Watch out for those whacky motorists

"There is no doubt that illegal drugs have a variety of very serious
negative effects on driving ability and that drug driving is a major
killer on our roads. In the UK, around 18% of people killed in road
crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis
being the most common." (Brake).

Attitudes have changed since the 1950s, that golden age:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...lory-days.html

On 30/09/2010 11:18, Squashme wrote:
"There is no doubt that illegal drugs have a variety of very serious
negative effects on driving ability and that drug driving is a major
killer on our roads.

Does the evidence support that assertion? Let's see...

In the UK, around 18% of people killed in road
crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis
being the most common." (Brake).

Ah, if that's the only evidence, then no it doesn't.

We surely need also to know what proportion of people who /aren't/
killed in crashes have similar traces in their blood. If it's less than
18% then the conclusion /may/ be valid. If it's more than 18% then the
opposite might be the case - illegal drugs might be having a positive
effect.

Attitudes have changed since the 1950s, that golden age:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...lory-days.html

But those attitudes apparently have no basis in the evidence, as offered
here at least.

--
Matt B

On 30 Sep, 14:08, Matt B wrote:
On 30/09/2010 11:18, Squashme wrote:

"There is no doubt that illegal drugs have a variety of very serious
negative effects on driving ability and that drug driving is a major
killer on our roads.

Does the evidence support that assertion? *Let's see...

In the UK, around 18% of people killed in road
crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis
being the most common." (Brake).

Ah, if that's the only evidence, then no it doesn't.

We surely need also to know what proportion of people who /aren't/
killed in crashes have similar traces in their blood. *If it's less than
18% then the conclusion /may/ be valid. *If it's more than 18% then the
opposite might be the case - illegal drugs might be having a positive
effect.

Attitudes have changed since the 1950s, that golden age:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s/7962526/Sir-...

But those attitudes apparently have no basis in the evidence, as offered
here at least.


Well you could say that 4 out of 5 people killed in crashes don't have
illegal drugs in their bloodstream so the drugs do have a positive
effect.

On the other hand:-
"A 2005 study carried out in the UK, Norway and the Netherlands
estimated that 10.8% of drivers stopped at the roadside for testing
were drug users."

and:-

"More than 9 out of 10 drivers (92%) surveyed by Brake and motor
insurer Direct Line in 2009 stated that they would support the
introduction of a new anti drug drive law to enable prosecution of
anyone driving on illegal drugs, without the need to prove
impairment."

Or you could tell us about your late uncle who always reckoned that he
drove better after a few pints.

On 30/09/2010 14:36, Squashme wrote:
On 30 Sep, 14:08, Matt wrote:
On 30/09/2010 11:18, Squashme wrote:

"There is no doubt that illegal drugs have a variety of very serious
negative effects on driving ability and that drug driving is a major
killer on our roads.

Does the evidence support that assertion? Let's see...

In the UK, around 18% of people killed in road
crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis
being the most common." (Brake).

Ah, if that's the only evidence, then no it doesn't.

We surely need also to know what proportion of people who /aren't/
killed in crashes have similar traces in their blood. If it's less than
18% then the conclusion /may/ be valid. If it's more than 18% then the
opposite might be the case - illegal drugs might be having a positive
effect.

Attitudes have changed since the 1950s, that golden age:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s/7962526/Sir-...

But those attitudes apparently have no basis in the evidence, as offered
here at least.

Well you could say that 4 out of 5 people killed in crashes don't have
illegal drugs in their bloodstream so the drugs do have a positive
effect.

You could, but that still wouldn't demonstrate anything useful. You
need to know what proportion of people _not_ killed in crashes have
drugs in their blood - to know whether those with drug traces were under
or over represented in the fatalities.

What would you assume if you were informed that 10% of all crash
fatalities in Scotland had red hair? Would you automatically assume
that the having of red hair was the cause of those crashes? Or would
you find out what proportion of the rest of the population had red hair
before jumping to conclusions?

On the other hand:-
"A 2005 study carried out in the UK, Norway and the Netherlands
estimated that 10.8% of drivers stopped at the roadside for testing
were drug users."

Why were they stopped? If they weren't randomly sampled it tells us
nothing.

and:-

"More than 9 out of 10 drivers (92%) surveyed by Brake and motor
insurer Direct Line in 2009 stated that they would support the
introduction of a new anti drug drive law to enable prosecution of
anyone driving on illegal drugs, without the need to prove
impairment."

Bizarre, especially if they don't know whether those with drugs in their
blood are more likely or less likely to be involved in a crash.

--
Matt B

In article 73b62bf3-57ef-472c-bb5e-d0d84d25ea96
@d17g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

"There is no doubt that illegal drugs have a variety of very serious
negative effects on driving ability and that drug driving is a major
killer on our roads. In the UK, around 18% of people killed in road
crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis
being the most common." (Brake).

I see this as another excellent opportunity to punish people for driving
while pretending it's about safety (thereby stopping the cagers from
whinging about how it's a democracy and therefore the wish of the
majority should be respected and drivers shouldn't be punished for
getting behind the wheel...utter crap of course, and all driving should
absolutely be treated as a selfish vice, but these halfwits need to be
humoured).

Speed cameras have done an excellent job of punishing law-abiding
motorists in their millions for doing nothing wrong, but unfortunately
this ****witted governement has decided to interfere (again pandering to
the wishes of the majority...have they no backbone?), and it looks as
though sadly we're going to lose all cameras soon. Perhaps we can use
things such as drug-driving to fill the gap.

A nice big fine and a nice long ban for driving with drugs in one's
system will do very nicely I think. This means that we'll be able to
heavily punish a motorist who's had cannabis 3 days earlier, and
obviously isn't remotely impaired, but because the cannabis is still in
his system, we still have the excuse to charge them. I see this is a
great way of getting millions of law-abiding motorists off the roads
very quickly: the only trouble with speeding is that a driver has to get
randomly caught a few times before they can be banned. No such trouble
with drug-driving.

What other ways can we come up with to ban huge numbers of drivers who
aren't actually doing anything wrong or causing anyone any danger (other
than the fact that they're selfishly driving in the first place of
course)? With cameras on the way out, it's extremely important that we
get some other hardcore anti-motorist punishments in place sooner rather
than later, otherwise the number of drivers will be even higher than it
currently is, and we can't have that. Remember, every time someone
gives up driving, KSIs drop by an average of 5.3 over their lifetime.
Therefore banning drivers in their millions is by *far* the most
effective way of reducing KSIs and improving road safety.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are
guaranteed to be worth the price paid.

On 30 Sep, 18:54, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

absolutely be treated as a selfish vice, but these halfwits need to be
humoured).


What do you know about humour? You're a cyclist.

--
Halmyre

On 30/09/2010 19:48, Halmyre wrote:
On 30 Sep, 18:54, "Just zis Guy, you
wrote:

absolutely be treated as a selfish vice, but these halfwits need to be
humoured).


What do you know about humour? You're a cyclist.

Is he? I know he's claimed to be in the past, but he's never provided
any evidence for it, unlike Guy who's posted pics of him, his bikes, him
riding them, etc.

(in case it's not sufficiently obvious, you were replying to a forgery)

Hi Clive :-)

Why did you post that **** to URCM yesterday? You do realise that
everyone's had to be de-whitelisted now thanks to you?

In article ,
says...

Is he? I know he's claimed to be in the past, but he's never provided
any evidence for it, unlike Guy who's posted pics of him, his bikes, him
riding them, etc.

Who are you referring to?

(in case it's not sufficiently obvious, you were replying to a forgery)

How do you know? Chapman being anti-motorist: what's new?

On 30 Sep, 15:06, Matt B wrote:
On 30/09/2010 14:36, Squashme wrote:



On 30 Sep, 14:08, Matt *wrote:
On 30/09/2010 11:18, Squashme wrote:

"There is no doubt that illegal drugs have a variety of very serious
negative effects on driving ability and that drug driving is a major
killer on our roads.

Does the evidence support that assertion? *Let's see...

In the UK, around 18% of people killed in road
crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis
being the most common." (Brake).

Ah, if that's the only evidence, then no it doesn't.

We surely need also to know what proportion of people who /aren't/
killed in crashes have similar traces in their blood. *If it's less than
18% then the conclusion /may/ be valid. *If it's more than 18% then the
opposite might be the case - illegal drugs might be having a positive
effect.

Attitudes have changed since the 1950s, that golden age:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s/7962526/Sir-....

But those attitudes apparently have no basis in the evidence, as offered
here at least.

Well you could say that 4 out of 5 people killed in crashes don't have
illegal drugs in their bloodstream so the drugs do have a positive
effect.

You could, but that still wouldn't demonstrate anything useful. *You
need to know what proportion of people _not_ killed in crashes have
drugs in their blood - to know whether those with drug traces were under
or over represented in the fatalities.

What would you assume if you were informed that 10% of all crash
fatalities in Scotland had red hair? *Would you automatically assume
that the having of red hair was the cause of those crashes? *Or would
you find out what proportion of the rest of the population had red hair
before jumping to conclusions?

Red hair in their bloodstream?


On the other hand:-
"A 2005 study carried out in the UK, Norway and the Netherlands
estimated that 10.8% of drivers stopped at the roadside for testing
were drug users."

Why were they stopped? *If they weren't randomly sampled it tells us
nothing.

How do you know that they weren't randomly stopped? I suspect that
some of these Euro-researcher chappies may be almost as smart as you
are.


and:-

"More than 9 out of 10 drivers (92%) surveyed by Brake and motor
insurer Direct Line in 2009 stated that they would support the
introduction of a new anti drug drive law to enable prosecution of
anyone driving on *illegal * drugs, without the need to prove
impairment."

Bizarre, especially if they don't know whether those with drugs in their
blood are more likely or less likely to be involved in a crash.


I don't know. May be commonsense and a lifetime of experience lay
behind such prejudices. Certainly in the old days it was felt better
for the patient to be drunk than the surgeon.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I see this as another excellent opportunity to punish people for driving

Yes, we know.