"Travellers"

[Hallo Alfie]

I was serious about this decision being, at least in part, about class.

Or lack thereof.

to discourage drink driving. I don't get how this is a complicated concept.

Me either.

 

[Lamuella]

let me try again with an explanation of why I think this is a good idea:

It is a statistically observable fact that the more alcohol you consume, the more likely you are to get into an accident if you drive.

While there are "safe" levels of alcohol use (for varying values of "safe"), these are always going to be to a degree arbitrary, due to alcohol tolerance and other factors.

Rather than rely solely on banning driving based on blood alcohol level, it is a good idea to foster and encourage responsible behaviours, while discouraging behaviours that increase the likelihood that someone who is impaired by alcohol will be operating a motor vehicle.

An easily enforcable way to discourage someone from operating a motor vehicle if they have been drinking is to ban drinking while operating a motor vehicle.

Unlike blood alcohol levels, the presence of a beer bottle in someone's hand or car can be a good way of stopping someone driving who may later prove to be a danger to themselves. While I do not have statistics for this, I would be very surprised if there were not a strong correlation between arrests for drinking while driving and blood alcohol levels higher than the legal limit.

Banning the consumption of alcohol while driving is a fairly simple, easily enforcable, well defined way of putting a barrier between alcohol consumption and motor vehicle operation.

 

[lionking]

to discourage drink driving. I don't get how this is a complicated concept.

Coke as well?

 

[Rasmus]

let me try again with an explanation of why I think this is a good idea:

It is a statistically observable fact that the more alcohol you consume, the more likely you are to get into an accident if you drive.

While there are "safe" levels of alcohol use (for varying values of "safe"), these are always going to be to a degree arbitrary, due to alcohol tolerance and other factors.

Rather than rely solely on banning driving based on blood alcohol level, it is a good idea to foster and encourage responsible behaviours, while discouraging behaviours that increase the likelihood that someone who is impaired by alcohol will be operating a motor vehicle.

An easily enforcable way to discourage someone from operating a motor vehicle if they have been drinking is to ban drinking while operating a motor vehicle.

I don't see how that would work at all.

Is there any evidence that a relevant number of drunk driving is caused by the drinks that people have whilst driving? If the tradition really is just the one beer on the way home, then making it illegal will not change anything.

Unlike blood alcohol levels, the presence of a beer bottle in someone's hand or car can be a good way of stopping someone driving who may later prove to be a danger to themselves. While I do not have statistics for this, I would be very surprised if there were not a strong correlation between arrests for drinking while driving and blood alcohol levels higher than the legal limit.

I think i have *once* had an alcoholic drink whilst driving a car. (Literally, a sip of a shot of something, since I was driving around a bachelor's party at the time.) There is very little incentive for me to drink whilst driving - there is a lot of incentive to drive after having drunk.

Banning the consumption of alcohol while driving is a fairly simple, easily enforcable, well defined way of putting a barrier between alcohol consumption and motor vehicle operation.

I still don't see it.

You might as well ban wine and whiskey, but not beer: It will work if and only if the vast majority of people drinks wine or whiskey, but not beer and if the vast majority of people has a strong enough preferences for those two drinks over beer.

 

[Lamuella]

Coke as well?

If you're trying to ask a question, try to use a few more words so I can have an idea of exactly what you are talking about.

 

[Rasmus]

I can't think of a definition of "responsible people" that includes "people who drink while driving"

Anyone not drinking more than they would otherwise drink before starting to drive.

It really doesn't make a difference where you consume the alcohol.
If I can have a beer in the pub and then drive home, I should be allowed to have the same one beer in the car instead.

 

[Lamuella]

I think i have *once* had an alcoholic drink whilst driving a car. (Literally, a sip of a shot of something, since I was driving around a bachelor's party at the time.) There is very little incentive for me to drink whilst driving - there is a lot of incentive to drive after having drunk.

Unless you're speaking as a representative of drunk drivers, I'm not quite sure what your point is.

I;'ll rephrase my conjecture: If you were to divide drivers into the people who are drinking a beer while driving and the people who aren't drinking a beer while driving, I would wager that the first group have considerably higher blood alcohol. Thus, stopping people for drinking whilst driving is a decent way of flagging people who are driving while impaired.

I still don't see it.

You might as well ban wine and whiskey, but not beer: It will work if and only if the vast majority of people drinks wine or whiskey, but not beer and if the vast majority of people has a strong enough preferences for those two drinks over beer.

Your analogy doesn't work for two reasons: first of all, my point was about enforcability. A ban on spirits is no more enforcable than a ban on beer. There is no difference whatsoever in how you would enforce them. On the other hand, a ban on drinking while driving is very easy to enforce, or at least it's very easy to catch people who are doing it.

Secondly, if your intention is to stop people driving while drunk, there is a direct connection between consuming alcohol while operating a motor vehicle and being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle. Choice of alcohol consumed is not a factor.

 

[Lamuella]

Anyone not drinking more than they would otherwise drink before starting to drive.

Nope. If you are consuming something that impairs your functions while operating a motor vehicle, you're still a bloody idiot.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Are Australians so desperate for a drink they can't wait until they get home after work?

 

[lionking]

If you're trying to ask a question, try to use a few more words so I can have an idea of exactly what you are talking about.

You know exactly what I'm talking about, and the fact that you won't address it speaks volumes. Nobody here has shown that driving with an blood alcohol level of less than 0.05% is dangerous. If this is the case, drinking a beer while driving is no more dangerous than drinking a coke.

I'm open to evidence rather than sanctimonious assertions.

 

[Rasmus]

Nope. If you are consuming something that impairs your functions while operating a motor vehicle, you're still a bloody idiot.

Personally, I agree.

But legally, they are no more of an idiot than someone who has the beer - legally - just before getting into the car. (And personally I think they are both idiots)

Me, I'd have no problem with a 0.0 law; or some other low number that basically makes it not okay to have that one beer or two before driving.

But as long as we do allow that, we should allow it consistently.

 

[Rasmus]

Unless you're speaking as a representative of drunk drivers, I'm not quite sure what your point is.

The point was it is possible to drink and drive at least as responsibly as it is possible to first drink and then drive.

I;'ll rephrase my conjecture: If you were to divide drivers into the people who are drinking a beer while driving and the people who aren't drinking a beer while driving, I would wager that the first group have considerably higher blood alcohol. Thus, stopping people for drinking whilst driving is a decent way of flagging people who are driving while impaired.

Yes, but that is only because the first group includes all the people who didn't drink at all; and the people who drank before driving are shared between those don't drink while driving and those that do.

Your analogy doesn't work for two reasons: first of all, my point was about enforcability. A ban on spirits is no more enforcable than a ban on beer. There is no difference whatsoever in how you would enforce them. On the other hand, a ban on drinking while driving is very easy to enforce, or at least it's very easy to catch people who are doing it.

No, it is not. It is only easy as long as it is legal and the drivers have no need to hide it. As soon as I put my beer in a coffee mug you could no longer see me drinking it whilst driving.

Secondly, if your intention is to stop people driving while drunk, there is a direct connection between consuming alcohol while operating a motor vehicle and being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle. Choice of alcohol consumed is not a factor.

Yes, but only when you compare it to not drinking at all; not when you compare it to drinking before driving.

My point is: You will find a lot of people that aren't a problem, since their drinking whilst driving is no different from the entirely legal drinking before driving.

You will find some problematic (i.e. drunk) drivers, but probably not the vast majority of them - i still doubt that the majority of people get drunk whilst driving.

And, finally, you are legislating against an insignificant symptom. Stopping people from drinking whilst driving will hardly stop anyone from driving whilst drunk.

I'll change my mind as soon as I see numbers that show a large people only got too drunk to drive because they had n more drinks while driving.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Just a thought - and I reckon the numbers would be pretty small.

Of the habitual drink drivers (and specifically those who drink excessively and in the car), the current laws would see the police virtually ignoring them. Now anyone will be pulled over for having an open can (or whatever) in the vehicle while they drive. The chances to catch the chronic offender will be greater given the wider net.

Getting these people off the roads would be a good thing.

A more cynical thought would be a revenue raiser ahead of the festive season. That would make more sense than the ridiculous class warfare claims I've seen here.

 

[Lamuella]

You know exactly what I'm talking about, and the fact that you won't address it speaks volumes.

No, I'm afraid I don't. Why did you ask about coke when I was talking about discouraging drink driving?

Nobody here has shown that driving with an blood alcohol level of less than 0.05% is dangerous.

do you think that there's a switch that flips when you cross .05 that suddenly makes you dangerous?

Alcohol impairment is a gradient. You are more impaired after 2 beers than after 1 beer, and more impaired after 1 than after 0.

However, that was not the point I was trying to make.

Discouraging drink driving is about discouraging a culture that makes operating a car while impaired acceptable. Allowing people to operate a motor vehicle while impairing themselves contributes to this culture.

 

[Lamuella]

Yes, but that is only because the first group includes all the people who didn't drink at all; and the people who drank before driving are shared between those don't drink while driving and those that do.

I disagree. I think drinking while driving is indicative of a wider irresponsibility in terms of drinking habits. I would like to see figures on this, but I feel they would back me up on this point.

 

[lionking]

I disagree. I think drinking while driving is indicative of a wider irresponsibility in terms of drinking habits. I would like to see figures on this, but I feel they would back me up on this point.

So this is a sanctimonious belief devoid of evidence. Thanks, that explains your position.

 

[Lamuella]

So this is a sanctimonious belief devoid of evidence. Thanks, that explains your position.

It didn't take long for you to run out of arguments and start insulting people, did it?

 

[lionking]

It didn't take long for you to run out of arguments and start insulting people, did it?

I'm not insulting you at all. Just pointing out the faults in your arguments. There's a big difference.

 

[Lamuella]

I'm not insulting you at all. Just pointing out the faults in your arguments. There's a big difference.

you didn't point out a fault, you just issued an insult. I'm not particularly in the mood to have people call me sanctimonious so I don't think I'll bother coming back to this thread.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It didn't take long for you to run out of arguments and start insulting people, did it?[/QUOTE

You admitted lacking proof to support your conclusions, and resorted to using your "feelings". You ran out of arguments and he called you on it. Where was the insult?