Stephen, Police Officer: good post and some questions:
Is it true that Police try to breathalyse all drivers involved in injury accidents? If so are the readings recorded anywhere?
This would mean that, even though under-limit could have high errors in the readings, this would give us an estimate of the further damage caused by lower levels of DD and therefore the level of impact any change in the law could have.
But we also need to know the level of alcohol of drivers on average who haven't crashed.
ie if 10% of deaths are by DD, but 10% of drivers on average are DD, then DD is not dangerous.
The latest figures show 10% of deaths from RTAs in 2006 were DD with a further 4% "Pedestrian impaired by alcohol" (though some RTAs may be both) but I STRONGLY suspect the number of DD on the roads on average is less than, say, 0.01% (I'm guessing less than 1 in 10,000 drivers on average is below the current DD limit) especially since many Fri + Sat night DDs are not DD any other time.
In other words, if my 0.01% is accurate, DD is EXTRAORDINARILY dangerous.
For comparison, exceeding speed limit is involved in 14% of deaths yet the government claims over 50% of drivers exceed the speed limit on average in their test areas, some SCPs claim 75% of drivers are speeding and my experience is that 99% of drivers exceed the speed limit on a daily basis. In other words exceeding the speed limit is almost always safe, that's probably why cameras have done nothing to improve safety.
I suppose that's a very long way of asking, is there any REAL evidence (not faked-up evidence like that used to justify speed cameras) that lowering the DD limit will make any measurable difference?
And are the police effective in preventing the current DD limit being exceeded? If not how will lowering it help?
It's impossible to have a valid opinion on anything anymore because we just can't accept anything this government says. There's so much spin, lies, corruption and incompetence that no research presented by them has any value whatsoever!
