Sunday, September 29, 2013

THATS NOT A SOLUTION, BUT IT PROVES HE IS A REAL WOWSER.



The rural hotel is almost in need of protection, it is almost extinct.

Once the center for social, administrative and sporting events in the rural community, 'The Pub' is almost goneburger.

Now a clearly enlightened, educated, "I know best what is good for you",  ex preacherman, now socialist trougher  predicted by some as a future "one to watch", until a certain missing "T" intervened, has decided the drink driving limit for legal control of a motor vehicle will drop from 80 mg per 100ml of blood to 50 mg.

Those arbitrary limits can be enormously effected by health status, medications, general fitness, food taken while drinking, tiredness, time elapsed during drinking, and many other factors in the effect on driver competency.
Tolerance to alcohol also appears to be a factor in how those very arbitrary legal limits actually present in the effect on driving ability as does attitude and experience of driving.
The big plus for a padre like trougher Clark, they are easily measurable and financially rewarding for the authorities

However Padre Clark and his wowser supporters clearly have a greater depth of understanding and in the absence of any evidence as to what that 30 mgs has on driver ability, he just inherently know what is best for the plebs.

Our culture that includes for many, having a couple of ales after work, on completion of a job or measurable mark of progress, maybe a quiet meal with mates, opening or closing  a sports season or for no other reason than having an hour of pleasurable social interaction is OK for an MP with endless access to Taxi chits, well heeled operators in the world of commerce who can access a cab or a chauffeur, and others  without falling foul of the law.
Alas that scenario does not exist for the minority in a small rural area.
The Taxi does not exist, the pub is so marginal a 'courtesy coach is economically prohibited' and the sober driver does not apply, sort of defeats the whole purpose really.
So the shearer has a jug then wends his way home in traffic densities that are measured in VMPD not VMPH and the cultured, educated, overpaid busybody is going to "save lives".

Just how many traffic incidents occur in categories of Zero Blood alcohol, those under 50mg , or those under 80mg, we don't f**king know. What we do know is that when some complete tosser causes a major event and registers 200mg 300mg or even higher we all understand the tosser was legless and it is very difficult to find a single person who is not appalled. Often those examples become the focus for the ignorant well intentioned, and it too often  turns out are serial offenders.

When the Education Dept makes an entirely rational move to close a totally uneconomic (current and/or predicted) school, there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth usually promoted by the union representing the redundant teacher/s and swept along by the concerned parents, but when it is the pub, suddenly it is socially responsible that those wishing to have a quiet ale or two are required to travel additional distances to a more populated  place of indulgence with additional Kms and exposure to traffic.

Then of course in this debate, that has minimal effects on most, we will continue to largely ignore those driving with substances other than alcohol, those emotionally, medically or physically impaired to drive.
Sheesh it cant be so bad to be killed by one in that category than someone who just happens to have 51mg of alcohol in 100ml of their blood and did absolutely nothing to cause the death. That is completely unacceptable.

I have no knowledge of the efficacy of Padre Clark as a preacherman but his knowledge and understanding of road traffic accidents, their causes and driver abilities just took a massive hit IMHO.
He can now add qualified wowser to his CV.

Zero, 30mg, 50mg even 80 mg, all academic when those with hundreds of mgs are the problem and the only way plod finds all those around the limit is to stop all vehicles while the recidivist offenders can drive legless with almost zero chance of being picked up unless it turns to custard. for them and sadly for the innocent.


24 comments:

Liberty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liberty said...

It is very much like Labours anti smacking.
Just how many prosecutions has there been ? Since that vile attempt to social engineer.
Not a lot. Are children still being abused yes. Basically it was a fail. was it worth splitting the country over no.
So now Labour wants to engineer the lives of every person who can drive . Its only justification is it gives the labour apologist the warm tingles .

DigiSlidz said...

This is the same as reducing the speed limit because some pillock crashed at 120 km/h in an 80 km/h area. So now the do gooders have us limited to 60. The only ones who benefit are the Police who hunt in the area regularly .

Edward the Confessor said...

Just as long as the right-winger's divine right to get pissed and kill other people remains unimpinged, right fellas?

John Key voted in favour of the bill removing the right for right-wingers to assault children, Liberty. He would be upset to hear you being so nasty about it.

gravedodger said...

God you are a dolt, thicker than tall, Confuser.
Your response makes a brick shithouse look intelligent.

Comprehension skills of a weavil.

Care to list all the so named right wingers who assaulted children, their spawn or not.

Just where did I condone "getting pissed and killing people."

The Left deserve all your support.

Edward the Confessor said...

Hey, look, you've oppose every road safety measure from seatbelts onwards despite the massive reductions in death and injury that have flowed from those measures. This is just more of the same. You're wrong and boring and too lazy to even do basic research before squawking.

I didn't say right wingers assaulted children, just that they wanted to keep the right to if they so chose. Comprehension is tricky for you isn't it?

Liberty said...

ETC
Do you have any evidence that righties drink more than lefties. I suspect not.
So why make it a Left v Right argument when political philosophy has got nothing to do with it. Unless you are a bit paranoid.

Edward the Confessor said...

The right always fight tooth and nail against safety initiatives because they think that having to drive sober and at a safe speed wearing a seatbelt or helmet somehow infringes their freedum. It's weird, I know, but this post and the comments are but a small demonstration of it.

Liberty said...

What is “right always” That is nothing more than a silly generalisation.
You are so fixated with a misguided hatred of the so called Right you have lost sight of reality.

Edward the Confessor said...

OK, so you're in favour of this now? But hang on you said this a few hours ago:

"So now Labour wants to engineer the lives of every person who can drive"

At least that's consistent with your right-wing philosophy of freedum. Why are you denying it now?You're such a confused wee soul, Liberty. Maybe your bedtime.

Liberty said...

You are wrong.
Try again

Paranormal said...

ETC - the move to a lower limit ios not a safety improvement. Those that drink and kill on the road are not in the 50 - 80 mcg levels. they are seriously way more than that.

Typical of Liarbours 'solutions' this is a misguided attack on safe drivers that will completely fail in 'saving' one additional life. Alternative policing methods need to be used.

For example, as the majority of drink related deaths are caused by recidivist drink drivers. Local police know who they are and should be given the ability to monitor them accordingly.

Liarbour have yet again failed to analyse the problem before coming up with a 'solution'. Broad brush measures with unintended consequences, such as those raised in GD's post, will fail to address the issue.

Paulus said...

By Padre Clark I assume you mean
"The Honourable Reverend Dr David Clark" of Dunedin who has just been demoted in Cunliffe's new line up along with his colleague from Dunedin some Clare Curren, the one who shafted Benson Pope.
Very inspiring !

pdm said...

Until judges start handing out maximum sentences to drink driving offenders the blood alcohol level will remain irrelevant.

The problem is/are the recidivist offenders like the lady from Otorohanga about 2 years ago - 21 convictions and never sent to jail.

Edward the Confessor said...

To be fair to you guys, you're relying on truthiness and ideology to form your views, whereas I'm relying on logic and facts, so you're probably right.

I mean just because where it's been done it's reduced drink driving related deaths and injuries by lowering the number of drunk drivers at over 80mg doesn't mean it'll work here! You can't tell me why, but you don't have to; you're rabid right-wingers, and facts are for other people!

gravedodger said...

Gee hadn't seen that coming Confuser.

Based on unspecified 'facts' and your socialist logic we must clearly place a further legal constriction on someone having a couple of stubbies or a glass of wine then driving home at a BAC level of 55 mcg and fall foul of the law, but being absolutely no danger to any other road user.
All in the hopelessly ineffectual act of stopping a single hopeless recidivist offender who regularly drives at many times the curreent legal BAC limits.

I am absolutely bloody certain, beyond any doubt, if there was a single bit of research no matter how poorly based or supported to suggest any sort of decline in safety for those carrying between the present 80mcg and the padre's proposed 50mcg, it would have been given saturated coverage by the wowsers.

No, control freaks such as yourself, who for whatever reason will be entirely unaffected by this further attack on the social mores of certain sections of society, has an attraction to pleasing to pass up.

Having a 'Jar' after work is totally classlesss, in fact it is more than likely I (the rabid right winger), will have that drink with one of the peasants whose company I enjoy and whose politics I couldn't care less about.

Padre Clark's busybody, "must do something to raise my profile" act, unsupported and almost certainly ineffectual move will just make the social behavior enjoyed by many, a more uncertain activity in the eyes of an arbitary law.

You, confuser are just another socialist retard and if you were politically on the right and held such illogical ideas, you would still be a retard.

Paranormal said...

ETC you have yet to prove anything or provide facts or even logic. There is no 'proof' that reducing those drivers with levels of 80mcg will reduce deaths. There is however plenty of proof that had recidivist drink drivers been monitored actual lives would have been saved.

You are guilty of your ideological bias blinding you.

Psycho Milt said...

...you're relying on truthiness and ideology to form your views, whereas I'm relying on logic and facts...

Actually, there's a very strong element of 'truthiness' in the claim that this has been tried elsewhere and reduced more serious drunk driving. To turn it from 'truthiness' to fact, we'd need to consider the following:

Who published the findings? The social sciences tend to show what the person doing the study wanted it to show, so who did the study is a significant factor. In this case, studies carried out by the authorities who implemented the restrictions, the relevant law enforcement agencies, anti-alcohol lobby groups etc are worthless.

What was the mechanism? If somebody did something and something else happens, but you've no explanation for why that something else happened, there's no logical reason to assume doing the same something elsewhere will cause the same something else to happen.

There's also a problem with the logic. We've had several instances of MPs wanting to criminalise some behaviour that involves little harm to anyone, on the basis that it will "send a message" to people who engage in more harmful variants of that behaviour. The logical problems are as follows:

1. Criminalising harmless behaviour brings the law into disrepute. Worse, it encourages obediance to the law only under circumstances where you personally feel the law isn't ridiculous.

2. The cost-benefit analysis doesn't add up. The benefit part is clear enough - if people engaging in the more harmful variant of the activity are discouraged from doing so, lives may be saved. People often treat this benefit as a trump card, but it isn't. Saving lives is a benefit to be traded off against costs just like any other. For example, many lives would be saved by enforcing a speed limit of 10 kph on the roads, but saving those lives isn't deemed sufficient benefit to overcome the costs to the economy and people's convenience. The same applies here - those possible (alleged) lives saved have to be weighed up against the costs, which are both literal (in terms of enforcement) and figurative (in terms of both the inconvenience to people described in Gravedodger's post, and the human misery involved in bringing criminal proceedings against people who've done no-one any harm).

I've yet to see any decent case made for ignoring those logical problems.

Edward the Confessor said...

"Who published the findings? The social sciences tend to show what the person doing the study wanted it to show, so who did the study is a significant factor."

What a remarkable assertion. What studies are you relying on to support this hypothesis? I do find it odd that you're prepared to dismiss studies you haven't seen based on the publisher.

"If somebody did something and something else happens, but you've no explanation for why that something else happened, there's no logical reason to assume doing the same something elsewhere will cause the same something else to happen."

Except when it happens over and over again. When that happens the standard right wing response is to ignore it and start screeching.

"Criminalising harmless behaviour brings the law into disrepute."

Drink-driving at over 50mg isn't harmless. Try it at 80 and see how you go.

"The cost-benefit analysis doesn't add up."

This is an error of fact on your part, not logic on mine.

Psycho Milt said...

What a remarkable assertion.

Actually, it's a mundane, commonplace observation. Tobacco companies' studies never find that tobacco is even more harmful than previously thought, Doug Sellman's studies never find that alcohol has beneficial effects, conservative groups' studies never find that full-time professional childcare is beneficial for children, etc. Accepting studies at face value is the sign of a sucker.

Drink-driving at over 50mg isn't harmless.

It isn't? You'll be able to provide some evidence for the harm caused by driving with blood-alcohol level between 50 and 80 then. Crashes caused, deaths inflicted - that kind of thing.

As to the cost-benefit ratio, that's a matter of opinion, not fact. But what we can say is that the costs are a known quantity, while the benefits are assertions only.

Edward the Confessor said...

As I say, have a bottle of wine to get yourself up to 80mg and tell me you're fine to drive.

"Accepting studies at face value is the sign of a sucker."

Got any studies that demonstrate that? Rather than just dismissing research outright because of who undertook it, I prefer to examine the methodology and see if it's flawed. Truthiness vs rationality, but each to their own.

Psycho Milt said...

As I say, have a bottle of wine to get yourself up to 80mg and tell me you're fine to drive.

The amount of alcohol required to hit 80mg varies dramatically depending on body mass, what else you've consumed and how quickly your metabolism processes stuff. It would take a lot less than a bottle of wine to get me there. But you're interested in facts rather than truthiness, so where is the evidence that someone with 51mg blood alcohol level is a threat to other road users because of it?

Rather than just dismissing research outright because of who undertook it, I prefer to examine the methodology and see if it's flawed.

Not accepting some lobbyist's "studies show" blather at face value isn't the same thing as dismissing research outright.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

So there you are.

Eddie the Con is a one hundred and fifty kg slob with his guts hanging down around his knees.

That's the sort of physique for which a whole bottle of wine raises only .oo8.

Edward the Confessor said...

"That's the sort of physique for which a whole bottle of wine raises only .oo8."

It's actually quite comforting to realise how ignorant you are. But then, given you're in Australia, you're benefitting from the lower BAC.

"so where is the evidence that someone with 51mg blood alcohol level is a threat to other road users because of it?"

Sorry, are you claiming you'd be fine and dandy to drive your kids around at 80? Scary.