KEY POINTS:
National road policing manager Superintendent Dave Cliff was hardly speaking out of turn in calling for a drastic reduction in breath and blood alcohol limits. Other leading police officers and road-safety specialists have made similar appeals, all to no avail. To some degree, they failed to gain traction
because of a perception that New Zealand's law is relatively strict; that not too much liquor needs to be consumed before the current limits are breached. This, however, is far from the case.
The present limit of 80mg per 100ml of blood allows men up to four standard drinks, each containing 10g of alcohol, and women up to three, in the first hour. Thereafter, there can be up to one further drink an hour if a person keeps on drinking after the first 60 minutes. Ten kilograms is roughly the amount of alcohol the body can absorb out of the blood in an hour.
Mr Cliff describes the limit as "extraordinarily high". That seems a fair conclusion, given both the terms of the allowance and the comparison with overseas limits. Nor does there seem good reason to dismiss his request for New Zealand to swing in behind Australia, where every state has imposed a 50mg limit since the 1980s. This is said by the College of Physicians to be the point at which most people's brains start to fuzz over. It estimates that a driver with 50mg of alcohol in every 100ml of their blood is twice as likely to crash as one with no alcohol. One with 80mg is, however, seven times more likely to crash.
Mr Cliff's proposed limit would mean, in effect, that men had to cut their drinking in half, and women by two-thirds. No-one suggests this would solve the problem of drink-driving overnight. Nor, in itself, would it go far towards deterring repeat offenders, some of whom are responsible for many of this country's most horrific crashes. Indeed, even a zero limit would prove ineffective against many such drivers.
But it would eradicate the slight impairment of judgment that is part and parcel of the present limit. And it would place New Zealand in the same realm as countries that boast superior road-safety records. Of the 30 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, only six beside New Zealand still have a limit of 80mg. Sixteen have a 50mg limit, while the balance have very low or zero tolerance of any alcohol in a driver's blood. That weight of international opinion suggests that this country, which has traditionally adopted many road-safety measures from Victoria, should again be casting an eye across the Tasman.
Experience there, where there has been a 14 per cent drop in alcohol-related crashes since the 1980s, reinforces the fact that a lower limit must be accompanied by sterner enforcement, especially if inroads are to be made against repeat offenders. Such drivers must believe their apprehension is a strong probability, if not an inevitability. A blitz in Auckland last weekend, in which about one in 60 drivers were found to be over the limit, suggests this is far from the case now. Additionally, there is a sound case for stricter penalties, including longer prison sentences and heftier fines. This would rectify a situation where the alcohol limit is set too high and the deterrents and fear of apprehension are too low.
Mr Cliff has been criticised for saying a lower alcohol limit would save at least 14 lives annually. Critics accuse him of plucking the figure from thin air. That, however, is a red herring that would resonate only with those unwilling to recognise the shortcomings of present drink-driving measures. Since 2003, the Government has twice decided against lowering the limit. A third occasion would confirm its desultory approach to road safety.