Is it me, or are the Govt playing with the statistics?
As far as I understand, they are saying that 8% of all people stopped and tested were over the limit compared to 7% last year. Doesn't that just mean that:
they are getting better at stopping drunk drivers.
They did stop and test more people than last year.
www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...l
The only reason I mention this, is because they are now talking about introducing wider powers for the police to stop motorists who have not committed an offence, but are "suspected" of being drunk.
Jonathan
PS I do not condone drink driving.
|
< >
Aware that I'll have the civil liberties mob on my back, but what's wrong with that?
If a driver is aware that he *might* be stopped by the boys in blue, just for a 'routine check', then he's going to take it easy on the hooch.
|
|
|
I don't mind them stopping all of us, and for no reason. What annoys me is that the drink driving war has been won. Hardly anybody does it.
Yet the rozzers focus still focus on this 'cos there's an easy test for it. You can take Heroin, Speed & Crack and they don't care.
Even worse you can crash and they won't care...
|
|
|
If eight percent of people stopped are over the limit, there must be quite a few people drink driving; the figures don't suggest the war is won. Sadly the 1970s are over. Back then a Babycham or six actually improved your driving, or so I remember people saying.
I take your point on drugs, although if you are driving strangely (stopping to watch the traffic lights go through their cycle and so on) and are pulled over, they'll have you on drugs charges if they suspect you are stoned.
Chris
|
I bet burglaries and crimes of violence are up by more than 1% in a year! When shall we see some of these offences targetted?
Answer - NEVER! Reason - because the police have 'Targets' to meet, sorry Performance Indicators, the stats look better if they have caught 20 motorists doing 34 in a 30 than if they have cleared up one burglary. If you are burgled you'll be lucky to get anyone to attend the scene never mind actually do anything realistic about it. Happy New Year anyway and drive carefully!
|
|
|
|
|
American style comunity policing is too much like hard work for the UK fuzz it seems.
|
|
|
Yes, they are playing with statistics.
The trumpeted 15% increase in drink driving is actually an increase from 7% to 8% in positive breath tests.
That would only be a meaningful statistic would be if every driver were to be tested.
A one percent variance is meaningless, especially if it may be influenced by better identification of those likely to be stopped.
To put it another way, using that methodology you could produce a statistic saying that EVERY driver was drunk if you ONLY stopped those drivers who were weaving all over the place.
Having said that, I would like to make it clear that I do not condone driving under the influence, whether it be drink, illegal drugs, over the counter medicines or prescription drugs.
|
Brian wrote:
> > A one percent variance is meaningless, especially if it may
> be influenced by better identification of those likely to be
> stopped.
Yep! Wasn't the strategy of grassing up suspected drunks discussed here a while back?
How many of the people caught were victims of the lace-curtain gestapo?
I was in the pub last night to meet somebody, and parked in a loading bay. (about 7:30pm). Soon afterwards, two local beat coppers were prowling about - "Just checking your license disc and tyre tread, sir."
I asked if they wanted me to move my car, and they said don't bother, as the roads were very quiet, and there was nobody wanting to use the bay anyway...
Their last words :"Please go easy if you are drinking - we would hate for you to have an accident later."
A slightly better attitude than just writing up fines, isn't it? Their main concern - safety!
|
To IAN (Cape Town)
Sounds like just what we need but was this UK or SA? I think we should be told!
|
|
|
|
|
BBC News Online Talking Point have a discussion on drink driving up at the moment
|
|
|
Yes, but what where the other 92% charged with?
Dangerous driving? Careless driving? Impersonating a drunk? Wasting police time?
|
|
|
Does it mean that there are more accidents caused by sober drivers?
|
|
|
Stephen, of course it does.
You can use the same statistical illogical logic here as the Government uses.
i.e. as only 8% of accidents are caused by drunk drivers and 92% by sober drivers, getting more drivers drunk would reduce accidents.
|
|
|
