Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Andrei An example of why it is pointless to fiddle with the drink drive limits

Drinking and driving is not good. And the vast majority of our compatriots have got the message and don't do it.

But there are a few who haven't got the message and never will. One such is Rohan Sigley Kamo who killed his mate five months ago after crashing his car into a bridge. His blood alcohol level - 166 mls per 100 millilitres of blood. Just over double the legal limit.

As he stood in court yesterday, it was revealed this was not the first time Rohan Sigley Kamo has killed on our roads. Seven years ago he killed a child after crossing the center line and colliding head on with the car she was in.

So do you think a lower Blood alcohol content (BAC) limit would make any difference in this case? Obviously not.

And the truth be known the alcohol related crashes and offenders picked up by random screening and the like generally come from certain demographics and are very often recidivist offenders - people who never get the message and probably never will.

In an attempt to be doing something about lowering the road toll Governments of all stripes fiddle with speed limits, BAC limits which impact upon the law abiding majority and have no effect of the pathologically antisocial, the ones her cause the most problems.

Not long before my late mother gave up driving she received a speed camera ticket on a motorway for being 5 kph over the hundred kph limit, the camera being sited on a steep downhill section where it it takes intense concentration on the cars speedometer to prevent it nudging over the 100kph barrier. This was a woman her never advertently sped, never drove after drinking and never had an accident - targeted for speeding in the name of bringing the road toll down. Of course we all know that the speed camera placement that took her happy holiday snap was sited not for increasing road safety but for increasing Government revenue.

3 comment(s):

The said...

Yet all your ramblings are contradicted by the majority of published, peer reviewed public health studies. Go figure.

Andrei said...

Yet all your ramblings are contradicted by the majority of published, peer reviewed public health studies

Weasel words. The demographic most likely to be killed on the road or be involved in a fatal accident is well known and has been since the nineteen sixties at least.

And they would be males under the age of 25 and frequently having multiple criminal convictions.

KG said...

"Yet all your ramblings are contradicted by the majority of published, peer reviewed public health studies. Go figure."
You have evidence to back up that claim?
As for the value of "peer review"--I'd point you to the lies and distortions published by Lancet concerning Iraq war casualty figures and the IPCC "peer reviewed" farrago of lies. Peer review is now worth zip.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.