• 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 2 - 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.
it's a catch 22.

drunk driving can be lethal and should be caught and punished.

however, the problem is we have a one size all measuring stick for the entire population. no matter how tall, how old, how much you weigh, how much your liver is stronger/weaker than others - there is just one simple number that if you blow it, you get a dwi.

so on one hand yeah you may catch some actual threats on the road due to their alcohol consumption - you just as may catch someone who is no threat in reality, but fails a one size fits all testing approach.
 
There is a divided "highway" on my way to work. This is a "limited access" road to make a "bypass" around a small town. Now everyone who was around when it was developed thought great, this should be no different than the other bypass around another town (same road mind you) that has a speed limit of 65 (used to be 55 for a LONG time).

This road opens up and it is 45. Community representation claimed this is due to lights every mile or so. The road it bypassed had speed limits of 55 until is was lowered to 45. It has lights every few blocks.

Amazingly the newly formed local PD polices this road heavily. "Speeders" doing 55 on their commute to work get pulled over often. But what does this have to do with DUI checks? Well, 2 Fridays in a row after a light night BOWLING I am driving home on this road. Both times there are checkpoints. I am sitting there in queue waiting for 15 minutes until this cop asks me if I have been drinking. The first time I said no, the second time I said "Didn't you stop me just last week and ask me the same question?"

Now I *know* it is not the officer's decision to be working that beat week in and week out, and I suspect it is a money grab. Sure enough when their published yearly report came out of tickets, traffic and related were at 13 tickets PER day out of a little PD.

So yes, I am all for people letting drivers know there is a check because I was seriously pissed the second time I had to wait around ON THE SAME STRETCH OF ROAD ON THE SAME NIGHT OF THE WEEK...
 
surfsatwerk said:
How about we start from the premise that DUI laws are not intended for public safety, rather to enlarge the coffers of the local municipality.
Click to expand...

How about you go look at the number of men, women, and children killed by drunk drivers and then shove that premise where the sun doesn't shine?
 
I'm 100% against DUI checkpoints. In fact, I'm 100% against any kind of 'random' stops. You stop people when they've done something wrong, and that's it.

However, I will never have any pity for anyone who has had alcohol and chosen to driver a car.
 
Last edited:
Pulsar said:
The two are not even remotely similar.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know. You randomly fire your weapon in a public place and you'll eventually kill someone. Same goes for drunk drivers.

As far as I'm concerned, first time caught drinking and driving, automatic FIVE (or more) years in jail. 2nd time, never get out.

If you kill someone while drinking and driving, go to jail and never get out (with exception that if the other person was 100% at fault, then see the above first or second offense penalties).

Yes, I'm serious.
 
Last edited:
I think there is federal law stating that local agencies have to provide public notification within a certain time period of where a DWI checkpoint will be.

They usually post them somewhere in a local paper.
 
If it's a "speed trap" the answer is yes and I'll flash others to LTK one is ahead, drunk driving though is really irresponsible, can't say when I was in my younger years I never did it, I did on occasion but I'm not proud of it. I was on my way home a few years ago from 2nd shift and saw someone so drunk the were literally bouncing off the medium, I called FHP and turned them in, I had co-workers heading into 3rd shift and I didn't want to hear about anyone getting clobbered by this drunken idiot driving a full-sized van.
 
Scotteq said:
In some jurisdictions, you can be arrested and charged (interfering, etc...) for warning oncoming traffic of DUI checkpoints, Speed Traps, and the like...
Click to expand...
actually I believe the Supreme Court has said that the Cops cannot ticket you for warning oncoming traffic...
 
JEDIYoda said:
doesn`t change the reality that it`s a money grab...
Click to expand...

And just how else should a punishment be levied? To punish, you've got to take something from someone that means something....that's either time, money (including possessions), pride or their life.

Money works just as well as anything else in most cases.
 
dui-checkpoint.jpg
 
Engineer said:
And just how else should a punishment be levied? To punish, you've got to take something from someone that means something....that's either time, money (including possessions), pride or their life.

Money works just as well as anything else in most cases.
Click to expand...

Take all the money from DWI fines and place them 100% back into this serious cause, otherwise it's just a money grab to me. Start up programs in high schools to teach students about the real-world dangers of driving drunk. Instead there's far more money in prolonging any problem than remedying it or eliminating it entirely.
 
bradley said:
Take all the money from DWI fines and place them 100% back into this serious cause, otherwise it's just a money grab to me. Start up programs in high schools to teach students about the real-world dangers of driving drunk. Instead there's far more money in prolonging any problem than remedying it or eliminating it entirely.
Click to expand...

Then, you're starting new programs with that money and you still have to pay for the police already in place. Raise taxes and watch people cry like babies....

It's not like there are not hundreds if not thousands of programs doing exactly what you mention and from the looks of it, the best deterrent is still taking your time (jail) or your money because there is no shortage of people driving under the influence.
 
Engineer said:
Based on your logic, then we should just get rid of ALL laws because no matter the law, a certain amount of the activity still occurs. That means that none of the laws are working, right?
Click to expand...

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.
 
PixelSquish said:
it's a catch 22.

drunk driving can be lethal and should be caught and punished.

however, the problem is we have a one size all measuring stick for the entire population. no matter how tall, how old, how much you weigh, how much your liver is stronger/weaker than others - there is just one simple number that if you blow it, you get a dwi.

so on one hand yeah you may catch some actual threats on the road due to their alcohol consumption - you just as may catch someone who is no threat in reality, but fails a one size fits all testing approach.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I had to drive from Texas to Arizona, going through New Mexico and Arizona along the way. They had a couple check-points for citzenship that I found rather ridiculous.

Random stops of "Sir, are you a legalized citizen?"... Yes, why the fuck do I need to stop in my daily life to tell you this?

I get the idea, you want illegals caught. So do I. The problem is you're stripping rights away. It's a double-edged sword.
 
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...

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.
 
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...

after your 1st one, you lose license privileges and have fun paying thousands of dollars in court to try and get a decent attorney to win your case.

If you injure someone or cause serious property damage, you are looking at defending yourself from felony charges.

Also, once work finds out, depending on what you do you could be fired.

Unless you are a dirtbag who drives around on an expired license/insurance routinely and don't care about going to jail...a 1 time DUI is no slap on the wrist.
 
SKORPI0 said:
Wait till you hear about a DUI driver killing someone else around that area when I could have been prevented if they were stopped at the checkpoint.
Victim could be someone who knew or your loved ones. 🙄
Click to expand...

Your dead strawman doesn't trump our First Amendment Rights.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top