HeadingNorth 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? That's how I read it; or at least, thinking more long-term, that successive campaigns over the years have greatly reduced the number of people who offend. It could be argued, though, that if there are so few offenders the campaign was unnecessary in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 It could be argued, though, that if there are so few offenders the campaign was unnecessary in the first place. Anyone who thinks that way is surely heading for the funny farm Maybe if the police did nothing about crime then there would not be any as crime figures would surely cease to exist. Maybe a bit extreme but it all boils down to the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Anyone who thinks that way is surely heading for the funny farm That's overly harsh. If there was a campaign to eliminate some crime which actually wasn't occurring, then there would be nobody arrested; that wouldn't prove that the campaign was a success, since it would have been an entirely pointless effort. The same could be true of the drink-driving campaign, although personally I don't believe it is; but it's unfair to accuse those who might of being ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 If there was a campaign to eliminate some crime which actually wasn't occurring, then there would be nobody arrested; that wouldn't prove that the campaign was a success, since it would have been an entirely pointless effort. The same could be true of the drink-driving campaign, although personally I don't believe it is; but it's unfair to accuse those who might of being ridiculous. This just does not make sense. We all know there have been a lot of people who drink drive, and the fact those numbers appear to be decreasing due to the actions of the police doing checks is proof enough that it works. The deterant for crimes which actually may occur are what help prevent them from occurring. I could be wrong but in areas with low police presence, levels crime in one form or another is greater than where there is a notable police presence - added to the punishment of being caught drink driving - the figures go down. Other than the police doing the checks what else would have driven the numbers of offenders down? Not their conscience or they would have stopped drinkdriving long ago. And whichever way you look at it - taking 177 or so drink drivers off the road is a big success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday 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? Agree with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 This just does not make sense. We all know there have been a lot of people who drink drive, and the fact those numbers appear to be decreasing due to the actions of the police doing checks is proof enough that it works. You're assuming the conclusion. (The fact that numbers are coming down because of the checks, proves that numbers are coming down because of the checks...) In fact the conclusion is very probably right; I believe it to be: but your arguments in support of it are badly flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prettygirl Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I was under the impression that random breath testing was illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 From the BBC news website 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 Still, at least 177 drivers won't be drunk behind the wheel of their car for a while, at least. 23,000 stopped means a load more who would have got smashed and maybe had an accident will think twice. It also means 177 idiots and 5 total bloody morons will lose their licence for a while and have serious insurance premiums if they want to drive when they get it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 23,000 stopped means a load more who would have got smashed and maybe had an accident will think twice. It also means 177 idiots and 5 total bloody morons will lose their licence for a while and have serious insurance premiums if they want to drive when they get it back. Without knowing how much the campaign cost, it's impossible to say whether that represents a worthwhile expenditure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish1 Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 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? Our limit at work is 29mg of alcohol in 100mls of blood. Car driving is 80mg. So it could be significantly lowered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.