logiebaird Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Without knowing how much the campaign cost, it's impossible to say whether that represents a worthwhile expenditure. Really ? Who taught you maths ? 22950 drivers (give or take ) delayed and required to prove their innocence to officers with time to spare conducting the exercise. Give me the same budget and manpower and ill increase the conviction percentages by targetting hotspots and offering rewards to informants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 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. Or, you could also say it proves that the 'problem' of drink driving is no longer as big a deal as it used to be and that, over the years, successful ad campaigns have reduced it and that the S Yorks police campaign of the last 3 weeks has 'invested' a great deal of time and money in proving that. Imagine if this is extended to other areas of crime? 23,000 stopped and searched to discover less than 1% of people are carrying illegal weapons. 23,000 'arrests' to charge and convict less than 1% of people guilty of burglary. 23,000 detained to discover less than 1% have actually murdered anyone. And so on. It's all well and good wanting to catch drunk drivers, but at what cost to the tax payer, to other areas of policing, to the safety of the general public in general. How would you feel if your home was broken in to or you were mugged or a relative was stabbed on a night out and because the police had devoted more manpower and resource on catching less than 1% of drivers who were drunk? Think of it, a police officer can either be at the road side issuing breath tests or be somewhere else - he/she cannot be in more than one place at any one time (oh, and before anyone says that they are doing this in the morning and other crimes mentioned usually take place later in the day or at night, police officers only work a set number of hours, like most of us, after that they are on over time [which adds to the overall cost] or, if there is an over time ban, due to cutbacks, then there is a resource derth). It's all relative and it needs to be considered before the campaign can be described as a complete success. (And, as some responses seem to suggest, I am not pro-drinking and driving and I have had a relative killed by a drunk driver - I'm trying to be reasoned, not emotional, otherwise I'd advocate making it illegal to drive [which would be one of almost 100% stopping drink driving]) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calebscarlet Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Without knowing how much the campaign cost, it's impossible to say whether that represents a worthwhile expenditure. it doesnt matter what it cost you cant put a price on a childs life can you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 it doesnt matter what it cost you cant put a price on a childs life can you No, you can't. But you can. Imagine if such 'prevention' campaigns were employed in other areas of crime, where life was in danger. Detaining and questioning 'suspects' who might commit a murder. Or pulling in every male that fits the paedo profile to prevent them from maybe molesting a child. Or, why don't the police just stop and breathalyse every motorist at any time of the day or night? you cant put a price on a childs life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 (And, as some responses seem to suggest, I am not pro-drinking and driving and I have had a relative killed by a drunk driver - I'm trying to be reasoned, not emotional, otherwise I'd advocate making it illegal to drive [which would be one of almost 100% stopping drink driving) sorry to hear about that was the drunk driver caught by the police ?if not then they let you down but would things have been different if the driver was caught before hand by the police doing what they doing now . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 it doesnt matter what it cost you cant put a price on a childs life can you You'll need to ask an actuary about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 (And, as some responses seem to suggest, I am not pro-drinking and driving and I have had a relative killed by a drunk driver - I'm trying to be reasoned, not emotional, otherwise I'd advocate making it illegal to drive [which would be one of almost 100% stopping drink driving) sorry to hear about that was the drunk driver caught by the police ?if not then they let you down but would things have been different if the driver was caught before hand by the police doing what they doing now . Yes, they were caught and convicted (it was a long time ago). The problem is, you cannot prevent crimes from happening without 100% policing or locking every potential criminal up. E.g. I am capable of being a murderer, a paedo, a drunk driver, a rapist and so on. But, until I commit any of those crimes and am caught, tried and convicted I am merely a potential criminal. Of course, I would not have wanted my relative to have been killed by the actions of a person too drunk to walk, let alone drive, but up until the moment that hey got behind the wheel of their car, 3 times over the limit, they had no criminal record (nor had they ever been arrested or cautioned by the police for anything). My concern is that the police seem to be devoting a great deal of time, money and effort targetting drunk drivers, yet the results suggest they are, in the main, completely wasting their time. Less than 1% positive tests. I would like to see that quantified in a cost per conviction rate. And, it must also be considered that not every driver who is drunk and involved in a car accident, causes the death of one or more persons. A great many more deaths on the road can be attributed to a variety of other causes. I'm not sure of the percentage, but I do believe death caused by drunk driving is low down the list. Again, should we employed the same sledgehammer to crack the nut of other crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlin Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Really ? Who taught you maths ? 22950 drivers (give or take ) delayed and required to prove their innocence to officers with time to spare conducting the exercise. Give me the same budget and manpower and ill increase the conviction percentages by targetting hotspots and offering rewards to informants. I was stopped and bagged last week. Delayed me for 4 whole minutes. I daresay one or two people will have changed their minds about drink-driving having seen the checkpoint. I am happy to be stopped again if it has the desired effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 I was stopped and bagged last week. Delayed me for 4 whole minutes. I daresay one or two people will have changed their minds about drink-driving having seen the checkpoint. I am happy to be stopped again if it has the desired effect. Or maybe the previous, seasonal campaigns about drink-driving and the stigma that is attached to it has had the desired effect and the recent campaign has simply highlighted the success of these efforts. Bottom line is, no matter how much time or money is spent on trying to prevent people from committing crimes, there will always be those who will do it, not matter what. They get caught, convicted, fined, have their licence taken away and then drive without a licence and with no insurance while drunk. I accept your stance that, if it stops a few from driving whilst drunk in the first place, then it is a good thing. But what if the efforts to catch those few mean less police resource for other areas of crime? Or, so much money is spent on that campaign that, in order to pay for it, less money is available for campaigns such as reducing knife crime or, God forbid, they have to reduce the numbers of police officers. Someone said you can't put a price on a child's life - trouble is, the policeman/woman gets paid, they require equipment to protect themselves and to carry out their duties, those 'criminals' caught, have to be processed by other policement and held in cells before going before the courts (who are staffed by people who are paid) Etc., and so on. It all costs and if the cost is too high compared to the conclusions, then it is not cost effective. Sadly (and I truly mean that) we live in a world where everything has a cost and there is only a finite amount of money and resource that can be utlised. I think the recent campaign proves - There is no 'real' problem (compared to years ago) or There are a hardcore of people who will continue to drink and drive no matter what deterrent there is or They're targeting the wrong areas, the wrong times or the wrong people. Either way, I think the police accountants would be pretty vocal, internally, by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logiebaird Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 I was stopped and bagged last week. Delayed me for 4 whole minutes. I daresay one or two people will have changed their minds about drink-driving having seen the checkpoint. I am happy to be stopped again if it has the desired effect. Good for you - if you are willing to be stopped on 23000 occasions then the rest of the innocents can get on with their lives uninterupted. 92000 minutes wasted in total plus the wage bill on police rates for the same. Waste of time and waste of money given the results - there are far better ways to catch drunk 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.