Check Stop Tweets

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by fredr123

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?

Isn't that what the checkstop will decide? Working a smart phone and working a few 1000lbs of metal are a bit different.

[Minnie]

What kind of cheeses me off about that Langdon check stop is that the Strathmore police are all over it, like flies on pig poop. Yet they do crap all in town. Absolutely useless here. I guess the Langdon check stop they feel redeems their uselessness somehow? *shrug*

[valo403]

Originally Posted by fredr123

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?

That process is not really that difficult, and certainly doesn't involve the same faculties as operating a vehicle. Reaction times, field of vision, immediate decision making etc. are not involved in reading a tweet and picking route B over route A.

[polak]

Originally Posted by fredr123

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?

And thats where you get into the only major drawback of Checkstops. Normally drunk drivers would only get pulled over if the alcohol was actually effecting their driving. With Checkstops on the other hand, you'll get people who might actually be fine to drive but have had enough drinks to blow over.

Doesn't matter though, the law is set up to punish anyone for drinking and driving period. Regardless of the actual effect on the individuals driving ability.

But to reply to your post, being able to check twitter is hardly a good indicator of a persons ability to drive.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Mike Vernon

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

Why not? Those people are using roads in Calgary

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Isn't that what the checkstop will decide? Working a smart phone and working a few 1000lbs of metal are a bit different.

Possibly, although the checkstops are probably unlikely to observe much of a driving pattern and will rely principally on BAC taken by the Intoxilyzer in the bus. I'm skeptical that a BAC over an arbitrary line automatically means a person shouldn't be allowed to drive because their ability to do so is impaired by alcohol.

All that aside, the point is I'm still not convinced the tweet campaign has had or will have a measurably negative impact on the rate of drunk drivers taken off the road by checkstops.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Isn't that what the checkstop will decide? Working a smart phone and working a few 1000lbs of metal are a bit different.

The funny thing is a checkstop doesn't really decide that. It decides if your BAC is over a certain number, which may or may not have anything to do with your ability to safely operate a vehicle. You need to set an objective standard, so I don't have an issue with the process in general, but it doesn't really determine your actual physical ability to do certain things.

[polak]

It would be inefficient and costly but I imagine if they set up some quick roadside tests once you blow over it would fix the issue. Instead of black and white .08 and your done.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by valo403

The funny thing is a checkstop doesn't really decide that. It decides if your BAC is over a certain number, which may or may not have anything to do with your ability to safely operate a vehicle. You need to set an objective standard, so I don't have an issue with the process in general, but it doesn't really determine your actual physical ability to do certain things.

Exactly. That's the fundamental problem I have with over .08 or .05 legislation. I can find 10 people in my hometown who drive safer over the legal limit than some drivers stone sober. The notion that a machine can analyze your breath and determine whether you are committing an offence or not is troubling to me.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

The funny thing is a checkstop doesn't really decide that. It decides if your BAC is over a certain number, which may or may not have anything to do with your ability to safely operate a vehicle. You need to set an objective standard, so I don't have an issue with the process in general, but it doesn't really determine your actual physical ability to do certain things.

Agreed, I was generalizing the process.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

It would be inefficient and costly but I imagine if they set up some quick roadside tests once you blow over it would fix the issue. Instead of black and white .08 and your done.

Efficiency would be an issue, and accuracy a huge issue, but roadside tests would be pretty cheap. The big problem is that you're getting into a lot of grey areas there. For instance, there's no way I could stand on my right leg this weekend after taking a puck in the ankle (actually driving may have been an issue to begin with) regardless of intoxication. It just opens up a huge number of possible appeals, which I guess means it wouldn't be cheap in the long run either.

[Mike Vernon]

Originally Posted by polak

It would be inefficient and costly but I imagine if they set up some quick roadside tests once you blow over it would fix the issue. Instead of black and white .08 and your done.

Its called a Sobriety Test. Walk a straight line, counting backwards, simple brain tests etc. The only problem with the Sobriety Test is that it wasnt making enough people criminals and our jails needed more non violent "criminals" in them.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Exactly. That's the fundamental problem I have with over .08 or .05 legislation. I can find 10 people in my hometown who drive safer over the legal limit than some drivers stone sober. The notion that a machine can analyze your breath and determine whether you are committing an offence or not is troubling to me.

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.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Mike Vernon

Its called a Sobriety Test. Walk a straight line, counting backwards, simple brain tests etc. The only problem with the Sobriety Test is that it wasnt making enough people criminals and our jails needed more non violent "criminals" in them.

Ha, because DUI's result in incarceration. Sobriety tests are opinion evidence, it's about as flimsy as it gets.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Exactly. That's the fundamental problem I have with over .08 or .05 legislation. I can find 10 people in my hometown who drive safer over the legal limit than some drivers stone sober. The notion that a machine can analyze your breath and determine whether you are committing an offence or not is troubling to me.

You come from a town inhabited by multple Johnny Fevers?

[polak]

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.

Well if you want a perfect method that wouldn't actually be feasbile...

You could stage basic driving tests for people that blow over...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Well if you want a perfect method that wouldn't actually be feasbile...

You could stage basic driving tests for people that blow over...

Oh I love this idea. Set up a massive centrally located testing facility filled with all sorts of winding roads and hazards to let the drunks negotiate and broadcast the whole thing. I'd pay $1.99/month to watch that.

[polak]

Imagine F1 but everyone is sloshed.

Epic.

[Mike Vernon]

I think the government should give everyone a criminal record if you have a drivers license. That and tax everyone $5,000. Lets face it, in this witch hunt pre-crime they have now almost everyone is or has been a criminal at some point behind the wheel.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mike Vernon

I think the government should give everyone a criminal record if you have a drivers license. That and tax everyone $5,000. Lets face it, in this witch hunt pre-crime they have now almost everyone is or has been a criminal at some point behind the wheel.

Wow this makes absolutely no sense, maybe you can claim innocence under admirality law and pay any find that you get with a rock.