From: Sekula on 14 Mar 2010 13:46 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 14 Mar 2010 17:07 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 14 Mar 2010 21:31 "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 14 Mar 2010 21:31 "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 14 Mar 2010 22:23
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. |