This is gob-smacking.
The Press and Canterbury Police conduct an experiment that shows you can drink heaps and not be over the limit . Then they tell the world about it. On the front page.
Ten people each had between six and nine drinks over the course of 90 minutes. None felt they could drive safely – but only two blew over the 400mcg breath-alcohol limit.
Jacob Atkins, a 42-year-old Christchurch builder, who drank seven vodkas, said he was surprised at how much he could drink and still be under the limit.
"I wasn't even over 300 and can drive and be tiddly," he said.
Carla Amos, 37, editor of The Mail community newspaper, who drank eight wines, said she thought she would have been over the limit early in the test, but was not.
"It's scary that it says you can still drive," she said.
One man found he "couldn't drink fast enough" to get over the limit.
The point of this experiment is to build the case for lowering the blood/breath alcohol level from 0.8mg/ml to 0.5mg/ml. Look, they say. People are already drunk and driving legally.
Now I don't know much about absorption and metabolism but I am certain tested later all of these people would have been over the limit. 8 glasses of wine?
So what have they proved? That people can guzzle a huge amount and as long as they drive within 90 minutes they'll get away with it? In which case they may as well have told people to do just that. Don't worry about the happy hour after work. Fill up and then get home as quick as you can.
Of course if we lower the level to 0.5mg then the same applies, but only drink 5 glasses of wine.
I am extremely sceptical about these results and astounded the Police would think that publishing them was a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Perhaps they want the public to drive support for a zero level. They are showing us how inadequate the current law is.
This whole test is faulty. Was there any control over how full their stomachs were?. Was the same breathalyser used on each person? How long after the last drink were they tested, did they rinse their mouths with water just before blowing, etc?
Different people metabolise alcohol at different rates so one cannot say because some of the test subjects had these results, it will be same for me.
My wife and I were at a formal do where we drank all evening, she drinks a lot less than me. I would have not driven at the end of the evening. The organisers had set up a police team to breathalize us. My wife failed miserably while I was well within the legal limits - my tally for the night(4h) was 2 glasses champers, 2 glasses white wine and a shared bottle of red with another guy (= 7-8 drinks?). My wife had 4 glasses.
These teasts are just so inaccurate but when they do a blood alcohol test the result will be different and that is what will convict you.
So zero is the only equitable standard.
So why didn't the cops make this their stated aim?
A zero level doesn't stop drinking and driving. Look at the countries that impose it. Many people who had no intention of drinking and driving but under-estimated how long it takes for alcohol to completely clear from their system could be convicted under a zero alcohol regime. Then there are the problems with alcohol present in medications.
Zero might be an 'equitable' standard but would a/ not stop alcohol related crashes and b/ be nightmarish in its application.
The "smacking" legislation has some discretion "built in". Each of the points you make are at the reasonable end of the scale - inadvertent transgression. Our laws currently are transgressed regularly by drivers who elect to drive knowing that they are running a risk of failing a breath test if stopped, as indicated by mawm. If they are involved in an accident, they are in serious trouble even if not at fault. Their insurance is automatically invalid. Would you like an actual example?
I'll give the example anyway. Many years ago (when drink/driving was less unacceptable), a man with a young family ( but driving alone),was involved in a non-injury intersection collision with a woman taxi driver. She was at fault, but as soon as she smelt alcohol she called the police on her taxi radio. He was convicted DIC. He worked as a welder, and with five young children, opted for a week in jail rather than a heavy fine. He thought he had not drunk enough to be over the limit. He made a serious error of judgement after he had consumed alcohol. Zero levels allow you to make that call before you drink. DIC charges are a stigma for life.
Zero level is insane for those of us who want to have a couple of beers or glasses of wine with dinner. Great idea if you live in apartments in central Wellington. Lousy if you live in teh burbs and want a night out with your wife or husband.
Brian Smaller
Post a Comment