QLD considers 0.02
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Albm&ctd on 16 Mar 2010 07:58 In article <hnj7da$2vs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, noreply(a)hotmail.com says... > http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1027084/qld-flag-lowering-drink-driving-limit > > How about proving that 0.05 is the reason people are killing themselves and > others, BEFORE that proposal is considered you banana-bending rockapes? > It's not Qld. Qld cops are against this and think it's bullshit. It's Nanny Bligh and her runaway crazy thought machine. BTW the driver that caused me lasting injuries was 0.18 Al -- I don't take sides. It's more fun to insult everyone. http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
From: Albm&ctd on 16 Mar 2010 08:22 In article <Z5gnn.13070$pv.5741(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, mickle(a)nospam.com says... > The thing I love about this sort of rubbish is the way most of the > population laps it up. > Most of the population has no say.. except at election time. Boot them out, but don't expect things to change though. Al -- I don't take sides. It's more fun to insult everyone. http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
From: Diesel Damo on 16 Mar 2010 08:27 On Mar 16, 10:58 pm, Albm&ctd <alb_mandctdNO...(a)connexus.net.au> wrote: > BTW the driver that caused me lasting injuries was 0.18 Was that the one where you were stopped in traffic and leaning over to the front passenger seat when you got hit from behind? Or am I thinking of someone else?
From: Albm&ctd on 17 Mar 2010 00:43 In article <4b9dbd54$0$8758$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, dwalford(a)internode.on.net says... > 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 > Why did a far greater number of sober drivers crash? Al -- I don't take sides. It's more fun to insult everyone. http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
From: jonz on 17 Mar 2010 03:37
On 3/16/2010 6:17 PM, John_H wrote: > 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! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ personal experience??........;. > >> 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. > -- jonz "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind - boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - Gene Spafford,1992 |