Police breath testing

[AD345]

"Hey, I'll tell ya what offisher, I ain't blowing into that silly thingamabob you've got and then ya can't prove I'm pished to shee ya later" -THAT is what you would like to see instead????

(Just chucking in the opposite end of the spectrum)

I'd like to see the end of random breath testing thanks very much.

That's all

If you have REASON to think I'm over the limit - by all means breath test me and arrest me if I don't play ball

But don't keep nagging me and thousands of other just because you CAN

[scumdog]

If you have REASON to think I'm over the limit - by all means breath test me and arrest me if I don't play ball

THAT is precisely why th elaw was changed to allow random testing.

Too many drunk-drivers got off because the cop didn't have a reason to think they were over the limit and lawyers with no social conscienc use to get them off on that techincality..

Didn't matter that the driver WAS plastered beyond belief.

[SixPackBack]

The call went out at what seemed like 6am Sunday morning at the March hare rally (just gone) that the police were stopping ALL riders leaving the venue, and breath testing them. Surely there would have been a better publicity stunt if the police came inside the venue and said for your own safety check that you are safe and under the limit before you leave as you may get stopped outside on the main road.
Then they could have saved tax payers money by not needing the boose bus there and only half the staff to help check everyone.
Wouldnt that have been the right thing to do???

I hate it when the coppers are right LOL

Random breath testing is probably the quickest 'stop' you can experience by the coppers. Often they take no notice of warrant/rego, they are mostly polite and cheery, and my experience is less than a minute of inconvenience.

'Course making sure you are sober is easy and ultimately your responsibility alone......you were sober teach?

[AD345]

THAT is precisely why th elaw was changed to allow random testing.

Too many drunk-drivers got off because the cop didn't have a reason to think they were over the limit and lawyers with no social conscienc use to get them off on that techincality..

Didn't matter that the driver WAS plastered beyond belief.

I'd love to know what numbers make up "too many" but it doesn't matter anyway.

The culture has changed - a lot. There is absolutely zero reason to think that it is suddenly going to become "a bit of a lark" again for people to start driving under the influence.

The random breath test - in particular the mass check point stoppages of thousands of motorists - has done its job and had its day. It was always a dodgy infringement of rights but was sold as a response to a crisis.

And we were dumb enough to believe it

The crisis is over but the right of freedom from unreasonable search and siezure has gone forever. It is a salutary lesson for all of us

[red mermaid]

If the crisis is over, why is the number of drink drivers prosecuted increasing?

I'd love to know what numbers make up "too many" but it doesn't matter anyway.

The culture has changed - a lot. There is absolutely zero reason to think that it is suddenly going to become "a bit of a lark" again for people to start driving under the influence.

The random breath test - in particular the mass check point stoppages of thousands of motorists - has done its job and had its day. It was always a dodgy infringement of rights but was sold as a response to a crisis.

And we were dumb enough to believe it

The crisis is over but the right of freedom from unreasonable search and siezure has gone forever. It is a salutary lesson for all of us

[AD345]

If the crisis is over, why is the number of drink drivers prosecuted increasing?

Really? says who?

[red mermaid]

While I find those stats;

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3448...be-on-the-road

[red mermaid]

A quick search found this.
Do you want more?

http://police.govt.nz/news/release/3181.html

[awayatc]

Drink drivers are inexcusable......
Should get convicted of attempted manslaughter...

Get them all off the road,
because one of them could easily get you one day....

[T.W.R]

- just that I'd be pissed off at being held up for 4 hours.

If anyone has bothered to do the maths on the processing time at the checkpoint at the rally it roughly works out to a total time of 20secs per individual.........20 seconds lol a major catastrophe

[davereid]

I'd like to see the end of random breath testing thanks very much.

There is no doubt that being randomly stopped and searched when there is no evidence, (or even real suspicion) of a crime crosses an important line.

I completely agree with you, that the importance of the outcome, does not justify this kind of random approach.

I'd also be very pissed off at being held up at a check point for hours - in fact even minutes.

Its true that innocent people are regularly killed by drunk drivers, we have to do all we can.

But if the argument holds that its acceptable to be randomly searched to see if you have been drinking, then by logical extension, it can easily be extended to all aspects of our lives.

Police are very clearly using this power to harass. An entire ferry was ignored, so police could "randomly" test the hells angels, (twice.)

My conclusion remains the same. I accept it saves lives. But so would reducing the speed limit to 20km/hr. We choose to drive at higher speeds, accepting the increase in risk, as we value the convenience. I think we should choose to end random stopping, accepting the increase in risk, as we value freedom without random search and seizure.

[SixPackBack]

While I find those stats;

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3448...be-on-the-road

A quick search found this.
Do you want more?

http://police.govt.nz/news/release/3181.html

The stats prove nothing. It could be argued that the degree of Policing determines the degree of offending, and the degree of policing is just as likely to change on political expediency and the likelihood of promotion should the number be stacked in a favorable way at a favorable time.

[red mermaid]

And this would play back into the tricky lawyers arms, whereby when a driver is stopped and processed for drink driving the arguement in court would not be about the drink driving offence they had committed but whether the police officer had cause to stop the driver.

There is no doubt that being randomly stopped and searched when there is no evidence, (or even real suspicion) of a crime crosses an important line.

I completely agree with you, that the importance of the outcome, does not justify this kind of random approach.

I'd also be very pissed off at being held up at a check point for hours - in fact even minutes.

Its true that innocent people are regularly killed by drunk drivers, we have to do all we can.

But if the argument holds that its acceptable to be randomly searched to see if you have been drinking, then by logical extension, it can easily be extended to all aspects of our lives.

Police are very clearly using this power to harass. An entire ferry was ignored, so police could "randomly" test the hells angels, (twice.)

My conclusion remains the same. I accept it saves lives. But so would reducing the speed limit to 20km/hr. We choose to drive at higher speeds, accepting the increase in risk, as we value the convenience. I think we should choose to end random stopping, accepting the increase in risk, as we value freedom without random search and seizure.

[MarkH]

If anyone has bothered to do the maths on the processing time at the checkpoint at the rally it roughly works out to a total time of 20secs per individual.........20 seconds lol a major catastrophe

Is this a serious post or just a troll?

If it is serious then I am astounded by the level of crazy. If it normally takes 1 hour for 2000 bikers to clear out and they were held up by an average of 20 seconds each then the time would go from 1 hour to 1 hour 20 seconds. For it to take 5 hours instead of 1 hour the last rider must have been waiting for 4 hours longer than on previous years.

If you simply think about 2009 bikers leaving a venue and the police setup a checkpoint creating a bottleneck - the idea that on average only 20 seconds extra time was added is just freakin' nuts!

[bogan]

My conclusion remains the same. I accept it saves lives. But so would reducing the speed limit to 20km/hr. We choose to drive at higher speeds, accepting the increase in risk, as we value the convenience. I think we should choose to end random stopping, accepting the increase in risk, as we value freedom without random search and seizure.

But its not about a change in limit, its about enforcing the current one, speeding is pretty easy to detect, drunk drivers not so much, either let most of em get away till they stuff up and crash, or accept breath testing. We accept the risk with increase speeds as the benefits outweigh the risks (to the majority), just as I (and a large portion if not the majority of others) accept the need for breath testing as the benefits (or maybe its just perceived benefits) outweigh the risk (or is it perceived risk). Though I agree there needs to be more thought involved in setting up the breath tests so there is less inconvenience.