Drink drive victims' family speaks to Campbell Live

30 Aug 2010 08:08p.m.

study particular issues reviews million wrote:

recent disputed 2007 small

23 Aug 2010 09:44a.m.

Jos Mason wrote:

My condolences to the family.
It is an absolute shame (yet again)that this has happened, and thanks for speaking out of such tragic and painfull circumstances.

I to lost my husband to a repeat drink driver who also died - as well as two friends in 2007.

The consequences have been devastating.

There has been some shameful spin doctoring here, and this is not the family's fault.

The problem here is that John has overlooked facts in direct relevance to this story.

The facts at the time were this driver, is a recidivist drink driver 2.8 times over the limit, killed four people and received a light charge and sentence.

The police say they charged Goodson with drink driving because of the contributing factors and evidence at the time.

Govt announced 27 July that they would bring in measures to target recidivst drink drivers, as well as raise the penalty for drink driving causing death.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/tougher+penalties+most+serious+crashes

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/tackling+new+zealand%E2%80%99s+drink+driving+problem


Another well documented fact, is that recidivist drink drivers will not adhere to any proposed limit if they can't adhere to the current limit.

What we need to see is enforcement of both current and proposed laws, the system is open to too much discretion, not enough intervention/monitoring, minimal rehab and allowing these drivers back out on the roads.

In many countries recidivist drink drivers that cause death are treated harshly because it is recognised that each prior conviction for drink driving should've taught the driver the consequences of their actions, before picking up the next drink and then driving again, that driving a weapon drunk is indeed a choice, and not lacking intent.

Seems not so in NZ.

20 Aug 2010 09:33p.m.

Craig and Megan wrote:

We absolutely applaud this family for speaking out - it's not an easy thing to do. Our family has suffered a similar fate - our lives were destroyed by a repeat drunk driver who killed our youngest brother in 2006. This man appealed his 3 year jail sentence, asking for a reduction because he only killed one person. Over the last four years we have been in contact with NINE families who have suffered in similar circumstances - all at the hands of recidivist drunk drivers.
I take issue with Mr Campbell's comments about Government inaction. The converse is true.
Firstly, if this drunk man was 2.8 over the limit, lowering the limit will not change his recidivist behaviour. Secondly, please note that the Government has just moved to make the rate ZERO for repeat offenders - therefore I don't understand the premise for Mr Campbell's critcism when zero tolerance is on the way for repeat offenders. Also, alcohol interlocks are on the agenda and the penalty for excess alcohol are to be just doubled (from a max of 5 to 10 years). All three of these important changes amount to solid progess and should have been included in this story. Also, please note that in their nine years in power labour did nothing to fix drunk driving. On their watch it got much worse (we have the stats). This is not surprising, given Harry Duynhoven personally told us both at a meeting in March 2007 that the BAC would never be reduced in this country (the electrote won't wear it, he said), he also insited that the penalties for drunk driving causing death were fine and that interlocking devices where a waste of money. He also tried to expalin to us, in patronising tones, that nice people sometimes get caught drunk driving, including a good friend of his called Ruth Dyson! By this stage of this futile "meeting" we were wondering how fast could escape from Bowen House and get the hell out of Wellington!

19 Aug 2010 08:51p.m.

Kate wrote:

hey ther i agree with Chris(The last comment on the first page). What makes it fear that a person that causes this accident waiting to happen kills four people, get easily let of like that and just work under a week for community service. When it was his silly choice to get behind the wheel and drive when he has alcohol in his system. I think that he should of went to jail for two years. This family has to live with the fact that they lost four people in their family due to some immature behavior drunk driving. like seriously we need to do something about it not just sit back and watch people die on our road, people being effected by some unnecessary behavior. Losing other peoples lives when it was clearly our fault for this foolishness. Seriously what cant just let this happen. Its like we are saying this is OK.I don't want this happening to my brother or sister, being affected by these stupid drink driving stuff. Come on guys lets make a change !!

18 Aug 2010 04:44p.m.

Taz Daniela wrote:

Sooner or later, there will be a Goverment enfoced law, for zero tolerance on all drinking and driving, throughout the whole nation. Ricidivist drink drivers, as do all drinkers that drive, beware and watch out, for should you happen to take a life through this very act, there will be jungle law rained down upon you. So what, if this "law" to kerb/nip this anti-social behaviour in the bud, affects all "responsible" drinkers, bring it on I say. For all involved, especially all those who think they're above the law, regardless of age, race or gender, it's way past high time action of this nature took place. If anything, think of those who have innocently passed away, and the many famalies that are left behind, without their loved ones, continuing their lives, as best they can.

18 Aug 2010 02:36p.m.

Dmitry wrote:

I was pretty hopping mad when I watched this program. The injustice didn't make sense to me. However, after some googling (see http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/04/four_dead_and_only_150_hours_community_service.html) it appears the police concluded at the time the incident was not entirely the ****'s fault, who was convicted of just drink driving rather than drink driving causing death. It appears due to bad intersection and bad weather and as I understand the **** was on the main road, though speeding and not braking or taking evasive action, as a normal alert person would. As I understand, some fault also lay with Transit, which later modified the intersection (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/386738). Sure, 150 community work is a travesty for being a drunk **** and 4 people dead, but the case is more complicated, and the program should have give full facts rather than just push emotional buttons. No fault of the family obviously. Key should wake up and smell both blood and alcohol. IMO the limit SHOULD BE ZERO and who kill drunk and are entirely at fault should face intentional murder charges. That upping of the purchase age is ridiculous: you are old enough to serve in the army and be taught to shoot to kill, but not old enough to buy a beer. No driving and pay for the police and hospital if you are a nuisanse.

18 Aug 2010 08:30a.m.

David wrote:

I feel for the families involved in this tragedy which should never have happened.
As a social drinker I do want to understand how many drivers are involved in accidents when they are under the current limits. There's a lot of focus on the need to lower the limit, but it appears to me that the majority of accidents reported involve drivers well over the current limits - usually twice or more. So why penalise the responsible majority, when the problem appears to be caused from those well over the limit. Lowering the current limit doesn't mean those already ignoring it will suddenly drink less - because they are currently demonstrating they don't care.
Instead - makethe consequences of DIC much heavier - e.g.compulsory 2 weeks jail, plus heavy fine.With jail sentences proggressively longer for repeat offences.
But please provide some satistics of accidents by those abeying the current limits - - so we can make a reasoned decision, rather than a decision fueled by worst case tradegies that may have no relevance to the "legal limit".

18 Aug 2010 06:57a.m.

Anon wrote:

I was done for EBA when I was 17 and I was 4 times over the limit. I was disqualified from driving for 3 months, which didn't bother me anyway because I wasn't a full time driver, I was also fine $130 for court costs. I didn't learn my lesson and continued to drink drive until I was 23 when I was done again for EBA. I was disqualified for 6 months and fined $1000. I left school at around 15 and had not attended any classes (id they have any?) on drink driving, and did not really understand the full consequences of my actions. I believe I wasn't 'punnished' hard enough, drink drivers should have to attend mandatory courses, driver education and possibly alcohol counseling, something anyway! I pretty much got off scott free and it wasn't until I got done for the second time that I really learn't my lesson. I am regretful of my actions and wish I could change them, but now I am trying to spread the word as a lot of my friends STILL drink drive even tho they have been done a number of times. I learn't my lesson, how can I teach them?

18 Aug 2010 04:57a.m.

Alex wrote:

This is ridiculous as to how puny our drink driving sentences are. In Canada you will be imprisoned for 15 days upon your second offence (and longer for subsequent offences). In New Zealand you may not even go to jail after fourteen offences ... and you might not even go to jail for dangerous driving causing death.

18 Aug 2010 04:50a.m.

mary wrote:

It is a well-known fact that the recidivist drunk driver who killed the 4 people at Wairere Road had family contacts in high places (the legal profession and the judiciary) and this should be investigated in a sequel to last night's story to ascertain if any influence was brought to bear through these contacts in the light sentence handed down to Mr Goodson.