Now Clarkson is wriggling off the hook...
Comments
-
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Cunobelin wrote:Your argument is that speeding is not dangerous
No, I have never said that.
Excellent - so if speeding is dangerous, lets use the system (including automated) to clamp down on th drivers who are speeding - The whole point - you do not need to justify this at all - speeding, =fine and points.Cunobelin wrote:You seem to have the idea that speeding has to be dangerous in itself to be an offence.
Why you have come to that conclusion when I have posted to the contrary many times now is beyond me.
Ok, it's not beyond me, it's because you can't argue against the things I post, so you simply make it up!
You have implied that speeding should not be censured unless it is proven to be dangerous. If you are now accepting that censuring speeding in its own right is correct and fully justified - then I am in full agreementCunobelin wrote:Take the example above. Warning signs, speed indicator signs and a massive yellow box. The driver is safe to speed because they are taking adequate observations, but missed all this?
Now you are using my earlier point, that those who miss a bright yellow box are probably bad drivers due to poor observation, not the speed at which they drive.
The implication is that by speeding they are exacerbating already poor drivng. At this point when they are caught they are speeding and failing to observe. Hence censuring for speeding is fully justified.Cunobelin wrote:DIfferent definition of "adequate observation" to the one I would use. This simply proves they were not taking adequate observation, hence by the example not driving safely..
Correct, poor observation is bad driving, and a major cause of accidents.
Unlike speeding.
So a speeding motorist with poor observation is not more dangerous than one driving driving legally?
The research links the two activities.
Are you really sayng here withthe statement that there are no accidents where speeding is a cause?
If any accidents occur then clamping down on the causative behaviour is fully justified.
After wrongly using research to try (and fail) to prove your original point, you now seem to be agreeing with what I have said all along.
Time to concede to reality, Cunobelin.
The research speaks for itself. Risk taking behaviour manifests itself in both poor observation and speeding (along with poor judgement and aggression). In a type A driver these are not seperable Being caught for speeding should be a red flag alerting the authorities to a likelihood of oher offences..<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Excellent - so if speeding is dangerous
Once again, that is not what I said. I have quite clearly stated my stance on the subject several times, why do you insist on deliberately misinterpreting my posts given this?
The rest of your post is also tosh and I have pointed out your misunderstandings more than once.
If this country put as much effort into catching dangerous drivers as it does into catching speeding motorists, whether dangerous or not, we might see some real reductions in accidents.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
The rest of your post is also tosh and I have pointed out your misunderstandings more than once.
Well saves any constructive argument!
Your claim.....
Lack of observation causes accidents.
Not seeing a bright yellow box and speeding past it is OK though?
I also note you have failed to comment on your claim that the IAM is lying.
They state:* Change attitudes and the climate of opinion that speeding is not a crime. Do not offer the excuse that the problem lies with others (eg the "boy racer").
* Develop a long-term speed management strategy.
* Make this strategy part of the integrated transport policy, which has public support.
* Technological developments offer great potential, although they are not widely supported. Car design will continue to insulate drivers from perceptions of speed, therefore mechanisms that can moderate a driver's choice of speed must be developed.
* Review the policy that no information other than the posted limit appears on a speed limit sign. Drivers should be given indications of why the posted limit is what it is.
* Extend the use of cameras to detect speeders and enforce the law.
* Develop a "yellow card" system to warn for the first offence but to penalise the next.
* Offer diagnostic "driver MoTs" to all, particularly after a crash. There are opportunities to be constructive about the lessons gained from what is often a traumatic experience.
* Promote refresher and/or diagnostic courses to reflect the widespread belief that passing the driving test is not well related to subsequent driving practice. Advanced training needs to build on perceived self-ability and to be presented as an opportunity.
You chose to introduce the IAM yet you now claim that:What the IAM does demonstrate is that a safe speed will constantly vary, from some way under the limit to some way over it.
AGain the IAM clearly states that:It should also be noted that even though speed may be used to give a brisk drive, it may only be used when safe and appropriate to do so. Any excessive speed above the statutory speed limit or if the use of speed is inappropriate for the circumstances regardless of any limit, are dangerous and is unacceptable It must be remembered that speed limits are exactly that. Limits - not targets. Advanced drivers use their skill and awareness to decide when they should impose their own speed limits, below the statutory speed limits depending on the circumstances. Advanced drivers never speed, and are not above the law.
Rather than the "anything I disagree with is tosh" stance, can you provide any evidence of your claim, after all your implication that the IAM would accept driving "way over" the limit. Can you actually substantiate this or explain shy your interpretation is so different form the IAM's own published literature?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
.MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:The IAM do not teach people to drive in excess of the speed limit.
I thought I had made that clear?Cunobelin wrote:They (The IAM) state:
Actually that's the Automobile Association Foundation.
Cunobelin wrote:AGain the IAM clearly states that:
Yes, in the context of the IAM test, speeding is not acceptable. I stated this before.
When I was taught, there were many limiting factors for a chosen speed, a common one for many roads was the legal speed limit (purely due to being illegal). Are you suggesting that the people who instructed me were wrong and that when the speed limit was the limiting factor it would also have been dangerous due to other limiting factors, every single time?
That surely would make for a fantastic and phenomenal coincidence.
Having first hand experience of the IAM, as well as other driver training institutes, I suggest you take up the offers of several posters on here and experience it for yourself.
Once you've done that we'll have a chat about it, but your attitude will have been changed, for the better.Cunobelin wrote:Rather than the "anything I disagree with is tosh" stance
Look, I have pointed out how you have misunderstood and misinterpreted some of the research you have quoted incredibly clearly. If you want clarification, just read it again.
I am sure it will sink in eventually.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
I appear to have misunderstood this quote:What the IAM does demonstrate is that a safe speed will constantly vary, from some way under the limit to some way over it.
You stated as you have made clear that the IAM do not teach driving above the speed limit.Yes, in the context of the IAM test, speeding is not acceptable. I stated this before.
Intersting use of the words "context" - are you suggesting that there is s separate "context" where the IAM does accept speeding outside the test?
Which on do you want us to accept, or can you clarify the above?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Intersting use of the words "context" - are you suggesting that there is s separate "context" where the IAM does accept speeding outside the test?
Yes, in the context of safety. They will not condone breaking the speed limit just because it is safe to do so however. I said that before.
I can see your obvious tactic, and yes I am saying there is a contradiction. One that you would discover for yourself if you took up the training.
This shouldn't surprise you, even if it doesn't help your argument. For further examples of contradictions in revered text I suggest you could start with "the bible", and "the law".
Other than that it would be in your interest to steer away from the studies you quote, as they go against a lot of the things you have already tried to state as fact. Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Yes, in the context of safety. They will not condone breaking the speed limit just because it is safe to do so however. I said that before.
Lets make this clear - are you stating that the IAM condones speeding or not?
The IAM is clear on this...Advanced drivers use their skill and awareness to decide when they should impose their own speed limits, below the statutory speed limits depending on the circumstances. Advanced drivers never speed, and are not above the law.
Is this is a lie then?
If as you seem to claim they do condone speeding, then it does seem a little hypocritical and a "double standard" to state they condemn speeding, but also encourage it?
Maybe even three faced when they don't condone speeding, actually do condone speeding and then get rid of their president (Duke of Gloucester when he gets banned for something they are unsure whether they condone or not?
If speeding is acceptable, why did their President have to resign?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
0
-
Christ Cunobelin, you've really missed a trick there.
Have another go... Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Well?
Are the IAM lying in their literature?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
How many times do I have to say that the IAM do not condone the breaking of any law?
I have summarised my views for you many times yet you continue to ignore them.
If you honestly think that there is never the possibility to drive in excess of the speed limit whilst remaining safe, then quite frankly you are an idiot without the ability to think for yourself.
I am not saying that because these situations arise it is suddenly acceptable to break any law.
As I have said before, you are constantly arguing not against the things I have said, but against the views that you have prejudicially decided that I have.
Once more I will repeat myself for your benefit:
I have never condoned speeding.
I have never stated as fact that I speed.
I have never stated that we should not police speeding.
What I have said, is that speeding is far less of a danger than you think it is. Considering that all motorists speed (according to your quoted research), it simply cannot be as dangerous as you suggest as it would manifest itself in a lot more accidents.
Speeding is a minor cause of accidents, fact (I have referenced the official reports that state this).Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:How many times do I have to say that the IAM do not condone the breaking of any law?
I have summarised my views for you many times yet you continue to ignore them.
Certainly implies that the IAM demonstrate that Way over the limit" is acceptatble, or is there another interpretation here?What the IAM does demonstrate is that a safe speed will constantly vary, from some way under the limit to some way over it.MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:If you honestly think that there is never the possibility to drive in excess of the speed limit whilst remaining safe, then quite frankly you are an idiot without the ability to think for yourself.
I am not saying that because these situations arise it is suddenly acceptable to break any law.
Which is where we differ - Cycling on the pavement is "safe", but is equallly illegal and unacceptable. Does this mean that anyone who cannot see that it is possible to do so safely is also an "idiot"?
I simply see no problem with booking drivers who are arrogant, stupid or sufficiently poor drivers that they cannot control the vehicle they are driving. There is no need to prove "safety" or "danger" the offence has been committed, accept it!MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:As I have said before, you are constantly arguing not against the things I have said, but against the views that you have prejudicially decided that I have.
Have a look at some of your posts, the one where you imply, the IAM one above is typical
Speeding is a minor cause of accidents, fact (I have referenced the official reports that state this).[/quote]MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Once more I will repeat myself for your benefit:
I have never condoned speeding.
I have never stated as fact that I speed.
I have never stated that we should not police speeding.
What I have said, is that speeding is far less of a danger than you think it is. Considering that all motorists speed (according to your quoted research), it simply cannot be as dangerous as you suggest as it would manifest itself in a lot more accidents.
This is where we do differ stongly. A single cause in an accident is always going to be subjective. These figures willalways be arguable. Take the example above. If someone is caught speeding by a camera should this be:
Speeding
Dangerous driving (lack of observatio - they didn't see the signs or camera
Dangerous driving - they were not in full control of the vehicle
Dangeous driving - failing to comply with a legal instruction
All are true, but only one will make the record.
How many is irrelevant - one is too many. Speeding causes accidents, as does lack of observation, aggression, dangerous overtaking, and all the other features of bad driving
A number of accidents are caused by speeding, this should be clamped down on, and automated systems do this efficiently and without bias. This is fully justified, and forms part of a complete system. Targetting other erant behaviour does not need to be atthe cost of speeding - it is complimentary and not additional.
The research has continually referred to "type A" drivers who are risk takers, generically fail to take adequate observations and drive dangerously, speeding being one of the offences they frequently commit.
Speeding is an offence and your implication is that it needs to be "dangerous" to be censured. Speeding is an offence which can and does identify drivers whose behaviour is unacceptable and is a red flag or signpost for risktaking behaviour.
Accept it - risk taking is a bigger and more dangerous problem to road safety then either speeding or observation, two of the features of the way these drivers use our roads.
AS is happening with many fleet operations, assessing the risk taking propensity of drivers is becoming a feature of the Company safety strategy. Psychometric testing is an increasing feature, and like it or not, will increase.
Perhaps the way forward is to perform pyschometric assessment for all vehicle offences, and then we can show the high risk drivers unequivocally.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:How many times do I have to say that the IAM do not condone the breaking of any law?
I have summarised my views for you many times yet you continue to ignore them.
Certainly implies that the IAM demonstrate that Way over the limit" is acceptatble, or is there another interpretation here?What the IAM does demonstrate is that a safe speed will constantly vary, from some way under the limit to some way over it.MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:If you honestly think that there is never the possibility to drive in excess of the speed limit whilst remaining safe, then quite frankly you are an idiot without the ability to think for yourself.
I am not saying that because these situations arise it is suddenly acceptable to break any law.
Which is where we differ - Cycling on the pavement is "safe", but is equallly illegal and unacceptable. Does this mean that anyone who cannot see that it is possible to do so safely is also an "idiot"?
I simply see no problem with booking drivers who are arrogant, stupid or sufficiently poor drivers that they cannot control the vehicle they are driving. There is no need to prove "safety" or "danger" the offence has been committed, accept it!MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:As I have said before, you are constantly arguing not against the things I have said, but against the views that you have prejudicially decided that I have.
Have a look at some of your posts, the one where you imply, the IAM one above is typical
Speeding is a minor cause of accidents, fact (I have referenced the official reports that state this).MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Once more I will repeat myself for your benefit:
I have never condoned speeding.
I have never stated as fact that I speed.
I have never stated that we should not police speeding.
What I have said, is that speeding is far less of a danger than you think it is. Considering that all motorists speed (according to your quoted research), it simply cannot be as dangerous as you suggest as it would manifest itself in a lot more accidents.
This is where we do differ stongly. A single cause in an accident is always going to be subjective. These figures willalways be arguable. Take the example above. If someone is caught speeding by a camera should this be:
Speeding
Dangerous driving (lack of observatio - they didn't see the signs or camera
Dangerous driving - they were not in full control of the vehicle
Dangeous driving - failing to comply with a legal instruction
All are true, but only one will make the record.
How many is irrelevant - one is too many. Speeding causes accidents, as does lack of observation, aggression, dangerous overtaking, and all the other features of bad driving
A number of accidents are caused by speeding, this should be clamped down on, and automated systems do this efficiently and without bias. This is fully justified, and forms part of a complete system. Targetting other erant behaviour does not need to be atthe cost of speeding - it is complimentary and not additional.
The research has continually referred to "type A" drivers who are risk takers, generically fail to take adequate observations and drive dangerously, speeding being one of the offences they frequently commit.
Speeding is an offence and your implication is that it needs to be "dangerous" to be censured. Speeding is an offence which can and does identify drivers whose behaviour is unacceptable and is a red flag or signpost for risktaking behaviour.
Accept it - risk taking is a bigger and more dangerous problem to road safety then either speeding or observation, two of the features of the way these drivers use our roads.
AS is happening with many fleet operations, assessing the risk taking propensity of drivers is becoming a feature of the Company safety strategy. Psychometric testing is an increasing feature, and like it or not, will increase.
Perhaps the way forward is to perform pyschometric assessment for all vehicle offences, and then we can show the high risk drivers unequivocally.[/quote]
You really are the most stubborn and gratuitously argumentative person on the forum Cuno.
You should be in politics the way you ignore the obvious and keep carping on about what YOUR interpretation of something you fail to understand is.
Speeding is not intrinsically dangerous.Driving like a prat is,at whatever speed .
Not too difficult a concept is it?0 -
Speeding is not intrinsically dangerous.Driving like a prat is,at whatever speed .
Not too difficult a concept is it?
So you are quite happy for the "MaxPower" redership to selecttheir own speed on the grounds that they are good drivers?
Speeding is a symptom of poor driving, and is an offence, hence it is correctly censured.
Why is driving within a limit so difficult to understand?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Speeding is not intrinsically dangerous.Driving like a prat is,at whatever speed .
Not too difficult a concept is it?
So you are quite happy for the "MaxPower" redership to selecttheir own speed on the grounds that they are good drivers?
Speeding is a symptom of poor driving, and is an offence, hence it is correctly censured.
Why is driving within a limit so difficult to understand?
No,not even if I knew one of them, let alone all of them..Nor am I happy that subscribers to "The Oldie" assume that they are good drivers because they drive within the speed limit.0 -
Time for me to pop up again?
1) Just because driver A is going slower, we cannot say that he is driving "safer" than driver B.
2) What we can say is that if driver B was going 10mph slower then he would definitely be "safer" compared with himself when he is going 10mph faster, even if only marginally.
Yes?0 -
No,not even if I knew one of them, let alone all of them..Nor am I happy that subscribers to "The Oldie" assume that they are good drivers because they drive within the speed limit.
We either accept that speeding is unacceptable for no-one, or we need to define which groups are exempted.
The "speed" causes less accidents is a red herring as long as it a cause of any accident at all.
Let's up the stakes with drink driving, should this be considered "safe" as long as it causes less accidents than "driving like a prat"?
Do we have any stats for the number of drink accidents where drink is involved.. is it less or more than speeding?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
CarlosFerreiro
No..
Not if everyone else was going 20mph faster.
He'd be a mobile chicane0 -
Cunobelin wrote:No,not even if I knew one of them, let alone all of them..Nor am I happy that subscribers to "The Oldie" assume that they are good drivers because they drive within the speed limit.
We either accept that speeding is unacceptable for no-one, or we need to define which groups are exempted.
The "speed" causes less accidents is a red herring as long as it a cause of any accident at all.
Let's up the stakes with drink driving, should this be considered "safe" as long as it causes less accidents than "driving like a prat"?
Do we have any stats for the number of drink accidents where drink is involved.. is it less or more than speeding?
All of them?0 -
whitley wrote:CarlosFerreiro
No..
Not if everyone else was going 20mph faster.
He'd be a mobile chicane
hmm, then things get complicated..... if you want to consider the overall safety of the traffic flow, instead of just the individual's safety......
Then I suppose we have to work on the safe driving speed of the worst individual, the weakest link, and should all slow down accordingly, to force the poor drivers down to a speed where they might be able to avoid killing us?0 -
Couldn't be that the slowest drivers are generally the very worst drivers by any chance then?0
-
Maybe, but maybe they are dangerous even at that speed, and we should all slow down to force them to their safe zone? It's in our own interests if they are so bad.0
-
I think (don't quote me) that booze accounts for about 4% of accidents, but you have to take into account that whilst pretty much everyone speeds, very few people drive whilst drunk.
Speaking for myself, and I absolutely love the booze, I don't touch a drop before driving, and abstain from "benders" if I know I have to drive the morning after.
It wasn't the most definitive research, but I remember watching a TV programme where driving tests were repeated over and over after successive units of alcohol.
Even after just one unit of alcohol, the driver was impaired although until he was shown the results he thought he was getting better as the tests went on, up to a point, obviously. :idea:Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
The claim that "everyone speeds" is insupportable ( unless you have evidence to suport this?).
But why make drink driving an offence or censure it?
To emulate some of the claims over speeding.........................
Why not just do them for dangerous driving?
After all we have seen an increase in drink (and drug) driving over the last few years but there has been no increase in deaths or injuries on the roads so it can't be inherently dangerous - can it?Couldn't be that the slowest drivers are generally the very worst drivers by any chance then?
But why assume this at all?
It could be the drivers that are driving at the limit itself thatt are the problem?
Driving safely within the legal limit is the aim and the suggestion that doing so is "dangerous" is absurd!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
But why make drink driving an offence or censure it?
Why not just do them for dangerous driving?
After all there has been an increase in drimk (and drugged) driving over the last few years and there has been no increase in the number of deaths - so it cannot be inherently dangerous - can it?Couldn't be that the slowest drivers are generally the very worst drivers by any chance then?
But why assume this at all?
It could be the drivers that are driving at the limit itself that are the problem?
Driving safely within the legal limit is the aim and the suggestion that doing so is "dangerous" is absurd. THe dangerous drivers are the ones who cannot (or refuse to ) compensate for the speed of other traffic.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
If we think about the overall stream of traffic again then it is certainly possible to think that for some rivers they will be more alert when they are driving more quickly in traffic moving at a variety of speeds than they would be in the more efficient and theoretically "safer" traffic stream where everybody is driving at 50, where they are bored.
However, considering the overall stream again that should not confuse us as to the situation for the majority of drivers, where the reduced speeds and lower relative speed differences remove the worst consequences of misjudgement of poor drivers, and so increase the safety for the traffic flow as a whole.
When discussing which option is "safer" you really need to state, "safer for who?"0 -
Cunobelin wrote:The claim that "everyone speeds" is insupportable ( unless you have evidence to suport this?).
But why make drink driving an offence or censure it?
To emulate some of the claims over speeding.........................
Why not just do them for dangerous driving?
After all we have seen an increase in drink (and drug) driving over the last few years but there has been no increase in deaths or injuries on the roads so it can't be inherently dangerous - can it?Couldn't be that the slowest drivers are generally the very worst drivers by any chance then?
But why assume this at all?
It could be the drivers that are driving at the limit itself thatt are the problem?
Driving safely within the legal limit is the aim and the suggestion that doing so is "dangerous" is absurd!
Who suggested that driving 'safely' within the legal limit was 'dangerous'? :?0 -
Cunobelin wrote:The claim that "everyone speeds" is insupportable ( unless you have evidence to suport this?).
The evidence is in research that you quoted.
I suggest you read your research a little more carefully before you blindly use it next time.Cunobelin wrote:But why make drink driving an offence or censure it?
To emulate some of the claims over speeding.........................
Why not just do them for dangerous driving?
Unlike speeding, driving whilst drunk is likely to cause an accident. Enough of a rise in probability to make it a worthwhile offence to punish without any other evidence of the driving being dangerous.Cunobelin wrote:After all we have seen an increase in drink (and drug) driving over the last few years but there has been no increase in deaths or injuries on the roads so it can't be inherently dangerous - can it?
Can you post the data for this please?
I've had a quick butcher's and can't find anything to corroborate this claim.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Cunobelin wrote:The claim that "everyone speeds" is insupportable ( unless you have evidence to suport this?).
The evidence is in research that you quoted.
I suggest you read your research a little more carefully before you blindly use it next time.Cunobelin wrote:But why make drink driving an offence or censure it?
To emulate some of the claims over speeding.........................
Why not just do them for dangerous driving?
Unlike speeding, driving whilst drunk is likely to cause an accident. Enough of a rise in probability to make it a worthwhile offence to punish without any other evidence of the driving being dangerous.Cunobelin wrote:After all we have seen an increase in drink (and drug) driving over the last few years but there has been no increase in deaths or injuries on the roads so it can't be inherently dangerous - can it?
Can you post the data for this please?
I've had a quick butcher's and can't find anything to corroborate this claim.
He probably could and no doubt will, however it seems that the figures are being distorted due to the immigrant population .
http://tinyurl.com/32wpma0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Cunobelin wrote:The claim that "everyone speeds" is insupportable ( unless you have evidence to suport this?).
The evidence is in research that you quoted.
I suggest you read your research a little more carefully before you blindly use it next time.
Which one was that - none of the research quoted states that "everyone speeds"
Estimates vary from 33% to 60 % depending on the syetem of reporting.Cunobelin wrote:But why make drink driving an offence or censure it?
To emulate some of the claims over speeding.........................
Why not just do them for dangerous driving?
Unlike speeding, driving whilst drunk is likely to cause an accident. Enough of a rise in probability to make it a worthwhile offence to punish without any other evidence of the driving being dangerous.
The stated and still unproven " unlike speeding" arises again. It would be interesting if you could substantiate this.
Most research shows that speeding IS a risk, both in the likelihood of having an accident nd the severity of the accident.
The suggestion earlier was that drivers should be prosecuted for "dangerous driving =" or not prosecuted"
Why not accept the same for drink drivers.surely if the driver is experienced and fully assesses the risk then they must be proven to be actually dangerous at the time to be booked - why give them this leeway for one offence and not the other?
Typically 2.4% of accidents involve drink driving, (Loythian Police annual report) hence less of a risk to the general public than speeding!Cunobelin wrote:After all we have seen an increase in drink (and drug) driving over the last few years but there has been no increase in deaths or injuries on the roads so it can't be inherently dangerous - can it?
Can you post the data for this please?
I've had a quick butcher's and can't find anything to corroborate this claim.
Typical Police reporting:
http://www.lbp.police.uk/press_release/ ... 11%5C2.htm1 in 10 men also believe that having a moderate amount of alcohol makes them a calmer driver
Despite strong support for a zero-tolerance approach over 66% of UK drivers believe the average male can have a pint of lager and still drive; 30% believe a spirit and mixer is acceptable; while 25% believe an ‘alco-pop’ will not affect driving.
Research by tickbox.netThe UK's drink-drive problems will continue to grow unless the Government agrees to cut the current alcohol limit, RoSPA said today as figures for the festive period showed another increase in the proportion of drivers testing positive after crashes.
Kevin Clinton, Head of Road Safety for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: "The proportion of people testing positive over the Christmas and New Year period is now back to what it was six years ago and the number of people killed in drink drive accidents annually has also increased.
Figures for England, Wales and Northern Ireland show that nearly nine per cent of drivers tested after collisions during the Christmas and New Year period failed a breath test - the highest since 1997/1998. The estimated number of people killed in drink-related accidents in Great Britain went up from 530 in 2001 to 560 in 2002. Figures for people injured in drink-drive accidents are also on the rise.
The evidence for the stationary deaths figure can be found on any pro-speeding website.
ROSPA<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0
