Sobriety Checkpoint

[Trekker4747]

I'm at a point now where if an adult is in a car or on a motorcycle not wearing a seatbelt/helmet they deserve to die. The concept has been around long enough for people to know why we need them and why they work. The only reason to pull someone over for it is if a child isn't wearing one.

One thing I hate though, and it has never happened to me but I see them talking about it on the news when such events do occur, is pulling people over for for wearing their seatbelt -and the rewarding the driver with some-sort-of prize like free ice-cream or movie passes.

 

[Timby]

I'm at a point now where if an adult is in a car or on a motorcycle not wearing a seatbelt/helmet they deserve to die.

I have to take a specific issue with this, simply because of my work. I've said many times that one of my jobs is as the editor of a bi-weekly magazine that is distributed throughout my Tri-State area. Another one of my responsibilities in that office is the delivery of said magazine. I drive my car (or my wife drives, if she's available, for added convenience) up and down streets, with bundles of copies, delivering to locations up and down the street. Honestly, if I had to buckle up, drive half a block, park, unbuckle and get out, that's probably fifteen seconds that have been wasted. Add that to a distribution route of just under 3,000 copies across about 200 locations ... well, that adds up.

I understand your point that people who are driving across any distance beyond a block are idiots if they don't wear a seatbelt, but there are exceptions to that idea when it's easiest to just hop inside, motor up half a block, and hop out, wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Emher]

Yeah they have these in Sweden. They also check if you're speeding and such, they usually stand in smalle towns and such that they know people usually speed trough. Been stopped four times in my four plus years of driving, never fined. Of course I rarely speed and I never drive while under the influence.

 

[Trekker4747]

I'm at a point now where if an adult is in a car or on a motorcycle not wearing a seatbelt/helmet they deserve to die.

I have to take a specific issue with this, simply because of my work. I've said many times that one of my jobs is as the editor of a bi-weekly magazine that is distributed throughout my Tri-State area. Another one of my responsibilities in that office is the delivery of said magazine. I drive my car (or my wife drives, if she's available, for added convenience) up and down streets, with bundles of copies, delivering to locations up and down the street. Honestly, if I had to buckle up, drive half a block, park, unbuckle and get out, that's probably fifteen seconds that have been wasted. Add that to a distribution route of just under 3,000 copies across about 200 locations ... well, that adds up.

I understand your point that people who are driving across any distance beyond a block are idiots if they don't wear a seatbelt, but there are exceptions to that idea when it's easiest to just hop inside, motor up half a block, and hop out, wash, rinse, repeat.

Well I'll grant you that, but if you (general) are tooling down the highway at 80-miles an hour and you're not wearing your seatbelt you deserve to die in a horrific crash. If your child is in the backseat bouncing around playing basketball you're a huge asshole who, maybe, deserves to have their child die in a horrific crash.

If you're in the city making deliveries in a few quick stop, yeah there's some leeqway (SOME, there's still a great degree of risk) but I'm guessing that most of the idiots I see on the road without using their seatbelt aren't making a short trip. Esp. when they're traveling at roadway speeds for more than a couple miles. An accident then can still be just as deadly.

 

[Timby]

They also check if you're speeding and such, they usually stand in smalle towns and such that they know people usually speed trough.

That is standard throughout the United States, it's known as a "speed trap." A unit observes a street for a period of time with a RADAR or LIDAR (the latter being more frequently used), and then moves to stop an offender above the speed limit. Here in Dubuque, Iowa, while there are generally only 6 officers on patrol at any given time (budget), off-duty officers are paid to keep speed traps along the major roads. (Essentially, patrol officers keep patrol and only patrol, in absence of a call. Tenured officers are given the option for uniformed speed-trap duty at half-pay.)

There's a situation brewing within the State of Illinois, however, with not only cameras installed at "no right turn on red" intersections, but also many intersections in general, and now speed cameras being installed on the Chicago inbound and outbound expressways, where going 80+ mph is not speeding, but rather a method of survival to keep up with traffic. because of these cameras' shutter speeds, they can accurately scan the license plates of the car, and the DMV mails a ticket. (The "situation" I mentioned earlier is the accepted right for one to face his accuser and question him / her. A camera cannot answer.)

After I got a $200 ticket for doing 71 in a 65 outside Rockford, and my Illinois license being suspended as a result of that (compounded with a few other moving violations) ... well, I grew up in Chicago, but fuck if I'm ever going back there.

 

[Emher]

We have the speeding cameras as well, but they're usually in the countryside, and for some fucking stupid reason on portions of the biggest highway in Sweden Not that I care about the latter since that's up north where I rarely go. Also the cameras need a pic of your face as well so if I wanted to speed I could just hold up hand hand between my face and the camera and they can't prove that I drove it and I don't get fined.

 

[Alpinemaps]

There's gotta be at least one community around San Diego that does one of these every week. They announce them beforehand, and they are extremely common here.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I wish they did a lot more of these than they do. All over America, every day, we have untold numbers of people who consider themselves responsible citizens who drive under the influence of alcohol and other drugs - essentially the equivalent of walking outside and firing a loaded gun in the general direction of a crowd.

 

[Kommander]

If it saves one person from being crashed into and be horribly mutilated in a car fire, or killed, then I'm all for it.

All they do is stop you, see if you're showing any signs of drukedness, if you are they the FST on you. If not you go on your way.

Driving is a privilege and not a right. So you can be inconvienced a little bit to prevent someone from abusing that privilege.

Reasoning like this is what got the USA PATRIOT Act passed. What do you have against freedom?

Anyway, someone should only be pulled over if they've done something wrong. I've got nothing against checkpoints in and of themselves; they're not any different from speed traps. Actually, they're not as bad because they're out in the open. However, at these check points, people should only be pulled over if they're doing something wrong. Stopping every car or every third car is bullshit. What's next? Checkpoints where they randomly search vehicles for drugs?

If they actually breathalyze everyone they pull over, that might be considered a 4th amendment violation. If I ever come across one of these checkpoints and they're breathalyzing people without probable cause (and I will pass. I have my own breathalyzer and I don't drive unless it reads 0.00), I'll take it to court.

 

[Trekker4747]

Checkpoints to search your car for drugs would be violation of your rights against unwarranted searches.

You have no such right against the inconveniece of an officer stopping you on the road to take a sniff of your breath and check the focus in your eyes.

 

[cultcross]

We do them fairly regularly here, mostly during the two 'highpoints' of drink driving offences - the lead-up to Christmas and midsummer. Police in the UK do not need a reason to stop a vehicle being driven on a public road and talk to the driver, so that point is moot - they can stop randomly and don't have to give notice or warning.
A breath test has to result from one of three situations, however - reasonable suspicion of having consumed alcohol, having committed a separate moving traffic offence, or following an RTC. They don't breath test randomly or everyone. We also have no equivalent of America's 'field sobriety test' - the breathbox is the only method used to determine drink driving offences. Certainly they can't submit you or your vehicle to a search without reasonable suspicion of finding something specific.
I have no issue with the setup - if you don't get breath tested you'll be stopped all of 15 seconds usually, if you do, it'll be 3 minutes maximum if you pass, and if you fail, well it's your own stupid fault. It's hardly a great imposition and has been demonstrated to get dangerous drunk drivers off the road effectively.

 

[Kommander]

Checkpoints to search your car for drugs would be violation of your rights against unwarranted searches.

You have no such right against the inconveniece of an officer stopping you on the road to take a sniff of your breath and check the focus in your eyes.

If I go through a check point while swerving, speeding, or even if it's something as insignificant as my license plate light being out, then by all means; but just for driving through a check point?

In Michigan (and as far as I know, every other state), during a traffic stop, one is under no obligation to stay unless the officer detains them. Now, if one just takes off or doesn't stop that's suspicious behavior and probable cause for anything the cop wants to do. The best thing to do is for the person to ask if they're being detained, which might end it right there. I might be bitching about nothing. Still, being pulled over for doing nothing wrong is harassment. Unfortunately, harassment isn't clearly defined by law so this sort of thing will have to go to court several times before it's definitively decided what's up with this bull shit.

 

[Trekker4747]

Well, maybe if dunk care-little about other people jackasses would stop driving while drunk....

 

[Small White Car]

However, at these check points, people should only be pulled over if they're doing something wrong.

You are only allowed to drive because the state DMV has given you permission. That permission is conditional and they sure as hell have the right to check in on those conditions any time they want.

What's next? Checkpoints where they randomly search vehicles for drugs?

Totally different. Unlike driving, having secret things IS a right.

You argued against Trekker when he said "driving is a privilege, not a right." I think you should go back and really take the time to understand that phrase, because it pretty much looks like you just decided to ignore it.

 

[sidious618]

I've never seen anything like this but then again I haven't left my mother's basement in seven years.

 

[Daneel]

Yeah, they have these things in Ontario all the time. I was stopped by one at random a couple of years ago while coming back from a friend's birthday get-together. I decided to be honest and tell the officer that, yes, I had been drinking a little, but, as I figured was the case, I was under half the legal limit, so I was good to go.

Another time I was encountered one that was stopping every car and asking them if they'd been drinking... I can't imagine they'd get too many people driving under the influence at 6:00 pm, but whatever. I just said "no", and they let me go on my way.

My sister was stopped by one of these a few weeks ago. The cop was apparently very nasty at first, threatening to arrest her on the spot and haul her to jail if she was over the limit. Of course, it turned out she wasn't, and once that was official, he immediately changed his demeanour, becoming friendly, almost apologetic, and wishing her a good night.

 

[Lindley]

I've been stopped at one of these in Vermont once, and been in a car that was stopped a couple of other times. It's no big deal.

 

[Miss Chicken]

As stated earlier in this thread these random breath tests are common in Australia. They are just seen as a part of normal life.

I believe it is technically an offense to warn oncoming drivers (by flashing your headlights at them) that the police are up ahead for them (either breath testing or with speed cameras) but I know many drivers still warn others.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

I'm tired of getting harassed by the cops all the time, anyway. Last thing I need is some snide, condescending asshole stopping me to ask if I've been drinking. Ask me some other time, like when you're pulling me over to ask what I'm doing out so late.

 

[Emher]

As stated earlier in this thread these random breath tests are common in Australia. They are just seen as a part of normal life.

I believe it is technically an offense to warn oncoming drivers (by flashing your headlights at them) that the police are up ahead for them (either breath testing or with speed cameras) but I know many drivers still warn others.

Well if they're as dense as me it's not a problem. Last time I was stopped people where doing that and I thought they where flashing me to say my high beams where on, which they were not. I could not for hte life of me figure out why they where doing it, and naturally around the next bend stood a policeman with a laser Didn't matter to me though since I was going the legal speed anyways.