What do you think about DUI checkpoints?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NL5

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2003
3,287
12
81
Originally posted by: IGBT
[
..drunks and druggies are always full of chite and excuses to justify reckless behavior.

Why are you suggesting that the police waste time searching innocent people instead of going after drunk drivers then? The argument is not over whether or not someone should drink and drive or not. Not a single person has suggested that someone should drink and drive. It's funny, not one person has defended the checkpoints based on anything other than "drunk driving is bad"..........I think we can all agree on that - it's just not a justification to search innocent people.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,908
11,302
136
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: IGBT
..:thumbsup: the more the better. get the dopers off the road too.

if you had friends I think you'd feel differently.


..drunks and druggies are always full of chite and excuses to justify reckless behavior. In order to protect friends and family we need more frequent DUI shakedowns and jail time for first offenders and loss of "privileges" for life for the 2nd offenders. And get ready for .040 BH. Safety sensitive personal are held to that criteria and there's a federal push to move it to civilians. 47k die behind the wheel every year and many are DUI.

Link? I'd probably get 0.04 BAC from eating beer battered french fries.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

"Other suggested measures include:

Reducing the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.05% (Howat et al. 1991; National Committee on Injury Prevention and Control 1989)."


There is of course, lots of arguments whether lowering the BAC to .05 would have any REAL impact on drunk driving/alcohol-related crashes.
I dunno myself. getting to .08 isn't much more than one drink per hour for most people .05 is even easier to hit without getting drunk.

I've held a Class A driver's licence for over 30 years, so (at least when driving a commercial vehicle) the BAC standard of .04 has applied to me.

That one will getcha if you went out drinking the night before and didn't get a lot of sleep before getting behind the wheel.

Considering that most of my career, I drove cranes down the roadways, often at 11'-11" wide and over 80' long, weighing 250K lbs...certainly not a job for someone who's under the influence...

I'm sure most of you will agree that for jobs like mine, a lowered BAC level is appropriate, even while arguing that if you only drive a 2500 lb. Honda it shouldn't apply to you...(and as we all know, crashing a Honda into someone couldn't possibly hurt any one involved.) :roll:

Since I rarely drink anymore, I wouldn't have any serious objection to lowering the BAC standards, although, if people actually took it seriously, it could have a negative impact on bars and restaurants who derive much of their income from alcohol sales.
 

MegaVovaN

Diamond Member
May 20, 2005
4,131
0
0
Originally posted by: Squisher
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

That's the quote from Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography, I think.

So what you saying? You against checkpoints?
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,207
66
91
Originally posted by: MegaVovaN
Originally posted by: Squisher
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

That's the quote from Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography, I think.

So what you saying? You against checkpoints?

Yes, very much so.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: IGBT
..:thumbsup: the more the better. get the dopers off the road too.

if you had friends I think you'd feel differently.


..drunks and druggies are always full of chite and excuses to justify reckless behavior. In order to protect friends and family we need more frequent DUI shakedowns and jail time for first offenders and loss of "privileges" for life for the 2nd offenders. And get ready for .040 BH. Safety sensitive personal are held to that criteria and there's a federal push to move it to civilians. 47k die behind the wheel every year and many are DUI.

Many are DUI? less than half are (about 40%)...also most do not involve another person. They are single vehicle crashes.

I am not citing reckless behavior, I don't drink and drive. I won't say I have never done so esp as a kid, but nowadays getting a cab or finding a ride is not difficult.

Going to a .04BAL would be insane. The biggest problem is there is not a standard respiratory rate of blood in one's breath and this is how the test is measured...from a scientific standpoint the test would never fly to prove anything.

The group that mostly hounds for this kind of system are those without lives that stay at home playing online games or watching TV. It makes them feel safe should they want to drive to Blockbuster to get Hello Kitty's Beach Volleyball Bash at it's midnight release.

 

altonb1

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2002
6,433
0
71
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: IGBT
..:thumbsup: the more the better. get the dopers off the road too.

if you had friends I think you'd feel differently.


..drunks and druggies are always full of chite and excuses to justify reckless behavior. In order to protect friends and family we need more frequent DUI shakedowns and jail time for first offenders and loss of "privileges" for life for the 2nd offenders. And get ready for .040 BH. Safety sensitive personal are held to that criteria and there's a federal push to move it to civilians. 47k die behind the wheel every year and many are DUI.

Many are DUI? less than half are (about 40%)...also most do not involve another person. They are single vehicle crashes.

I am not citing reckless behavior, I don't drink and drive. I won't say I have never done so esp as a kid, but nowadays getting a cab or finding a ride is not difficult.

Going to a .04BAL would be insane. The biggest problem is there is not a standard respiratory rate of blood in one's breath and this is how the test is measured...from a scientific standpoint the test would never fly to prove anything.

The group that mostly hounds for this kind of system are those without lives that stay at home playing online games or watching TV or neffing on ATOT. It makes them feel safe should they want to drive to Blockbuster to get Hello Kitty's Beach Volleyball Bash at it's midnight release.

Fixed

 

SuperSix

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,873
2
0
It's entrapment veiled in in the guise that they are effective.

Yes, people shouldn't drive drunk, but sober people shouldn't have to be harassed like that. It's an easy way for cops to make it look like they are being proactive.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Nope. I firmly believe that there should ONLY be interference by government when there is reasonable cause with regards to a specific individual/group and incident. In other words you have to be able to prove that you had reason to suspect an individual or group of breaking a specific law at a specific time, etc in order to investigate them, arrest them, detain them, or whatever.

There should NEVER be a case where innocent people are inconvenienced in any way by blanket attempts to catch 'someone' doing 'something'.
 

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst
driveway and parking space is the same to me...I have always posted this as my drinks were between 6 and 10pm as that was the tab I had on me when arrested. I never posted I had my last drink 1 hour before arrested.

I don't know where you are getting the rest of this from...Florida DUI law is pretty straight forward.

The ny vs nj vs $150k vs $250k I wasn't part of this guys life other than him sharing it one day about 5 years ago. Thanks for remembering this better than me. :confused:
I never said that you had your last drink 1 hour before arrested. What I posted is that you had your last drink one hour before you left. That was exactly what you stated in another thread, so I was quoting you. That was rather clearly stated in my post so I'm not sure how you could even begin to misunderstand that.

In one post you said the cops were waiting for you in the parking space, then in another you said they pulled you over as you were turning into your parking space. That's a significant discrepancy. Though I'm sure it didn't matter to you at the time you were modifying your story to fit whatever argument you were making at that time.

All of this information was taken from posts you made in various other threads on this forum. I'm sure you don't remember them because you were most likely drinking, like you claim to do daily (or have in the past on IRC, which is logged). Then there is the fact that you're basically full of shit and like to change your stories to fit the situation.

Here are some of the threads that I pulled your first hand posts from:

Have you had a DUI thread.

Your DIU bicycle thread.
Not as much info there, but still touches on the bs you spew.

Andylawcc's DUI thread.
This includes a direct account of the night you were arrested.

Another DUI thread.
Just one of many where you rationalize drinking and driving.

Another random DUI thread.
Surprisingly you didn't bring up MADD/SADD in this one. Though you still rationalized drinking and driving because in many of the DUI cases no one was killed.

This thread wasn't even about DUI but you still managed to fit in some reference to it and how everyone, except you of course, is ignorant to the law.

This thread is about a girl who was severely disfigured/maimed in a DUI related accident. You being the deeply compassionate man you are make light of the situation, lay further scorn upon MADD/SADD, gripe about DUI laws, and continue your rationalization of drinking and driving. No one was killed in this incident, so it's irrelevent, right? I think I'm beginning to see a trend here.

An older thread about DUI
You were very active in this thread, the topic was about DUI convicts having their license plates tagged. You actually made some decent points about certain aspects in this thread, but thoes were all overshadowed by your profound idiocy. You also couldn't decide in this thead if the cops were waiting for you or if you were pulled over coming into your driveway (borderline semantics I suppose, but still conflicting bs stories).

There are nearly endless amounts of these types of threads in which you posted in. This list was compiled after a 5 minute quick search of this forum. My memory has little to do with the details of your verbal diarrhea. I just report what garbage flows out of you that has been recorded in text form on this forum. I'm not the only person who notices what ridiculous crap you post, many others do. Many others also point this out on a regular basis and it's basically general knowledge that you're a grade A jackass.

I really don't care to get into an argument with you about drinking and driving/DUI laws, I'm already well versed on your opinion. What I do find amusing is that you downplay the risks of drinking and driving, yet you offer no opinion as to how DUI should be handled. You go as far as to say that the laws are harsh and that the dangers of DUI are greatly exaggerated, but that's about it.

You constantly cite that DUI fatalities are minimal and use that as a rationalization for coming down on current DUI laws. Take for example speeding. Everyone speeds right? Well if someone is going 25+ mph over the speed limit but no one gets hurt, it should be fine, right? What about someone with a gun. What if that person takes their gun and goes out into public starts just randomly shooting, with no intention to kill. Say that person only hits and kills 30% of the time. That should be ok utilizing your reasoning, right? Quite a few analogies could be drawn utilizing your logic, but few of them will make sense.

Here is a statisic that you are sure to dispute, luckily I included a link that does dispute this statistic, but still paints a wonderfully grim, and partly idiotic, picture.

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

Here is the link that addresses that statistic and attempts to derive a more 'realistic' percentage using 'common sense':
http://www.americanchronicle.c...le.asp?articleID=20592

To sum it up the article says that approx. 29%-30% of alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths are caused directly by drunken drivers. The other 10% are padded statistics like drunken padestrians, drunken bicyclists, or anything else that has alcohol in some form linked to the accident, but not directly to the person driving the car.

So I guess that 30% of all motor vehicle deaths being directly attributed to drunken driving is really not a problem right? That is what you are saying consistantly in any number of threads. Though you are the expert on this topic right? You went to thoes impact panels, mandatory classes and what not, right? I forgot you're also an expert on breathalyzers, DUI law, and human biology (or whatever you said) and everyone else knows nothing.(Reference thread). Hell, you're an expert at everything! In fact I've never encountered a topic on here you weren't an expert on, went to school for or have been working in that particular industry since you were 12. You truely are the cat's meow *swoon*

The reality is that you're a pompous windbag who is full of shit and can barely manage to keep your stories/opinions straight.

Now that I got that out of the way I'll address your cute little attacks on me while driking last night and getting all worked up into a tizzy.

DUDE, I was referring to YOU. Get sober please.
I know you were referring to me, I was being facetious. Since your initial statement was ridiculous, poorly worded and borderline incoherent I didn't see the need to delve too far into a response.

I am hardly drunk, my wife works BF so I am up and about. I don't know what was incoherent though. You obviously lied about your hot NYC lifestyle in the past since you know nothing about DUI law. GO PLAYAH GO!
If you weren't drunk then that's cool. What exactly is your excuse for being such a fool then and writing like a 5th grader? Was is because you didn't have any time for school while you were working full time originating loans as a child?

Explain to me how living in NYC and Long Island have anything to do with being knowledgeable about DUI laws? I know this is just a silly personal attack using references from your stint on IRC, but I suppose it warrants a decent response.

I lived on Long Island working at a government research lab and then in the city working for the lab in cooperation with NYU. On the island just about everything I needed was located on the lab, it's basically a self-contained community. When I needed to go off the lab I would have a coworker/friend go with me because, here is the clencher, I didn't have a car!

Now in the city you don't need to drive. That's one of the great things about NYC. Since it was still the same period in my life and I went there directly after the lab I still didn't have car, nor did I have a need for a car. I'm not exactly sure how this relates to my knowledge of DUI laws whatsoever, seriously what is the connection? I was down there almost 10 years ago, at that time the laws were different anyway and I wasn't even old enough to drink legally. Honestly, what in that rotted little brain of yours decided that living in NYC would cause someone to have indepth knowledge of DUI laws? If you reread that a few times you should understand how outlandishly dumb that is.

As for my "hot NYC lifestyle", I'm not sure what your point is for calling it that, beside just using it to try and cut me down. I was living out there to work as a co-op researcher, not be a hot to trot cool playah clubber dood like you. Yes I had my fun, but I never fancied myself living a "hot NYC lifestyle". The hot Miami lifestyle you lead must be so glamorous in comparison, I just can't help but be jealous. I know all of your references were taken from IRC, regardless of how fabricated they are. There are some great logs of silly crap you spewed in that channel, I should dig thoes up and post some on here.

Now that was incoherent. You doing PCP or Meth?
I've been sober about a year, unless you count cigarettes and caffeine. I will start by correcting my initial post calling you out. In there I said, "I'm not condemning you, because I drink heavily, but you have to get real at some point."
I carelessly forgot the words "used" and "to", which was to be placed before the word "drink". I apologize in advance if this mishap has caused you to lose any potential material that could be utilized to say I'm full of shit. I will admit that I do have a glass of wine with dinner when having dinner with the italian family, but that's about it.

See I took it upon myself to understand why I enjoyed using substance to get high in some form and then realize I should probably take a break to learn true moderation. It's really improved my life, a lot. I highly suggest it, especially for an alcoholic like yourself. Hopefully you don't get another DUI conviction, hurt yourself or anyone else. I'm willing to bet that another DUI is most likely in your future at some point, due to the laws becoming more strict as time goes on.

So in closing I'd have to say that through years of reading your posts here and the short stint on IRC, I've come to the conclusion that you're not much more than a pompous windbag. You also have the wonderful honor of having a DUI on your record, something to be proud of. Would you even be so mad at the system had you not been dumb enough to get a DUI conviction? I'd have to guess you wouldn't, of course you would never admit that though. An admission of that would hurt your credibility, whatever barrel scrapings you have left or ever had.

Now I do not agree with all the DUI laws or how they impact everyones lives, but the answer is very simple; don't drink and drive, ever. If you have a drink, don't drive. Don't make excuses for the need to drive after drinking. I don't need to outline all of them because you so eloquently illustrated them in any number of your posts in DUI threads. Now if you do want to drive after drinking understand that you run the risk of getting arrested for DUI and will be held responsible for everything that goes with it.

ps. The last statement I made that you said was incoherent, was supposed to be, that' the whole point genius. Your blinding idiocy never ceases to amaze me.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Originally posted by: alkemyst

The group that mostly hounds for this kind of system are those without lives that stay at home playing online games or watching TV. It makes them feel safe should they want to drive to Blockbuster to get Hello Kitty's Beach Volleyball Bash at it's midnight release.

Quoted for Stupidity

 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,713
12
56
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: alkemyst

The group that mostly hounds for this kind of system are those without lives that stay at home playing online games or watching TV. It makes them feel safe should they want to drive to Blockbuster to get Hello Kitty's Beach Volleyball Bash at it's midnight release.

Quoted for Stupidity
All of his posts are Hall of Stupidity worthy.
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
They need them for some docks. Or at least better security. Last year we were overnighting in Nassau and around 3 in the morning I heard tyres squealing really close to the ship. I heard it again along with a few other crew members so we decided to look down to see what was going on.

A guest that had far too much to drink (most likely a Senor Frog's patron!) had stolen a golf cart and was doing donuts on the pier! Luckily there was hardly anyone around so nobody got hurt. There's enough of a "lip" at the edge of the pier that if he crashed into it it could've sent him flying off and into the water - between the ship and the pier. That would have not been pretty at all.
 

altonb1

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2002
6,433
0
71
Originally posted by: Rubycon
They need them for some docks. Or at least better security. Last year we were overnighting in Nassau and around 3 in the morning I heard tyres squealing really close to the ship. I heard it again along with a few other crew members so we decided to look down to see what was going on.

A guest that had far too much to drink (most likely a Senor Frog's patron!) had stolen a golf cart and was doing donuts on the pier! Luckily there was hardly anyone around so nobody got hurt. There's enough of a "lip" at the edge of the pier that if he crashed into it it could've sent him flying off and into the water - between the ship and the pier. That would have not been pretty at all.

But I bet it would have been HILARIOUS!
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: NL5
Originally posted by: KeithTalent


If you are not doing anything wrong then what the hell is the problem??!!?!! If it gets even one drunken idiot off the road I am totally fine with it.

KT


First off, they don't go quite the way you state. I don't think they just "take your word for it". They are searching your person to see if you have been drinking. That search (without cause) should be unconstitutional, and is in many states. If they see you weaving (giving them cause to search) then that is a different story.

I apologize for defending the freedoms my family has fought and died to protect. Really, why should we care? It's not like they will start searching your home without cause or warrant, or arrest you without cause or warrant, or put you in a secret prison without being so much as charged with a crime, or letting you contact a single person, right? Oh wait, that has happened to American citizens already. Why should we care? You do feel safer right? Illegal search and siezure is in direct violation with the Constitution. Period.

The checkpoints may be different in the US, no doubt. But in my experience, that is exactly how they go up here in Canada.

Those things you listed are entirely different. You are out on a public road. Nobody is entering your car or your home.

KT


Here in North Carolina the checkpoints are basically what KT described.
Drive up, show your drivers license, officer glances at it, ask had anything to drink, then waves you on.
 

rpanic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2006
1,896
7
81
If you are not drinking and driving and have a license who cares about checkpoints, put a car crusher next to the checkpoint and send their cars strait to the scrap yard.

Personally I like them they impound a lot of the drunks and Illegals cars in Los Angeles I wish we had more checkpoints especially the ones that are during the day. I drive to work around midnight 3 times a week and see people that look like they are driving drunk about every other night and see one or two wrecked cars every night. The laws are far to weak against DUI?s, one mistake I can see second loose your car forever.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: IGBT
..:thumbsup: the more the better. get the dopers off the road too.

Why does this straw man keep coming up again and again? It has already been proven in this thread that checkpoints are 3x less effective than other methods (like roving patrols) in arresting drunk drivers. Given this fact and some basic logic, it could therefore be inferred that it is the checkpoint proponents who are the ones who favor having more drunks on the road.

You guys keep on knee-jerking, eh? :roll:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nope. I firmly believe that there should ONLY be interference by government when there is reasonable cause with regards to a specific individual/group and incident. In other words you have to be able to prove that you had reason to suspect an individual or group of breaking a specific law at a specific time, etc in order to investigate them, arrest them, detain them, or whatever.

There should NEVER be a case where innocent people are inconvenienced in any way by blanket attempts to catch 'someone' doing 'something'.

Exactly. Someone who actually understands the issue. DUI checkpoints are a form of general warrant. The equivalent of "the suspect was last seen in such-and-such neighborhood, therefore we should search every house until we find him." At best, it's an excuse for sloppy and ineffective police work. At its worst (and yet truest intent), it is authoritarian propaganda designed to keep the people in fear under a flimsy pretense of protecting them.
The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: IGBT
..:thumbsup: the more the better. get the dopers off the road too.

Why does this straw man keep coming up again and again? It has already been proven in this thread that checkpoints are 3x less effective than other methods (like roving patrols) in arresting drunk drivers. Given this fact and some basic logic, it could therefore be inferred that it is the checkpoint proponents who are the ones who favor having more drunks on the road.

You guys keep on knee-jerking, eh? :roll:

And roving patrols are not effective in all areas/situations. We should have more of them also.