jeremyjh1 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 From the BBC news website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8426410.stm Initial results from the frist 3 weeks of the clampdown on drink driving show just over 23,000 being stopped and breathalysed. Only 177 were found over the limit or refused to give a sample. And a further 5 were found to have tested positive for drugs. I'm totally opposed to drink driving, but I can't help thinking that the large number of stops and the low number of positive tests suggests that the problem is either not as widespread as believe or it is not a major problem around Christmas. That does seem to be a lot of effort for very little gain. Mind, I suppose they'll say that the fact that they advertised they were doing it may have caused many to alter their drinking habits. It would be interesting to know how much the campaign cost, given the cutbacks and tough times we're all enduring. Still, at least 177 drivers won't be drunk behind the wheel of their car for a while, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 If the tests are mostly carried out near Doughnut shops what can you expect ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dongle Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 im sure if it stopped 1 idiot killing somebody then its worthwhile, im sure if you had lost somebody due to an accident caused by drink driving you would see the results in a different light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 however the money may have been spent in different ways and may have saved more lives, I guess thats the point. It is a ridiculously small percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 im sure if it stopped 1 idiot killing somebody then its worthwhile, im sure if you had lost somebody due to an accident caused by drink driving you would see the results in a different light Cause and effect. Or, cost and effect. Sure, if I had lost someone to a drunk driver, I may feel differently - I'd feel emotionally involved and, suffice to say, decisions based purely on emotions are not always the best or right decisions. I feel for anyone in that position. And it does not alter my view that drink driving is wrong. What I would question is the level of resource being employed, the cost of that resource and what impact this may be having to other areas of policing. Ideally, we would want all crime to be a thing of the past; for there to be a policeman on every street corner. Trouble is, that's impossible. There are not enough police, there is not enough money and drink driving is not the only crime they are trying to prevent - and the results suggest that the problem is either not so widespread or they are targeting the wrong time of the day, the wrong area or something else. In other words, they could be said to be wasting their time and the UK tax payers money trying to eradicate something that is, in terms of percentages, very low indeed, rather than spending time catching more burglars, murderers, paedo's etc., That, sadly, is how this could be viewed. 23,000 breath tests, less than 1% positive. Hope they can achieve the same results with a purge on house burglary or muggings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Perhaps it is the level of breath tests that is actually putting people off drink driving, and as a deterrant it is money well spent. If the police did not stop anyone on suspicion then it is likely that more people would risk driving after having what they think a reasonable amount of alcohol. To deter people from breaking the law is better than waiting for the crime to be comitted surely? Just my opinion but I am all for a continuation of this use of funds. As a previous poster says - if just one person has been saved from death at the hands of a drink driver then it is a postitive result, and removing 177 drunks from the road is a big success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 im sure if it stopped 1 idiot killing somebody then its worthwhile There is an upper limit to the amount we can sensibly spend to save one life. Without knowing the cost of the exercise, we can't judge if it has been passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calebscarlet Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 i got a tug today for brake light being out and got breathalysed i dont like south yorkshire police that much but back them 100 percent on this its simple dont drink at all and u dont run the risk of getting done are killing anybody i think there should be a totall ban on drink driving stuff the 35 ect limit if they can ban use of mobiles surely they could do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 i think there should be a totall ban on drink driving stuff the 35 ect limit if they can ban use of mobiles surely they could do this. They can't enforce a "blood alcohol level of zero" limit because alcohol occurs naturally in the body. They could, in theory, outlaw driving within X hours of taking any alcoholic drink - but how could it be proven, given the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscience Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Does not the low percentage of drivers being caught over the limit prove that the campaign was successful? It is about crime prevention not catching drink drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.