QLD considers 0.02
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Mickel on 15 Mar 2010 00:01 "Diesel Damo" <Diesel_4WD(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:ea1b70dc-59bd-4a06-9bea- > All that's going to happen is they'll catch a SHITLOAD more drivers > for being over a limit. A limit so low that many will feel completely > sober while being horribly and callously illegal. <sarcasm> Gee, I > wonder what the motivation behind this push is... </sarcasm> The news will right onto this, I can see the headlines now "drink driving mum endangers life of her three children" (0.04 with kids safely in seatbelts) "drunk driver caught speeding" (0.03 doing 55ks in a deserted 50 zone on sunday) etc
From: D Walford on 15 Mar 2010 00:48 Athol wrote: > Sekula <noreply(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1027084/qld-flag-lowering-drink-driving-limit > >> How about proving that 0.05 is the reason people are killing themselves and >> others, BEFORE that proposal is considered you banana-bending rockapes? > > I'm hearing that NSW are proposing 0.02 at the moment, too. > I would agree if it was evidence based and not just the Govt wishing to be seen to be doing something. As much as I don't like drinking and driving there has to be a reasonable limit and until someone can prove otherwise 0.05 seems to be it. Daryl
From: D Walford on 15 Mar 2010 00:53 F Murtz wrote: > Sekula wrote: >> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1027084/qld-flag-lowering-drink-driving-limit >> >> >> How about proving that 0.05 is the reason people are killing >> themselves and >> others, BEFORE that proposal is considered you banana-bending rockapes? >> >> > Statistics interpretation is the problem, Lack of detail in the stats is the problem, of the 71 deaths it doesn't mention how many were above 0.02 but below 0.05, any deaths above the current limit are irrelevant to the current discussion. Without relevant stats they shouldn't get too much support for their proposal. Daryl
From: F Murtz on 15 Mar 2010 02:12 D Walford wrote: > F Murtz wrote: >> Sekula wrote: >>> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1027084/qld-flag-lowering-drink-driving-limit >>> >>> >>> How about proving that 0.05 is the reason people are killing >>> themselves and >>> others, BEFORE that proposal is considered you banana-bending rockapes? >>> >>> >> Statistics interpretation is the problem, > > Lack of detail in the stats is the problem, of the 71 deaths it doesn't > mention how many were above 0.02 but below 0.05, any deaths above the > current limit are irrelevant to the current discussion. > Without relevant stats they shouldn't get too much support for their > proposal. > > > Daryl The stats would be known they just do not want us to know,it would be proof of their sneakiness to wheedle money out of us in fines and the sheeple would realise that they were not doing anything substantive to alleviate the problem
From: D Walford on 15 Mar 2010 02:31
F Murtz wrote: > D Walford wrote: >> F Murtz wrote: >>> Sekula wrote: >>>> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1027084/qld-flag-lowering-drink-driving-limit >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How about proving that 0.05 is the reason people are killing >>>> themselves and >>>> others, BEFORE that proposal is considered you banana-bending rockapes? >>>> >>>> >>> Statistics interpretation is the problem, >> >> Lack of detail in the stats is the problem, of the 71 deaths it doesn't >> mention how many were above 0.02 but below 0.05, any deaths above the >> current limit are irrelevant to the current discussion. >> Without relevant stats they shouldn't get too much support for their >> proposal. >> >> >> Daryl > The stats would be known they just do not want us to know, Most likely. it would be > proof of their sneakiness to wheedle money out of us in fines and the > sheeple would realise that they were not doing anything substantive to > alleviate the problem I suspect introducing a law that most consider to be draconian without justify it with facts might be political suicide. Daryl |