DUI checkpoint

[whip]

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.

How one jumps from being against checkpoints to being pro drunk driving is beyond me. Truly ignorant
The MN solution is so simple. It violates no rights, and would motivate people to be better drivers and actually making the roads safer. If someone has a light out, pull them over, talk to them, and ticket them for any offenses. If a driver crosses a line, pull them over. If they've been drinking, hammer them. If they were on their phone, ticket them for distracted driving. What a novel concept, catching people while breaking the law.

 

[rockydee]

Originally Posted By: whip
If someone has a light out, pull them over, talk to them, and ticket them for any offenses. If a driver crosses a line, pull them over. If they've been drinking, hammer them. If they were on their phone, ticket them for distracted driving. What a novel concept, catching people while breaking the law.


Great concept isn't it? Then when it happens to certain people they [censored] about it and cry their rights were violated in some way. After all just text away and read the paper while you drive, people can multi-task. ha

Honestly random checks don't bother me either, i've got nothing to hide. And if it saves one life it was worth it. I spend a lot of time on the road, and i've seen some bad wrecks caused by some drunken fools, or some jerkoff texting.-RD

 

[Inspecktor]

Minnesota also has a special license plate for people who have had DUIs. I don't know the exact requirements, but I think it is for 2 DUI within a specified time, or DUI with a BAC above a certain level. When I found out what they were (they start with the letter W) I could not believe how many I saw on the road. These have become known around here as "whiskey plates".

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Do you have any idea what the DWI statistics look like there, compared to the USA?

I could not find data on convictions by nation but there are comments here on Wiki indicating the problem is worst in the US compared with Aus and UK.

I understand a conviction in the US is a major personal event and expensive to defend. I would suggest that it is not as as expensive here in NZ but (being over 0.08) still results in a criminal record. Custodial sentences are very rare.

Alcohol limits are basically the same as CA:
Quote:
"California has a general 0.08% BAC limit, a lower limit of 0.04% for drivers holding commercial drivers licenses (CDL), and a limit of 0.01% for drivers who are under 21 or on probation for previous DUI offenses."


In NZ:
Quote:
Persons 20 years and over, 0.05% to 0.08% BAC / 250μg/L to 400μg/L breath - instant NZ$200 fine and 50 demerit points. 12 hour prohibition from driving immediately after.

All persons over 0.08% BAC / 400μg/L breath (first and second offenses) - up to 3 months imprisonment and/or up to NZ$4500 fine; loss of licence for six months or more.

All persons over 0.08% BAC / 400μg/L breath (third and subsequent offenses) - 2 years imprisonment; NZ$6000 fine; loss of licence for one year or more.


The lower limit category is new here as the authorities believe the 0.08 is too high for safe driving. Anecdotally, from personal experience, I think that you are far more likely to get caught here than in San Diego. In the last ten years in NZ I have been tested several times every year, at organised traffic stops. I was never tested in San Diego in 20 years driving, although perhaps things are different now.

 

[Cujet]

I've always wondered if a simple arrangement of cones for everyone to navigate through, at say, 35MPH, would be a better "test" of DUI. Nobody is stopped until they run over a cone or three. Or they slow to 20MPH.

I'm fairly certain such a setup could be engineered to weed out the drunks. Even the best professional race car drivers fail at such tests when BAC is too high.

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

yep, you always have had to present a valid drivers' licence...when pulled over.

It's a new invention to stop everyone on a road and have to present a valid drivers' licence...or an old idea renewed


FTW!!!

These other posts seem to say "stay in line." A simpleton way of thinking. But. Whatever.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: 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".


I hope they do it to a guy in an old beater Suburban, and he braces against the headrest and then STANDS on the brakes with both feet!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
I've always wondered if a simple arrangement of cones for everyone to navigate through, at say, 35MPH, would be a better "test" of DUI. Nobody is stopped until they run over a cone or three. Or they slow to 20MPH.


I might slow to 20MPH simply because I see cones and my mind says, "construction site".

Quote:
I'm fairly certain such a setup could be engineered to weed out the drunks. Even the best professional race car drivers fail at such tests when BAC is too high.


Yes, easily: they would make the "official" speed 35MPH, and a few years later, tests by half a dozen veteran SOLO drivers would show that navigating it at 30 (in a car like a Mustang GT, a Miata R, or a Porsche Cayman) is almost impossible.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
I've always wondered if a simple arrangement of cones for everyone to navigate through, at say, 35MPH, would be a better "test" of DUI. Nobody is stopped until they run over a cone or three. Or they slow to 20MPH.

That's a great idea, just a cone slalom even without the need to measure speed. Drunks would stand out a mile.

But our initial breath test only takes 20 seconds.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: 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".


I hope they do it to a guy in an old beater Suburban, and he braces against the headrest and then STANDS on the brakes with both feet!


It's an older Tahoe, maybe even as old as a GMT900 with a huge crash bar on the front. Like they repurposed their PIT vehicle.

They would probably just cite the Suburban driver for reckless driving...and having broken taillights

It's just an annoyance to me. I adjust the rearview mirror and stay in my lane at the speed I am at. He quickly gets bored with me, dims his lights, and zooms in on the next car. If I had been drinking, I would be worried. He has nothing on me. But if a pedestrian or a pet or something ran in front of me, I would get pushed into that pedestrian or pet. There would be no emergency stop with 3 tons slamming into me.

When I have mentioned it before in other forums, LEOs all insist that this is not a police tactic. Reports from all over the US and Canada seem to indicate that it is.

 

[Lapham3]

Oh yes-the Minnesota 'Whiskey' plate. My broinlaw had those and I think after you got those assigned, the cops could stop you for a breathalyzer anytime with no probable cause. He got nailed one morning going to work and still had an illegal blood alcohol from drinking the night before. He couldn't drive for a long time after that one. His abused body finally gave up about 5 years ago at age 52 so he's not around anymore adding to the road chaos.(and I don't have to listen to his mother and my wife always finding reasons to excuse his decades long addictive behavior-I called them 'the enablers society'they didn't like me saying that much!
I can often recognise Whiskey plated cars before I see the plates by the driver's poor/dumb driving generally.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: 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).


Operation "safe arrival" in my district since the 24th December, 6,400 breath tests, 4 charged with DUI...these are genuine random, not roadblocks.

 

[blueglide88]

I have not read thru this entire thread but I wonder how many people who are for checkpoints also talk on their cell phones while driving? I've seen so many examples of unsafe driving using cell phones it's not funny. I think it has become more of a hazard than drunk driving since it's so very common. When I'm riding my motorcycle I worry about them way more than any drunk on the road.

I am NOT condoning drunk driving or talking on your cellphone behind the wheel.

I am against checkpoints for any reason.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: blueglide88

I am against checkpoints for any reason.

Even though it will never be possible. If somehow you knew that a checkpoint just happened to take a drunk driver off the road 2 minutes before he/she was scheduled to head-on into your wife and kill her if you would be opposed to them? Just a hypolthetical ridiculous question. The answer of course is you would sing their praises.

This of course has happened many times but we will never know the details. But now back to the real world.....

I understand your position and totally understand it though. Its about "freedom"

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: blueglide88

I am against checkpoints for any reason.

Even though it will never be possible. If somehow you knew that a checkpoint just happened to take a drunk driver off the road 2 minutes before he/she was scheduled to head-on into your wife and kill her if you would be opposed to them? Just a hypolthetical ridiculous question. The answer of course is you would sing their praises.

This of course has happened many times but we will never know the details. But now back to the real world.....

I understand your position and totally understand it though. Its about "freedom"



Head on collisions are not always caused by drunks though. And many drunks never have accidents. Many accidents are not caused by drunks. What else do you want to screen for?

Should police cars have cell phone snifferes that can tell when you are on the phone when you drive by? Maybe have check points to check you text logs on the phone? Should police set up blood draw check points to test for drug (legal or illegal) levels in your system?

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ

Head on collisions are not always caused by drunks though. And many drunks never have accidents. Many accidents are not caused by drunks. What else do you want to screen for?

Should police cars have cell phone snifferes that can tell when you are on the phone when you drive by? Maybe have check points to check you text logs on the phone? Should police set up blood draw check points to test for drug (legal or illegal) levels in your system?

I am not arguing with you I am pointing out a hypothetical situation and how events can change perceptions.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: blueglide88

I am against checkpoints for any reason.

Even though it will never be possible. If somehow you knew that a checkpoint just happened to take a drunk driver off the road 2 minutes before he/she was scheduled to head-on into your wife and kill her if you would be opposed to them? Just a hypolthetical ridiculous question. The answer of course is you would sing their praises.

This of course has happened many times but we will never know the details. But now back to the real world.....

I understand your position and totally understand it though. Its about "freedom"



I would much rather them forego DUI checkpoints in favor of task forces that patrol the bar areas. They focus on the known areas where people get drunk, they can have legit reasons to stop people (seen staggering to cars, seat belt violations, lights out etc..) AND they can catch them in much closer proximity to their point of departure, which would minimize their exposure to other motorists.

I just can't figure out why some are so set on check points? They're a expensive for what they return, they violate peoples rights, they muck up traffic and there are better, cheaper ways to accomplish the same goal...

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: blueglide88

I am against checkpoints for any reason.

Even though it will never be possible. If somehow you knew that a checkpoint just happened to take a drunk driver off the road 2 minutes before he/she was scheduled to head-on into your wife and kill her if you would be opposed to them? Just a hypolthetical ridiculous question. The answer of course is you would sing their praises.

This of course has happened many times but we will never know the details. But now back to the real world.....

I understand your position and totally understand it though. Its about "freedom"



I would much rather them forego DUI checkpoints in favor of task forces that patrol the bar areas. They focus on the known areas where people get drunk, they can have legit reasons to stop people (seen staggering to cars, seat belt violations, lights out etc..) AND they can catch them in much closer proximity to their point of departure, which would minimize their exposure to other motorists.

I just can't figure out why some are so set on check points? They're a expensive for what they return, they violate peoples rights, they muck up traffic and there are better, cheaper ways to accomplish the same goal...


Some are so "set on checkpoints" because they feel that it is the only thing that can work.

What happens is:

1. I can see a checkpoint from quite a distance away. If traffic slows, you KNOW it is either an accident, or... ta-da.. a checkpoint. And the same way bums come up to cars in lines at red lights.. Cops could EASILY do the same things. (A drawbridge in Kearny, NJ, literally right outside Hudson County Jail comes to mind.) So, if its not traffic, based on your knowledge of the area.. bust a U-ie..

2. You then have to produce your documents. Nothing stopping you from getting you on ANY violation.. and prepare for car to be towed, with those always-hungry tow truck drivers that can tow a car without even getting out of the wrecker, in about 30 seconds or so.. THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE IT IS ALL ABOUT.
Usually write:
- Failure to Exhibit Docs (39:3-29 NJ, 39:6B-2 if cop in a foul mood. The 6B-2 MANDATES tow and impoundment of car, only to be dropped to 39:3-29a for DL, 29b for reg, 29c for INS CARD.. Meanwhile, tow made between $250 to ~$1000, for however long car had to sit.. THIS IS A PRIME MOTIVATOR OF CHECKPOINTS.)
- No Seat Belt (how can a motorist prove that)
- Barely Obstucted Plate
- some other violation. Can be towed for Inspection sticker.

Now.. NOBODY IS ADVOCATING DRUNK DRIVING. Nobody. As pointed out... Cell phones, INCLUDING POLICE DRIVING WITH PHONES UP TO THE EAR, AS THEY DO A LOT OF THE TIME, are more dangerous. (Apparently, in-car communication takes a second to their discounted Sprint service.) But... more efficient ways? .. People think they do less when they MAY do more.. but they make less MONEY that way.

Safety is a second of checkpoints, just like RLCs - Red Light Cameras, gloriously off for now, probably soon to come back worse than before - make millions, and cause more accidents, and give more brake pad installations to shops in the area.

Happy New Year, all!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: blueglide88

I am against checkpoints for any reason.

Even though it will never be possible. If somehow you knew that a checkpoint just happened to take a drunk driver off the road 2 minutes before he/she was scheduled to head-on into your wife and kill her if you would be opposed to them? Just a hypolthetical ridiculous question. The answer of course is you would sing their praises.

This of course has happened many times but we will never know the details. But now back to the real world.....

I understand your position and totally understand it though. Its about "freedom"



I would much rather them forego DUI checkpoints in favor of task forces that patrol the bar areas. They focus on the known areas where people get drunk, they can have legit reasons to stop people (seen staggering to cars, seat belt violations, lights out etc..) AND they can catch them in much closer proximity to their point of departure, which would minimize their exposure to other motorists.

I just can't figure out why some are so set on check points? They're a expensive for what they return, they violate peoples rights, they muck up traffic and there are better, cheaper ways to accomplish the same goal...


No, there aren't...because the goal is REVENUE!

Also, I suspect cops love them...they get the exact same OT pay napping in their running car as they do patrolling.

 

[dave123]

As a police scanner listener on a Friday or Saturday night in my County I will hear say 5 to 10 reported DUI calls in from drivers with cell phones. Police will drop whatever they are doing and come fast and hard to get to that vehicle. Everyone with a cell phone is a DUI checkpoint.