Police breath testing

[AD345]

It matters little when it was introduced ... it would take a very brave political party to REMOVE it from law.

If you are in control of a motor vehicle, it is reasonable to assume that you are not (should not) be impaired by alcohol ...

If you are NOT ... you have nothing to fear ...

Perhaps ... if you get clobbered by a "vehicle operator" who IS over the legal limit ... YOU may change YOUR view ...

A not unexpected but completely facile argument

In order to hold that warm conviction in your heart then you MUST agree with the following statement:

If you are in around children it is reasonable to assume that you are not (should not) be impaired by drugs...therefore random strip searches of every adult near a school, playground, family restaurant etc are perfectly justfiable. Even to the extent that every adult entering these areas may be stopped, queued up and searched in every body cavity before being allowed to proceed. Failure to comply is taken of evidence of guilt and you WILL be prosecuted (thus driving up the drug prosecution rates) and found guilty.

There is no difference

This is not about drink driving - its about state control.

As for this bit:

Perhaps ... if you get clobbered by a "vehicle operator" who IS over the legal limit ... YOU may change YOUR view ..

and also jimjims

this is the truest thing ever said, all those bleating on about being tested and police state would change their tune if they were on the receiving end of a drunk driver THEN they would be saying WHY didnt the cops do their job!

I have 2 responses

1. The police are there to enforce the law - not protect me from harm
2. I've not only been hit by an intoxicated driver but also lost friends and relatives to them. It does not change my view on this

[rwh]

It matters little when it was introduced ... it would take a very brave political party to REMOVE it from law.

If you are in control of a motor vehicle, it is reasonable to assume that you are not (should not) be impaired by alcohol ...

If you are NOT ... you have nothing to fear ...

But that's the trouble - you do have something to fear. That you will be held up - disadvantaged, despite being innocent. I've had to wait half an hour on the Wellington motorway, because they'd closed off all the exits bar one, in order to force all the traffic through the checkpoint. They not only held me up, they made me drive out of my way to get home. I ended up spending an hour or so in the station that night - waiting for someone to complain to.

Richard

[scumdog]

Drink-driving = bad

Removal of freedom from unreasonable serach and seizure = bad too

I don't want the police to have these powers any more

When has 'search and seizure' been the norm with breath screening?

ANd...Soooo.... YOUR answer is??

[rwh]

If you drive/ride distintive vehicles ... you will be noticed.

Driving a distinctive vehicle is a crime now? If it has 'Get your dope here' painted down the side, I might accept that.

Richard

[bogan]

1. The police are there to enforce the law - not protect me from harm

how do you propose the police enforce the drink driving laws then if they are not allowed to test for it?

[davereid]

If you drive/ride distintive vehicles ... you will be noticed. (the DOWN side of custom paint work .... people remember seeing them ...) wear distinctive clothing (ie: patches ... of any "club" ) you will be noticed ...

Of course. Thats why, bikers were held up at the March Hare, debatably for 4 hours.

The police knew they could get away with it, cos its bikers, a distinctly different identifiable group.

Even half an hours delay at a motorway on ramp is headline news.

No 4 hour delay at Womad, or the cricket....

[rwh]

how do you propose the police enforce the drink driving laws then if they are not allowed to test for it?

They're welcome to test for it - when they have cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated.

Richard

[rwh]

how do you propose the police enforce the drink driving laws then if they are not allowed to test for it?

They're welcome to test for it - when they have cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated.

Richard

[FJRider]

Driving a distinctive vehicle is a crime now? If it has 'Get your dope here' painted down the side, I might accept that.

Richard

I never suggested it WAS ... "Boy Racer" paint-jobs attract attention ... because of "likelyhood" of offending ...

[FJRider]

They're welcome to test for it - when they have cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated.

Richard

So ... at 7 am on a Sunday morning ... exiting a motorcycle rally site would NOT be ... ???

[bogan]

They're welcome to test for it - when they have cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated.

Richard

like when a driver is leaving a party or establishment that serves alcohol?

[rwh]

So ... at 7 am on a Sunday morning ... exiting a motorcycle rally site would NOT be ... ???

like when a driver is leaving a party or establishment that serves alcohol?

That would be for the courts to decide, I guess.

There must be many other cases where it's been established whether there was reasonable cause to suspect someone.

Richard

[davereid]

like when a driver is leaving a party or establishment that serves alcohol?

No. Thats like assuming that because someone has a fishing rod, they have undersize fish.

Or that because you have a cock you are a rapist.

[bogan]

No. Thats like assuming that because someone has a fishing rod, they have undersize fish.

Or that because you have a cock you are a rapist.

So cops would have to watch out for the symptoms of drunk drivers, which I think is mainly poor reaction times (unless you are really wasted of course), which sounds quite hard to spot to me. The point I'm getting at is, if there were no checkpoints drunk drivers would be very difficult to stop until they were in a serious accident and tested (or would that still not be reason enough to test them?), do you really want more drunk drivers on the road?

[FJRider]

No. Thats like assuming that because someone has a fishing rod, they have undersize fish.

Or that because you have a cock you are a rapist.

No ...it's assuming that because you have a fishing rod ... you've been fishing ... actually.

APPARENTLY ... you DON'T need a cock to be a rapist ....