Checkstop Warnings

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by moon

Did you actually read the OP?

No

[bomba]

Originally Posted by Yasa

It's well within his legal right to do it. I don't agree with it or endorse it, but unfortunately freedom of speech has its upsides and downsides.

Good post. I'm glad we have freedom of speech and unfortunately this is one of the downsides of it. However, I'd say the pros outweigh the cons.

[bradster57]

So why not just tweet a bunch of fake locations? Potential drunk drivers might be scared off and thus there could be less on the roads. Isn't that what we want?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given the entire point is to slow people down toward the limit, the traps are actually more effective if people know they are there.

I know what you're trying to get at here, but the entire point isn't to slow people down unfortunately. If it was then they wouldn't have a speed "trap" and the police would be out in the open where drivers could see them. I know they wouldn't write as many tickets, but it would slow everyone down...which is really the point.

Anyway, its off topic, but I just had to throw that out there.

[Jables16]

A lot of overreaction in this thread. There's obviously something a bit scummy about the spirit of this guys posting, like "support the movement" as though checkstops were some tyrannical injustice being foisted upon us that he's leading an uprising against. They're very important because I can garauntee if some people knew for a fact there was no chance of getting caught driving drunk they would do it all the time at dangerous alcohol levels.

That being said a lot of people are assuming anyone who uses this information is driving around bombed out of their mind and getting away with it. As HotHotHeat mentioned, if you're someone who's well aware of their limits with alcohol and is drinking responsibly you shouldn't be villified for driving after having one or two drinks.

[flamesfever]

Unfortunately when people are given freedom, they often don't execise the responsibility that comes with it.

Consequently another law will now have to be passed, making it illegal to tweet the location of checkstops, to try and prevent people from getting killed by drunks.

And on and on it goes

[Canehdianman]

He isn't doing anything wrong at all. If anything, it is free advertising for the Checkstop program.

[Locke]

Its definitely an interesting conundrum.

I think before we break out the torches and pitchforks it would be helpful to know the actual results of this information. What actions does this information spur?

If people know theres a checkstop will they be more cautious or conservative in their drinking? Will they take a cab instead of risk it? Those would be positive reactions to this information.

Will the heavily intoxicated 'get away' with something? Will this let more drunk drivers avoid the hook? It certainly offers them the opportunity should they choose to use it. These reactions would carry negative consequences.

Who is really going to be the beneficiary of this information?

Checkstops also walk a very fine line, as drivers are being stopped and inspected without having actually committed an infraction. But the Checkstop program is worshipped on the altar of public safety, the greater good, and theres issues with that both ways as well.

This guy, whoever he is, has every right to tweet checkstop locations and he should, and that right should be protected, not legislated against, I'm getting tired of the Granny State. Whether he chooses to exercise his rights in a moral manner is his own dilemma.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

He isn't doing anything wrong at all. If anything, it is free advertising for the Checkstop program.

Just think of all the new customers this free advertising will generate, I personally have been waiting for him to tweet so I could head down to my local checkstop.

[chemgear]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/01/08...of-free-speech


The owner of handle @calgarychecksto says he is certainly not trying to encourage drunk driving.

Pratt says his posts are also aimed at people who are unfairly targeted by the new provincial law — but in any case, he doesn’t feel any guilt from crashes like Sunday’s double fatal.

“I don’t feel responsible. I wasn’t the one driving drunk,” he said.

[Julio]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...ps-111214.html

[mykalberta]

If the drunk driving laws are believed to be lawful, I dont want people tweeting checkstop locations. However with the new Alberta laws pushed through by MADD I personally dont have a problem with them tweeting the location.

Its like tweeting the location of speed traps or photo radar. Excessive speed I am guessing likely causes more deaths than drunk driving.

[You Need a Thneed]

People who tweet checkstop locations should be assumed to be drink drivers themselves, and should receive receive the same sentence, without trial.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

People who tweet checkstop locations should be assumed to be drink drivers themselves, and should receive receive the same sentence, without trial.

lol?

[burn_this_city]

I don't see why anyone would tweet the locations. It's one thing to send a message out saying there are checkstops out and to be sure to take a cab. But to tweet the actual locations just enables people to drive drunk and avoid prosecution.

[geos]

Originally Posted by ken0042

For me the speeding comparison isn't a good one. Setting aside the dangers for a moment; the difference is the law. Speeding is a Highway Traffic offense and the penalty is a fine. Impaired Driving is a criminal code offense; and if found guilty you end up with a criminal record.

So warning somebody of a speed trap isn't the same. Plus the reason for speed traps is to get people to stop speeding through an area. This is different than a Checkstop; in that a speeder can instantly become a non-speeder. An impaired driver cannot instantly sober up.

Driving 100km over the limit is a Criminal Code offense (criminal negligence) just as driving above 0.08 is a Criminal Code offense, but driving 0.06 is a 24 hour non-criminal suspension. Your point isn't valid. Both undesirable actions could be criminal or just a fine.

While I don't have any sympathy for the 0.08, I do have sympathy for the spending 30 minutes in a bus at 0.02 waiting in line for the big device.

How many people are charged at checkstops? Have you looked at the stats?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...049/story.html

5 impaired drivers. Wowie. And 36 suspensions. Out of 5,029 motorists stopped. That's a 0.1% criminal violation rate. And 36 individuals that didn't break the law, but were punished (which I'm largely fine with, you shouldn't be driving at 0.05 either).

But the thousands of hours of time consumed to find 5 guys? Resources could be better spent elsewhere. You know how many school zone speeding tickets you could hand out using the 20+ cops at a Checkstop in the same time period?

Or maybe one of them could come investigate the rash of break in's to vehicles in my area, rather than have their office guy tell me they don't generally investigate minor property crimes.

Priorities. I have no issue with the tweets as someone over 0.08 likely doesn't have the comprehension or forethought to check twitter and make a clear decision to evade a checkstop.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

If the drunk driving laws are believed to be lawful, I dont want people tweeting checkstop locations. However with the new Alberta laws pushed through by MADD I personally dont have a problem with them tweeting the location.

Its like tweeting the location of speed traps or photo radar. Excessive speed I am guessing likely causes more deaths than drunk driving.

I have to agree here.

First we have a 50 page thread about how the government has overstepped their bounds and we will have countless innocent people charged without due process yada, yada yada.

Now we have a guy who will help those people, along with some drunks, and he's a villain?

I agree with the post above that I thanked. Do you really think that someone who is ####faced wasted is going to have the foresight to check up on a twitter feed before they drive home?

This will help a lot of borderline people who may have been unjustly charged by the new laws. It may also help some drunks drive without prosecution. He's also going to help a bunch of stone cold sober people avoid hour long line ups and not miss whatever engagement it is that they're trying to attend.

How many really drunk people (.08 or higher) is this guy really going to warn? How many wouldn't have taken that route anyways?

It isn't the greatest thing I've ever heard of but it also isn't the worst.

[geos]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

This will help a lot of borderline people who may have been unjustly charged by the new laws. It may also help some drunks drive without prosecution. He's also going to help a bunch of stone cold sober people avoid hour long line ups and not miss whatever engagement it is that they're trying to attend.

Exactly. It's not even about people that will face suspensions under the new laws, as I somewhat agree (I've done a test with an officer before to determine what 0.05 feels like and I can tell you I would not drive at 0.05).

What I have no patience for whatsoever is being detained for 30 minutes waiting in a bus after one drink and blowing 0.02 on the roadside device. Well, maybe you'll be 0.05 after waiting a half hour. Ya ok.

What about the Charter? Unreasonable detainment there IMO.

I think the book should be thrown at anyone over 0.05 (once the appropriate laws have been passed, which they haven't IMO). I think if you're in an accident that involved alcohol, you should never drive again. Ever.

But stopping and detaining individuals on no reasonable grounds (especially when the offensive rate is <0.1%) is absurd and a violation of my liberty. So I have little sympathy for checkstops. Perhaps the officers should be in their vehicles driving around, stopping individuals with erratic driving patterns at the night. You'd probably have a much higher conviction/charge rate.

You'd have a higher conviction rate stopping shoppers at Walmart and searching their bags for stolen goods... that's the honest truth.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Chingas

Twitter has opened peoples tattle tailing levels to an all new high. Red Mile pretty sure thats the second time this week that you have quoted a twitter of your own, showcasing you telling the world what they should do. Good job, if we ever meet I'll pat you on the back.

Im glad Red Mile did the right thing and isnt afraid of being called a "tattle tale" like a 7 year old.

Ps. Read your own signature.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

What's funny here is that the OP has actually opened this guy up to hundreds, if not thousands, of new followers who otherwise wouldn't have known about this morally ambiguous service.

If he would have just kept quiet most of us probably would have never known.


Can we arrest the OP for obstruction of justice? Or as one poster suggested, can we charge him with crimes equal to the people who use his service without trial?

If the twitter guy has less than a hundred followers and thousands of people now know about this service because of the OP, who is the person who has caused the most damage?


I honestly don't know how serious this post was meant to be. Just food for thought.