Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[1991 Canadian]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

https://globalnews.ca/news/3909249/c...nothing-wrong/

Happened in our own city recently, and this is just one case that found its way to the news. But yeah, do go on about how this can never happen

You didn't answer any of the questions and the article you linked is about a person incorrectly suspected of being high, not drunk. High driving and drunk driving are similar yet very separate issues.

I agree with you about the unlawful impounding of someones vehicle when they are incorrectly suspected to be high as being wrong. In this example, I believe this individuals rights were violated and there was no benefit to society. The authorities were wrong and it is our job as citizens to hold them accountable. Dilated pupils is not sufficient evidence to determine anything.

You're helping me prove a point I want to stress. I think as a society we should evaluate each individual law and action on its own. Please don't assume that just because someone supports stricter drunk driving checkpoints that they support other nanny state ideas.

I believe we should support stricter drunk driving checkstops. I don't believe we should support stricter high driving checkstops until we have a better process of determining at risk high driving. They are separate issues and not part of the same slippery slope.

The slippery slope argument is a bit of a fallacy in a liberal democracy. Each law is evaluated on its own. We had gay marriage legalized 15 years ago and I was told by the slippery slope folks that I could marry 3 wives and my dog by now. Let me know when that happens and I'll give the slippery slope folks more respect.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Can you link a study detailing the effectiveness of mandatory screening versus the existing procedure? I can’t seem to find anything of substance on the topic.

There will be a number of factors at play over that period. The quality of the infrastructure in Ireland has improved and will have also contributed to the reduction in road deaths.
https://www.abfi.ie/Sectors/ABFI/ABF...g!OpenDocument

“The introduction of random breath testing by the gardai in 2006 led to an immediate decrease in road deaths, as well as a reduction in the number of hospital admissions following crashes.

In the first 12 months following its introduction 92 lives were saved.”

https://www.independent.ie/life/moto...-35614200.html

Right next door in Northern Ireland where there wasn’t a random testing regime, drink driving incidents increased: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-35242493.html

Meanwhile, in that totalitarian backwater that is Australia



https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov...rbt/index.html

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

What if you have asthma or another respiratory issue that prevents you from blowing? A minor inconvenience can become a big one or possibly even charges if the officer thinks you're not blowing on purpose. It happened to my Grandma who's been a smoker for 70 years.

I remember thinking about this when I failed a pre employment medical test that required some sort of lung flow breathing test because of my asthma.

I came across this page on a BC law firms website from last year.

https://vancouvercriminallaw.com/cop...w-hard-enough/

[OMG!WTF!]

I still think it will be like a new toy at Christmas and will eventually lose its shine. Cops will get tired of giving breathalyzers at 10 30 am on Tuesdays and start using their judgement again.



I think the best thing to do now is record everything when encountering police. I would expect nothing but smiles and courtesy for my dash cam while doing as many breathalyzers as they want. Protecting your existing rights is something people never really think of until it's too late.


I also think you'd see a similar decrease in .05 to .08 dui's if you included a breathalyzer device with licensing. Here's your license and new breathalyzer. I have no idea what gets me to .05. 2 drinks is 200 mls of wine which is one 6 ounce glass at a restaurant plus two sips. So it's not a standard measurement and it's not familiar to most people.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

There will be a number of factors at play over that period. The quality of the infrastructure in Ireland has improved and will have also contributed to the reduction in road deaths.
https://www.abfi.ie/Sectors/ABFI/ABF...g!OpenDocument

“The introduction of random breath testing by the gardai in 2006 led to an immediate decrease in road deaths, as well as a reduction in the number of hospital admissions following crashes.

In the first 12 months following its introduction 92 lives were saved.”

https://www.independent.ie/life/moto...-35614200.html

Right next door in Northern Ireland where there wasn’t a random testing regime, drink driving incidents increased: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-35242493.html

Meanwhile, in that totalitarian backwater that is Australia



https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov...rbt/index.html

Do we have similar stats for Canada? What’s the trend on Canadians killed by drunk driving?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by 1991 Canadian

The slippery slope argument is a bit of a fallacy in a liberal democracy. Each law is evaluated on its own. We had gay marriage legalized 15 years ago and I was told by the slippery slope folks that I could marry 3 wives and my dog by now. Let me know when that happens and I'll give the slippery slope folks more respect.

This is a bad example, but I understand. Normally slippery slope arguments aren't very good but here it works. For example someone who has mouthwashed will blow over and now the state is imposing a lot of undue burden on these people and legal exposure, when they have committed no crime.

edit: last sentence didn't sound right. Need to re-word it.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Or why not just phase in auto manufacturers to have to adopt breathalyzers installed in every vehicle to start the ignition?

Problem solved, the end.

I'm given to understand that the blow-boxes are extremely finicky pieces of tech, requiring frequent (up to monthly) calibration among other irritations the 'not required to use them' public won't put up with. I don't see them becoming something car manufacturers will willingly put in their vehicles anytime soon, especially with the buzz of self-driving cars looming on the horizon.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This is a bad example, but I understand. Normally slippery slope arguments aren't very good but here it works. For example someone who has mouthwashed will blow over and now the state is imposing a lot of undue burden on these people and legal exposure, when they have committed no crime.

edit: last sentence didn't sound right. Need to re-word it.

It still doesn't work.

People who blow over due to mouthwash would not only have to either hit a checkstop (which is unlikely on its own) or be pulled over for due cause, and upon failing the first test, would then have to also miraculously fail the second test (which the mouthwash would not cause a failure for).

Again, these are such bizarrely unique situations that you're worried about. Are you also worried that someone will fail a drug test because they ate 30 poppyseed bagels in one sitting? I mean it could happen, but the likelihood of it occuring is so incremental that most logical people wouldn't consider it a valid worry.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It still doesn't work.

People who blow over due to mouthwash would not only have to either hit a checkstop (which is unlikely on its own) or be pulled over for due cause, and upon failing the first test, would then have to also miraculously fail the second test (which the mouthwash would not cause a failure for).

Again, these are such bizarrely unique situations that you're worried about. Are you also worried that someone will fail a drug test because they ate 30 poppyseed bagels in one sitting? I mean it could happen, but the likelihood of it occuring is so incremental that most logical people wouldn't consider it a valid worry.

15% failure rate is a miracle to you? Jesus.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

15% failure rate is a miracle to you? Jesus.

The whole situation is a miraculous series of events. One individual event occurring is not, but all of them together? Absolutely.

A blind horse could see that.

But please, provide more situations that have no evidentiary basis in reality and continue to ignore the countries where these laws have been around for years or decades.

At this point, put up or shut up. Show some examples of your ridiculous situations occurring in these countries. Google it. Give us a reason to believe any of what you're saying has more than a 0.0001% likelihood. You've got 40 countries years upon years of collective data to draw from. Give me an example and I'll give you a cookie.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Do we have similar stats for Canada? What’s the trend on Canadians killed by drunk driving?

I’m not Siri.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Yes but the state is compelling you to do so. The state is willing to engage in force to ensure compliance. That's a big deal, and you being flippant about it is not good.

Being flippant about it is my right. I'm not personally bothered by it.
I don't fear this measure. It's an inconvenience, like airport security, but one that doesn't scare me. I'm not going to be hauled away by the secret police.

I personally wish no one ever had a single drink of alcohol and drove. In fact, I wish no one drank alcohol, period.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The whole situation is a miraculous series of events. One individual event occurring is not, but all of them together? Absolutely.

A blind horse could see that.

But please, provide more situations that have no evidentiary basis in reality and continue to ignore the countries where these laws have been around for years or decades.

At this point, put up or shut up. Show some examples of your ridiculous situations occurring in these countries. Google it. Give us a reason to believe any of what you're saying has more than a 0.0001% likelihood. You've got 40 countries years upon years of collective data to draw from. Give me an example and I'll give you a cookie.

I don't think you really get how inaccurate the Breathalyzer device can be. There's all kinds of info about it. It doesn't have to be wildly inaccurate to be a menace to innocent people.



https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/widely...udge-1.2884620


Also I'm not sure how many people kow they can demand a blood test or second test. I didn't until this thread and I'm not sure cops tell you that upon arrest.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The whole situation is a miraculous series of events. One individual event occurring is not, but all of them together? Absolutely.

A blind horse could see that.

But please, provide more situations that have no evidentiary basis in reality and continue to ignore the countries where these laws have been around for years or decades.

At this point, put up or shut up. Show some examples of your ridiculous situations occurring in these countries. Google it. Give us a reason to believe any of what you're saying has more than a 0.0001% likelihood. You've got 40 countries years upon years of collective data to draw from. Give me an example and I'll give you a cookie.

What are you talking about? the failure rate on the low end is 15%. This means that people breaking no laws and not demonstrating any sign of being impaired are running the risk of rolling snake eyes on two dice for the same odds roughly on 2 different breathalyzers. Whens the last time you played Monopoly and someone rolled snake eyes? Did you pass out from the miracle before you?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't think you really get how inaccurate the Breathalyzer device can be. There's all kinds of info about it. It doesn't have to be wildly inaccurate to be a menace to innocent people.



https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/widely...udge-1.2884620


Also I'm not sure how many people kow they can demand a blood test or second test. I didn't until this thread and I'm not sure cops tell you that upon arrest.

I absolutely get it. My issue with the dramatics is that White Out is proposing wholistic situations that may have 2-3 low possibility issues occurring all at once. The likelihood of which is statistically insignificant on a grand scale, to the point where I think it's unlikely he could find even one example of these whole-situations occurring in recorded history. I'm sure there's one out there, maybe two. But with billions of people on earth, surely it'd be an easy thing to show evidence of.

For the latter, anecdotal as it may be, I was told during both of my BAC tests that I had the right to request a second test. I passed both, so it wasn't an issue. One of the cops was even being a jerk and still told me.

I'd have to think not informing someone of their legal right in a situation is grounds to get a charge dismissed rather easily.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Do we have similar stats for Canada? What’s the trend on Canadians killed by drunk driving?

Drunk driving is clearly falling.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Drunk driving is clearly falling.

Thank god we've had this law since the 80s

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

What are you talking about? the failure rate on the low end is 15%. This means that people breaking no laws and not demonstrating any sign of being impaired are running the risk of rolling snake eyes on two dice for the same odds roughly on 2 different breathalyzers. Whens the last time you played Monopoly and someone rolled snake eyes? Did you pass out from the miracle before you?

Quoting the 15% failure rate doesn't account for the differences between failures. A failure is not "I had no alcohol, but I blew a 0.08." A failure is "the machine read a 0.08 instead of a 0.07" or "The machine detected mouth alcohol instead of blood alcohol." Not only do false readings require unique situations to happen, they're entirely unlikely to happen twice.

You know what else you can do to prove you're innocent? Ask for the blood test, which is very accurate.

You keep making it sound like otherwise innocent sober people are going to be going to jail. None of what you're saying has a basis in reality. Show the evidence. One example of a sober person failing two tests. Just to shut me up. Surely if it's as common as snake eyes, you'll find several examples.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

That's fair, you believe some bodily search and violation is ok, but others is not.

Other people believe that without just cause no agent of the government should be able to violate a person's body.

What I was looking for was clarification, well that and for the people spouting facts to cite sources. When did we stop doing that here?

I was just expressing my opinion, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Can’t really cite anything for that. I just don’t see this as a slipper slope sort of thing, IMHO.
I get patted down every so often going through airport security. I’ve even been patted down going into a flames game in the past when I failed to remove Keys from my pocket. I didn’t feel violated or like my charter rights were removed.

I just dont see this as a big deal, rather than sticking their face through the window to see your eyes and smell your breath, you may need to blow into a straw for 5 seconds.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Quoting the 15% failure rate doesn't account for the differences between failures. A failure is not "I had no alcohol, but I blew a 0.08." A failure is "the machine read a 0.08 instead of a 0.07" or "The machine detected mouth alcohol instead of blood alcohol." Not only do false readings require unique situations to happen, they're entirely unlikely to happen twice.

You know what else you can do to prove you're innocent? Ask for the blood test, which is very accurate.

You keep making it sound like otherwise innocent sober people are going to be going to jail. None of what you're saying has a basis in reality. Show the evidence. One example of a sober person failing two tests. Just to shut me up. Surely if it's as common as snake eyes, you'll find several examples.

Wonderful, your answer for this overreach is now to start having the police draw blood for you? Even better.