Government ignore advice to save 33 lives and $238million not to look 'nanny state' on blood alcohol levels
Cost of booze law delay revealed
The Government turned its back on hundreds of pages of official advice urging a lower drink-driving limit, including a claim that up to 33 lives and $238 million would be saved each year.
The National Government spent so much political capital building the myth of the politically correct nanny state that they are now too terrified to implement any social policy for fear of awakening their favourite bogeyman in the minds of stupid NZers.
Pushing ahead to allow our drink-driving limit to remain one of the highest in the world so that National's core constituency of old rich white men can continue to drive drunk legally at a cost of 33 lives and $238 million is certainly commitment to the Nanny State cultural myth, but Jesus wept, even Mao had his limits guys.
How's that ill defined 'change' feeling folks? Dumping social policy so National don't have to face up to the fallacy of their own myths seems like 'change' but I'm not all that sure it was a 'change' people thought they were getting. Why can the booze industry snap their fingers and have the National Party come running? I thought only Peter Dunne's Toupee was that enslaved?
posted by Bomber @ 7:49 am
3 comments
3 Comments:
Not wanting to look too "Nanny State" ? No, I don't think so, the focus of decisions is more "Donor State", Who donates and pulls the purse strings, That should be the title of this article.
That photo, urrk such a poser.
The results from 0.05 weren't good in the most comparable place to NZ - in Victoria it increased their drunk toll by 10%. This is because under 1/2 a % of the toll is attribuatable to drivers 0.05-8 as their risk is minimal. Start hunting them under quotas and they are driven to back roads and they get taken out by truly drink drivers (80% of whom in NZ dodge checkpoints by using back roads). Also people will drink less but add cannabis to bring their buzz up so be under the new limit but suddenly at twice the crash risk of the old limit. Only random drug testing in 2004 rescued Victoria from the 0.05 revenue gathering folly. The locales with the lowest drink drive deaths per capita have an evidence based 0.08 limit like us. They are the UK and New York City also had success in combining 0.08 with a heavy penalty regime that moves unsuitable individuals away from having aspirations to drive.
Wowsers Anonymous are hyping 0.05 using the 7 million budget provided by the Labour Govt for faking a grass roots movement. Introducing 0.05 in the absence of random drug testing WILL increase out toll. The combination with drug testing would reduce it - provided no emphasis goes off deterring and processing high blood alcohol drivers in a revenue frenzy. 0.05 is never criminalised - it is just an added infringement used like speeding tickets to swell the coffers. It can't be criminalised as it's not negligent to drive at that level and any decent lawyer can prodiuce studies showing the grand rapids dip and how risk is lowered in some windows in between 0.04-6. Crash risk is significantly lowered versus sober drivers in one portion of that window. Psychologists think its a relaxing effect that occurs prior to diminution of the important driving skills why that happens.
Post a Comment
<< Home