Quote:
Firstly we don't need the right amount of alcohol to drive, but we do need the right amount of speed. If we can cut down on drink drive, then I'm sure we can cut down on crashes. Cutting down on speeding is actually making matters worse.
Well actually, if you look at the “Big Picture” you do need to have a degree of tolerance towards Drinking and driving (unless you are to have full “Prohibition” which opens its own particular can of worms!). The risks have to be balanced between individual risk and the wider socio-economic consequence. Just like the speed issue infact!
Consider this. The current system bans 100,000 people a year. Most of these people will have had only minor accidents or even none at all (serious accidents will have received more serious penalties) Most of these will be bread winners, many will lose their jobs, some their homes. Families are split up. Innocent women and children end up in B&B, children may even end up in “Care homes” (which for most will represent a “fate worse than death” which will scar them for the rest of their lives)
I would imagine that there would even be a fair number of suicides amongst both the “Banees” and their dependents. (Not to mention deaths of "Banees" who die while trying to cycle to work when they are not used to it)
I have no idea what the true scale of the full socio-economic consequences of the current policy are (I suspect government goes to some effort to hide it) but it would not surprise me in the least if the cure is far worse than the disease!
Lowering the limit could easily make this 10 times worse without actually having any noticeable effect on road fatalities.
One of the serious consequences of making “Legal” drinking and driving more difficult is that more people will drink at home. Not only will this damage the viability of rural pubs with all the socio economic consequences that go with this (In rural areas, alternatives to driving yourself are not really practical. QC's on £500,000PA spouting on about the virtues of Taxis doesnt really help
))
But people who get into the habit of drinking at home tend to drink more. Excessive alcohol consumption is a serious issue. Not only because of personal heath issues but also with issues of domestic problems.
I read recently that over the last ten years the numbers of people dying prematurely due to the effects of excessive alcohol consumption have increased by over 4000 people/year. Making “Legal” drinking and driving more difficult could increase this number substantially.
Now, I read recently (I will stand to be corrected, but it doesnt actually alter the argument that much) the number of “Bystanders” killed in (allegedly*) drink related accidents is around 300PA (most D&D “victims” are the driver himself and the “Voluntary” passengers in his car. Whist a death is still a death, personally I cannot see, say, a mountain biker who hurtles down a precipitous hill only to break his neck falling off at the bottom as a “victim” of a cycling accident, Going on to use the details of his accident to justify the argument that “Cycling is dangerous and should be banned” is a bit naughty)
Now, heres the question. Just how much socio-economic damage, how many woman and children do you want to see dispossessed of their homes or even orphaned by suicide or sent to care homes, how many rural communities do you want to see the heart ripped out of? Indeed how many premature deaths!?
In order to save "one" of those 300?
Its not an easy question
(My own feelings on this are complex (and even a bit contradictory) I shall expand later if anyone is interested. This post is already a bit long!)
* A proportion of D&D accidents will actually have a diferent primary cause, How big a proportion I dont know. But in our "Box ticking" culture if the driver is over the limit that is how the accident will be described. so we shall never know!