Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 81493	2007-07-29 08:49:00	Drink driving laws - a question please	Digby (677)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
573886	2007-07-29 08:49:00	Does anyone know much about these laws . The reason is that some idiot was caught drunk driving for the 7th time in Tauranga and was sentenced to 22 months in jail and lost his car . Fair enough I say and about time too as he is a self confessed alcoholic . The judge also disqualified him from driving for 18 months . My question is when does that disqualification start from ? Now or in 22 months or when he gets out of jail ? I do not want to get in to the pros and cons of the sentence just how it works in practice . I hope the disqualification does not start from now as it is for a lesser period than his jail sentence and would mean that he could not drive anyway as he would be in jail . Regards Digby	Digby (677)
573887	2007-07-29 09:02:00	The disqualification starts from the day of sentencing. It is unlikley the person will serve the full jail period in any event.	Sweep (90)
573888	2007-07-29 09:04:00	What is wrong with the judge - it should have been 10 years disqualification for a seventh offence at least - I was of the belief that a second offence was usually rewarded with 3 years disqualification, and a third with 10 years. Come to think of it that may have been the rule in England - it is certainly a very good rule. When Stuart Hardy was on the Bench in Hamilton many years ago, anyone who came before him for Drunk Driving went inside - no exceptions - a drunk driver had killed his daughter.	KenESmith (6287)
573889	2007-07-29 09:16:00	Yup it usually starts on the day of sentencing. And if you were previously disqualified the Judge might extend that disqualification. ie: If someone was disq for 12 mths previously (like say last Monday the 23rd) , that would go until 23 July 2008 and then disq for 6 mths (say tomorrow, the 30th), the 12 mths would end on 23 July 2008, but then the 6 mths would kick in. So the person would still be disq from 23 July 2008 till 23/30th December 2008. And after so many disq's , yup they take your car.	Speedy Gonzales (78)
573890	2007-07-29 09:19:00	What is wrong with the judge - it should have been 10 years disqualification for a seventh offence at least - I was of the belief that a second offence was usually rewarded with 3 years disqualification, and a third with 10 years. Come to think of it that may have been the rule in England - it is certainly a very good rule. When Stuart Hardy was on the Bench in Hamilton many years ago, anyone who came before him for Drunk Driving went inside - no exceptions - a drunk driver had killed his daughter.The judges here in NZ are womens blouses. They don't want to overstep the mark. And then theres the whole PC bull**** about animals having rights. Lets see what rights I get for killing one of these drunk sons of bitches when my daughter gets killed as an innocent party coz some idiot didn't know when to say no And no, not all crims are animals. I have a god mate whos inside right now, thankfully not for being drunk, or playing with kids. Minor offense They should be banned for life after their second offense, no ifs/buts/maybes	Myth (110)
573891	2007-07-29 11:39:00	What is wrong with the judge - it should have been 10 years disqualification for a seventh offence at least - I was of the belief that a second offence was usually rewarded with 3 years disqualification, and a third with 10 years. Come to think of it that may have been the rule in England - it is certainly a very good rule. When Stuart Hardy was on the Bench in Hamilton many years ago, anyone who came before him for Drunk Driving went inside - no exceptions - a drunk driver had killed his daughter. Some years back as a MOT traffic officer in Auckland I stopped a Magistrate whom was very good at sentencing for drivers over the limit at the Otahuhu Court. This person was breath tested by me and the result appeared to be conclusive. But the MOT did not follow up on this. He was never brought to Court.	Sweep (90)
573892	2007-07-29 12:44:00	Yup it usually starts on the day of sentencing. And if you were previously disqualified the Judge might extend that disqualification. ie: If someone was disq for 12 mths previously (like say last Monday the 23rd) , that would go until 23 July 2008 and then disq for 6 mths (say tomorrow, the 30th), the 12 mths would end on 23 July 2008, but then the 6 mths would kick in. So the person would still be disq from 23 July 2008 till 23/30th December 2008. And after so many disq's , yup they take your car. If you take this as a rule,"The handbrake must keep the vehicle at rest on a gradient of 1 in 5 (or) stop the vehicle in 20 feet at 20 mph." I wonder how anyone could enforce this? As a cop I would be able to "inspect, test or examine any part of any motor vehicle." So I stop you and ask you to apply the handbrake. One would think you would do this to the best of your ability. I can then push the vehicle forward using my body. So then I would think the handbrake does not come up to the legal requirements. Go think again. A decent Lawyer will ask me if I tested this vehicle on a grade of 1 in 5 and if I answered "yes" I would not be a credible witness as I lied. Let us assume I did test the said vehicle on a grade of 1:5. Next question may be "Are you a surveyor." Answer no. So how do you know. Please note the word OR in the law. So we go to the next one. Let us assume I tested the vehicle on the 1:5 and I knew where find that particular grade and I did the tests there. So I get into the vehicle and speed it up to 20MPH and apply the handbrake. Whoops the vehicle does not stop. Assume further:- Next question from a Lawyer. "Have you calibrated the speedometer." and etc. Like "how do you know the speedometer is accurate" "How do you know you were not travelling at 21 MPH?" I could say that the vehicle stopped when I ran into a house, fence or whatever. But that would be a little dopey and I would not be working there any more. My point is that some laws are more or less unenforcable.	Sweep (90)
573893	2007-07-29 20:54:00	Some years back as a MOT traffic officer in Auckland I stopped a Magistrate whom was very good at sentencing for drivers over the limit at the Otahuhu Court. This person was breath tested by me and the result appeared to be conclusive. But the MOT did not follow up on this. He was never brought to Court. Did it only take one test then or are you saying that the 2nd blood or evidential breath test wasn't done?	PaulD (232)
573894	2007-07-29 21:02:00	I think the most effective punishment for repeat offenders would be to have a mobile car-crusher parked next to the booze bus. If it can be established that they have been prosecuted for drunk driving previously, and they're over the limit now, crush the car in front of them, with no access to rescue any of the contents. I don't care if the car is theirs, or belongs to a family member or friend or is a company-provided vehicle. Might teach them an expensive lesson in taking responsibility for their own actions!! Which is of course why the current government won't even want to look at a solution like this - they're too worried about 'fairness' and keeping us safe from ourselves.	johcar (6283)
573895	2007-07-29 23:43:00	johcar I totally agree . All driving laws in NZ are too lenient . Getting a license is a breeze compared to likes of Germany and a few European countries, or even the driver training at schools in USA . Young kids could probably be scared into stopping their drunk driving habits easier than older drivers that have been doing it for years . The repeat offenders are probably closer to alcoholics as much as anything . Maybe a 7th time re-offender should be left in his car as it goes in johcar's mobile car crusher, they would certainly never re-offend then .	Bantu (52)
1 2