Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

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

So because there have been other advances in primary and secondary prevention, harm reduction, and interventions for impaired driving in the last 35 years, this one we should consider a spurious invasion of our rights?

If anything, the fact that the implementation of other laws, legislations, and programs to reduce the prevalence of DUI can be tied to this trend without throwing everything into a dystopian Judge Dredd society should tell you something.

[Weitz]

As far as I know you can’t request a blood test. Only a second breath test.

Generally though the measurement submitted if you blow over will be from a unit in a check stop van or at the station. Not the handheld IIRC.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

So because there have been other advances in primary and secondary prevention, harm reduction, and interventions for impaired driving in the last 35 years, this one we should consider a spurious invasion of our rights?

If anything, the fact that the implementation of other laws, legislations, and programs to reduce the prevalence of DUI can be tied to this trend without throwing everything into a dystopian Judge Dredd society should tell you something.

People are misrepresenting the drop in impaired driving in other countries with this law as a direct correlation. This graph defeats that argument.

[Barnet Flame]

It doesn’t.

There are many factors that combined reduce the instances of impairment and associated deaths and injuries.

Societal attitudes change
Better infrastructure
Safer vehicles
Other changes in laws, which reminds me, some people lost their ####ing minds when seatbelt laws were enacted.
They also lost their #### when helmet laws were enacted.

Nobody gives a damn about those laws now.

There are a lot of things that combined reduce the level of instances. The reasons above are but a few of them.

In the other countries, the amount of deaths and injuries dropped off a cliff immediately following enactment of laws allowing random testing. This means those laws can be attributed to a step change that reduced death and injury.

And none of those countries have become the totalitarian wastelands full of bizarro world events you have described.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

People are misrepresenting the drop in impaired driving in other countries with this law as a direct correlation. This graph defeats that argument.

All this graph shows is that there is a general trend toward reduced rates of DUI in Canada from 1985-2015. And this was posted in response to the original graph from Ireland. The fact that both countries have experienced a drop in DUI rates over that timespan doesn't say anything about a piece of legislation that is 2 days old.

If I were a betting man, I would say overall rates are going down in most developed countries in the world. Part of this will be due to a rapidly urbanizing global population, part of it will be due to changes in laws and legislation, and part of it will be due to advances in education, prevention, and interventions for alcohol abuse and DUI. None of that suggests that our work as a society is done to mitigate preventable deaths.

Look, I'm not vehemently for or against this law. I understand some people will see it as a violation of their basic rights, and some people won't. The evidence collected elsewhere suggests that it's effective and fairly non-invasive. I'd be quite happy to say this law sucks if it either turns out to be a demonstrable waste of law enforcement's time and resources with marginal benefit, or leads to police abusing their power by laying down chintzy charges. I'd be more inclined to lean towards the former scenario playing out myself. Either way I don't think this will ultimately affect most people in any meaningful way.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

People are misrepresenting the drop in impaired driving in other countries with this law as a direct correlation. This graph defeats that argument.

“People” aren’t doing it. Multiple academic studies have done it. Studies that actual factor in everything to be considered. Studies that don’t just go, “a graph I like! I’m right! This is an Orwellian nightmare!” without doing any critical thinking at all.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

It doesn’t.

There are many factors that combined reduce the instances of impairment and associated deaths and injuries.

Societal attitudes change
Better infrastructure
Safer vehicles
Other changes in laws, which reminds me, some people lost their ####ing minds when seatbelt laws were enacted.
They also lost their #### when helmet laws were enacted.

Nobody gives a damn about those laws now.

There are a lot of things that combined reduce the level of instances. The reasons above are but a few of them.

In the other countries, the amount of deaths and injuries dropped off a cliff immediately following enactment of laws allowing random testing. This means those laws can be attributed to a step change that reduced death and injury.

And none of those countries have become the totalitarian wastelands full of bizarro world events you have described.

That's some pretty incredible logic. Austria and Canada have both had pretty steady drops in impaired driving, but, you can say with such certainty that in Austria its based on their mandatory breathalyzer law? That's a fairly lazy argument. "I said so".

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“People” aren’t doing it. Multiple academic studies have done it. Studies that actual factor in everything to be considered. Studies that don’t just go, “a graph I like! I’m right! This is an Orwellian nightmare!” without doing any critical thinking at all.

But that's exactly what your side has done in this debate. They trotted out a graph that seemingly gave this law credence.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

But that's exactly what your side has done in this debate. They trotted out a graph that seemingly gave this law credence.

If you cared to read, I linked to a Criminal Law journal which cited multiple academic studies that concluded this law is effective. Post 154, if you care. The quote was "It is widely accepted that well-publicized programs involving both organized and mobile RBT with high testing levels increase the perceived and actual risk of apprehension, and thereby achieve sharp, sustained reductions in impaired driving crashes" with lots of footnotes detailing the multiple academic studies that touch on it.

But sure, all "my side" has done is trot out a graph. If you don't want to read the academic evidence provided then nobody can force you. But stop acting surprised you're not being taken seriously.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

That's some pretty incredible logic. Austria and Canada have both had pretty steady drops in impaired driving, but, you can say with such certainty that in Austria its based on their mandatory breathalyzer law? That's a fairly lazy argument. "I said so".

Your bizarro world scenarios and complete absence of any research or reasoned argument combined with cherry picking from the efforts others on both sides of the discussion is the very definition of a lazy argument.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Your bizarro world scenarios and complete absence of any research or reasoned argument combined with cherry picking from the efforts others on both sides of the discussion is the very definition of a lazy argument.

I have to admit I'm not sure how to respond anymore. There's been evidence provided to you that demonstrates our DUI rate is already dropping and dropping fast and for decades now.

People have provided you with links from credible sources showing abuse of police power in our own city, and, how problematic breathalyzers are.

All I get back is your hands clasped on your ears and you shouting back "safety safety safety!". I don't know how to establish a middle ground or even a way to disagree if you're going to ignore everything given to you. Same goes for pepsi.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I have to admit I'm not sure how to respond anymore. There's been evidence provided to you that demonstrates our DUI rate is already dropping and dropping fast and for decades now.



People have provided you with links from credible sources showing abuse of police power in our own city, and, how problematic breathalyzers are.



All I get back is your hands clasped on your ears and you shouting back "safety safety safety!". I don't know how to establish a middle ground or even a way to disagree if you're going to ignore everything given to you. Same goes for pepsi.

It is now clear why you provide bizarro world scenarios.

You live there.

[Snuffleupagus]

I wish people were as passionate about stopping an even the bigger threat of smartphone use while driving, how about forcing manufacturers to have the screen go blank after 1 mph, it might even stop people from walking into traffic and C-trains

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Virtually identical trends.

This raises the question of why we need to change the law to be much more intrusive to match Australia when the existing laws were already seeing the same trend as Australia?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I have to admit I'm not sure how to respond anymore. There's been evidence provided to you that demonstrates our DUI rate is already dropping and dropping fast and for decades now.

People have provided you with links from credible sources showing abuse of police power in our own city, and, how problematic breathalyzers are.

All I get back is your hands clasped on your ears and you shouting back "safety safety safety!". I don't know how to establish a middle ground or even a way to disagree if you're going to ignore everything given to you. Same goes for pepsi.

The feeling is mutual.

I think the difference is that you're dead-set on using random examples to falsely support a conclusion.

Showing that an officer has abused their power is not evidence that it will be a widespread issue concerning this law.

Showing that DUI rates have fallen in Canada is not evidence that this law had no effect in other countries.

Showing that BAC tests can be problematic is not evidence that a series of unlikely random events could occur together enough to be statistically significant.

There's been no evidence to suggest that innocent people will be more susceptible to criminal convictions. There's been no evidence to suggest that these laws precipitate a rise in Orwellian police-state antics. There's been no evidence to support many of your situational examples of how this could go wrong, but you continue to produce them as some given end-result of this law.

What there has been, is evidence that shows (despite the error rate with BAC tests, despite officer abuse of powers) this law has had a direct, measurable, and worthy effect on DUI rates in the countries where it has been implemented. This evidence is not in the form of a graph, or an article in the Sun, this evidence is in the form of academic articles produced by people whose job it is to create academic studies that consider many of the factors you name.

If you have any evidence of the negative impact of this law in any of the countries where it has been around, or any academic evidence that disputes the academic evidence provided to you, post it. It's that simple. I've said all I can say (to you) on the matter, so take it or leave it.

tl;dr your "evidence" doesn't support your wild conclusions and academic studies support the effectiveness of this law whether you want to admit any of it or not

[Barnet Flame]

On at least two occasions I have posted on reasons other than random testing being behind the drop in drink driving and resulting deaths and injuries.

However, there is empirical evidence linking random testing and immediate and demonstrable step changes in related deaths and injuries.

You choose not to see that or the full picture. There are a wide ranges of factors at play.

As said before, societal changes where drink driving is strongly disapproved of, people drinking less, better infrastructure, public transport, safer vehicles all contribute to reducing road deaths.

Nobody has argued otherwise. But what is also evident in other countries that have taken the step, random checks make a big difference. Right from the start.

And those countries have not gone down this fictional slippery slope.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I wish people were as passionate about stopping an even the bigger threat of smartphone use while driving, how about forcing manufacturers to have the screen go blank after 1 mph, it might even stop people from walking into traffic and C-trains

Who says people don’t feel strongly about smartphone use while driving?

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

I don’t understand how people can be opposed to a procedure that has empirical evidence demonstrating that it contributes to saving lives.

Agreed, but I think it just comes down to an invasion of privacy thing for a lot of people. I mean we're talking about the same city that removed flouride from the drinking water for basically no other reason that I can understand than some people's paranoia over the government, and not wanting to be forcibly administered something (even when it's good for you). With that in mind, I can see why many wouldn't like this. Not saying I agree, but I can see it.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Agreed, but I think it just comes down to an invasion of privacy thing for a lot of people. I mean we're talking about the same city that removed flouride from the drinking water for basically no other reason that I can understand than some people's paranoia over the government, and not wanting to be forcibly administered something (even when it's good for you). With that in mind, I can see why many wouldn't like this. Not saying I agree, but I can see it.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

Https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fe...randjean-choi/

Flouride is known to have numerous negative impacts on the brain and the idea that it should he added to our water because people can't be trusted to floss and brush is absurd.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Who says people don’t feel strongly about smartphone use while driving?

The law!

DUI - $2200.00 fine, 1 year suspension and a criminal record.

Distracted driving - $287.00 fine and 3 demerit points