That’s telling

Big news! It seems that 93% of the people stopped for driving suspiciously by the PSNI over Christmas weren’t drunk! This is a shocking statistic; those 93% were impaired by other things; inability to drive in the first place, inattention due to brats in the back seat, discomfort caused by large saloon cars with heavily armed people following them, any number of things. What, pray, is being done to stop this menace? Why are there seperate laws and high profile campaigns to deal with the 7% and not the others?

Unless, of course, the PSNI was conducting random drink-drive tests, just for publicity reasons. Because I find it unlikely that that many tests were carried out for rational reasons.

I’ve said it before, and I’m sure I’ll say it again: these sorts of blitzes don’t sit right with me. Why pay more attention to certain crimes at certain times of the year? Clearly the incidence isn’t that high, or more than 7% of tests would be positive. So it’s for publicity and the desire to be seen doing something. Which is silly.
There may be a deterrent value from the high profile campaign, but surely it could as effectively be done after exam result week, or any other number of occasions at which groups of people hit the booze. Why Christmas?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>