DUI checkpoint

[aa1986]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
That's exactly the attitude I consider myself lucky to be far from. My impressions after 30 yrs living in the US and 15 yrs in NZ is that Silk is correct in many ways, and that is primarily that individuals are respected by government authority. For example adults are not required to carry ID and can drink anywhere we want (other than zones specifically designated alcohol-free.) Our cops treat people with respect, even those obviously offending - behaving like more like parents. And as Silk said, cops are non-threatening and are expert at defusing situations verbally. No we can't "carry" but why on earth would anyone choose to take on such a responsibility if they don't need to for personnel safety? I'm so happy I don't have to worry about someone pulling a firearm on me. It does happen once in a while, but is rare. There is no TRW credit rating following my every financial move and my privacy is respected by businesses, by law. A fourth-grader could fill out our tax form, but many people aren't required to anyway. I am nearly anonymous in this country and am perfectly free to do anything I like that does not affect the welfare of others. The only thing i need to arm myself with is sunscreen.


Does New Zealand consider itself an exceptional country (excluding Rugby)?

 

[expat]

We used to have DUI checks here up until a couple of years ago,
Police would pick a back road, wave you over and say
"Hello sir, We are just doing a spot check. Have you had anything to drink tonight"
I would normally say something like "Oh I had one beer about 2 hours ago" or "Only Coffee, I guess that doesn't count"

They say "Thank you, have a good night" and away I went.

Cost me about 10 seconds. No big deal, and no attitude!

It sure seemed to clear a lot of drunk drivers off the road though. just the thought that there were road checks.

20 years ago I would consider if I wanted to go out late at night, BECAUSE of the DUI drivers.



"Does New Zealand consider itself an exceptional country (excluding Rugby)?"

What the heck does that mean??

 

[02SE]

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Ben Franklin

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
OK, so DUI checkpoints = loss of freedom.
So according to those against DUI checkpoints, the drunk drivers can/should keep driving until they cause an accident and possibly kill a few people. Because that should be the only way to detect them, huh? AFTER the fact?

LET'S ALL FIGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF DRUNK DRIVERS TO ROAM FREE !!!!

I guess while we're at it, let's stop all airport screenings, too, so terrorists can freely carry weapons into planes. ... because checking/screninng those who are NOT terrorists = Loss of freedom ! LOL!

Great.

(B. S.!!)


A fine example of selective reading and using that to post inflammatory, all encompassing statements.

I think that if you went back and re-read what was stated, you'd see that what you claim is not the case.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog


The prescription drug DUI offenders have been fairly mouthy individuals. I've often wondered if they became argumentative with their judge and "earned" a little extra supervision.


Probably so. In NC, intoxilyzers are usually reserved for those with a BAC well over the limit. I can't remember what the threshold is, but I want to say 0.15. Below that, you're not likely to lose your driving privilidges beyond the 30 day minimum (license is suspended on the spot if charged) UNLESS you are argumentative.

Not sure how AL is, I think in vehicle intoxilyzers are relatively new here.

I could see the judge throwing the book at someone who shows no remorse and is defiant regarding their actions. The machine won't pick up whatever pills they are on, but it will be a daily annoyance and reminder. Though they can still drive, the machine takes away the absolute freedom of being able to just hop in the car and drive wherever whenever.

On the original topic, I think checkpoints are seen as revenue generation in many places. If they set up a checkpoint in my neighborhood, they would bust people for all kinds of things all night. But those people would be unable to pay any significant fines, and would likely opt for jail time. They would be a pure burden on the system. There are never checkpoints on my side of town despite all kinds of crimes happening all the time. On the other hand, checkpoints are frequent in areas south of the city that are more affluent. They set up on major roads near restaurants and bars and bust people who largely can afford to pay through the nose to keep their license. There is the fine for the offense and court fees, fees/rental for an intoxilyzer if installed, fees for classes/treatment programs, community service, etc. The jail isn't burdened for more than a couple hours, and money is coming in by the thousands of dollars from an individual for about a year so it's a net gain for the municipality.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME

That's exactly the attitude I consider myself lucky to be far from. My impressions after 30 yrs living in the US and 15 yrs in NZ is that Silk is correct in many ways, and that is primarily that individuals are respected by government authority. For example adults are not required to carry ID and can drink anywhere we want (other than zones specifically designated alcohol-free.) Our cops treat people with respect, even those obviously offending - behaving like more like parents. And as Silk said, cops are non-threatening and are expert at defusing situations verbally. No we can't "carry" but why on earth would anyone choose to take on such a responsibility if they don't need to for personnel safety? I'm so happy I don't have to worry about someone pulling a firearm on me. It does happen once in a while, but is rare. There is no TRW credit rating following my every financial move and my privacy is respected by businesses, by law. A fourth-grader could fill out our tax form, but many people aren't required to anyway. I am nearly anonymous in this country and am perfectly free to do anything I like that does not affect the welfare of others. The only thing i need to arm myself with is sunscreen.


It sounds interesting. I have a question about the drinking freedoms if you don't mind. What happens in New Zealand when someone is drinking in an area where it is allowed, hops in a car drunk out of his mind and kills someone?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Red light cameras do nothing to you if you aren't breaking the law...they don't impede your progress, subject you to any inconvenience at all...they have similar for licence plate violations, noise violations, speed violations


Pablum. They INCREASE wrecks, and have given out thousands upon thousands of bogus tickets. (Offhand, a few years ago, ONE camera in DC basically ticketed EVERYONE who used the intersection for a couple days.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
OK, so DUI checkpoints = loss of freedom.
So according to those against DUI checkpoints, the drunk drivers can/should keep driving until they cause an accident and possibly kill a few people. Because that should be the only way to detect them, huh? AFTER the fact?

LET'S ALL FIGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF DRUNK DRIVERS TO ROAM FREE !!!!

I guess while we're at it, let's stop all airport screenings, too, so terrorists can freely carry weapons into planes. ... because checking/screninng those who are NOT terrorists = Loss of freedom ! LOL!

Great.

(B. S.!!)


Wow...three straw man, three false premises, an absurd comparison, and some ridiculous hyperbole, all in one post! That's almost impressive!

 

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
OK, so DUI checkpoints = loss of freedom.
So according to those against DUI checkpoints, the drunk drivers can/should keep driving until they cause an accident and possibly kill a few people. Because that should be the only way to detect them, huh? AFTER the fact?


No, these checkpoints are illegal here in MN, so they do saturation patrols, or what they call the "DWI Task Force". During these operations, they deploy a large number of officers to patrol a specific area and basically look for anything and everything to pull people over for. They look for things like headlights and tail lights out, broken windshields, items hanging from rear view mirrors, people not wearing their seatbelt, vehicles traveling significantly above or below the speed limit, not staying completely with their lanes, just to name a few. Turns out that people who are committing seemingly minor traffic violations are far more likely to be driving drunk than people who are just picked at random, so this method of DWI enforcement is more effective than a checkpoint, and doesn't violate anyone's rights.

 

[Silk]

Originally Posted By: expat

"Does New Zealand consider itself an exceptional country (excluding Rugby)?"


You've never met one of us?

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
OK, so DUI checkpoints = loss of freedom.
So according to those against DUI checkpoints, the drunk drivers can/should keep driving until they cause an accident and possibly kill a few people. Because that should be the only way to detect them, huh? AFTER the fact?


No, these checkpoints are illegal here in MN, so they do saturation patrols, or what they call the "DWI Task Force". During these operations, they deploy a large number of officers to patrol a specific area and basically look for anything and everything to pull people over for. They look for things like headlights and tail lights out, broken windshields, items hanging from rear view mirrors, people not wearing their seatbelt, vehicles traveling significantly above or below the speed limit, not staying completely with their lanes, just to name a few. Turns out that people who are committing seemingly minor traffic violations are far more likely to be driving drunk than people who are just picked at random, so this method of DWI enforcement is more effective than a checkpoint, and doesn't violate anyone's rights.


The DWI Enforcement Chevrolet Tahoe will get right on your bumper and hit his high beams. If you deviate from your lane the slightest bit because of the blinding light from a 3 ton vehicle only inches from your bumper, they have probable cause. You were "swerving".

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The DWI Enforcement Chevrolet Tahoe will get right on your bumper and hit his high beams. If you deviate from your lane the slightest bit because of the blinding light from a 3 ton vehicle only inches from your bumper, they have probable cause. You were "swerving".


Highway Patrol here do that, have been pulled over for it myself. Their other trick is to drive with their lights, driving lights etc. set for "stun", then when you flash them to get them to turn down their lights, they pull you over and show a radar unit at 108km/h in a 100 zone...write a letter, explaining the event, get one back stating that your version of the events differs from the two officers in the vehicle...see you in court, or pay your fine.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Pablum. They INCREASE wrecks, and have given out thousands upon thousands of bogus tickets. (Offhand, a few years ago, ONE camera in DC basically ticketed EVERYONE who used the intersection for a couple days.)


Had to look up Pablum...

I agree with some of your points...now, down here, they put a speeding camera in the intersection with the red light camera to catch those who try to chase the yellow...and you can get booked for not stopping on Yellow

 

[aa1986]

Originally Posted By: Silk
Originally Posted By: expat

"Does New Zealand consider itself an exceptional country (excluding Rugby)?"


You've never met one of us?


Sure I have, but it would be presumptuous to state my conclusion when others who are far more qualified to give an answer are present.

 

[hpb]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME

That's exactly the attitude I consider myself lucky to be far from. My impressions after 30 yrs living in the US and 15 yrs in NZ is that Silk is correct in many ways, and that is primarily that individuals are respected by government authority. For example adults are not required to carry ID and can drink anywhere we want (other than zones specifically designated alcohol-free.) Our cops treat people with respect, even those obviously offending - behaving like more like parents. And as Silk said, cops are non-threatening and are expert at defusing situations verbally. No we can't "carry" but why on earth would anyone choose to take on such a responsibility if they don't need to for personnel safety? I'm so happy I don't have to worry about someone pulling a firearm on me. It does happen once in a while, but is rare. There is no TRW credit rating following my every financial move and my privacy is respected by businesses, by law. A fourth-grader could fill out our tax form, but many people aren't required to anyway. I am nearly anonymous in this country and am perfectly free to do anything I like that does not affect the welfare of others. The only thing i need to arm myself with is sunscreen.


It sounds interesting. I have a question about the drinking freedoms if you don't mind. What happens in New Zealand when someone is drinking in an area where it is allowed, hops in a car drunk out of his mind and kills someone?


The driver would be charged with the appropriate offence (manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, DUI, or whatever) and if found guilty in Court would likely serve time. Where he or she consumed alcohol prior to driving has nothing to do with it...they could've been drinking at home, a restaurant, a pub, a sports game, in the street, anywhere, makes no difference.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: hpb
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME

That's exactly the attitude I consider myself lucky to be far from. My impressions after 30 yrs living in the US and 15 yrs in NZ is that Silk is correct in many ways, and that is primarily that individuals are respected by government authority. For example adults are not required to carry ID and can drink anywhere we want (other than zones specifically designated alcohol-free.) Our cops treat people with respect, even those obviously offending - behaving like more like parents. And as Silk said, cops are non-threatening and are expert at defusing situations verbally. No we can't "carry" but why on earth would anyone choose to take on such a responsibility if they don't need to for personnel safety? I'm so happy I don't have to worry about someone pulling a firearm on me. It does happen once in a while, but is rare. There is no TRW credit rating following my every financial move and my privacy is respected by businesses, by law. A fourth-grader could fill out our tax form, but many people aren't required to anyway. I am nearly anonymous in this country and am perfectly free to do anything I like that does not affect the welfare of others. The only thing i need to arm myself with is sunscreen.


It sounds interesting. I have a question about the drinking freedoms if you don't mind. What happens in New Zealand when someone is drinking in an area where it is allowed, hops in a car drunk out of his mind and kills someone?


The driver would be charged with the appropriate offence (manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, DUI, or whatever) and if found guilty in Court would likely serve time. Where he or she consumed alcohol prior to driving has nothing to do with it...they could've been drinking at home, a restaurant, a pub, a sports game, in the street, anywhere, makes no difference.


Thanks! Do you have any idea what the DWI statistics look like there, compared to the USA?

 

[Silk]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
It sounds interesting. I have a question about the drinking freedoms if you don't mind. What happens in New Zealand when someone is drinking in an area where it is allowed, hops in a car drunk out of his mind and kills someone?


Strange question, and Shannow has answered it. A better question is a drunk driver in a hit and run, holes up at home and keeps police at bay with a pistol? Has happened to me as I posted in the Transit thread. No, there was no gun fight, it was all resolved with hardly any fuss - never even made the papers, and gun crime tends to do that here. A different approach by police.

 

[Silk]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint

Thanks! Do you have any idea what the DWI statistics look like there, compared to the USA?


Police estimate that each day in New Zealand, an average of 8,764 breath tests of drivers are undertaken and 100 people are charged with drink-driving (New Zealand Police, 2010).

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Silk
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
It sounds interesting. I have a question about the drinking freedoms if you don't mind. What happens in New Zealand when someone is drinking in an area where it is allowed, hops in a car drunk out of his mind and kills someone?


Strange question, and Shannow has answered it. A better question is a drunk driver in a hit and run, holes up at home and keeps police at bay with a pistol? Has happened to me as I posted in the Transit thread. No, there was no gun fight, it was all resolved with hardly any fuss - never even made the papers, and gun crime tends to do that here. A different approach by police.


I didn't think it was that strange. LOL

On a more serious note. My questions were geared toward me understanding how a system that differs from mine is working. The thread, specifically New Zealand peaked my interest that's all.

I live less than a mile from a parkway that claims a lot of lives every year, and I mean a lot. Many of them are alcohol related, and sadly innocent people who didn't consume a drop of it lose their lives.

My only comments about the DWI checkpoints are they do PO people but tend to keep a lot of drunks off that roadway. I have a student/friend who patrols it. The funny thing is they're very infrequent lately. Traffic cameras in school zones seem to be the new rage here.

 

[NHHEMI]

Another dead horse thread to go along with a few others full of nothing new and insults and personal attacks from one side constantly being made against the other. Time to lock it down.