• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bystanders warning drivers of upcoming DWI checkpoints

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OK to advise ppl of nearby DWI checkpoints?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
I've seen in many cities that there will be a DUI sign stating DUI CHECKPOINT AHEAD, and there are opportunities for the driver to turn either left or right. In reality, there as no check point ahead but check points both left and right. Only a drunk would figure he could avoid the check point by turning left or right. A normal person would not care going through a DUI check point.
 
Raizinman said:
I've seen in many cities that there will be a DUI sign stating DUI CHECKPOINT AHEAD, and there are opportunities for the driver to turn either left or right. In reality, there as no check point ahead but check points both left and right. Only a drunk would figure he could avoid the check point by turning left or right. A normal person would not care going through a DUI check point.
Click to expand...

Love this. 😀

KT
 
surfsatwerk said:
If we really wanted to punish them we would be throwing them in jail. As it stands now in most places you could rack up 3+ DUI's before that becomes likely.
Click to expand...

Although that didn't answer the ALL laws question, I have no issue with your proposal. You drink, you drive and get caught, you go to jail. If you damage anything, hurt or kill anyone, the sentence is moved up all the way to life.
 
Pulsar said:
Monetary fines and removal of your driving privilege is certainly a punishment. We need to ALWAYS look for alternatives to incarceration: our jails are much too full and it's been proven jailing folks simply isn't an effective method of punishment or rehabilitation.
Click to expand...
Jail, and a long one at that, is the right and proper thing to do to drunk drivers.

Yes there are other things which should not necessarily result in jail time
 
The thing is that drinking is such an inherent part of the culture that politicians don't want to stiffen the consequences of drunk driving to what it should be. Doing something that the majority may not like too much is not good politics. Democracy

There are many other things like that that don't get addressed for the same reason.
 
I'm torn like the OP, but getting drunk drivers off the road is more important than the inconvenience others may have. So I'd rather they didn't warn anybody.
 
How do we decide how much is too much? Like I said many are fine still after 4 or 5 drinks, others even 1 is too much. I am not convinced BAC is the way to go, a seems too arbitrary.
 
DCal430 said:
Nothing wrong with driving after a few drinks as long as you are still fully in control. You cab probably do 4 or 5 mixed drinks in a 2 hour period and still be fine to drive. I can drink half a bottle of wine and still drive fine.
Click to expand...

It's shit like this that's the most dangerous. They ALL say they're fine to drive. If they thought otherwise they wouldn't be driving. Unless you've actually tracked your own BAC while drinking to know how your body processes it you don't know. Going by "I feel fine" is just plain irresponsible, and stupid
 
DCal430 said:
How do we decide how much is too much? Like I said many are fine still after 4 or 5 drinks, others even 1 is too much. I am not convinced BAC is the way to go, a seems too arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Then make it 1 drink is too much. I have no issue with this.
 
Checkpoints are superfluous unless there is an emergency. Whatever happened to just pulling over weaving cars and whatnot? I'm all for it, there is also an unwritten rule to flash brights to warn of that kind of stuff to oncoming cars.
 
lxskllr said:
What-ifs can be played all day long. Maybe the next "Charles Manson" avoids the checkpoint, and drives into a tree. I'm against any checkpoints that stop people without probable cause, and support anyone helping to warn of them.
Click to expand...

Thank you. <insert Ben Franklin quote>

Maybe if we had actual penalties for drunk driving, instead of the ongoing cash register system for the city/county/states, it would make a real difference. It's obvious our government and most of our populace doesn't take it seriously.

FWIW, the wife and I have our own zero tolerance rule for drinking and driving -- if there is driving to be had, only one of us is having anything to drink. And since she's probably going to be pregnant or breastfeeding for 10 years straight, and even if she wasn't, it would mean SHE WOULD BE DRIVING, I'm usually sober if we're out.

No cable, stay sober, agreeing with lxskllr, yep, I'm on the NSA's watch lists. 😀 :sneaky:

PS the bullshit, fake checkpoint ahead and then try to hassle people who pull off deals, because going through horseshit government lines without probable cause or reason sound like a blast.
 
gorcorps said:
I'm torn like the OP, but getting drunk drivers off the road is more important than the inconvenience others may have. So I'd rather they didn't warn anybody.
Click to expand...

Let's put cameras in your whole house too. For safety and the children and terrists and stuff. Sorry about the inconvenience and creepiness.

No. Like someone just said, they patrol, they find drunk drivers, they bring them, but for a change WE DO SOMETHING TO THEM!

AND YES, I would be absolutely okay with a no drinking law. Let's make it 0.01 to start, and 1st offense gets 1 year in jail. Think THAT will cut down on casual drinking and driving. Especially as the first reports of the sentencing come in?
 
MongGrel said:
To continue though, checkpoints still tick me off a bit as you can be slightly drunk and still get busted.
Click to expand...

I'm astonished. You have had a DWI and you still say the above

Pardon me Sir, but are you merely ignorant or very ignorant?

Thank you for reaffirming my view that jail is the only rightful place for drunk drivers, away from civilization.
 
notposting said:
AND YES, I would be absolutely okay with a no drinking law. Let's make it 0.01 to start, and 1st offense gets 1 year in jail. Think THAT will cut down on casual drinking and driving. Especially as the first reports of the sentencing come in?
Click to expand...

Sensible suggestion. But not going to happen because majority won't like it. The way it works, politicians are there not to do the right thing but to get reelected and gain all that comes with power.
 
DCal430 said:
How do we decide how much is too much? Like I said many are fine still after 4 or 5 drinks, others even 1 is too much. I am not convinced BAC is the way to go, a seems too arbitrary.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to judge anyone harshly, let the law and society be the ultimate judge. Though your statement does demonstrate that DUI laws are way too lenient and/or not taken seriously enough.

We wouldn't want anyone piloting a passenger plane with a single drop of alcohol (or any other narcotic) in their blood. I certainly wouldn't want to be a passenger on that plane. Therefore, we probably wouldn't want to be driving a 4-ton car under the influence of anything either.

This isn't about the law and BAC, it's just simple common sense.
 
To be clear I am not justifying drunk driving, just pointing out driving after a few drinks isn't the same as drunk driving.
 
Engineer said:
I really don't care. 1 drink and you don't drive. I have no problem with this and if there was a vote for it, I would be all over it.
Click to expand...

Seconded.

In fact, instead of supporting unreasonable and unconstitutional searches and seizures without due process, I would fully support an ignition interlock device used to start every car in the US... including mine. Someone could make a clever informational ignition interlock campaign, for instance, "breathe before you weave" or "blow before you go."
 
Then how long should someone wait after just ONE drink before they drive.

What about a very low alcohol drink (1 to 1.5%) would you have an issue if this was being drunk while behind the wheel.
 
After 1 Pill You're Impaired
After 1 Energy Drink You're Impaired.
After a lack of sleep You're Impaired. (< 6 Hours)

Shut the fuck up, these situations happen every single day. Drinking an alcoholic beverage is no different than the 3 I just described above. So unless you're willing to never drive on the 3 above either, you have NO CASE.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
After 1 Pill You're Impaired
After 1 Energy Drink You're Impaired.
After a lack of sleep You're Impaired. (< 6 Hours)

Shut the fuck up, these situations happen every single day.
Click to expand...

For you perhaps?

The problem is most car owners see driving (on city, state and federally funded roads) as a right and not a privilege.

Although definitely there should be a margin for error. Which is why, I think a car Breathalyzers or ignition interlock systems in every car is a great idea. Then we won't have to guess about our current level of intoxication or sobriety (using Breath Alcohol Concentration) before starting our cars. Eventually other tech will come along to identify more than just alcohol intoxication.

Waiting a few minutes/hours (to drive your car) literally won't kill you.

http://www.smartstartinc.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top