Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Even crazier is if you were the DD, and didn't have ANYTHING to drink prior to getting behind the wheel, but you then drink after you get home. You could potentially be charged with having absolutely no alcohol in your system when operating a vehicle, just based on someone who thought you did.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Education is the problem with drunk drivers, not lack of enforcement

That's wishful thinking. We've pretty much reached the limit of what education campaigns, social disapproval, and lower blood alcohol limits can do. Even increased sentencing has diminishing returns at this point.

Most dangerously impaired drivers out there today are hardcore alcoholics who get drunk and drive multiple times a week. They know they shouldn't do it. They know the penalties for getting caught are severe. The only thing that will stop them is catching them in the act and taking away their right to drive or putting them in jail. But checkstops are rare because checkstops are expensive (Calgary police don't like to admit how few they run, but outside holiday seasons it's no more than 1/week). Given the size of this city, you can drive for decades without hitting a checkstop.

tldr: We don't want to spend the money it would cost to get habitual drunk drivers off the road.

[jayswin]

One checkstop a week, you're sure about that Cliff? Unless things have changed drastically in the last two years they were running them Tuesday through Saturday and that's just the major checkstop.

Police run minor checks stops just off main roads many times throughout the week.

[Weitz]

One a week? I’ve driven through more than one in a week.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jayswin

One checkstop a week, you're sure about that Cliff? Unless things have changed drastically in the last two years they were running them Tuesday through Saturday and that's just the major checkstop.

Police run minor checks stops just off main roads many times throughout the week.

That info is about 8 years old, via a journalist friend of mine. Could be wrong or out of date. But it's a matter of money. I know I haven't hit a checkstop in over 15 years.

[soulchoice]

Wouldnt it be possible to just not answer the phone or the door in a circumstance like this(the 2 hour law). If i was in that situation, I just would ignore any and all communication.

When at home I rarely answer my door anyways. I only answer it if i know someone has told me they are stopping by.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That info is about 8 years old, via a journalist friend of mine. Could be wrong or out of date. But it's a matter of money. I know I haven't hit a checkstop in over 15 years.

I believe it, as an average throughout the year 52 major checkstops sound about right.

And to my point about lack of enforcement I worded that poorly, I didn't mean enforcing the drunk driving laws I meant expanding them. There was nothing wrong with the drunk driving law before the 2 hours after driving and no probable cause thing came out, taking away rights like that won't stop the people that are drinking and driving from doing it

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Well if it can save even one life, everyone should be willing to get arrested like this. Am I doing this right?

We shouldnt worry about something that isnt going to happen.

Further, when the State tells us the situation is not dangerous. Have faith. The State tells us it wants to prevent Drinking and driving. Listen well! It's true, when the people see the police, they will be afraid. But when the people ask questions that are not in their own best interest, they should simply be told to keep their minds on their labor and leave matters of the State to the State.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by soulchoice

Wouldnt it be possible to just not answer the phone or the door in a circumstance like this(the 2 hour law). If i was in that situation, I just would ignore any and all communication.

When at home I rarely answer my door anyways. I only answer it if i know someone has told me they are stopping by.

Well in the BC case that we're tripping about, she answered her phone and the police said they wanted to talk to her in person about a sensitive matter. Basically mind-f'd her into thinking they were coming to tell her someone died or was in a serious accident.

She says come on over, they do, blammo, you've been drinking, and you drove just under two hours ago. Doesn't matter that she was at her friend's house, sitting by the pool, drinking for two hours.

This law is insane. I can't believe that I didn't think it was much of a big deal when it came out. Blows my mind that the police would misuse their authority this way, but I suppose it shouldn't.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by soulchoice

Wouldnt it be possible to just not answer the phone or the door in a circumstance like this(the 2 hour law). If i was in that situation, I just would ignore any and all communication.

When at home I rarely answer my door anyways. I only answer it if i know someone has told me they are stopping by.

As much as I already distrust the Calgary police. If you have a law that's best course of action for the public is to avoid and distrust the police, something's gone very wrong. They shouldn't be the bad guys that you have to avoid when you're not breaking the law. It's asinine.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

As much as I already distrust the Calgary police. If you have a law that's best course of action for the public is to avoid and distrust the police, something's gone very wrong. They shouldn't be the bad guys that you have to avoid when you're not breaking the law. It's asinine.

It shows you how strong the MADD/anti-drinking lobby is and another example of how easily the liberals are willing to toss out their promise of evidence based policy making. They knew the issues with the law and they still jammed it through

[you&me]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It shows you how strong the MADD/anti-drinking lobby is and another example of how easily the liberals are willing to toss out their promise of evidence based policy making. They knew the issues with the law and they still jammed it through

On a slight tangent - has anyone noticed a marked increase in "drinking is bad for you" studies being published and reported on by the media. The writing is clearly on the wall that drinking is the next smoking, when it comes to the social behaviour police...

[Oling_Roachinen]

I think the difference is, outside of driving, drinking is bad for you individually. Smoking is not just bad for you, but those around you. No one has ever gotten second hand drunk. Also not sure what studies specifically you mean, but it's been known for awhile that drinking isn't great for your health - outside of maybe the occasional study that supports a glass of red wine or whatever.

And obviously I don't want to downplay how alcoholics affect more than just themselves, I mean on a pure physical level.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by soulchoice

Wouldnt it be possible to just not answer the phone or the door in a circumstance like this(the 2 hour law). If i was in that situation, I just would ignore any and all communication.

When at home I rarely answer my door anyways. I only answer it if i know someone has told me they are stopping by.

I'm not sure of the exact answer but if they're treating it like any suspect situation, I don't think you can just choose to not answer the door. Pretty sure they can escalate as they see fit.

[Rando]

Maybe if the Calgary Police budget would prioritize check-stops and drunk driving instead of million dollar mobile command units and half a million armored vehicles they could combat the problem more effectively.

(still salty about the 12 year old one being "heavily used" )

[GGG]

Originally Posted by you&me

On a slight tangent - has anyone noticed a marked increase in "drinking is bad for you" studies being published and reported on by the media. The writing is clearly on the wall that drinking is the next smoking, when it comes to the social behaviour police...

I think that is because their is increased evidence that Dirnking is bad for you based on large scale all causes mortality studies. This isn’t so much as the behaviour police as science.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Until one of those drunk drivers runs over someone in your family.

I pray that you never get accused of something you didn’t do. I have, and while isn’t not as awful as losing a loved one to a drunk driver (which I’ve also experienced) it’s still a ####ty situation that can cost you your livelihood and relationships, and ultimately your freedom. How’s that for an “until it happens to you”?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Rando

Maybe if the Calgary Police budget would prioritize check-stops and drunk driving instead of million dollar mobile command units and half a million armored vehicles they could combat the problem more effectively.

(still salty about the 12 year old one being "heavily used" )

I'd say that it's a priority for them. Apparently the CPS is the only force in Canada that runs them four times a week and more during Stampede/Christmas/New Years.


And at 500 calls last year, we are probably getting good value out of the armored truck. Although the old one looks cooler

[Joborule]

Where are people running into these Checkstops at? In 11 years of driving, I've only come across them twice. One time in a cab.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Where are people running into these Checkstops at? In 11 years of driving, I've only come across them twice. One time in a cab.

I've only seen 3 in my entire life. One on James McKevitt Blvd, one on MacLeod Trail just coming out of downtown, and one on McKenzie Lake Blvd between the traffic circle and Deerfoot