New calls to lower the alcohol limits for driving include this supporting claim;
Australia has had a 14 per cent drop in alcohol-related crashes since the 1980s, when it lowered the blood-alcohol limit to 50mg - the upper limit recommended by the World Health Organisation.
That's hardly "compelling evidence".
In New Zealand in 1985 there were 2731 crashes with driver alcohol as a factor. 238 were fatal.
By 2005 that had dropped to 1435 with 100 fatal. A 47 percent drop. Without lowering the limit to 50gm.
And the constant blaming of the lowered drinking age for drink-driving doesn't hold up under scrutiny. In 2005 the percentage of 15 -19 year-old alcohol affected drivers involved in fatal crashes was 20 - down from 33 in 2000, after a sharp rise when the drinking age was lowered. The average over the ten years to 1999 was 30. So that age group is improving its statistics.
Centrist: Phones in prisons.....
12 minutes ago
3 comments:
I think that the idea was to have 14 less deaths on the road by halving the blood alcohol level. Raising the legal age to drive would have a greater effect on decreasing the road carnage - but that is NOT going to happen.
Toughening the law is the answer - not increasing the limit.
ist Offence - 1 yers disqualification and fine - say $1,000 minimum.
2nd Offence - disqualkified for life, car impounded and $5,000 fine.
3rd Offence - Already a disqualified driver - car impounded
and 1 years gaol.
Making the penalties a dterrent will eventually get the rescidivist offenders off the road. Reucing the limit won't.
Oops - just read my above post again.
In line one increasing should read reducing.
I am sure eveyone can work out the other typo's.
Post a Comment