I’ve never heard of that. Where’d that come from? In my experience, they make a point of being as hard to spot as possible, and always have.
What’s offensive about it? Would you rather have the drunk driver run over your stupid ass out on the highway rather than have them taken off the road ASAP?
I say kudos to the restaurants, and I would patronize any one that I knew was doing it.
OK, how about these scenarios:
(a) The drive-through worker has a sister killed by a drunk driver, and now whenever she sees someone with classic symptoms of impairment — slurred speech, red or watery eyes or beer breath — she calls the police to report a suspected drunk driver.
(b) The drive-through worker is the wife of a police officer, and whenever she sees someone with classic symptoms of impairment — slurred speech, red or watery eyes or beer breath — she calls the police to report a suspected drunk driver.
(c) The drive-through worker is an off-duty police officer, and whenever she sees someone with classic symptoms of impairment — slurred speech, red or watery eyes or beer breath — she calls her sergeant to report a suspected drunk driver.
We used to hire off-duty cops for security. Some of them were bouncers inside the club there to break up fights, some worked the front door, looking for over-age (this was a teen dance club, no one *over *21 admitted) people trying to get in. We had a couple bust drug deals in the back hall, escort unruly patrons off the premises, that sort of thing. And sometimes they weren’t even on our payroll, they’d just come and hang out with their buddies near our front door and lend a (free) hand if needed.
Pretty much the same as any of our non-police security guys, actually, only it was nice having a guy who could escort someone all the way to jail, if need be. We loved those guys.
While I find this somewhat weird, on further reflection, it’s really just a McDUI checkpoint. If a plain jane DUI checkpoint on the street is OK, I would consider this comparable from a rights standpoint.
Would it be any different if the checkpoint was right in front of the fast food joint instead of inside the drive thru? It’s not like Mr Drunk Driver can avoid the checkpoint after deciding he needed a Big Mac.
They ought to change it to Operation Many Intoxicated drivers Like Fries.
There’s a chain here, only in North Carolina, called Cook Out. It’s often open till 4am. Trying to get a cheeseburger at 4am from a Cook Out is like being in Mad Max without the cool haircuts, if you aren’t stoned or high off your gourd there’s pretty much no point in going. If cops started sitting outside, it would make me sad.
But are people driving to get there or walking/using a safe way to arrive? If it’s the former, then maybe it’s good that cops come. And if it’s the latter, then why would cops need to monitor it?
Everything in Greensboro is by car. If cops started patrolling there, I’d have no problem with it. Nobody should be surprised that a late night fast food place attracts drunks.
Ah, okay. I just got confused because you said you’d be sad if cops were hanging out outside the place in your last post.
i found a paradigm in my town. the only fasty food type place that was 24 hours closed the walk-in part at 10pm, and to go through the drive through required you be in a car. we tried before to go through on foot, but they said no way. what the hell do i do about that? you are open 24 hours, but only for cars?
It’s been over 20 years since I managed fast food restaurants, but I’m willing to bet some things haven’t changed.
Friday and Saturday nights, from midnight until 2:00am, were called the drunk rush. We were as busy, then, as any lunch rush. The restaurant makes a lot of money during that time. The story I read in the Arizona Daily Star had comments from several fast food restaurant owners that said they would not allow deputies in their restaurants. When word gets out which restaurants have deputies in them, business will go down. The owners aren’t going to go for that. In my opinion, this program will go nowhere and do nothing.
I am completely in favor of getting drunks off the road. This idea isn’t going to work. We have a problem with drunk driving in this country because we allow drunk driving. Here is my two prong method for solving our drunk driving problem. First, catch the drunks. Set up road blocks just down the road from bars and fast food places. We know where they are - go get them.
Second, make the penalty for the first conviction 6 months in jail. If you are convicted, you are going to jail. No time off for good behavior. No working during the day and just report at night and on weekends. You get locked up for 6 months, period. Second offense is two years.
Yes, there would be a glut of court cases at first. And, yes, the jails would initially get more crowded. My bet is that within a year, the court cases and overcrowding would go away. Why? Because people would stop driving drunk. People don’t want to go to jail.
If the penalties are severe enough, you can change people’s behavior.
To be fair, this is an axiom for the death penalty. So far there is no evidence to support that this acts as a deterent towards violent crimes.
(sorry no cite)
Yeah, because nobody smokes pot anymore.
There’s also the whole “It’ll never happen to me, they won’t catch me” attitude, and that plus too much alcohol? Drunk driver.
Not that they shouldn’t catch these people, but harsher punishments won’t deter everybody. I do think losing a license for a long time is appropriate, though I know that won’t stop all of them from driving, either.
But the penalties for smoking pot aren’t anywhere near as strict as 6 months for a first offense, 2 years for a second. in many (most?) states, simple possession of less than an ounce is a ticketable offense, not even arrestable.
Joe
No, but the penalties for possessing and selling marijuana have steadily increased since Reagan launched the War On Drugs, with no discernible impact on usage rates.
Nixon was the one who started the War on Drugs.
You’re quite right - my mistake. The point remains, though.
You are correct about people not believing they will get caught. And, as noted above, the ultimate penalty, death, has not been an effective deterrent against murder - again, I believe, because people don’t believe they will get caught. So, I guess the severe penalty phase has to be coupled with an intense program of catching drunk drivers so people believe there is a good chance of getting caught. Then I think the severe punishment will have an effect on people’s behavior.
Interesting - in today’s Arizona Daily Star, the Sherriff’s department states that the original story was wrong - they are not going to implement this program.