tobold.org

correct • elegant • free

△ uk.politics △

◅ UK Cannabis Use At An All Time High!

Impairment testing of drivers ▻

Impairment testing of drivers

In article <4hper0$c74@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
Karl Stephen <etav07@festival.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>So, what, you make it the responsibility of all drivers to pass the
>test, whether drinking or not?

Yes.

Perhaps I'm not making clear the scenario I have in mind.  At the
moment, when you drive a car, it is your responsibility to that
your vision is up to the standard required by law.  Presumably,
the police can stop you, ask you to read a number plate at the
specified distance, and prosecute you if you fail the test.

Most people don't actually stop to measure their eyesight before
getting into a car: they know if they have a particular problem
(such as having lost their glasses), and rely on regular visits to
the optician to tell them about gradual deterioration.

This is a test of sight impairment; I want to extend it to cover
reaction times, hand-eye coordination, and so on.  There would be
no requirement to take a test every time you drove, merely to be
capable of passing the test when required to do so by the police.
If you believe yourself to be incapable of accurately judging your
ability to drive safely, then you could buy your own impairment
tester (just as you could buy your own eye tester).

>                               The only problem there is that longer
>distance drivers would have to stop regularly to re-test themselves.

Why is this a problem?  It seems an advantage to me.

As I say, you wouldn't actually need to test yourself if you were
confident of your ability to pass.

>>My position is that, no matter how "unfair" it may be to particular
>>individuals, I don't want anyone in charge of a car who is not
>>capable of driving it safely.
>
>Who does?

Well, you have argued that impairment testing is a Bad Thing because
it would penalize drivers who had had a hard day at work or who
were driving long distances.  But by the very nature of the beast,
it would only penalize those who were so tired that they were not
safe to drive.

We appear to agree on the end; impairment testing seems to be the
best (in fact, the only) means to achieve it.  What do you suggest
instead?

Tim.
--
Tim Goodwin   | "Those who will not study history are
Cambridge, UK | doomed to debug it." -- Barry Shein

Original headers:

From: tim@pipex.net (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,uk.legal,uk.misc
Subject: Impairment testing of drivers (was Re: UK Cannabis Use At An All Time High!)
Date: 11 Mar 1996 13:47:01 GMT
Organization: Unipalm PIPEX
Message-ID: <4i1asl$coh@wave.news.pipex.net>
References: <4hf0hh$40p@wave.news.pipex.net>
  <4hnnqp$aql@news.ox.ac.uk> <4hpbfa$dvl@wave.news.pipex.net>
  <4hper0$c74@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>

△ uk.politics △

◅ UK Cannabis Use At An All Time High!

Impairment testing of drivers ▻