The rate of deaths on our roads is staggering, and we need to start taking the sorts of measures that alone could do anything about it. A zero alcohol limit. A higher age requirement. Harder driving tests. Lower speed limits. Much tougher sentences for transgression.
And public transport.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is interesting. What evidence do you have that our road deaths are "staggering", and what is the evidence you have studies from other countries that the measures you propose would be succesful?
ReplyDeleteActually, the UK has the fifth lowest road deaths per million of population in the EU25. And road deaths have declined by 7% since 2001. So its not really true to say they are “staggering”, or even that they are rising - at least not in contrast to what anyone else is actually doing, as opposed to some ideal world of no deaths at all.
ReplyDeleteDavid proposes a zero alcohol limit (one in which, interestingly, not a single other country in the EU subscribes to, including ones David presumably feels we should emulate). But here's the thing. The limit currently in the UK is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. In comparison, the rest of Europe has a 50mg limit. And yet, somehow we’re the 5th safest country – safer than 19th other countries, all with lower limits than us. So there is no evidence that a lower limit would work. In fact, all it would do would be to distract police resources into marginal cases, where there is no evidence they are at higher risk, and detract from focussing on serious transgressors.
On our roads in 2007:
ReplyDelete30,720 people were killed or seriously injured;
There were 247,780 road casualties in Great Britain;
The number of deaths among car users was 1,431; and
There were 644 pedestrian deaths.
Give the first and last, in particular, a moment to sink in. They are jaw-dropping. And I don't care if they are lower than in any past year that you might dig up, they are still jaw-dropping simply in themselves.
Unless you are suggesting no limit at all on alcohol, no minimum age for driving, no driving test, no speed limit, and no public transport, then you cannot dispute that the measures I propose would be effective.
That effect is precisely why we have an alcohol limit, a minimum age, a driving test and speed limits at all, and is one of the key reasons why we have even what little public transport there now is in this country.
"the UK has the fifth lowest road deaths per million of population in the EU25"
ReplyDeleteSo other places are even worse. So what?
"And road deaths have declined by 7% since 2001"
So things used to be a bit worse (Seven per cent? Is that it?). So what?
"So its not really true to say they are “staggering”"
Yes it is. Absolutely, not relatively.
"including ones David presumably feels we should emulate"
When did I say that?
"So there is no evidence that a lower limit would work"
Not on its own. I never proposed it on its own.
"In fact, all it would do would be to distract police resources into marginal cases"
"Why aren't you out catching real criminals?"
"Unless you are suggesting no limit at all on alcohol, no minimum age for driving, no driving test, no speed limit, and no public transport, then you cannot dispute that the measures I propose would be effective"
ReplyDeleteWell, actually you can. You could well look at the perverse consequences that come from the police prosecuting marginal drink driver offenders, at the cost of serious offenders.
But even if there weren't, that isn't the test for policy. The test is whether the costs outweigh the benefits. You could well propose that we ban cars in the UK. Deaths from car next year? Zero. Why don't you propose that?
Ah - the politicians fallacy!
ReplyDelete"Here's a problem. We must do something. This is something. Let's do it"
It is horrifying that that footballer was only tried for a motoring offence and even then only given seven years. What do you have to do to be charged with manslaughter and what do you have to do to get the maximum sentence?
ReplyDeleteThe changes you suggest would change the culture. That has already happened over drink-driving once. It also been done over seatbelts, smoking in pubs (overnight), all sorts.
Thank you, Anonymous 16:43.
ReplyDeleteThe other two, only Day Two of Freshers' Week and you're at it already. You'll learn. "Ban cars, zero deaths, why don't you propose that, eh, eh?" You're not in school now.
Is this a response to this post David? If so, we don't like you anymore...
ReplyDeletegrins.
At the risk of shouting into a void, let's try this one more time.
ReplyDeleteYou accept, of course you do, that you won't ban cars. Why? Because is it a disproportionate response. So you accept that policy must be proportionate.
If we want do something proportionate, then we should do what works. We should usefully look to other countries to see what has worked.
If 19 out of 25 countries have lower drink drive limits than us, but higher road deaths, that suggests that this doesn't really work.
But I still like you, Edwin.
ReplyDeleteAs for Anonymous, I can see that this is going to be a waste of time, but here goes. I never suggested a zero limit ON ITS OWN, but as part of a programme.
There is, of course, only one category of people that would react quite like this. So this must be the meaning of the term "Alcoholics Anonymous".
You're right, David.
ReplyDeleteHe has probably only discovered drinking in the last couple of years. He argues like a moderately good sixth former or a moderately bad undergraduate.
When I first introduced breathalysers, pub landlords put up signs saying that I would not be served. But we changed the culture. It can be done.
ReplyDeleteYours from beyond the grave,
Barbara
You should have been Britain's first woman Prime Minister, Barbara.
ReplyDelete"A zero alcohol limit. A higher age requirement. Harder driving tests. Higher speed limits. Much tougher sentences for transgression.
ReplyDelete"And public transport."
Any evidence that this will work, or is it just common sense?
Well, has not having *any* alcohol limit, age requirement, driving tests, speed limits, sentences for transgression and public transport had an impact? Is that not why we have them?
ReplyDeleteThat is both evidence and common sense.
It doesn't follow that more stringent limits will have a greater impact. They might, but you'd need evidence to demonstrate it.
ReplyDeleteIf you'd followed that logic, then there would be no limits at all.
ReplyDeleteNo. Unless there's no evidence that the current limits have an impact on accident rates. I find that highly implausible, but I'm not familiar with the evidence. What does seem clear, though, is that there isn't a straightforward causal linear relationship of "more stringent limits" = "fewer accidents".
ReplyDeleteOf course there is. That's why we have limits at all.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, why are there more accidents in countries with more stringent limits?
ReplyDeleteOn what? Are we still going on about drink in isolation? I made it clear from the start that that wasn't my position.
ReplyDeleteThe only people who focus like this on any suggestion that alcohol be limited are alcoholics.