From: Sekula on
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?


From: Doug Jewell on
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?
>
>
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.


--
What is the difference between a duck?
From: Mickel on
"Doug Jewell" <ask(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
news:i-CdnWZwNc22zQDWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au...
> 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 thing I love about this sort of rubbish is the way most of the
population laps it up. Currently it is acceptable to have a couple of beers
within a reasonable time frame before driving. After this law has been in
for a couple of years having 2 beers will become socially unacceptable. It's
as if the opinions of our population are controlled by our govt.

> 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.

Even if they did they would fudge the figures anyway. My favourite is the
"Pictures of me" campaign where they show people who've died due to 50+kph
over the limit accidents and using this to justify why we should "wipe off
5". They're not even targetting the people who caused these deaths.

Michael


From: George W Frost on

"Doug Jewell" <ask(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
news:i-CdnWZwNc22zQDWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au...
> 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?
> 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.
>
>


And she is in for another couple of years
So, more money grabbing ideas yet to come


From: F Murtz on
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, 71 deaths involving alcohol,it
may have no bearing on the death.If alcohol is present in any of the
participants in the slightest quantities it is automatically touted as
the cause.