Please explain in WHICH ways speeding and drinking (when involved in driving) are NOT the same. I simply don't see ANY significant differences.
Taken simply:
An arbitrary limit is set for both above which is ILLEGAL. Neither limit has any REAL justification; they are both set at a 'reasonable' level to keep us as 'safe as possible'.
Both are in the driver's control. In reality, the driver is able to KNOW his speed but is NOT able to know his level of intoxication in the car; thus there is MORE excuse for being over the DRINK limit than the speed limit.
Both activities increase the chance of accidents but the HIGHEST levels of alcohol do NOT increase the chance of any ensuing accident becoming 'lethal' whereas a higher speed accident has a GREATER chance of being lethal than a LOWER speed accident. That's ANOTHER reason to class drinking as 'safer' than speeding.
Both activities can be SHOWN to increase the number of accidents.
Both take up 'police time' and 'prevent cops catching mureders' (the pathetic excuse given by speeders agains Gatsos etc). However, there are NO breathalysers that do NOT require a police-input whereas some Gatsos, Truvelos and Specs complete the task with NO police-input. Another one in favour of speed checks as opposed to DD checks.
And I could go on (and on, and on, and on....) but I now see why you'd rather stop the discussion... when it's OBVIOUS that you can not WIN this one!
Those of us GROWN UPS remember when the breath test came in. Every single O*N*E of the arguments against speed control was made against DRINK control. Timne has proved the Drink Drice campaign WAS right. Exactly the same WILL happen over speeding.... given time and courage on the part of Governments!
I'll tell you what, you just provide a SINGLE argument against speed control that was NOT used (by morons) against 'drink control' back in the 1970s and we'll discuss it further...... I won't hold my breath!
Ian
|
|