Whenever there is a social ill, the cry goes out to penalise either the entire population, or at least a large demographic.
Lowering the speed limit and raising the drinking age are two mantras which socially-conscious, self-appointed armchair watchdogs target in their blogs, both of which are perfectly moral ideas in a perfect and puritan society but will not have much effect on the death rate, caused by speeding or alcohol-related crashes.
I was never a fan of lowering the drinking age, because I could easily see its nuisance value in terms of youngsters being unable to handle their booze on a night out.
We read every so often about teenage girls drinking to the point of vulnerability in downtown Wellington, and we hear when that goes wrong in the worst possible way.
But drink-driving appears to be across all ages.
From our court reportage, it seems to be prevalent among the older drivers, particularly if they're recidivist offenders.
The drinking age becomes a irrelevancy when time and again cops are pulling up people who are in their 40s or 50s, with one wine too many in them, or worse. The zero alcohol limit, for under-20s, I do applaud.
Lowering the speed limit is a nonsensical idea. Again, whether it is 80km/h or 100km/h, it is not going to make a difference to a person who likes to go fast. It's just the fine is a somewhat bigger if you get caught.
There is a comfort zone for driving on straight, rural roads like ours, and that is around 100km/h.
The English have it slightly better than us with a 60 miles per hour limit, a bit faster. We can comfortably drive at that speed, on open roads. Drivers self-regulate when they encounter wind, weather conditions and tight curves.
That's experience and education and good sense, and no amount of tinkering with the speed limit will top those skills.
There might be some bad luck in your life, when it comes to cars and alcohol. But bad choices, not regulation, will likely mean your life will be short.