Certain road rule changes sensible, but...

John de Bueger has little time for the the recent proposals on possible road-rule changes.

In response to non-stop lobbying by crusaders of varying hues, (The AA, police, anti-booze wallas, and assorted do-gooding, nosey parkers), the Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce, has issued a discussion document on possible road rule changes.

Needless to say, the ideas vary widely in merit, ranging from sound, to well-meaning, though to downright loopy.

A zero blood-alcohol level for drivers under 20 is so obvious one wonders why it isn't the law now - (and while they're about it, raising the drinking age wouldn't hurt either. Alcohol has a significantly disproportionate negative effect on young brains).

Modern cars are far too powerful, and restricting vehicle horsepower until age 25 also makes sound sense.

This argument invokes memories of that specious old advertising slogan "... more power for safer overtaking", to which one might rejoin, "Bad overtakers need good undertakers".

The minister's other floaters have less worth.

Accidents in Australia fell after the minimum driving age was raised over there, making it difficult to defend not doing likewise here, though a good case can be made for treating urban and rural sectors differently.

Back in the 1940 and '50s, cars were nowhere near as powerful as today, while brakes, steering and overall stability were greatly inferior - even starting the engine with the hand-crank was a battle in itself.

Back then most kids got driving licences at 15 as a matter of course, even if they weren't used for years.

My mother got so fed up with me idling around the house one May holidays, that she told me to go and get a licence - just for something to do.

This wasn't hard, because like most country kids now, many of us had learned years before.

From about age 12 or 13-ish, my friend Mickey Walker used to nick his dad's car and take us for burns over the Cashmere Hills - which given their steepness, and the need to double-declutch constant gear changes, was impressive for small boys.

The suggestion that the blood-alcohol level be lowered from 80mg to 50mg is a classic case of futile do-gooding. There are virtually no casualties in this range, and any accidents are as likely to be the result of tiredness or heart attacks, not booze.

Penalising the law-abiding is ridiculous when the real culprits are persistent repeat offenders - who really do drive drunk (with blood level 200-plus), and who couldn't care less who they hit.

If the objective is to cut the Saturday night workload and stress levels at A and E departments, the full force of enforcement must be directed at repeat offenders, not frittered away on the law-abiding.

At first sight, the idea of fitting breathalyser interlocks to the ignition keys of repeat offenders appears sensible, but given that about 20% of vehicles are on the roads illegally, one wonders how effective such a measure might prove in practice.

What about car-crushers?

More road deaths are now probably due to tiredness, rather than booze, but other than the odd road sign, this aspect is almost totally ignored.

A free coffee, driver-reviver initiative that is operating in various parts of the country makes more sense than pointless reductions in blood alcohol for the law abiding; but don't expect blinkered, anti-booze zealots to understand plain common sense.

Now we come to the dumbest suggestion of all: reversing the rule whereby left-turning vehicles give way to right-turning vehicles.

Justification for this change is based partly on New Zealand being the only country in the world still with this rule, and tourists getting confused.

Oh dear, so what?

This is a classic example where New Zealand is right and the rest of the world is wrong.

The same pressure groups have been flogging this dead horse for years, and it is greatly to the credit of the previous minister for Transport Safety, Harry Duynhoven, that he ignored them.

As I have pointed out more than once, the fundamental reason why we need this rule, even if other Anglo Saxon societies don't, is because they are better drivers.

This rule is essential here to avoid traffic piling up in the middle of the road - because we are too rude to give way, don't know how to merge, and rarely show the slightest courtesy on the roads.

John de Bueger is a New Plymouth engineer and writer.