CASE 1 — ‘Penalty too harsh’
A 26-year-old doctor convicted of drunken driving when he was a medical student, recalls a lifestyle typical of many young New Zealand males — hard work, playing rugby, and drinking beer with friends. He was stunned when stopped by a traffic officer for a breathalyser test while driving a girl home one night. And to learn later that his blood alcohol level was 219 mgm was an even greater shock.
“I had been to the pictures and then to the pub for a beer.’’ he recalls. It is the sort of understatement used by the drunk appearing in court for the umpteenth time: “I had only two light ales, Your Worship.” At the time he felt completely capable of driving and did not know why the
traffic officer had stopped him for a breathalyser test.
"I had done nothing I was aware of, but the officer said I had swerved violently to avoid hitting a traffic island,” he says. “At the time I did not nink I should have been stopped, but of course the blood count was hell of a high. It was a Saturday night, 1 a.m., and I must have had a fair bit to drink.”
He received two years’ loss of licence, a $lBO fine, and a stern ticking off from the Magistrate. Looking,, back he describes the incident as “not one of my prouder moments.”
But to him — as to many other young New Zealanders at all social levels — playing rugby on Saturdays, drinking, socialising, and driving
weni together without question. “My parents used to say I would go down if I didn’t watch out, but until something happens to bring it home you don’t take too much notice.”
The penalty handed down by the court was too harsh, he maintains — second offenders, he says, have received lighter sentences, and drivers with higher blood alcohol levels have been given lighter penalties.
“But I cannot deny that since then I have continued to drink and drive, though I’m aware of the problem much more than before.”
As a doctor, this young man has seen at first hand the stream of injured from accidents in which alcohol has been involved. He has also seen how the
orthopaedic department at Christchurch Hospital is fully occupied with accident cases, most of which have involved motorcycles and alcohol. This has made him think more deeply about causes of the drinkingdriving problem. He backs harsher measures. But, like many New Zealanders, he has reservations about random testing outside taverns, hotels, and clubs.
And here his personal habits and preferences come to the fore. “I would probably get caught just as often as anyone,” he says.
“Lowering the permissible blood alcohol level to 80 mgm, and instituting random testing at places where drivers gather, like tavern car-parks,
might result in a great many more convictions, but I don’t know whether it would stop people driving after drinking.” It is not surprising that, as a doctor, this driver makes the point that people react to alcohol differently. People who drink regularly can cope with it better, while someone who drinks only occasionally can be affected to a greater extent by the same amount.
But he sees the blood test as a fair means of obtaining the blood alcohol level of a driver. He also notes much more awareness among people of the risks involved in drinking and driving. For example, many more let girl friends or wives drive — which says something about male intake of alcohol
compared with female drinking.
“Some guys tend to shack down wherever they happen to be if they have drunk too much,” he says. As to why people drink and drive, this man speculates that these days most people have a motor-cycle or a car, and that taverns with bands are social centres.
“They certainly leave taverns with more alcohol on board than when they went tn,” he says.
The loss of his licence as part of his penalty did not affect him greatly. He was more fortunate than some in that he lived in the same city as his family and was able to ar* range rides.
“But I never drove once during the period of disqualification,” he says. He got his licence back after 18 months.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19780613.2.111
Bibliographic details
Press, 13 June 1978, Page 17
Word Count
714CASE 1 — ‘Penalty too harsh’ Press, 13 June 1978, Page 17
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Copyright in all Footrot Flats cartoons is owned by Diogenes Designs Ltd. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise these cartoons and make them available online as part of this digitised version of the Press. You can search, browse, and print Footrot Flats cartoons for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Diogenes Designs Ltd for any other use.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.