Subject:
|
Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:29:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1117 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
I guess I have mixed feelings about that one. Making testing both truly
random and substantial would require a lot of resources (even testing 1/100
of drivers after 10pm randomly would likely require 2 officers always testing
in a town like mine, pop 90,000), and you wouldn’t want to drain those
patrolling the streets too much as they can spot people who are drunk easier.
|
For me, what random testing means is that the fuzz can stop drivers without
reason. This is important, as drunk-drivers often drive quite well in normal
traffic if they are aware of their situation and are on familiar roads… they
never pass amber lights. So the fuzz need to be able to stop late night drivers
who drive very conservatively…. before their reaction time is tested.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
| (...) At least in the US, there's plenty of reasons officers already have to stop drivers. Years ago, my family was stopped once for having a misaligned headlight that just so happened to be pointing in the officer's eye as he was sitting opposite (...) (20 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
| (...) Are you sure it would embitter him further? I would think initially he'd almost absolutely be more bitter, but the shame of the punishment may eventually break him (were it for a period of time like 6mos). Again, I could be wrong, just (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
