard. This encourages more driving skills, and in better vehicles. Think of how 40 years ago, my first car had drum brakes almost no suspension and cross ply tires. Now, my car has so many electronic aids for safety, one tire is wider and has more grip than all four tires form that first car, and I am a much more experienced and capable driver. This is true for so many people the world over, yet we drive at the same speeds, or even lower in some cases than we did 40 years ago.

        But, wit this goes serious responsibility. A zero alcohol limit, go over the (higher) speed limit and face bigger fines and immediate loss of the advanced license etc etc.

        The beauty is this becomes an incentive for better driver behavior and skills, plus improves the national fleet standards.

  • john Doe

    Club an ant with an axe….there must be better ways to address a problem.

    • Bunswalla

      Suggestions?

      • wiltinpenis

        Raise the drinking age back to 20.

        • LeftRightWrong

          But then that goes to the other spectrum, penalizing those who are 18 who can drink responsibly (although the numbers would be much lower).

      • Kopua Cowboy

        Ditch the axe and grab a flamethrower? No ant, no problem.

  • Andrei

    Yep National a nanny state party., just like the lamentable Labour using bullshit statistics to keep us “safe” by restricting every fucking thing we do as human beings.

    Our MPs are beneath contempt

    • LeftRightWrong

      What are you suggesting that we leave it up to peoples better judgement weather they drive drunk or not?

      • P1LL

        It is not the .08 drivers that are the problem , it is the ass-hats that don’t give a fuck about driving blind drunk.

        • LeftRightWrong

          I can’t disagree with you there.
          However for me personally IF I drink (which is a rarity) I don’t drive even after one drink, personal choice of course but IF I were to have an accident I wouldn’t even want a shadow of doubt that alcohol could have been involved.

  • sheppy

    Watch the statistics go up as the law of unintended consequences makes an appearance…
    For a law like this to work in a large spread out country it needs to be attainable

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Another one of Labour’s ideas see the light of the day! Labour always wins bros….

    • john Doe

      Yep pandering to the minority. Thought big gerry was better than this.

  • Mad Dog

    It’s NANNY STATE from the Nats.

    Funny how big fat Brownlie was so against this three years ago, then when he suddenly realises that a private members’ bill has the numbers to pass into law a 0.05ml limit, he (and the rest of the Nats) panic and hurriedly decide to introduce an identical measure into law themselves so they don’t look stupid!

  • JC

    OK, its teatime and I’ve had a few to get the brain cells working..

    Lets start with the road toll.. in 2012 it was 308 and the number of deaths in which alcohol was a factor in a study 2006-08 was 26%:

    http://www.alcohol.org.nz/research-resources/nz-statistics/road-traffic-crashes-and-deaths

    So that means you are three times more likely to be killed by a sober driver.

    Tonight the Govt said that having a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 30-50 kills 4 and a bit people.

    So when you go out on the road tonight be aware that if you are killed there is a 74% chance that you will be killed by a sober driver, a 25% chance you will be killed by a driver with a BAC over 80 and a 1% chance of being killed by a driver with a BAC of 50-80.

    Now of course statistical analysis doesn’t work like that above because there are many other factors to consider like experience, ethnicity, age, gender, body weight etc but I would make an impassioned plea that only drivers with a BAC of 50-80 be allowed on the road.. after all, they are by far the safest drivers.

    JC

    • Dick Brown

      That’s kind of one way to look at it.

      I’d be more inclined to take into account the percentage of alcohol impaired drivers on the road at any given time compared with the percentage of sober drivers on the road at any given time.

      I’d wager the alcohol impaired drivers percentage would be minuscule compared to the 26% represented by them in just the deaths statistic.

    • Andrei

      .And the number of people killed in accidents caused by oxygen breathers is 100%, so lets ban all those who breath oxygen from driving which will get the annual road toll down to zero, I promise you.

      The assumption in justifying this nonsense is that those who were invovled in accidents with a blood alcohol level in the range of interest, wouldn’t have had them if there blood alcohol level was at a level below this – a very long bow to draw.

      And of course with this precedent the same technique can and probably will be deployed to further lower the levels that will imply criminality in the future, while meanwhile in the real world the amount of detectable impairment that a normal adult demonstrates at this new “criminal” level is actually unmeasurable

    • Bunswalla

      Nice post, but statistics are a bit like mini-skirts. They’re nice to look at, but they hide the really important stuff.

  • cruiseyman

    This will do for drink driving what the anti smaking law did for child abuse – nothing

  • GregM

    The problem has always been those that are 2 – 3 times the limit. This new lower limit does absolutely nothing to address that. All this is going to do is raise revenue off those that want to have a stubbie or two after work. It’s bullshit.

  • Kimbo

    Revenue collection – Recidivists will continue to have their fines waived. Over regulation – youre quickly losing my vote.

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    I am so unfit to comment on this because I am a teetotaller…..sorry bros you won’t be able to get my ideas this time…May be I can recommend to Curryleaf that he cancels this by lunch time.

    • Hazards001

      Tee totaller? Play a bit of golf do ya?

    • GregM

      No Worries SCS bro, I will drink and smoke your allocation for you.
      I will also recommend to Curryleaf that he taxes you even harder, given that you are not paying your fair share of excise duties. Smoke that.

    • Mr_V4

      Come on SCS, I’m sure you need a strong drink to wash away the taste of all that fellatio at the Labour Party conference.

  • snakebit

    I dont think police should be able to stop people and breath test them without probable cause.

  • Stuart

    How is it that my copy of this bog arrived only 3 hours ago but there are posts 18 hours old? Are these sent out in one batch or do some get a heads-up copy first?

53%