I've been noticing a lot of support for the TAC/police rot from the Hun lately, not just in their support of the politically motivated Dept. of Jokes survey. This puppet piece today was pushing for increased restrictions for new drivers. The figure of 668 drunk drivers does not seem all that excessive, given the total figure is 6000+, and they're adhering to a lower limit and have greater visibility to police. And the suspensions aren't really that interesting either since you can lose your licence for not wearing a seat belt (3 points) and having your plate fall down (3 points). It looks like some sort of error. But what's this crap from the RACV? He wants drivers prohibited from carrying passengers until they're at least 22? It's yet another case of blatantly ignoring stats when they don't suit: VicRoads own data shows that crash risk halves over the first year, drops a little more in the second, but then basically plateaus from there. So what's his angle? And here's another annoying one. For a paper to put its weight behind something so unpopular seems a little suspicious. We already have a limit far less than other English speaking countries (.08% in all but South Africa) and an environment less conducive to it (lower density, less public transport). The Sweden drop occurred about 20 years ago, and doesn't appear all that remarkable on the graphs: Fatalities per billion km Regardless, most crashes involving alcohol involve lots of it: TAC Most studies have shown very little affect on crash risk up to about .10 - for example, from the US NHTSA: Maybe Robert Hill could tell me how many lives we'd save if we dropped the state limit to 40km/h? Although I shouldn't give the clown ideas.