What are your thoughts on DUI check point

Sammy wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Bunkered wrote: gardy90 wrote: if you havent done anything wrong then dont worry about it. would you rather have a mild delay or be dead... Honestly, what makes you think you'd be any more dead than if there were no checkpoints? You're more likely to be involved in a car crash not on the highway, but on surface roads. I've never seen a checkpoint on a sidestreet. I really think it's funny that every time someone gets killed by a drunk driver, it's automatically the drunk person's fault. Shouldn't whoever pulled out in front of the drunk guy and got t-boned have been paying attention to other traffic on the road? I'm not justifying drunk driving or anything, but people really just need to pay more attention while driving. When you stop at a light, look both ways. I don't care if the light turn green, that doesn't mean some jackass isn't flying down the road with his lights off, running red lights. The "If you're doing nothing wrong, then don't worry about it," is BS. I make sure I obey all traffic laws specifically so I don't have to talk to the police. Why? Because I don't trust them not to come up with some BS charge and throw it at me. Even if it is just an inconvenience and you're on your way... Why? I shouldn't be inconvenienced by those who are put there to protect me. If you see some guy driving drunk, pull him over. Don't stop hundreds of people in hopes of catching 1-2 people (who most likely wouldn't have crashed into anyone anyways). I've never seen a checkpoint on a highway, only service roads. Generally, it is the drunk driver's fault (and by generally, I mean almost all the time) Seriously, I really don't know why you care about something that usually takes less than 10 minutes. If pulling over hundreds to arrest two gets both those drivers off the road, I believe that it is well worth it. Your perception of police officers is wrong. They are not all crooked. I don't like that mentality. Should we phone tap 300 million Americans to catch a few terrorists? No. Should we check every single driver on a road because there MIGHT be a drunk driver? No

Might be a drunk driver?
The fact is that there ARE drunk drivers.

Bunkered wrote: Hrm... Looks like that's why Carl didn't want to hook it up with some statistics...

First thing, I don't give a crap about that for these reasons:

-Either coincidence or other reasons but the actual statistic part of that quote sounded iffy at best.

-It was proclaimed ineffective by the american beverage institute. That's about as reliable as a department of cattle farmers claiming that shooting cows to death doesn't hurt them.

-It was a one year trend and was probably a fluke.


Secondly: I said that statistics weren't necessary and they aren't.

Do you think that they don't catch drunk drivers?
Do you think that drunk driving doesn't kill?
Do you not think that there are drunk drivers on the road?

Go ahead, answer yes to any of those questions.

Finally: Don't act like I was trying to dodge the question. I answered it straight up when you asked it and I stand by my answer.

Sammy wrote: Well I can guarantee that there are terrorists amongst the 300 million Americans. Does that make it justified to tap all Americans phones because there are some terrorists? Not hardly.. <span ="article">A three-year study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that DUI roadblocks — and corresponding publicity — help reduce the incidence of DUI around the times they are set up. But the effect is often limited.A much more useful method involves "conducting more frequent waves of enforcement," the report states. Pensacola News Journal </span>COLUMBUS, OH (2007-11-19) Ohio is one of 40 states that use sobriety checkpoints to screen for drunk drivers. But a group representing the restaurant industry says Ohio's sobriety checkpoints are ineffective. The American Beverage Institute says checkpoints caught fewer than one percent of people driving under the influence. They say saturation or roving police patrols are far more efficient.The American Beverage Institute analyzed statistics gathered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Sarah Longwell is the beverage institute's managing director."Only one-third of one percent of drivers stopped at sobriety checkpoints were actually charged with DUIs," Longwell says. "It hardly justifies the tax dollars spent on them every year."

Funny, but the people that were saved from those .33 of a percent being off the roads didn't factor into that statistic.

Furthermore, that second one seems to take a more economical standpoint to the issue. A third of a percent is probably not bad compared to the percent of people who were actually driving drunk.

it also didn't cover the people who knew there would be a check and decided not to drive home drunk.

Edited by carl_the_sniper - 03 December 2007 at 1:11am

The question isn't whether or not there are drunk drivers Carl, but whether I should be stopped when I'm not drunk and following all traffic laws.

And I tend to agree with the idea that having a bunch of po's sitting in one place doesn't do anywhere near as much as having a bunch of po's roaming about seperately. Cover more ground that way, basic concept.
There's no need to stop an entire road to check everyone.
Chances are that if you can't see a guy swerving around, braking oddly, or driving extremely aggressively (even if he is drunk), he's not going to crash.
If you think every drunk driver is going to automatically smash into someone you're wrong. LOTS of people drive drunk, and they usually don't get in accidents. But when they do it tends to get publicized a lot.

I'll just throw a random speculation out that I bet just as many people get in car accidents NOT involving alcohol as the ones that do.

Bunkered wrote: The question isn't whether or not there are drunk drivers Carl, but whether I should be stopped when I'm not drunk and following all traffic laws. And I tend to agree with the idea that having a bunch of po's sitting in one place doesn't do anywhere near as much as having a bunch of po's roaming about seperately. Cover more ground that way, basic concept. There's no need to stop an entire road to check everyone. Chances are that if you can't see a guy swerving around, braking oddly, or driving extremely aggressively (even if he is drunk), he's not going to crash. If you think every drunk driver is going to automatically smash into someone you're wrong. LOTS of people drive drunk, and they usually don't get in accidents. But when they do it tends to get publicized a lot. I'll just throw a random speculation out that I bet just as many people get in car accidents NOT involving alcohol as the ones that do.

Above post is buried a bit.

Probably many more sober related accidents but does that make drunk driving allright? Of course there are many more sober people driving than drunk drivers but how does that make any point?

Is it wrong for it to be publicised alot? If you see a picture of a guy on the news who got his brand new car taken away, aren't you going to be more likely to think twich before driving drunk?

Having a road block that means you are 100% going to get searched is a much better deterrance than more cops on the road.

I think the basic difference between our views on this is that you're Canadian, and I'm from the US.
I have no doubt in my mind that you can deter (or at least detour) drunk drivers with a roadblock. My problem is with the fact that it is an unwarranted search, a waste of police resources/taxpayer money, and a waste of everyone's time.

Get those police out watching for the drunk drivers. If you can't tell that they're drunk driving either:
A) They aren't (vast majority)
B) They are, but are doing a good enough job that it shouldn't matter IMO.


I've contemplated the idea of being able to take a road test drunk in order to be able to have a higher legal BAC. I am perfectly capable of driving after 1 beer thanks...

carl_the_sniper wrote: Gatyr wrote: Bunkered wrote: I'll just throw a random speculation out that I bet just as many people get in car accidents NOT involving alcohol as the ones that do. What does that change? Exactly.

It doesn't change anything really.
But it underlines my point that alcohol isn't the only factor that caused those accidents. It's more about people being stupid than drunk.

I made this topic before

Shoulda used the search button n00b

carl_the_sniper wrote: Yes, it certainly must be where we are from. As a Canadain, I am concerned about saving lives. As an American, you are concerned about your rights possibly being violated so that you have something to complain about.

Facepalm.

I'm convinced that checkpoints are more of a PR and revenue generating thing than actually a useful deterrent. A more interesting statistic would be the average BAC of the violators. As I said before, in this state, checkpoints are usually held on weekend nights near college towns or entertainment districts. Blow a .09 after having three beers in a two hour period, get your car impounded and go to jail. In the meantime while the police are running the checkpoint, drunk retards are drag racing elsewhere in town.

I'm not sure about sobriety checkpoints, but in a normal stop in this state, you must first fail a field sobriety test before they breathalize you.  If you do fine on the field sobriety test, you should not be too impaired to drive no matter you BAC. Roving police patrols would be more likely to target abnormal driving behavior and would probably be a more efficient use of manpower. If I get stopped at a checkpoint an am not even intoxicated the police are probably going to find something wrong with my car to cite me for(ripped windshield wiper, registration sticker in wrong corner of the plate) in this state. I for one have a problem with getting stopped, searched, and interrogated about my nightly travels when I've done nothing wrong, and since these are usually held late at night, now I'm going to be late to go home and sleep. Driving when you are sleep deprived is worse than driving drunk.

Skillet42565 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Yes, it certainly must be where we are from. As a Canadain, I am concerned about saving lives. As an American, you are concerned about your rights possibly being violated so that you have something to complain about. Facepalm.

Is it really a facepalm moment?