In rec.crafts.metalworking on 17 Feb 2005 20:18:46 GMT
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:10:36 GMT, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
I think I was confused because you wanted to "punish bad driving" and
neither drink driving laws nor mobile phone laws do that.

Tell me, please, how a drunk driver will be found if they're not
driving poorly? By the way, it's me who wants to punish bad driving,

Random breath tests. THey have dropped the number of crashes involving
alcohol in Australia by a large amount. And the number of people
detected driving with measurable levels of alcohol - not just over the
limit - has dropped dramatically too.

IT is probable that it isn't RBT alone, that intensive media campaigns
are also part of it. But as those were happening before RBT, the RBT
has to be given the major part of the credit.

not Jim. Jim wants to punish me for driving just fine but using
a cellphone, which _some_ people can't use and drive well with.

Just as "some* people can't drive well when affected by alcohol.
Neither is an all or nothing proposition, neither is guaranteed to cause
a crash.

Both appear to affect the brain's ability to process, and in very
similar ways.

As there's no "random mobile phone test", it isn't possible to tell how
many people are driving under the influence of telephone, so it's not
possible to see if the crashes involving them are under or
over-represented.

Comes back to the problem of "punishing bad driving". As the use of
alcohol when driving doesn't automatically lead to bad driving, is it
right to make that illegal? If it is, then why is it not right to make
using a mobile when driving illegal, given they both have similar
effects on the brain and the processing of tasks?


They punish behaviour that has a statistical liklihood of leading to a
crash.

So, if someone is driving drunk but not doing something unsafe, you can
see that somehow? How, specifically? If someone is holding a cellphone
but not driving unsafely, you can see the cellphone.

Very different thing.

Indeed they are.


See above - RBT. Which you might not have experienced, but is common
where I am.

I am mostly out in commute time, which doesn't have a high percentage
of drinking drivers so I haven't been tested recently. But if I drive
in the danger period for drunks, I get pulled over every month or two.
(Inlcuding 10am on Sunday morning in the middle of nowhere, about what...
60km from Taree? They were after the bods who had been getting into it
after a big football match)

The worry of being done for drink driving by an RBT has stopped a lot of
people drinking and driving. The entire culture has changed
dramatically since RBT came in. But use a phone in the car and as long
as you aren't physically seen by a cop who can do something about it,
you are OK. Which is the same as any other vehicular silliness such as
unsafe lane changing, failure to indicate, tailgating etc.

The two offenses - drinking and cellphone use - are not guaranteed to
cause a crash. Or even to cause bad driving, as some people say they
can drive quite well doing one or ther other. And point to their own
crash record as proof.

I know that not everyone who drives drunk will crash, just as I know
that not everyone who uses a phone while driving will.

THe problem is to decide why "I can do it, even if you can't" is a
defence in one but not the other.

Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone ), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"