From: Hermit (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Fri Jul 19 2002 - 18:10:08 MDT
Postscript:
[Andy Brice] In 1982 31.1% of people breathalised in the UK were over the limit. In 1992 it was 8%. I would guess that the figure would be even lower now. The current laws/campaigns obviously do have an affect on the behaviour of a large proportion of the population.
[Hermit] In 1982, the UK police were pulling erratic drivers from the road and requesting them to take a Breathalyzer test (or go to the station to have a district surgeon extract blood for analysis).
[Hermit] By 1987, in areas with a high percentage of alcohol related accidents, sobriety test roadblocks had become the norm. Here, instead of erratic drivers, the police might test several thousand drivers to find those under the influence - or at least over the legal limit. Drivers refusing to take a breatherlyzer test are legally disadvantaged as they are deemed to be intoxicated unless they provide proof to the contrary.
[Hermit] Do you think that this change in police procedure really means that there are fewer drunken drivers? Or might it speak more to the statistical methodologies chosen?
[Hermit] In addition, as the stock value of pub and bar chains reflects, fewer people drink at all these days. Were the people who have stopped drinking completely really the "drunken drivers" - or were they the sensible ones who "did not want to take a chance?" If the latter, how has "getting them off the road" improved the quality of life? Might this perhaps impact the statistic you presented in any way? If so, of what worth is the statistic?
Kind Regards
Hermit
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25721>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:48 MDT