Our pseudo-science obsession must end
POLITICIANS have for decades asserted that they are ‘following the science’, though in reality most are selective in which scientific laws they choose to follow. There is also the tendency for statistics to be used in the belief that applying numbers (such as the interesting but irrelevant R number) somehow infers greater credence to any selected facts. Both are disingenuous and can lead to great and longlasting injustices when legislation is being enacted.
As a result of a few notable high speed road collisions in the 1960s, national speed limits were arbitrarily introduced with little or no notice, ostensibly on a temporary basis. Higher speeds do indeed involve higher kinetic energies and the potential for greater injuries in collisions but it does not affect the propensity for those impacts to occur. The two are quite separate. Obviously.
In 1963, a massive statistical study into road traffic collisions was conducted by Professor RF Borkenstein in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which featured numerous human factors which his team considered might be relevant to the study. The UK Government of the day chose to single out just one factor – alcohol – in the ensuing 1967 Road Safety Act, which was emotive rather than scientific. Obviously.
So, it appears that parliamentary law must always be considered to take precedence over proven scientific fact. Exceeding a posted speed limit is treated as a serious crime, even where no lives are put at risk or anyone in any way inconvenienced. It is sheer bullying. The breathalyser simply measures the concentration of alcohol in the blood; it does not necessarily provide an indication of impairment in driving ability which is surely what matters.
A scientific instrument can record a legal limit being reached a short while after imbibing a fairly small amount of alcohol just as it can several hours or even days after consuming a greater amount. The level of impairment could be vastly different in the two extremes. Some drivers will, rightly, be guilty, but many, through no fault of their own, will be innocent.
The obsession with pseudoscience continues today. In this country some 35,000 die each year from lung cancer, but smoking is not a crime, even though scientists have been telling us for decades of the connection between smoking and ill-health. Usually fewer than 2,000 die annually in road traffic collisions (many of them innocent victims) but drivers are inundated with onerous and unnecessary restrictions.
Influenza kills thousands each year, but the Government takes no direct involvement. As soon as a novel virus was detected, the contagion was immediately but unnecessarily politicised, rather than leaving it to the medical profession. The mayhem, distress and economic repercussions of this unwarranted intervention are obvious.
As in any other situation in life, causes and effects are often confused and understandably politicians will claim credit where things improve and blame others when they take a turn for the worse.
Criminalising people for their behaviour in ignoring nonsensical restrictions will do nothing in restraining a virus. Simple measures such as adopting common sense and following basic hygiene rules and suitable prophylactics have been known for centuries.
Politicians obviously know better. Anthony G Phillips Salisbury