tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post3611435421056424487..comments2024-03-04T16:39:30.609+13:00Comments on Lindsay Mitchell: Blood alcohol levels of fatally injured drivers 2008Lindsay Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-23140404055241094932010-10-25T15:31:28.251+13:002010-10-25T15:31:28.251+13:00""No one likes car crashes. But to imply...<i>""No one likes car crashes. But to imply that drinking somehow impairs one's ability to control a vehicle is just scaremongering – and it's precisely this sort of jittery overreaction that causes most accidents in the first place. The simple fact is that only by calming our minds with alcohol can we keep a steady hand on the tiller."</i><br /><br />Nick Clegg as channelled by Charlie Brooker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-29493309126575783822010-10-24T17:01:11.231+13:002010-10-24T17:01:11.231+13:00Macdoctor: it's funny that this fairly-obviou...Macdoctor: it's funny that this fairly-obviously-necessary data isn't available to inform a decision, and yet the supposedly objective lobby group big-mouths are saying we already have more than enough data to form a decision. Well, no we don't - we have shitloads of irrelevant data like the blood-alc levels of dead drivers, or foreign data that may or may not have relevance to our situation, but we don't have the data necessary to inform this decision.Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-82969260705160362752010-10-24T13:58:08.463+13:002010-10-24T13:58:08.463+13:00MacDoctor, I am also overlooking that some of the ...MacDoctor, I am also overlooking that some of the people who have alcohol in their blood may not have caused the accident that killed them. Agree with you about the complexity.<br /><br />Dex, I can envisage that if the limit was zero alcohol the law may allow for a lesser penalty for a very low reading such as 0.01 <br />That lesser penalty may very well be a fine.Lindsay Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-78843684648016650802010-10-24T13:39:10.106+13:002010-10-24T13:39:10.106+13:00You are overlooking the fact that some 0.05% drive...You are overlooking the fact that some 0.05% drivers may cause fatal accidents where the sober people in the other car are killed. We have no idea how many this may be, but the 15-33 figure quoted is a straight line extrapolation of the current statistics. I find this reasoning very suspect.<br /><br />Accidents are extremely complex and rarely involve a single factor. In addition, most of the overseas data involves increased policing and public awareness campaigns running at the same time as the drop to 0.05%. It is therefore not possible to say what causes the reduction in fatalities. <br /><br />The only way we can be sure of the facts of what we are doing is to insist on breath alcohol levels from all accidents that police are called to, regardless of whether a fatality occurs or not. Then we would need to correlate that data with breath alcohols from random check points, to get an idea of what portion of the public is actually driving with levels above 0.05% and whether the accident rate at 0.05% is significantly lower than the rate at 0.08%. Hopefully, it would also tell us the level of severity of accidents at 0.08% and 0.05% as it may be that 0.08% just increases severity of accident rather than number.<br /><br />Only with all this data can we then make a rational decision.MacDoctorhttp:/www.macdoctor.co.nznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-39514042337573032312010-10-24T12:10:33.153+13:002010-10-24T12:10:33.153+13:00So now the Police are revenue gathering when they ...So now the Police are revenue gathering when they target drink drivers?<br /><br />Bye bye credibility.Dexnoreply@blogger.com