Comments on: Points scoring http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/ A barrister gossips & rants on intellectual property law, the legal system and civil liberties. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:10:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/#comment-34 Geeklawyer Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:43:44 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=24#comment-34 The problem with a zero alcohol blood level limit is that the body <b>naturally</b> produces alcohol (endogenous ethanol technically) which thus finds its way into the blood stream. The best you can do is set a very low level. As for comments; I prefer quality to quantity :P The problem with a zero alcohol blood level limit is that the body naturally produces alcohol (endogenous ethanol technically) which thus finds its way into the blood stream. The best you can do is set a very low level.

As for comments; I prefer quality to quantity :P

]]> By: Ruthie http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/#comment-36 Ruthie Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:29:42 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=24#comment-36 Thanks for all your comments. Its always good to get some intelligent feedback. It's nice to know that someone bothers to read what I write and is interested enough to bother to respond. But best of all it irritates Geeklawyer when I get more comments than him, so keep 'em coming. Soon he will be forced to rename this site ruthie.org :-) heh heh. Anyway by way of response: To Geeklawyer: don't assume that most "drunk" drivers have high alcohol levels. Even low alcohol levels will cause dangerous impairment of someone in charge of motor vehicle. In Ruthie's experience there is general misconception of the amount of alcohol permissible - a popular urban myth being that 2 pints or less will be within the law. The effect of the alcohol and the levels it produces depend very much on the circumstances of the individual. For this reason, Ruthie is in favour of a zero drink drive alcohol level; not to be a killjoy but simply to remove the confusion and all alcohol related risks. To mtrn: I agree. There are lots of driver distractions yet to be outlawed. Ruthie is looking forward to the day when small children are banned from vehicles. Ruthie can also think of numerous distracting activities whilst driving involving the physical restriction of one hand.... Activities which as a consequence cause the driver to have insufficient control of the vehicle may be swept into a general charge of careless driving. Ruthie wonders whether use of a mobile phone might be better prosecuted this way, rather than as a blanket ban. To Kirit: Ahh there's always a downside to the ex-pat lifestyle. Still, one used to have to go abroad to experience a police state. Soon you'll be able to have an authentic experience here in the UK. To moon watcher: I'd love to believe it could never happen, but I'm not betting on it. Thanks for all your comments. Its always good to get some intelligent feedback. It’s nice to know that someone bothers to read what I write and is interested enough to bother to respond. But best of all it irritates Geeklawyer when I get more comments than him, so keep ‘em coming. Soon he will be forced to rename this site ruthie.org :-) heh heh.

Anyway by way of response:

To Geeklawyer: don’t assume that most “drunk” drivers have high alcohol levels. Even low alcohol levels will cause dangerous impairment of someone in charge of motor vehicle. In Ruthie’s experience there is general misconception of the amount of alcohol permissible - a popular urban myth being that 2 pints or less will be within the law. The effect of the alcohol and the levels it produces depend very much on the circumstances of the individual. For this reason, Ruthie is in favour of a zero drink drive alcohol level; not to be a killjoy but simply to remove the confusion and all alcohol related risks.

To mtrn: I agree. There are lots of driver distractions yet to be outlawed. Ruthie is looking forward to the day when small children are banned from vehicles. Ruthie can also think of numerous distracting activities whilst driving involving the physical restriction of one hand…. Activities which as a consequence cause the driver to have insufficient control of the vehicle may be swept into a general charge of careless driving. Ruthie wonders whether use of a mobile phone might be better prosecuted this way, rather than as a blanket ban.

To Kirit: Ahh there’s always a downside to the ex-pat lifestyle. Still, one used to have to go abroad to experience a police state. Soon you’ll be able to have an authentic experience here in the UK.

To moon watcher: I’d love to believe it could never happen, but I’m not betting on it.

]]> By: geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/#comment-43 geeklawyer Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:20:44 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=24#comment-43 MS: Wow! I'll admit to a certain irriation & prejudice against drivers using mobiles but that New Scientist article is something of an eye opener. Plausible too, though the result were based on people marginally drunk. I think, however, that a person with a high blood alcohol level would be much more dangerous than a phone user and I would assume, without proof, that most drunk drivers have high levels. Now I can be sanctimonious and preachy. Always enjoyable. Thanks MS. MS:
Wow! I’ll admit to a certain irriation & prejudice against drivers using mobiles but that New Scientist article is something of an eye opener. Plausible too, though the result were based on people marginally drunk. I think, however, that a person with a high blood alcohol level would be much more dangerous than a phone user and I would assume, without proof, that most drunk drivers have high levels.

Now I can be sanctimonious and preachy. Always enjoyable. Thanks MS.

]]> By: Kirit http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/#comment-42 Kirit Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:38:14 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=24#comment-42 Why indeed stop there. Although one would at least hope that they would stop at where the research shows that the costs outweight the benefits, but then again... They don't seem to worry about that elsewhere. Here in Thailand they have another interesting approach. If I have an accident it's clearly and obviously my fault. I'm in their country and if I wasn't here then the accident wouldn't have happened. QED. At least I know where I stand. k Why indeed stop there. Although one would at least hope that they would stop at where the research shows that the costs outweight the benefits, but then again… They don’t seem to worry about that elsewhere.

Here in Thailand they have another interesting approach. If I have an accident it’s clearly and obviously my fault. I’m in their country and if I wasn’t here then the accident wouldn’t have happened. QED. At least I know where I stand.

k

]]> By: mrtn http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/#comment-41 mrtn Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:24:55 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=24#comment-41 Why stop at using mobile phones? Two whole categories could be included here: 1. Physical restriction on the use of one hand, e.g. using a mobile phone, CB radio (not sure what the law on this is at the moment), altering the controls on the stereo, changing gear? 2. Mental restriction on concentration e.g. using a mobile phone, talking to passengers, listening to radio/CD, not being sure where you're going and so forced to lookout for route signs/concentrate on sat nav? Where would it end? Why stop at using mobile phones?

Two whole categories could be included here:

1. Physical restriction on the use of one hand, e.g. using a mobile phone, CB radio (not sure what the law on this is at the moment), altering the controls on the stereo, changing gear?

2. Mental restriction on concentration e.g. using a mobile phone, talking to passengers, listening to radio/CD, not being sure where you’re going and so forced to lookout for route signs/concentrate on sat nav?

Where would it end?

]]> By: MS http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/#comment-40 MS Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:23:46 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=24#comment-40 Using a cell phone impares your driving MORE than does being at the legal limit for alcohol... "In one test, the participants were asked to drive at 70 mph (112 km/h) and then asked to stop. Those talking on hand-held sets came to a stop in an average 45 metres, those using hands-free sets stopped in 39 m, those with blood alcohol levels at just over 80 mg/100 ml stopped at 35 m, whilst the control group stopped in 31 m. Dominic Burch, Direct Line insurance company's road safety campaign manager, said: "Most people accept that talking on a mobile phone while driving is distracting, however, many drivers don't appreciate how dangerous it is." See... 'Cellphones worse than drink-driving' http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2077 And a full paper on this for your (free) reading pleasure... "When controlling for driving conditions and time on task, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=570222 Using a cell phone impares your driving MORE than does being at the legal limit for alcohol…
“In one test, the participants were asked to drive at 70 mph (112 km/h) and then asked to stop. Those talking on hand-held sets came to a stop in an average 45 metres, those using hands-free sets stopped in 39 m, those with blood alcohol levels at just over 80 mg/100 ml stopped at 35 m, whilst the control group stopped in 31 m.

Dominic Burch, Direct Line insurance company’s road safety campaign manager, said: “Most people accept that talking on a mobile phone while driving is distracting, however, many drivers don’t appreciate how dangerous it is.”
See…
‘Cellphones worse than drink-driving’
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2077

And a full paper on this for your (free) reading pleasure…
“When controlling for driving conditions and time on task, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=570222

]]> By: moon_watcher2001 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/#comment-39 moon_watcher2001 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:20:27 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=24#comment-39 I think the points system is a great idea, you could also have positive points and collect them up for being a good 'respect'full citerzin. For example Voting in elections + 2 points Investing in government PFI schemes (a new scheme where people invest their pensions contributions into privatley run hosptials) + 1 points per 0.5 % of yearly income invested Saving Carbon + 1 point per 100kg Carbon emissions reduced by (slightly tricky to verify) Protesting - 1 points (-3 if about points system -4 if about ID cards) Dropping litter - 1 Smoking - 3 Being Obese - 2 As you can see this project could build on the success of nectar points for example you could redeem points for various reqards 10 points = I'm a good person badge 30 points = 100 shares in a leadin multi-national corporation 50 points = OBE 100 points = Holliday in Berlusconi's villa 1000 points = Neo-Labour peerage or we could take a leep out of role playing and have a level system -1000/-750 = Untouchable -749/-500 = Criminal Lord -499/ -250 = Criminal -249 / -100 = J-Stamp added to ID-Card -99/0 = ASBO Zone 0 = Plebian 0/100 = Upstanding modern Britian 100/249 = Magistrate material 250/499 = Faith community leader 500/749 = Neo labour Minister 750/1000= estemeed member of the grand neo-labour lodge, High lord of the Thule socioty, UberMensch I think the points system is a great idea, you could also have positive points and collect them up for being a good ‘respect’full citerzin. For example

Voting in elections + 2 points
Investing in government PFI schemes (a new scheme where people invest their pensions contributions into privatley run hosptials) + 1 points per 0.5 % of yearly income invested
Saving Carbon + 1 point per 100kg Carbon emissions reduced by (slightly tricky to verify)

Protesting - 1 points (-3 if about points system -4 if about ID cards)
Dropping litter - 1
Smoking - 3
Being Obese - 2

As you can see this project could build on the success of nectar points for example you could redeem points for various reqards

10 points = I’m a good person badge
30 points = 100 shares in a leadin multi-national corporation
50 points = OBE
100 points = Holliday in Berlusconi’s villa
1000 points = Neo-Labour peerage

or we could take a leep out of role playing and have a level system

-1000/-750 = Untouchable
-749/-500 = Criminal Lord
-499/ -250 = Criminal
-249 / -100 = J-Stamp added to ID-Card
-99/0 = ASBO Zone
0 = Plebian
0/100 = Upstanding modern Britian
100/249 = Magistrate material
250/499 = Faith community leader
500/749 = Neo labour Minister
750/1000= estemeed member of the grand neo-labour lodge, High lord of the Thule socioty, UberMensch

]]> By: Ruthie http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/#comment-38 Ruthie Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:53:38 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=24#comment-38 Lout cameras? Such things already exist. Next time you are hanging about late at night in front of a kebab van in a provincial town centre, look upwards and observe the CCTV trained upon you. The quality of the footage is excellent by the way, they can tell whether you like your kebab with chilli sauce or not... Lout cameras? Such things already exist. Next time you are hanging about late at night in front of a kebab van in a provincial town centre, look upwards and observe the CCTV trained upon you. The quality of the footage is excellent by the way, they can tell whether you like your kebab with chilli sauce or not…

]]> By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/#comment-37 Geeklawyer Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:25:18 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=24#comment-37 Sadly I think you are right and not as ironic as you believe. The trend of current Neo-Labour criminal legislation is to eschew the inconvenience and expense of due legal process and offer the citizen an option: "forget all the bollocks about you being innocent: you're not. Take the rap like a man; pay your £80 and shut up; if you're innocent it's only £80 which isn't so bad, & isn't that better than wasting taxpayers money in a trial? Or you could fight it; but then you probably reckon you'll lose anyway in a magistrates court, with their 97% conviction rate, & we'll then nail you for a much larger penalty. Pay up, shut up." Sadly I think you are right and not as ironic as you believe.

The trend of current Neo-Labour criminal legislation is to eschew the inconvenience and expense of due legal process and offer the citizen an option: “forget all the bollocks about you being innocent: you’re not. Take the rap like a man; pay your £80 and shut up; if you’re innocent it’s only £80 which isn’t so bad, & isn’t that better than wasting taxpayers money in a trial? Or you could fight it; but then you probably reckon you’ll lose anyway in a magistrates court, with their 97% conviction rate, & we’ll then nail you for a much larger penalty. Pay up, shut up.”

]]> By: Martin http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/04/07/points-scoring/#comment-35 Martin Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:31:46 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=24#comment-35 What is more, one imagines there will be 'lout cammeras' or some other terrible think-tank inspired phrase, who will photograph our minor indisretions and send them to us via the Royal Mail, with a little letter saying 'you have been convicted in your abscence, please find enclosed ways to pay your fine". After all, getting a police officer to frog march someone to a cash machine ensures said officer wastes valuable paperwork time... What is more, one imagines there will be ‘lout cammeras’ or some other terrible think-tank inspired phrase, who will photograph our minor indisretions and send them to us via the Royal Mail, with a little letter saying ‘you have been convicted in your abscence, please find enclosed ways to pay your fine”.

After all, getting a police officer to frog march someone to a cash machine ensures said officer wastes valuable paperwork time…

]]>