DuffMan
Well-Known Member
Removing drunk drivers from the road constitues a safety thing in my book.
For those interested in the tailgate rule changes...
- Thread starter Hawkfromnorwalk
- Start date
Removing drunk drivers from the road constitues a safety thing in my book.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
I get that, I'm just saying that isn't what I got from reading the article. The way interpreted it was that there will be stepped up enforcement on drunk drivers, not necessarily that these checkpoints will be looking for drunks.
Now, if these checkpoints pull somone off the road who shouldn't be driving, that's great, but I don't think that is the intended purpose.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
I'm all for stopping drunk driving. But "the ends justify the means" is not the way to approach it. There's not enough room here to list all the crimes against humanity that relied on that justification.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
okeefe4prez:
On that same line of thinking, if the government really cared about prevention and not profit, they would require car manufacturers to put alcohol sensors in all cars forcing drivers to have their blood alcohol levels tested before they start up their vehicles. This would cut down on OWI violations and the all the money the state could raise from such related fines.
The cars will not start if it is a certain blood alcohol level. Of course, a sober person could always just blow into the sensor for the drunk driver, so the system would not be completely perfect. Now if the steering wheel could somehow have a sensor in it that continuously monitored blood alcohol levels, maybe that would work a little better.
In case of a big emergency though which would require using a car and their was no other reliable transportation or another sober person around to drive, the drunk driver would be screwed.
No system would be perfect, but governmental policies could be put into place to really show a desire for prevention over the current system that favors heavy fines for violators and big profits and revenue for the state.
On that same line of thinking, if the government really cared about prevention and not profit, they would require car manufacturers to put alcohol sensors in all cars forcing drivers to have their blood alcohol levels tested before they start up their vehicles. This would cut down on OWI violations and the all the money the state could raise from such related fines.
The cars will not start if it is a certain blood alcohol level. Of course, a sober person could always just blow into the sensor for the drunk driver, so the system would not be completely perfect. Now if the steering wheel could somehow have a sensor in it that continuously monitored blood alcohol levels, maybe that would work a little better.
In case of a big emergency though which would require using a car and their was no other reliable transportation or another sober person around to drive, the drunk driver would be screwed.
No system would be perfect, but governmental policies could be put into place to really show a desire for prevention over the current system that favors heavy fines for violators and big profits and revenue for the state.
INTIMIDATORHawk
Well-Known Member
Checkpoints looking for drunk drivers is entrapment. Guilty until proven innocent is not the type of system I want or think we need in this country. It crosses a line.
I could care less if I'm allowed to walk and drink at the same time. Its too bad we can't do it anymore, but whatever. I'm sure it will be tough to enforce so if I see other people still doing it, I'll probably join the crowd and take my chances.
It's the checkpoints that have my underwear in a knot. I understand the intent of them....decent enough intent. However to me it seems like a major infringement of my rights. I'm an adult. I don't have a criminal record. I pay my taxes and I follow the rules on Saturdays in Iowa City. I don't need anyone watching over me and signing off on my ability to drive home. I'm not in need of a babysitter. I've earned the right to not have to be accountable to anyone if I'm following the "rules".
If I harm someone or break the "law", then arrest me. Until then, leave me alone.
I could care less if I'm allowed to walk and drink at the same time. Its too bad we can't do it anymore, but whatever. I'm sure it will be tough to enforce so if I see other people still doing it, I'll probably join the crowd and take my chances.
It's the checkpoints that have my underwear in a knot. I understand the intent of them....decent enough intent. However to me it seems like a major infringement of my rights. I'm an adult. I don't have a criminal record. I pay my taxes and I follow the rules on Saturdays in Iowa City. I don't need anyone watching over me and signing off on my ability to drive home. I'm not in need of a babysitter. I've earned the right to not have to be accountable to anyone if I'm following the "rules".
If I harm someone or break the "law", then arrest me. Until then, leave me alone.
Last edited:
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
It's posts like this that make me wonder if everyone who has offered an opinion has actually read the article in the Gazette. Pulling a drunk driver off the road is not an infringement of your rights.
The cops aren't going to be breathalyzing everyone on their way home. To do so would be impractical and a waste of time, and would make a lot of people really upset.
In the end, I think this is all going to be much ado about nothing. For the 99% of people who tailgate and drink responsibly, the only thing that will change is the inability to pound one on your way to the stadium.
INTIMIDATORHawk
Well-Known Member
Yes I've read it.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
So where in the article did it state that the police (or State Patrol, Sheriff) would be checking everyone? If you're not plastered out of your mind, they'll more than likely just wave you through.
woodyk1
Well-Known Member
This has been done for many years. When I was younger in Dubuque, we would go to East Dubuque to drink and once in a while after the bars closed in Dubuque at 2AM. The DJs in East Dubuque would let us know there was a roadblock set up back on the Dubuque side of the bridge (if they got knowledge of one). If not, you still had to be prepared for one. As long as you are not platered or give any reason for the cops to check your BA level, you would get through just fine.
