Mostly Nothing
Apparently the number of drink-driving offenses has increased by 50% over the past five years. Although the police cite increased enforcement for the horrifying increase in numbers, I don’t believe this is entirely true. In 2003, 262 people were killed in road accidents. 191 (73%) were tested for alcohol and 59 (31% of those tested, 23% overall) were over the limit. in 2007, 242 drivers were killed, 196 tested (81%), 56 (29% of those tested, 23% overall) were over the limit. In other words, the proportion of road fatalities in which alcohol may have been a factor has not changed in the five years between 2003 and 2007. The implication being that police action is not reducing the number of drunk drivers.
It may still be that the increase in convictions is due to better police work, but that increase in convictions has not translated into fewer fatalities. It is therefore extremely likely that the extra policing is merely catching more recidivist offenders who then go out and reoffend, despite being fined.
Against this utter disregard for the law exhibited by the reoffenders, the government is considering reducing the blood alcohol limit to 50 mg% (down from the current 80). I have already blogged on the lack of scientific rational for this. Today I merely note that, of the 196 fatalities tested in 2007, only two had blood alcohols between 50 and 80 mg% (and a further two had blood alcohol levels between 30 and 50 mg%). This means that lowering the limit to 50 mg% may reduce the death toll by two. I say may because there is no real way to prove that alcohol was a significant factor in these two deaths.
Interestingly, the comparable figure for 2003 were 5 between 30 and 50 and 5 between 50 and 80 (with 9 between 80 and 100 – down to 3 in 2007). These figures would suggest that there are fewer people driving after drinking, meaning that the adverts and police drink-drinking blitzes are working on “normal” people but having no effect at all on alcoholics. Further reduction of the limit will merely extend this effect rather than stop the recidivists.
So, as far as I can see, the advertising campaigns, large amounts of police time and money and the campaign to reduce the limit are achieving mostly nothing. I reiterate again my call for far more draconian penalties for drink driving and quote my previous post:
“I know I will be called reactionary for this, but it seems plain to me that the answer to drunk driving is not to fiddle with blood alcohol limits. The answer is to get draconian with drunk drivers. I have heard of a person being fined and their license suspended for two years for their sixth offense – an offense that included driving without a license. What was the point of that? Why is drunk driving such a joke to us Kiwis? There is no point in the law being a merepunishment, it needs to be a very scary deterrent.
“First offense: mandatory 6 months in jail, license suspended for five years (laugh that one off!), Alcohol rehab while in jail.
“Second offense: 2 years, license revoked for good. Endorsement on credit rating to make you unable to buy a car on credit.
“Third and subsequent offense: 5 years, Car you were driving confiscated and sold (including the car of anyone foolish enough to lend you one) – any residual moneys goes to victims of drunk drivers fund.
“No home detention, no fines, no PD – just straight jail time. Injuries to other people gets you bumped up a tier (First becomes second offense, second becomes third). Killing someone gets you time for manslaughter (additional 2-5 years) as well as drunk driving charge as per injury.
“Until being a drunk driver is regarded as a crime rather than simply a prattish thing to do, I can’t see we will ever rid ourselves of this scourge to our country. It is obvious that all the expensive TV advertising has been ineffective in changing our thought patterns. Perhaps the heavy hand of the law may do better. ”
Related posts:
- Pushing the Limit I see the police are attempting to revive the debate...
- Driving Impaired Once again the prospect of a reduction in the blood...
- Cooking with Alcohol The Herald has kicked off it’s “Two Drinks Max” campaign...
- Fit To Drive Once more the media appear to be wading in to...
- Booze Scoop David Farrar appears to have scooped the newspapers with a...
May 24 09 9:29 am
“Until being a drunk driver is regarded as a crime rather than simply a prattish thing to do”
And there is the crux of the matter!
May 24 09 1:15 pm
I think there are two problems here that are interrelated. That is drunk driving and driving while disqualified. I do not think a huge in crease in penalties is the answer anymore than dropping the limit. People who drive drunk and ignore their disqualification are deterred more by the likelihood of getting caught than the penalty.
A checkpoint will only catch someone driving while disqualified if they are drinking and over the limit. I believe the police should ask to see ones licence at the checkpoint. This mean less drivers tested but it would pick or many driving while disqualified.
I have been pulled up often at a checkpoint on the way home after a meal. I have usually had one glass of wine with my meal. Other times I may have shared a bottle on wine with a meal. I have never exceeded the limit although once I was told I was on or very close to the limit. This was over twenty years ago.
The amount of alcohol can vary due to many factors. I think would be a bit tough to send a first offender with a clean or very good driving record to jail for testing just over the limit. The penalties should work like for speeding. Someone who exceeds the speed limit by 40km receives a lot higher penalty that someone 13km over the limit.
The problem with some recidivists drink drivers is that that they are unable most of the time to limit their drinks while driving with the best intentions when they start. I do not know how difficult it would be but a idea worth considering is endorsing their licence to the level of under twenty year olds like is done for glasses.
May 24 09 2:06 pm
MacD, I respectfully disagree because I believe that drink-driving is not a criminal act, there are major problems of logic with drink-driving laws, and those laws are contrary to biblical principles. However, I do believe that harm to person or property as a result of drink-driving is a criminal act. It’s explained in this post and the comments:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/drink-driving-should-be-legalised/
I’ve looked at the numbers from one police “swoop” and the percentage of drivers caught over the limit is tiny. This is interesting in light of your contention that the police actions are ineffective.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/police-checkpoints-breach-the-civil-liberties-of-the-many-to-catch-the-few/
Kiwi Polemicist’s last blog post..• The Commerce Commission report on electricity companies: fact and fiction
May 25 09 12:59 am
Kiwi Polemicist:
Interesting take on drink driving but your analogies are flawed. You compare the harm potential of drink-driving with ordinary driving but the correct comparison is with speeding. Driving a motorcar is, as you point out, inherently hazardous. However there are multiple rules in place to minimise that harm so that the harm does not outweigh the public good. There is no public good inherent in driving with an elevated blood alcohol; only increased risk to others. This situation is comparable to speeding where the public good (getting to a destination faster) is far outweighed by the increased risk to life and limb. Blood alcohol limits should therefore be view as akin to the rules of the road.
Although I agree that the current blood alcohol limit is somewhat arbitrary, the fact would indicate that a sensible limit would be above 50 mg% (where less does not appear to increase safety) and below 100 mg% (where more markedly increases the death rate). 80 mg% would appear to be a reasonable compromised, although I would be comfortable with a graduated penalty (e.g. 50-80 mg% equals $100, 80-100 mg% = $300 and more than 100 mg% = 6 months in jail/loss of license)
Your argument for doing away with a limit is also seriously flawed. Firstly, the lack of immediate penalty encourages abuse. Humans are notoriously poor at considering long-term consequences, particularly below the age of about 25 years. Doing away with immediate consequences would see a massive increase in dangerous drink-driving, accidents and deaths. This is normal human nature.
In addition, I have a serious philosophical problem with the ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff mentality exhibited by only charging people who cause accident/death. That is akin to allowing a man to discharge a firearm haphazardly in a school playground but only charging him if he hits a child.