IT IS a pity that the three-month trial of 2am lock-outs in Melbourne will not give a genuine indication of its success, or otherwise, in combating street violence.

Some 120 venues were given exemptions from the lock-out trial, which ends today, after it was announced by the State Government.

Without the full participation of venue operators, it was always going to be difficult to measure its impact.

Anecdotally, police believe the lock-out has made a difference during the trial.

And, certainly in Ballarat and other regional centres where it was implemented without the fuss it caused in Melbourne, police and councils are pleased with its impact.

The Opposition claimed that the lock-out had forced drunks out of the city and into the suburbs.

There is no concrete evidence of this, and it is more likely that a sign that binge drinking and its associated problems are affecting communities across the board, not just in Melbourne CBD or regional cities such as Ballarat

and Bendigo.

Premier John Brumby went on his own fact-finding mission at the weekend, visiting nightclubs and watching on as drunks were arrested.

He was reportedly shocked by what he saw.

Many Melburnians - and, for that matter residents of Ballarat - will never see what happens on our streets between the hours of midnight and dawn.

But, as Mr Brumby discovered at the weekend, it is not always a pretty sight. At the most serious end of the spectrum, a night on the town can turn fatal.

More common though, is the violence that does not alway end in a death, but can leave patrons injured.

Whatever the case, alcohol-fuelled violence - the very thing this curfew is designed to stop - is a very costly problem that the community inevitably has to pick up the tab for.

The State Government will undertake further consultations before announcing whether it will apply the ban permanently. That decision is expected before Christmas.

It is to be hope Mr Brumby is inpsired by what he saw during his after-hours tour of the city to do what needs to be done.

The interests of the 120 venue operators who are opposed to the ban should not put before the interests of the community when the government comes to making its decision.