N.Ireland lower drink drive limit.

redped

zappahey wrote: »

I do get hacked off with populist politicians misusing statistics so they can be seen to be "doing something" and they can exploit the hard of thinking.

Thanks for the insult, I'm sure it makes you feel big. Are the medical experts and road safety charities also hard of thinking, when they welcome these changes?

alx33277

Think there are less populist and more meaningful actions that could be taken to make our roads safer - have to say I agree with the cut in drink drive limit, but I always take road charities endorsement or 'reactions' with a pinch of salt. Brake have admirable aims and some great recommendations (graduated licensing being one of them) but as with most narrow focused organisations, I find Brake a little nausious ('stop the carnage'?!) Our roads could always be safer, but this seems to show we're doing better than nearly everyone else.

zappahey

redped wrote: »

Thanks for the insult, I'm sure it makes you feel big. Are the medical experts and road safety charities also hard of thinking, when they welcome these changes?

Well, it wasn't aimed at you but, if the cap fits, you're welcome to it.

As for BRAKE, they are a fairly extreme, single issue organisation not renowned for their level-headedness and the quote from the BMA person is no better. It's just another example of supporting "something being done" with no analysis of the true effectiveness.

Is 75 deaths, over 5 years, really "carnage"? Remember, we don't know how many (if any) of these were caused by drivers with a BAC between 50 and 80.

Maybe I'm wrong but I really would want to see how many accidents and deaths can be directly attributed to a BAC between 50 and 80.

So, can you show me or are you simply jumping on an unsubstantiated bandwagon?

adouglasmhor

redped wrote: »

Thanks for the insult, I'm sure it makes you feel big. Are the medical experts and road safety charities also hard of thinking, when they welcome these changes?

Yes they are actually. There is no logical or factual basis for this change.

A._Badger

redped wrote: »

I assume that jibe was aimed at me. Far from being a "tiresome neo-puritan", I'm actually someone who wants to see the number of people killed on our roads reduced. I don't want to stop people from enjoying themselves by having a few drinks (especially as I also drink), but it's not difficult to either arrange a designated driver or get a taxi, rather than getting into your car afterwards.

You are obviously okay with people dying needlessly in road accidents, which seems bizarre.

Then why, as I suggested, aren't you advocating measures that would achieve that end far more effectively? As I said: if you are really concerned about fatal RTAs, ban the motorcycle.

But, of course, that's not what it's really about for you, is it?

redped

zappahey wrote: »

As for BRAKE, they are a fairly extreme, single issue organisation not renowned for their level-headedness and the quote from the BMA person is no better. It's just another example of supporting "something being done" with no analysis of the true effectiveness.

Is 75 deaths, over 5 years, really "carnage"? Remember, we don't know how many (if any) of these were caused by drivers with a BAC between 50 and 80.

Maybe I'm wrong but I really would want to see how many accidents and deaths can be directly attributed to a BAC between 50 and 80.

So, can you show me or are you simply jumping on an unsubstantiated bandwagon?

As well as the 75 deaths, don't forget the 463 people seriously injured due to these accidents. So thats over 500 people in 5 years, or on average 2 people each and every week. That's in addition to those killed/injured due to speeding, careless driving, tiredness, etc.

You don't like BRAKE, and dismissed the quote from the head of the BMA in NI. Are there any charities or medical experts who you will listen to? How about this report from NICE? It's long and boring, but here are two quotes from the summary:

"There is strong evidence that someone’s ability to drive is affected if they have any alcohol in their blood. Drivers with a BAC of between 0.02 and 0.05 have at least a three times greater risk of dying in a vehicle crash. This risk increases to at least six times with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, and to 11 times with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10."

"Overall, there is sufficiently strong evidence to indicate that lowering the legal BAC limit for drivers does help reduce road traffic injuries and deaths in certain contexts"

redped

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Yes they are actually. There is no logical or factual basis for this change.

http://www.nice.org.uk/media/3FE/1A/BloodAlcoholContentEffectivenessReview.pdf, pages 3 & 4.

redped

A._Badger wrote: »

Then why, as I suggested, aren't you advocating measures that would achieve that end far more effectively? As I said: if you are really concerned about fatal RTAs, ban the motorcycle.

But, of course, that's not what it's really about for you, is it?

If you know me so well, would you mind telling me what you think it really is about for me? I'm curious to know.

A._Badger

redped wrote: »

If you know me so well, would you mind telling me what you think it really is about for me? I'm curious to know.

Why won't you answer the question?

redped

A._Badger wrote: »

Why won't you answer the question?

I'll answer the question after you've explained what you're insinuating when you say "But, of course, that's not what it's really about for you, is it?"