"Travellers"

[carlitos]

(sigh)

You said:

I honestly fail to see how police running random tests somehow impinges on freedom.

Having to prove your sobriety to police is a loss of freedom. This is not "nebulous;" it's being stopped by police and being asked to prove that you are innocent of a crime. The fact that it's pretty quick, and most people (including me) think it's a good idea does not change that.

 

[Gazpacho]

http://www.gizmag.com/go/2716/

Not impressed.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

(sigh)

You said:

Having to prove your sobriety to police is a loss of freedom. This is not "nebulous;" it's being stopped by police and being asked to prove that you are innocent of a crime. The fact that it's pretty quick, and most people (including me) think it's a good idea does not change that.

sigh....

And I placed a lot of context around that statement - none of which you have addressed. You seem to want to make this "freedom" claim of yours one dimensional, it is not as per my arguments already provided. Please respond to these and give the discussion an opportunity to advance.

 

[NewtonTrino]

(sigh)

You said:



Having to prove your sobriety to police is a loss of freedom. This is not "nebulous;" it's being stopped by police and being asked to prove that you are innocent of a crime. The fact that it's pretty quick, and most people (including me) think it's a good idea does not change that.

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!

 

[NewtonTrino]

Police state?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
A police state is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

I don't think so.

So this isn't social control? Maybe I was being a bit hyperbolic but it's definitely creeping way outside the comfort zone for me. The cops already have too much power. Australia might be completely different. Certainly when I lived in Canada the police were way less obtrusive than they are here.

Freedom? I honestly fail to see how police running random tests somehow impinges on freedom. It is simply a measure to ensure road users are as safe as can be (including the drunk driver)

I'm specifically referring to police check points. The ones I'm familiar with are the canadian "ride" program ones. They basically stop every car, look the driver in the eye and either pull them over for tests or hand them a pamphlet. Every car is stopped.

To me that's a pretty clear impingement on freedom and I don't support it.

Not really - personally I oppose a nanny state where people are deprived of their personal choices. The boundary around that is when someone else's freedoms adversely impact on the next persons. eg. If you want to get drunk - knock yourself out. If you want to get drunk and drive you have crossed a boundary that has the potential to negatively affect others.

I already have advocated punishing people who hurt you.

Have you some evidence to show how this abject nonsense might be true?

Of course not, this is the internet. I just spout off my opinions anonymously.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So this isn't social control? Maybe I was being a bit hyperbolic but it's definitely creeping way outside the comfort zone for me.

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.

The cops already have too much power.

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?

That aside; how do they have too much power?

I'm specifically referring to police check points. The ones I'm familiar with are the canadian "ride" program ones. They basically stop every car, look the driver in the eye and either pull them over for tests or hand them a pamphlet. Every car is stopped.

To me that's a pretty clear impingement on freedom and I don't support it.

That is not what occurs here - see previous explanation.

I already have advocated punishing people who hurt you.

In other words; cure is better than prevention?

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

 

[Ryokan]

Having to prove your sobriety to police is a loss of freedom. This is not "nebulous;" it's being stopped by police and being asked to prove that you are innocent of a crime. The fact that it's pretty quick, and most people (including me) think it's a good idea does not change that.

Does that freedom trump the freedom to be able to drive on roads without drunk drivers? Or does that kind of freedom not concern you?

 

[Ryokan]

I already have advocated punishing people who hurt you.

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.

 

[sgtbaker]

snip...I already have advocated punishing people who hurt you.

Do you know why they keep making new laws against drinking and driving and implimenting new ways to catch drunk drivers? Because the idiot behind the wheel doesn't think it will ever happen to them. So why would the threat of punishment after the fact do anything to stop a person?

I have long since, forgiven the guy who ran me over but just for the record, any punishment he received (no jail time since lucky for him, I didn't die) had a finite ending. My punishment for his "freedom" stays with me till I die.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Do you know why they keep making new laws against drinking and driving and implimenting new ways to catch drunk drivers? Because the idiot behind the wheel doesn't think it will ever happen to them. So why would the threat of punishment after the fact do anything to stop a person?

I have long since, forgiven the guy who ran me over but just for the record, any punishment he received (no jail time since lucky for him, I didn't die) had a finite ending. My punishment for his "freedom" stays with me till I die.

I am very sorry to hear that and can only guess as to the specifics.

Good luck to you.

 

[sgtbaker]

I am very sorry to hear that and can only guess as to the specifics.

Good luck to you.

I didn't mean to make an emotional plea, it was making a point. Sadhatter was spot on, a few pages ago when he said that everyone thinks they are the 5%. The threat of punishment didn't stop him from getting behind the wheel nor does it for most drunk drivers, which is why they've reached a point where check points are justifiable.

I was hit 21 years ago. I am sure he paid his debt to society and long since, moved on with his life. I have moved on with mine and I am quite happy. It doesn't change the fact that I am the one that has to live with the reminder. I can't get out of bed until I put my leg on. So I find the notion that a person should be free to drive however they damn well please and we will deal with them after they've ruined lives, gives too much concern to the wrong person's freedom.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I didn't mean to make an emotional plea, it was making a point. Sadhatter was spot on, a few pages ago when he said that everyone thinks they are the 5%. The threat of punishment didn't stop him from getting behind the wheel nor does it for most drunk drivers, which is why they've reached a point where check points are justifiable.

Thanks for the explanation. And for the record, I took your point and didn't see it as an emotional plea.

 

[carlitos]

Not impressed.

Ditto.

 

[Gods Big Toe]

Having to prove your sobriety to police is a loss of freedom. This is not \"nebulous;\" it\'s being stopped by police and being asked to prove that you are innocent of a crime. The fact that it\'s pretty quick, and most people (including me) think it\'s a good idea does not change that.

I am big on personal freedoms. However, I do not consider this a loss of a freedom. It is the exchange of a freedom for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads. You can still judge the cost of the exchange to be too high, but I reject the notion of it being a loss.

 

[sadhatter]

I continue to be amazed at how acceptable living in a police state is to the average person.

People here actually support the idea that the cops can setup random checkpoints and stop every driver and check them for drinking? Wow, talk about not being on the same page with respect to freedom. The fact that people think that's a good idea literally blows my mind.

Everyone seems to want to trade as much security and freedom as they can for an ever diminishing returns on safety.

Driving cars is inherently unsafe. If you want to fix idiots on the road (e.g. drunks, people on their phones, people eating burgers, idiots who are too dumb to drive, rage roaders etc) then make driving illegal. Trying to crack down ever harder on drunks isn't going to do it people.

May I suggest that instead of making it illegal to drive while drinking that we simply make it illegal to be at fault in an accident? E.g. I don't care if it's lack of attention, talking on the phone or a poorly maintained car. Screwing up in a way that's your fault can get you criminally charges with reckless driving. Why do we need any other law other than that?

2 minutes, 2 minutes out of your day. That is not a police state that is a couple of red lights.

 

[Wildy]

The bigger concern for me is littering. There's no shortage of beer cans and bottles throw from moving cars because of this law. I hope Australia is prepared for that.

That's already a problem in Victoria because they don't have a deposit on bottles and cans. SA is the only state that does and you do notice the difference when you cross the border.

Time honoured tradition? Never ever heard of it until reading this. Must be a Victorian thing. Weird mob there.

I've been thinking that as well.

People here actually support the idea that the cops can setup random checkpoints and stop every driver and check them for drinking? Wow, talk about not being on the same page with respect to freedom. The fact that people think that's a good idea literally blows my mind.

The checkpoints don't work like that. They randomly select drivers and get them to take a breathalyser.

 

[gumboot]

Police drink-driving checkpoints are "draconian", an "erosion of freedom", and evidence of a "police state"?



They're standard practise here. And New Zealand scores consistently amongst the highest in the world for freedom.

What's the big deal about a checkpoint? You're stopped for 5 seconds (oh noe!), say your name and address, and then you drive on. Big whoop. If it reduces the risk of some drunk a-hole taking out an innocent driver (incidentally, drink drivers are seldom the ones who die in fatal car accidents) and their family I'm happy to sit in a queue for two minutes maybe... once or twice a year? (Actually I don't think I've hit a checkpoint in a couple of years).

Police state...

Hysterical. Some people need to go live in an actual police state for a while and get a bit of perspective.

 

[gumboot]

I'm specifically referring to police check points. The ones I'm familiar with are the canadian "ride" program ones. They basically stop every car, look the driver in the eye and either pull them over for tests or hand them a pamphlet. Every car is stopped.

Someone needs to introduce your police to roadside breathalysers.

 

[Damien Evans]

I continue to be amazed at how acceptable living in a police state is to the average person.

People here actually support the idea that the cops can setup random checkpoints and stop every driver and check them for drinking? Wow, talk about not being on the same page with respect to freedom. The fact that people think that's a good idea literally blows my mind.

Everyone seems to want to trade as much security and freedom as they can for an ever diminishing returns on safety.

Driving cars is inherently unsafe. If you want to fix idiots on the road (e.g. drunks, people on their phones, people eating burgers, idiots who are too dumb to drive, rage roaders etc) then make driving illegal. Trying to crack down ever harder on drunks isn't going to do it people.

May I suggest that instead of making it illegal to drive while drinking that we simply make it illegal to be at fault in an accident? E.g. I don't care if it's lack of attention, talking on the phone or a poorly maintained car. Screwing up in a way that's your fault can get you criminally charges with reckless driving. Why do we need any other law other than that?

Or, I could just laugh at you for posting that.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Police drink-driving checkpoints are "draconian", an "erosion of freedom", and evidence of a "police state"?



They're standard practise here. And New Zealand scores consistently amongst the highest in the world for freedom.

What's the big deal about a checkpoint? You're stopped for 5 seconds (oh noe!), say your name and address, and then you drive on. Big whoop. If it reduces the risk of some drunk a-hole taking out an innocent driver (incidentally, drink drivers are seldom the ones who die in fatal car accidents) and their family I'm happy to sit in a queue for two minutes maybe... once or twice a year? (Actually I don't think I've hit a checkpoint in a couple of years).

Police state...

Hysterical. Some people need to go live in an actual police state for a while and get a bit of perspective.

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.