• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

"Travellers"

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.

None of those things are necessary in attempts to improve road safety by discouraging drink driving. The least intrusive effective option should be chosen. In this case, random breath testing at locations and times where people are most likely to be offending fits the bill.
 
None of those things are necessary in attempts to improve road safety by discouraging drink driving. The least intrusive effective option should be chosen. In this case, random breath testing at locations and times where people are most likely to be offending fits the bill.

How is that anything but a judgement call on your part? Who gets to make that decision?

I mean you aren't catching any of the other kinds of DUI with just a breathalyzer. Why shouldn't we make you get a "certificate" of clean health to make sure you don't have a disease which could cause you to pass out behind the wheel? Of course we recently had a case here in Seattle of a guy who went crazy and rammed people with his car.... he's done it twice and killed multiple people. Maybe we need psych screenings. Also what if people are doing drugs? All of this could be handled by simply going down to the dmv every week and giving a blood sample and getting a physical/mental evaluation. Think about how much safer the children would be!

Seriously though if you don't think the above thinking is the next step you are living in candyland.

Random police checkpoints are totalitarian garbage and have no place in a free society.
 
How is that anything but a judgement call on your part? Who gets to make that decision?

I mean you aren't catching any of the other kinds of DUI with just a breathalyzer. Why shouldn't we make you get a "certificate" of clean health to make sure you don't have a disease which could cause you to pass out behind the wheel? Of course we recently had a case here in Seattle of a guy who went crazy and rammed people with his car.... he's done it twice and killed multiple people. Maybe we need psych screenings. Also what if people are doing drugs? All of this could be handled by simply going down to the dmv every week and giving a blood sample and getting a physical/mental evaluation. Think about how much safer the children would be!

Seriously though if you don't think the above thinking is the next step you are living in candyland.

Random police checkpoints are totalitarian garbage and have no place in a free society.

Our police do test for drugs as well.
 
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.

Honestly I don't see much distinction between blow in this tube and peeing in a cup. Random police stops bother me much more than either one though. My main concern here is the tradeoff between "making everyone safe" which these actually fail to do anyway since habitual drunks are going to get into a car anyway, and eroding the rest of our freedoms. These kinds of checkpoints are common place in a lot of 3rd world areas and are used for various forms of population controls. If the gov can setup checkpoints whenever they feel like it for DUI they can use that as a cover for a lot of other nefarious stuff.

Now again, you live in Australia. The cops here are very militarized and have watch too many actions movies. I think there is a legit threat to the population by giving these jokers too much power. We do have fairly strong constitutional prohibitions against this kind of nonsense but they are slowly being eroded by the courts.

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.

My brother got into a wreck when a drunk guy pulled out in front of him too.

And no, I already think drunk driving laws are too harsh. If I could snap my fingers and magically make all the drunks go away I would. I just see laws as a very blunt tool for dealing with stuff like this. Hardcore alcoholics are the chronic drunk drivers who cause most of the accidents. They already get ensnared in the system but drive anyway. The only way to stop some of these jokes is to throw them in jail. Making travellers illegal isn't going to make any difference for them but it is going to limit the freedom of others.

I just think it's possible for the pendulum to swing too far in the harsh enforcement direction and therefore cause more problems than it solves. It sounds like Australia maybe hasn't reached that point.... something like travellers would utterly shock people around here.

The drug war is an even better example of eroding freedoms for some while at the same time making everyone less safe through militarization of the police, erosion of rights and an incentivization of black market and often violent activity.
 
Random police checkpoints are totalitarian garbage and have no place in a free society.

I can appreciate that opinion but without checkpoints we're left with the Police performing stops with probable cause.

This ends up with the young and members of racial minorities being stopped regularly for trivial traffic infractions and/or broken tail-lights while people like myself (white, male, middle-aged, middle-class) aren't stopped.

At least the Christmas random checks set up in the UK mean that there's a chance that regular drink drivers will be stopped from time to time.

Unfortunately I now live in a (for the UK) very rural area with networks of single-track roads that are never patrolled by the Police. As a consequence at this time of year after, say, 9pm a high proportion of vehicles will be driven by people who are too drunk to pass the alcohol test and who are staying off the main roads to avoid the police. It makes it *very* dangerous for the rest of us.
 
How is that anything but a judgement call on your part? Who gets to make that decision?

Well correct me if I am wrong, but hand-held breath testing devices when properly calibrated are effect tools in measuring blood alcohol. We simply don't need to get people to piss in cups. Also, well placed random testing checkpoints are clearly more cost effective and less disruptive than permanant check points. All seems pretty obvious.

My main judgment is that a reduction in deaths as the result of drunks crashing their cars is worth the current degree of intrusion into our lives.

And now onto our slippery slope argument ...
I mean you aren't catching any of the other kinds of DUI with just a breathalyzer. Why shouldn't we make you get a "certificate" of clean health to make sure you don't have a disease which could cause you to pass out behind the wheel? Of course we recently had a case here in Seattle of a guy who went crazy and rammed people with his car.... he's done it twice and killed multiple people. Maybe we need psych screenings. Also what if people are doing drugs? All of this could be handled by simply going down to the dmv every week and giving a blood sample and getting a physical/mental evaluation. Think about how much safer the children would be!

Seriously though if you don't think the above thinking is the next step you are living in candyland.

Random police checkpoints are totalitarian garbage and have no place in a free society.

Any other forms of testing are going to have to be evaluated in terms of risk and possible benefit to road safety versus cost and disruptiveness. If people were passing out at the wheel anywhere near as often as drunks were involved in serious road accidents then testing would have to be considered.
 
Can someone explain the etymology behind the use of " drink driving " as opposed to " drunk driving " ?

The first couple of times I saw it, I thought it was a typo, but now it appears to enjoy pervasive use in some demographics..
 
Last edited:
Excellent. Any idea how they do this in a consistent and scientific manner? Or is there an arbitrary standard for each drug like there is for alcohol?

Other than ethanol and caffine the like the standard tends to be pretty much zilch. Fortunatly there is a fair sized gap between zero and any measurable effects on a human being so setting a standard isn't hard (LSD being a possible exception).

Those areas that are starting to think about legalisation are working on various attempts to quantify things in terms of existing standards with regards to ethanol as well as further work on combinations of drugs. There are various papers on pubmed if you care to read them. Mostly from the netherlands for obvious reasons.
 
Can someone explain the etymology behind the use of " drink driving " as opposed to " drunk driving " ?

The first couple of time I saw it, I thought it was a typo, but now it appears to enjoy pervasive use in some demographics..

Drink (alcohol) [and then] drive.
 
Can someone explain the etymology behind the use of " drink driving " as opposed to " drunk driving " ?

The first couple of time I saw it, I thought it was a typo, but now it appears to enjoy pervasive use in some demographics..

"Drunk" is generaly used to inducate quite a high level of impairment. The limits for driving tend to be rather lower. In pactice with the increasing strenth of modern beers and the like there isn't much left that you can drink and still be under the limit.
 
Hardcore alcoholics are the chronic drunk drivers who cause most of the accidents.

Evidence?

They already get ensnared in the system but drive anyway. The only way to stop some of these jokes is to throw them in jail.

In practice removing their ability to have a car is fairly effective.

The drug war is an even better example of eroding freedoms for some while at the same time making everyone less safe through militarization of the police, erosion of rights and an incentivization of black market and often violent activity.

However drink driving isn't really related to the drug war. Drug driving is but the authorities are still vaugely trying to work out what to do about it so any impact is limited.
 
I can see what it means, I'm just curious how such usage came into being..

It's like one of those reading exercises where half the words are missing, but you can still manage comprehension..

I'm guessing that you are American? "Drink driving" is a queen's English thing, like "at the weekend," "in hospital" and the singular "sport" instead of "sports."
 
I mean you aren't catching any of the other kinds of DUI with just a breathalyzer.

Like the drug testing we have?

Also what if people are doing drugs?

They get tested too.

Seriously though if you don't think the above thinking is the next step you are living in candyland.

Except that we have been living with this for some decades now, little has changed except for some technological advancements which allow for quicker more accurate tests across a broader spectrum of drugs.

So someone is in candyland and evidence suggests it is not us. :)

Random police checkpoints are totalitarian garbage and have no place in a free society.

Opinions noted and dismissed. (Note to self: a possible anarchist zealot)

In practice removing their ability to have a car is fairly effective.

We also have interlock options available. For instance, a magistrate may make an offender's license provisional and must have one installed in their car.

Some info:

The alcohol ignition interlock program protects drink driving offenders and other road users from the dangers of drink driving. An alcohol ignition interlock is a breathalyser fitted to the ignition of a vehicle which prevents the driver from starting the vehicle if alcohol is detected. For further information on individual state programs... http://www.guardianinterlock.com.au/
 
NewtonTrino said:
Hardcore alcoholics are the chronic drunk drivers who cause most of the accidents.

This site:

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YoungDriversAndAlcohol.html


Seems to indicate that it's young people who are disproportionately represented in drink driving accidents:

Young people are over-represented in driving accidents involving alcohol. In a recent year, people aged 16 to 24 were involved in 28 percent of all alcohol-related driving accidents, although they make up only 14% of the U.S. population.

Of course young drivers are over-represented in all accident statistics
 
Last edited:
This site:

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YoungDriversAndAlcohol.html


Seems to indicate that it's young people who are disproportionately represented in drink driving accidents:



Of course young drivers are over-represented in all accident statistics

From that link:

Don't use a car phone, apply make-up, comb your hair, or eat while driving. Drivers using car phones have about the same chance of having an accident as driving drunk! And hands-free cell phones are just as dangerous to use while driving. 23

I wonder what the incidence of cell phone, makeup and food usage is compared with the incidence of drivers over 0.05 BAC.

On edit - never mind. Their sources are all from the mid-1990's. I can't imagine that research on cell phone usage from 15 years ago is accurate.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom