Snatch impaireds’ cars and bikes

Press Release – Candor Trust

Candor Trusts prime policy for drink and drug drive harm slashing is vehicle forfeiture (May 2009 Report), and we’ll not stop until it is a reality – despite obstructive idiocy and 0.5 obsession from the Liquor Review, run by a Commission with clear political …

Snatch impaireds’ cars and bikes

Candor Trusts prime policy for drink and drug drive harm slashing is vehicle forfeiture (May 2009 Report), and we’ll not stop until it is a reality – despite obstructive idiocy and 0.5 obsession from the Liquor Review, run by a Commission with clear political agendas of real concern to road safety. The 0.5 save lives slogan is a diversional lie most propagated by State funded mouthpieces.

Under the Crimes Act a car is a dangerous item, requiring a reasonal standard or care by the controller, or manslaughter ensues. Hence impaired drivers slay all too often in the absence of smartly constructed responses.

Drug drive figures are less firm but it causes a minimum 200m cost of fatalities. The reported cost of fatal crashes attributed to alcohol is around the 400m mark which well demonstrates a lack of care. Divided by approx. 30,000 convicted drink offenders and 15,000 drug ones they would owe to a collective death tax $13,000 each.

It is desirable for drunk and drug drivers to internalize the cost they exert on others with their behavior. Steven Levitt and Jack Porter looked at this in their 2001 JPE piece, estimating that drivers legally drunk multiply fatal crash costs by 13 (figure lower here due to lower limit).

States which forfeit repeat offenders vehicles mostly began with NZ drink trauma rates but halved them to around 2 deaths per 10,000 population a year overnight, after broken windows Policing sought to make communities safe. Communities in NZ however are wilfully misled about safety policies relative powers.

As it seems that the NZ Government is not interested in simple, effective ways to stop our main homicide epidemic and killer of kids – like foreiture of drinkers cars. A tax where due able to save 100 lives fast.

Actually fixing the poroblem to the best of our ability, using best evidence would too seriously cut into the cushy revenue raising number of targets and 3 year revenue targets that is a ghoulish love child of a cosy but cold hearted Treasury / Police understanding.

Repeat offenders must be groomed, and nurtured, starting with those most lucrative breakers of graduated licences. They must be conditioned to present and keep on re-lpresenting for wallet lightening duties through the lifespan. Initiatives that could thwart the money go round, like real road safety solutions must be hushed up, quickly killed off.

For this reason the call of Mayor Ogdden backing the proposed confiscation policy targeting the real dangers (impaired drivers) that Candor mailed to 60 MP some weeks ago, may well be slated as insane. This most powerful initiative is nedligently omitted in the Law Commissions Alcohol Review – and likely to even be whispered in the upcoming road safety consultations.

Much waffle about lower alcohol limits is instead guaranteed from bureaucrats seeking to distract the Public from actual credible fixes, the 0.5 policy though used elsewhere is renowned as so impotent that we need really to roll out the viagra and wave it about.

Imposing an equitable tax (equal value to harm from target group) by forfeiture of the car killing clubs weapom would pose a formidable threat to Treasuries designs; of raising phenomenal revenue via institution of a lower alcohol limit. Which science says could not reduce the toll by more than 1%.

As for this road safety fraud to be lucrative, those targeted for 0.5 pick pocketing do need vehicles. Candor acknowledges the barriers but Treasury must also eight the high crash costs to ACC instead of just focussing on maximising road taxes. Removing vehicles both most likely to be easy pickings and most likely to be in costly crashes shouldn’t be a dilemna.

If Treasury would only get the priority back to safety and away from infringement revenue (conflicts) then an urgent life saving law could be passed to confiscate repeat DUI infringers cars, and once they had been relicenced and acquired a new set of wheels the licence should be endorsed with conditions like a 0.5 limit or zero and a requirement to pass roadside saliva tests. Or again they lose.

ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url