"Travellers"

[Damien Evans]

This is what I was trying to point out with my post. We aren't in the same universe with respect to what's considered to be freedom.

How is setting up a police checkpoint NOT an infringement of freedom? It's pretty much the definition of what it means to have a police state. Papers please!

No.


95% of the time they don't ask for anything other than one long breath into the tube.

 

[lionking]

Yes, some people have some different and intriguing ideas about freedom. Many Australians seem to have an easier time accepting a lot more intrusion into their lives by government authorities, on the basis that rules and enforcement make for better living.

That's it, and to get back to the OP, there will be overwhelming support to this ban on "travellers" despite no evidence of harm.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That's it, and to get back to the OP, there will be overwhelming support to this ban on "travellers" despite no evidence of harm.

If it catches more idiots in the net, then I do not see too many serious objections - except perhaps from the police-hating-nutjob-fringe and lucky alcoholics lobby.

 

[gumboot]

Without checkpoints we wouldn't get the entertainment of watching drunk teenagers, violating the conditions of their learner license, trying and failing to evade said checkpoint in their $30,000 turbo'd car that they still owe $45,000 on.

 

[Damien Evans]

Without checkpoints we wouldn't get the entertainment of watching drunk teenagers, violating the conditions of their learner license, trying and failing to evade said checkpoint in their $30,000 turbo'd car that they still owe $45,000 on.

Which the police then kindly put on shows like RBT and Police 10-7 for us.

 

[Magenta]

I'm still at a loss as to why a coke is okay and a beer is not, particularly as it is generally accepted that a small amount of alcohol, under 0.05%, does not degrade driving ability.

It's because alcohol is a regulated substance. I don't know if drinking while actually driving is an offence in Queensland - certainly it never occurred to me that anyone would think this was a good idea, let alone a freedom worth defending.

Actually I think the average Australian is that enarmored to alcohol, which is kind of the reason behind this law. Both New Zealand and Australia have a huge binge-drinking culture and flagrant disregard for drink-driving laws.

What? Where's the evidence for this? There are random breath tests everywhere and only a very number are picked up. The message about driving while drunk has hit home big time in Australia, although I don't know about NZ.

While I think many people have changed their attitude to drinking and driving, it's an overstatement to say that the message "has hit home big time in Australia". Here's some evidence from the 3 eastern states

Drink driving is a factor in about 18 per cent of all fatal crashes in NSW. The figure is even higher (27 per cent) in country areas. In fact, 70 per cent of all fatal drink drive crashes happen in the country. Link

25% of all drivers and motorcyclists killed on Victoria's roads over the last year were 0.05 g/100ml or over. The majority of drivers are heavily intoxicated, registering more than three times over the legal limit. Link

In 2010, 50 people were killed as a result of crashes involving drink drivers. This represents 20.1 per cent of all road fatalities in Queensland for that period. In the same year there were more than 29,000 drink driving offences detected in Queensland. Link

 

[sgtbaker]

That's it, and to get back to the OP, there will be overwhelming support to this ban on "travellers" despite no evidence of harm.

I get what you are saying, but their logic for banning travellers is not the distraction. Believe me, I think all distractions are bad whether it's eating, drinking, talking on the cell phone, or putting make up on when you are supposed to be concentrating on the road. Their logic, though, is that it is sending mixed messages. Driving while intoxicated is against the law but feel free to intoxicate yourself while you are driving. It is not the distraction that they are banning.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I understand this point quite clearly and can sympathise with it. It is however offset by the greater good. Pros and cons, pros and cons.

So basically we disagree about what's important. Wouldn't be the first time

The cops' duties are to enforce the laws of the land (i.e. the government and its people); is it the cops who have the power or the government and the majority?

The "majority" scares the hell out of me. We have certain rights here that even the "majority" can't take away.

The cops ultimately have a duty to the consitution and not to whatever law happens to pass IMHO.

That aside; how do they have too much power?

Because there are too many laws so they can come up with trumped up BS to inconvenience you. In some places the courts go along with this and your really screwed.

In other words; cure is better than prevention?

How do you punish someone who has drunkenly killed your partner, parent, child or best friend?

Cut off their legs?

We make driving drunk legal but if you get into an accident that's deemed to be your fault we cut off your legs. That way you can't drive without a special car and we can put breathalyzers in all of those.

 

[NewtonTrino]

As a deterrent? You know, we punish people for hurting others, and for driving under the influence, today. It doesn't seem to deter everyone.

Exactly. Law is a very blunt instrument to use to try and change behavior.

All harsh laws do is hurt more people than would already be hurt by the drunks.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Yes, some people have some different and intriguing ideas about freedom. Many Australians seem to have an easier time accepting a lot more intrusion into their lives by government authorities, on the basis that rules and enforcement make for better living.

In Canada too.

Bottom line in my opinion freedom is more important than security. In my world people are free to disagree and prioritize things differently.

But to say that it's checkpoints are not infringing on freedom sounds like lunacy to me. If you are making this tradeoff you should at a minimum actually acknowledge that you are making a tradeoff.
w

 

[NewtonTrino]

No.
95% of the time they don't ask for anything other than one long breath into the tube.

Would you object if they want you to piss in a cup?
Would you object if they wanted to draw blood?

Would you object if they setup permanent checkpoints on your work commute?

Where do you draw the line? Just curious.

 

[NewtonTrino]

If it catches more idiots in the net, then I do not see too many serious objections - except perhaps from the police-hating-nutjob-fringe and lucky alcoholics lobby.

BTW I think it's really really easy to consider those who have issues with policing as a police-hating-nutjob-fringe. Come and live in the USA for a while and deal with the police around here. In my neck of the woods there have been huge amount of misconduct including multiple shootings of unarmed suspects. The feds have come down on our local cops for how they deal with the community.

The drug war is to blame for a lot of the militarization of police around here. It needs to stop yesterday.

 

[Damien Evans]

Would you object if they want you to piss in a cup?
Would you object if they wanted to draw blood?

Would you object if they setup permanent checkpoints on your work commute?

Where do you draw the line? Just curious.

I refuse to play your silly game

 

[Hallo Alfie]

BTW I think it's really really easy to consider those who have issues with policing as a police-hating-nutjob-fringe. Come and live in the USA for a while and deal with the police around here.

Psst. You may not have noticed but this is a law about drink driving in Australia. Not US policing etc.

 

[Damien Evans]

Psst. You may not have noticed but this is a law about drink driving in Australia. Not US policing etc.

Victoria specifically. Some Australian states already have a law against it, if A Current Affair is to be believed.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Psst. You may not have noticed but this is a law about drink driving in Australia. Not US policing etc.

Ok, then go take it to a board in Australia if you don't want people commenting from their own perspectives.

Having personally lived in multiple countries that have different ways of dealing with this I thought I might have something to add.

Not to mention this topic is of great interest to me because of personal experiences (my parents were hit by a drunk 3 years ago in a head-on collision).

 

[NewtonTrino]

I refuse to play your silly game

No game. I honestly want to know how draconian a security presence you would tolerate.

If they wanted you to piss in a cup every time you wanted to drive would that be too far?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No game. I honestly want to know how draconian a security presence you would tolerate.

If they wanted you to piss in a cup every time you wanted to drive would that be too far?

But they don't and that's the point. The 'intrusion' in the OP is tantamount to a 30 second wait in line. If you have to piss in a cup each time you get in the car then I would be both amazed and sorry for you and your countrymen for the laws you have and the hoops you jump.

I am also sorry to hear about your parents, I hope they are OK. Given same I would have thought you would support any laws that might stop people being hurt.

 

[nvidiot]

There seems to be an undercurrent of driving on public roads being a "right" that must not be eroded by responsibility.

Being a pedestrian that irks me.

 

[lionking]

There seems to be an undercurrent of driving on public roads being a "right" that must not be eroded by responsibility.

Being a pedestrian that irks me.

I hope I haven't conveyed that impression. I would never condone drunk driving. Not-drunk driving is another thing.