Check Stop Tweets

[moon]

Originally Posted by flizzenflozz

You can't think that's the main impetus for setting up speed traps by the police department.

I don't think it is at all but I think that is why they don't care about the radio's talking about it because it allows them to say that. It allows them to look like they want to reduce speeding whether by catching people or getting them to stop speeding in the areas. By opposing this it looks bad in terms of PR.

I think they also realize that like the check stop tweets the amount of people that listen to the radio broadcasts of photo radar reaches a small number of people and they still are able to nab a ton of speeders.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well the other option is that you put people through physical tests, which do not account for individual differences, or if they do are incredibly different from person to person. As much as the BAC standard may not accurately judge ability to drive, it's better than anything I can think of.

I would much, much rather have an objective scientific test than something where discretion and judgement is required from whatever cop is low enough on the list to get Christmas checkstop duty.

[Titan]

I had always thought that the purpose of the road side tests was to give the cop reasonable cause to "request" a breathalyzer. Also, if you lie and say you have not been drinking and he can't detect alcohol on your breath or other physical signs he can't order a breathalyzer. Whereas you say I only had one or a couple he has reasonable cause for the breathalyzer.

[Wormius]

Some years ago, I thought police were just busting people who were leaving bars and heading directly to their vehicles.

Was there some reason why they can't do just do this anymore? Seems more efficient. Go to a different bar each weekend and pull people over as soon as they start their vehicles. Eventually people will be too paranoid about the cops being around the corner to think about getting in their cars while they're drunk.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Some years ago, I thought police were just busting people who were leaving bars and heading directly to their vehicles.

Was there some reason why they can't do just do this anymore? Seems more efficient. Go to a different bar each weekend and pull people over as soon as they start their vehicles. Eventually people will be too paranoid about the cops being around the corner to think about getting in their cars while they're drunk.

Just leaving a bar and starting your car is no reason to be pulled over. You haven't committed any moving violation for the police to interact with you right? Wouldn't every person caught under those circumstances get the charges thrown out? If you were stumbling all over the place on the way to your car sure then you should be busted but anything else would be at the least harassment.

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Just leaving a bar and starting your car is no reason to be pulled over. You haven't committed any moving violation for the police to interact with you right? Wouldn't every person caught under those circumstances get the charges thrown out? If you were stumbling all over the place on the way to your car sure then you should be busted but anything else would be at the least harassment.

Just set up a Checkstop at the exit of the parking lot!

[OffsideSpecialist]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Just leaving a bar and starting your car is no reason to be pulled over. You haven't committed any moving violation for the police to interact with you right? Wouldn't every person caught under those circumstances get the charges thrown out? If you were stumbling all over the place on the way to your car sure then you should be busted but anything else would be at the least harassment.

A guy I worked with a couple years ago got pulled over leaving a bar, but he was stone sober as he had to work early in the morning. Apparently the cop made him blow in the breathalyzer over and over and over and was totally livid once he discovered that the guy had in fact not been drinking.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Some years ago, I thought police were just busting people who were leaving bars and heading directly to their vehicles.

Was there some reason why they can't do just do this anymore? Seems more efficient. Go to a different bar each weekend and pull people over as soon as they start their vehicles. Eventually people will be too paranoid about the cops being around the corner to think about getting in their cars while they're drunk.

I brought this up in Lethbridge one time because we have so few bars that most people frequent and two in particular where you could catch a ton of drunk drivers and I was told it would be illegal (or a lot of cases thrown out). Not sure of the legal reasons but someone who was a lawyer said that cops can't sit outside a bar and wait for drunks to drive. Seems odd to me, and they could be completely wrong, but that is what I was told.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

Just set up a Checkstop at the exit of the parking lot!

Well, I thought that was what the police had been doing. I may have hyperboled on the "just starting your car" bit. Even setting up a check stop outside would be deterent enough, I hope that people will just leave their cars and take a taxi.

Still, it seems to make more sense, like somebody else had said, to station the check stops at the most common exits out of the downtown core during late night hours.

[moon]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Just leaving a bar and starting your car is no reason to be pulled over. You haven't committed any moving violation for the police to interact with you right? Wouldn't every person caught under those circumstances get the charges thrown out? If you were stumbling all over the place on the way to your car sure then you should be busted but anything else would be at the least harassment.

I don't think you have to drive to get charged but the charge would be different.

I have a buddy that was charged with something like undue care and diligence (can't remember the correct term) for falling alseep while drunk in his car while it was running and parked.

Not sure it was as harsh as a DUI but it did have possible loss of license ramifications if I remember correctly.

[Minnie]

Without due care and attention? I think it's a $400 fine...6 points?

[Minnie]

Ok a quick google shows it's $402/6 demerit points, according to AMA.

[Nage Waza]

Breathalyzers cost about $1500 installed (I think I read that somewhere). If 16-25 year olds account for 35% of the drunk driver crash deaths, why aren't these compulsory in their cars?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Without due care and attention? I think it's a $400 fine...6 points?

That sounds right.

I did think he had a concern about losing his license but that may have been some over reaction to the ticket.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Breathalyzers cost about $1500 installed (I think I read that somewhere). If 16-25 year olds account for 35% of the drunk driver crash deaths, why aren't these compulsory in their cars?

Because that seems to be wildly prejudicial against the large majority that aren't responsible for drunk driving crashes.

[RedMileDJ]

I'm amazed that a lot more people on CP are on the side of it being morally wrong, than last years thread. Good to see.

Bottom line: Not much can be done, unless a law is put in place, or if a specific accident happens and it can be proven that it was because of information from the ass-hat's twitter feed.

edit: I love pylon's idea of throwing people off with "counter" tweets.

[Acey]

EB Memorial around the zoo at midnight on weekends. They'd cash in.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Red-Mile-DJ

I'm amazed that a lot more people on CP are on the side of it being morally wrong, than last years thread. Good to see.

Bottom line: Not much can be done, unless a law is put in place, or if a specific accident happens and it can be proven that it was because of information from the ass-hat's twitter feed.

Seems like it would be very hard to prove that it was "his" fault if that accident happened.

[RedMileDJ]

Originally Posted by moon

Seems like it would be very hard to prove that it was "his" fault if that accident happened.

I'm sure some lawyer somewhere could. But yes, I agree.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by moon

Not to be Captain Obvious but I don't think it is that odd that some guys see more checkstops than others considering most people tend to drive on the same general routes and the checkstops are set up in specific areas that they target.

It kind of supports what we see here in that some seem to see a ton and others see none. Not a lot of middle of the road stories in this thread in terms of seeing checkstops, i.e. 1-2 a year in Calgary for 10 years of driving.

Exactly. For example if one person lives in say Willow Park, near southland, and exits onto Southland off deerfoot everytime they come home, while another person lives in Lake Bonavista and uses Anderson or Bow Bottom to get off Deerfoot.

The second person likely hits multiple checkstops a year on Bow Bottom and Anderson alone, while the first person would totally miss the Checkstop units two favorite Calgary locations.