Editorial: Missed opportunity

OPINION: The Government's decision to impose a zero-alcohol limit for drivers under the age of 20, but to leave the limit for adults unchanged while more research is done could be seen as taking a targeted approach aimed at deterring those most at risk.

Young drivers feature in road accident statistics in wildly disproportionate numbers and a very large proportion of them are drink-drivers. Lowering the amount they may drink before they drive to zero reinforces the signal that drink-driving is not acceptable. Given the huge problem New Zealand has with young drivers, it is a worthwhile point to make and it must be hoped it will help lower the rate of death and injury among them.

Similarly, new measures to impose zero limits for three years on anyone with a second drink-driving conviction and to give judges a discretion to impose steering locks on drink-drivers, normally after a second conviction, are moves sensibly aimed at those who cause the greatest danger on the roads. Again, it signals the growing public lack of tolerance of drink-driving.

The failure, however, to lower the alcohol limit for drivers over the age of 20 misses an opportunity to send the same signal to everyone else. The Government has not dismissed the idea, but says it wants to conduct more research into the matter before deciding on it, a position supported by the Automobile Association, whose interest in road safety is well known. The Government is not persuaded that much of the problem caused by alcohol on the roads would be altered by lowering the limit from its present 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg. It also believes that despite what people may say in surveys about supporting a lower limit, the idea does not have the widespread public acceptance necessary for an effective law.

It is certainly true that the death and injury in road accidents in which alcohol is a factor are generally caused by people who have alcohol concentrations far above the legal limit. Although any alcohol impairs drivers' ability behind the wheel, the problem on the roads is not generally with those who are only marginally over the limit. The Government could well be correct to suggest it is arguable whether a lower limit, by itself, would have much direct effect on the road accident statistics.

This issue is one on which many advocates for a lower limit hold strong feelings. But good law must respond to evidence, not emotion, and the Government is right to take care to find measures that are well supported and effective. Here, however, the Government should take a lead in shaping public attitudes. A lower limit would still enable people to have a drink or two with dinner and be able to drive, but it would not allow them to chance their arm with six or seven and maybe more. It could even help inculcate a saner attitude towards alcohol generally and perhaps encourage the idea that it is possible to engage in social activities without having to consume large quantities of the stuff. Now that would be progress.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First

jo2lo   #1   10:39 am Jul 28 2010

The government also had the opportunity to review the offenses of Dring Driving causing death / Drug taking and driving causing death. Both of these offenses should be made into a manslaughter charge. Anyone who drinks, then drives and causes someones death should be charged with manslaughter. Enough of this slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket for the drunks who are killing on our roads. How many more innocent victims are the drunks going to kill before we see sense?

Ad Feedback