[Scape]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But a Checkstop is completely fair. Everyone is treated equally, no bias other than the location and time. If it's for a 'seatbelt' or 'valid licence and insurance' and 'alcohol' is detected, so be it. The test of "Probable cause" is satisfied.

However, here is where the breakdown of the current system begins. If you are a driver going though a checkstop and had a few but are not displaying ANY outward signs of being under the influance you get waved through. Some people have a much higher tolarance to booze then others and can pull this off as a matter of routine and the only way to nail these assholes is to do a breath test that the cops have NO authority to use unless they have probable cause. If they make it random at these check they have at least a chance now to nail that asshole and save some kids life.

We are not talkiing about cops breaking down you door and doing random searches for contraband here we are talking about a known problem that kills and can be prevented with a little common sense.

[DrCaleb]

Scape Scape:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But a Checkstop is completely fair. Everyone is treated equally, no bias other than the location and time. If it's for a 'seatbelt' or 'valid licence and insurance' and 'alcohol' is detected, so be it. The test of "Probable cause" is satisfied.

However, here is where the breakdown of the current system begins. If you are a driver going though a checkstop and had a few but are not displaying ANY outward signs of being under the influance you get waved through. Some people have a much higher tolarance to booze then others and can pull this off as a matter of routine and the only way to nail these assholes is to do a breath test that the cops have NO authority to use unless they have probable cause. If they make it random at these check they have at least a chance now to nail that asshole and save some kids life.

We are not talkiing about cops breaking down you door and doing random searches for contraband here we are talking about a known problem that kills and can be prevented with a little common sense.

Therein lies the balance. How do we let that happen, without violating rights? Perhaps get a breath sample from everyone? Or a detector that can detect small amounts of alcohol in the air?

[martin14]

Scape Scape:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But a Checkstop is completely fair. Everyone is treated equally, no bias other than the location and time. If it's for a 'seatbelt' or 'valid licence and insurance' and 'alcohol' is detected, so be it. The test of "Probable cause" is satisfied.

However, here is where the breakdown of the current system begins. If you are a driver going though a checkstop and had a few but are not displaying ANY outward signs of being under the influance you get waved through. Some people have a much higher tolarance to booze then others and can pull this off as a matter of routine and the only way to nail these assholes is to do a breath test that the cops have NO authority to use unless they have probable cause. If they make it random at these check they have at least a chance now to nail that asshole and save some kids life.

We are not talkiing about cops breaking down you door and doing random searches for contraband here we are talking about a known problem that kills and can be prevented with a little common sense.

zero tolerance removes the problem, any scent creates probable cause.

And to add into some previous posts, just to clarify, our coppers arent
patrolling around, looking for cars.. they sit on the side of the road,
and wait for you.

[Chumley]

Scape Scape:

We are not talkiing about cops breaking down you door and doing random searches for contraband here we are talking about a known problem that kills and can be prevented with a little common sense.

Criminal set up meth labs in houses all the time Scape.

[Regina]

I've never been one to worry about this type of thing before........but this one smells fishy....in fact it reeks. We currently have all the laws we need to catch and prosecute these people so why is this necessary? I don't think I should be randomly pulled over, given a breathalyzer for no apparent reason and delay my travel plans all in the name of "safety." I hate when someone pisses on my leg and tells me it's raining. It's bullshit.....plain and simple.

[Bodah]

Although I'm no fan of drunk drivers and take the matter very seriously, it looks like MADD has turned out to be a strong lobby group. What they are suggesting is an infringement of my civil liberties. You can't randomly pull people over and force them to take a test, eventually it will be taken further with breathalyzer being installed in every car and everyone who wants to start their car will have to blow first. I'm sure this one of MADD's goals as well, baby steps.

[PluggyRug]

As Zip says, just another swipe at liberty. 1984 anyone.

[digerdick]

Just how far will the government and the police go to protect us all?????????I really dont want to no .......

[Scape]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Therein lies the balance. How do we let that happen, without violating rights? Perhaps get a breath sample from everyone? Or a detector that can detect small amounts of alcohol in the air?

We have checkpoints already set up. Now mind you if we suddenly had a proliferation of the checkpoints that were not being set up at or around appropriate time like a few hours before and after the pubs close and instead we end up with them during morning and evening rush hour then I would be wary of the cops abusing this. However, what were are talking about here is a system in place to catch drunk drivers that we can't use unless the driver acts up when THEY ARE DRUNK AND KNOWINGLY BREAKING THE LAW. So the balance is already here, we are not going to see more checkpoint, they are just going a lot more effective now.

[DrCaleb]

Scape Scape:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Therein lies the balance. How do we let that happen, without violating rights? Perhaps get a breath sample from everyone? Or a detector that can detect small amounts of alcohol in the air?

We have checkpoints already set up. Now mind you if we suddenly had a proliferation of the checkpoints that were not being set up at or around appropriate time like a few hours before and after the pubs close and instead we end up with them during morning and evening rush hour then I would be wary of the cops abusing this. However, what were are talking about here is a system in place to catch drunk drivers that we can't use unless the driver acts up when THEY ARE DRUNK AND KNOWINGLY BREAKING THE LAW. So the balance is already here, we are not going to see more checkpoint, they are just going a lot more effective now.

I can understand why you think it's that way. I can even see it as being intended that way. But you give them an inch . . .

Besides, what good is catching them, if the judge just releases them with a wrist slap? I say enforcement of laws we already have first, and the deterrence will stop them.

[Richard]

gigs gigs:

Business is down because the piss heads can't drive home drunk

What a shame.

Nothing like missing the point of his comment so you can peel a quote to satisfy your your own end.

[mikewood86]

There seems to be some sort of wariness, paranoia if you will, about government and police, like they intend to harm you at all costs. The fact that people can dismiss all benefits of this and assume it will lead to some form of police state is extremely narrow and short sighted. It's not like they're going after your personal information, strip searching you, holding a gun to your head, etc. You get my drift.

Be more open to discussion instead of assuming the man is out to get you.

[mikewood86]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

ASLplease ASLplease:

I cant believe that this is even being discussed.

If you want to catch drunk drivers, the least effective way to go about doing it is......STOPPING PEOPLE AT RANDOM!

I'm with you. There's been absoutely zero evidence of the effectvieness of this, but apparenetly whether it works or not is completely irrelevant to those of us who just can't wait to hand over rights. They just start screaming "Do you want a drunk driver to kill you?" or "What do you have to hide from the police?" and that's about the extent of their argument.

Wrong.

"Murie said its biggest selling point is that it improves road safety, with drunk driving fatalities dropping 36 per cent in Australia after legislation was introduced, and 23 per cent in Ireland when it made the change."

Sounds like the extent of your argument is anything but fact.

[Richard]

It is all bs look at this link.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/ ... cohol.html

It is stated that 22% of the drivers in fatal crashes have consumed alcohol. It doesn't say they were impaired.

Then at the bottom of the page it is boldly stated that HALF of the July's deadly crashes will have involved drugs or alcohol. Which of those statements to you think will be quoted at the next MADD meeting.

In the very first line it says that driver error is the MAJOR factor of accidents and by as much as 90%. Perhaps MADDS time and effort should be to better use rather then trying to change "just cause" on random searches.

[ASLplease]

Madds time and effort would be better spent going after drunk drivers than random people.

If a gardener was to get rid of my dandy lion problem by randomly spraying areas of my yard, I'd fire him.

If my material handler was to try and make my inventory room better by randomly cycle counting parts ( as opposed to cycling counting with a strategy), I'd fire him.

If tax payers pay police officers to go after drunk drivers, and they start randomly checking every other vehicle that comes along, I'd fire him.