It's not just inexperienced drivers.

crzyhrse, Sep 7, 8:30pm
that think they're better drivers - there are plenty of so-called 'experienced' drivers out there that are still incompetent and unsafe at any speed.!c_id=1&objectid=10749856

pollymay, Sep 7, 11:30pm
I notice they are saying "still confident to drive after a drink" which is singular rather than saying drinking. Are they already subtly trying to push the message that after half a glass of wine you will leave a path of destruction! Cause I'm not going to buy into that even if I detest drunk driving. That zero tolerance is crap. The raised driving age is also a placebo. Articles like that are just a waste of my time to be honest cause it's half based on an agenda of pushing their stupid policies under you nose.

richardmayes, Sep 7, 11:39pm
I don't know if that's the implication of it, but I agree that would be pretty excessive if it were an official standpoint.

But personally I think it's a good standard to aim for myself. I regularly stay for a beer after work on Fridays, it's a bit of a walk to where I park the car and I feel like I drive fine after one beer and a bit of a walk.

Neck a second beer after a long dry afternoon at my desk, and I start to feel some effects. I doubt I'd be weaving all over the road, but the world does start to seem a wee bit - altered - in that state. I definitely prefer not to drive the car home like that!

thejazzpianoma, Sep 7, 11:40pm
Quite right pollymay, we have seen it time and again, a gradual erosion of rights until there is zero tolerance for everyone.

We have seen it with speed, originally speed cameras had the support of the AA if they were used to catch drivers doing more than 130km/h, now we have an insane effective 1km/h tolerance on speed that is pretty much permanent where I live and no doubt will be where you live soon as well.

This business of PR nonsense and revenue collecting in place of proper sensible policy's and actions that will actually save lives is just crazy. I can't believe the NZ public are just so gullible and stupid as to keep hungrily sucking this propaganda from the Governments PR teet.

thejazzpianoma, Sep 7, 11:45pm
Fair enough and a law that allows you to have a beer after work + a little more tolerance to account for things like body type, gender, the brand of beer and whether you have a big weekend is fine.
What is not fine is ratcheting down to silly zero tolerances that put unsuspecting sensible minded citizens in the firing line on technicalities. People need to understand too that stupid unfair policing can also cost people their jobs and add cost to their insurance premiums etc.

tigra, Sep 7, 11:45pm
And when the wowsers get their way and its zero tolerance what will they blame then.However politically it would be sheer suicide so I guess they will never go that far. latest attention of course is going down the drugs path.

thejazzpianoma, Sep 7, 11:52pm
You would be amazed, a few years ago having effective 1km/h speed tolerances would have been political suicide. They just use masses of our taxpayer money over time to drive a PR machine that "sells" these ideas to the public no matter how stupid the idea is. Its all based on clever psychological principles that ultimately make it politically or socially incorrect to disagree.

The bottom line is this sort of thing helps the Government in several ways so until they are called on it they will keep doing it.

1. It helps maintain the $100 million a year infringement fine income that will drastically reduce if the laws are not continually tightened.

2. Using the Police on the road like this keeps them visible and gives the impression to the average citizen that we have an active and effective Police Force. (When we really have a big shambles that ignores serious crime and costs us billions in lost property, accidents and deaths)

3. This sort of regular propaganda keeps the focus away from the real issues and lays a foundation for always blaming the motorist even when the real cause of the accident may have been unsafe and unsuitable roading etc.

morrisman1, Sep 7, 11:52pm
That article is completely bias, deliberately excluding statistics of the full licence holders which I would guarantee treat speed and alcohol in a similar manner.

I read that article a couple days ago and immediately thought what a crock of s#1t, it attempts to demonise learners and restricted licence holders.

Half the problem is the questions they will be asking. I havnt seen them but they will be closed questions such as 'would you drive faster than 100 if there was no limit!' which is a stupid question. You cannot answer; Through the kauwarau gorge NO but deserted country road at night with good lights YES.

It is much like the question when I got interviewed for a firearms licence: "Is your judgement affected by alcohol!" Well I honestly answered yes. I had to because yes it is, sometimes I cannot judge where my mouth is when taking a drink but thats getting pretty far down the path of destruction. When answering the question I was thinking to myself how is the dude sitting behind the desk going to interpret this question! Is he going to read it and see me spilling my beer all down my top or is he going to see me getting pissed and saying wouldn't it be funny to go shoot the neighbors cat. My point here is that what we are shown as statistics are just interpretations of the answer and can be totally inaccurate because everyone will answer a question in a certain way for many different reasons, not all of them sinister

crzyhrse, Sep 7, 11:55pm
Yep, the spin doctors have been hard at work on that one for sure.

thejazzpianoma, Sep 7, 11:58pm
This illustrates my point well, see how we are already trained to think that travelling over 100km/h is a massive no no even if it were legal.

Funny how in other countries its acceptable (and legal) to travel over 100km/h when the conditions and roading is appropriate.

thejazzpianoma, Sep 7, 11:59pm
Its so refreshing to see people are waking up to this nonsense we are paying through the nose to be subjected to.

morrisman1, Sep 8, 12:03am
sorry about the slightly off topic rant, it bugs me when certain groups are targeted.

the 14% and 18% of learner and restricted drivers who answered they are better drivers than the rest on the road could well be right, they have the road rules fresh in their mind while 50 year old jim in the car next to them got his licence in a weetbix box and has probably never studied or given thought to whether he follows the road rules. The way the government is talking about driving it is the rules that are important and nothing to do with driving skill so with that taken into consideration perhaps the learner drivers are the best drivers. Or not, the government will blame crashes on not following rules like speed limits when it suits them and then blame it on experience level when it suits them too.

crzyhrse, Sep 8, 4:33am
We're few and far between and I feel it may be too late.

drew2009, Oct 13, 1:06pm
A very good point. Most young drivers i know are extremely cautious maybe even paranoid once they learn to drive. It is when you start pushing the boundary further and further from that point and seeing what you can get away with over the years it gets messy.