Sounds like a perfectly good idea. Perhaps apply it to all people who are found to be at fault for accidents.
In your example that fella could claim he was only a couple blocks from where he was going so that by the time his BAC would elevate he would no longer be driving. Thus he never actually drove above the legal limit. I think that it just leaves to many things wide open to attack in a courtroom.
Do you really think a jury would buy that? Besides, the way I would have the law written, that would not be a meaningful argument. If the person consumed enough alcohol to raise his BAC to be above 0.10 by more than the measurement uncertainty of the device used, the person would be legally forbidden from driving from the time of such consumption until the time that enough alcohol had been metabolized that--absent further alcohol consumption--the BAC not go above 0.10 by more than the measurement uncertainty of the device.
The way I would have the law written, it would catch some dangerous drivers who escape under the current law, while not going after the least dangerous of the drivers targetted under the current law. I would think that would be a more than reasonable 'trade'.
I think roadside safety checks are a great idea. When instances are documented to long waits or bonafide harrasment I would back persuing that issue to see it is dealt with. Causing a traffic jam can remove any safety gains made as a result of holding them to begin with. They require balance, like all other things, to be productive.
If a driver is going along and conducting his motor vehicle in safe and reasonable fashion, why should a cop have a right to pull him over for a 'random safety check'? The Supreme Court was totally out to lunch in allowing this grossly unconsitutional exercise of power. The Constitution provides that people are supposed to be secure in their person and effects (that would, by any reasonable interpretation include vehicles) unless there is probable cause for the government to intrude. The idea that a 'random check' constitutes probable cause is so absurd I cannot understand how any honest person could even suggest such a thing.
....Now this is absolutely impossible to do for every person individually. It is just unrealistic to think it could be possible to do so(at least it is today). The next best thing we can do today is to do studies using this tool. Take the results of the studies and apply the them to general operational procedures for all people.
Why would it be impossible? I suspect MADD et al. might not like the results, but that shouldn't affect the practical feasibility.
It does seem like there are some areas where we are talking past each other. Perhaps you could answer a few questions, if you don't mind:
One technique of dishonest people is to identify that some uncommon behavior is bad, and then try to equate that with some other, much more common, "superset" behavior when the two behaviors are qualitatively different.
For example, I would suggest that there is a qualitative rather than quantitative difference between entering a busy intersection 10 milliseconds after the signal turns red and entering a busy intersection ten seconds after the signal turns red. The former behavior will not cause a crash (or any other meaningful harm) if other drivers are even remotely alert; the latter behavior is extremely likely to cause a crash even if other drivers are highly alert. Nonetheless, some localities regard the two behaviors as identical. Can you think why?
"Sounds like a perfectly good idea."
Exactly, it Sounds like a good idea. It simply isn't doable logistically. How would go about doing such a thing for all people when we have issues like 15 million illegals here?
If you only do it with people that crash, then you are sending the message that if you don't get caught(ie crash) you didn't break any law.
"the way I would have the law written"
I would offer that the way you would see the law written ignores the over 3000 killed at levels between .08 and .10.
Do you really want to do that?
"If a driver is going along and conducting his motor vehicle in safe and reasonable fashion, why should a cop have a right to pull him over for a 'random safety check'?"
Ill start with this, How could they determine that without checking? That would lead to you saying innocent until proven guilty, I would counter statistics kept show many many are not innocent at all. Lets take child safety seats for instance, LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people have their kids in them improperly or not at all. This is something that safety checks look for and find.
Some people take the warrant issue as it pertains to search and siezure to a level I find unreasonable. Many take it to a level that requires evidence in order to investigate for evidence. I would argue that the few minutes spent going thru a safety check is far from unreasonable. I do not think an officer talking to you is unreasonable. That is their job.
I would also like to offer you tis tidbit. raodblock applies the law to everyone there at that time equally whereas a traffic stop when an officer picks you out of a pack of five cars going 90 on the highway does not. What is that officer to do? Ignore all 5?
"unless there is probable cause for the government to intrude"
The stats are the probable cause.The task they are to perform are probable cause. I do not find it unreasonable for an officer to speak to you, nor do I find it unconstitutional. Do you honestly think that a one or two minute conversation with a police officer at a roadside safety check is intrusive...and unconstitutional? If so I would ask you to apply that very same standard to what our troops do in bagdahd today. Would you offer that what they are doing is wrong and should be stopped? I would poseit is the very same thing. Practicing what are preaching.
"Why would it be impossible? I suspect MADD et al. might not like the results, but that shouldn't affect the practical feasibility."
Who will administer these tests? Who will pay for it? Who will keep it all straight? Who would oversee it? Let me offer you this, many argue that a national ID is unconstitutional and claim states rights would be adversely affected. Are you for a national ID...maybe with this information as part of it? It appears you would be.... Many argue that medical records are private and it is unconstitutional to intrude upon them. Aren't you asking to do that very thing?
I woulf think that may be opening up a can of gross of worms to seal one can of them. Not unlike causing a a traffic jam that sees a crash happen when doing a roadside safety check.