The Sun          Littlejohn          Thu, Dec 20, 2001

FRESH evidence pours in daily of the police blatantly ignoring Home Secretary David Blunkett’s orders to go easy on motorists...................

From:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,43-2001551301,00.html

That's the whole point:

You can't be done for being sober in charge of a vehicle.

But you can be stopped and breathalysed for being grassed up for being drunk in charge of a vehicle.

And your point is?

That

According to figures released today, out of more than 15,000 drivers breath-tested after accidents 92% were not over the limit - an decrease of 1% on the last festive season.

And you you want it compulsory to drink and drive because its more than ten times safer?

Or you want the other 92% to be prosecuted for dangerous driving, careless driving, impersonating a drunk, wasting police time and resources?

Or as

A substantial core of "persistent drink-drive offenders" has been blamed for the increase by the chief constable of North Yorkshire Police, David Kenworthy.

And the police must know who this hard core is (they say that they do), you want an explanation of why the police are wasting their time and ours, and our money, on random breath tests?

And when are they going to start a campaign against the cause of at least 80%, possibly 100% of the accidents in which they breathalysed the drivers?

They know who the drunk drivers are.

They test 15,000 motorists to find 8% "over" the limit (if they test 15,000 next year and find 4% "over" the limit will they test another 15,000, and another, untill they've hit their targets by prosecuting eveyone in the county who was just below the limit untill they gave someone a festive kiss and picked up another drop of alchohol?).

And they conveniently forget to have a festive campaign against the causes of 80% (minimum) of the accidents refered to.

Oh, yes, and why not a single fatality mentioned?

I wonder if Auty Beeb will publish this:

Drunk, slobbering drunk even. "Drink session and drive home".  What we actually had were 8% out of 15,000 drivers "involved" in accidents "over" the limit (all perhaps just under until giving someone a festive kiss on the way to the car park and picking up an extra drop of alchohol).

Even if all the "slobbering drunks" were "involved" in injury accidents (see the table) that leaves at least 80% of sober drivers tested "involved" in injury accidents.  So where is the festive clampdown on the causes of those minimum 80% of injury accidents?

And why no mention of the number of motorists (not randomly) stopped and breathalysed, or of the "positive" percentage?  And why no mention of fatalities?  (Was the lost arm the best example of "CARnage" that could be found?).

Oh, and just one other teensy-weensy point: what happened to the figures for the pedestrians and cyclists "involved" in accidents: did someone forget to breathalyse them?  If 15,000 of them had been breathalysed and someone complained would that person be subjected to the same attacks from the anti-motorist brigade as we're seeing here?

And if 100,000 pedestrians were (not randomly) breathtested because they might run out in front of a bus packed with mothers and babies and cause it to swerve into a crocodile of toddlers on a nursery school outing before crashing through a bridge parapet and landing on a river cruiser full of sweet old pensioners..........?

Funkii, some questions you might like to consider:

If, in selecting who to breathalyse, the police get it wrong 92% of the time, surely they need better training, or we need better police?

If the 8% were slobbering drunks why aren't the blood and urine test results given, to show that they were all ten times over the limit?

Or is the reason for the police having difficulty in distinguishing between the 92% and the 8% down to the fact that they were indistinguishable.  Perhaps due to the fact that they were only just over the limit?

If no one drank, and everyone was very careful with their cough medicine, how many drivers would the police have to stop and breathalyse to find some over the limit?

And if they found some "over" the limit, what does that prove?

Funkii

"Tens of thousands are breath-tested but only a handful, rarely more than three per cent, are ever positive."

Thats as in hundred(s) of thousands definately not randomly breath tested.  And hardly any are over the limit.  And presumably, as it's definately not randomly breath tested then the majority of those "over" the limit must be close to the limit rather than way above.

"Actually, the figure varies from region to region and there are figures of up to 25% for those tested after being involved in accidents in some places. A quarter of those tested - that's fairly serious. "

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

If in some areas the police test every driver "involved" in an accident and find none over the limit, and in others the police try to only test those that appear to be over the limit, and only find "a quarter of those tested" "over" the limit then yes, that is fairly serious.

But not in the way you mean.

"Now, I don't actually think that you are someone who would deliberatly make excuses for drink-driving - so why does it sound like you are?"

Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

Where?!

e.g.

How drunk were the "drunk" drivers....?

How drunk were the "drunk" drivers....?

If they were all blind drunk they would have had blood or urine tests, been prosecuted, and banned.

Even if they were "well" over the limit, eg, not quite twice, but a bit more than "over" the limit.

And the hysteria would have been about how many blind drunks were banned from driving and what a wonderful thing it is to have these clampdowns, and look how many lives we've saved, so lets lower the limit to a totally impractical level and increase police powers and court penalties.

But, for some strange reason all they can come up with is how many failed the breathalyser (they might have all passed the blood or urine tests!).

A way to get rid of motorists without losing revenue.

"Just tell me what's wrong with having a seasonal campaign against drink-driving at precisely the time of year when it is most likely to occur?"

Actually, it isn't: it's most likely to happen in the summer.

But the clamping down on people who've had too many cooling beverages doesn't sound quite as jutifiable as clamping down on selfish people who rip poor innocent revellers from the bosom of their distraught families at the time of year when people have families uppermost in their minds..

"Why is it being portrayed as sinister or unnecessary?"

If you can answer why it was "unneccessary" to publicise the death figures, the accident figures in which the positives were involved, the proportion of positives which were prosecuted, the nubers notRandomly breath-tested, and the positives there, etc, etc, you might be able to explain why the campaign is necessary.

If you can confirm that this is the sole area that the police still need to address: you might be able to convince me that the campaign is neccessary.

However, if you can't explain why they are concentrating on the drivers who were "involved" in accidents, rather than the pedestrians and cyclists who caused them, if you can't explain why they are concentrating on the maximum 20% of accidents in which the drivers "involved" were positive, rather than on the maximum 100% where they weren't, why they are concentrating on the drivers who stopped around to be breathalysed, rather than on the ones who didn't, etc, etc, you might be able to figure out why it's sinister.

As for:

"That's not the point is it? The campaign is meant to be preventative."

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

So that's why they are breathalysing people AFTER the accident, rather than in the pub foyer.

To PREVENT the accidents.

And:

"So it's ok to drink-drive as long as you don't crash and hurt someone?."

Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

There is a difference between pointing out that an anti drink driving campaign seems to be a very inefficient and over the top way of preventing ...... what?, and where are the figures? .............but a very good way of clamping down on motoring (remember these are just a small proportion of those breathalysed in the campaign - but again, where are the figures), and campaigning for motorists to get pissed up and run down pedestrians!

OK, maybe that's not what you meant but that's exactly how it sounds - or maybe that is what you meant?

> "it's most likely to happen in the summer"

" Not exactly."

Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmm

Yes, EXACTLY!

"I don't see why I should have to "confirm that this is the sole area that the police still need to address" since it obviously isn't."

So, again, where are the campaigns against all the other areas that they need to address?

"As usual, it is entirely your own very biased assumption that the majority involve "at fault" pedestrians or cyclists. Frankly, I doubt if that's true."

Double Errrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm

Not an assumption, nor bias.

I merely ask: where are the campaigns against the 84% (is it?) of pedestrians who cause the accidents that they are "involved" in (govt figs), or the (around) 50% of pedestrians who are drunk when they are "involved" in accidents at night?

As opposed to the campaigns against 92% of motorists who were "involved" in accidents who were sober.

Or the 8% who failed the breath test, but for some reason, weren't drunk enough to cause the accidents, never mind any injuries, or even fatalities, or if they were, the government, forgot, for once, to headline and advertise the actual dangers caused by "drunk" driving, prefering to stress that these were very naughty drivers who really shouldn't have been drinking because they've turned the nice police's equipment a funny colour, and we really, really, can't put up with something as antisocial as that.  Well if that's the strength of the government's case against "drunks" and for their campaign..............................

"Utter rubbish. Paranoid as you are, I would have thought you would be able to understand the logic behind the campaign as a preventative measure. It is an intentionally high-profile one that is designed to make people realise that drink-driving is not worth the risk."

Triple Errrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

This would be the risk of the high-profile deaths caused by the "drunk" drivers?

Injuries?

Accidents even?

Nope: the intentionally high-profile breathalysing, and low-profile "positive" percentage!

Is it any wonder I'm paranoid.  Sounds more like the campaign is designed to make people realise that driving is not worth the risk and prevent them using their cars.

Portraying it as not sinister or necessary is about as cynical as you can get.

Wouldn't the same logic lead you to conclude that some members of the "anti-motorist" lobby are only too willing to brand someone like me - who merely asks where are the actual statistics for "all" the actual "harm" done by "drunk" drivers, oh, yes, and where are the statistics for the non drivers who were "involved" in accidents"  - as some kind of a right-wing, irresponsible lunatic? Perhaps this is why the views are becoming so polarised?

"What sort of campaign would you like to see? Policemen patrolling the streets for pedestrians who appear to be walking erratically and are a danger to road users?"

Wot, you mean you wouldn't?

Why not??

You are quite happy for drunk pedestrians to cause a car to swerve into a bus stop and kill 10 people I take it then!

"As far as I am aware this was not a campaign against sober drivers."

Only against 92% of 15,000.

And an unsecified percentage of a far larger number.

Anyone settle for 1% of a few 100,000?

So that would be hardly any sober drivers at all then!

"Drivers involved in accidents were tested to see if they were over the limit for alcohol."

Pedestrians weren't.

"If they were not over the limit, they would not be prosecuted for drink-driving."

Almost all were sober, but still subjected to harassment, regardless of fault.

Pedestrians weren't even tested, regardless of fault.

"Could you please tell me which part of that you don't understand????"

"How do you know what caused the accidents?"

Don't you know from the government's own figures that nearly all accidents involving pedestrians are caused by pedestrians?

Don't you know that the majority of pedestrians involved in fatal accidents at the kind of times when drivers are most likely to be breathalysed are over the limit?

So why don't you know what caused the accidents?

Why don't you know that the accident could have been prevented if the pedestrian hadn't had his reactions impaired by the alcohol in his blood stream? (A factor that on it's own, as most people should recognise, provides the strength of the case against "drunks" and against their campaign against motorists).

And about the last paragraph, which I paraphrased from your own post.  Instead of making me re-write it, next time try having a think about the point behind it.

On the one hand, you are often capable of arguing a good case for the "anti-motorist" lobby. On the other, you continually risk your own credibility, not to mention support, with these dogmatic tirades against what most people (including the "pro-motorist" lobby) have long since accepted as legitimate.

Funkii

Do you ever actually read what you post!

Or have you just perambulated back from the pub?

You have just said:

"Since when has it been illegal or dangerous or of any significant risk to anyone but yourself to perambulate under the influence of alcohol?"

"The pedestrian isn't capable of harming anyone apart from him or herself and is not breaking any defined law"

"I just don't see any merit in the police collaring people who have chosen to walk home from the pub."

And:

"A drunken pedestrian who walks out into the path of an oncoming vehicle driven by a sober driver is clearly at fault"

In response to:

> You are quite happy for drunk pedestrians to cause a car to swerve into a bus stop and kill 10 people I take it then!

So basically what you are saying is that you ACCEPT that the drunken pedestrian is at fault.

But:

You don't think it is/should be illegal.

You don't think that causing the deaths of 10 people counts as doing harm, or even as a significant risk.

And you don't see any merit in the police collaring them.

Well, that's fine funkii.

I'll go along with that.

But as 84 (86?)% of accidents involving pedestrians are caused by pedestrians, and as the majority of those are drunk at the times the breathalyser campaigns are carried out, I look forward to you announcing that you now accept that you "don't see any merit in the police collaring people who have chosen to drive home from the pub", even if they are drunk, as they are less of a danger than the pedestrians.

I've just realised where I've been going wrong.

You live on that "liberal" fantasy world where the motor car can do no right and the pedestrian can do no wrong.

Reason, common sense, rationality, logic, etc, don't come into it.

I haven't bothered to count how many times I've reiterated this, as I haven't got all day:

Almost all accidents involving pedestrians (84%? 86%? I can't be bothered to check it out yet again).

A_R_E    C_A_U_S_E_D    B_Y    T_H_E    P_E_D_E_S_T_R_I_A_N_S   T_H_E_M_S_E_L_V_E_S

The majority of pedestrian fatalities at night (3/4 in Scotland?)

A_R_E    D_R_U_N_K

It doesn't matter who is drunk, or even at fault, out of a driver, pedestrian, innocent bystander, whoever, to the outcome of a specific accident: if someone gets killed because of an accident:

T_H_E_Y    A_R_E_N_T    A_N_Y    L_E_S_S    D_E_A_D

If it's a drunk pedestrian that caused the accident.

Comprendez?

But if you wan't to protect the public and prevent accidents caused by drunks, and the majority of the accidents are caused by drunk pedestrians who should you target?

On your world it seems to be drivers who are sober.

For some peculiar reason, on mine it makes more sense to target the actual cause of the accident, rather than a handy ideological enemy.

And don't come back with you have a car and drive: Prescott has 2Jags, and all the non driving transport ministers make full use of their limos.

Or have I been going wrong in assuming that you are correctly reading a majority - 3/4 as three-quarters.

When you have been assuming that I mean only three or four pedestrians killed in motor accidents have ever been drunk.

Firstly, funkii, if you look hard enough, you might just find that it is illegal to perambulate when drunk.

Just because the police don't public-spititedly do anything about it doesn't mean it's not illegal, never mind not dangerous.

Just as, just because the police clamp down on something (have you found the non-accident, "non-random", stats yet?) like sober driving doesn't make it illegal, or dangerous.

Secondly, yes, not all accidents with motor vehicles involved drunk pedestrians.  Yes, surprise, surprise, all accidents with motor vehicles involved motor vehicles.  And, as pointed out, a maximum of 20% of them that were injury accidents    C_O_U_L_D    have involved drivers "O_V_E_R    T_H_E    L_I_M_I_T".    But the authorities seem reluctant to confirm this, rather surprisingly, in an anti-drink drive campaign, don't you think?!

Some of the accidents could have been drunk, or sober, drivers, or children, trapping their fingers in car doors: shall we start a major campaign to prevent them?

Or people breaking their nails when trying to switch on the ignition: do we need to protect them against themselves?

Some might have even involved drivers banging their heads on the windscreen, or side window, in a low speed shunt, in their air-bag/ crumple-zone/ seat belt/ SIPPs/ protected metal box: shall we start a campaign to save them from themselves?

Yep: that's the one to go for, says funkii.  Test the 92% of drivers "involved" in accidents who are below the limit to prevent them having another accident.  Ignore the actual cause of the the accident: after all, having an accident isn't illegal, only drifting over arbitrary limits.

But as for all those dead pedestrians, not so drunk that they couldn't stand up, of course, perhaps just drunk enough to hide and jump out at cars in a "silly" sloshed game, causing them to swerve and hit a bus stop, killing the driver, and queue, as well as the pedestrian: dont worry about them.

After all:

"It isn't illegal to perambulate under the influence of alcohol and there will NEVER be any justification for making it so."

No matter how many innocent (and sober) victims they take out with them.

"This is because, in the vast majority of cases, drunken pedestrians are nothing more than a danger to themselves."

Yup, in the vast majority of accidents in which they are involved the pedestrians cause the accidents.  And in the majority of those where they die they are drunk.

But they "are nothing more than a danger to themselves".

Unlike those 8% of motorists "involved" in accidents who were "over the limit", all of whom MIGHT have been responsible for the accident, and all of whom MIGHT have been responsible through being over the limit, and EVEN, all of whom MIGHT EVEN have caused an injury.

"I mean the possibility that a drink-driver, whose reactions are impaired by the amount of alcohol in their bloodstream, might crash and injure other road users as well as pedestrians - at any time of day."

Really MUST be the top priority, leading to round the clock, random breath-testing on a zero tolerance, zero blood alchohol limit.

It's the only way to protect the vast majority of pedestrians who commit suicide, and to prevent the vast majority of accidents involving stone cold sober drivers.

"Most sensible people accept this and, if you were wondering where you were going wrong, you don't need to look any further."

"Well, i'm glad you've taken on board the simple fact that ":

> "yes, not all accidents with motor vehicles involved drunk pedestrians".

So there is one sentence you managed to follow.

"Perhaps that will save you from focusing on the issue to the exclusion of the wider, more important one."

Which issue would this be?

That pedestrians are vulnerable, and motorists aren't?

That if there is an accident involving pedestrians it doesn't matter whether the pedestrian or the driver was drunkn and caused the accident: the pedestrian and any bystanders are just as dead.

Or that in the real world hardly any of the motorists "involved" accidents were drunk, whilst most of the pedestrians were.

Nope, the issue you want to consider is the "liberal" fantasy one of:

What i'd like you to do now is re-consider the likelihood, in reality, of a drunken pedestrian being a risk to anyone other than him or herself. Contrast this with the risks taken by a drunken driver.

Where 92% of motorists "involved" in accidents were drunk, rather than 8% being "over" the limit.

Where none of the pedestrians were impaired through inebriation, rather than none of them.

And where being inebriated not only made pedestrians more capable, but totally invincible, with the protective aura extending to protect not only innocent bystanders, but the drivers and passengers of any cars involved.

"Whilst you're at it, please ask yourself (truthfully) if you really believe that the campaign that took place over Christmas really does constitute round the clock, random breath-testing on a zero tolerance, zero blood alchohol limit.. Hint: the correct answer is that it doesn't - as even your fellow "pro-motorists" seem to agree."

Errrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

funkii

The least embarassing statistic that they dared release is that a whopping 8% of drivers "involved" in accidents were "over" the limit.

Why didn't they back this up with the death and destruction figures you seem to believe resulted from these 8% being over the limit?

They daren't give the figures for fatalities.

Nor injuries.

Nor even for those at fault.

They daren't even give the figures for the numbers prosecuted for being over the limit after being breathalysed following an accident.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Did you find the figures for those breathalysed not following an accident?

PS that risk taken by the "positive" driver is:

"tiny - according to the Borkenstein study, the increased risk of being involved in a serious accident at 80mg over 50mg is one tenth of the chance of winning the national lottery jackpot, measured on a daily basis."

Funkii

You really must stop posting post perambulation post pub.

You are merely demonstrating the deterioration in pedestrian performance drinking delivers, whilst further incapacitating youself by repeatedly SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT!

>  "Which issue would this be?"

"The issue that drinking and driving are proven to be a dangerous combination."

Let me see.

Motorists were breathalysed post accidents.

A whopping 8% were found to be over the limit.

NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD TO SHOW THAT THE ALCHOHOL LEVEL CAUSED THE ACCIDENTS.

OR EVEN THAT THE SO-CALLED "DRUNK-DRIVERS" WERE EVEN TO BLAME.

FURTHER:

"I am even more amazed that you seem to be introducing scientific evidence that questions the legitimacy of the current drink-drive limit."

Yes, but only that the deterioration in motorists cuts in at 100mg, not 80.

Whereas most pedestrians cause the accidents they are involved in.  And most of those are drunk.

But you STILL seem to think that its dangerous for motorists to be "over" the limit and that what few police are on the roads should be fully employed rounding them up, whilst it's OK by you for pedestrians to cause CARnage.

"The issue that the freedom to travel at speeds of up to 70 mph on the Queen's highway is conditional (by law and by common sense) upon the drivers ensuring they are in a fit state to do so...."

So would that be under 100mg scientifically, 80 (proposed 50mg) politically/ legally/ "liberally", or totally ignore drink-driving according to the stats you are basing your arguments on.

"....as opposed to the issue that drunken pedestrians are risking their own lives."

So, basically, you are talking about pedestrians who trip and hit their heads on something too hard to damage, well out of sight of traffic.

Or are you guaranteeing that no drunken pedestrian ever causes a car to brake or swerve, no matter what antics they get up to, never mind get involved in accidents with motor vehicles, especially where other pedestrians might be put at risk.

Exactly how potent a brew do they serve up at your local hostelry?

And as for:

"freedom to travel ...... on the Queen's highway is conditional (by law and by common sense) upon the [users] ensuring they are in a fit state to do so

Firstly, I think that you will find that the Queen's Highway, if you bother to check, is for carriages (now more commonly of the "horseless" variety), and secondly, that any pedestrians that stray onto it, or even stay off it, also have a duty (by law and by common sense) [of] ensuring they are in a fit state to do so.

And have you got the total figures breathalysed yet?

Or won't the Traffic Taliban let you have them ? ; - )
  

Let me see if I have got this quite right funkii-no-cans:

As sober drivers might not have quite the lightning reactions that they need to avoid hitting drunken pedestrians who choose to inebriate themselves and then throw themselves under the wheels of passing cars, or if they do, they might instead cause CARnage in a bus queue,

And as sober drivers fail "to recognise that the motorist has a greater responsibility than the pedestrian".

It's only right that the government should concentrate all its safety efforts into breathalysing as many sober drivers as it can, and all its advertising on the fact that the only danger to the public from drink is from "drunk" motorists.

After all they don't "result in punative penalties".  After all the driver who was accidentally just over the limit and falling, in the morning, and so scientifically suffering little deterioration compared to just approaching the limit the night before, which in itself is a very conservative and safe arbitrary limit, and who heroically managed to avoid a drunk pedestrian staggering home in the early hours, and MOST of a bus queue, which most sober drivers would have totally wiped out, will of course be given a medal.

After all "They are based around existing laws and I don't see a problem in using new measures to enforce them."

These would be the anti drunk pedestrian laws which probably existed long before the motor car then?

"Are safe drivers who abide by the law habitually penalised?"

Have you got those figures yet?

"The thing I am most sure of is this: Whilst the "pro-motorist" campaign continues to be home to people who feel able to write something like the Littlejohn article or feel able to defend it in the way Bogush has done, your campaign is destined to remain a small but very vocal minority."

Unlike claiming that motorists are responsible for drunken pedestrians.

I take it you expect us not only to avoid letting them use us as a weapon of suicide, but to pick them up, clean them up, take them home, put them to bed, stay with them to ensure they don't choke on their own vomit, feed them remedies for their hangover in the morning, then come round the next evening to drive them to the pub safely, and make sure that they don't have too much to drink.

Yes, you're right funkii-liberal:

It's the motorists duty, and the motorists alone, to carry the burden of making sure that the world is safe.

If more people die in domestic accidents than the total killed on the roads, its the government's job to highlight road deaths, blame motorists for them, and put the responsibility for avoiding them on the motorist.  What next: extend that duty to motorists having to put in time as home safety wardens too?

If tens, if not hundreds of times more die in hospitals, or from drink related illnesses, or bad diet, perhaps the government should spend even more money on advertising how this is down to "drunk" overweight motorists and have the police weighing them too, and perhaps overweight motorists should have to spend time cleaning hospitals and dieting to save the world.

Yes funkii.

Once upon a time the "liberals" and "socialists" thought that it was "the state's" (ie the "toffs") duty to provide a nanny state to look after "everyone" from cradle to grave.

Now they seem to have shifted that duty on to what they see as the successors of "the toffs": all we Rolls riding motorists, who need to nursemaid the poor "workers" who have to cycle t'mill or walk to work.

If a piss-head runs into a restaurant kitchen and throws himself on a knife in the hands of a chef: no one in their right mind would argue that it was the chefs responsibility to ensure that the "accident" never happened.  No one in their right mind would suggest breathalysing the chef.  And no one in their right mind would suggest prosecuting the chef if he was "over" the limit.

If a piss-head runs into an operating theatre and throws himself on a knife in the hands of a surgeon: no one in their right mind would argue that it was the surgeons responsibility to ensure that the "accident" never happened.  No one in their right mind would suggest breathalysing the surgeon.  And no one would suggest prosecuting the surgeon if he was "over" the limit, regardless of the moral or safety implications, because the issue would NEVER be raised.

If a piss-head runs into a cockpit or train driver's cab and throws himself on a knife in the hands of the pilot or driver peeling an apple: no one in their right mind would argue that it was the their responsibility to ensure that the "accident" never happened.  No one in their right mind would suggest breathalysing the them.  And no one in their right mind would suggest prosecuting the them if they were "over" the limit.

No, one, not even funkii.  Unless of course the chef, surgeon, pilot, train driver or whoever were a motorist.

In which case, not only would the heroic piss-head pedestrian be innocent of all blame, but be destined for sainthood and martrydom.

Whilst not only would the driver be responsible for the piss heads death, whether "drunk" or sober, they would also be responsible for any other deaths resulting.

AND subject to further penalties if "over" the limit.

Sorry, funkii, but if a piss-head commits suicide under my wheels, whether I'm pissed or sober (and no, I don't drink and drive) it is NOT my fault, it's HIS.

But not only is it HIS fault: its the governments AND YOURS.

Was it you that was on about a teenage girl who was killed by a motorist a while back?

Would that be the same accident where it turned out the  teenage girl killed turned out to be drunk?

Who's fault was that?

NOT the drivers, but the people who brainwash the public into believing that if they drive, and stick below the alchohol and speed limits they are safe drivers.

And the people who brainwash the public into believing that, if they walk, it's ok to be pissed up, play on the road, play on the road pissed up, because it's the drivers responsibility to ensure that they stay safe.

NO funkiii, drivers ARE NEVER PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE for a pedestrians death unless they chased them along a pavement.  (And before you say anything: even if I'm driving along at double the speed and alchohol limits I'm not FORCING the pedestrian to throw himself under my wheels.  I'm not going to hit him if he crosses behind me, I'm not even going to hit him if he crosses a safe distance in front of me: amazingly complicated scientific fact I know - but try it and you'll see it works - advertise it, and you'll actually see a fall in pedestrian casualties, surprise, surprise).

It's physically impossible for a driver to cause them harm otherwise unless the pedestrian is trying to commit suicide.  And whilst it's the drivers civic duty to try to minimise the CARnage, it's not his "responsibility".  No more than it is his civic duty to try to catch another pedestrian who he comes across trying to commit suicide whilst out for a stroll, but not his "responsibility" if the piss-head breaks free and throws himself under a bus.

No, funkii, the people who must bear the "responsibility" are the government and officials who train pedestrians to commit suicide, and their supporters, like yourself, who encourage this practice.

: - (

"The rest of society has no right to expect certain standards to be observed."

"I think I could get the hang of this!"

Yeah Right, funkii

I can see I'm fighting a losing battle here.

"Like if I keep a dangerous dog, it's not my responsibility to protect the public from the animal."

Nope, it's funkii's responsibility to tell his children to reclaim the dog-run, go play with the nice vegetarian doggy-woggy, put their heads in the dogs mouth, and if I fail to drag them out from the jaws of death IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY.

"Like if I use hazardous chemicals, I don't have a reponsibility to observe any safety precautions."

Nope, its funkii's responsibility to teach his kids to break into my compound, dip their hands in the tubs, and if I don't drag them out and apply neutralising chemicals in time:  IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY.

"Like if I run a resturant, it's not my responsibility to ensure the food is fit to eat."

Nope, its funkii's responsibility to teach his kids to wolf down their food without chewing it whilst stabbing themselves in their eyes with their forks, and their siblings with their knives, and if they run the risk of choking or bleeding to death, and I don't apply first aid successfully I'M A MURDERER.

"Like if someone gets bitten by my dog, asphyxiated by my chemicals or poisoned by my food, we can then attribute blame to the person responsible according to the conditions at the time of the attack/leak/infection......rather than going through the difficult business of trying to prevent the incident in the first place."

Like teaching kids that dogs bite, chemicals burn, even vital and life enhancing/prolonging things can kill, and if those things are seperated or segregated from the general public in some way: it's for a good reason, and you shouldn't cross the boundary from safe to unsafe areas without full and proper training, and all neccessary precautions, including, where neccessary, properly trained and experienced supervision.

And if some do-gooding, "safety" conscious "liberal" tells them to ignore common sense, ignore danger, and assume that somebody else has taken all necessary safety precautions on their behalf, because it's their inaliable god-given human right to go where they want, and to do as they please, AND that if anything goes wrong, SOMEBODY ELSE will take responsibility for it, to tell them they've been on the hazardous chemicals for too long.

"Because the police or other authorities have no duty to ensure I am abiding by safe standards before I cause harm. They have no right to punish me for letting my [pissed-up body stagger the streets and tumble into the road causing cars to swerve into innocent third parties].  This is because, statistically, there is only a relatively [large] chance of the pedestrian causing an accident, which, even if it does not cause physical injury to others, will cause emotional, psychological and financial damage to the motorist.

Yes, in "liberal" funkiiworld as a pedestrian, whether drunk, or not:

"Yes bogush, my only duties are only "civic" and therefore non-compulsory. If they try and punish me for being irresponsible they are acting beyond their jurisdiction. They are violating my rights and persecuting me."

Because only motorists have responsibilities and duties in "liberal" funkiiworld.

Whilst pedestrians only have rights and priorities.

Watch my lips funkii:

It is a motorists duty to bring themselves up to the required standard to be allowed to drive on the road, and further to be tested and licenced to do so.

It is his duty to ensure that his car is maintained to a safe standard.

It is his duty to drive it safely on the carriage (note the term) way.

It is his civic duty not to exceed the dangerous rising alchohol level, or to exceed dangerous speed levels.

It is his legal duty not to exceed arbitrary limits often far below these.

It is his civic duty, should a suicidal pedestrian throw themselves under his wheels, not only to try to avoid them, but also innocent bystanders and passing motorists.

If he fails, and the suicide succeeds, IT IS NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY.

IT IS THE SUICIDE'S

PLUS THOSE THAT ENCOURAGE THE IMMATURE AND UNDEVELOPED TO USE THE CARRIAGEWAY AS A PLAYGROUND, AND TO BELEIVE THAT THEY ARE SAFE IN SO DOING BECAUSE THE MOTORIST IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SAFETY.

THESE ARE AT BEST AIDING AND ABETTING SUICIDE.

PERSONALLY I THINK THAT THEY ARE MURDERERS.

IS THAT CLEAR?

The "liberal" socialists are ganging up on me.

You're becoming a proper little citizen since you started learning to drive.

Been down the pub with funkii, or at the painkillers again?

JUST in case you hadn't spotted it: I was differentiating between (legal) "duty" enforced on the citizen by the law, and "civic" duty enforced by moral and social personal responsibility.

NOW, what were you on (about) again?

> It is his civic duty not to exceed the dangerous rising alchohol level, or to exceed dangerous speed levels.

"No, It's his Legal duty"

Just remind me, WHERE, EXACTLY, the law states that you should not: "exceed the dangerous rising alchohol level, or to exceed dangerous speed levels".

This is a social and moral civic duty.

The legal duty is not to exceed specific arbitrary limits.

> It is his civic duty, should a suicidal pedestrian throw themselves under his wheels, not only to try to avoid them, but also innocent bystanders and passing motorists.

"No, It's his Legal duty"

Just remind me, WHERE, EXACTLY, I stated that it wasn't.

And just remind me, WHERE, EXACTLY, the law states that the motorist has a legal duty "should a suicidal pedestrian throw themselves under his wheels, not only to try to avoid them, but also innocent bystanders and passing motorists".

IE that: "should a suicidal pedestrian throw themselves under his wheels," and the motorist fails "to avoid them, [and] also innocent bystanders and passing motorists", he is to be held criminally responsible for the deaths.

I'll and I'll thank you for proving my point.

Because, whereas if a suicide throws himself under your bike, or into your knife, you are not held responsible, if a suicide throws themselves under a motorists wheels, the motorist is, either legally, or by the bleedin' heart, the carriageway is for oppressed pedestrian workers, "liberals" considered "legally" responsible.

Whilst the "safety" brigade who taught little Johnny to kill himself get a medal for getting one more motorist off the road.

And why am I not surprised that you support this?

"It's also interesting that someone who recognises that "It is his (i.e. the driver's) legal duty not to exceed arbitrary limits often far below these", objects to a televsion campaign (SPEED KILLS!) that seeks to reinforce the idea that it is not always safe to drive around within +/-1 mph of the speed limit."

Perhaps you would like to reread that, or rephrase it?

"It is his (i.e. the driver's) legal duty not to exceed arbitrary limits often far below these [often far higher safe speeds]"

As for:

"objects to a televsion campaign (SPEED KILLS!) that seeks to reinforce the idea that it is not always safe to drive around within +/-1 mph of the speed limit."

Sorry, I'd missed those.

At last: a government campaign, targetted at kids, warning them that speed kills, and that even if the driver is driving within +/- 1mph of the speed limit it's not always safe, so stay on the pavement, cross BEHIND the car, or if you really must cross in front, you need to allow a couple of hundred feet in case the driver is speeding.

I take it all back.

"But you KNOW that's not what I meant."

"The three examples I gave were of activities where it is self-evident that the person in charge (the dog owner, the hazardous chemical user, the resturanteur) all owe it to the rest of society to observe certain standards. Failure to do so poses a threat to the rest of us that can't be knowingly evaded."

Just like driving at a safe speed for the conditions you mean.

Or with a safe blood alchohol level.

"If the dog is on a lead which is frayed........ or the chemicals expand and start to leak in to the water table because the temperature controls haven't been regularly checked...... or the food starts to deteriorate because it has been stored in a fridge that is faulty, it is not the public's responsibility."

Unlike driving at a safe speed for the conditions you mean.

Or with a safe blood alchohol level.

"No amount of reasonable vigilence or commonsense on the part of the public will avert the possibility of someone being harmed through no fault of their own."

Unlike when they get pissed up, and run out from behind a tree, across the street, and under the wheels of a car.

"So inevitably, if somebody chooses to ignore the obligations that are required of them, I don't see any problem in punishing them - even if they weren't posing a risk at the precise time they were found to be in violation. I don't see any problem in passing laws and discharging penalties that discourage this irresponsibility"

Like when they get pissed up, and run out from behind a tree, across the street, and under the wheels of a car.

AND you agree that it's only right and proper that they should be randomly breathalysed.

"This is precisely why I don't see a problem with something like the [drunk-pedestrian] campaign at Christmas. Even if the campaign doesn't prevent a single incident during those few days, it serves to underline the message that the legal limit for drink-walking exists for everybody's benefit and that if you blithely ignore it, you stand a good chance of being caught."

Just how many times do you have to say that I'm right before it finally sinks in?!??!?

"So you think that by my support of drink-driving/speed camera campaigns, I have a direct responsibility for pedestrian deaths?"

Errrrrrmmmmmmmmm

Yes

"That would be more of a realistic proposition if I had stated any opposition to pedestrian safety campaigns."

"But where have I ever?"

Let me see:

You want the police to spend all their time breathalysing motorists involved in accidents, practically all of whom are sober, and where there is no eveidence that the "drunk" ones were responsible for the accidents.

Plus hundreds of thousands of others who haven't been involved in anything.

You DON'T want the police spending ANY time breathalysing drunk pedestrians, despite the fact that practically all pedestrians involved in accidents caused the accident, and most in the evenings were drunk.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

No opposition to pedestrian safety campaigns there then.

You believe that as the motorcar is big and ugly motorists are responsible for accidents and for pedestrian safety.

You believe that pedestrians AREN'T responsible for their own.

Double Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

No opposition to pedestrian safety campaigns there either then.

"The closest I came was when I said that the police don't need to target people who drink and walk home. By this I didn't mean that we should permit drunken pedestrians to abdicate their responsibility. I didn't mean we should encourage people to think that way."

"All I meant is that it would be ridiculous to stop and breath test people walking home from a night out."

Not very close then at all.

"If they are injured in a collision with a motor vehicle and require hospitalisation, you can be sure that their blood will be tested and that the information will be acquired by those who are considering any legal action for either party c.f. the case with a teenage girl who was killed and turned out to be drunk (btw, it was rob king - not me)."

Actually, you will note that I refer to fatal accidents.  You only get this information from post mortems.

"I am focusing, quite legitimately, on defending the drink-driving campaign from yours (and Mr Littlejohn's) attack - it doesn't mean I advocate a pedestrian free-for-all."

This would be the campaign to breathalyse sober drivers, as opposed to drunken pedestrians.

Well, that is quite legitimate then, if you choose to ignore all of the above.

And of course "it doesn't mean [you] advocate a pedestrian free-for-all."

"Even "pro-motorists" support the campaign - when will you accuse them of accessory to murder?"

That depends on whether by "support" you mean that they have been brainwashed into accepting it, or are actively supporting it.

"At the end of the day something is quite self-evident here. You will not answer my question, "Is it more responsible to walk home having drunk five pints or to drink two less and drive home?". I think that's because the answer supports the police's attention on drink-drivers."

Oh, sorry, I though that the answer was self evident.

If I drink two pints in an evening, my blood alchohol level is falling, my blood alchohol level is below, at, or even 20% above the legal limit, there should be no discernible increase in risk in my driving.

If, as I am driving along, within, at, or even above the legal speed limit, but at a safe speed for the general conditions, and a five pint piss-head pops his head up out of a manhole in a jolly game of chicken, and I rip it off: HE IS RESPONSIBLE.

If I am startled and shocked into swerving into a bus queue: HE IS RESPONSIBLE.

But you, of course, have repeatedly insisted that he not only isn't, but doesn't even pose a risk to others.

But you, of course, will insist that the police should target me, and not harrass the poor ickle pedestrian.

But of course "it doesn't mean [you] advocate a pedestrian free-for-all."

Sorry, was there another question that I hadn't answered?

"But not all roads are just for cars" 

> "...drivers ARE NEVER PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE for a pedestrians death unless they chased them along a pavement.....It's physically impossible for a driver to cause them harm otherwise unless the pedestrian is trying to commit suicide...."

"That supposes that pedestrians have no right whatsoever to be in the road."

Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Which bit of that are you reading as "pedestrians have no right whatsoever to be in the road." ?

The fact that: "It's physically impossible for a driver to cause them harm otherwise unless the pedestrian is trying to commit suicide...."

Or that: "drivers ARE NEVER PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE for a pedestrians death unless they chased them along a pavement" ?

"But there are cases where, for one reason or another, the road has to be shared by cars and pedestrians. Like a housing estate, a village, a small town centre, places where you don't get crossings, places where councils won't put crossings because it would interrupt traffic flow at peak times."

And your point is?

That at such locations if a pedestrian throws himself under the wheels of a car it's the motorists fault?

Or that if the pedestrian crossed behind the car, or allowed it a safe distance to stop in, or crossed a safe distance ahead of the car they would still die?

"Of course - in every example - there needs to be some emphasis on the pedestrian's responsibility to cross carefully and patiently, with a full awareness of the dangers."

In which case they would come to no harm, unless the motorist chased them along the pavement.

"But aren't they, at the same time, owed a debt of consideration by the road users? A debt that goes way beyond a "civic" one? A debt that, if not repayed, makes the driver liable to prosecution? "

It sounds good, but WTF does it mean?

"Shouldn't they be travelling at a safe speed and in a fit condition?"

(Like the piss-head pedestrians you mean?)

Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

And?

"Slow enough to allow people time to cross?"

Which would be?

10mph? 5mph?

On the carriageway?

"What if the road is busy with heavy traffic in both directions and if there are parked and manouvering vehicles in the vicinity - should the driver not remember that the general public aren't all fit, youthfully alert and able bodied - that there are elderly, disabled and those in ill health who need to cross but might not be able to as quickly or carefully as others?"

Again it sounds good, but WTF does it mean?

"If you are right, are these people's rights to cross absolutely secondary to the need for drivers to get their cars from one side of town to the other in as quick and unimpeded fashion as possible?"

Triple Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I never mentioned the RIGHT to cross.

And regardless of whether or not there is one, if the aformentioned pedestrians threw themselves under the wheels of the car they have still committed suicide.

Let me put this in perspective with an analogy to your clever little, but ultimately motorist supporting, question.

I live on a dual carriageway ring road.

When I want to drive somewhere I usually have to pull out into heavy traffic.

Sometimes its light and I can start to pull out, but the pillock in the outside lane decides to pull in to the left as the authorities encourage (must be to get you closer to the pedestrians) and a collision nearly ensues.

If the pilock deliberately or carelesssly (or drunkenly) rams into me: whose fault is it?

But if the traffic is heavy, and I pull out under the wheels of an artic: whose fault is it?

PS I'll give you a hint: it's not a difficult question!

Q.E.D - my work is done.

Funki has finally accepted that if a car deliberately swerves at a pedestrian then the driver is at fault.

But if a pedestrian staggers out in front of a car then the pedestrian is responsible.

(BTW, the other question was "why don't you drink and drive?" - you don't need to answer, I get the picture)

Yes, you're right:

I don't drink and drive because I'm safety concious, whereas you seem to believe (actually you claim) that it is safe to get sloshed and stagger.

Apologies almii, looks like server probs (or have you just had a guilt attack?).

As for sick sinic(sic): in context, relevant, completely factual, unbiased, unemotional, not loaded with guilt information isn't spin.

Or are you alluding to all my posts being buried in between the anti-car posts?

So, just to confirm, and to put things into context, you believe that:

Stating that as pedestrians are taught that they have the "right" of way, as they are led to believe that if they run out under the wheels of a car it "must" stop, as the majority of pedestrian accidents are caused by pedestrians (84%? 86%?), as the majority of night time accident fatalities are drunk pedestrians, pedestrians should be taught to use the carriageway safely and responsibly, and be subject to breath tests is anti-pedestrian spin.

And that stating that pedestrians have a right to reclaim (?!?!) the carriageway, have the right of way, and that, even if drunk and incapable, they run out under the wheels of a car and cause an accident, the motorist is responsible for the accident ISNT anti motorist propaganda, but sound, logical, neutral, unbiased, even handed, fair, reasonable, independent, non partisan reiteration of truthful, inescapable, unarguable, undeniable facts.  And that, further, breathtesting sober, blameless motorists is entirely reasonable non-harassment.

"Selecting parts of posts, putting your own ideas (spin) on them and then attributing (by implication) them to others is spin, just like the last post."

Oh, right, so this WASN'T what the "other" side were saying?

Perhaps you'd like to remind me what they were saying then!

"Using words like "suicide" & "throwing themselves...." is spin"

Ahhhhhhh, right.

So you're confirming that you believe that when pedestrians throw themselves under the wheels of cars it's a case of  "motorists are murder".  The pedestrians are entirely blameless for their own deaths in your opinion.

Or are you objecting to phrases such as "throwing themselves [under the wheels of cars]" because you feel that they are being murdered by drivers reversing over them when they try to cross safely behind them, or by accelerating to try to "catch" pedestrians crossing a safe distance in front?

"Using the words "drunk" for pedestrians (no matter what level of blood aclohol) yet not using it for other road users is spin."

Errrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I'm using drunk for pedestrians whose post mortem blood alchohol level is above the official "drunk" limit, and so should never, according to some, be breathalysed to protect themselves, or the public.

I'm using "drunk" for motorists ranging from those who show positive at the roadside, to those who have, or might have, had a drink, and ought to be breathalysed, according to some, as a matter of routine, just in case, to protect the drunk pedestrians from the sober drivers.

Do you have a problem with that?

Or do you just have a problem following all the "quotes"?

"Have a look - use your own measures - admit it."

Errmmmmmmmmm

What measures?

"What you constantly try to do is fix the blame rather than look for solutions to the problem."

Double Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

What?

I'm trying to fix the blame for the deaths of the 85% of pedestrians who kill themselves, most of whom are drunk, on the 92% of motorists who were sober, and the 8% who were reported as being "drunk" (ie positive) despite no evidence whatsover being reported to even lay any blame on the 8%.

Constantly?

What?

I'm not suggesting pedestrian education of the fact that cars CAN'T stop.  That they are dangerous.  That carriageways are for carriages, sidewalks for walkers?

I'm not suggesting that the government stop its anti-car "safety" ads which imply that it's a motorists duty to avoid suicidal pedestrians, rather than a pedestrian's duty to avoid suicide?

I'm not suggesting that if it wants to spend millions on breathalysing people to save lives it should breathalyse the ones who cause deaths through being over the limit - the pedestrians, rather than those who have to avoid, almost exclusively whilst sober, being used as a suicide weapon - the motorists?

"A risk assessment and risk management approach is what many people advocate"

And from the following (especially considering the above, which I have repeated so often you can't have missed it EVERY time):

"- not a blame management. this may mean that, as a car driver (& a high-mileage one at that) I have to accept some resrictions, accept the idea of being breathalised to prevent or reduce drunken driving - even though I don't do this myself, and so on. I don't find it harrassment - just something that happens for the greater good. It's such a small infringment on my time, that I would have to be quite abnormally touchy to find any problem here. In fact, thereduction in the numbers of those cought seems to be asomething to celebrate - it shows that people are deterred from drinking & driving."

You haven't got a clue what "risk assessment and risk management"  means.

Worse, you seem to be so totally brainwashed by the blame management culture that you don't even notice that you are propagating it.

How many drunk or sober pedestrians have you killed?

Do you have ANY idea how many millions of miles you have to drive (assuming that average, rather that psychopathic, drivers actually "kill" pedestrians) before you will "kill" one?

And, JUST in case you weren't aware, it's pedestrians who kill themselves.

And it's usually because they are drunk.

Now I explained this to my daughter's pet rabbit.

And it reckoned the best plan would be to clamp down on drunken pedestrians.

It thought that an alternative proposal: to concentrate on sober drivers, was was bordering on the criminally insane.

Whereas your "contribution" (note the "quote") to the debate is:

"This debate where any discussion about cars is "anti-car" achieves nothing - just shouting over the barricades."

As for:

"There is plenty of selective use of information and statistics other things are ignored."

This would be things like:

"What about quality of life considerations?"

Such as the sounds of cars thumping and scraping over speed bumps at 5mph being drowned out by the screams of spinal injury patients, and the wail of sirens on fire engines desperately trying to get through traffic "calming" schemes?

Or perhaps just the wails of anguished bus passengers when they are gridlocked by bus lanes which don't even show improved journey times for the buses on the (24 hour) lanes (as per official reports, and where are the 24 hour buses anyway)?

Or perhaps the anguished wails of the hospital staff that have to deal with 30% increases in casualties since the red light camera trials were started?

Or:

"Pollution (not emmissions, but total pollution)?, use of non-renewable resources (no, not just fuel) etc?"

This would be the reports on (bus) diesel emissions touted as "traffic" pollution and used as an excuse to claim that cars should be banned from cities (despite official reports claiming that restrictions on cars on health or pollution grounds were not justified).

Or even the ads that claim that "traffic" pollution is the main pollution in towns (when the most superficial investigation will show the opposite to be true) but show a car to represent "traffic" pollution?

Or perhaps you are refering to the advertising and tax regimes which attempt to get people to replace older cars for "more" environmentally "friendly" ones, despite the fact that far more waste and pollution results from just making the new cars than will ever be produced by continuing to run the old ones into the ground instead of continually replacing them with "more" efficient models?

Or perhaps you are thinking about those lovely, clean, environmentally friendly trains and trams, no doubt powered by wind energy generated from turbines constructed from wood from renewable resources.

And which produce much more pollution, and use much more fuel, on average, per passenger mile, than cars (buses carry 9 on average, before you say anything).

"Cars are great - I use one a lot. Walking is great - I do lots of it. Bicycles are great - really good fun, cheap & efficient. Does that make me anti anything?"

You tell me, after reading your own spin with an open mind.

> "...whereas you seem to believe (actually you claim) that it is safe to get sloshed and stagger."

"Where? Show me exactly where I said that!"

That would be here then:

"How do you know that the accident could not have been prevented if the driver who failed the breath test hadn't had his reactions impaired by the alcohol in his blood stream?"

"As usual, it is entirely your own very biased assumption that the majority involve "at fault" pedestrians or cyclists. Frankly, I doubt if that's true."

"What sort of campaign would you like to see? Policemen patrolling the streets for pedestrians who appear to be walking erratically and are a danger to road users?"

"I just don't see any merit in the police collaring people who have chosen to walk home from the pub. I'm much happier for them to focus on the ones who drive home."

"Since when has it been illegal or dangerous or of any significant risk to anyone but yourself to perambulate under the influence of alcohol?"

"The pedestrian, unlike the driver, isn't capable of harming anyone apart from him or herself and is not breaking any defined law."

"And I do "think that causing the deaths of 10 people counts as doing harm"."

"But what I actually said is that there is not any significant risk of this sort of accident occuring very often - certainly not enough to warrant a law which forbids people from crossing the road after consuming alcohol. Comprendez?"

"In fact, overall I believe a drunken pedestrian is rarely much more than a risk to him or herself - unlike someone in charge of a motor vehicle. I would much rather see people walk home from the pub/club or whatever, than drive."

"It isn't illegal to perambulate under the influence of alcohol and there will NEVER be any justification for making it so. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, drunken pedestrians are nothing more than a danger to themselves."

"I don't want or need to protect drunken pedestrians from themselves."

"What i'd like you to do now is re-consider the likelihood, in reality, of a drunken pedestrian being a risk to anyone other than him or herself."

"What I really can't comprehend is the faliure to recognise that the motorist has a greater responsibility than the pedestrian."

"Even if the campaign doesn't prevent a single incident during those few days, it serves to underline the message that the legal limit for drink-driving exists for everybody's benefit."

PS You asked:

"At the end of the day something is quite self-evident here. You will not answer my question, "Is it more responsible to walk home having drunk five pints or to drink two less and drive home?". I think that's because the answer supports the police's attention on drink-drivers."

To which I replied:

Oh, sorry, I though that the answer was self evident.

If I drink two pints in an evening, my blood alchohol level is falling, my blood alchohol level is below, at, or even 20% above the legal limit, there should be no discernible increase in risk in my driving.

If, as I am driving along, within, at, or even above the legal speed limit, but at a safe speed for the general conditions, and a five pint piss-head pops his head up out of a manhole in a jolly game of chicken, and I rip it off: HE IS RESPONSIBLE.

At the end of the day something is quite self-evident here. You will not question my answer!

PPS You are also entirely wrong when you claim:

> "I don't drink and drive because I'm safety concious..."

"It's NOT because you are safety concious."

"You have argued consistently that the legal drink/drive limit is conservative and arbitrary - WHICH MEANS THAT YOU BELIEVE IT IS SOMETIMES SAFE TO DRIVE AT OR ABOVE THE LIMIT."

"Therefore, if "safety-conciousness" was the guiding factor in your decision, drink-driving WOULDN'T be a problem for you."

"The reason YOU don't drink and drive is because, through the very high profile drink-drive campaigns, you are patently aware of the fact that, if you exceed the limit, you stand a chance of being caught."

But it's too late at night to start demolishing that too.

If you want to start without me: start with the fact that you contradict yourself (as usual ! ; - )

> “So you're confirming that you believe.........................."

"No."

So what DO you believe (if anything)?

"Are you really suggesting that all pedestrians who are killed or injured in accidents involving motor vehicles “throw themselves” under their wheels; that they do it deliberately?"

Well it certainly looks like it most of the time.

"Or perhaps they make a mistake (whatever the reason) when it is their fault and then get injured or killed."

A mistake such as throwing themselves under the wheels of a car, perhaps.

Or are you suggesting that

"throwing themselves into a driver's braking and thinking distance because "certain" people believe that kids should be indoctrinated into thinking that roads are "public" space, that cars "must" stop for pedestrians and it's the driver's "responsibility" to avoid an accident"

would make a more attention grabbing, snappier, life saving slogan?

"To suggest otherwise is spin."

If you think that my version is "spin" then I "do" apologise for offending your linguistic sensibilities.

"Using words like “suicide” is spin."

"Suicide is defined as: “the action of killing oneself intentionally” "

And your definition of "throwing themselves into a driver's braking and thinking distance" is?

"Are you really saying that pedestrians (or any other road users for that matter) set out to kill themselves intentionally?"

I take it you have read the suicide notes and they definately say that they are not committing suicide?

Actually, a large proportion must be suicide.

What makes you think that a method so widely advertised as being an effective killer is never used?

And just how thick is this hair you are splitting over "throwing themselves into a driver's braking and thinking distance"

"Is this usage “completely factual, unbiased, unemotional, not loaded with guilt information”? "

You tell me?

"Answer: NO"

Now, to demonstrate how non-partisan you are: could you dissect the government/green/reclaim the streets/"safety"/anti-car lobbies spin for us?

> “Errmmmmmmmmm What measures?”

These ones:

“in context, relevant, completely factual, unbiased, unemotional, not loaded with guilt information”

> “I'm trying to fix the blame”

"Well done Bogush – you’ve admitted it. We all know this, good to see that you are upfront about it"

You really do have problems with punctuation don't you!

The "quote" is:

> "What?"

> "I'm trying to fix the blame..................."

> "Constantly?"

"BTW what does Bogush stand for? Is it a nickname? I am really interested to know"

Aptly, it's "gift of god".

> “You haven't got a clue what "risk assessment and risk management" means”

"WHAT????"

a. "you have no evidence for this or reason to say this."

Read your posts.

b. "You are wrong"

Read your posts.

> “Worse, you seem to be so totally brainwashed by the blame management culture that you don't even notice that you are propagating it”

"Making things up again - no evidence for this."

Read your posts.

> "How many drunk or sober pedestrians have you killed?"

"None"

> "Do you have ANY idea how many millions of miles you have to drive (assuming that average, rather that psychopathic, drivers actually "kill" pedestrians) before you will "kill" one?"

"Do you mean kill, or “kill”? Not sure what you mean here"

"I am well aware of the mileage / accident ratios – found out those when I did advanced & defensive driver training"

And, typically, you are publicising them, in the interests, not only of balance, but to illustrate to those that need to know, for their own safety, how safe cars are in the hands of motorists (as opposed to how dangerous pedestrians are in the hands of spin-doctors and the "safety" mafia).

> “Now I explained this to my daughter's pet rabbit.”

"Why?"

To demonstrate that these things are not even beyond their comprehension.

> “Such as....................”

"Fascinating stuff – very entertaining, but – do two wrongs make a right?"

The other wrong being?

> “This would be the reports......................”

"No .................No...................No.......................Fantasy"

So, what are you on about?

"No, I am thinking about:"

"Pollution (not emissions, but total pollution), use of non-renewable resources (no, not just fuel) etc?"

Meaning?

Your point being?

Sorry if I am now being obtuse, but what ARE you on about?

"Not blame, not two wrongs making a right, not sarcasm and spin"

> "Cars are great - I use one a lot."

So you're 2Jags?

"Walking is great - I do lots of it. Bicycles are great - really good fun, cheap & efficient."

Perhaps not then.

"Does that make me anti anything?"

You tell me.

"Yes – it makes me anti-spin"

Great: I look forward to your demolition of the government/green/reclaim the streets/"safety"/anti-car spin.

After all, there is just a tiny bit more of that than there is from little old me.

And if you are so anti-spin: surely you should be concentrating your efforts there?

Or perhaps you would just like to point us to the government/green/reclaim the streets/"safety"/anti-car/pro-cyclist/environmentalist/local authority/etc/etc sites where you carry out the bulk of your anti-spin campaigning.

Or, as always seems to happen when I give anti-spin champions carte-blanche to be even-handed, will you now mysteriously disappear?

"A final question, if I can do something (as a car driver) that would save one life, irrespective of whose fault may be involved, shouldn’t I do it? Which is worth more, my feelings of being put-upon, or someone’s life?"

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

You've finally hit the nail on the head.

People like me object to being put upon to act in ways that increase accident and death rates, we object to being put upon when we campaign against counter productive and mis-targetted strategies, we object to being put-upon when we propose strategies which will save all lives.

And we refuse to allow guilt trip feeling to sway our judgement over whether it is better to save one imaginary hypothetical life with a strategy when we know deep down and rationally that the strategy will actually result in increased deaths.

All for the sake of ideology and political dogma.

Spun out to the gullible public.

And reinforced by..............................?

And once again you have proved that you can say things, but you can't prove them.

No answers.

No beliefs.

No strategies.

No even handed demolition of anti-car spin.

No links to the sites where you have been heroically fighting full time professional spin all on your lonesome.

Nothing.

And I work shifts.

What's your excuse, as an amateur anti-spin campaigner, for monitoring my site 24/7 ?

He thought his answer was so good he'd post it twice.

But it doesn't matter how many times he posts it:

it still doesn't add up to an answer.

Please delete one of them

 - Nah, it's more fun if I don't ; - )

I'm not sure quite how that happened - could have been down to my IP disconnecting me without warning - V helpful of them.

Still, gave you the opportunity for a cheap dig, which you took

 - Yup !

Dismiss the answers if you want

 - what answers?

I don't think that it is possible to change your mind or influence you, no matter what I (or anyone else) say

 - Double nah: I used to be a commie pinko, untill I saw sense ; - )

> “So what DO you believe (if anything)?”

"Plenty about a variety of things – although I am conscious of the debate about the substance of belief and the possible differences between belief, knowledge and facts."

So for you this debate is an abstract, academic, ideological issue.

Kids are just pawns in your debating strategy, their lives worth sacrificing on the altar of your ideology.

At least funkii seemed to passionately, though misguidedly, believe he was saving kids lives.

When does he come back on shift?

"The simple fact that I do not feel the need to believe exactly what you set out for me does not mean that you can draw spurious conclusions and make implications like this."

But if all you'll tell me about what you believe in is:

"I am conscious of the debate about the substance of belief and the possible differences between belief, knowledge and facts"

Then all I can do is draw the obvious conclusions.

"I look forward to seeing your data"

Try reading my posts.

> ”It’s the driver's "responsibility" to avoid an accident"
> "would make a more attention grabbing, snappier, life saving slogan?”

"Are you saying that we drivers don’t have that responsibility?"

As someone "conscious of the debate about the substance of belief and the possible differences between belief, knowledge and facts"

You will also be conscious of the fact that your response has nothing whatsoever to with my question, and in no way answers my point.

So no change there then!

The "quote" was:

> "Or are you suggesting that"

> "throwing themselves into a driver's braking and thinking distance because "certain" people believe that kids should be indoctrinated into thinking that roads are "public" space, that cars "must" stop for pedestrians and it's the driver's "responsibility" to avoid an accident"

> "would make a more attention grabbing, snappier, life saving slogan?"

Well: would it, or wouldn't it?

And are drivers responsible for avoiding having children throwing themselves under the wheels of cars?

Or is it the government, the "safety" mafia, the anti-car brigade, and their apologists, who are currently responsible for kids throwing themselves under the wheels of cars?

And who should, therefore, be responsible for preventing the continuation of this propagation of genocide by propaganda?

"Are you saying that, if we can avoid accidents, we shouldn’t because it is someone else who has made the initial mistake?"

Errrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Where have I said that a motorist should NOT avoid an accident if they can?

And why should I have to say that they should: this would be an instinctive reaction (analagous to "heroic" pilots steering their planes away from a school building and onto the playing field - so bleedin' obvious only the moronic press would comment on it).

But I digress, you are asking:

"Which is more important – avoiding the accident or placing the blame?"

Let me see.

Hard one this.

I say that kids should be supervised by responsible adults, that adults should be taught to cross the roads responsibly, and that the police should be responsible for breathalysing pedestrians and taking them into "protective" custody as most pedestrian accidents are caused by pedestrians, and most of those by drink.

In which case pedestrian accidents would be almost eliminated.

You side with the people who say (I'd say "you say", but I can't be arsed to trawl through your "arguments" and copy and paste the "quotes") that the public should be indoctrinated into the belief that motorists are responsible for pedestrian safety, that roads are "public" spaces for pedestrian socialising and play, including drinking and drunken games, that they have the "right" of way, and that motorists "must" stop if they throw themselves under the wheels of a car.

That motorists should be breathalysed because 8% of them might be over the limit, and some of them might be incapable, and some of those might be involved in accidents where the pedestrian, for once, wasn't to blame.

And that all the motorists who were over the limit, but not responsible for an accident, should be punished for something anyway.

And that all the motorists who were driving safely but above an artificial speed limit, arbitrarily reduced from an already too low one, should be punished because it might have been dangerous to do so, honest.

And that all the other motorists, who were driving below all limits should be rewarded by having their catalysers scraped off at 5mph on traffic "calming" measures.

In which case CARnage on the roads will not only continue, but increase.

> ”And your definition of "throwing themselves into a driver's braking and thinking distance" is?”

"Is spin the way that it is presented – really ….“throwing”! What about falling, stumbling, tripping, slipping, making a mistake…..?"

I refer you back to my original query re life saving slogans.

So is your response is that you would prefer to advertise:

"Feel free to stroll/walk/perambulate carelessly into a driver's braking and thinking distance, because if you stumble/trip/slip/make a mistake it's the driver who is responsible for avoiding the accident, not you."

Well, I'm glad you've cleared that up for us.

For a moment there I thought that you weren't anti-motorist.

Just anti-spin.

> “I take it you have read the suicide notes and they definitely say that they are not committing suicide?”

"Don’t be silly. What suicide notes? Have you read any? Do you suggest that I should try to prove a negative?"

> “Actually, a large proportion must be suicide”

"Must be? Really? MUST BE? Why?"

Sorry, just making a giant leap of common sense.

More people are recorded as having committed suicide than die on the roads (probably can't take any more of the official spin).

If you want to commit suicide you have to find and select a suicide method.

Our lives are full of propaganda about how lethal cars are.

So, maybe, just maybe, now and again, in some years, some suicides will plumb to throw themselves under the wheels of cars.

> “What makes you think that a method so widely advertised as being an effective killer is never used?”

"I didn’t say never – it may be – but most? All?"

And I didn't say All.

I didn't even say most.

> “Now, to demonstrate how non-partisan you are: could you dissect the government/green/reclaim the streets/"safety"/anti-car lobbies spin for us?”

"But I am responding to you on this board about the topics on this board. The fact that I don’t do those things here does not mean that I don’t elsewhere or detract from the arguments that I have deployed so far – bit of a red herring that one Bogush."

Well, you appear to be the expert on that.

Again no answer.

Why do you choose, as an anti-spin campaigner, to post on this board, about topics on this board.

Why, when most of the topics are anti-spin, do you chose to post ant-anti-spin arguments, rather than "side" with the anti-spin arguments.

And where are your "main" anti-spin arguments deployed?

At least my red herring is fresh and meaty, rather than a rotten facade with nothing to flesh it out, or hold it up.

> “You really do have problems with punctuation don't you!”

"No – just occasionally fun to use the tactics that you do."

Errrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

No, I've given my beliefs, and strategies.

And I've given reasons and data.

Oh yes, and I've made my points colourfully and dramatically.

(So that makes me guilty as charged then?)

It's not my fault that it's all lost in a sea of propaganda and real spin.

>> ”“You haven't got a clue................................”

>  "WHAT????"

Double Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

No, you are doubly wrong.

Read both sets of posts.

> “And, typically, you are publicising them, in the interests, not only of balance, but to illustrate to those that need to know, for their own safety, how safe cars are in the hands of motorists (as opposed to how dangerous pedestrians are in the hands of spin-doctors and the "safety" mafia).”

"Eh?"

The "safety" mafia are killing kids.

And unless you can provide evidence that you are posting at least as much "anti-spin" rhetoric on the professional anti-car sites:

"With all due respect" you are, at the very least, their apologist !

> >  No .................No...................No.......................Fantasy"

> "So, what are you on about?”

"You mean you don’t know?"

That's what I said!

"What about tyres (dust, chemicals, disposal, production)?  Brake pads & disks (as above)?  Exhausts (as above plus metal gases)?  Catalysts?  Plastics?  Fluorolastomers (think I’ve spelt that right - nasty stuff when burnt – hydrofluoric acid results)?  Oils & lubricants (as above)?  Water use in car production?  And so on?"

Must all be beneficial to the environment somehow.  Otherwise the environMentalists wouldn't keep on harping on to us to "recycle" our "nasty" old ones, with nice, shiny new ones.

Or perhaps they really have been in cahoots with big business all along (Ozone/DuPont).

> “Sorry if I am now being obtuse, but what ARE you on about?”

"It is not anti-car to raise these issues and discuss them – but the extreme views (cars are perfect vs. cars are the root of all evil) lead to spin on both sides."

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

When you were supporting drink drive campaigns to stop pedestrians throwing themselves under the wheels of cars, it was really a cover to get motorists to pull up, switch their engines off for a while, and then go through an environMentally beneficial restart.

"You have been very vocal in your condemnation of those who spin that you don’t like – there should be no surprise if your own spinning gets remarked on."

If you'd actually read my posts you would see that:

a) I neither think that cars, nor motorists, are perfect, and have called for many "anti-car" and "anti-motorist" measures myself, where they are logical, reasonable and practical.  I have also called for pro-bus and pro-train measures.  But of course the spinmesiters aren't allowed to comment on this.

b) Even some anti-car campaigners might consider some of my "anti-car" and pro-bus/train proposals extreme.

c) My spin is correct in essence, and where "exaggerated" it is either to highlight the methods of the professional spinmeisters, highlight depth of feeling, or to emphasise a point.  Just slightly different from the professional anti-car "spin" which is a total reversal of the facts and travesty of the truth.

d) I am not vocal against spin that I don't like: I am vocal against spin that I don't like that is at best totally wrong, at worst the total opposite of the truth.  And I can hardly be held responsible for the fact that there is so much of that to "spin" against!

"Interesting meaning of Bogush – is it a real name or an abbreviation?"

A diminutive of a real name.

"Anyway got to go – got a life to lead. Back next week."

"BTW, no I don’t monitor your site 24/7 – you made that up."

Moi ? ; - )

"Just diverting when am working in my office. The joys of being self-employed."

We all should be so lucky (but what use structured radial public transport then?).

Give him is due Andy.

He did enter the debate with:

"A long thread of anti-pedestrian spin. Shame that you lose any valid points, Bogush, under all that spin. Once a spinner, always a spinner eh?"

(Yup that was the total post ! : - )

So he has come a long way, working up through:

"I quite agree that "in context, relevant, completely factual, unbiased, unemotional, not loaded with guilt information" probably isn't spin. (I use the word probably, bexause it is possible to be "in context, relevant, completely factual, unbiased, unemotional, not loaded with guilt information", yet highly selective in what is presented)"

"However, this has not been the case here."

"Furhermore, portraying comments about car use as automatically "anti-car" is spin."

"The anti-pedestrian posts above are spin - by your own measure"

"Even the little name-calling you put in the last post is spin."

To the one that starts, as he puts it:

"Selecting parts of posts, putting your own ideas (spin) on them and then attributing (by implication) them to others is spin, just like the last post."

(Whilst never actually answering any questions, or giving any facts).

Which perfectely describes his style (and lack of substance ; - )

And what do you describe the style of debate where you yourself are doing something naughty, but accuse the opposition of doing it?

And what kind of people indulge in it?

Whatever it is, and they are, he's the master, and I bow down before his technique.

There was actually a folllow up to the Traffic Taliban if you all missed it:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,43-2002010557,00.html

Tow me the way to go home

.........the annual drink/drive campaign is simply an excuse to inconvenience as many people as possible rather than get drunks off the road.

In Florida, where I spent New Year, the police are equally tough on drink-driving. Drive drunk and you go to jail. You do not pass Go.

But rather than arrest people, the police in Florida would prefer they didn’t drink and drive at all.

In Britain, success is seen in nicking as many people as possible.

In Florida, it’s a success if they don’t nick anyone.

They just want you to get home safely.

Recognising that even with the best intentions some people do get taken unexpectedly drunk, the Florida Highway Patrol, sponsored by Budweiser, set up a novel service this year.

If you’re over the limit, simply dial free1-800-TOW and they’ll send a truck round to tow you and your car home...............

funkiiland: - a model of road safety for the UK to follow?

Further evidence of the shaky basis on which
Mr. funkiibloke constructs his "exposes"....

"In Florida, where I spent New Year, the police are equally tough on dangerous and drug-driving. Drive dangerously and you go to jail. You do not pass Go."

Equally? Slight understatement.

In fact, you would hardly blame the Budweiser beer company (or any other beer manufacturer's) marketing department for signing a blank cheque for transporting their clientele to or from the point of sale in a State where there is virtually ZERO tolerance for dangerous driving. It probably ranks under the category of marketing genius.

This is from the State Of Funkiiland's Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' "Funkiiland Driving Handboook -Your Driving Privilege":

"Driving a motor vehicle in Funkiiland is a privilege you earn as a motorist. You cannot get a license in Funkilan under the following conditions, well, not legally anyway, but that won't stop you driving, and you won't get caught, because we've scrapped traffic patrols, and our speed tax cameras and breath test squads aren't interested in whether you are safe, legal, or even if you are who you say you are, only if you break an arbitrary and very safe limit, and enough of you cough up the readies to make the excercise worthwhile.

Compare this with "liberal" funkiiland:

If your license is suspended or revoked in any state:

We'll welcome youi here, and probably give you a licence and car.

If you are addicted to drugs:

We'll turn a blind eye, as long as you aren't "capitalising" on it.

If you cannot drive safely because of mental or physical problems. Deafness alone will not prevent a person from being issued a driver license:

In fact you could be as blind as a bat and we'll still turn a blind eye.

And if you are physically incapable (except through drink, and however slightly) or a sociopath or psychopath, feel free to chase pedestrians across the pavement, and if your car can't get them, use that knife or gun you carry specially for the purpose!

If you are under the legal age for licensing (15 for Learners license, 16 for Class D or E).

Every driver who gets a license must drive safely to keep it. If you break the traffic laws or become an unsafe driver, your license can be taken away. It can be suspended, revoked, or canceled.

But if you haven't got a licence, consider that a licence to drive as dangerously as you please: you probably haven't got insurance, tax, registration papers, MOT or a roadworthy car either, and whilst our speed tax cameras might "catch" you several times a day, or our anti "over the limit" patrols might stop you, you can still get away with murder!

When your license is suspended, it is temporarily taken away.

Your license can be suspended if you:

Make a fraudulent driver license application.

Are not able to drive safely.

Allow your license to be used for a purpose that is against the law.

Are convicted in a traffic court and the court orders that your license be suspended.

And we'll take it away from you all over again!

Especially if you:

Refuse to take a test to show if you are driving while under the influence of alcohol

But as for or drugs.

Or if you:

Misuse a restricted license.

By the way, you:

Earn a certain number of points for traffic offenses on the point system.

And boy, have we got a lot of "antisocial" things we can give you points for if you exceed an artificial and arbitrary limit.

Break a traffic law and fail to pay your fine or appear in court as directed.

And we'll get you, and punish you, and fine you.

And you, as a model upstanding citizen, will meekly pay up.

In your millions.

Easily makes up for the 10, or 20% of untraceable real antisocial and real criminal, drivers, who actually commit most of the harm on the roads, or at least most of the harm done deliberately, or maliciously, or recklessly, or very carelessly.

You guys who have the real "accidents" (ok, ok, so, technically they aren't accidents, they're caused by pedestrians, or bad road design, or lack of maintenance, because we can't afford that after all the money spent on speed tax cameras, and road BUMPS, and traffic "calming" measures, and resurfacing bike and 24 hour bus lanes - where are the 24 hour buses), or rather "might" have a "real" accident, which you "might" have avoided if you were below the arbitrary and artificial limit, pay out so much in fines that even with a 10-20% shortfall we're still making a fortune! 

If your license is revoked, it is taken away for a period of 6 months to life. In some cases, you may apply for a new license after a period of time.

By law, your license must be revoked if you are found guilty of, or department records show:

Driving while under the influence of alcohol,

drugs or other controlled substances, well we like to turn a blind eye to that: after all we were all young, left wing "liberal" CND activists once.

A felony in which a motor vehicle is used.

As long as you give us your real name and addess.

And we can even confiscate your car.

Mind you, we don't like to be too hard on real criminals, because, being a really liberal society, we appreciate that the real criminal is really a victim himself.

So we rarely, if ever actually take advantage of those discriminatory laws.

Not stopping to give help when the vehicle you are driving is involved in a crash causing death or personal injury.

Not that we have the means or resources to catch you on that one, to the extent that such psychopaths leave notes taunting the police in" their" abandoned vehicles.

No we rely on the "safe and sober" 80% to police themselves, and pay up on an honour system.  After all they owe it to the NHS, schools, the welfare state, the UE, Afghanistan, you name it, to keep coughing up.

The outlaws, of course, owe no one anything.  Only we, as a "civilised" "liberal" society owe anyone anything, especially the victims in the criminal underclass.

Lying about the ownership or operation of motor vehicles.

Unless you are a police officer, government official, or their personal driver of course.

Or a real criminal.

Three cases of reckless driving within one year.

Ditto

Forfeiting bail and not going to court to avoid being convicted of reckless driving counts the same as a conviction.

When and if, we ever track you down.

Perhaps when we have solved all the real problems like safe drivers doing 35 on a 60 road, or sober drivers avoiding doing any serious harm to a suicidal pedestrian because they were at half the safe blood alcohol limit, we might put some real traffic cars on the road and catch some real, drugged up, criminals with boots full of illegal arms, loot and corpses (that's the criminals, not the cops).

An immoral act in which a motor vehicle was used.(??

That's the "traffic cops" again?

Three major offenses or 15 offenses for which you receive points within a 5-year period.

Assuming we ever got you into court.

A felony for drug possession.

Again the blind eye.

Vision worse than the standard minimum requirements.

And again.

A court may also order that your license be revoked for certain other traffic offenses.

Your license will be revoked for at least three years if you kill someone because of reckless driving.

Of course we like our "liberal" sentences to run concurrently, so if you reaklly were reckless, and we actually caught you, and actually lock youup, say for three years, we'll look after your licence for you while you're inside, and let you have it back when you need it.

How do you ALWAYS manage to miss the salient point.

I hope that you get round to switching on your observational skills when you are on the road.

Or are you just ensuring that you don't use them all up too soon?

Apart from all the other points you have ignored:

In Britain, success is seen in nicking as many people as possible.

In Florida, it’s a success if they don’t nick anyone.

You win the night out with Sue!

And a virtual bottle of Bud.

But no prizes for not reading the reply to my post.

And missing the fact that, yes, I agree:

"......doesn't it kinda make our own set of laws and regulations look like a free for all?"

Except for the safe and sober, civic duty responsible, upstanding, decent, honest members of the public, who haven't caused an accident, and haven't broken the laws and regulations, except by perhaps drifting slightly over an arbitrary limit accidentally.

Of course, they could always use a DIY test kit.

But as discussed elswhere:

The guardians of public safety, and the laws of the land, not to mention the "safety" mafia, just as they don't wan't speed tax cameras at accident blackspots, or highly visible, DON'T want the public to double check that they are safe before getting into their car.

Now, why on earth might that be?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

At last, the veil has lifted from my eyes!

What a stupid p!ll*ck I am!!

All these years I've been taking these "liberally" educated, urbane, sophisticated, academic/meeja types at face value.

Assuming they were a bunch of hypocrites, swanning about in limos with outriders in bus lanes, or calling up helicopters to take them to the airport for a jaunt to an environMental conference, or doing over a ton on single carriageways.

I never realised all that stuff that they came out with in their Ivory Towers was actually very clever satire.

And that they assumed that if we couldn't afford to send our kids to private schools on our lavish expenses, or our wife's half mill salary, we would at least be able to wangle them into the country's top state school, where, from an early age, they would learn to appreciate the subtle irony of their ever so clevah advertising campaigns.

Of course:

"The campaign really is just a sensible, high-profile way of getting an important message across?"

It's just that I'm too dumb to appreciate the subtlety and so:

"Have attached a political or ideological significance to it that it just doesn't have?"

Apologies to you funkii.

And to notLabour!

Who really do, so obviously, care ssoooooo deeply about the public, public safety, and, especially, about the safety of our children!

When they advertise a campaign against sober drivers, obviously they aren't promoting a campaign against sober drivers!

Silly, silly, me.

It's just such a clever way of emphasising that sober drivers don't cause accidents.

It's just a slick media trick to illustrate how dangerous pissed-up perambulation is!

They are obviously trying to emphsise the fact that it is the pedestrians who cause the accidents, that if they are drunk that they are even more likely to cause an accident than normally, and that if they continue to stagger around the streets causing CARnage the government will have no option but to introduce breathalyser tests for pedestrians to back up the existing laws that criminalise drunkenness in public.

Why couldn't I see that before?

What a dumbo!!

Like all the stuff about "home zones".

How could I have believed that anyone, never mind an intelligent, caring, respected politician, could propose transforming, not parks, nor pavements, but streets into extensions of people's front rooms, where they would stop and chat, whilst their children played merrily and the traffic stopped and waited until it was time for bed.

Obviously it was pure satire, not on "post-radical vegetarian ex-communist ex-CND student activists ... clandestinely helped in it's sinister purposes by a media staffed with similar individuals and by the BBC (which is, as we all know" a figment of the warped imaginations of people such as myself).  But a multi level parody on my personal political agenda to further emphasise to intelligent, perceptive children that speed kills, cars are dangerous, and roads are for traffic not toying around on.  Whilst teaching them to take no notice of my childish fairy tales.

Brilliant!

They'll scoop the ad industry Oscars with that one: I'm sure!!

Now all we have to do is get those Yanks to see sense.

Imagine: they don't want to lock people up, they wan't to provide alternatives to driving drunk, and they then go and jump on drunk drivers like a ton of bricks.

No subtlety, no finesse, no style.

How on earth do they expect to get an important message across to a bunch of sophisticated red-necks like that.

No chance!

They'll never cotton on to the fact that excessive drinking and driving don't mix, that there are alternatives, but that if you do take the piss the law will, if you really push them, get you.

Don't they realise it's far better to stop millions of sober drivers and demonstrate the workings of the latest technology and science available in the modern police arsenal?!

It discourages sober drivers from driving drunk.

It keeps bored, underworked, public servants gainfully employed, it even soaks up government surpuses and so must help to keep the economy moving.

And it even gives the safe and sober motorist a chance to contribute to public funds for a change.

By the way funkii:

While you weren't digging out the figures for non-random breath tests in the UK, you didn't by any chance not find the figures for Florida breath tests did you ? ; - )

Speaking of the Taliban, Traffic, and:

"If your whole "pro-motorist" case against the "guardians of public safety" (and the entire "establishment") is informed by the belief that it is stuffed full of post-radical vegetarian ex-communist ex-CND student activists and is clandestinely helped in it's sinister purposes by a media staffed with similar individuals and by the BBC (which is, as we all know, the Blair Broadcasting Company)"

When they attacked Afghanistan, in fact when they attacked Serbia, Iraq even, you name it:

What was it they attacked?

Wasn't the road system was it, with an especially heavy "toll" on the bridges and tunnels?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

"......I suppose that the conclusions that you routinely come to are almost inevitable."

Excellent posts funkii

Now all we need is for you to read 'em ! ; - )

You seem to have missed a bit funkii !! :

Sobriety checkpoints, a widely used method for deterring drunk drivers, ..................  it provides an opportunity to apprehend hardcore drunk drivers .................. Sobriety checkpoints require safety cones and special signs and lights that alert the public that the police activity is a sobriety checkpoint. As with blanket patrols, this technique is more effective when highly publicized.

; - )

Oops, and another!

Even then:

"Even though sobriety checkpoints, when properly conducted, do not violate the U.S. Constitution, approximately 10 states prohibit any type of sobriety checkpoint. The most common reason is that the state interprets its constitution as giving more protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than given by the federal constitution. In states that allow sobriety checkpoints, many have their own guidelines which supplement the federal guidelines"

And another:

"A project to study the effectiveness of well-publicized sobriety checkpoint programs found that, as a whole, checkpoint programs reduced alcohol-involved crashes. A 1994 study by the Tennessee Highway Safety Office found that sobriety checkpoints resulted in a 3% decline in alcohol-related fatalities."

But of course, that's as nothing compared to an 85% reduction in pedestrian fatalities if you got pissed-up perambulators off the roads ! ; - )

"They don't tell you exactly when and where random testing is due to occur"

So, basically, completely different then, to the comparison you were trying to draw!

"10 states out of 51 have their own interpretation of the constitution..............!giving more protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than given by the federal constitution' "

Unlike?

"Yes I agree it isn't a stunning reduction, but the salient point was different and still perfectly logical: 'the value of checkpoints can't be measured by arrests alone because one purpose of frequent checkpoints is to increase public awareness and deter potential offenders' "

So we're back to your "Killer" Argument that you feel that if they didn't have random breath checks (for motorists) the tiny proportion of motorists who are "involved" in accidents while just over the limit, but who cannot be shown to have caused the accident, never mind caused it through drink, might possibly increase to a "significant" proportion of the 15% of motorists probably "involved" in fatal accidents not caused by pedestrians themselves, mainly through drink.

Which brings me back to my feeble argument:

So why doesn't the same argument apply to the piss-head pedestrians who actually create the CARnage on the roads?

"You appear to side with the 10 states who interpret the US constitution as forbidding random breath testing. Fair play to you."

"I side with the other 41."

That's "Irish" for you (see relevant thread).

Just in case you missd it:

The other 41, as YOU posted, don't "interpret the US constitution as allowing random breath testing"

Except under strictly controlled circumstances, with strong safeguards for the motorist.

Perhaps we also need an explanation of "under the influence", and "impaired".

Perhaps also an explanation of the subtle difference between dangerous (actually drunk, drugged up, aggressive, etc, etc) driving and having a particular blood alchohol level.

Perhaps also an explanation of the apparently even subtler difference between prosecuting, fining and banning, and giving them a lift home.

"Bogush, the police in Florida do not pull people over, breathalyse them and send them home in taxis or tow-trucks. They throw them in jail."

Errrrrrmmmmmmmm

Or do they, if the seriously suspect they are drunk: pull them over, and if they still think they are drunk: give them a sobriety test, and if they still think they are drunk: breathalyse them?

"Your "pro-motorist" hero Mr. Littlejohn slightly mis-represented the facts."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

"Tow To Go" is a private sector initiative by Florida's equivalent of the AA and funded by their equivalent of Guiness or Boddington's."

"Of course Florida Highway Patrol "support" the initiative."

"No doubt, any police authority in the UK would....provided it didn't cost them anything."

Like the British police who are actively campaigning for motorists NOT to buy their own breathalysers, to test themselves, and organise their own tow home if over the limit?

For safety reasons of course.

Yeah, right !

"they breath test (sobriety test?) them. Exactly the same as our random breath tests"

Ahhhh So.

The "Sobriety Test" is the same thing as the Breath Test!

Is it?

"As I understand it, the reason given for this is that it encourages drivers to feel safe to drink up to the limit before proceeding to drive. In reality, blood-alcohol concentration is STILL rising for a period after stopping drinking."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

So what they are actually campaigning for is for people to be aware of this, and allow a safety factor, if they use one in the evening.

But equally to be aware that if they are taking the test in the morning, thir levels are falling, and even if they are "over the limit", they are safe.

"The second, equally important, reason is that a personal breathalyzer may become uncalibrated and innacurate after use - leading drivers to think they are OK when they are not."

Or are they afraid that if the public become over familiar with the ins and outs of breathtesting..............

Double Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

No

As I've said before:

I'm against the police stopping and breathalysing vast numbers of drivers to pick up and prosecute a small minority just over a conservative "safe" limit, and a tiny minority of known dangerous drivers who they could have stopped without harrassing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of sober drivers.

And I'm even more against them stopping ten times as manyin christmas "safety" campaigns when there are no more, in fact less, "drunk" drivers on the roads.

What I'm for, just in case you were going to ask, having already forgotten, is them stopping real criminals (which would stop most of the dangerous drivers automatically) and the real dangerous drivers.