Yesterday's news

[j4]

Another of those news-article-with-comment fragments (believe it or not, I'm deleting more than I post: down to 113 once this one's been exorcised). Again, unedited except that I've made the URL into a hyperlink for convenience.

Lib Dem transport spokesman Norman Baker said: "Young drivers could face legal problems because they have had a couple of drinks the night before or used alcohol in cooking. The answer is a lower limit for all drivers."

The reference to "young drivers" make it sound as though being a "driver" is something inherent, essential, rather than merely a choice on a case-by-case basis to perform an action. In fact, in that sense, it's a bit like drinking: so why don't we say that young drinkers could face legal problems just because they have a couple of car-journeys? They're equally absurd. Neither drinking nor driving is essential or irreversible; there's nothing illogical about legislating to make them mutually exclusive choices.

The question of why it should only apply to "young" people is another matter entirely, and seems to me to be supporting the idea that drink-driving is something you can do when you're a better driver: this may indeed be true, but who decides who "counts" as a "better" driver? Older drivers, who (may) have more experience? Younger drivers, who (may) have quicker reflexes? Either way, since the majority of people believe they're above average competence as drivers, this seems like a dangerous idea to propagate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7505018.stm

The reason I never post these things at the time is that I feel I can't post them without hedging around everything a bit more, making sure that every possible argument is covered, making sure I'm not categorically stating anything that isn't 100% verifiable fact. Not being interpreted as categorically stating anything, etc. Not apparently being interpreted as, etc. Endlessly backing off, bent double with différence. The more I start to hedge, the more arguments come crawling out from under the stone, the more it all unravels, until I'm incapable of saying anything. Every thought is just a flamewar that I haven't been burned by yet: in the acorn, the tree; in the tree, the dead wood, the pyre.

Comments

[liv]

I think they've more or less sorted this in Australia, by setting a period of 1 probationary year between passing the driving test and getting a full licence. During this year you have a blood alcohol limit of zero, and I think you're not allowed on highways, and you have to take some advanced driving courses to convert your probational licence to a real one. That deals with people getting the right to drink at the same time they get their licence, and it helps to create a culture where newly qualified 18-year-olds are generally more rather than less cautious, and the compulsory advanced driver education really helps to make up for the lack of experience.

I like that a lot better than just trying to price teenagers out of driving. It's fairer, and apart from anything else the most reckless drivers are the rich kids who just blithely assume that Daddy will buy them a new car or pay for bail if anything goes wrong.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

Interesting about Australia, seems to be an even safer country than the UK. Although it's also a lot emptier.

Bail is a non-issue in the UK. I'm wondering if it's the rich kids or the uninsured or stolen causing more accidents; can't find any stats immediatly though.