Over the weekend, I visited the SADD (Students against Driving Drunk) conference, which was attended by young people from colleges throughout the upper North Island.
SADD is a peer education programme with the primary objective of reducing the harm caused on our roads by drink drivers and is run in secondary schools by students. It can also be incorporated into the school curriculum.
During the time I was there, SADD members reported back from group work on educating others, both at school and in the community, on the impact of drunk driving. This was entertaining, and very powerful, as they talked about the impact of a crash on families, the school, on students and the community.
We also saw videos of the winners of the Turners Short Film Competition, 2009 and a video, prepared by SADD with student involvement that they hope will make the main TV channels. I was impressed by these young leaders, who are taking on an issue that isn’t necessarily that popular among their peers – or for that matter older people!
With road safety in the news, I took the opportunity to ask SADD members their views on increasing the driving age. It’s fair to say their views were mixed, but all were firm on increasing driver education and supervision.
The next big issue Cabinet will consider is the NZ drinking limit for all ages. Should we lower the blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres to 50mg? If so, what difference do you think will it make?
The Automobile Association says that there is no evidence that lowering the blood-alcohol limit will reduce road deaths.
Is the alcohol limit the problem, or is the problem those who drink a lot more than 0.8 (or 0.5%) and who are recidivist drunk drivers? (and there’s been a few in the news lately). And if the latter, what should we do with them?
I would be interested in your views.
Compulsory breath test key starts would be a help, esp if a DD tries to steal my car!
Did not agree with raising the driving age, as my experience is that the vast majority of the youth are nervous and having just been taught follow the laws better than the rest of us. Probably worse off in emergency response & confidence so do take it easy. (note boy racing takes off a little later when confidence & peer pressure kick in).
I would have changed it to 15-17 ride a moped (restricted power & later awareness) and learn the laws/flows before endangering others.
Drinking, I suspect that with such a gross measure some are more affected than others I would also bet the AA is wrong. I would personally be loath to give up a beer or two before driving as it has not even touched the sides. The question is where the limit is?
I don’t really understand why we don’t move the legal limit to a few milligrams, instead of lowering it from 80 to 50… A few milligrams would allow for those who have just had mouthwash etc in their mouth…
This would send a true message about the acceptibility of drunken driving…
@Jeremy M Harris : Sorry I confused you – the government is talking about raising it from 50 to 80.
I personally believe in:
*raising the driving age to 18
*raising the drinking age to 20
*make driving with any alcohol bar that contained in mouth wash illegal
*making a comprehensive defensive driving course a compulsory requirement of getting & renewing a license – people need to remember that they are driving 2 tonne of metal, too many people (young & old) treat the roads like a competition
*limit the cc of vehicles for under 25s to 1800 with NO modifications – cars are way too powerful compared to the 1300 1970s toyota corolla I had!
*make 3 party insurance a compulsory requirement for registration.
*instant impoundment for any serious breaches (drunk/stoned, driving without WOF or reg, excess speed) – fines just go out with the recycling until they are forced by the courts to pay them….which takes ages!
I don’t think lowering the limit will make any difference as the drink drivers are not respecting the current limit as it stands.
I disagree with the driving age being raised, I think 15 is old enough to learn to drive and that it would have been better to simply extend the time that a person has their restricted licence. A significant number of 15 year olds drive themselves to work.
I know lots of responsible sober drivers, this is heartening.
The trouble with raising the drinking age is that it probably won’t make any difference to under age drinking. It has always been around.
I like your defensive driving idea, there are so many bad drivers in NZ. I would like to add that tourists who are dangerous drivers are a problem, maybe making them sit some kind of driving test before they are allowed on our roads.
The cc limit could be a problem if the youngen is driving a work vechicle.
Yeah, I just think 18 is too old, might be better to learn younger while still with parents.
For starters lets avoid using statistics from the UK, Oz, US or wherever. We need to break the problem down using homegrown NZ statistics describing a homegrown NZ problem.
Now, lets get some far better stats on the drink driving problem than officials and lobbyists have been making available in drips.
Fatalities/injuries “associated” with alcohol is a pointless measure (someone has three quarters of a beer, has alcohol in their blood, has an accident – that accident is now “associated” with alcohol even though it is unlikely to have had a major contribution to the event).
A more direct measure, fatalities/injuries where alcohol is a major contributing factor is what we need to go by.
Now, let’s see at what level of intoxication most of those fatalities/injuries actually occur, and the characteristics of the perps. (Repeat offenders, driving while disqualified, etc)
And, even if the level was brought down to 50mg, could it be enforced in a way which makes any difference to the road toll.
COMPARED TO
The benefits of full and effective enforcement of the current law.
Lets not make criminals out of people who don’t need to be if there is no societal benefit apart from certain peoples’ sense of righteousness.
Let’s ascertain if a current law can be made to work better before writing a new one – which we are not sure will work better anyhows.
Also – lets not forget about the fact that we need to deal with the real problem – NZ’s massive and pervasive binge drinking culture.
“@Jeremy M Harris : Sorry I confused you – the government is talking about raising it from 50 to 80.”
Darien, nobody’s bothered mentioning this because it’s obvious what you mean, but after your comment to Jeremy surely you mean the government is talking about LOWERING the limit from 80 to 50? It’s 80 at the moment.
I say raise the driving age limit and eliminate the drinking age limit. It’s easy to get alcohol from your older mates any day if any young teen wants alcohol they can get it no sweat – however it’s nowhere near as easy to randomly produce a legit drivers lisence.
@Anton : Sorry, I’m confused again. Thanks. Hopefully I’ve got it right now. Too much about trucks today.
On a lighter note…the tune is stuck in my head now!
Its getting spooky, but I agree with Rebecca.
I know its not popular to suggest that:
- we make it NO tolerance for any blood alcohol level – none.
- recidivist drunk drivers – jail, and perm loss of license and loss of car, community service and drug/boooze rehab.
- Raise the license – while 20 may seem too old – its too young as it is.
- NO boy racer cars for under 25’s or anyone with repeat speeding and dangerous driving cars – in fact, if I had my why I would make them drive a car that has “repeat drunk driver/repeat speeder/repeat dangerous driver” etc on it in really large and bright letters and thats what they drive for the term of their supervision.
And as for the argument that they need to drive cars larger than 1800cc for work – what kind of job requres that when you are young? And there are ways around it, so its not really an issue.
Frankly, we are way too soft on our road laws – its a priviledge not a right and we seem to forget that. Time to get a bit tougher – its not good enough that twits get to drive dangerously/drunk etc – esp those who keep repeating these mistakes, with no real punishment. To be 20 and rack up many thousands of dollars worth of fines is not ok – and I agree with crusher collins (its about the only thing I agree with re the Nats so don’t get too excited) – crush the cars. Or better still – give them a screw driver and make them dismantle their own car as the community service they have to do.
“- Raise the license – while 20 may seem too old – its too young as it is.”
!!!! I’m shocked, Paul, 
Man don’t punish the majority of youth who are good / goodish drivers just because of a few drunks / hoons.
By all means crack down on hoons and punish drink drivers, but don’t raise the driving age.
There are plenty of oldies who drink drive 
Spud – the raising of the driving age is not so much about just drinking – its the whole raft of issues that immature drivers bring to the table. I would be happy to compromise if these young drivers had really good defensive driving as part of their training. And I would even be happy to compromise knowing that the cars they are driving are small nana cars. But you add young, arrogance, high levels of testosterone, fast cars and then add booze – you have a recipe for disaster. And from memory, the stats of how many incidents involve under 25s are over represented – esp under 25 males – then as a society we cant keep turning a blind eye to it.
Well at least we agree on the defensive driving, I’m all for it because I’d like to see the overall standard of driving in this country lifted.
Let’s say that these youngens have to drive nana cars, wouldn’t that be a pain to police?
I’ve been to Hungary, where the drink-driving limit is zero. Even the smallest positive test attracts a fine. Get over 0.03% and it’s a criminal offence. They have far worse road deaths per capita and km driven than we do. Lowering the drink driving limit is a sticking plaster solution.
I remember getting my license over 20 years ago – all you had to do was drive around town without crashing, remembering to indicate and looking in the rear view mirror from time to time. A more intensive practical course of handling skids, emergency stops and dealing with potential hazards would help enormously.
And not being retested in 21 years is a bit silly as well – at your 10 year re-issue you should have to pass a written test to show you are up to date with the rules, and those that have collected enough demerits should have to re-sit a practical test (say 200 in the ten years).
However, the biggest change needs to come from NZ drivers in the attitude to using NZ roads. We don’t have the population intensity to have dual carraigeway roads everywhere so we’re stuck withour single lane roads without barriers for at least another 50 years.
paul says: “Its getting spooky…”
Sure is, because on this one I agree with almost everything you’ve written.
(Do we have any astrologers visiting the blog? Could be a strange alignment of stars and planets today – it even started off with Clare commending the government. Twice!)
The only thing I disagree with is zero alcohol. I agree absolutely that the current limits are way too high (I was dumbstruck when I realised how much I’d be able to drink and still legally drive (if I could make it to the car)), but we need to allow for residues in people’s systems many hours after the event. I’d set the limit at the equivalent of a beer or a glass of wine.
Apart from that I’m 100% behind what you said.
I really like the people who set their own limits or choose not to drink at all because they are the sober driver.
G eorge – really? 20 years old? A bit old ain’t it?
I remember living in the Netherlands, where effectively the limit was NO drinks to drive – everyone cycled everywhere.
I then lived in France where there were serious problems with drink driving until they changed the law to much lower blood alcohol limit (one or two drinks) and the penalties for drink driving were raised massively. If you caused an accident whilst drunk driving and someone was injured or killed you could be fined up to 50,000 euros plus jail time. This visibly decreased the number of drunk drivers in the very rural area I lived in and made sober drivers the norm.
Here I think we need a zero limit for drinking and driving for all drivers with massively increased penalties as deterrents but also as a message that killing someone with your car when you drive drunk is totally unacceptable and completely the drivers fault.
Maybe a solution would be retain existing status quo for drivers over say 25. Lower the limit for those under 25. Zero tolerance for drivers on learners and for first 5 years of full licence.
If one gets done for DIC then next ten years is automatic zero tolerance.
I think this is good – but the main drawback is that it is somewhat complicated.
Spud – how I read it (and what I concurring with) was paul agreeing with Rebecca who in turn suggested 18 for the driving age.
paul said that whilst 20 might be too old the current age was certainly too young.
20 for drink driving, 18 for a licence. That’d be reasonable, I think.
I passed my license in the UK almost 40 years ago at the (minimum age) of 17. Even then, when all I got to drive was a 0 to 60 in half an hour Morris 1000 Traveller, I think that I was a menace until I’d got a bit of real experience under my belt. Knowing the mistakes and errors of judgement I made (fuelled by adolescent bravado rather than alcohol – I never drank and drove) I worry for the sort of boy I was 40 years on who can now, at 16, get behind the wheel of a high performance car.
Emma G – I remember driving through France every summer and seeing black wooden cut-outs of people, signifying where there’d been an accident. 3 black figures = 3 deaths at that spot. Very poignant and thought provoking, and more effective that the shrines that spring up here, at least in my opinion.
Yes, I must have misread it
I do like the idea of inexperienced drivers driving bombs but I’m sure there would be people who would tinker under the hood to make a more powerful bomb.
Spud – is there an ‘I wasn’t being a smartarse, honest’ emoticon?
No, but I’d use this
@ Emma: well France is certainly doing something right
https://www.tispol.org/node/3980
Having said that, what proportion of road deaths over there had alcohol as a significant contributing factor versus us here in NZ?
So wee need good, detailed NZ statistics.
For instance, what proportion of road deaths are caused by drivers who are greater than twice over the limit compared to drivers who are over the limit but only marginally?
Also I am a bit dubious at the lack of will and innovation to better enforce today’s laws before drawing up new ones to try and enforce.
Is a massively increased criminal penalty going to deter someone from driving who is 2x or 3x or 4x over the limit? By definition they are not going to be thinking straight at that time. The only way it seems that you might be able to stop these individuals is if you removed access to vehicles/the roads all together.
A quick search of the NZ Herald for stories in the last 10(!) days reveals these stories. Search further back and there are even more:
6th conviction while driving disqualified (and 11th DUI)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10637535
21st DUI conviction, and driving while disqualified
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10638637
I just read a Time Magazine article dated 2002 on the horrendous drink driving problem in France. It seems like their judiciary was giving out pretty lenient sentences for drink driving causing death at the time. Obviously the attitude has greatly changed since then, perhaps through minimum sentences in the legislation.
Spud “I really like the people who set their own limits or choose not to drink at all because they are the sober driver.” – me too! I love personal responsibility.
Unfortunately we humans can’t be trust to always do the right thing hence the need for strong education, laws, fines & imprisonment.
Introduce a zero limit, and here’s a phrase that will be uttered at bars and parties from one end of the country to the other: “I’ve had one glass and I’m already over the limit. Another one isn’t going to get me in any more trouble with the coppers”
Hi Darien
The Automobile Assn (not to be confused with the fabulous Alcoholics Anonymous) are wrong. It’s worth remembering the Auto Assn are a union for drivers, so won’t always present the science in a balanced light.
Transport officials have done a great job in outlining the evidence in their very comprehensive Safer Journeys strategy (http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Documents/SaferJourneyStrategy.pdf – links to PDF). Quite simply, the science and the international experience strongly supports a lowered adult BAC limit.
I’ve had a crack at summarising the science and assessing AA’s point-of-view here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3520137/A-lower-drink-drive-level-will-make-Kiwis-safer-on-the-roads
We’ve obtained official papers from Ministry of Transport which we’ve released today on our website.
It’s clear the officials are pretty confident in their advice to lower the adult limit.
http://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/drink-drive-OIA
i dont support raising the driving age because if u look at the figures more 16 year old are involved car crashes than 15 year olds its just that if a single 15 year old crashes they think they are too young but more older driver crash than 15 year olds just look at the figures and yes the drinking age i support it at 20 it causes to much crime am-oust youth than older drinker