Checkpoint madness?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2015 8:38 AM GMT
    LA does not have a drinking driving problem, they have too many people who cant drive, period, without any alcohol. Those who cause the most accidents, like the ones who drive too slow in a left hand freeway lane, or the ones who cant seem to merge onto a freeway or the ones who block the through lane by sticking out of the left turn lane or the ones that crash into buildings or people claiming they meant to hit the brake or the people that take 3 or more written driving tests and still don't pass. I could go on and on about how bad sober drivers are in LA, but that doesn't make for sensational news, lobbyist shaming and fund generating like a DUI, over the limit or under the limit icon_rolleyes.gif

    I have been in a lot of cities across our country but I have never seen such recent checkpoint madness as whats been going on in LA. My goodness, if the alcohol lobbyist get there way, soon, the bars, clubs and any place that serves alcohol will be put out of business. Then the alcohol lobbyist will have to latch onto another cause such as too much sugar in cool aid icon_rolleyes.gif

    Gay ghetto and party central, WeHo, will be put out of business, at the current accelerated crackdown rate, I will give this party city another couple of years before bars start shutting their doors or owners selling out because the alcohol crackdown will be so fierce, that a mandatory 2 drink maximum (in order to stay under their soon to be .05 limit) wont be enough to keep sales going especially in the smaller bars which already have to follow fire department rules about maximum capacity (in a popular bar, this creates a line out front, patrons hoping to get in). Maximum capacity rules plus maximum drink rules = a sad party icon_evil.gif

    I just see this as another control mechanism, such as religion, but this time, the control is by government. icon_redface.gif

    If the city of Detroit only had the same resources ($$) to pay officers to sit in one place looking for ($$) people instead of out on the real street, finding and solving real crime. Maybe Detroit can learn from LA, it does need moe $$


    Los Angeles, California DUI Checkpoints Recent Alerts
    http://www.duiblock.com/dui_checkpoint_locations/california/los_angeles/




  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14295

    May 31, 2015 1:58 PM GMT
    It is all because of that fiercely fascistic Mothers Against Drunk Driving that the government on all levels is under constant pressure to overreact to the so called drunk driving problem. That group has gone too damn far and needs to be kicked out of the halls of American government or we will lose all our freedoms. I am not condoning drunk driving but I think that authorities are overreacting. After all, you can get too damned carried away with anything and that is exactly what they have done with drunk drivers. This nationwide 21 year drinking age needs to be abolished as well. If you are old enough to vote, fight in a war, go to college, hold down a full time job, run for public office than by golly you are old enough to drink. Adulthood begins at 18, not at the legally arbitrary age of 21.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2015 2:07 PM GMT
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#United_States_of_America
    In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."

    Dissenting justices argued against this conclusion. Justice Stevens argued that the checkpoints were not reasonably effective, writing that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

    Further, Justice Brennan in his dissenting opinion argued that the police had failed to show that the checkpoint seizures were a necessary tool and worth the intrusion on individual privacy. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," he insisted.

    Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. One other state (Alaska) does not use checkpoints even though it has not made them illegal.[12] Montana uses checkpoints frequently.[13] Some states combine their efforts in setting up sobriety checkpoint initiatives, such as Checkpoint Strikeforce, jointly run by Virginia, Washington DC, Delaware, West Virginia, and Maryland[14]

    Despite the decisions of the courts, some individuals maintain that such checkpoints are violation of civil rights under the Constitution. Such checkpoints have been the subject of protests, such as individuals holding signs warning drivers "Police ahead, turn now."[15] In another instance, a driver protested by placing his license, registration and insurance information inside a plastic baggie inside his car's windshield along with a note reading "I remain silent, No searches, I want my lawyer".[16]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2015 6:27 AM GMT

    Opps, another no alcohol, building crash, today a Porsche icon_eek.gificon_redface.gif



    Car crashes into LAX Terminal 7; three people hurt, one critically
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-car-crashes-lax-terminal-20150531-story.html

    “All indications say he probably mistook the gas pedal for the brake,” said Ceja, describing the crash as an accident. The driver did not appear to be intoxicated and does not have a known medical condition
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2015 6:54 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidIt is all because of that fiercely fascistic Mothers Against Drunk Driving that the government on all levels is under constant pressure to overreact to the so called drunk driving problem. That group has gone too damn far and needs to be kicked out of the halls of American government or we will lose all our freedoms. I am not condoning drunk driving but I think that authorities are overreacting. After all, you can get too damned carried away with anything and that is exactly what they have done with drunk drivers. This nationwide 21 year drinking age needs to be abolished as well. If you are old enough to vote, fight in a war, go to college, hold down a full time job, run for public office than by golly you are old enough to drink. Adulthood begins at 18, not at the legally arbitrary age of 21.



    Yeah, even the lawyers, on both sides quote MADD as the unjustified cause of the wide spread panic. Women are by nature Emotional, protective, therefore I expect them to be pushing their cause using their emotional bias rather than any reason, fairness or intellect. Their reasoning seems to be on par with the same as the RIAA Parental Advisory board, Motion Picture ratings, PTA, Million Mom March, parental V-chip in TV's..etc. I am not a parent, certainly not a mother, so I cant relate to mothers everywhere wanting to protect their young, other than in nature itself. In this case, being overly emotional, overly protective has clouded better judgment. BTW, most straight women hate gay men, unless they become bff or hag. Mom is the first to cry when we come out icon_idea.gif

    MADD will never let the drinking age drop from 21 to 18 as long as women can breed and become mothers icon_rolleyes.gif

    When Does Mothering Become Smothering?
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/singletons/200904/when-does-mothering-become-smothering-part-1


    Although talked about, Love To Love you never got a motherly advisory rating in the 70's


    parentaladvisory.gif


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2015 3:23 PM GMT
    Fortunately, you don't *warn* MADD - if the government wants to change the drinking age - all they need to do is change it. It will piss off MADD, I'm sure - but maybe they need a wake-up call. Seems stupid that drinking age is 21, but you can be drafted to fight for your country at 18.

    Also, if a drinking age of 21 is all that is keeping your country from sliding into the abyss, how are we staying alive in Canada - with ages of 18 and 19, depending on the province.

    Doctor9
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2015 3:39 PM GMT
    marijuana_colo_wide-b2a96913512a458f6e61
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    Doctor9 saidFortunately, you don't *warn* MADD - if the government wants to change the drinking age - all they need to do is change it. It will piss off MADD, I'm sure - but maybe they need a wake-up call. Seems stupid that drinking age is 21, but you can be drafted to fight for your country at 18.

    Also, if a drinking age of 21 is all that is keeping your country from sliding into the abyss, how are we staying alive in Canada - with ages of 18 and 19, depending on the province.

    Doctor9



    There would be some, in Canada, I presume MADD, that want to raise Canada's legal drinking age to that of the US, 21 years. Instead, their "compromise" was a "zero tolerance" policy for anyone under 21. This policy is already in effect in some US states. We just did not have these ridiculous restrictions when I was 17-20 years old back in the early 80's. I don't ever remember hearing tragic stories of my classmates, or friends of other classmates getting killed or maimed in car accidents because of alcohol, it was just not an issue back in my day. I do remember Octobers homecoming football games, a bunch of us would sneak our alcoholic beverages onto school property as well as our cigarettes. I don't ever remember arguing over who is the sober one to drive everyone home. Some of us, when we turned 19, would make a point to visit Canada's bars, not a problem crossing the boarders either. I really feel bad for todays under 21 crowd, they cannot do what we did a few generations ago and the new restrictions I have to question the results (lives saved) of these.



    Zero blood alcohol concentration limits for drivers under 21: lessons from Canada
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18388233

    Graduated licensing programs (GLPs) that include zero or low blood alcohol concentration (BAC) restrictions have proven to be a popular and effective measure for improving traffic safety among young people. However, a major drawback of such programs, at least in Canada, is that the BAC restriction is lifted on completion of the GLP, which typically occurs around the age of 18 or 19. This corresponds to the legal drinking age in Canada, a time when alcohol consumption and rates of binge drinking increase. It is not surprising, then, that 18-20 year-old drivers are dramatically overrepresented in alcohol-related deaths and injuries. One way to address this problem is to raise the legal drinking age, as has occurred in the United States. In jurisdictions, like Canada, that are unlikely to raise the legal drinking age, other measures are necessary to separate drinking from driving among 18-20 year-olds. This article recommends that the zero BAC restrictions be extended beyond the completion of the GLP, until drivers reach the age of 21. The scientific evidence for such a measure is reviewed, and the growing government support for enacting such BAC limits in Canada is described.


    The good ole days icon_lol.gif



  • monet

    Posts: 1093

    Jun 02, 2015 8:18 AM GMT
    51E3-9IrEzL._SX300_.jpg
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14295

    Jun 04, 2015 1:17 PM GMT
    ELNathB said
    Doctor9 saidFortunately, you don't *warn* MADD - if the government wants to change the drinking age - all they need to do is change it. It will piss off MADD, I'm sure - but maybe they need a wake-up call. Seems stupid that drinking age is 21, but you can be drafted to fight for your country at 18.

    Also, if a drinking age of 21 is all that is keeping your country from sliding into the abyss, how are we staying alive in Canada - with ages of 18 and 19, depending on the province.

    Doctor9



    There would be some, in Canada, I presume MADD, that want to raise Canada's legal drinking age to that of the US, 21 years. Instead, their "compromise" was a "zero tolerance" policy for anyone under 21. This policy is already in effect in some US states. We just did not have these ridiculous restrictions when I was 17-20 years old back in the early 80's. I don't ever remember hearing tragic stories of my classmates, or friends of other classmates getting killed or maimed in car accidents because of alcohol, it was just not an issue back in my day. I do remember Octobers homecoming football games, a bunch of us would sneak our alcoholic beverages onto school property as well as our cigarettes. I don't ever remember arguing over who is the sober one to drive everyone home. Some of us, when we turned 19, would make a point to visit Canada's bars, not a problem crossing the boarders either. I really feel bad for todays under 21 crowd, they cannot do what we did a few generations ago and the new restrictions I have to question the results (lives saved) of these.



    Zero blood alcohol concentration limits for drivers under 21: lessons from Canada
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18388233

    Graduated licensing programs (GLPs) that include zero or low blood alcohol concentration (BAC) restrictions have proven to be a popular and effective measure for improving traffic safety among young people. However, a major drawback of such programs, at least in Canada, is that the BAC restriction is lifted on completion of the GLP, which typically occurs around the age of 18 or 19. This corresponds to the legal drinking age in Canada, a time when alcohol consumption and rates of binge drinking increase. It is not surprising, then, that 18-20 year-old drivers are dramatically overrepresented in alcohol-related deaths and injuries. One way to address this problem is to raise the legal drinking age, as has occurred in the United States. In jurisdictions, like Canada, that are unlikely to raise the legal drinking age, other measures are necessary to separate drinking from driving among 18-20 year-olds. This article recommends that the zero BAC restrictions be extended beyond the completion of the GLP, until drivers reach the age of 21. The scientific evidence for such a measure is reviewed, and the growing government support for enacting such BAC limits in Canada is described.


    The good ole days icon_lol.gif



    The last time I saw news about this zero tolerance, the Province of Ontario set the zero tolerance level for all drivers under 22 years of age. I hear that other countries are pursuing similar zero tolerance measures. This is becoming an international issue and I am sure that MADD has its hand in it somewhere.