Subject:
|
Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:28:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1295 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
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 us at a traffic light. That’s an extreme example, but some things I do
know are -- objects hanging from rear-view mirror, non-funcitoning signals and
lights (at night), failure to signal, expired registration tag, tinted windows
(some states), tires which exceed the width of the bumpers [1] (some states),
and the list goes on.
But as for stopping without reason - I think that has some pretty far-reaching
privacy concerns and has the potential to be abused. If random stops were
restricted to only testing for drunk drivers, that might be a bit better, but
that’s a very fine line between stopping without reason *for* a reason, and
stopping without reason just to pry.
-Tim
[1] Wildly customized cars (of any style) could indicate a higher likelihood
of drunk-driving, due to more ingrained party cultures among different types of
car customizers, but that’s a different discussion (and potentially laiden with
PC-landmines)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
| (...) Australia has had random breath testing for many years now. The officers set up beside the road and randomly stop drivers going past. They don't generally inspect the car, so unless they see something obviously illegal, you'll probably be ok, (...) (20 years ago, 1-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 28-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
|
|
|
|
