Editorial: Confusion over alcohol limit a driving concern

Twenty per cent of motorists surveyed thought they could still pass a breath / alcohol test after three or more drinks. File photo / Duncan Brown

Opinion

EDITORIAL

The hazy public consciousness around how much alcohol a driver can drink before being "over the limit" is understandable.

Research conducted on behalf of DB Breweries found less than a quarter of motorists understand the drink-drive limit. Worse, 20 per cent think they can have more than three drinks and drive.

This suggests our next step to improve road safety is blindingly obvious. But, just as previous governments have been loathe to confront drivers' use of cellphones, it seems we will be hesitant about considering a lower limit.

The limit was reduced from 400mcg per litre of breath to 250mcg in 2014 only after a two-year review of the impact of reducing the limit. The move was as welcome as it was belated, finally bringing this country into line with similar jurisdictions.

Past governments pointed to a lack of New Zealand-specific research on the issue. This ignored the wealth of overseas studies, which explained why all the Australian states lowered the limit in 1980. It also failed to explain why New Zealanders would react any differently to alcohol than drivers overseas. Most likely, governments were concerned about a public backlash to change.

That threat no longer exists. Health experts and road safety campaigns have swayed most attitudes towards drink-driving. Taking the wheel after a drinking session is now thought unacceptable. That removes any obstacle to further lowering the limit.

Our blood alcohol limit (BAC) is the same as the Australian-wide limit of 0.05 per cent (point 0 five) - it means 0.05g of alcohol in every 100ml of blood. Massive awareness campaigns in Australia 40 years ago publicised the level as two standard drinks per average-sized male adult and one standard drink for an average-sized female adult.

In 2014, the state of Victoria considered a further reduction to 0.02 per cent but rejected it. Perhaps it's time for New Zealand to become a leader. There has long been no excuse to drink and drive, and the proliferation of readily available ride-sharing options in a deregulated taxi sector has only reinforced this.

Not everyone has access to Uber rides of course but our drinking culture jeopardises too many innocents. A lower drink-drive limit might even flow to some less harmful behaviour off the road as well. The intensity of debate around cannabis reform shows we can cope with a conversation about drug use, why not alcohol?

Legal limits do not, of course, solve the problem of heavy, recidivist drinkers. Only the threat of being caught, most probably at regular and highly visible checkpoints, will cause such people to think twice. Creating a fear of apprehension should remain the police's main focus.

A lower limit would, however, eradicate the slight impairment of judgment that comes with the issue. Beyond two drinks is the point where most people begin to disorientate.

It wouldn't stop people enjoying social drinking. It's far from a clampdown. But it may finally drive the message home about what most people think is acceptable.