"These people are endangering us all and it is a situation that neither the police nor the public should tolerate."
Of the 156 people killed on the roads so far this year, 43 deaths - or 27.6 per cent - have been alcohol-related.
In 2005, there were 100 alcohol-related deaths. Apart from 2002, this is the lowest toll in the last twenty years. They made up 29 percent of all deaths.
The following is an international comprison of road deaths per 100,000;
Of the above countries, 10 have higher road deaths than NZ. Three of them have zero alcohol breath limits, 6 have 50mg limits and 1, like NZ, has an 80mg limit.
The evidence is barely compelling.
How many more people will be processed, fined and lose their licences for the sake of a glass of wine with dinner? I thought we were trying to cultivate a mature attitude to drinking in this country. Observing the current limits, not getting legless and not being treated like children is going to serve us better than a ban - because it won't stop at just lowering the limit. The wowsers never give up.
3 comments:
This is plain ridiculous. An adult having 2 or 3 beers or glasses of wine or a couple of nips of spirits is not a threat on the roads.
It is the recidivist drunks who are the dangers and there are simple cures for those over current limits:
First Offence - 1 year disqualification with no temporary for work - and $5,000 fine.
Second Offence - 3 months jail, 5 year disqualification -as above - plus car impounded and sold irrespective of owner.
Third Offence - five years jail, disqualified for life car impounded and sold irrespective of owner.
Why should sensible people be penalised for the actions of idiots?
As i said when I first head about this, this will make the situation WORSE.
Right now I can take a few people to a party, enjoy a beer and drive them all safely home.
Think I'd want to be a driver if I couldn't even enjoy one beer while out? Don't think so.
On newstalkZB this morning, Helen Clark basically said that they wouldn't lower it any further blah blah blah, because it would require people to fundamentally change their behaviour etc.
The cynic in me heard the exact same discussion as the anti-smacking, but on the subject of drinking.
Post a Comment