Kazuaki, good post. I'm going to digest it further prior to responding. Best post in the thread!For one, I couldn't care less if I have your respect. Personally, I don't respect you either - mainly because I've never seen you share a point-of-view that is supported by anything other than runaway emotionalism.

As far as this misguided notion about how your having friends killed by drunk drivers is related to the topic, please link to the cases that involve a drunk driver that wasn't actually legally drunk, or the cases where someone with .06 BAC was responsible. I bet you any BAC in such cases isn't even close.

I'm sure you feel quite special about your moral "high ground", but thankfully society has chosen to listen to intellectuals regarding these issues, rather than those who tend to lean towards emotional self-satisfaction.

Statements like "you drink a can of beer you don't belong on the road" is silly and not very well thought out. Where's your outrage against drivers impaired due to fatigue? Should we also make the statement, "if you don't get a solid 8 hours of sleep, you don't belong on the road"? Or, "if you had too hard of a days work and are tired, you don't belong on the road"?

Your "outrage" is illogical, and as such I have no respect for it (nor do I really care). Although, due to it's odd extreme nature, I suspect it has more to do with previous differences we've had than anything else.

As far as whether or not it suddenly became an issue due to it involving myself, who are you to know what my stance on this was previously?

Which explains my lack of respect. Have a great night! :|\\

Okay, I do want some clarification on your point, Kazuaki - specifically part 5. You mention probability as far as my case is concerned. My question is, all things being equal, if the only identifiable circumstance that causes any probality of one being impair is that person simply being there (meaning, as far as the deputy knows, he's just taking a shot in the dark, as was the case. The fact that I was stopped was completely random.), do you believe it's still justifiable?

Also, you do lay a convincing argument for programs such as Stop, Test, Arrest being justified, but there's another side of the equation that bears examination: what about effectiveness? If by randomly pulling drivers over without an identfiable reason for doing so (other than simply that they are there), doesn't that tie up resources from being able to pull over those who are providing an identifiable reason? For instance, while the officer is sitting in his squad confirming my license information, two clearly dangerous drivers pass. Had the deputy been looking for an identifiable reason, he would be more likely to remove an actual impaired driver from the road. Instead, he had to thank me for my time and wish me a good rest of my evening.

As such, I believe the effectiveness of such programs should factor into their justification. Any thoughts?

Also, again I'd like to say good post. It was well-thought out and written, and was specifically the kind of opinion I was soliciting when attempting to start this conversation. And, it is certainly far more interesting that the bloated outrage some have shown towards me for driving home legally sober. :smug:

Just like a legal right to stop you and ask for ID, cops are in their right to be able to stop you to make sure you're sober at any time AFAIC. They're job is to keep everybody safe, even if it does inconvenience others.

I have the luxury of having a girlfriend who doesn't drink, and I myself NEVER drive after drinking even when I know I could get away with .04 or whatever. Whenever you drive a car you hold multiple strangers' lives in your hands, and should take it seriously. Yeah, I could get away with a few beers and driving. But why not just play it safe?

PD

Aramike, you got caught for drinking and driving.. :) It actually doesn't matter if you feel you can drive safely after having a beer or two, but if alcohol tester shows you have exceeded limits which were allowed - be prepared to face consequinces of the law :DL

Of course you can't blame cop cuz he's doing his job. You can blame only yourself here.. :)

You can still think in positive way: maybe because you was stoped you have avoided a serious accident on your way home if you weren't stoped :)

Here in Lithuania most of the accidents happens because of driving drunk and overspeeding. Couple of years ago Lithuania was in the first place in EU by killed people in accidents because of very same thing. So our government took radical matters to fight this madness.

For light drunk level (0.4 - 1.5)you will get a fine for 1000-1500 LTL with driver license confiscation for 1-1.5 years

For medium drunk level (1.5 - 2.5): Fine of 2000-3000 LTL with driver license confiscation for 2-3 years

For heavy drunk level (2.5 and more): Fine of 2000-3000 LTL with driver license confiscation for 2-3 years

If drunk driver made an accident where people were injured or property was damaged: Fine 4000-5000 LTL with driver license confiscation for 3-5 years or 15-30 days in jail with permanent driver license confiscation.

For repeated drink and drive violation you will say goodbye to your vehicle and license confiscation for 3-4 years.

If cops has confiscated drivers license for a year or longer he will have to retake exams.

So lets be wise and responsible drivers on the roads :shucks:

You should read posts carefully. He did not get caught for anything.

Maybe the police officer was just having a slow night and bored out of his brains and just wanted to be friends. :rotfl:

Also hello from Wood County. :)

Actually - random traffic stops without cause ARE illegal here in the states. There HAS to be some reason to stop someone who is operating a motor vehicle in full visual compliance with relevant law. Now as one gentleman in the know stated - if they find out your over the limit - "finding" probable cause isn't hard. You just are too drunk to remember you swerved over the line or ran off the road a bit back there. You were speeding, or going way to slow for traffic safety.

I don't agree with that tactic - but it does happen. In fact, there ARE abuses by law enforcement in many districts. I know of one in particular that got into alot of trouble because he got his hands on a "spare" radar gun and had it calibrated to read about 8mph faster than it should. He never had a problem writing plenty of speeding tickets to meet his quota (you know - that thing they swear they dont have...). He also had a higher number of DUI arrests than anyone else - it was later learned his breathalizer was also "tweaked" by a couple of hundredth points. However, there are bad eggs in every profession, and thankfully in most areas they are in a very small minority.

Did the cop make a bad stop if it truly was random? Sure. But don't blame him. As Aramike stated - the cop admitted he thought it was a stupid policy. Good for that guy - and I hope he stays off the skyline.

If the policy had been "pull anyone you see operating in a manner you feel demonstrates impairment" - the guy would have no doubt gotten one of the drivers that went past as he sat with Aramike.

As far as "OMG if you have one beer you need to wait 24 hours before you drive" - let me first suggest you wait 24 hours after you smoke a crack pipe before posting that kind of thing. *That is NOT intended as a personal insult - but rather a turnabout to show the ludicrious nature of the statement.*

In an ideal world, for some alcohol wouldn't exist. For others, it would kick more and be cheaper (or free). For almost all of us though, we would want it to not IMPAIR brain functions and timing when it came to things like driving. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Thus, we do the best we can.

Drunk driving is a crime, as it should be. It can kill, but so can just getting in your car and getting on the road. Should we sue goodyear every time a tire pops and someone is hurt? How about when it rains and a car hydroplanes? Should the surviving victims or their family sue God? Want to solve drunk driving? Outlaw POV's (Personally Owned Vehicles). Thats the only way you will ever stop it as long as alcohol is available to people.

Though I personally wouldnt have a problem with stiffening the punishments for DUI, sooner or later your going to have to accept that you have to do one of three things.

1: Legally define the limit at which point an operator of a motor vehicle is intoxicated beyond the ability to safely operate said vehicle.

2: Remove all access to motor vehicles to all people in case some of them might want to get drunk and go for a drive.

3: Remove alcohol from society.

Now - #3 has been tried before, and US history has shown how ineffective that was.

Number 2 is a vast overreach to fix the problem and would violate the rights of everyone for a relatively few bad apples - thus its not happening.

So that leaves #1 - and that has been done, by every state in the Union. You may not agree with the limit set, but then if your not happy with it, work within your state to change it through the processes available.

Instead of getting on here berating someone who made a choice you don't agree with - get involved and work on the problem, helping to improve the situation where you are so maybe less people get killed on the roads where you are. THATS how you can make a difference.

Why is it that whenever this topic comes up, no one ever discusses the main problem with drunk driving, namely that many of the drivers involved in DD accidents suck at driving even when they are sober? That's why new drivers are so often the offenders.

There are a lot of good arguments in this thread, even for unprovoked traffic stops(something I normally abhor), but I don't think that any of the ideas presented will have an acceptable result.

Obviously, there should be a legal limit, and officers should obviously be allowed to stop someone if they have probable cause. I think everyone can agree on that, even if they want the legal limit to be .00;)

But why not start simple, and address the problem of inadequate driver licensure requirements? Nobody here has never met a crappy driver, or been frustrated by one on the road. I'm willing to bet that everyone here has either caused an accident, cut someone off, gaffed up merging on the freeway, ran a stop sign, red light, whatever....., failed to use a turn indicator, changed lanes within x feet of an intersection, etc....etc...

Imo, we need stricter licensure requirements in the form of driving tests.
Difficult obstacle courses(timed, of course) or even driving simulators would serve well. We could even require that some tests be taken after consuming a six-pack within an hour, to be provided by the testee. That is, unless they object on the grounds that they do not drink for whatever reason, in which case their license should note that, and they are under penalty of lifetime license revocation if they are found driving with even a low BAC for being lying bastards.
There is no reason that any able-bodied person cannot learn to drive well, even after drinking. It just takes practice.

This type of action would reduce regular traffic accidents as well as alcohol-related ones. The caveat, of course, is that the state must only administer the tests (or better yet, accept certifications from private driving schools), and provide practice vehicles (or simulators) in a safe environment only for those who have no access to a vehicle.
Drivers should be free to obtain their training on their own, or else this system might exclude lower-income indiviuals who cannot afford training. Similarly, it should avoid training provided by the state, because that is fiscally unfeasible.

I cannot overstate the importance of difficult, performance-based licensure requirements. The harder a driver has to train to obtain licensure, the better off everyone is. Drunk or not, every driver in this country should be able to drive from point A to point B without hitting anything.

We should change the meaning of DUI from Driving Under Influence to Driving Under Incompetence.

^ Most of what Undersea said! :up:

I personally believe that stopping a person who's displaying no sign of dangerous or illegal behavior is a violation of a U.S. citizen's civil rights. If they're weaving erratically or otherwise driving strangely, or if the cop observes speeding or some other violation, that's one thing. If they're just saying 'Lets give that guy a Field Sobriety Test cuz at random...no.'

Have issues with ID checks, too, for the same reason.

I think both are generally illegal in my state anyway.

What about stopping people for any reason, not just testing for alcohol?

First try to understand what the police, sheriff or highway patrolman see on an almost daily or weekly schedule of drunks that cause accidents. The bloody scenes and loss of life that can't be erased from the human mind is what they have witnessed. So give them a little leaway on why they care about seat belts or alcohol.

I wrote a letter to the major of San Diego when I lived down there back and proposed that police check points be set up to check for the people in gangs (over 90,000 gang members in LA alone) that run around with guns and drugs in their cars, especially that close to Tijuana.

A letter came back personally from the major that indicated they also wanted to do this, but after checking with the legal department it is considered to be against the law in the State of California (and perhaps all of America) to be a police state.

I suggested that they barb wire an entire football field to put all of the people they catch into till they could be duly processed. The major agreed with this plan too, but again the legal department disagreed due to a state law that says every prisoner must have a matress.

The jails are so full now that they are not considering, but are actually going to let over 30,000 prisoners go free early in the State of California due to it's budget problems.

So the bottom line is even bad guys have rights in the good ole USA.

And you think this is a bad thing for a country to have?

my view on this is simple.

1. Never drive if you have had 3 or more beers (assume 12 oz bottles)

2. The police have no right to stop you unless you prove to be suspect of some wrong doing... ie a body dragging behind your vehicle, or a trunk popped open revealing a bound and gagged hooker, or your unable to maintain lanes etc

Quite obviously, a policeman can always find "probable cause" to stop you, at any point he wishes, my friend. Years ago I was stopped in a small town for "crossing the middle line", which was 100% not true. But that's what the officer claimed and he used this fiction as probable cause to stop me and have me get out of the car, walk a line and say the alphabet backwards (which is simple). In the end he let me go with a verbal warning. Talk about covering up :roll: Like I said, I do not drink.

I would have been perfectly ok with being stopped for a random sobriety check, I'm not ok with false claims about my driving to use as probable cause. :nope:

If a cop wants to stop you, he will find a reason to do so, so I don't have any problem with routine traffic stops to look for drunks, felons, and illegal aliens (although the cops here look the other way when it comes to illegals).

Wrong on both counts.

Any beer recently ingested impairs your ability to drive. No matter how safe or how much you trust yourself. It is not YOUR highway. It belongs to the taxpayers. Don't like it? Pull a tea party but don't use any road to get there as that is obviously socialism! You may be under the limit but you are morally impaired in my view.

The police have the duty to protect folks and the courts have ruled for that time and time again. Folks who constantly complain about the constitutionality of the stops conveniently fail to note the numerous court rulings on the subject. The police CAN stop you and test you if even the slightest question on your ability to safely operate the vechicle. And frankly I do not believe Arm was driving "Stone Cold Sober" I think his check was valid but a random bit of bad luck for the rest of us in my view that he tested under the limit at the time and was not drug away to jail to face harsh fines.