"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.
I thought you meant all people accused of DUI (and I suggested adding those, sober or not, who caused accidents).
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?
How about the many tens of thousands killed below 0.01?
Further, bear in mind that some of those people who are listed as "between 0.08 and 0.10" would if I had my druthers be listed higher. The guy who smacked you, depending upon weight, should have been listed somewhere between 0.16 (if he was really heavy) to 0.21 (if he was a beanpole).
"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.
Watch a driver on an S-turn. If the driver takes the turn smoothly, the driver is not grossly intoxicated. If the driver takes the turn awkwardly and there is no obvious other reason for it (e.g. a big oil slick on the road) start following the driver. If the driver continues to have trouble following the path of the road, pull him over. Really not that hard.
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.
I'm sure there are many unsafe things in most people's homes. Should we have "random" safety checks for people's dwellings as well?
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?
Speed limits are another instrument of the revenue state, whose enforcement is often driven more by revenue considerations than safety. One principle that used to be in place before it started interfering too much with revenue is the notion that (at least) 80% of drivers are reasonable, prudent, and safe. Therefore, if even 20% of drivers do something, that is prima facie evidence that it is not unreasonable, imprudent, or unsafe.
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.
Iraq right now is an occupied police state. We're working on trying to convert it into a free country, but it's not there yet.
"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?
Make the test an option for those who blow a 0.08; have the subject consume a measured amount of alcohol before testing to get their BAC up to the level of their arrest. If they can perform the test at least as well as half the sober drivers out there, that means they weren't impaired. Even if the arrestee has to pay for the test themself that's still going to be cheaper for him than the costs associated with DUI conviction.
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 had thought you were advocating the tests for those arrested for DUI. Though allowing people the option of taking prophylactic tests at their own expense might not be a bad idea. Actually, it might be a good thing for the state to encourage if the real goal was to reduce drunk driving crashes and deaths.
That way, those who are in fact capable of being safe drivers with a 0.09BAC would be freed from the risk of arrest, while those who were not as capable as they thought would discover that without learning it "the hard way".
As for the national ID, it is in significant measure already here. I personally don't like the concept, but the way things are set up now has all of the intrusiveness but little of the security. The most important issue is what information may be shared with whom.
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.
As above, the question is what information is shared with whom.