Checkstop Warnings

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by geos

CTV on all of December 2010 (2011 not available yet):

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/plo...ub=CalgaryHome

Enhanced Check Stop numbers from 2010

• Over 6,425 vehicles went through the enhanced Check Stops December of 2010
• Of those, 88 drivers required a roadside test, 3 people were charged with refusal, 31 received a 24-hour suspension for drugs and alcohol.
• There were no charges for impaired driving.

There were over 2000 impaired charges from regular traffic stops in 2010, but ZERO (ZERO!) from checkstops in December of 2010. That is stopping 6,425 vehicles.

Useless. Put the cops on the streets to drive around and find the guys.

I wish I had 2011 stats but for whatever reason, CPS doesn't seem to have released them.

I can guarantee you that the 2,458 impaired charges CPS laid between Jan and Oct 2011 are not all from traffic stops or from regular district cops. You're also basing your stats on the enhanced checkstop, which is during the day, and not all the checkstops that were completed in December.

[geos]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I can guarantee you that the 2,458 impaired charges CPS laid between Jan and Oct 2011 are not all from traffic stops or from regular district cops. You're also basing your stats on the enhanced checkstop, which is during the day, and not all the checkstops that were completed in December.

Well, can we agree that the enhanced are a complete waste of resources then?

Why doesn't the CPS publish stats of the total checkstops? These can't be found anywhere. If they are so successful, I'd expect them to be tooting their horn on it. But silence. Why? Where's the data on the effectiveness?

All I can find is RCMP data on how effective they are at finding other stuff going on. Which isn't exactly the justification in the legislation for allowing checkstops. We should be honest with ourselves. Are these DUI stops, or are these just random police searches? If they are the later, are we comfortable as a society with that?

Disguising this as a awesome impaired driving deterent isn't honest IMO. Especially when Alberta continues to have terrible fatality stats despite what is claimed to be one of the most stringent checkstop programs.

[Bobblehead]

If checkstops are a deterrent, which I believe they are, then it is pretty darn hard to figure out how many impaired folks that they prevented from driving. So that would make the stats of how many drivers are caught of questionable importance.

If checkstops didn't exist, would there be few impaired drivers or more?

The question of cost vs net benefit is very valid but I'm not sure getting in a debate about numbers is really beneficial, at least not without an agreement about what those numbers mean.

[moon]

I don't think that checkstops are that big a deterrent at all. They may stop some of the borderline drivers but those people are likely the least dangerous of all the drivers and very unlikely to drive in a dangerous state anyways.

I think the biggest deterrent is for lack of a better term morality/safety/social concerns that people have.

If people have no qualms about driving drunk I doubt that they are that concerned about the very, very small chance of running into a checkstop.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

If checkstops are a deterrent, which I believe they are, then it is pretty darn hard to figure out how many impaired folks that they prevented from driving. So that would make the stats of how many drivers are caught of questionable importance.

If checkstops didn't exist, would there be few impaired drivers or more?

The question of cost vs net benefit is very valid but I'm not sure getting in a debate about numbers is really beneficial, at least not without an agreement about what those numbers mean.

Compare the number of convictions against a similar sized City that doesnt use Checkstops?

Funny that on a hockey board all we care about are the stats!

[Rerun]

1. Have I driven drunk? Yes.. in the past.

2. Do I continue to drive drunk? No. Your chances are much higher now of getting caught (lots of checkstops) than they were years ago.

3. When I drove drunk did I take a route home that I felt would get me home with the least likely chance of getting caught? Yes.

4. If I was an alcoholic and I regularly drove drunk (I've known lots of these people.. they've lost their licenses multiple times), would I check on twitter to find out if there was a checkstop in one of my possible routes home? Damn right I would.

5. Did I give up drinking and driving because of the checkstop deterent? Yes

6. Am I that much different than the average Joe who goes to the bar on a regular basis? I don't think so.

[Mccree]

I went thru a very small check stop by my House (in Country Hills). It had may have been three or four officers. I think this is the way to go. Have the same number of police as the large checkstops but do smaller ones thru out the city.

I think that would be more effective.

I have had to blow twice. Each time the officer asked if I had be drinking. Both times I said yes (one beer after a soccer game each time). The first time was on the road side (the smaller one) and the other time was in the BUS.

The road side took 10 min and I was on my way. The Bus took over an hour. I passed both times. While in the Bus my wife called asking where I was. The officers didn't let me answer and my wife was worried and then the text messages starting coming in from all my friends as my wife was calling them. Again I was unable to respond. That to me is wrong as I was basically arrested for a full hour. That is wrong.

[grizz29]

Originally Posted by geos

Why doesn't the CPS publish stats of the total checkstops? These can't be found anywhere. If they are so successful, I'd expect them to be tooting their horn on it. But silence. Why? Where's the data on the effectiveness?

To the Calgary Police Service, setting up checkstops 365 days/year actually means: Christmas, Stampede, and during any large events which are held in Calgary. Although, I suppose with their recent 12MM injection of funds they could throw a few more bucks at the program.

I'm surprised they don't actually bring the bus out more often. The checkstops are a form of revenue generation as much as they are about safety. (Issuing tickets for burned out taillights, expired plate tags....) They are always touting the successes of their "18-wheeler, big truck" safety stops.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Rerun

1. Have I driven drunk? Yes.. in the past.

2. Do I continue to drive drunk? No. Your chances are much higher now of getting caught (lots of checkstops) than they were years ago.

3. When I drove drunk did I take a route home that I felt would get me home with the least likely chance of getting caught? Yes.

4. If I was an alcoholic and I regularly drove drunk (I've known lots of these people.. they've lost their licenses multiple times), would I check on twitter to find out if there was a checkstop in one of my possible routes home? Damn right I would.

5. Did I give up drinking and driving because of the checkstop deterent? Yes

6. Am I that much different than the average Joe who goes to the bar on a regular basis? I don't think so.

For me, I would argue your questions.

For number 1, 2, and 3- my answers are the same as yours.

For number 4, I don't think that alcoholics are the (only) ones using twitter to avoid checkstops- I'd think it'd be "normal" people who just want to avoid the hassle after having one or two drinks. I know I would avoid a checkstop no matter how impaired I was (sober to trashed, I'd stay away for different reasons).

For 5- If you gave up drinking and driving because of checkstops, you're doing it wrong. You should have given up drinking and driving because it is dangerous to yourself and others.

I have no issue with the guy tweeting the locations. It may not be "right," but it definitely is legal, so I support his rights to do so.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mccree

The road side took 10 min and I was on my way. The Bus took over an hour. I passed both times. While in the Bus my wife called asking where I was. The officers didn't let me answer and my wife was worried and then the text messages starting coming in from all my friends as my wife was calling them. Again I was unable to respond. That to me is wrong as I was basically arrested for a full hour. That is wrong.

They can stop you from using your phone to talk to family while your waiting on the bus? What the hell is the purpose of that? Do they consider you to be "under arrest" while you're waiting your turn? That seems kind of messed up, has this happened to anyone else?

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by grizz29

To the Calgary Police Service, setting up checkstops 365 days/year actually means: Christmas, Stampede, and during any large events which are held in Calgary. Although, I suppose with their recent 12MM injection of funds they could throw a few more bucks at the program.

I'm surprised they don't actually bring the bus out more often. The checkstops are a form of revenue generation as much as they are about safety. (Issuing tickets for burned out taillights, expired plate tags....) They are always touting the successes of their "18-wheeler, big truck" safety stops.

Well for starters they used to have to tow the bus out cause it never ran.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[geos]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I can guarantee you that the 2,458 impaired charges CPS laid between Jan and Oct 2011 are not all from traffic stops or from regular district cops. You're also basing your stats on the enhanced checkstop, which is during the day, and not all the checkstops that were completed in December.

Here, finally some data!

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Br...275/story.html

2,921 total driving charges in the year.
43 during night-time checkstops in Decembers.

Let's stretch it out to assume that 43 is a typical month, which is not likely as December is probably the highest month. But lets assume. That's 516 checkstop charges in a year. That's only 18% of all charges.

Again, I question the effectiveness in relation to the violation of my liberty. I'd rather have more resources driving around, patroling for drunks (and other problems) than congregatred in an easily avoided stop. Especially now that the stops are public info on twitter.

[Locke]

Well thats a different ballgame. 18% actually isnt bad, if they're charging 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 people going through Checkstops then I would contend that they're either very effective or we've got way more drunks on the road than I ever realized.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well thats a different ballgame. 18% actually isnt bad, if they're charging 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 people going through Checkstops then I would contend that they're either very effective or we've got way more drunks on the road than I ever realized.

Isn't it 18% of all DUI's are handed out at checkstops versus other traffic stops not 18% of people going through checkstops that are charged?

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by flameswin

They can stop you from using your phone to talk to family while your waiting on the bus? What the hell is the purpose of that? Do they consider you to be "under arrest" while you're waiting your turn? That seems kind of messed up, has this happened to anyone else?

This was several years ago but the officer kept saying "put the phone away" Not really sure what would happen if I answered the call. Maybe the policy has changed since or the officer was being a dick. Either way it felt like had been arrested.

[jayswin]

Anyone in favour of the new legistlation should check this story out, from BC.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/01/11...aw-fights-back

To bully and berate an innocent senior then punish her without a trial for a crime she clearly didn’t commit.
This, apparently, is what Alberta has to look forward to under draconian drunk-driving laws inspired by our neighbouring province, where suspected motorists are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

Basically, a senior couldn't provide a breath sample because of an illness she had suffered.

What she didn’t count on was the lung power needed to properly blow into a police breathalyzer. Having suffered from serious pneumonia a few years ago, she couldn’t manage.
That didn’t stop RCMP from making her try — over the next two hours, MacDonald says she was forced to stand in the chill and told to blow 15 times by increasingly snotty RCMP officers.

Because of this she was charged with failure to provide a breath sample, she had her car impounded.

There was no alcohol in her system — not a drop — and yet MacDonald’s failure to provide a proper breath sample meant her car was taken away for a month and her licence suspended for 90 days.

So she basically had to get herself to a hopsital in an attempt to prove her own innocence to police who didn't give her that right.

“Three officers don’t believe me, so I phoned the hospital and took a taxi over to have a blood test.
“I’m not going to let the Mounties get away with saying I was drunk.”

Seriously, anyone who believes this new legistlation is a good thing, need to understand how ridiculous it is to give poilce this much power in a progressive country like Canada. These police officers acted as Judge jury and executioner on this lady for a crime she didn't commit.

...and befor people say "well this is an extreme example" or "It's the Calgary Sun, it was over-dramatic" or whatever. Just think about it...

A lady who was stone cold sober was...

-accused of a crime (drinking and driving)
-punished for the crime ("Thus, MacDonald was cited for failing to provide a breath sample, given a Notice of Driving Prohibition for three months, fined $500 and told her car was to be towed")
-and not given a fair trial to prove that she hadn't been drinking, but rather wasn't able to blow hard enough due to a previous illness

Do you guys seriously want that **** in our country? It's utter BS, imo.

[jayswin]

...and I'd love to hear what the "anything that gets people to drink and drive less is fine by me" crowd from that other thread think about this.

[geos]

Originally Posted by moon

Isn't it 18% of all DUI's are handed out at checkstops versus other traffic stops not 18% of people going through checkstops that are charged?

Thats right. 18% of DUI charges are at checkstops. Assuming approximatley the same number of people are checked at enhanced stops as regular stops, the offense rate would be about 1% based on those stats provided (the police handed out 0 DUI's in 2010 after stopping 5,000 in December in the enhanced program).

Originally Posted by flameswin

Do you guys seriously want that **** in our country? It's utter BS, imo.

I posted this story earlier in the thread as well, but a better written Herald version.

That is a good point. I really don't like the democratic principles behind allowing cops to dish out punishment. There is a division of judical powers for a reason.

I think a 0.05 or a 0.08 (whatever we decide on) charge should be a 5 year ban. Sure. The hardest punishment possible. But everyone charged should get their day in court before being punished. I think the 24 hour suspension is really the most that could ever be justified in the police's mandate of protecting public safety. Any punishment beyond that should be determined by a judge, as it's punishment, not a public safety matter.

It's a real erosion of our rights in this country to have police being the judge, jury and execution on the side of the road. It's a big issue. Whether it's a random search, detention on a bus with no or questionable cause, or what this poor old lady faced in BC, it's all wrong.

We just keep handing over our rights in the name of public safety, with dubious results (DUI fatailities are highest in Alberta despite the highest checkstop enforcement...). What we've done here is sacrificed a number of our rights for a process that doesn't really seem to work.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by flameswin

They can stop you from using your phone to talk to family while your waiting on the bus? What the hell is the purpose of that? Do they consider you to be "under arrest" while you're waiting your turn? That seems kind of messed up, has this happened to anyone else?

You might warn your other drunk buddies about the super secret location of the BUS.

[grizz29]

Some goofball cop within the CPS traffic unit posted the days/hours that the checkstops operate within Calgary on another local forum:

"Checkstop runs on one week from tues-friday 1800-0500, the next week if Weds-Sat 1800-0500. We usually do 2-3 set ups, rotating through the city"

He then posted locations of where they were setup last weekend, and it was verified by some posters.

----

If anyone is planning on having a few pops during the 2012 Superbowl or when NFL kicks in later this year, go right ahead!