Blanket limit drop - overdoing it

The furore over a recent blip in the damage from drink driving is out of proportion to it's actual contribution to our road toll, which has been raging out of control since the year 2000, say Candor Trust.

Total injury crash numbers have risen from 7,830 to over 10,000, but drink driving crashes resulting in death or serious injury in the same time frame plummeted. From 1,500 to around the 750 mark, a level where they have stabilised and lurk.

There was a small increase of 40 odd additional prosecutions last year for harmful driving under the influence (causing injury or death), against the year before.

The increase was likely explainable by a greater effort to nab drug drivers as more drug trained Officers about saw such convictions rise significantly.

And by the fact recidivists are still being treated with kid gloves by nanny Judges. Fifteen drink drivers who killed last year had recent serious traffic convictions.

An impaired driving strategy based on risk and evidence is required to minimise
trauma wrought by irresponsible drivers, not major kneejerk reactions to micro
trends. Only 10-20% cause the carnage, so fine brushwork is indicated.

This issue has been debated in the disturbing absence of facts and context.

1. We do not have people dying at between the current and advocated limit. 2
people died at BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 in 2005, which is a typical result.

2. We do have people dying at lower levels than 0.05 due to the blend with fatigue as a result of "hangover" or with a recent cannabis pick me up.

3. We do not have youth dying due to alcohol impaired driving much these days
compared to adults, only around 10% of deceased young drivers are over their
strict limits. Other issues than alcohol are the bane of teen drivers.

4. We do have youth dying due to fatigue and to cannabis impairment - 48% of
dead young Kiwi drivers used cannabis - usually alone, but sometimes after the
fatal cocktail of pot smoked in tandem with cautiously low alcohol levels.

5. The group with an alcohol moderation problem (and pot) fueling their crashes
is the male group over twenty but under 25. No other group so often records high
blood alcohol levels in it's deceased drivers.

This age group is not helped by the limit shifting from a very low one up to the
adult one, even before the brain's risk recognition section is fully developed.
Twenty to 25 year olds are the binge drinkers, and this is evident from deceased
ones most often having high alcohol levels.

6. People with prior DUI's are 9x more likely to end in the toll - but these offenders are not your average person. They are of a minority oft suffering addiction to alcohol and / or other drugs.

7. A limit drop would see many innocent people wrongly taxed as NZ breathalysers
have a margin of error of about ten percent either way, and with such a low limit the people who naturally manufacture alcohol will be snapped by this speed cam type revenue interested policy all too often.

Candor believe the ideal evidence based strategy would target the "crasher"
demographic, while also taking a wide view of impairment which at the very least
includes drugs.

NZ Police researchers put drug misuse at 16% of fatal crashes and this is now
emerging as the leading killer of young people, given only around 10% of deceased drivers are over limits but 3x that number had smoked cannabis (Waikato University Research 2006).

Countries which have been successful at conquering road trauma don't uniformly
subject everyone to greater restrictions on alcohol intake, than safety dictates.

The U.K. which has an admirable toll is looking at introducing saliva drug tests later this year - lowering the limit is rightfully per evidence a much lower priority.

It would be senseless to tie up Police time penalising an RSA member who has
always been a safe driver at over 0.05, simply in order to push some other social agenda like reducing youth suicides (linked to lower limits by some) or to tax him.

Although there is little evidence a zero youth limit would provide further benefit (one report says it would reduce alcohol related crashes by only 0.5%) C.T. would not oppose this - due to the need to reduce interactions with cannabis.

Applying a blanket 0.05 limit will simply result in Kiwi adults switching to drug use, which is exactly how young people have "beaten the limit" to their detriment. It would be the dealers delight and open Pandoras P and Pot box wider.

Those calling for lower limits generally have primary agendas other than road safety. "Police and ALAC want to reduce drinking in society generally - but they're focussed on a very weak intervention here if toll reduction is a serious goal".

The Trafinz organisation ranked drug testing as the most important priority second to better engineered roads at it's conference last year, lower limits were lower down the priority list.

With the AA which does not support a lower limit, and the U.K. (one of the three
top performing Countries known as S.U.N.) Candors policy is also based on best road safety evidence and exclusively road safety oriented research.

The blanket 0.05 proposal would insanely bind up Police resources taxing tens of thousands of people who are not now and won't ever be driving "impaired" to the point where a crash is remotely likely.

More useful based on local statistics would be zero tolerance for cannabis use
by youth, and a 0.05 limit for drivers under 25 (the binge drinking crashers) and also anyone with prior DUI convictions - as recommended by MADD.

ENDS

© Scoop Media