Thursday, December 14, 2006

More phoney excuses

The soon-to-be-introduced roadside testing for impairment from drug-taking is quite extraordinary. I don't accept what the police are saying.

"If someone is tired or has a medical condition they won't exhibit the same signs as someone who is under the influence of an illegal drug."

Here's just one of the tests;


A driver must maintain his balance while standing upright, with his hands at his sides, head tilted back and eyes closed.

But be assured,

Random tests will not be conducted but if police believe a driver is impaired they must initiate a drug test.

For now but you can bet that will be the next step.

But it's how they justify these things that really rankles. The road toll has come down significantly so that won't work as a reason.

Ministry of Transport figures showed drugs were suspected in 36 crashes in the year to December 31, 2005. Drugs were proven in three whereas alcohol was suspected in 383 crashes.

The evidence of drug-use causing accidents isn't compelling.

So the agent of the state sets an arbitrary target road toll, 300 by 2010, and then complains about looking like we are not going to reach it.


Anonymous said...

This scares teh shit out of me. I have a massive fear of needles - and the idea of having a blood test forced on me against my will due to the size of my pupils.

So much for civil liberties..

mawm said...

I don't care how few accidents are caused by drugged drivers, if it prevents the one from happening that might have killed or crippled me or my family, I say 'go for it'.
Unfortunately the coordination testing is a farce, we need to have blood or urine testing. The biggest danger these idiots pose are that they have huge errors in perception and of decision making.
If the police went back to the system of only prosecuting for 'drunk driving' intead of 'drink driving' there would be an outcry, so why are drugged drivers only being tested if they show coordination defects. Anyone suspected of driving while drugged should be tested (including people on therapeutic medications such as tranquillisers).

Anonymous said...

I don't care how few accidents are caused by drugged drivers, if it prevents the one from happening that might have killed or crippled me or my family, I say 'go for it'.

Ah, so the cost of something that isn't likely to actually net that one person anyone doesn't matter to you then mawm?

mawm said...

kb - it could be anybody's family. If you get into a car and drive while impaired you are a danger; it might be anger, alcohol, cannabis, xtc or prescription medicine; you should not be on the road period! If the disincentive to drive while impaired is big enough then we might get them all off the road.
Would you accept the pilot of your plane have THC in his blood? Would you allow a drunk surgeon to operate on you? So why not object to impaired drivers on the same roads that you and your family are using?
I pay my taxes and get very little back from the govt - I pay for the education of my kids , fund my own health care and retirement and I'm certainly not on the dole AND I pay a lot of tax, so I can expect the govt to provide safety for its citizens, and that is one of the primary duties of a government

Brian Smaller said...

Well I am currently not drunk or under the influence of drugs, and I tried the coordination test and failed. I got dizzy and and rocked backwards. Looks like it'll be a needle for me. It doesn't help that I have bloodshot eyes!