Law on dog fouling/urinating

[Mr Macaw]

Dog fouling is illegal. Public human urination is illegal. So is there a law against the disgusting habit of letting your dog urinate in public?

[Martin Bonner]

Your premise is wrong. Dog fouling is not, in general, illegal. Depending
local by-laws etc, it may be illegal to *leave* any droppings.

Removing urine is obviously infeasible, so the answer to your question
is "No".

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:44:17 +0100, Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Friday, 3 June 2016 02:48:52 UTC+2, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> Dog fouling is illegal. Public human urination is illegal. So is
>> there a law against the disgusting habit of letting your dog urinate
>> in public?
>
> Your premise is wrong. Dog fouling is not, in general, illegal. Depending
> local by-laws etc, it may be illegal to *leave* any droppings.

Yes, that's what I meant.

> Removing urine is obviously infeasible, so the answer to your question
> is "No".

I would have thought since it cannot be removed, once it's come out of the dog you have broken the law. It would be illegal for me to urinate in the same place, so LETTING my dog do the same should carry the same penalty surely? This isn't a dog needing to go, and emptying it's bladder, this is unnecessary scent marking using urine, which the owners are allowing them to do.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Cat owner such as yourself allow cats to urinate and defecate in public
places.
Cat owners such as yourself *never* pick up the droppings from public
places.
What are your opinions on this?

[Peter Crosland]

On 03/06/2016 18:11, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:44:17 +0100, Martin Bonner
>> <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 02:48:52 UTC+2, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> Dog fouling is illegal. Public human urination is illegal. So is
>>>> there a law against the disgusting habit of letting your dog urinate
>>>> in public?
>>>
>>> Your premise is wrong. Dog fouling is not, in general, illegal.
>>> Depending local by-laws etc, it may be illegal to *leave* any
>>> droppings.
>>
>> Yes, that's what I meant.
>>
>>> Removing urine is obviously infeasible, so the answer to your
>>> question is "No".
>>
>> I would have thought since it cannot be removed, once it's come out
>> of the dog you have broken the law. It would be illegal for me to
>> urinate in the same place, so LETTING my dog do the same should carry
>> the same penalty surely? This isn't a dog needing to go, and
>> emptying it's bladder, this is unnecessary scent marking using urine,
>> which the owners are allowing them to do.

Scent marking is a normal part of a dog's, and many other species,
behaviour. To give a dog an appropriate amount of exercise it is
impossible to stop them scent marking. What do you suggest should be
done about all the wild animals that defecate and urinate at will?
Likewise all the other domesticated animals that frequent the urban
landscape such as horses and cats? You hypothesis that this should be
illegal really is not viable.

--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[ARW]

"Mr Pounder Esquire" <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> wrote in message
news:nisdos$g3b$1...@dont-email.me...

Opinions are not needed.

Legally cats can shit wherever they want.

--
Adam

[James Wilkinson]

And they do so in out of the way places, not on pavements where you walk. And some of them even bother burying it.

Anyway, dog owners can very easily prevent their dog shitting or urinating. A cat owner is not usually present at the time of the infraction.

The problem is the owners, not the animals. If someone was walking a cat on a lead, I'd expect them to stop it urinating too. Not stopping your animal urinating is as bad as urinating yourself.

[Robin]

On 05/06/2016 17:59, James Wilkinson wrote:
> Anyway, dog owners can very easily prevent their dog shitting or
> urinating. A cat owner is not usually present at the time of the
> infraction.
>
> The problem is the owners, not the animals. If someone was walking a
> cat on a lead, I'd expect them to stop it urinating too. Not stopping
> your animal urinating is as bad as urinating yourself.

How please could an owner *lawfully* stop a cat or dog from urinating?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

So the bloke (me) on his hands and knees working on his garden gets a nice
big handful of stinking cat shit from the cats next door.

>
> Anyway, dog owners can very easily prevent their dog shitting or
> urinating. A cat owner is not usually present at the time of the
> infraction.

Cat owners know where their cat is shitting.
I casually mentioned this to my neighbour.
His response was, "Ha, that's the way it goes mate". If he had said to chuck
the shit into his garden I may have taken a different attitude. He WAS a
typical cat owner.
He no longer owns cats.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

I know.
Do you think it is right for your cats to urinate and defecate in somebody
else's garden where little children might play?
Do you go round and clean up after your cats as responsible dog owners are
expected to do?

[James Wilkinson]

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 18:43:53 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/06/2016 17:59, James Wilkinson wrote:
>> Anyway, dog owners can very easily prevent their dog shitting or
>> urinating. A cat owner is not usually present at the time of the
>> infraction.
>>
>> The problem is the owners, not the animals. If someone was walking a
>> cat on a lead, I'd expect them to stop it urinating too. Not stopping
>> your animal urinating is as bad as urinating yourself.
>
> How please could an owner *lawfully* stop a cat or dog from urinating?

Tug on the lead. Easy enough to prevent a dog from stopping.

[James Wilkinson]

Yes but there is nothing the cat owner can do about it.

>> Anyway, dog owners can very easily prevent their dog shitting or
>> urinating. A cat owner is not usually present at the time of the
>> infraction.
>
> Cat owners know where their cat is shitting.
> I casually mentioned this to my neighbour.
> His response was, "Ha, that's the way it goes mate". If he had said to chuck
> the shit into his garden I may have taken a different attitude. He WAS a
> typical cat owner.
> He no longer owns cats.

Not all cat owners are like that. Most will apologise and offer to clear it up etc.

[James Wilkinson]

Dog owners have the pet on a lead, they can easily control it and watch what it does and correct it. That is not possible with a cat as they do not go around with the owner. A cat is basically a wild animal which you feed in exchange for affection. And no demands to take the bloody thing for a walk either.

[Roger Hayter]

Of course there is! They can keep their animal on their own property,
as they would have to do with any destructive or harmful wild animal
they kept. The fact they are not legally bound to do this is immaterial
- it is the decent thing to do.





Roger Hayter

[Gorf]

On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:48:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> Dog fouling is illegal. Public human urination is illegal. So is there a law against the disgusting habit of letting your dog urinate in public?

Urine is sterile, or at least as sterile as the rest of the person producing it. Unless a person has a urinary tract infection, you're more likely to catch something from shaking their hand than touching their wee.

I'm guessing public human urination is illegal because it's indecent, not because it's a health hazard.

[Peter Crosland]

On 08/06/2016 10:15, Gorf wrote:
> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:48:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> Dog fouling is illegal. Public human urination is illegal. So is there a law against the disgusting habit of letting your dog urinate in public?
>
> Urine is sterile, or at least as sterile as the rest of the person producing it. Unless a person has a urinary tract infection, you're more likely to catch something from shaking their hand than touching their wee.

Urban myth that urine is sterile. Lots of nasties from human and animal
urine.

[Gorf]

It's sterile while it's in your bladder. If it picks up lots of nasties, you should maybe wash more. Just google "Is urine sterile".

[Peter Crosland]

The thread was about the generality not a specific person and there is.
In any case Googling shows the exact opposite of your claim.

[Roger Hayter]

Consider, inter alia, Bilharziia.

--

Roger Hayter

[Norman Wells]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1molomv.1kvba133hqbu6N%ro...@hayter.org...

> Gorf <g.p....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's sterile while it's in your bladder. If it picks up lots of nasties,
>> you should maybe wash more. Just google "Is urine sterile".
>
> Consider, inter alia, Bilharziia.

I've considered it. What point are you trying to make?

[Vir Campestris]

On 10/06/2016 07:04, Peter Crosland wrote:
> The thread was about the generality not a specific person and there is.
> In any case Googling shows the exact opposite of your claim.

It it's not sterile in your bladder you ought to see a doctor. In fact
you probably already have.

I know more Biology than I do law... though it turns out I'm a little
out of date.

<http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/turns-out-urine-isnt-actually-sterile-180954809/?no-ist>

says that it may not be sterile in women. And that this lack of
sterility may be the cause of all sorts of problems...

Andy

[billcuss...@googlemail.com]

This is a foul and a digusting problem
The government should introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150
This would pay for dog wardens to catch the owners of these SH-T MACHINES
A lot of these owners pay a lot of money for these animals some in the region of £1,000 and they pay medical insurance of about £50 a month (how many of them have private medical insurance for their children not many I bet)
So they can't complain about paying for a dog licence
Your car tax is calculated on emissions
How about that for dogs
Dog fouling is a big problem where I live
The idiots who own them are to blame not the dogs
Some idiots pick the crap up in bags and then throw the bags down instead of binning them
A lot of them walk them off their leads
And let them run wild while they walk on talking on their mobiles
This is in itself an offence
The law states
That it is an offence not to keep a dog under control on a public highway
(Anywhere where members of the public can walk or drive)

[lordgnome]

On 28/09/2017 10:26, billcuss...@googlemail.com wrote:
> This is a foul and a digusting problem

> The government should introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150

> This would pay for dog wardens to catch the owners of these SH-T MACHINES

> A lot of these owners pay a lot of money for these animals some in the region of £1,000 and they pay medical insurance of about £50 a month (how many of them have private medical insurance for their children not many I bet)

> So they can't complain about paying for a dog licence
> Your car tax is calculated on emissions
> How about that for dogs
> Dog fouling is a big problem where I live
> The idiots who own them are to blame not the dogs
> Some idiots pick the crap up in bags and then throw the bags down instead of binning them
> A lot of them walk them off their leads
> And let them run wild while they walk on talking on their mobiles
> This is in itself an offence
> The law states
> That it is an offence not to keep a dog under control on a public highway
> (Anywhere where members of the public can walk or drive)
>

All of which is entirely non applicable in a rural situation.

Much ado about nothing. Amazing how some people are fixated on this
issue whilst ignoring the fact that their council tax rises
exponentially, the roads need repair and social services are poor. Some
priority!

[Martin Brown]

On 28/09/2017 10:26, billcuss...@googlemail.com wrote:

> This is a foul and a digusting problem The government should

> introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150

That is about an order of magnitude more than at present:

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/dog-licensing-and-microchipping

What percentage of UK dogs are actually licensed at present?
Has anyone been prosecuted for having an unlicensed dog?

> Dog fouling is a big problem where I live The idiots who own
> them are to blame not the dogs Some idiots pick the crap up in bags
> and then throw the bags down instead of binning them

I find the ones who bag it and then hang it up in the hedgerow
particularly annoying. If they just kicked it under the hedge it would
be better. Some rural footpath hedges are adorned with a large number of
such trophies all festering and fermenting in the sunshine.

A bit like with littering and fly tipping the chances of catching
someone in the act are so slender that we would have to impose the death
penalty those caught to discourage others from doing the same thing.

> That it is an offence not to keep a dog under control on a public
> highway (Anywhere where members of the public can walk or drive)
>

Do that in a field with sheep the farmer is within his rights to shoot
the animal dead.

A dog can be under control without being on a lead working dogs like
sheepdogs and gundogs being obvious examples.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[davi...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 28 September 2017 13:48:04 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 28/09/2017 10:26, billcuss...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > This is a foul and a digusting problem The government should
> > introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150
>
> That is about an order of magnitude more than at present:
>
> https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/dog-licensing-and-microchipping
>
> What percentage of UK dogs are actually licensed at present?
> Has anyone been prosecuted for having an unlicensed dog?

Unlikely, since the requirement was abolished in Great Britain in 1987. If you look more closely at your link, it's talking about Northern Ireland. Though I have no idea what enforcement is like there.

[Janet]

In article <df163d06-faeb-4b2e...@googlegroups.com>,
billcuss...@googlemail.com says...


> A lot of these owners pay medical insurance of about £50 a month (how

many of them have private medical insurance for their children not many
I bet)

Non sequitur.

UK parents don't need private health insurance for a child because the
NHS provides all their medical needs regardless of cause.
However irresponsible the parent, however awful the consequences of
poor parenting, the NHS, social services and taxpayer provide care and
carry the cost.


Janet.

[TTman]

True, but the rich club can jump the queue if they have medical
insurance.Not going to help you much if you are badly injured in a car
crash... First stop is the local NHS A&E
Apart from that , you can't get your pet treated on the NHS... The
options are insurance or suffer the substantial financial costs of
treatment.Our Staffy had to have an operation on both back knees at a
cost of £7K, which the insurance stumped up.My pockets aren't that deep :(


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Brian Reay]

There can be serious problems with dogs who attack sheep in rural areas.
I've no issue with responsible dog owners but, sadly, it is the
irresponsible ones that cause the problems. A licence should be required
for each dog and it should be strictly enforced. It would also assist in
monitoring those who are banned from owning a dog- including for example
preventing getting around such a ban by a 'partner' claiming to own the
dog etc.

[Roland Perry]

In message <oqilsj$6v2$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:19:41 on Thu, 28 Sep
2017, lordgnome <l...@nospam.null> remarked:

>> This is a foul and a digusting problem

>> The government should introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150

>> This would pay for dog wardens to catch the owners of these SH-T MACHINES

>> A lot of these owners pay a lot of money for these animals some in the region of £1,000 and they pay medical insurance of about £50 a month

>>(how many of them have private medical insurance for their children not many I bet)
>> So they can't complain about paying for a dog licence
>> Your car tax is calculated on emissions
>> How about that for dogs
>> Dog fouling is a big problem where I live
>> The idiots who own them are to blame not the dogs
>> Some idiots pick the crap up in bags and then throw the bags down instead of binning them
>> A lot of them walk them off their leads
>> And let them run wild while they walk on talking on their mobiles
>> This is in itself an offence
>> The law states
>> That it is an offence not to keep a dog under control on a public highway
>> (Anywhere where members of the public can walk or drive)
>
>All of which is entirely non applicable in a rural situation.

Having spoken at length to someone who is responsible for setting the
rules for the use of common land on the edge of their town, much of it
most certainly applies in a rural situation like that.

Dog poo is just as more noxious as grazing animal poo if left on a
common, as if it's left on a pavement; and in the rural context there is
far more indigenous wildlife which can be disturbed.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <oqj3do$av9$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:10:45 on Thu, 28 Sep
2017, TTman <kraken...@gmail.com> remarked:

>Our Staffy had to have an operation on both back knees at a cost of
>£7K, which the insurance stumped up.My pockets aren't that deep :(

I wonder if the NHS's bill for doing that to a human would be in the
same ball-park? A bit of a reality check on the actual cost of
procedures.
--
Roland Perry

[lordgnome]

On 29/09/2017 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:

> Having spoken at length to someone who is responsible for setting the
> rules for the use of common land on the edge of their town, much of it
> most certainly applies in a rural situation like that.
>
> Dog poo is just as more noxious as grazing animal poo if left on a
> common, as if it's left on a pavement; and in the rural context there is
> far more indigenous wildlife which can be disturbed.

I fail to see how indigenous life is likely to be 'disturbed'. Then we
have the ridiculous situation where my (Anglesey) council wastes money
on 'no fouling' signs plastered on little lanes where people rarely walk
(and then in wellingtons) and which for most of the year are plastered
with mud, cow, horse and sheep droppings. A sense of proportion is required!

[Roland Perry]

In message <oqkvgg$6n7$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:09 on Fri, 29 Sep
2017, lordgnome <l...@nospam.null> remarked:

>On 29/09/2017 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Having spoken at length to someone who is responsible for setting the
>> rules for the use of common land on the edge of their town, much of it
>> most certainly applies in a rural situation like that.
>>
>> Dog poo is just as more noxious as grazing animal poo if left on a
>> common, as if it's left on a pavement; and in the rural context there is
>> far more indigenous wildlife which can be disturbed.
>
>I fail to see how indigenous life is likely to be 'disturbed'.

Dogs chasing the animals and fowl on the common. Some round here have
cows and horses.

>Then we have the ridiculous situation where my (Anglesey) council
>wastes money on 'no fouling' signs plastered on little lanes where
>people rarely walk (and then in wellingtons) and which for most of the
>year are plastered with mud, cow, horse and sheep droppings.

Herbivore droppings are a completely different thing to carnivore
droppings. That townies don't appreciate this is perhaps the main reason
why councils have to introduce 'measures'.

>A sense of proportion is required!

A sense of biology is required!!
--
Roland Perry

[Saxman]

On 28/09/2017 10:26, billcuss...@googlemail.com wrote:

> This is a foul and a digusting problem

> The government should introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150

> This would pay for dog wardens to catch the owners of these SH-T MACHINES

> A lot of these owners pay a lot of money for these animals some in the region of £1,000 and they pay medical insurance of about £50 a month (how many of them have private medical insurance for their children not many I bet)

> So they can't complain about paying for a dog licence
> Your car tax is calculated on emissions
> How about that for dogs
> Dog fouling is a big problem where I live
> The idiots who own them are to blame not the dogs
> Some idiots pick the crap up in bags and then throw the bags down instead of binning them
> A lot of them walk them off their leads
> And let them run wild while they walk on talking on their mobiles
> This is in itself an offence
> The law states
> That it is an offence not to keep a dog under control on a public highway
> (Anywhere where members of the public can walk or drive)
>

They should do as is being done in Italy. Take a DNA sample on all dogs
and fine the owners if their dogs break the law.

The same could be done here. Owners should be made to pay for a DNA
sample and such a scheme financed by fines.

[lordgnome]

On 29/09/2017 09:33, Roland Perry wrote:

> Herbivore droppings are a completely different thing to carnivore
> droppings. That townies don't appreciate this is perhaps the main reason
> why councils have to introduce 'measures'.
>
>> A sense of proportion is required!
>
> A sense of biology is required!!

Amazing how the country has survived with all those pooping foxes over
the years... Oh, and I am a smallholder by the way and not a 'townie'.

[Brian Reay]

I had a stem cell treatment done on one knee for to grow a replacement
cartilage done a few years back in a private hospital. I'd have to look
up the exact cost but it was about £1200 (not that I actually paid
myself- it was covered). It involve 'keyhole' surgery to 'suck out the
old cartilage' and injection of some cells from my bone marrow and
platelets (processed), etc. Followed by 6 weeks on crutches. As I
recall, a replacement knee wasn't hugely different cost wise- certainly
not double.

(If anyone needs this done, I can recommend it- it has proven highly
successful in my case.)

[Roland Perry]

In message <oql4sb$ab9$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:47:47 on Fri, 29 Sep
2017, lordgnome <l...@nospam.null> remarked:

>On 29/09/2017 09:33, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Herbivore droppings are a completely different thing to carnivore
>> droppings. That townies don't appreciate this is perhaps the main reason
>> why councils have to introduce 'measures'.
>>
>>> A sense of proportion is required!
>>
>> A sense of biology is required!!
>
>Amazing how the country has survived with all those pooping foxes over
>the years...

They probably don't poop much in the nouveau-leisure places where
there's the smell of humans and their dogs.

>Oh, and I am a smallholder by the way and not a 'townie'.

I'm simply channelling what exasperated commons-keepers are telling me.
--
Roland Perry

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:20:28 +0100, Saxman <john.h.willia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28/09/2017 10:26, billcuss...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> This is a foul and a digusting problem

>> The government should introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150

>> This would pay for dog wardens to catch the owners of these SH-T MACHINES

>> A lot of these owners pay a lot of money for these animals some in the region of £1,000 and they pay medical insurance of about £50 a month (how many of them have private medical insurance for their children not many I bet)

>> So they can't complain about paying for a dog licence
>> Your car tax is calculated on emissions
>> How about that for dogs
>> Dog fouling is a big problem where I live
>> The idiots who own them are to blame not the dogs
>> Some idiots pick the crap up in bags and then throw the bags down instead of binning them
>> A lot of them walk them off their leads
>> And let them run wild while they walk on talking on their mobiles
>> This is in itself an offence
>> The law states
>> That it is an offence not to keep a dog under control on a public highway
>> (Anywhere where members of the public can walk or drive)
>>
>
> They should do as is being done in Italy. Take a DNA sample on all dogs
> and fine the owners if their dogs break the law.
>
> The same could be done here. Owners should be made to pay for a DNA
> sample and such a scheme financed by fines.

Sounds far too much like Communism. Where are your papers?!

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Brian Reay]

On 30/09/2017 22:45, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:20:28 +0100, Saxman <john.h.willia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 28/09/2017 10:26, billcuss...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> This is a foul and a digusting problem

>>> The government should introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150

>>> This would pay for dog wardens to catch the owners of these SH-T MACHINES

>>> A lot of these owners pay a lot of money for these animals some in the region of £1,000 and they pay medical insurance of about £50 a month (how many of them have private medical insurance for their children not many I bet)

>>> So they can't complain about paying for a dog licence
>>> Your car tax is calculated on emissions
>>> How about that for dogs
>>> Dog fouling is a big problem where I live
>>> The idiots who own them are to blame not the dogs
>>> Some idiots pick the crap up in bags and then throw the bags down instead of binning them
>>> A lot of them walk them off their leads
>>> And let them run wild while they walk on talking on their mobiles
>>> This is in itself an offence
>>> The law states
>>> That it is an offence not to keep a dog under control on a public highway
>>> (Anywhere where members of the public can walk or drive)
>>>
>>
>> They should do as is being done in Italy. Take a DNA sample on all dogs
>> and fine the owners if their dogs break the law.
>>
>> The same could be done here. Owners should be made to pay for a DNA
>> sample and such a scheme financed by fines.
>
> Sounds far too much like Communism. Where are your papers?!

Not at all, it is about ensuring people accept responsibility. If
anything, Communism does the converse of that- in individual is absolved
of many responsibilities- which is why some find it so appealing.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Why should we be responsible all the time? Have some fun, let your hair down once in a while! Besides, why punish the innocent for the guilty? For example, because there are litter louts dropping carrier bags around the place, everyone else has to have this bloody carrier bag charge. 99% of us have never littered in our lives, yet now we have to remember to bring the bloody bags every time we go shopping. And it's going to get worse, bottle deposit schemes! Please, leave us alone!!!

[Brian Reay]

On 01/10/2017 15:45, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 09:17:22 +0100, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30/09/2017 22:45, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:20:28 +0100, Saxman <john.h.willia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/09/2017 10:26, billcuss...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>> This is a foul and a digusting problem

>>>>> The government should introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150

>>>>> This would pay for dog wardens to catch the owners of these SH-T MACHINES

>>>>> A lot of these owners pay a lot of money for these animals some in the region of £1,000 and they pay medical insurance of about £50 a month (how many of them have private medical insurance for their children not many I bet)

>>>>> So they can't complain about paying for a dog licence
>>>>> Your car tax is calculated on emissions
>>>>> How about that for dogs
>>>>> Dog fouling is a big problem where I live
>>>>> The idiots who own them are to blame not the dogs
>>>>> Some idiots pick the crap up in bags and then throw the bags down instead of binning them
>>>>> A lot of them walk them off their leads
>>>>> And let them run wild while they walk on talking on their mobiles
>>>>> This is in itself an offence
>>>>> The law states
>>>>> That it is an offence not to keep a dog under control on a public highway
>>>>> (Anywhere where members of the public can walk or drive)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They should do as is being done in Italy. Take a DNA sample on all dogs
>>>> and fine the owners if their dogs break the law.
>>>>
>>>> The same could be done here. Owners should be made to pay for a DNA
>>>> sample and such a scheme financed by fines.
>>>
>>> Sounds far too much like Communism. Where are your papers?!
>>
>> Not at all, it is about ensuring people accept responsibility. If
>> anything, Communism does the converse of that- in individual is absolved
>> of many responsibilities- which is why some find it so appealing.
>
> Why should we be responsible all the time? Have some fun, let your hair down once in a while! Besides, why punish the innocent for the guilty? For example, because there are litter louts dropping carrier bags around the place, everyone else has to have this bloody carrier bag charge. 99% of us have never littered in our lives, yet now we have to remember to bring the bloody bags every time we go shopping. And it's going to get worse, bottle deposit schemes! Please, leave us alone!!!

You are confusing being responsible for your actions with not having
fun/enjoying yourself. They are far from mutually exclusive.

As for your example of carrier bags- it wasn't litter, it was their not
breaking down in landfill- at least that was the reason given. After
all, they were far from a dominant litter item.

As for litter, I suspect it is more than 1% who drop litter. I travel
in Europe regularly, in fact I've just returned from a 5 week trip. One
of the first things I notice is the litter here. I probably saw more
litter on the 40 min drive from the tunnel to my home than the 2000km or
so round trip through France.

[Saxman]

On 01/10/2017 15:45, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 09:17:22 +0100, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30/09/2017 22:45, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:20:28 +0100, Saxman <john.h.willia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/09/2017 10:26, billcuss...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>> This is a foul and a digusting problem

>>>>> The government should introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150

>>>>> This would pay for dog wardens to catch the owners of these SH-T MACHINES

>>>>> A lot of these owners pay a lot of money for these animals some in the region of £1,000 and they pay medical insurance of about £50 a month (how many of them have private medical insurance for their children not many I bet)

>>>>> So they can't complain about paying for a dog licence
>>>>> Your car tax is calculated on emissions
>>>>> How about that for dogs
>>>>> Dog fouling is a big problem where I live
>>>>> The idiots who own them are to blame not the dogs
>>>>> Some idiots pick the crap up in bags and then throw the bags down instead of binning them
>>>>> A lot of them walk them off their leads
>>>>> And let them run wild while they walk on talking on their mobiles
>>>>> This is in itself an offence
>>>>> The law states
>>>>> That it is an offence not to keep a dog under control on a public highway
>>>>> (Anywhere where members of the public can walk or drive)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They should do as is being done in Italy. Take a DNA sample on all dogs
>>>> and fine the owners if their dogs break the law.
>>>>
>>>> The same could be done here. Owners should be made to pay for a DNA
>>>> sample and such a scheme financed by fines.
>>>
>>> Sounds far too much like Communism. Where are your papers?!
>>
>> Not at all, it is about ensuring people accept responsibility. If
>> anything, Communism does the converse of that- in individual is absolved
>> of many responsibilities- which is why some find it so appealing.
>
> Why should we be responsible all the time? Have some fun, let your hair down once in a while! Besides, why punish the innocent for the guilty? For example, because there are litter louts dropping carrier bags around the place, everyone else has to have this bloody carrier bag charge. 99% of us have never littered in our lives, yet now we have to remember to bring the bloody bags every time we go shopping. And it's going to get worse, bottle deposit schemes! Please, leave us alone!!!
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>

I used to live in a village without street lights and treading in a pile
of do s*** on the pavement in the dark is not nice. Especially when
visiting the social club after.

Dog fouling is anti-social, much in the same way as passengers putting
their feet on train, bus seats.

[Adam Funk]

On 2017-10-02, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 08:26:15 +0100, Saxman wrote:
>
>> Dog fouling is anti-social, much in the same way as passengers putting
>> their feet on train, bus seats.
>

> AFAIAC, "anti-social" actions should be some of the most serious offences
> we consider.
>
> The underlying mindset behind them is not only disregard for all other
> fellow humans, but a complete disrespect for the environment they inhabit.
>
> You see someone throwing a crisp packet on the floor. I see someone who
> cares not a jot for me, my family, my living space, and my community.
> Someone who is prepared to litter is also prepared to piss in my well,
> and shit on my allotment.
>
> Generally I'm not a fan of Draconian punishments. But in the case of
> littering (which dog fouling is an example of) I really can't argue
> against some form of amputation ...
>
> I appreciate that's probably a tad *too* extreme. But I have no issue
> with the story below, except that it should happen more often.
>
> http://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/woman-fined-more-700-
> dropping-499424

IMO littering is never excusable (although I am excluding genuine
cases of accidentally dropping something). You might need to shoplift
to avoid starvation, but you never need to drop something that you
were willing to carry earlier. And I think people should be thrown
off trains & buses at the next stop *and* fined for littering or
putting their feet on the seats.

I suppose it's remotely possible that you might not have a bag because
you weren't expecting the dog to need a dump so soon, but I get the
impression it's a normal, routine part of walkies.

[Saxman]

On 02/10/2017 12:05, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 08:26:15 +0100, Saxman wrote:
>

>> Dog fouling is anti-social, much in the same way as passengers putting
>> their feet on train, bus seats.
>

> AFAIAC, "anti-social" actions should be some of the most serious offences
> we consider.
>
> The underlying mindset behind them is not only disregard for all other
> fellow humans, but a complete disrespect for the environment they inhabit.
>
> You see someone throwing a crisp packet on the floor. I see someone who
> cares not a jot for me, my family, my living space, and my community.
> Someone who is prepared to litter is also prepared to piss in my well,
> and shit on my allotment.
>
> Generally I'm not a fan of Draconian punishments. But in the case of
> littering (which dog fouling is an example of) I really can't argue
> against some form of amputation ...
>
> I appreciate that's probably a tad *too* extreme. But I have no issue
> with the story below, except that it should happen more often.
>
> http://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/woman-fined-more-700-
> dropping-499424
>

People are beginning to notice. I have just distributed some dog
fouling warnings for my local councillor.

This is a good start. Fines for being in charge of a dog and not
carrying dog fouling bags.

http://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/dog-owners-tunbridge-wells-could-541260

[James Wilkinson Sword]

> I used to live in a village without street lights and treading in a pile
> of do s*** on the pavement in the dark is not nice. Especially when
> visiting the social club after.

Torch?

> Dog fouling is anti-social, much in the same way as passengers putting
> their feet on train, bus seats.

Would you really get that upset about some feet on a seat?

[lordgnome]

On 02/10/2017 17:07, Saxman wrote:

>
> People are beginning to notice. I have just distributed some dog
> fouling warnings for my local councillor.
>
> This is a good start. Fines for being in charge of a dog and not
> carrying dog fouling bags.
>
> http://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/dog-owners-tunbridge-wells-could-541260
>

Perhaps you would favour compulsory ID as well?

"Geheim Stats Polizei - papieren!"

[Graeme]

In message <op.y7hqk...@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword
<imv...@somewear.com> writes

Why not? Just to bring the conversation full circle, those feet could
be wearing shoes which have just trodden in dog mess, transferring said
mess to the seat and therefore to the clothes of the next person to sit
there.
--
Graeme

[Saxman]

No problem.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

They most certainly are. I don't want requirements for everything I do in life.

> As for your example of carrier bags- it wasn't litter, it was their not
> breaking down in landfill- at least that was the reason given. After
> all, they were far from a dominant litter item.

Then make them biodegradable, but don't inconvenience innocent people.

> As for litter, I suspect it is more than 1% who drop litter. I travel
> in Europe regularly, in fact I've just returned from a 5 week trip. One
> of the first things I notice is the litter here. I probably saw more
> litter on the 40 min drive from the tunnel to my home than the 2000km or
> so round trip through France.

It doesn't take many to cover the ground with litter. You just need stiff fines and good enforcement, it would soon remove the problem. I'd just send out a handful of police once a month, in plain clothes, and anyone dropping any litter has to litter pick for 3 months as community service. It'd soon stop anyone doing it again.

[Saxman]

On 04/10/2017 02:14, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 20:43:05 +0100, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/10/2017 15:45, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 09:17:22 +0100, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/09/2017 22:45, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:20:28 +0100, Saxman <john.h.willia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/09/2017 10:26, billcuss...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> This is a foul and a digusting problem

>>>>>>> The government should introduce a dog licence somewhere in the region of £100-£150

>>>>>>> This would pay for dog wardens to catch the owners of these SH-T MACHINES

>>>>>>> A lot of these owners pay a lot of money for these animals some in the region of £1,000 and they pay medical insurance of about £50 a month (how many of them have private medical insurance for their children not many I bet)

The latter sounds good to me. It would prevent good people like myself
and others having to do regular communal litter pick in the local area.

This is not about being restrictive and not being able to 'have fun',
it's about breaking the law. As such, it should be enforced possibly in
the way you state.

I think they thought that when the litter laws were introduced, it would
self-regulate. It's a major problem and more has to be done.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 10:34:40 +0100, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 09:41:04 +0100, Saxman wrote:
>
>> I think they thought that when the litter laws were introduced, it would
>> self-regulate. It's a major problem and more has to be done.
>

> I think there's an underlying societal element that needs tackling (not
> that I have any idea).
>
> As I suggested previously, the intent (or lack of care, they amount to
> the same thing: contempt) behind littering reveals a disconnect between
> the the perpetrator, and their environment. Really that's what should be
> tackled.

You can't change people's attitudes by persuasion. Just punish them, by fixing the problem they caused. Community service cleaning the graffiti, picking the litter, etc. That way they're fixing what they and similar people did, and putting them off doing it again.

[Graham Murray]

"James Wilkinson Sword" <imv...@somewear.com> writes:

>> As for your example of carrier bags- it wasn't litter, it was their not
>> breaking down in landfill- at least that was the reason given. After
>> all, they were far from a dominant litter item.
>
> Then make them biodegradable, but don't inconvenience innocent people.

Or go back to providing paper carrier bags, or even for shoppers to use
the traditional cloth or wicker shopping baskets rather than store
supplied plastic (whether one-use or 'bag for life') carrier bags.

[Graeme]

In message <op.y7k59...@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword
<imv...@somewear.com> writes
>

>You can't change people's attitudes by persuasion.

I disagree. Look at the wearing of seat belts or drink driving, for
example. Not everyone who wears a seat belt or does not drink and drive
has been prosecuted, or even warned. Such things just become the norm
by persuasion, peer pressure, call it what you will. There will always
be some who resist, but, eventually, a small minority.
--
Graeme

[James Wilkinson Sword]

People wear seat belts and don't drink drive because they (incorrectly) believe it's safer. Not littering is nothing to do with safety, so they won't care.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 17:50:32 +0100, Graeme <Gra...@binnsroad.net> wrote:

So er.... explain the 3 million people caught for speeding every year.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <or4ob5$725$5...@dont-email.me>, Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> However, as we are learning, the message has to be repeated.
>
> *I* am of a generation that was bought up to think drink driving is
> beyond the pale. But it seems younger people have lost that view.

How odd, I see the opposite. I was brought up in a generation that
seemed to think sothing was wrong with it, but these days I don't know
anyone who does it, including those who used to. I'm 55.

[Adam Funk]

On 2017-10-05, Jethro_uk wrote:

> From
>
> http://www.drinkdrivingfacts.com/drinkdriving/drink_driving_facts.aspx
>
> Quote
> Drinking and driving occurs across a wide range of age groups but
> particularly among young men aged 17-29 in both casualties and positive
> breath tests following a collision. The Government's most recent drink
> drive campaigns aims to target this group.
>
> unquote

Is that specific to drink driving, or just part of a general
inclination among men of that age group to riskier behaviour than the
rest of the population?

[Ian Jackson]

In article <or4odr$725$5...@dont-email.me>,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>Care to share your stats on how wearing seatbelts does not improve
>safety ?

Mandatory seat belts did nothing for the safety of vehicle occupants,
and increased risk for those outside vehicles.

See the Isles Report, which was commissioned by DfT as a piece of
policy-based evidence-making, but was done by a real statistician who
was honest enough to write down the wrong answer. So the report was
suppressed by the DfT so that the seat belt legislation would pass.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Martin Brown]

On 05/10/2017 12:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <or4odr$725$5...@dont-email.me>,
> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 22:55:50 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 17:50:32 +0100, Graeme <Gra...@binnsroad.net> wrote:
>>> People wear seat belts and don't drink drive because they (incorrectly)
>>> believe it's safer.
>>
>> Care to share your stats on how wearing seatbelts does not improve
>> safety ?
>
> Mandatory seat belts did nothing for the safety of vehicle occupants,
> and increased risk for those outside vehicles.

Tell that to the guy who was garrotted by his laminated windscreen in a
high speed crash on the A19. He wasn't wearing a seatbelt and paid for
it with his life (pre airbag era admittedly).

It is entirely possible that risk compensation makes drivers with
seatbelts on travel slightly faster to the detriment of other road
users. The other confusing factor for any analysis is the extent of
voluntary wearing of seatbelts prior to the law coming into effect.

> See the Isles Report, which was commissioned by DfT as a piece of
> policy-based evidence-making, but was done by a real statistician who
> was honest enough to write down the wrong answer. So the report was
> suppressed by the DfT so that the seat belt legislation would pass.
>
> http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/

I have been an unrestrained rear seat passenger in a serious collision
and I can assure you that the front seat guys wearing seatbelts came out
of it a lot better than I did. Likewise for Princess Diana vs her body
guard who was wearing a seatbelt - possibly the highest profile example.

The report fails to take account of rapidly increasing numbers of
vehicles on the road and passenger miles travelled over the period being
analysed. Car and van traffic mileage increased about 25% over the
decade 1971-1981 (or an average of 2% per year) see table 12.2 in:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/social-trends-rd/social-trends/social-trends-39/chapter-12.pdf

I can see why in Belgium seatbelts would have such a marked effect on
driver injuries since they drive like maniacs and still have a *mix* of
priority a droit and non priority a droit roads and roundabouts to make
life even more exciting. In the days before ABS brakes serious driver
side door collisions were inevitable at every blind side road if there
was a car brave enough to take its priority by not slowing down.

They have only had a driving test since 1960 so in 1970 only a small
fraction of younger drivers would ever have passed a test.

If you are in a collision you are a lot better off wearing a seat belt.
And Belgium where collisions are a way of life proves it. It is a shame
that the corresponding accident data for Italy is not shown.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Ian Jackson]

In article <or5e3m$120a$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 05/10/2017 12:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Mandatory seat belts did nothing for the safety of vehicle occupants,
>> and increased risk for those outside vehicles.
>
>Tell that to the guy who was garrotted by his laminated windscreen in a
>high speed crash on the A19. He wasn't wearing a seatbelt and paid for
>it with his life (pre airbag era admittedly).

This kind of argument from anecdote is of course incredibly
unreliable. (The proportion of helmet-wearing cyclists who think a
helmet saved their life is so large if they were all right, each
unhelmeted cyclist would have been killed many times over. Perhaps
there is a similar statistic for seat belts.) Did that crash occur
before the mandatory seat belt law ? If not, then it is not an
argument for the seat belt law of course!

If we actually want to know whether a new "safety" law is a good idea,
or whether it is effective, we need to look at the whole population,
not at individual cases.

The statistics (and not just those in the Isles Report) show that the
effect of seat belt law is: for every person in a vehicle who is saved
by the seatbelt that they are now wearing because of the law, there is
another person who dies in an extra crash (or a worse crash). Our
best guess is that these extra crashes occur because the driver of the
vehicle felt safer because they were now wearing a seat belt.

And in addition to the extra deaths of vehicle occupants due to extra
crashes, which cancel out the lives saved, there are extra deaths of
pedestrians and cyclists outside the vehicle.

Mandatory seat belts were an "obvious" safety intervention which was
bad from an epedemiological point of view - and very bad from a
justice point of view.

The rest of your article is mostly trying to prove the undisputed
premise that wearing a seat belt will improve your odds *if you
crash*. What it misses is that seat belts increase crashes.
Worse: seat belt promotion increases the degree to which seat
belts increase crashes!

[lordgnome]

On 05/10/2017 10:37, Sara Merriman wrote:

> How odd, I see the opposite. I was brought up in a generation that
> seemed to think sothing was wrong with it, but these days I don't know
> anyone who does it, including those who used to. I'm 55.
>

I agree (74 by the way). The odd thing is that I don't recall many
prangs being directly caused by drinking - even when some regulars had a
job to walk to their cars! Of course the usual cry when anyone caught up
in an accident was 'He had been drinking' - as if that automatically
explained all the circumstances!

[Peter Parry]

On 05 Oct 2017 15:22:14 +0100 (BST), ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

(Ian Jackson) wrote:

>In article <or5e3m$120a$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
>Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 05/10/2017 12:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Mandatory seat belts did nothing for the safety of vehicle occupants,
>>> and increased risk for those outside vehicles.

>>Tell that to the guy who was garrotted by his laminated windscreen in a
>>high speed crash on the A19. He wasn't wearing a seatbelt and paid for
>>it with his life (pre airbag era admittedly).
>
>This kind of argument from anecdote is of course incredibly
>unreliable. (The proportion of helmet-wearing cyclists who think a
>helmet saved their life is so large if they were all right, each
>unhelmeted cyclist would have been killed many times over. Perhaps
>there is a similar statistic for seat belts.) Did that crash occur
>before the mandatory seat belt law ? If not, then it is not an
>argument for the seat belt law of course!
>
>If we actually want to know whether a new "safety" law is a good idea,
>or whether it is effective, we need to look at the whole population,
>not at individual cases.

http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/HowEffective/vehicles/seat-belts
offers a comprehensive list of studies more recent than the much
touted Isles report (which pre-dated the legislation and the
conclusion of which was predictive (and now more up to date
information is available seemingly wrong) rather than objective.

"A meta-analysis of 29 studies of seat belt use was published in 2009
(Elvik et al 2009). .(Elvik, R., Hoye, A., Va, T. & Sorensen, M.,
2009. The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, Second Edition.) . It
found that seatbelts were effective at preventing injury, and were
more effective at preventing more severe injuries. (TRL Client Report
CPR1818 p4.1.1) "Elvik & Vaa conducted a meta-analysis of 29 studies
on the effectiveness of seat belts from different countries, including
USA, Australia and several European countries (Elvik & Vaa, 2009). Due
to the very large sample sizes resulting from the combination of
several studies the best estimates are considered by TRL as robust
numbers with acceptable confidence intervals. The results are also
frequently cited by other experts, for example in (FIA, 2009) and
(Road Safety Observatory, 2013)"

>The statistics (and not just those in the Isles Report) show that the
>effect of seat belt law is: for every person in a vehicle who is saved
>by the seatbelt that they are now wearing because of the law, there is
>another person who dies in an extra crash (or a worse crash). Our
>best guess is that these extra crashes occur because the driver of the
>vehicle felt safer because they were now wearing a seat belt.

"A study from 1985 was published by the Department of Transport and
was commissioned to examine the statistical evidence on the effect of
the seat belt law on road casualties. (Durbin and Harvey1985)

Based on the model, the authors predicted that the seat belt law saved
the lives of 241 drivers in 1983 and 270 in 1984. Similar estimates
were made for front seat passengers, where an estimated 147 lives were
saved in 1983 and 181 in 1984.

The authors commented on a 7.8% increase in pedestrian deaths compared
with what the model would have predicted. However, they suggested that
this was due to the annual reductions in the number of pedestrian
deaths not being as large as in recent years, rather than being due to
the seat belt law.

They noted that 1984 had the lowest number of pedestrian deaths than
any other year in their data and that the number of pedestrians killed
or seriously injured showed no apparent increase.

The model also found that there was a 4.8% increase in the number of
cyclists killed or seriously injured following the introduction of the
law. However, this was not a statistically significant finding and may
have been due to chance. The comparatively low numbers of cyclists
killed or seriously injured in each month means that small differences
in the numbers can lead to large percentage changes. Similarly, the
model could not be modified to incorporate data on weather, which
influences cycle use.

"A study into the long term effects of seat belt wearing was published
in 1989. This was intended as a follow up to the study by Rutherford
et al and investigated the validity of some questions which that study
did not address. This new study included data over a six year period
between 1980 and 1985. (Tunbridge 1989)"

"The study found many of the same associations as the previous study
by Rutherford. There was a 20% reduction in the number of drivers
admitted as in-patients in 1983-85: there were 3,804 injuries compared
with 4,768 in 1980-82. There was a larger fall in the number of front
seat passengers admitted as an in-patient:1,599 injuries in 1983-85
compared with 2,396 injuries in 1980-82. This was a reduction of 33%.
Both of these falls were statistically significant.

There was a reduction of all serious injuries in 1983-5 compared with
1980-82. There were 787 drivers admitted to hospital with serious
injuries in 1980-82 compared with 633 in 1985-86, a 20% reduction. A
similar fall was seen for severe injuries to front seat passengers
with 16% fewer being admitted to hospital: a fall of 356 to 298
between the two time periods.

The study found significant reductions in the already relatively low
number of serious injuries to the head, such as skull or facial
fractures. There was an increase in sprained necks and fractured
sterna following the introduction of the law, although compared to the
number of injuries prevented the increase was extremely small.

The authors also investigated whether there had been any changes to
the number of casualties amongst non-car occupants. This was performed
as a follow up to the previous publication by Durbin andHarvey, which
had suggested that there were modest non-significant increases in the
number of vulnerable road users following the seat belt laws, but that
further research was required based on hospital data.

Based on analysis of the new linked data set, the authors found that
there was a 2% reduction in the number of pedestrian casualties; there
were 5,478 in 1980-82 and 5,357 in 1983-85. This fall was not
statistically significant. There was a slight increase in pedal cycle
casualties from 807 to 837 between the two time periods, although this
was also not statistically significant. The authors also looked at
pedestrian and cyclist casualties from accidents involving cars, and
again found no significant change in the numbers between the two time
periods."

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:47:51 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 10:37:02 +0100, Sara Merriman wrote:
>

>From
>
>http://www.drinkdrivingfacts.com/drinkdriving/drink_driving_facts.aspx
>
>Quote
> Drinking and driving occurs across a wide range of age groups but
>particularly among young men aged 17-29 in both casualties and positive
>breath tests following a collision. The Government's most recent drink
>drive campaigns aims to target this group.
>
>unquote

It's always been the case that young people are more likely to do it
than older people. But the people who were young when I was young were
more likely to do it than the people who are young now.

Mark

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Too many variables for any study to have any meaning whatsoever. So we have to just think sensibly. If you drive with a car you know is more dangerous (no ABS, no seatbelts, bald tyres, etc), you're going to drive slower and more carefully. Therefore having seatbelts and other safety devices all over your car gives you a sense of safety and you drive faster and take less care. But a seatbelt doesn't help the guy you run over.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <puictctu3pu9qs5o7...@4ax.com>,

Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>"A meta-analysis of 29 studies of seat belt use was published in 2009
>(Elvik et al 2009). .(Elvik, R., Hoye, A., Va, T. & Sorensen, M.,
>2009. The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, Second Edition.) . It
>found that seatbelts were effective at preventing injury,

This phrasing does not reveal whether the claim tested is:
1. seat belts help prevent injury in a crash (uncontroversial)
2. use of seat belts reduces injuries overall
3. seat belt laws reduces injuries overall (which is what
I am disputing).

I have often seen "effective at preventing injury" used to mean (1).
I doubt that new meta-analysis of old data shows (3).
Sadly I can't get at the actual research you are referencing because
it's paywalled (or maybe not available online at all).

>"A study from 1985 was published by the Department of Transport and
>was commissioned to examine the statistical evidence on the effect of
>the seat belt law on road casualties. (Durbin and Harvey1985)

John Adams has this to say about Durbin and Harvey's work:

... The time-series models developed by Durbin and Harvey for their
analysis of the seat belt effect were impressively sophisticated,
but none of them contained alcohol related variables. They
attributed all of the decrease in fatalities in 1983 below the
projected trend to the beneficial effect of the seat belt law, and
none to the campaign against drunken driving. ...

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/failure%20of%20seatbelt%20legislation.pdf

>The model also found that there was a 4.8% increase in the number of
>cyclists killed or seriously injured following the introduction of the
>law.

>From the same chapter extract from Adams:

Further, the report cites Durbin and Harvey in a misleadingly
selective way with respect to the effects of the seat belt law on
pedestrians. Tunbridge they [Durbin and Harvey] concluded that there
was no significant increase in the numbers killed and seriously
injured subsequent to What Tunbridge fails to note is that the
fatality statistics and the serious injury statistics tell different
stories (see Figure 5.2 in (Adams 1995)). The KSI (Killed and
Seriously Injured) statistical series is dominated by the much
larger, but less reliable, injury numbers. Tunbridge does not cite
the evidence from Durbin and Harvey with respect to the much more
accurate fatality data on their own. Durbin and Harvey estimated
that the increases in pedestrians and cyclists killed were 8% and
13% respectively. They also estimated an increase for rear seat
passengers, to whom the law did not apply, of 27%. Interestingly,
the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed by heavy goods
vehicles and public service vehicles (categories not covered by the
seat belt law) decreased following the law. Using these categories
as controls, the estimated increases in pedestrian and cyclist
deaths following the law rise to 19.6% and 40%, although the small
control numbers render these estimates unreliable.

I don't think this "Road Safety Observatory" website is to be trusted.
It is likely to be very selective in its use of evidence. Look at the
logos on the bottom of its front page.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

A small amount of drink (a pint or two) actually INCREASES concentration. It's only once you get tipsy that your driving gets worse.

[Roland Perry]

In message <PTt*q0...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 19:04:49 on Thu,
5 Oct 2017, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:

>John Adams has this to say

I'm a huge fan of his. Anyone who wishes to be credible discussing road
traffic risk has to be able to say they've read his work.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

One of the key findings of the original research, back in the 60s,
that led to the introduction of the breathalyser and the blood/alcohol
level legislation (previously, enforcement of drink-driving law was
based on a subjective perception of how drunk you appeared to be) was
the discovery that alcohol consumption made you much more likely to be
the "victim" of an accident that was ostensibly someone else's fault.

This was, at the time, counter-intuitive, although once you understand
it it makes sense. What happens normally, assuming you are both
reasonably competent and reasonably alert, if/when another road user
does something stupid - a driver pulls out of a side road without
looking, or changes lane without indicating, or a cyclist jumps the
red lights, etc - is that you see the danger and take appropriate
avoiding action. You either brake, or change course, or whatever is
necessary to avoid a collision, and hence none occurs. Instead, you
merely curse the other person to yourself, and if you can make eye
contact you offer them an appropriate gesture. But nobody actually
gets hit, nobody gets hurt, and no damage is done.

By contrast, if you, the "innocent" driver in this scenario, have had
a couple of pints too many, then things tend to be different. You can
be driving ever so carefully, and sticking to every speed limit, and
making sure you obey every single rule in the Highway Code. To see you
drive, nobody would suspect you are over the limit[1]. But when
someone else does something they shouldn't, then the chances are you
will fail to react in time and bang! It's an accident, and even though
it wasn't you who jumped the light or pulled out without looking or
changed lanes without indicating, it would not have led to a collision
if your reactions had not been impaired by alcohol.

Most alcohol-related accidents are not the popularly imagined case of
a drunk driver losing control of the car and ending up in the ditch,
or wrapping the car round a lamppost (although these do occur).
Rather, most alcohol-related accidents are caused by someone whose
ability to respond to otherwise trivial unexpected actions by other
road users is below acceptable levels. And this lack of ability to
respond correlates very well with the amount of alcohol in the blood.
It correlates with that far better than it correlates with the
obvious, visible signs of being drunk.

[1] Actually, they would. Somebody being a stickler for the rules of
the road, and in particular being incredibly precise at staying just
inside the speed limit, is one of the things that the police recognise
as being a dead giveaway for a driver who is both over the limit and
over-compensating for it.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

To be more precise, a small amount of alcohol (equivalent to about one
unit, or half a pint) is associated with a small, but statistically
significant, decrease in risk. That returns to normal at levels
approaching two units (one pint), and starts to be associated with a
statistically significant higher risk from around three units.

The current maximum blood alcohol level in England is set at the point
at which your risk level is approximately 50% higher than with zero
alcohol. The average adult male will reach this level at around four
units, or two pints. Your risk level is unacceptably high long before
you feel tipsy.

Mark

[Fredxxx]

Are you suggesting that the Scottish limits make the roads more dangerous?

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Depends who you are. Consider:

1) Mr Smith has his first drink ever, 1 pint.
2) Mr Jones has drunk loads all his life and has 3 pints.

Mr Smith will be less in control of himself and his vehicle, yet Mr Jones gets into trouble with he law. We should have a sobriety test, not a silly numerical value.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Indeed. So why punish "drunk" drivers for not looking out for useless drivers?

> [1] Actually, they would. Somebody being a stickler for the rules of
> the road, and in particular being incredibly precise at staying just
> inside the speed limit, is one of the things that the police recognise
> as being a dead giveaway for a driver who is both over the limit and
> over-compensating for it.

I've heard that before. But there are many OCD folk who constantly stick precisely to the law (my father and a couple of friends spring to mind) who simply don't get pulled over all the time. If you watch other drivers, a large proportion of them obey every law to the letter. They aren't all pulled over.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Never heard of him.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nd5dtc9aodgmfo508...@4ax.com>, at 21:46:29 on
Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

> Somebody being a stickler for the rules of the road, and in particular
>being incredibly precise at staying just inside the speed limit, is one
>of the things that the police recognise as being a dead giveaway for a
>driver who is both over the limit and over-compensating for it.

Sounds like a good argument for not using a speed limiter (or cruise
control)!
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.y7ns7...@red.lan>, at 00:37:03 on Fri, 6 Oct 2017,
James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> remarked:

>>> John Adams has this to say
>>
>> I'm a huge fan of his. Anyone who wishes to be credible discussing road
>> traffic risk has to be able to say they've read his work.
>
>Never heard of him.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/

His 1995 book is a classic.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

Can you give a link to proper proof of that please?

[Saxman]

One should take air bags and head restraints into the mix theses days.

[Mark Goodge]

No. Theoretically, the Scottish limits make their roads a bit safer.
In practice, they probably don't, or at least not by a statistically
significant amount.

To put it into context, a 50% increase in risk means that at that
level of alcohol, you are as likely to have an accident driving two
miles home from the pub as you would be driving three miles with zero
alcohol. It sounds like a large increase, but it's from a relatively
low base.

But the graph isn't straight; add only a relatively small amount of
alcohol on top of the amount needed to reach the English limit and the
risk increases considerably. It takes around two pints to get to a 50%
increase in risk, but adding another two pints will take you to over
200% increase in risk. The majority of accidents where alcohol is a
factor involve a driver with alcohol levels in that "just an extra
pint" zone rather than those below the current legal limit in England.
And the second largest group are the incorrigibles; the ones who drink
well in excess of the limit and have no intention of trying to comply
with it. The number of accidents where alcohol is a factor and the
driver concerned was in the space in between the Scottish limit and
the English limit is, by contrast, minimal.

The original introduction of blood/alcohol limits, and their
measurement by means of a breathalyser, was almost the paragon of
evidence-based policy-making. It was done against a lot of public
opposition, particularly from those who believed that if you're not
visibly drunk then you're safe to drive, as well as a well-funded pub
and bar lobby that was concerned that drink-drive limits would inhibit
their trade. But the politicians, to their credit, listened to the
researchers rather than vested interests and self-centred moaners, and
brought in legislation based precisely on what the researchers had
suggested was appropriate. And it has worked; the statistics are a
testament to that.

What's happened now is that public opinion has shifted, and instead of
being opposed to regulated limits on alcohol consumption before
driving has now begun to demand even stricter limits. But the science
hasn't changed. There's no more evidence now for lower limits than
there was for higher limits back in the 60s. This is something that we
got right, and should leave alone. Road safety legislation should
always be evidence-based, not based on popular campaigns.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 23:07:09 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
<imv...@somewear.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 21:46:29 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Most alcohol-related accidents are not the popularly imagined case of
>> a drunk driver losing control of the car and ending up in the ditch,
>> or wrapping the car round a lamppost (although these do occur).
>> Rather, most alcohol-related accidents are caused by someone whose
>> ability to respond to otherwise trivial unexpected actions by other
>> road users is below acceptable levels. And this lack of ability to
>> respond correlates very well with the amount of alcohol in the blood.
>> It correlates with that far better than it correlates with the
>> obvious, visible signs of being drunk.
>
>Indeed. So why punish "drunk" drivers for not looking out for useless drivers?

Because the other drivers aren't "uselesss". They are just normal,
imperfect drivers, who make normal errors that, under normal
circumstances, don't lead to accidents. Drivers just like you.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 22:23:46 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"

That argument is precisely the one which people used to oppose
drink-drive legislation back in the 60s, and was comprehensively
refuted by the evidence.

For the benefit of those who, unlike the previous contributor, are
interested in the science of it, the explanation, though possibly
counter-intuitive, is actually relatively simple. The effects of
alcohol are not themselves simple; it has a number of different
effects on the human mind and body, and different effects predominate
at different levels. Some of those differences are relatively obvious
to even the casual observer: the effect of "feeling relaxed" is most
notable at lower levels, while the effect of "falling over and
throwing up" is notable at higher levels. Other differences are less
obvious, and can only be discerned with more detailed investigation.

As far as road safety is concerned, one of the key findings of the
research is that risk levels don't particularly correlate with a
subjective perception of feeling drunk, and nor do they correlate much
with muscle/motor control - the classic "staggering drunk". Rather,
the key factor in risk on the roads is reaction time - how quickly the
mind responds to external stimuli. When the difference between an
accident and not-an-accident can be measured in fractions of a second,
an increased reaction time always represents an increase in risk.

Alcohol affects reaction time. The more you consume, the slower your
reaction time becomes. This is very easily measured in the laboratory,
and the consequences can be observed in the accident statistics.

But the key fact here is that, unlike the subjective feeling of
intoxication, reaction time effects don't habituate. That is, someone
who regularly drinks a lot will have their reaction time affected by
alcohol just as much as someone who rarely or never drinks. And, since
it is reaction time which is the key factor in risk, that means that
there is no significant difference between an regular drinker and an
occasional drinker when it comes to risk - they are both affected in
the same way by the same amount consumed.

In fact, if anything, the regular drinker is a *greater* risk, because
their lack of any sense of intoxication gives them a false sense of
security. Their reaction times are impaired, but they don't realise
it, and the de-inhibiting effects of alcohol will encourage them to
drive more aggressively or carelessly. All of which adds up to a
significantly greater risk of being involved in an accident.

By contrast, the occasional drinker, who will start to feel tipsy
after a pint of shandy, will be less inclined to drive aggressively or
carelessly after consuming alcohol as they will be aware of their
impairment. So they will be safer, despite perceiving themselves to be
less safe.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <vahetc9n51qisfjnp...@4ax.com>, at 10:22:02 on
Fri, 6 Oct 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>It was done against a lot of public
>opposition, particularly from those who believed that if you're not
>visibly drunk then you're safe to drive, as well as a well-funded pub
>and bar lobby that was concerned that drink-drive limits would inhibit
>their trade

...

> And it has worked; the statistics are a testament to that.

Especially the statistics about the number of pubs, devastatingly so in
rural or semi-rural areas, which have in fact shut.
--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

That looks interesting --- thanks for the pointer.

[Adam Funk]

On 2017-10-06, Mark Goodge wrote:

> The original introduction of blood/alcohol limits, and their
> measurement by means of a breathalyser, was almost the paragon of
> evidence-based policy-making. It was done against a lot of public
> opposition, particularly from those who believed that if you're not
> visibly drunk then you're safe to drive, as well as a well-funded pub
> and bar lobby that was concerned that drink-drive limits would inhibit
> their trade. But the politicians, to their credit, listened to the
> researchers rather than vested interests and self-centred moaners, and
> brought in legislation based precisely on what the researchers had
> suggested was appropriate.

Quite an amazing feat, rarely repeated!

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 11:33:52 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

That's not entirely due to the drink-drive laws, though. Changing
demographics, particularly as regards leisure pursuits, has been as
big an influence. Town and city centre pubs that are within walking
distance of all their regular clientele have also suffered.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 10:43:54 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 21:46:29 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> [1] Actually, they would. Somebody being a stickler for the rules of the
>> road, and in particular being incredibly precise at staying just inside
>> the speed limit, is one of the things that the police recognise as being
>> a dead giveaway for a driver who is both over the limit and
>> over-compensating for it.
>

>Thus leading to the Alice in Wonderland:
>
>"We stopped the suspect because he was obeying the law ..."

The police can stop a car for any reason. And they can breathalyse
anyone they stop. If pressed to justify it, they'd say it was a random
check. The fact that they had a good hunch that this particular random
selection would yield a result doesn't invalidate that.

A car is a dangerous tool. It is a useful tool, and many people rely
on it. But it is no less dangerous for that. The rights to use
vehicles on public highways are granted by statute, they are not
intrinsic moral rights. The state is perfectly entitled to regulate
the use of the highways it provides, for the safety and convenience of
all their users. And that includes the authority to withdraw that
right of use from someone who uses them in an unsafe manner, and to
take all reasonable steps to identify such users.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:38:22 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

Indeed, and it's a pity that it's now being politicised by a
combination of the health lobby and the "won't someone think of the
children!" brigade. As far as the former is concerned, I don't
necessarily dispute the idea that getting us to cut down on the booze
is a good idea, but I don't think safety legislation should be used as
a proxy for that goal. And as for the latter, there's an
understandable tendency to think that if some regulation is clearly
beneficial, then stricter regulation will be even more so. But,
despite being understandable, it's erroneous, and that needs to be
pointed out whenever that kind of argument crops up.

(Actually, away from the glare of publicity, evidence-based
policy-making is not as rare as many might think. But there is a
worthwhile rule of thumb that the more senior the minister who
announces a regulatory change, the less likely the change is to be
based on evidence rather than politics).

Mark

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Then have a reaction speed test, not a simple test of how much alcohol you have in you. If your reactions are (fictitious values) 5 units of time normally, and 7 after a few pints, but my reaction times are 8 normally but 12 after a few pints, then you're a safer driver than me when you're drunk and I'm sober, yet you're the one who'd get into trouble. See the problem?

[Roland Perry]

In message <07retctji98oeirq5...@4ax.com>, at 12:47:29 on

Fri, 6 Oct 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>>>It was done against a lot of public
>>>opposition, particularly from those who believed that if you're not
>>>visibly drunk then you're safe to drive, as well as a well-funded pub
>>>and bar lobby that was concerned that drink-drive limits would inhibit
>>>their trade
>>...
>>> And it has worked; the statistics are a testament to that.
>>
>>Especially the statistics about the number of pubs, devastatingly so in
>>rural or semi-rural areas, which have in fact shut.
>
>That's not entirely due to the drink-drive laws, though. Changing
>demographics, particularly as regards leisure pursuits, has been as
>big an influence. Town and city centre pubs that are within walking
>distance of all their regular clientele have also suffered.

The town centre ones have suffered from the "march of the coffee shops",
and the rural ones the spread of fast food outlets to sites which once
might have had just a petrol station, but were a green field.

In my lifetime, most rural pubs would never have survived with just the
footfall of one village's inhabitants, so they do need car-using
customers. I'm not suggesting people flout the drink-drive laws, but
neither can one deny the effect it's had on trade.
--
Roland Perry

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I find this "trolley problem" odd. Surely everyone would make it cause the least deaths possible (unless of course one of the people was your wife):
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2017/05/18/driverless-cars-and-the-trolley-problem/

[James Wilkinson Sword]

The most dangerous people on the roads are pedestrians that don't look before crossing. Don't they teach the green cross code at schools anymore? It was infact a pedestrian which has caused the only injury I've ever had on a road (broken collarbone). He walked 2 feet in front of my bicycle because he "didn't hear the engine". Hopefully he'll do the same in front of a silent electric car and break his own bones.

[Mark Goodge]

Reaction speed tests are hard to administer reliably, to the level of
precision and accuracy required for a court, outside laboratory
conditions. But a simple measurement of the amount of alcohol in your
breath can be done cheaply and easily with equipment calibrated to
give a reliable and suitably evidential reading.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <fs7htc1ce71d91bos...@4ax.com>, at 10:36:45 on
Sat, 7 Oct 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>Reaction speed tests are hard to administer reliably, to the level of
>precision and accuracy required for a court, outside laboratory
>conditions. But a simple measurement of the amount of alcohol in your
>breath can be done cheaply and easily with equipment calibrated to
>give a reliable and suitably evidential reading.

Which is an argument for the ease of the proxy, not the accuracy thus
justice of it.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.y7o46...@red.lan>, at 17:52:51 on Fri, 6 Oct 2017,

James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> remarked:

>I find this "trolley problem" odd. Surely everyone would make it cause
>the least deaths possible (unless of course one of the people was your wife):

>http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2017/05/18/driverless-cars-and-the-trolley-problem/

That's the whole point of the debate. What *should* an autonomous car
do. Sacrifice the driver, or the bus queue?

I'm unimpressed by the autonomous car maker's plea that such a decision
hasn't yet arisen, because that's simply shows they haven't done enough
road miles yet, on the sort of roads that decision might crop up.

Meanwhile, this quote highlights the quintessential observer
self-interest[1] which haunts almost all discussions of road safety:

"Defining the algorithms that will help AVs make these moral
decisions is a formidable challenge. We found that participants
to six studies approved of utilitarian AVs (that sacrifice their
passengers for the greater good), and would like others to buy
them, but they would, themselves, prefer to ride in AVs that
protect their passengers at all costs."

[1] Pedestrians vs cars vs cycles, in all permutations.
--
Roland Perry

[Dr. Sandringham]

I don`t think the algorithms need such worry.

We currently have an algorithm, to wit:

Protecting myself trumps all.

Consider a person driving confronted with a sudden unforseeable
predictably fatal hazard which can be avoided only by taking action which
kills someone else. Escaping death oneself is our nature and I doubt any
jury would convict.

Just transfer the algorithm to the car. Anyone who gets in the car knows
that is what will happen - just like now. Neither will pedestrians have
any adjustment to make, they'll continue to be killed by drivers at a rate
of some hundreds per year.

[Roland Perry]

In message <oraf05$16rd$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:49:25 on Sat, 7 Oct
2017, Dr. Sandringham <m...@privacy.net> remarked:

That's a clear vote for the second of the two algorithms.

But society has a chance, some argue, to reduce the *overall* death
toll by legislating for the first scenario. No-one is forced to ride in
an autonomous car, after all.
--
Roland Perry

[Janet]

In article <orahl0$725$1...@dont-email.me>, jeth...@hotmailbin.com
says...
> I recently had the pleasure (?!) of meeting youngster (21) who grew up in
> Cornwall.
>
> He said that it's almost compulsory that locals let their kids drive
> before 17, and drink driving is almost "de rigeour". With an justifying
> logic that the roads are so quiet, "no harm is being done",

except to their parents vehicles and insurance policies, which rural
adults rely on to make a living, so guard jealously.


and the
> police resources never venturing into the backwaters involved.
>
> The only good thing was that his peers - more city dwellers like me -
> were suitably unimpressed.
>
> OK, maybe I exaggerate a tad ;). But he was quite candid about having
> driven without a licence, and drunk, because it was not unusual in that
> neck of the woods.
>

Since you exaggerate, perhaps he did the same?
Spinning a line to city sophisticates is a rural sport.

Janet.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Autonomous cars seldom make mistakes. So any pedestrian killed by one is most likely at fault.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Testing the speed you react to a stimulus is very easy, easier than testing your alcohol level. A simple piece of electronics can do it. FFS such things are used in school in science labs. Simply have a light come on, or a noise, then the defendant has to press a button when he notices it.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Which unfortunately is how the British police work.

[Adam Funk]

On 2017-10-06, Mark Goodge wrote:

> To put it into context, a 50% increase in risk means that at that
> level of alcohol, you are as likely to have an accident driving two
> miles home from the pub as you would be driving three miles with zero
> alcohol. It sounds like a large increase, but it's from a relatively
> low base.
>
> But the graph isn't straight; add only a relatively small amount of
> alcohol on top of the amount needed to reach the English limit and the
> risk increases considerably. It takes around two pints to get to a 50%
> increase in risk, but adding another two pints will take you to over
> 200% increase in risk. The majority of accidents where alcohol is a
> factor involve a driver with alcohol levels in that "just an extra
> pint" zone rather than those below the current legal limit in England.
> And the second largest group are the incorrigibles; the ones who drink
> well in excess of the limit and have no intention of trying to comply
> with it. The number of accidents where alcohol is a factor and the
> driver concerned was in the space in between the Scottish limit and
> the English limit is, by contrast, minimal.

I'm curious about this graph with the nice elbow in it --- the x-axis
is BAC, but what's the y-axis (e.g., accidents per unit distance or
time driven)?

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:46:36 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

I've only ever seen it presented as relative risk (compared to the
baseline of zero alcohol). Reading some of the original research, I
think it's per journey.

It's not particularly an elbow in the graph; it's pretty much a
bog-standard exponential curve over most of it other than some
deviations from true exponential at the extremities (at the bottom end
because other effects influence the risk, and at the upper end because
once you're properly legless then the curve goes out of the window).

Mark