Quote:
Originally Posted by russellw
Sorry but I'm not letting that piece of stupidity go unchallenged. Impairment has been proven to start at any level of alcohol absorption and the legally mandated level is only what is deemed 'acceptable risk' at the time. The fact that we were once 0.08 and are now 0.05 has no relevance and does not imply that levels between 0.05 and 0.08 are 'fairly harmless'. If you'd like links to the research then I'm happy to provide them.
|
You don't need to, I've seen them.
The problem is you need to understand the concept of relative risk in some sort of context. 0.08 is approximately double the relative risk, but relative to what? The risk of a crash compared to the average population. This crash risk is exceedingly small, 0.47 per 100,000,000 km travelled, equivalent to once every 111 lifetimes (assuming 15,000km (which is actually a little higher than the most recent
ABS stats say) per year over a 60 year driving span). Doubling that risk is hardly taking your life in your hands. Arguably, it goes up by far more than that simply by going out on a rainy day.
Then consider other lawful behaviours that have no legal consequence but raise the crash risk, like driving tired. We don't require people who have worked multiple shifts to be driven home, or require private drivers to maintain a logbook of rest breaks for trips > 3hrs, etc. Hell, the crash risk of drivers over 75yo is equivalent to a BAC of 0.10, but they're still allowed to drive. This right is in fact fiercely defended by many.
Point is, there are a lot of behaviours or factors that impair drivers. Just because some can be easily policed doesn't mean those pinged for them are necessarily manifestly unsafe. IMO, the penalties should fit the risk, so a 0.05-0.08 would be an on-the-spot fine and you're on your way. Statistically at least, it doesn't warrant being dragged before the courts. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's hypocritical of the police when they refuse to attend actual crashes.