They have effectively reduced the blood alcohol limit for teenage drink drivers to zero. I think it is a case of youth scapegoating but I’m not complaining about this because we need to cut down on teen drink driving – it’s tragic how many people die or are injured as a result.

Lower the blood alcohol limit for adults too

But it seems a little unfair to me that, while happy to penalize teen drink drivers for having any alcohol in their system, the government is refusing to lower the Blood Alcohol Limit from 0.08 to 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood for adult drivers.

Experts say NZ has one of the highest legal blood alcohol limits for adult drivers in the developed world. Our limit of 0.08 means that a big guy can drink up to 8 drinks over a few hours and still test below the limit.

Personally, I’m a light weight. I could never drink that much and then drive safely. What about you – do you think we should lower the limit for adults?

Alcohol interlocks

Another idea that the government is depending on to reduce our accident rate from drink driving is to put vehicle alcohol interlocks on the cars of repeat drink drivers.

Interlocks are little devices that you have to exhale into. If you test over the limit then they won’t let you start your car.

I think this is a good idea although obviously it won’t always work. For example, if you borrow your friend’s car or you are driving an unregistered car (as some of our most troubled drink drivers may well be) then you can get away without having an interlock.

More emphasis on treatment is needed

Personally, what I think is missing from the government’s drive to decrease drink driving is a focus on the root causes.

In many cases, the cause of drink driving is alcohol addiction. A while ago I asked a question of the Minister which showed me that between 2005 and 2008 only 7% of first-time drink drivers, and just 17% of repeat drink drivers were referred to treatment for alcohol addiction.

It’s hard for me to believe that only 17% of repeat drink drivers have a problem with alcohol. I think that harsher penalties and interlocks will do little to reduce offending alone. Better treatment and education is needed as well – and ALAC agrees with me about this.

What do you think? Would you like to see more drink drivers referred for treatment?

Parallel tunnels for road and rail going under the Harbour are the preferred option that was selected by various stakeholders  (including the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority) last year. The agencies chose this option after an exhaustive study which considered 159 options, including some truly original ones like  a tunneled connection all the way out to Glen Innes and a bridge from Pt Chevalier.

Obviously, the tunnels wouldn’t be suitable for pedestrians/cyclists. However, the agencies felt that once the tunnels had been built this would take enough traffic off the current bridge that some lanes could be converted into a walk/cycle way.

More recently, however, a study by an independent group called Anzac Centenary Bridge 2015 has suggested that a better solution might be to build a second bridge across the Harbour. Their vision is for a 10 lane bridge which would also carry light rail and have walking and cycling facilities. They propose to pay the construction costs through dismantling the current bridge and redeveloping the land which would be freed up by removing the motorway on-ramps.

Personally, I don’t really mind whether we build a bridge or a tunnel. My main concerns are that whichever crossing we choose it should:

1. not be built until it is truly needed – the NZTA seems to be giving quite confusing and mixed messages about how much life there is left in the current bridge structure. Auckland has a lot of major and urgent transport projects to build (like the CBD rail loop) so we don’t want to invest billions in an unnecessary second crossing before we have to
2. include an extension of the Auckland rail system to the North Shore (this might stop at Onewa at first and then slowly be extended further north as needed)
3. have room for cyclists and pedestrians
4. not have a major negative impact on the views and atmosphere of the Wynyward Point area in central Auckland (where the bridge would start) or Onewa Rd area on the North Shore (where both would finish)

What do you think? Would you prefer a bridge or a tunnel?

*  If you don’t live in Auckland and you’re wondering why we need a second crossing at all. The answer is that recently NZTA has begun signalling that the current bridge may only have another 20-40 years of life left before it becomes too unsafe for high volumes of traffic to use.

Our Auckland believe that Aucklanders haven’t been given a fair chance to have a say on the government’s decisions in regard to Auckland. Because of this they’re giving people a chance to vote on the government’s decisions regarding the Super City.

To be eligible to vote you must live in the Auckland region and be on the electoral role. Their key question is:

Do you approve of the way in which the Government is setting up the new Auckland Council (the “Super City”)?

So if you live in Auckland please do take 30 seconds to give your opinion. There are also some other more detailed questions about the local boards and council controlled organizations for those with a few more minutes.

Their referendum is being publicized by the Aucklander (the local paper in Auckland that is distributed with the Herald) so it seems likely they’ll have quite a good response. The results will be available on 20th May and I’ll keep you posted.

I think it’s great to see this group  working  to highlight the lack of  democratic control over the process of setting up the Super City. Up until now  too much has been bulldozed  into place with little real consultation or consideration of Aucklanders’ feelings. What do you think about the way the government’s setting up the Super City?

The Select Committee (which I sit on) is due to report back in a couple of weeks, and that will give people a better idea of whether the government has been listening to submitters’ concerns.

They’re campaigning to get National & Act to run a real consultative process with Aucklanders over the make up of the Super City – rather than just bulldozing willy nilly over local citizens’ concerns.

The groups involved are remarkably diverse – ranging from Grey Power to the Islamic Women’s Council to the Weedfree Trust – which I think shows the depth and breadth of opposition in Auckland to the supercity.

This new group, like the Greens are particularly concerned about the undemocratic nature of the Council Controlled Organizations, the risk that many of Auckland’s assets will be effectively privatized during the amalgamation, and the lack of any information about what power will be given to the local boards.

Get ready to vote

They will be running a referendum (both online and through a ballot form included in the Aucklander) on the 6th of May to see what Aucklanders think of the Super City process.  I’ll post a reminder closer to the time but please do get ready to vote (while you still can)!

Also, if you’re interesting in joining the group you can do so here.