RiderSite.com - Motorcycle Forums

I'm sitting here watching the news and there's just been a report on a proposal to halve the drink-drive limit.

I'm seething

No ... before you jump to conclusions I'm leaving the pros and cons of the proposed change itself to one side.

What is annoying me is the way they are trying to justify it.

We are being fed statistics of the number of accidents and injuries that are caused by drink driving and being told that because of this, so many people would be left to die a different death or be injured in another way or maybe escape injury all together if the limit were to be halved ....
We are also fed the human tragedy of weepy souls that have tragically lost loved ones through drink-driving.

Fine .... but these statistics and bereaved individuals are the result of people breaking the existing law .... yes, the actions of people that do not comply with the current rules.
So how are these statistics at all relevant to what might be the case if that limit were to be halved?

The only relevant statistics would be those accidents caused by drivers with a blood-alcohol level of between the current limit and the proposed limit for which it could be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the alcohol in their systems played a significant part in that accident.
Give us those statistics and we'll be able to sensibly consider the proposal.

OR

Stick with the stats they are dishing out and change the proposal to introduce better enforcement of the current limits - and we can sensibly consider that.


Poor and misleading use of information and statistics really winds me up!

We were talking about this today and i was going to post up myself.

The only people this will affect are the law abiding who go out for a meal and have a pint with their food. Who now cannot do this.

It does not matter to the pissheads that get shitfaced because the alcohol limit means fuck all to them.....they will do it anyway.

The people that propose these rules and restrictions are just educated idiots

That is just one part of it that annoys me.
A truly tiny proportion of those that die from other than natural causes die from road accidents and a tiny fraction of those are associated with drink.
It is just part of a blame culture and in this instance there appears to be someone to blame. It won't stop us all dieing at some stage.
Most of those pontificating on the subject appear to expect to live forever.
Might as well go for zero road deaths and ban vehicles.

I had hoped that we were seeing signs of common sense from this govt. when they started talking about reducing health and safety excesses, and even speed cameras, now in the next breathe ... !!

To be honest I dont care what the limit is set at as long as it is above the level of the normal residual alcohol in the human body

I can count.. 6 times a year... when i would be into the proposed limit area and looking at it, I could cut that drinking down or out enough for it not to affect me.

I do think it is more a revenue driven thing more than anything. It will catch people out, theyll get fined, banned, have to pay for stuff like retesting, licence renewal, pay more insurance and generally get screwed over.

Stats just bore me. I usually ignore them.. a bit like speed limits.. the higher they are, the more i ignore them...

Yes - TBH I don't often drink anyway and the changes wouldn't affect me much.

It's the misuse of information to justify it that really gets my goat .... and most people will not give it a second thought and just swallow it (pun recognised but not intended).

Why don't they just give us the relevant info and statistics - then rather than ranting, maybe I and others will agree that it's a jolly good idea?
With the way they are selling this, you just start to wonder whether the relevant information is not being presented because it doesn't actually support their thesis.

A truly tiny proportion of those that die from other than natural causes die from road accidents and a tiny fraction of those are associated with drink.

And the key word there is 'associated'.

No stats are kept that show whethere the drink was in any way causal or contributory, that is simply assumed.
If you're a pedestrian walking home from the pub and you are run down by a teetotall 87 year old with poor eyesight and worse reactions who can't tell the difference between the road and the pavement - that will go on record as having alcohol involved.

BikerGran wrote:

A truly tiny proportion of those that die from other than natural causes die from road accidents and a tiny fraction of those are associated with drink.

And the key word there is 'associated'.

No stats are kept that show whethere the drink was in any way causal or contributory, that is simply assumed.
If you're a pedestrian walking home from the pub and you are run down by a teetotall 87 year old with poor eyesight and worse reactions who can't tell the difference between the road and the pavement - that will go on record as having alcohol involved.

So, basically, the information is valueless ..... it's truly pathetic isn't it ... in fact it's sheer incompetence.

There's a saying...

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!

Then there's my saying -

There are lies, damn lies, statistics and Government Statistics!

A friend of mine studied statistics a college. She said that you could prove that black really is white with the right use, and that you can glam anything up to look as equally good as it can bad. Any report that says "statistically" in it I tend to stop reading, as it'll only be a load of made up tosh.

Labours stat's on the economy. I rest my case.. lol

It's politics, what did you expect, rational arguments and an informed decision based on expert advice?

It's propaganda and bullshit, nothing more, as politics always is.

Yep; government by Daily Mail/Express