SA Politics Thread Part 12

Status
Not open for further replies.
This policy amendment comes in the wake of alarming statistics from the 2025/26 Festive Season Road Safety Campaign, where among 173,695 drivers tested for drunk driving, 8,561 tested positive for alcohol consumption. Notably, this represents a staggering 144% increase compared to the previous year.

Nevertheless, this festive season also showcased a 5% reduction in fatalities and crashes, marking the lowest recorded crashes in five years.

🤡 🤡:ROFL:
 


🤡 🤡:ROFL:

So those stats are kind of difficult to read (I'm assuming on purpose).

I'm assuming they tested 173965 people, of which 8561 blew above 0.01, but it then doesn't tell us how many of those 8561 were actually over the legal limit.

Also this claim of 144% increase, how many were tested last year vs how many blew positive etc so we can see if this increase is an actual increase or if its more just a case of more tests being done because there was more policing this festive season.

I 100% get that drink driving is a problem in this country, but it doesn't help when government tries its hardest to obfuscate the reality.
 
Last edited:
1768545134428.png
South Africa removed from EU high-risk list
South Africa has been formally removed from the European Union’s list of “High-Risk Third Country Jurisdictions”. The South African National Treasury welcomed this development, which follows South Africa’s removal from the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) greylist and the United Kingdom’s high-risk list for money laundering and terrorist financing.
This decision, which was announced on 9 January 2026 and will take effect on 29 January is seen as a vote of confidence in South Africa’s efforts to reform its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) framework. It is also expected to ease compliance burdens on financial institutions within the EU when transacting with South African counterparts as well as support trade and investment."

 
So those stats are kind of difficult to read (I'm assuming on purpose).

I'm assuming they tested 173965 people, of which 8561 blew about 0.01, but it then doesn't tell us how many of those 8561 were actually over the legal limit.

Also this claim of 144% increase, how many were tested last year vs how many blew positive etc so we can see if this increase is an actual increase or if its more just a case of more tests being done because there was more policing this festive season.

I 100% get that drink driving is a problem in this country, but it doesn't help when government tries its hardest to obfuscate the reality.
Well this is what happens when gov people are maths illiterate and dont understand stats
 
So those stats are kind of difficult to read (I'm assuming on purpose).

I'm assuming they tested 173965 people, of which 8561 blew above 0.01, but it then doesn't tell us how many of those 8561 were actually over the legal limit.
I think the point was alcohol in the system, irrespective of whether they're above 0.05 or below.
Also this claim of 144% increase, how many were tested last year vs how many blew positive etc so we can see if this increase is an actual increase or if its more just a case of more tests being done because there was more policing this festive season.

I 100% get that drink driving is a problem in this country, but it doesn't help when government tries its hardest to obfuscate the reality.
This may just be the author leaving out a lot of the detail. Relevant department would likely have a more detailed report.
 
I think the point was alcohol in the system, irrespective of whether they're above 0.05 or below.

This may just be the author leaving out a lot of the detail. Relevant department would likely have a more detailed report.

No, see the limit is 0.24 breathalyzer, 0.05 blood. Any value below those figures is irrelevant as those drivers are currently legally allowed to drive and are not deemed a danger on the road due to their alcohol consumption.

And it may be the author leaving info out, but it wouldn't surprise me if Barbs just left things out, because it paints a different picture of the numbers entirely.
 
No, see the limit is 0.24 breathalyzer, 0.05 blood. Any value below those figures is irrelevant as those drivers are currently legally allowed to drive and are not deemed a danger on the road due to their alcohol consumption.
I don't dispute that. Read the headline first. Everything in the article is in line with the headline.
And it may be the author leaving info out, but it wouldn't surprise me if Barbs just left things out, because it paints a different picture of the numbers entirely.
 
No, see the limit is 0.24 breathalyzer, 0.05 blood. Any value below those figures is irrelevant as those drivers are currently legally allowed to drive and are not deemed a danger on the road due to their alcohol consumption.

And it may be the author leaving info out, but it wouldn't surprise me if Barbs just left things out, because it paints a different picture of the numbers entirely.
So actually

They stopped 1.8 million vehicles
They did 173965 tests
8561 people had either some alch or above the limit ( not being specific )

So let drill down as I am assuming the Q to test or not would have been checked at every stop
They tested in 9.6% of stops
.45% of all stop had some alch or were above the limit ( not being specific )

Now what I would like to see is out of those crashes, how many % wise had a alch component to them...
 
So actually

They stopped 1.8 million vehicles
They did 173965 tests
8561 people had either some alch or above the limit ( not being specific )

So let drill down as I am assuming the Q to test or not would have been checked at every stop
They tested in 9.6% of stops
.45% of all stop had some alch or were above the limit ( not being specific )

Now what I would like to see is out of those crashes, how many % wise had a alch component to them...

100%, rather than emotive stuff, actual numbers of how many accidents happened, how many were tested and of those tested how many came back positive for alcohol consumption, and of those how many were over the limit, then of those accidents that involved legally inebriated drivers, how many were caused by the inebriation (situational but still useful info)

Also a useful stat (although almost impossible to get) would be how many pedestrians involved in accidents had alcohol in their systems and how many would be "over the limit" in a similar fashion to a driver.
 
Same country that has no issue doing business with Saudi Arabia and Egypt btw.

Same one that says China is the worst, tells other countries that doing business with China is bad, but is also China's biggest trading partner.

must be the new ambassador trying to make his mark.

as far as i understand, iran did not actually participate.
these exersizes would have been planned long before the protests erupted

South Africa can’t lecture the world on ‘justice’ while cozying up to Iran.
justice - - release the files !!!
justice - - your president is a convicted felon & sexual predator
greenland says hi" GFY"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X