7 ms·

The US supreme court ruled that DUI checkpoints, where drivers may be stopped for a brief (~30 second) questioning to see if they appear drunk, but no answers a

by jmccree 13y ago

The US supreme court ruled that DUI checkpoints, where drivers may be stopped for a brief (~30 second) questioning to see if they appear drunk, but no answers are legally required, are legal here. This was a controversial decision and several states either passed laws or their existing state constitution prevent dui checkpoints. The idea of a forced breath test without any evidence of intoxication is simply mind boggling to me.

DanBC 13y ago
I think people are okay with it if police are friendly and polite, and if there's some benefit. Mass breath-testing programme always get a few complaints, but I think they'd get a lot more if people realised how few drunk drivers are caught, or if police were rude. Blowing into a tube for X seconds is invasive, but sobriety tests (walking a straight line, touching your nose, etc) feel weirder to me. (I realise that in both US and UK neither of these can be done unless they think you're drunk, and GP post was talking about tests done with no suspicion of drunkeness).
philwelch 13y ago
If you're driving a 5000 pound vehicle on public motorways, I don't see any problem with it. Driving is a privilege that's contingent upon following the rules, not a right.
- SamReidHughes 13y ago
  Actually, your worldview is wrong, and mine is right, and driving is a human right that is not contingent on giving up privacy rights, right to not have your car searched, or other rights.
  - placeybordeaux 13y ago
    Are you serious? Where did you get the idea that driving is a human right?
    - SamReidHughes 13y ago
      Use your brain and try thinking of one of the many plausible ways one might come up with that opinion.
      - randac 13y ago
        Blunt force trauma?
    - jmccree 13y ago
      Perhaps from the UN? "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State." In the US, for probably 90% of the country there is no easily accessible public transit, cabs are financially infeasible for the working class, and attempting to walk down roads without sidewalks is very dangerous, and outright illegal for interstates and some highways. For a large percentage of the population, taking away the "privilege" of driving would entirely remove their right to move about the country freely. When there is no alternative to driving to reach a grocery store, your place of employment, etc. can it really be considered a privilege?
      - philwelch 13y ago
        By that reasoning, people who either can't afford cars or can't be trusted with them (DUI convicts) have no ability to travel freely. There are lots of infrastructure changes that should be made to fix that problem, so enshrining the right to drive cars around is neither a complete solution nor an especially efficient or safe one.
        jmccree 13y ago
        Not being able to afford a car is an entirely different matter from the government forbidding you from driving one. As for DUI offenders etc, once they've served their sentence they should have the right to drive like anyone else. During their jail or probation sentence, obviously they forfeit many civil rights. It's a far easier problem economically to focus on those who can't afford a car than to build out public transportation networks. Perhaps in the future when there are driverless cars everywhere, driving could be a privilege. As it is now, and for the foreseeable future, driving is a requirement for many americans. I moved to a city with public transit to avoid driving, but not everyone has that option, and it's important to remember that.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    If you have your own private motorway or racetrack with no one else on it, fine. But operating a vehicle on public streets and highways is a privilege. Not being run over by your drunk ass--that's a human fucking right.
    - SamReidHughes 13y ago
      You seem so angry at the notion that somebody might have a different view than yours.
      - corin_ 13y ago
        Maybe he got a little annoyed being spoken to by someone so smug they used the line "your worldview is wrong, and mine is right" without trying to be funny.
        SamReidHughes 13y ago
        My entire original reply was about philwelch blithely spouting his opinion as if it were relevant at all and that jmccree needed to hear it. It's a blatant replication of his smugness.
        vidarh 13y ago
        That's not how it came across to me at least. His reply came across as a reasonable part of a discussion, and you came across as being a total asshole. Your assertion it was a "blatant replication of his smugness" just reinforces that impression to me. If that's not the impression you want to give, you might want to reconsider your approach.
        SamReidHughes 13y ago
        I'm not interested in people's impressions of me (and it doesn't bother me a bit if they think I'm an asshole -- I guess I'm just selfless that way).
  - adrianoconnor 13y ago
    Actually, his worldview closely matches the world out there, and yours doesn't, so technically his worldview is right.
DrStalker 13y ago
Different perspective: I see it it as a requirement of holding a license and operating a motor vehicle that I have agreed to demonstrate I'm in a state capable of doing so safely when asked to do so in a manner that causes only minor inconvenience. I'm in Australia, random breath tests have been around for many years and they have helped a lot with a culture of getting drunk and driving home.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > Different perspective: I see it it as a requirement of holding a license and operating a motor vehicle that I have agreed to demonstrate I'm in a state capable of doing so safely when asked to do so in a manner that causes only minor inconvenience. What overly broad reasoning. Flip it around and apply it to other things that you could do to hurt people and you can apply that reasoning to all parts of your life.
girvo 13y ago
Nah driving is way too dangerous to not have safety requirements involved like random breath testing. Driving kills far more people than it should, and drink driving is part of the reason.

by jmccree 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

I think people are okay with it if police are friendly and polite, and if there's some benefit. Mass breath-testing programme always get a few complaints, but I think they'd get a lot more if people realised how few drunk drivers are caught, or if police were rude. Blowing into a tube for X seconds is invasive, but sobriety tests (walking a straight line, touching your nose, etc) feel weirder to me. (I realise that in both US and UK neither of these can be done unless they think you're drunk, and GP post was talking about tests done with no suspicion of drunkeness).

philwelch 13y ago

If you're driving a 5000 pound vehicle on public motorways, I don't see any problem with it. Driving is a privilege that's contingent upon following the rules, not a right.

SamReidHughes 13y ago
Actually, your worldview is wrong, and mine is right, and driving is a human right that is not contingent on giving up privacy rights, right to not have your car searched, or other rights.
- placeybordeaux 13y ago
  Are you serious? Where did you get the idea that driving is a human right?
  - SamReidHughes 13y ago
    Use your brain and try thinking of one of the many plausible ways one might come up with that opinion.
    - randac 13y ago
      Blunt force trauma?
  - jmccree 13y ago
    Perhaps from the UN? "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State." In the US, for probably 90% of the country there is no easily accessible public transit, cabs are financially infeasible for the working class, and attempting to walk down roads without sidewalks is very dangerous, and outright illegal for interstates and some highways. For a large percentage of the population, taking away the "privilege" of driving would entirely remove their right to move about the country freely. When there is no alternative to driving to reach a grocery store, your place of employment, etc. can it really be considered a privilege?
    - philwelch 13y ago
      By that reasoning, people who either can't afford cars or can't be trusted with them (DUI convicts) have no ability to travel freely. There are lots of infrastructure changes that should be made to fix that problem, so enshrining the right to drive cars around is neither a complete solution nor an especially efficient or safe one.
      - jmccree 13y ago
        Not being able to afford a car is an entirely different matter from the government forbidding you from driving one. As for DUI offenders etc, once they've served their sentence they should have the right to drive like anyone else. During their jail or probation sentence, obviously they forfeit many civil rights. It's a far easier problem economically to focus on those who can't afford a car than to build out public transportation networks. Perhaps in the future when there are driverless cars everywhere, driving could be a privilege. As it is now, and for the foreseeable future, driving is a requirement for many americans. I moved to a city with public transit to avoid driving, but not everyone has that option, and it's important to remember that.
- philwelch 13y ago
  If you have your own private motorway or racetrack with no one else on it, fine. But operating a vehicle on public streets and highways is a privilege. Not being run over by your drunk ass--that's a human fucking right.
  - SamReidHughes 13y ago
    You seem so angry at the notion that somebody might have a different view than yours.
    - corin_ 13y ago
      Maybe he got a little annoyed being spoken to by someone so smug they used the line "your worldview is wrong, and mine is right" without trying to be funny.
      - SamReidHughes 13y ago
        My entire original reply was about philwelch blithely spouting his opinion as if it were relevant at all and that jmccree needed to hear it. It's a blatant replication of his smugness.
        vidarh 13y ago
        That's not how it came across to me at least. His reply came across as a reasonable part of a discussion, and you came across as being a total asshole. Your assertion it was a "blatant replication of his smugness" just reinforces that impression to me. If that's not the impression you want to give, you might want to reconsider your approach.
        SamReidHughes 13y ago
        I'm not interested in people's impressions of me (and it doesn't bother me a bit if they think I'm an asshole -- I guess I'm just selfless that way).
- adrianoconnor 13y ago
  Actually, his worldview closely matches the world out there, and yours doesn't, so technically his worldview is right.

DrStalker 13y ago

Different perspective: I see it it as a requirement of holding a license and operating a motor vehicle that I have agreed to demonstrate I'm in a state capable of doing so safely when asked to do so in a manner that causes only minor inconvenience. I'm in Australia, random breath tests have been around for many years and they have helped a lot with a culture of getting drunk and driving home.

darkarmani 13y ago
> Different perspective: I see it it as a requirement of holding a license and operating a motor vehicle that I have agreed to demonstrate I'm in a state capable of doing so safely when asked to do so in a manner that causes only minor inconvenience. What overly broad reasoning. Flip it around and apply it to other things that you could do to hurt people and you can apply that reasoning to all parts of your life.

girvo 13y ago

Nah driving is way too dangerous to not have safety requirements involved like random breath testing. Driving kills far more people than it should, and drink driving is part of the reason.