QLD considers 0.02
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: John_H on 16 Mar 2010 03:17 D Walford wrote: >John_H wrote: >> >> 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've no idea were it originated, or when, but that particular chart is now so widely accepted that you're probably one of the very few left who'd dispute it! :) >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. The hard cases tend to get that way once the brain damage becomes permanent! :) >Other people like me who drink very little are affected by very small >amounts of alcohol. Which is the lowest common denominator we can all expect to be reduced to! :) >In an ideal world everyone's BAC should be zero when driving but IMO >that's unrealistic. It's long been the case for pilots, bus drivers, taxi drivers, truckies, learners and probably a few others considered to pose the greatest risk. As for the rest of us... the permissable BAC has already been lowered from 0.08 to 0.05 in those states that originally adopted 0.08. Unrealistic as 0.02 might sound now it's a fair bet that fear of an electoral backlash is the only thing stopping it. What you're now seeing is the beginning of the propaganda process to soften up the sheeple in order to save 'em from the processes of natural selection. Welcome to the nanny state. -- John H
From: The Raven on 16 Mar 2010 05:03 "hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in message news:hnmhkp$qu2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > 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. You need to be, or become, a great navigator when set adrift at sea. Otherwise you're dead. >This one was welcomed > back on board with open arms and arguably couldn't navigate a supermarket > docket. As with most politicians.
From: The Raven on 16 Mar 2010 05:05 "John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:aaltp5dq25lgh02m16jpn3o3lt8ghu3l8o(a)4ax.com... >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. It might begin there but, everyone knows that some people can handle more than others. The issue is not where impairment begins but where the risks increase above the norm. Norm in this case means the average ill trained Australian driver. > 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. But think of the revenue.... > > 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: The Raven on 16 Mar 2010 05:07 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4b9eecd0$0$8790$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > 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. And there lies the issue. Different people react differently so, we have to find some statistical level at which the risk is no greater than that of an average ill trained driver.
From: The Raven on 16 Mar 2010 05:11
"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:5u6up5t6cupc4g5l7qvqn70ptfaut0c86p(a)4ax.com... >D Walford wrote: >>John_H wrote: >>> >>> 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've no idea were it originated, or when, but that particular chart is > now so widely accepted that you're probably one of the very few left > who'd dispute it! :) Statistical data, no matter how ancient or flawed, becomes fact when enough people hear it. > >>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. > > The hard cases tend to get that way once the brain damage becomes > permanent! :) Hands up if you've been breath tested in the last month. Bet there aren't many, although I have a funny story about being tested twice within one minute due to poor procedure.... Now what's the chance of a habitual drunk being caught? Not much. So, if you're caught more than once you probably have a serious problem. Those are the drivers that need attention. >>Other people like me who drink very little are affected by very small >>amounts of alcohol. > > Which is the lowest common denominator we can all expect to be reduced > to! :) Yes, freedom is being reduced to the lowest common denominator and.....there are some so low as to disadvantage 99% of us. >>In an ideal world everyone's BAC should be zero when driving but IMO >>that's unrealistic. > > It's long been the case for pilots, bus drivers, taxi drivers, > truckies, learners and probably a few others considered to pose the > greatest risk. As for the rest of us... the permissable BAC has > already been lowered from 0.08 to 0.05 in those states that originally > adopted 0.08. > > Unrealistic as 0.02 might sound now it's a fair bet that fear of an > electoral backlash is the only thing stopping it. What you're now > seeing is the beginning of the propaganda process to soften up the > sheeple in order to save 'em from the processes of natural selection. Yep, the government has some money to make and power to acquire. Hence we all get treated as sheeple. > Welcome to the nanny state. 1984 to be exact. |