0.05 a crock - still offenders and victims wait
Candor Trust

Candor Trust is saddened that the new Transport Minister used his first day back in Parliament to push for a low order road safety priority, amongst many brighter burning torches at this point - a blood alcohol limit drop. "It shows a real failure to be in touch with the grassroots of genuine DUI activism, which want results in targeting High Risk Offenders says Coordinator Rachael Ford.

Approximately 60% of detected drink drivers in 0.05 limit jurisdictions have a BAC over 1.2 and almost all drink driver crashes are caused by people 25% higher than NZ's current limit. The orchestrated cry for an alcohol limit drop by Government stoolies is diversionary and potentially dangerous at this point, and lives could be lost if the Public's consent is engineered.

Drug drivers cause around 20% of the toll and other High Risk Offenders like repeat drink drivers about 10%. Demerits and eventual disqualification for low alcohol drivers would create more drugged and unlicensed drivers.. Unlicensed drivers who are not habilitated or on ignition interlock programs are twice as likely to be involved in serious crashes (FORs, Watson 1998). And crashes involving them involve a cluster of high risk behaviours (Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee) - driving impaired by alcohol or other drugs, motorcycling and driving with excess speed for conditions. These behaviours are twice as likely as for licensed drivers (FORS, Watson 1997).

Quality studies show no proof of significantly increased culpability in accidents by drivers solely at 0.05-0.08BAC once other attributable risks like age or drug use are discounted. Countries that have lately lowered limits have seen no benefits and this was explained by the European Road Safety Observatory as a likely sign of the impacts of other drug use being substituted.

It should come as no surprise that in all our time as a road safety charity no-one has contacted us with concerns about the limit. Other concerns predominate, and the DUI victims we deal with are the experts. What the Public needs to understand is that no-one is really proposing to lower the legal limit. People between 0.05 and the current limit of 0.08 will only receive dismissable throwaway fines, and if persistent licence loss - as with the speed campaign.

The Ministry of Healths drug policy unit is fairly candid in the Press about advocating the limit drop more as part of a wraparound plan to reduce alcohol consumption, than as a method to weakly target road trauma. they are concerned with manipulating social drinking not defusing traffic time-bombs.

Police discussion documents well acknowledge the real problem causing trauma is drivers over 0.1, and most in serious crashes are double the curent limit. An unwarranted focus on essentially very low risk sole "drink" drivers which studies variously show have reduced to insignificant increases in crash culpability risk versus the real McCoy DRUNK driver can only divert Police staff from concentrating on the real concerns - recidivists and drug drivers.

The traditional sales pitch for 0.05 as used by revenue seeking Governments has been that discouraging low level drink driving reduces the numbers found driving at high blood alcohol levels, because low limits encourage more controlled drinking. Overseas experience has proved this theory to be a fallacy, as after a short honeymoon period of a couple of years of 0..05 the DRUNK driving fraternity inevitably works out the lower limit is symbolic not real (due to lack of criminal versus administrative penalties), and the old habits return. Well regarded policy reviews acknowledge that a 0.05 crock limit may undermine due and hard won respect for impaired driving laws, in the medium term.

For a long time advisory agencies like ALAC were true to the evidence base and science and declined to throw their support behind a limit drop. Perhaps it is greater difficulty in now gathering speed revenue causing big brother to lean on State funded agencies like ALAC and Councils for support.

A December 2008 report by the ETSC for the EU recommends targeting high risk offenders better as the priority, and other reports make more detailed recommendations re drug drivers.

Who are the HRO's?
Drug drivers
Any driver ever disqualified for driving at over 2.5x the legal limit
A driver disqualified for failing to provide a sample

If Government wishes to be seen to do the right things it ought stop cultivating tame friends, & best take better note of the evidence based priority requests on public records of more genuine less self interested groups and folk like;

1. Crossroads - deal to recidivist drink and drug drivers with ignition alco-locks
2. The Automobile Association - advocats many sensible interventions
3. The Road Transport Forum - long advocated for drug testing of private passenger drivers
4. Candor Trust - drug driving education and enforcement
5. Roger Brooking - supports assessment and treatment of impaired drivers (not novel)
6. United Future - supports introduction of random drug tests and other effective priorities
7. The Labour Party - promised but renegged upon urgent drug driving laws
8. Family of recidivist victim Krystal Barnett - seeking safer road engineering
9. Family of recidivist victim Mary Radley and 600+ signatories to anti drug driving petition.
10. BADD has called for reasoned debate that focuses on the harm causers.

The average effect of drink driving treatment programs on recidivism and also alcohol involved crashes is 7-9% (Wells - Parker, Bangert-Downs, McMillen and Williams 1995).
The evidence base regarding limit drops was never strong and it has lately taken some severe knocks - which a Transport Minister up to speed would be well aware of.

Until most of the above glaring gaps are fixed hurtling NZ into line with civilised road safety cultures, attempts at reducing the permitted (nb does not equate to practised) blood alcohol limit via use of a slap with wet bus ticket fine won't produce worthwhile safety benefits. It would be nothing short of tragic for many future victims unsaved by 0.05's glittering but fake gold promise to save 14 lives if the Government remains recalcitrant to the real pleas of educated grass root DUI concerned groups.

They are simple - to enact the appropriate needed new rules, laws and policies - drug driving, ignition interlocks and rehabilitation programs for High Risk Offenders. The ones with decent evidence bases for significantly reducing the harms of impaired driving. It would be truly, dangerously dirty and diversionary to proceed by hearing, seeing and speaking no evil outside of the 0.05-0.08 realm that seems to receives such unwarranted Official fascination, given the big picture.

It is a pity the Liquor Industry has withdrawn from reasoned road safety debate. Apparently sales in NZ are trivial compared to Asian markets, and social drinker business isn't over valued. It will stand by while the Government creates cheque book points, perhaps this was the Gentlemens trade off for reducing the drinking age.

For today Candor says that the Lifeguards should patrol for Jaws, and not for low risk garden variety herrings, with wide open wallets. Due to the massive neglect of larger issues Candor's current policy is to only support a limit drop to 0.03 for convicted drink drivers and zero for under 20's.. Government should consult with integrity on what the people want - not just its own ring fenced wish list.

ENDS

© Scoop Media