N.Ireland lower drink drive limit.

adouglasmhor

redped wrote: »

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

from_link_above wrote:

Consequently, unknown parameters had to be calibrated or estimated from the international literature.

Seems pretty much "guesstimated" to me.

Lum

redped wrote: »

"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."

Whilst I have no doubt that that this statement is accurate, it's a classic example of making statistics sound more grandiose than they really are.

Your risk of dying in a vehicle crash is actually very very low. I don't have a current figure so I'm just going to make one up for the purposes of this illustration.

Suppose your base level of risk of dying in a crash is 0.02%. Driving with a BAC of 0.02-0.05 increases this to 0.06%, an increase in risk of 0.04%. This is next to nothing.

It's the same misleading con as when a company describes themselves as the "fastest growing" company in X marketplace. What this actually means is that last year the company existed on paper and was operated out the founder's parent's basement and now they have taken over the spare bedroom as well, thus doubling in size.

redped

I agree that you can make statistics talk. However I'm not a medical or scientific expert, so in situations like this I rely on what the experts say. So far, a quick google has thrown up a quote from a road safety charity, the head of the BMA in NI, a report from the Department of the Environment and a report from NICE. As they are all in favour of reducing the level, and given that I believe they know more about the subject than me, I tend to believe what they say is true based on what I've read.

Others can disagree, that's certainly their prerogative - but I'd ask them to point me in the direction of surveys and reports from scientific experts which disagree with reducing the limit. If these exist, I'll read them and may well re-evaluate my views. Until then, I can only go on the views of people who know more about this subject that I do.

redped

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Seems pretty much "guesstimated" to me.

And where's your evidence that reducing the limit will make no difference?

adouglasmhor

redped wrote: »

I agree that you can make statistics talk. However I'm not a medical or scientific expert, so in situations like this I rely on what the experts say. So far, a quick google has thrown up a quote from a road safety charity, the head of the BMA in NI, a report from the Department of the Environment and a report from NICE. As they are all in favour of reducing the level, and given that I believe they know more about the subject than me, I tend to believe what they say is true based on what I've read.

Others can disagree, that's certainly their prerogative - but I'd ask them to point me in the direction of surveys and reports from scientific experts which disagree with reducing the limit. If these exist, I'll read them and may well re-evaluate my views. Until then, I can only go on the views of people who know more about this subject that I do.

I think from looking at the stats reducing the limit will have a negligible though positive effect and a better use of limited resources would be better enforcement and better education (making it even more socially unacceptable to drink drive). I think the new law is a waste of resources and effort.

adouglasmhor

redped wrote: »

And where's your evidence that reducing the limit will make no difference?

Where's your evidence I said that?

A._Badger

redped wrote: »

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?"

It's OK. You've answered it now.

redped

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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

redped wrote: »

And where's your evidence that reducing the limit will make no difference?

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Where's your evidence I said that?

Sorry, I was basing my reply on your first quote "There is no logical or factual basis for this change", hence me asking if you had any evidence that this was not the case. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, and your most recent post makes clear that you see a negligible but positive outcome to reducing the limit, although this would be outweighed by the extra resources it would require to implement.

redped

A._Badger wrote: »

It's OK. You've answered it now.

Where did I answer my views on banning motorbikes? In case you're wondering, no I wouldn't ban bikes. Nor would I ban cars. I'm not a biker (never owned or ridden one), but I certainly wouldn't want them banned.

BTW, you still haven't explained what you were insinuating. Maybe you'd like to answer that question?

adouglasmhor

redped wrote: »

Sorry, I was basing my reply on your first quote "There is no logical or factual basis for this change", hence me asking if you had any evidence that this was not the case. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, and your most recent post makes clear that you see a negligible but positive outcome to reducing the limit, although this would be outweighed by the extra resources it would require to implement.

Thanks you have summed up my point of view, and I hope lives are saved however they are saved.