General Debate 9 January 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment42

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (42)

Login to comment or vote

NeillR

I see that the police want to lower the blood alcohol limit for drivers, seemingly because “Australia’s is lower than ours”. While i think drink/driving is a problem that needs to be addressed, i wonder what research has been done. For instance, how many fatal accidents have arisen from drivers who’s blood alcohol was between .04 and .08?

I’m suspecting very few and i think they’re drawing conclusions that aren’t warranted. I’d like to see our bureaucrats actually working for their money – when legislation is introduced they have facts to back up why the law change is warranted.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 8:11am
Adolf Fiinkensein

The reduction would make it easier for them to reach their quotas.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 8:24am
expat

GM,

Star Inn for lunch (at the pub) was frickin fantastic. Can see why its michelin starred. The pub is a venue in itself. Most impressed, worried I’ll want to go back and will get gout.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 8:48am
Bok

Thi is one that I acually agree with, i’m afraid. The problem is that achohol affects people in different ways. I am 6’3 and weigh about 130 kg. drinking at a police club some years ago, we breath tested me, my cameraman and my sound man. (End of day, staying in pub across the road for the night so no driving. ) I had had at least 5 beers and had started on the red wine. Camera guy was in training and only had a beer or so, but was fairly slight and as fit as a bastard (fricken tri-athletes). Anyway, I did not feel in the least in control and would have been a real danger while walking, never mind driving. I blew about .07, Camera guy was completely sober and he blew 0.06. The point I am trying to make is that at 0.05 I would have been gone as fr as driving was concerned. Yet because of my size it showed up less.

So for camera guy and sound guy by the way, the system as it stand was fine. For me not so. The problem is that a lot of heavy drinkers, and i’m not one, that was a one off, are invariably big people rather than fir skinny ones.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 8:51am
Inventory2

I see that the Catholic church has apologised over Fr Burns, even though he doesn’t think he did anything wrong!

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/01/claytons-apology.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 9:00am
dad4justice

Father Burns ( NO RELATION) is evidence the Catholic Church is removing itself from reality. Oops sorry Father, but you must wonder about dwindling numbers on the pews? I am sure the Vatican would tolerate military rockets bombarding its people for about 5 minutes. Fairs fair Father!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 9:16am
senzafine

The ‘limit’ should be dropped to .02, Driving is a privilege, not a right. Alcohol, no matter the amount impairs our reaction times and our thought processes. Now while this impairment may only be slight after a couple, It still could be the difference between making a good or tragic judgement call.

Booze and cars do not go together. Simple.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 9:17am
Patrick Starr

“( NO RELATION)”
relieved to her that Dad.
Maybe Minto, Locke and co will reciprocate and fill the pews?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 9:25am
dad4justice

Patrick, Minto needs a good crack with a Minto Bar (not a greased one thank you Clint R), and Locke is a worthless communist.
God save New Zealand
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 9:28am
fredinthegrass

Dropping the alcohol limit to .02 will do very little to make our roads safer.
Demanding some responsibility AND accountability from drivers will.

It was encouraging to see Tim Grosser’s comments on the tragedy at Fox Glacier.
He says while safety procedures will be looked at, visitors should be accountable
if they go outside designated viewing areas – such as crossing safety barriers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 9:32am
big bruv

D4J

“Minto needs a good crack with a Minto Bar”

You know D4J, violence is NOT OK.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 9:35am
bharmer

# dad4justice (4614) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 9:16 am

“Father Burns ( NO RELATION) is evidence the Catholic Church is removing itself from reality.”

As I posted on the keepingstock website, when you have two members of an organization saying things in direct opposition to each other, how do you decide which one is representative of the organization?

Gerry is a really nice guy who has done great work in Peru, Timor Leste, and other places, but he is in my opinion totally misguided and illogical (off the planet, even) on this topic.

Now I guess you can continue to regard him as somehow more evidence of where the church is than me because he is a priest. But in that case what do you make of the fact that his own bishop disagrees with him, and has apologised on behalf of the church for his actions?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 9:39am
dad4justice

Sorry big bruv, but I was thinking that the bar might knock some sense into the idiot. I still haven’t got over the Bok Tour way back in the good old days before PC infested the land.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 9:42am
Adolf Fiinkensein

bharmer. Interesting to wonder how the Presbyterian Church might have reacted had the deluded priest been one of ours. I suggest a formal complaint of misconduct from any one member would have been enough to see the fool dragged before a judicial commission, with the likely result a public rebuke.

I’m afraid the argument that he can do what he likes as a private citizen does not hold water. He is representing his Church every moment of his worthless life once he has taken ordination vows.

Sadly, it seems to me there are many in the mainline denominations who do little to hide their latent anyi-semitism. The Sunday after Christmas I heard an address in which the decrepit sermoniser lamented the plight of the people in Gaza. Funny thing is, ther was no concern for the plight of the people in Israel.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 10:01am
Murray M

Since we got rid of the Labour Govt very little has happened to get me really angry. Minto changed all that yesterday. How dare he persecute someone because of thier country of birth. Where you are born is an accident of birth, lucky for some, unlucky for others. What he organised yesterday was racist, yes Minto you are a selective racist. That cop that kicked you in the balls back in 1981 should have kicked you in your brain dead fucking head.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 10:19am
MT_Tinman

# senzafine (36) Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 9:17 am

The ‘limit’ should be dropped to .02, Driving is a privilege, not a right. Alcohol, no matter the amount impairs our reaction times and our thought processes. Now while this impairment may only be slight after a couple, It still could be the difference between making a good or tragic judgement call.

Booze and cars do not go together. Simple.

Surely if your claim is correct you should be calling for a limit of zero not .02.

Please supply genuine data supporting that claim that “Alcohol, no matter the amount impairs our reaction times and our thought processes.” with reference to just how much that impairment actually is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 10:19am
MT_Tinman

Minto and his cohorts have always been racist, refusing, for instance, to condemn the first Fijian coup (they stated it was just the indigenous people claiming what was rightfully theirs and the Fijian Indians had no rights) while harassing innocents like Zola Budd.

They are, and always have been the lowest scum ever seen in NZ – notably one of their main supporters in those times has just been kicked out of her position as (shamefully) NZ Prime-minister.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 10:28am
Patrick Starr

“Please supply genuine data supporting that claim that “Alcohol, no matter the amount impairs our reaction times and our thought processes.” with reference to just how much that impairment actually is”

and then please supply genuine data of the reaction time difference between a 107kg, fit adult male Vs. and a 50kg teenage girl, after both drinking two glasses of wine.

In fact what’s the difference without alcohol – and what’s a naturally dangerous reaction time?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 10:29am
david

Please don’t encourage Father Burns to give up the priesthood. We don’t need those genes diluting an already threatened gene pool.
Darwin Rules.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 10:42am
david

senzafine,

While you are at it please describe the effect of upbringing on “judgement” in later life and the effects of impaired values on fine judgement calls under stress. Only when you can compare and contrast these effects would you be qualified to pass your (impaired) judgement on the matter.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 10:44am
senzafine

Surely if your claim is correct you should be calling for a limit of zero not .02.

Please supply genuine data supporting that claim that “Alcohol, no matter the amount impairs our reaction times and our thought processes.” with reference to just how much that impairment actually is.

As Requested.

Research has documented that the risk of a motor vehicle crash increases as BAC increases (3,4,8) and that the more demanding the driving task, the greater the impairment caused by low doses of alcohol (3). Compared with drivers who have not consumed alcohol, the risk of a single-vehicle fatal crash for drivers with BAC’s between 0.02 and 0.04 percent is estimated to be 1.4 times higher; for those with BAC’s between 0.05 and 0.09 percent, 11.1 times higher; for drivers with BAC’s between 0.10 and 0.14 percent, 48 times higher; and for those with BAC’s at or above 0.15 percent, the risk is estimated to be 380 times higher (8).

Source (Incl Refrences): http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa31.htm

and then please supply genuine data of the reaction time difference between a 107kg, fit adult male Vs. and a 50kg teenage girl, after both drinking two glasses of wine.

In fact what’s the difference without alcohol – and what’s a naturally dangerous reaction time?

Why? Surely you are not suggesting that its OK to increase your chances of an accident 1-11 fold, simply because whilst sober, you react faster than a teenage girl?

senzafine,

While you are at it please describe the effect of upbringing on “judgement” in later life and the effects of impaired values on fine judgement calls under stress. Only when you can compare and contrast these effects would you be qualified to pass your (impaired) judgement on the matter.

Peoples judgement isn’t in question here. And i don’t really believe it is quantifiable anyway. But the real point is that the Masses will drive when they shouldnt because they believe it to be legal to do so.

Simply, that is not acceptable.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 11:10am
bharmer

Adolf Fiinkensein (741) Vote: Add rating 5 Subtract rating 0 Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 10:01 am

“bharmer. Interesting to wonder how the Presbyterian Church might have reacted had the deluded priest been one of ours. I suggest a formal complaint of misconduct from any one member would have been enough to see the fool dragged before a judicial commission, with the likely result a public rebuke.”

Yes. The Catholic church has never pretended that democracy is the only, or even the best form of government, and there is not the slightest pretense at participatory governance. The bishop is supreme in his diocese, within the bounds of canon law. In very rare circumstances bishops in NZ have revoked the licenses of priests, but usually for dissent from doctrine rather than political issues.

“I’m afraid the argument that he can do what he likes as a private citizen does not hold water. He is representing his Church every moment of his worthless life once he has taken ordination vows.”

Where is that written? And you haven’t addressed the question of how to resolve conflicting representations. It is clear that Archbishop Dew holds a different view to Gerry Burns. Which do you imagine is representative of the church? And in case there is any doubt, I believe Gerry is deluded in this, and I repudiate his actions of recent days as in any way representative of me or my church.

PS: How do I invoke the nesting feature of this blog?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 11:21am
Inventory2

bharmer said “And in case there is any doubt, I believe Gerry is deluded in this, and I repudiate his actions of recent days as in any way representative of me or my church.”

bh – doubtless many of your faith will share your sentiments, which was why I have suggested in my response to your post on Keeping Stock that the apology was an exercise in damage limitation by the Catholic heirarchy. Unfortunately, mud sticks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 11:35am
david

But but but senzafine when you say “Peoples judgement isn’t in question here. And i don’t really believe it is quantifiable anyway. …” you get right to the nub of the debate – unwittingly perhaps.

Put that statement beside an earlier one of yours “…. Now while this impairment may only be slight after a couple, It still could be the difference between making a good or tragic judgement call. …”

What is being argued is that impairment of judgement has many causes of which alcohol in moderate amounts may or may not be one of significance. Indeed it may well be totally overshadowed by other addressable factors. For example – what is it that makes a perfectly sober (not sure if you can be imperfectly sober but anyway) driver who is pinged for speeding suddenly decide that he should try to outrun the police in a chase in the (possibly) misguided understanding that if he goes fast enough the rules dictate that the chase must be abandoned?

Tiredness, upbringing/culture, kept company, social pressures, insecurity, age, training, education, aspiration, fear, panic, mechanical faults, the position of the sun, the state of the moon (one for Annette King), the direction of the wind (one for Cantabrians), the condition of the road, all have smaller or greater effects at different times and can possibly be nominated as causes of accidents.

What no-one has produced evidence to support is the posit that changing the alcohol limit from 0.8 to 0.5 will have a measurable and beneficial effect.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 11:49am
PhilBest

Recommended reading on Israel/Gaza:

“Don’t Let The U.N. Sell Out Israel”

By Ann Bayefsky

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/01/08/2009-01-08_bush_and_rice_dont_let_the_un_sell_out_i.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 12:07pm
PhilBest

MORE recommended reading:

“Roots of the Gaza Conflict”

By Nonie Darwish (a true moderate Muslim)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A62F2052-D925-4DC7-A564-8CAD1C939D9B

(Hint: Sharia Law has a lot to do with it)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 12:10pm
thedavincimode

david says:

“Please don’t encourage Father Burns to give up the priesthood. We don’t need those genes diluting an already threatened gene pool.”

Well yes, very good point. If he left the cassock rummagers I imagine he would straight away slot into #3 in the Melonhead Party; moving to #1 equal when Jeanette retires to the Coromandel to develop a new line of wooden teeth from sustainable exotic timber.

Although comparable to the remarkably fuckwitted Mr Locke in most respects Jihad Burns now has the creds on the basis of having done some serious time on the front line. It remains to be how he would secure the 1st equal spot. Rolling Norman, or having the full on op in order to satisfy the dual gender leadership requirement? I suspect he would go for the op as his/her position would then be immeasurably strengthened by being able to say: “I gave it all for the cause”.

Darwin Rules.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 12:11pm
senzafine

But but but senzafine when you say “Peoples judgement isn’t in question here. And i don’t really believe it is quantifiable anyway. …” you get right to the nub of the debate – unwittingly perhaps.

Put that statement beside an earlier one of yours “…. Now while this impairment may only be slight after a couple, It still could be the difference between making a good or tragic judgement call. …”

What is being argued is that impairment of judgement has many causes of which alcohol in moderate amounts may or may not be one of significance. Indeed it may well be totally overshadowed by other addressable factors. For example – what is it that makes a perfectly sober (not sure if you can be imperfectly sober but anyway) driver who is pinged for speeding suddenly decide that he should try to outrun the police in a chase in the (possibly) misguided understanding that if he goes fast enough the rules dictate that the chase must be abandoned?

Tiredness, upbringing/culture, kept company, social pressures, insecurity, age, training, education, aspiration, fear, panic, mechanical faults, the position of the sun, the state of the moon (one for Annette King), the direction of the wind (one for Cantabrians), the condition of the road, all have smaller or greater effects at different times and can possibly be nominated as causes of accidents.

What no-one has produced evidence to support is the posit that changing the alcohol limit from 0.8 to 0.5 will have a measurable and beneficial effect.

All very fair and reasonable points. However BAC levels are something that are easily quantified, have a ton of research already and are able to be dealt with if the powers that be had the balls.

Addressing your last question, personally i’m not convinced that it will, however this piece of data from my earlier link indicates it might:

The many skills involved in driving are not all impaired at the same BAC’s (3). For example, a driver’s ability to divide attention between two or more sources of visual information can be impaired by BAC’s of 0.02 percent or lower (3-5). However, it is not until BAC’s of 0.05 percent or more are reached that impairment occurs consistently in eye movements, glare resistance, visual perception, reaction time, certain types of steering tasks, information processing, and other aspects of psychomotor performance (3,4,6,7).

I need to be clear. I am not in favour of dropping the BAC to .05, I am in favour of dropping it to .02, or keeping it as is. why .02 you may ask? To allow for residual BAC levels, and research indicates that below .02, impairment is negligible.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 12:11pm
PhilBest

“Humanitarian Israel”

By David Solway

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=273908EE-6878-49AC-9D91-FB75CC0683C2

“As we observe a mounting and increasingly pervasive campaign to censure Israel for defending itself against the Hamas thugocracy, we are also witnessing a likely self-induced blindness among both elite institutions and ordinary people. The UN, the media, the NGOs and proliferating altruistic organizations, the European governments (with the exception of Germany), the intellectual panjandrums and a vast popular constituency appear utterly incapable of recognizing the obvious. Israel is in fact under no obligation to lend its support to its self-avowed enemy. It is under no imperative to provide Gaza—whose population elected Hamas by a wide margin and supports terror attacks against Israel by an even wider margin—with medical treatment, diesel fuel, electrical power and food shipments. The Geneva Conventions which assign responsibility to the occupying power for the welfare of the occupied people do not apply in this situation since Gaza can no longer credibly be described as “occupied.”

So the question needs to be asked. What other nation in the world heals and victuals its enemies, while at the same time allowing its own population centers to undergo relentless bombardment? What nation in its right collective mind would go on supplying sustenance to and serving its attackers’ energy needs? Russia, for example, is not under attack, yet even in a non-conflictual situation it has no compunction in cutting off Gas supplies to the Ukraine and threatening to do the same to Europe—in the middle of the winter no less—yet the General Assembly sits on its hands, Amnesty International is deafeningly mute, the streets are empty of protesters. Innocent people can freeze to death for all they care.

But Israel is routinely denounced for supposedly depriving its mortal enemies of food and material. Gaza, let us recall, is a hostile “state” which persists in trying to abduct Israeli soldiers, laying explosive devices at the border, sniping at Israel’s labor force and firing rockets daily at its civilian communities. But what is even more preposterous than such false and hypocritical defamation is the fact that Israel, apparently bowing to pressure or subject to some misguided sense of noblesse oblige, continues to act as Gaza’s fuel pump and breadbasket.

Whatever way we look at it, the situation is so absurd and self-defeating as to defy belief. The many “well-intentioned” peace outfits and most of the world’s governments have not seen fit to acknowledge the plain reality of the overall situation. To repeat: Israel is under no obligation whatsoever to cater to or initiate relations with another state or people. Such is the rule the Muslim nations have adopted wholesale vis à vis Israel . It is the assumption behind the anti-Zionist divestment campaigns of the Churches, NGOs, universities and trade unions, and, indeed, it is an axiom the “world community” has sanctioned for its own members, with the hypocritical exclusion of the Jewish state. This is a basic principle of the jus gentium: there is no legitimate compulsion for a competent authority to “do business” with or provide succour to those it does not wish to.

And thus there is no ethical, legal or political justification for imposing this responsibility upon Israel, especially as Israel has been under attack for years from the very entity it is expected to sustain and subsidize. Nevertheless, from the unreflected perspective of the rest of the world, Israel, which owes nothing to Gaza, must go on furnishing its adversaries with their stipulated requirements. Simply put, Israel is the victim of what we might call negative exceptionalism. Unlike any other country on the planet it must work against its own interests. It is as if there exists among its many enemies a shadowy, perhaps unconscious, realization that only one country in the Middle East is capable of defeating Israel, and that is Israel itself. And therefore, in the current conflict, it must be bullied and constrained to furnish Hamas with the ammunition, so to speak, that can be used against it.

That, I believe, is for much of the world what Gaza is all about. Against all common sense and natural law, Israel must be forced via moral condemnation and political pressure to feed, equip, endow and replenish Hamas and its Gazan electors until the Jewish state finally succumbs to a process of physical and military erosion, and becomes something other than a Jewish state. The world demands that Israel defeat itself in the absence of any stronger opponent in the region to complete the task. And Israel, at least up to now and despite its belated military response to continued Hamas aggression, seems perfectly willing to comply.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 12:11pm
side show bob

Senzafine the world isn’t black or white and neither are the issues concerning drinking driving. Many people around here drink and drive and I do so myself, it’s not that we go out of our way to be bad bastards we simply have no choice. To get a taxi for example, to get to the closest hotel would cost around $120 and one would have to wait way over an hour to be picked up. On Wednesday for example I spent 14 hours on a tractor doing hay and helped friends down the road with their hay of course we have a few drinks afterwards it’s only polite. I’m not going to stop even if there is a bloody cop out, which is very unlikely. We have to be able to have a few drinks or we would never leave the property, which I suspect some in power would like to have us do. Where and whenever possible I get my wife or arrange a ride home with friends but on many occasions this is simply not possible. We have to watch TV adds about rural drink driving but these fail to address the real issues facing rural people. The cops are doing their best to kill rural hotels and clubs but the same cops then expect the rural community to back them up should they need help, they are treading a very fine line. In short it wouldn’t matter if the limit was bloody zero, it won’t change a thing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 12:18pm
Minnie

Just on the Minto group outside the tennis yesterday. I’m sure the signs used were scribbled on the backs of National Party core-flute yard signs. “tick National Tick Collins” was one, and there were a number of others. I wasnt there but both 0ne and three news carried stories which showed them briefly.

So I guess we know who flogged Nat signs from the campaign. Cheeky bastards.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 12:37pm
Bullitt

Isnt it all about choices though ssb? If you choose to go to someones house who is too far away to walk and its impractical for you to stay or get a taxi or get picked up then choose to drink something non alcoholic or only have one so that you stay under the current limit. Surely your guests would be reasonable enough to understand the reasons why you were choosing to have something non alcoholic on that occassion.

If you tried that excuse after crashing into someone I knew I wouldnt thank you for it.

*Note I dont support lowering the limit as I said the other day, all that would do would make criminals of people driving the next day, however stopping people from driving directly after they have drunk wouldnt be such a bad thing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 12:43pm
side show bob

No Bullitt it’s not about choices, I’m just sick of others telling me what choice I will choose.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 1:02pm
MyNameIsJack

side show bob (1127) Vote: 0 0 Says:

January 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
In short it wouldn’t matter if the limit was bloody zero, it won’t change a thing.
>>>>>>>>>
Well, at least not to folks like you whose sense of entitlement says the law applies to everyone else, but not to them,.

side show bob (1127) Vote: 0 0 Says:

January 9th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
No Bullitt it’s not about choices, I’m just sick of others telling me what choice I will choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And of course, you don’t care that *I* choose to be able to drive on country roads without having to worry that the idiot racing along the farm road to the highway is sober enough to a)notice me and b)stop before entering the highway.

Why should your need to drive pissed trump my need to get home alive?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 1:14pm
senzafine

Senzafine the world isn’t black or white and neither are the issues concerning drinking driving. Many people around here drink and drive and I do so myself, it’s not that we go out of our way to be bad bastards we simply have no choice. To get a taxi for example, to get to the closest hotel would cost around $120 and one would have to wait way over an hour to be picked up. On Wednesday for example I spent 14 hours on a tractor doing hay and helped friends down the road with their hay of course we have a few drinks afterwards it’s only polite. I’m not going to stop even if there is a bloody cop out, which is very unlikely. We have to be able to have a few drinks or we would never leave the property, which I suspect some in power would like to have us do. Where and whenever possible I get my wife or arrange a ride home with friends but on many occasions this is simply not possible. We have to watch TV adds about rural drink driving but these fail to address the real issues facing rural people. The cops are doing their best to kill rural hotels and clubs but the same cops then expect the rural community to back them up should they need help, they are treading a very fine line. In short it wouldn’t matter if the limit was bloody zero, it won’t change a thing.

Lets be Quite clear here SSB. You choose to live in a rural area. You CHOOSE to go boozing when you have no other way home. You then CHOOSE to drive.

You know what i do when there’s no way home? I sleep. On a couch, on a lounge floor, hell, in a garden or paddock if necessary.

Your attitude is not only appalling, its criminal. Next time a drunk driver takes out a family, ask yourself if YOU are willing to be that drunk driver, because if you arent, and you continue to Drink Drive, then good man? You have a problem.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 1:25pm
side show bob

I respect your points Senzafine but you are to quick to condemn anyone that doesn’t or can not see the world through your eyes. In your world we should all be perfect citizens ready to obey every edict, it’s just not that easy. You would rather set zero tolerance for drink driving or .02 which is bloody near zero, it won’t work. I don’t no where you live but you have to realise we have no wish to drive drunk and will always make alternatives but sometimes this is simply impossible. So If I’m a criminal in your eyes , so be it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 2:28pm
senzafine

SSB: When it comes to the safety of my family, I am extremely hardline. I’m also a car enthusiast and through a combinations of education and experience, I all too well understand how bloody lethal they can be.

So sure. Maybe i can be a little extreme. But the truth of the matter is that we do not need alcohol to live, yet we passively encourage its use to kill us. Reducing the BAC level to .02 is sending a very clear message that ANY form of intoxication is not acceptable. As it stands, the message is that hey, its ok to get a little pissed and drive home. But dont you DARE get a little bit more pissed!

You and your ilk might choose to ignore the law. Thats fine. You might also get caught. Which is fine too. No law change will do anything to stop recidivist offenders. But there are thousands of people whom irreguarly decide that they are borderline, but probably ok to drive. So they drive. Reducing the tolerance would be certain to help the bulk of those people make the right decision.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 2:51pm
adamsmith1922

For something different and somewhat lighthearted I am conducting a Blogpoll on Keith Locke’s Political Attributes at this link,

http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/12394/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 3:45pm
MyNameIsJack

Diary Entry – The difference between Men and Women

WOMAN’S DIARY: 30th Dec 2008 Tuesday
Saw him in the evening and he was acting really strangely.

I’d been shopping in the afternoon with the girls and was a bit late meeting him, thought it might be that.

The bar was really crowded and loud, so I suggested we go somewhere quieter to talk.

He was still very subdued and distracted so I suggested we went somewhere nice to eat.

All through dinner he just didn’t seem himself – he hardly laughed and didn’t seem to be paying any attention to me or to what I was saying,

I just knew that something was wrong.

He dropped me back home and I wondered if he was going to come in,

He hesitated but followed.

I asked him what was wrong, but he just half shook his head and turned the television on.

After about ten minutes of silence I said that I was going upstairs to bed, I put my arms around him and told him that I loved him deeply,

He just gave a sigh and a sad sort of smile.

He didn’t follow me up immediately but came up later and, to my surprise, we made love – but he still seemed distant and a bit cold.

I cried myself to sleep – I think he’s planning to leave me – maybe he’s found someone else.

MAN’S DIARY: Tuesday 30 Dec

Australia lost the cricket.

Gutted.

Got a root though.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 3:46pm
MyNameIsJack

One sunny day in 2009 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he’d been sitting on a park bench.

He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, “I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.”

The Marine looked at the man and said, “Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here.”

The old man said, “Okay” and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, “I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.”

The Marine again told the man, “Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here.”

The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U. S. Marine, saying “I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.”

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, “Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I’ve told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don’t you understand?”

The old man looked at the Marine and said, “Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it.”

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, “See you tomorrow.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 4:06pm
Rex Widerstrom

Bok points out:

The point I am trying to make is that at 0.05 I would have been gone as fr as driving was concerned. Yet because of my size it showed up less. So for camera guy and sound guy by the way, the system as it stand was fine. For me not so.

And therein lies the weakness of the entire breath testing system. Alcohol is a drug, and drugs cause widely differing effects in different people due to myriad factors including body weight, speed of metabolism, other drugs in the system at the time, level of fatigue, food in the digestive tract, etc etc.

Simply measuring the level of drug in the system (worse still, on the breath) takes no account of any of these factors. Till recently I didn’t realise (till a cop told me at a checkpoint) that breath alcohol increases for a period when you stop drinking. So if you’re breathalysed at the pub and pass, by the time you’re in your suburb you might be over the limit and theoretically not fit to drive. But are you drunker than you were after your last drink?

“Blow in this” is a nice, quick way to check a large number of people, catch a few, make the figures look good and raise some revenue. But there are other tests, equally easy and almost as fast to administer – such as reaction time testing – that provide a better indication of actual impairment.

So why aren’t we using them?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 4:18pm
Bok

Rex the other thing is that when it comes to cars, people always believe that they are great drivers. Well Ash Senna and Brock about controlling a motor vehicle. But hey they were going fast. So Ask Possum then. Driving by the police report, sedately down a road. The one thing no-one needs is an impairment to reaction. If you want a glass and then drive go do it on a track. On the roads me and mine might be in the other car. Use a absolute drink free designated driver, or get a cab or a bus. Plenty of us do it and have a great time none the less.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 9, 2009 7:33pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« General Debate 8 January 2009

Obama now officially President-Elect »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Pete And The Pentagon
No Minister
ACT launched a bad faith attack on the Treaty and now cry like snowflakes because of a Haka
The Daily Blog
A great grift against taxpayers
Point of Order
More lawlessness from National
No Right Turn
Open mike 16/11/2024
The Standard
TARGETED BEIRUT: THE 1983 MARINE BARRACKS BOMBING AND THE UNTOLD ORIGIN STORY OF THE WAR ON TERROR by Jack Carr and James M. Scott
Utopia
Shock & Surprise: Lawyers oppose removal of lawyers' gravy train
Not PC
Thankfully we said nope to dope
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A NEW DEGREE COURSE FOR MASSEY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d