Check Stop Tweets

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Checkstops are contrary to Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

The courts have found that this infringement is saved under Section 1.

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This does not, however, mean that your rights aren't violated when you are detained by the Police without probable cause.

Huh? Do you know how many times your rights are violated on a daily basis based upon this line of thinking? Rights are routinely violated, but when done for sufficient reasons it allowed. Is your right to expression violated because you aren't allowed to yell fire in a crowded movie theater?

[mustache ride]

Is it okay if the police come to your house to start looking through your computer? Frame it under child porn or internet piracy.

I am not against check stops, but they do exist in a grey area that democratic society's usually try to avoid. And if I'm not mistaken the argument that allows them to exist is public safety trumps personal rights. The same argument is used to justify the war on drugs but it would seem the sentiment on this board isn't so supportive in that case.

[pylon]

If you haven't been drinking, there should be no issue to avoid them.

"Sir, have you been drinking tonight?"

"No I haven't officer."

*shines flashlight in car*

Thank you, have a nice evening sir."

I will take that small inconvenience knowing they are pulling blitzed d-bags in Ed Hardy T-shirts off the road.

And even when I have admitted to a few drinks, it usually ends with the question:

"Where are you headed from here sir?"

"I am going home"

"Thank you, please do, and have a nice evening."

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

This might have been discussed before, but:

http://www.660news.com/news/local/ar...stop-locations



I am against this use of social media.

This guy needs to be in my stupid calgarian thread.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Is it okay if the police come to your house to start looking through your computer? Frame it under child porn or internet piracy.

I am not against check stops, but they do exist in a grey area that democratic society's usually try to avoid. And if I'm not mistaken the argument that allows them to exist is public safety trumps personal rights. The same argument is used to justify the war on drugs but it would seem the sentiment on this board isn't so supportive in that case.

WTF kind of analogy is that? A warrantless search of a computer is being compared to a checkstop? Is this a joke?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

going through a checkstop is not being detained nor arrested, saying that your being detained or arrested makes no sense, you should be screaming about your civil liberties then when you have to wait in line to pay a parking ticket.


You might possibly argue about illegal search and seizure, however they do have the right to probable cause, I.e. slurred speech, smell of booze, passed out hooker in your lap.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What a load....


This is not, as mentioned above detainment of imprisonment.

I'm not really sure how this is debatable.

Can I drive through without stopping?

Actually, F this. I'm not going to bother quoting case law on the matter...




I think I'll just state that we all agree that people driving drunk is bad.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

There sure are.

I'd be all for taking away the drivers license for drunk driver for life.

I'd also be all for mandatory life sentences for someone who drives drunk and kills someone.

I'm not all for being punished or having my rights suspended because some other drivers can't be trusted to make reasonable decisions.

So you're fine with implementing life changing sentences for people based on a test that is far from perfect (Blood Alcohol) but have a huge problem with the police stopping you and asking you a couple questions?

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I'm not really sure how this is debatable.

Can I drive through without stopping?

Actually, F this. I'm not going to bother quoting case law on the matter...




I think I'll just state that we all agree that people driving drunk is bad.

No, seriously, quote some caselaw. I think you'll find it's NOT in your favour at all.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I'm not really sure how this is debatable.

Can I drive through without stopping?

Actually, F this. I'm not going to bother quoting case law on the matter...




I think I'll just state that we all agree that people driving drunk is bad.

Do you drive through red lights without stopping? God god man, if you stop, your rights are being infringed upon!!

No stopping for red lights from now on or you're just a slave to the man!

[bradster57]

I've only seen 2 checkstops in 7 years of driving in this city. Once during the Brier curling tournament, they were parked on 11th ave checking people leaving the Dome.

Once on Elbow drive, admittly after I had a couple of drinks a few hours earlier. It scared the crap out of me. I admitted to having a couple drinks and the officer said "Well it should be out of your system by now, have a good night" and waved me through.

Either way, that was enough to make me never take my vehicle anywhere if there is even a possibility of drinks. I wouldn't trust a twitter account to avoid checkstops anyways, especially if people are tweeting fake locations.

[Minnie]

They had a check-stop on 16th last week, just past 68th St, where they have that weird pullout thing. We were on our way to a specialist appointment, but we were waved through. The cars in front of and back of me were pulled over though. Middle of the afternoon. Looking to catch office partiers who had imbibed too much at daytime office parties, according to the news.

There's usually one or two out by Highway 9 (Langdon/Drum turnoff) every year. We've been stopped once or twice in the past 7 years but we usually are waved through.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by bradster57

I've only seen 2 checkstops in 7 years of driving in this city. Once during the Brier curling tournament, they were parked on 11th ave checking people leaving the Dome.

Once on Elbow drive, admittly after I had a couple of drinks a few hours earlier. It scared the crap out of me. I admitted to having a couple drinks and the officer said "Well it should be out of your system by now, have a good night" and waved me through.

Either way, that was enough to make me never take my vehicle anywhere if there is even a possibility of drinks. I wouldn't trust a twitter account to avoid checkstops anyways, especially if people are tweeting fake locations.

^^^

Anyone who says Checkstops are ineffective, I present you with exactly how they are supposed to work, and evidence that they do.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by valo403

WTF kind of analogy is that? A warrantless search of a computer is being compared to a checkstop? Is this a joke?

He has to slow down, or maybe even stop, when there is no lights or stop signs in sight.

[The Yen Man]

I wish there were more check stops in Calgary. I've only ever gone through 3 in my 16 years of driving.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What are the statistics for speeding deaths v drunk driving deaths?

They're not directly comparable, but at least some statistics:

Alcohol: From Alberta Transportation, citing 2010 statistics:

• A total of 4.7% of drivers involved in injury crashes were judged to have consumed alcohol prior to the crash, compared to 21.8% of drivers involved in fatal collisions. As the severity of the collision increased, the involvement of alcohol dramatically increased.

• In terms of involvement per 1,000 licensed drivers, males between 18 and 24 years of age were most likely to have been drinking before the crash. There were more than four times as many male drivers as female drivers who had consumed alcohol prior to the collision.

• In 2010, alcohol related casualty crashes were most likely to have occurred in May, on Saturday, and between 11:00 p.m. and 2:59 a.m.

During 2010, 151289 collisions were recorded on Alberta roadways. Property damage collisions (over $1000) represented 90.8% (137430) of this total while 9.0% (13552) were non-fatal injury collisions. Fatal collisions accounted for 0.2% (307) of the total reported collisions

Following too closely (31.3%), running off the road (14.6%) and left turn across path (11.7%) were the most frequently identified improper driver actions contributing to casualty collisions.

Source: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...ion/AR2010.pdf

Speeding (2002-2004, Canada):

Between 2002 and 2004, more than 700 people were killed and more than 3,500 were seriously injured each year in speed-related crashes. In other words, speeding was a factor in about 25% of deaths and 20% of serious injuries from vehicle crashes.

The victims of speeding crashes, like the drivers, tend to be youthful. Seventy-five percent of persons killed in speed-related crashes during 2002-2004 were less than 45 years of age. In fact, young adults (aged 16-24 years) accounted for one in three speed-related deaths.

About 50% of persons killed in speed-related crashes were drivers. Most of these drivers were speeding themselves.

Speeding crashes frequently involve just one vehicle and one risk-taking driver. Single-vehicle crashes accounted for more than 50% of speed-related deaths and serious injuries during 2002-2004.

Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/t...7-menu-158.htm

[fredr123]

Aside from the moral and legal questions, I wonder how effective these tweets really are at causing drunk people to elude capture. It kind of presumes the person is drunk, but has enough faculties to realize that they are too drunk to legally drive, and then check a twitter feed to compare the latest news of checkstop locations against their anticipated driving route and then calculate a new driving route avoiding the checkstop.

It just seems really complicated and difficult for someone who is too drunk to drive to manage effectively.

[polak]

Not with the new .05 rule.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Aside from the moral and legal questions, I wonder how effective these tweets really are at causing drunk people to elude capture. It kind of presumes the person is drunk, but has enough faculties to realize that they are too drunk to legally drive, and then check a twitter feed to compare the latest news of checkstop locations against their anticipated driving route and then calculate a new driving route avoiding the checkstop.

It just seems really complicated and difficult for someone who is too drunk to drive to manage effectively.

I imagine there are a lot of people right on the edge of the legal range that would have sufficient faculties to go through that process.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by valo403

I imagine there are a lot of people right on the edge of the legal range that would have sufficient faculties to go through that process.

If they are capable of going through that process, then I wonder if their ability to operate a motor vehicle is also sufficiently impaired by alcohol to be a danger to themselves or others?

[Mike Vernon]

Originally Posted by Minnie

They had a check-stop on 16th last week, just past 68th St, where they have that weird pullout thing. We were on our way to a specialist appointment, but we were waved through. The cars in front of and back of me were pulled over though. Middle of the afternoon. Looking to catch office partiers who had imbibed too much at daytime office parties, according to the news.

There's usually one or two out by Highway 9 (Langdon/Drum turnoff) every year. We've been stopped once or twice in the past 7 years but we usually are waved through.

I have seen the Langdon Check Stop. They hide it under the guise of a Fish and Wildlife Conservation Check yet they pull over Volkswagon Beetles. Would be a tight fit for a poached Deer!

Also why do they have Check Stops on the out skirts of the city for traffic travelling into the city? Doesnt make any sense. Waste of tax dollars IMO