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.
No monopoly on stupid
34 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