Subject:
|
Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:19:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1302 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
| |
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.
|
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, unless you blow .05.
They generally have “blitzes” (large numbers of such roadblocks) on popular long
weekends. The locals always know about them, so often go out of their way to
avoid them. I have no idea how effective they are in reducing drink driving, but
one would imagine the optimum result would be the gov’t deciding they’re no
longer needed.
ROSCO
P.S. When they were introduced (must have been early 80s), I actually had a
couple of beers, and went out where I knew they’d be, got pulled over, and to my
disgust I blew .00!! Oh well.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
