QLD considers 0.02
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: hippo on 15 Mar 2010 19:59 Doug Jewell wrote: > > Sekula wrote: > > http://fat.ly/vrbnt > > > > How about proving that 0.05 is the reason people are killing themselves and > > others, BEFORE that proposal is considered you banana-bending rockapes? > > > > > Its just a money grab from Cap'n Blight, along with the > extra speed cameras, 0 tolerance speed cameras, speed > cameras now being placed in 50 & 40 zones etc. If a > significant portion of the fatalities were caused by people > who were .02-.049, or by people doing 51 in a 50 zone, then > these measures would be a good idea. Of course they will > never release the figures that show how many fatalities were > caused by those reasons. As it stands, it is about revenue > raising and nothing more. I wouldn't mind betting .02-.049 > will carry a fine instead of a suspension. > But of course these types of measures give the stupid the > warm and fuzzies - "you mustn't drink and drive, and only > one drink can impair your driving, so .02 is a good thing", > "you mustn't speed because every k over is a killer, so 0 > tolerance is a good thing", "only people who speed pay the > fine" etc. > I don't drink, so the lower limit won't effect me, but I can > spot a money grab from a mile away. Laws that make > criminals out of people going about their regular lives, are > bad laws, made by a bad government. > > The worry is that the first Captain Bligh was set adrift and subsequently proved to be one of the world's great navigators. This one was welcomed back on board with open arms and arguably couldn't navigate a supermarket docket. -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: John_H on 15 Mar 2010 21:18 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. The relevant stats are the ones that show the impairment effect above 0.02 bac. The following are widely accepted.... http://www.brad21.org/effects_at_specific_bac.html The evidence is that impairment begins at 0.02. How that relates to crash statistics is something else again, and it's virtually impossible to demonstrate in isolation in any case so what you'll get instead is spin. They'll tell us how Norway and Sweden have a bac level of 0.02 along with the lowest road deaths on the planet... what they won't tell us is that they also have the nearest thing to universal prohibition on the planet. We don't (at least not yet) and until they get rid of the habitual drunks, including the ones that continue to drive under disqualification, there's little point in cracking down on the those that take the occasional tipple. What they're really doing is flying kites, particularly when it happens to distract from the rest of their political shortcomings which might otherwise make the headlines. It's unlikely to happen unless there's complete agreement between the states and the sheeple indicate they're ready for yet another fleecing, with no likelihood of a political backlash. -- John H
From: George W Frost on 15 Mar 2010 21:37 "Diesel Damo" <Diesel_4WD(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:f4835e66-efc1-471a-81ee-ef3898482490(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Mar 15, 10:53 pm, Athol <athol_SPIT_S...(a)idl.net.au> wrote: > If it was introduced and the general public saw that it forced the > government to be open and honest about the reasons behind actions, it > would change the way a lot of people view government. I suspect that > if it got started, no future government would be game to withdraw it > because of the implication that they wanted to hide something... I'm of the opinion that the government no longer fears the public thinking they're hiding something. When Labor got into power and did the instant 180 on withdrawing troops, they had a spokesman on prime time news blatantly come out and say that now they were in power and were privy to inside information and could see what was really going on, they've changed their minds. That was it. No mentioning what this information was at all. No-one in the room with me even raised an eyebrow at this. *********************** The same as with any political party, they all change their minds when they get into Government, Not only with policies, but with salaries, expense accounts and everything else. Even when one of the senior front benchers make a big misteak, the Prime Minister comes out with the statement "I have complete confidence in my minister and he / she will continue in that portfolio"
From: Diesel Damo on 15 Mar 2010 21:51 On Mar 16, 12:37 pm, "George W Frost" <georgewfr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The same as with any political party, they all change > their minds when they get into Government, Oh absolutely. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was anti or pro any particular football tea-, er, I mean political party.
From: D Walford on 15 Mar 2010 22:28
John_H 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. > > The relevant stats are the ones that show the impairment effect above > 0.02 bac. The following are widely accepted.... > http://www.brad21.org/effects_at_specific_bac.html > > The evidence is that impairment begins at 0.02. Those observations are IMO too vague and there are too many variables to make them worthwhile. I watched my father who had just been charged with drink driving with a BAC of .23 and he didn't appear to be anything more than mildly intoxicated, at the time I wouldn't have said he was drunk. Other people like me who drink very little are affected by very small amounts of alcohol. In an ideal world everyone's BAC should be zero when driving but IMO that's unrealistic. > > How that relates to crash statistics is something else again, and it's > virtually impossible to demonstrate in isolation in any case so what > you'll get instead is spin. They'll tell us how Norway and Sweden > have a bac level of 0.02 along with the lowest road deaths on the > planet... what they won't tell us is that they also have the nearest > thing to universal prohibition on the planet. > > We don't (at least not yet) and until they get rid of the habitual > drunks, including the ones that continue to drive under > disqualification, there's little point in cracking down on the those > that take the occasional tipple. > Agreed, they are not the problem. Daryl |