Re: The antidote

[Steve Firth]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> >> If you are now claiming that the drink drive legislation was
> >> toughened up in 1983 I'm sure you'll be able to post a reference to the
> >> appropriate legislation.
> >
> > Evidential breath testing is the one you want.
>
> Ooops, you wanted a reference, here's a quick one... As mentioned quite
> specifically as a major factor at
> http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc05/ras-02.htm

That reference doesn't support the claim that you made of a legislative
change in 1983. Nor indeed does it apply to England and Wales.

 

[Steve Firth]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>
> > I'm pointing out that if the effect is as gross and obvious as claimed
> > then it will be ovious.
>
> Not if there's another gross factor there, not necessarily.
>
> > If it's lost in the noise then by definition it
> > isn't a significant effect.
>
> Another gross factor isn't "noise".

Ah, well seatbelts obviously aren't "a gross factor" then.

> > Indeed you did, and I've asked you to back up that claim with evidence,
> > which is absent.
>
> It seems to be remarkably *present* here:
> http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc05/ras-02.htm

Your reading problem has resurfaced.

> > That's not a proper reply, nor indeed is it representative of "tougher"
> > legislation. Nor was the change made in 1983. Again, I'm sure you could
> > post a reference to the legislation you claim exists, with dates.
>
> Perhaps you would care to point out to the Scottish Exec that their
> document cited is a fabrication...

Perhaps you could learn that Scotland is not England?

> > don't play word games with me sonny, it simply makes you look dumb. Your
> > intent is clear.
>
> My intent was to raise a question as to the extent to which the sweep of
> your statement was fair. If it brings the sweep of your statement into
> such obvious question then it is at least possible it isn't fair. Sonny.
>
> > No it doesn't which was my point.
>
> So has the legislation had any effect or not?

Have I stated that it had no effect?

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steve Firth wrote:

> That reference doesn't support the claim that you made of a legislative
> change in 1983.

Deary deary me. The legislation passed in '81 came into effect in '83
and your claiming that that's not a change in '83 is remarkably
pointless, peurile and stupid hair splitting.
The fact is that a change in legislation for DD as applied on the ground
happened at the same time as the seatbelt law came in.

> Nor indeed does it apply to England and Wales.

Nothing in there that says the '81 Road Traffic Act only applied to
Scotland. Is that really the case? Citation?
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steve Firth wrote:

> Ah, well seatbelts obviously aren't "a gross factor" then.

Nobody has said they aren't, I've simply pointed out that one gross
effect can be masked by one (or more) others.

> Perhaps you could learn that Scotland is not England?

Perhaps you could learn that a Scottish Exec document will talk about
effects in Scotland of UK-wide applied legislation?

> Have I stated that it had no effect?

You haven't said either way.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Nothing in there that says the '81 Road Traffic Act

My bad, Transport Act, not Road Traffic Act.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Steve Firth]

David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Oct 12, 1:20 pm, %[email protected] (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > You stated that the legislation was brought in at the same time, you
> > > > were wrong.
> >
> > > I said that considerably toughrer legislation was brought in that the
> > > same time, not that DD was introduced at the same time.
> >
> > Indeed you did, and I've asked you to back up that claim with evidence,
> > which is absent.
> >
> > > > If you are now claiming that the drink drive legislation was
> > > > toughened up in 1983 I'm sure you'll be able to post a reference to the
> > > > appropriate legislation.
> >
> > > Evidential breath testing is the one you want.
> >
> > That's not a proper reply, nor indeed is it representative of "tougher"
> > legislation. Nor was the change made in 1983. Again, I'm sure you could
> > post a reference to the legislation you claim exists, with dates.
>
> Transport act 1981. Passed in 1981. Takes effect in 1983.
>
> I remember it coming in. And the seatbelt law.

You may remember it coming in, but you appear to be unaware that it did
not "toughen up" the legislation, in fact compared to blood testing it
gave motorists more leeway makng prosecution more difficult for marginal
values. A prosecution made on a blood test occurs for readings greater
than 86mg/100mL the breath test was set such that it needs two breath
samples of more than 50ug equivalent to 115mg/100mL of alcohol in blood
to be sure of prosecution, and the motorist will be released if one
breath sample is below 40ug.

And yes I know that the limit set was 35ug, but the above is how the law
was interpreted due to the inaccudacy of the equipment in use.

> And yes it did have a noticeable social effect at the time, along with
> major drink drive campaigns.

I think you exaggerate. In fact I know you exaggerate. The '81 Act
simply enabled breath testing to be the only evidence required for
prosecution and for that test to be administered by staff (police) who
were not scientifically or medically qualified. I cannot recall any
social change at the time, drinking and driving was as unacceptable
before and after the legislation.

 

[Steve Firth]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Nor indeed does it apply to England and Wales.
>
> Nothing in there that says the '81 Road Traffic Act only applied to
> Scotland. Is that really the case? Citation?

<sigh> The statistics given are for Scotland, how does that apply to
England and Wales?

 

[David Martin]

On Oct 12, 3:01 pm, %[email protected] (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Nor indeed does it apply to England and Wales.
>
> > Nothing in there that says the '81 Road Traffic Act only applied to
> > Scotland. Is that really the case? Citation?
>
> <sigh> The statistics given are for Scotland, how does that apply to
> England and Wales?

"Where is there an elephant?"
"Look in the zoo"
"But that has stripes. It is a tiger."
"No, over there"
"But I'm looking at that one which has stripes"

The original request was for a reference to the legislation. That was
in the document. It is really not so hard to ignore the extraneous
data.

And evidential breath testing may be a weaker standard than the blood
test but it could be applied much more broadly and make the chance of
a conviction that much more likely. Hence a broader impact across the
board.

...d

...d

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steve Firth wrote:
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Nor indeed does it apply to England and Wales.
>> Nothing in there that says the '81 Road Traffic Act only applied to
>> Scotland. Is that really the case? Citation?
>
> <sigh> The statistics given are for Scotland, how does that apply to
> England and Wales?

You wanted evidence of legislation that may have affected accidents in
the UK that could be a confounding factor for the claims of seatbelt
efficacy.
So I gave you some.

<sigh>

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting spokes <[email protected]>:
>>I read in "Cyclecraft" about looking for your knees as you fall, and
>>that is something I wish I had known about years ago.
>Sounds straight out of the goons...Bluebottle: Where are my kneeeees?

The Dreaded Batter Pudding Hurler has "Any questions?" "Yes. Where are my
legs?"
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Oneiros, October.

 

[Steve Firth]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> > Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>> Nor indeed does it apply to England and Wales.
> >> Nothing in there that says the '81 Road Traffic Act only applied to
> >> Scotland. Is that really the case? Citation?
> >
> > <sigh> The statistics given are for Scotland, how does that apply to
> > England and Wales?
>
> You wanted evidence of legislation that may have affected accidents in
> the UK that could be a confounding factor for the claims of seatbelt
> efficacy.
> So I gave you some.

No, I asked you to support your claim that drink drive legislation and
seatbelt legislation were contemporary. Since I think it's fairly
obvious that you got confused about the introduction of drink drive
legislation in 1967 and the requirement to fit seatbelts as standard in
1967.

It has been amusing watching you floundering around after the event to
'prove' something other than what you typed.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steve Firth wrote:

> No, I asked you to support your claim that drink drive legislation and
> seatbelt legislation were contemporary. Since I think it's fairly
> obvious that you got confused about the introduction of drink drive
> legislation in 1967 and the requirement to fit seatbelts as standard in
> 1967.

Obvious to you, perhaps, but not to me. I had no idea about the '67
legislation, but I did know compulsory seatbelt wearing coincided with a
change of DD implementation. And despite your denial of any such thing
happening, I came up with some evidence that compulsory seatbelt wearing
coincided with a change of the DD rules on the ground.

> It has been amusing watching you floundering around after the event to
> 'prove' something other than what you typed.

Ho ho ho.

You must find yourself positively side splitting, in that case.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Brimstone]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:

>> It has been amusing watching you floundering around after the event
>> to 'prove' something other than what you typed.
>
> Ho ho ho.
>
> You must find yourself positively side splitting, in that case.

It's what he finds amusing. He's probably rolling around on the floor
wetting himself at the hoops he made you jump through. Take it as a warning.

 

[Steve Firth]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>
> > No, I asked you to support your claim that drink drive legislation and
> > seatbelt legislation were contemporary. Since I think it's fairly
> > obvious that you got confused about the introduction of drink drive
> > legislation in 1967 and the requirement to fit seatbelts as standard in
> > 1967.
>
> Obvious to you, perhaps, but not to me. I had no idea about the '67
> legislation, but I did know compulsory seatbelt wearing coincided with a
> change of DD implementation.

Ah yes, all the weasel words that you omitted from your original claim,
like "implemetation",and of course omitting your "considrably tougher"
which was plain untrue.

> And despite your denial of any such thing happening, I came up with some
> evidence that compulsory seatbelt wearing coincided with a change of the
> DD rules on the ground.

The legislation was dated 1981, tougher legislation didn't appear until
1988. Wibbling about the 'implementation' is amusing but fraught with
the problem that AFAIR no great fuss was made about the implementation,
only about the legislation. And of coruse your claim that there was some
sort of major shift in 1983 doesn't seem to be borne out by the data. I
can see the SE doing the political thing of trying to claim that the
legislation made a big change, but they said much the same about speed
cameras and that was hooey as well.

> > It has been amusing watching you floundering around after the event to
> > 'prove' something other than what you typed.
>
> Ho ho ho.
>
> You must find yourself positively side splitting, in that case.

Aww bless could you get any more lame?

Now hadn't you better get down to leaving technetium fingerprints
everywhere or whatever it is you lot get up to nowadays?

 

[David Martin]

On Oct 12, 4:00 pm, %[email protected] (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Steve Firth wrote:
> > > Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>> Nor indeed does it apply to England and Wales.
> > >> Nothing in there that says the '81 Road Traffic Act only applied to
> > >> Scotland. Is that really the case? Citation?
>
> > > <sigh> The statistics given are for Scotland, how does that apply to
> > > England and Wales?
>
> > You wanted evidence of legislation that may have affected accidents in
> > the UK that could be a confounding factor for the claims of seatbelt
> > efficacy.
> > So I gave you some.
>
> No, I asked you to support your claim that drink drive legislation and
> seatbelt legislation were contemporary. Since I think it's fairly
> obvious that you got confused about the introduction of drink drive
> legislation in 1967 and the requirement to fit seatbelts as standard in
> 1967.
>
> It has been amusing watching you floundering around after the event to
> 'prove' something other than what you typed.

And you will no doubt now try to prove that a) the legislation
regarding evidential breath testing is nothing to do with drink
driving, and b) compulsory fitting of seatbelts came in in 1967.

Good luck.

...d

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

>
> Deary deary me.

Pete, you are wresting with someone who is either a troll or has no
understanding of the basics of statistics and epidemiology. Best to put
him in the bozo bin so we can all live in peace.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> JNugent wrote:
>
> > The breathalyser was introduced in the UK in 1967. AFAIAA, the limit is
> > the same now as it was then. The law compelling the use of seatbelts
> > (initially only in the front seats) was introduced in 1983.
> >
> > Was there some other, procedural, tightening-up of the breatlayser law
> > in 1983?
>
> Evidential breath testing, AIUI.
>

Introduced on 6 May 1983 under the Transport Act 1981 IIRC

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[John Kane]

On Oct 12, 5:17 am, %[email protected] (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That's where common sense breaks down. The only effect of seat belts,
> > as found in the Isles Report which the Government of the day
> > commissioned and then buried without publishing it, was that the net
> > effect of seat belts was no change in car occupant deaths and an
> > increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths.
>
> That must be why road deaths have fallen significantly since 1981 in
> every category, eh? referring to a report that has been discredited by
> subsequent events is most amusing. Do you now want to post a reference
> to the report that indicated the economic ruin that would be the
> consequence of the decline in the manufacture of buggy whips?

Have a look at http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/sweden.seatbelts.pdf
..[1] Seat belts seems to have little influence on injuries . One
have to exclude other causes for the UK.

[1] Figures are not quite exact as I eyeballed them from John Adams'
study.

 

[peter-potato]

"Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Brian Robertson wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Brian Robertson wrote:
>>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>>> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...

> I think you are a sensible person in lots of ways and we could agree on a
> lot.

aaah...
that's so sweet.
it's kind of the usenet equivalent of 'hi, can i buy you a drink?'.
pppeterrr

 

[John Wright]

Brian Robertson wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Brian Robertson wrote:
>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you
>>>>> really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git,
>>>>> but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
>>>> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*)
>>>> Have a read of the archives of the latter group on the subject -
>>>> you'll probably hate it, but it might prepare you a little for what
>>>> to expect when you write stuff like the above.
>>>>
>>>> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> clive
>>> People are entitled to their opinions and I to mine. I wouldn't
>>> support any move to force people to wear helmets, so it's all down to
>>> choice really, isn't it? Based upon our own experiences we make our
>>> choices.
>>
>> Before they became compulsory, I expect many people had a similar view
>> on motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts. Then the do-gooders thought
>> they knew best and inflicted them on everyone.
>>
>
> Different thing, isn't it. You can't and never will be able to regulate
> cycling in that way, thank God! Personally, with motorbikes I would be
> pro-choice as well, but that's my opinion on most things.

Having ridden motorbikes for thirty odd years I've not met anyone who
would not wear a helmet (I can however think of a few who might do it
for political reasons) if it suddenly became legal so to do.

--
John Wright

Asperger's – a different way of thinking