well there are two separate questions you’re asking:
does it prevent DUI when you’re asking if the law is constitutional? this has nothing to do with what you or I believe is the correct analysis/interpretation of the cognitive consequences of DUI stops. The supreme court has held that the state’s justification for DUIs being effective was sufficient to withstand the constitutional scrutiny.
does it prevent DUI if I were to think about it? Well, speed traps and DUI “traps” are a lot different from a strategic analysis standpoint: the punishment for speeding is very low; the punishment for DUI is very high. and while they may not cognitively exist if you’re not aware of them, there sure exists a cognitive riskiness in driving after consuming alcoholic beverages in an area known to host sobriety checkpoints. that’s the deterrent
In CA, the have to take every nth car, for n > = 1, as decided by the supervising brass, and they can not change n during the operation except under very limited circumstances.
“The rest of the English speaking world” is not organized on the same principles of liberty as we are. We used to be, but, well, you know…
What is wrong of asking the officers to actually have a reasonable suspicion of a crime before contacting someone? That is pretty much our basic principle, is it not yours?
Unless you are in China, or a China-like country. If you are in Australia, you may be…if google and wikipedia doesn’t turn it up for you, let me know and I will add it to my list of things to find.
That is exactly the deterrent effect I was referring to. If it exists, than there should be some well accepted, peer-reviewed articles by now that separate that alleged effect out from other reasons to drink and drive. Care to share them with us, with an explanation of how they are authoritative and how they apply as you suggest?
Same for speed traps though. They tend to be in known locations as well. And they tend to lead to increased scrutiny once stopped.
I will have to think if there is a cognitive difference or not - Martini Enfield said there is, I asked him for evidence, so I guess I should ask you for the same evidence that DUI checkpoints are effective in reducing drunk driving (or DUI more generally) as is the stated purpose in California?
Well, in all fairness, those are decisions on the Constitutionality under that State’s Constitution, not the Federal one. So each state could vary in that regard.
Or, rather than being a dickhead about it, you can just provide an example of the sort of thing you’re talking about. That’d be much easier for everyone, since I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about in relation to “Freedom of Speech On The Internet” issues in Australia that have been in the news lately.
Unfortunately I’m not currently near my university campus and frankly I’m not prepared to do a major search of peer reviewed papers to “prove” something to people on the internet that everyone in Australia knows- RBTs work and they are a deterrent to drink driving; when combined with public education about their prevalence and the penalties and effects of drink driving.
However, a quick Google search (just for form’s sake) for “RBT Effectiveness Australia” brings up a couple of links, including this one from the Centre for Automotive Safety Research (University of Adelaide), for which the abstract notes a 34% decrease in the proportion of drivers over the legal limit caught at RBTs in 1987- ie, 23 years ago. A bit of judicious Google or Journal searching on your part- if you really care that much about trying to prove me wrong (and continue the fine SDMB trend of “Telling Foreigners How Things Work In Their Own Countries Despite Being Told You’re Wrong”)- will no doubt find hard, academic proof for you that random RBTs really do work at reducing drink-driving offences and are a major deterrent against drink-driving.
Honestly, it seems to me that your problem with the whole thing is that there are apparently some issues with the police where you live. I bet you’d feel differently about it if you lived in somewhere like, I don’t know, Portland or Barstow.
It is not dickish to suggest you google something. Someone upthread suggested he would not do research for someone else without drawing the insult.
Tip: Type this into google: “Freedom of Speech On The Internet” issues in Australia
Maybe click around on Google News once you scan the main listings.
Maybe wikipedia has something too.
> Unfortunately I’m not currently near my university campus and frankly I’m not prepared to do a major search of peer reviewed papers to “prove” something to people on the internet that everyone in Australia knows- RBTs work and they are a deterrent to drink driving;
Take your time. Or not, I don’t care. I will judge whether you are merely asserting, or actually on to something accordingly. Up to you how you want to be perceived. I don’t see it as a “major search”, just see what you can find that illustrates your point.
“Everyone in Australia” knows that? Really?
OK, that is an abstract that google turns up. But it looks like it is merely descriptive statistics, not something that susses out the contribution to the decrease of various causes.
E.g. in the US, we have probably had a similar decrease. Some possible causes:
1 - demographic shifts.
2 - Popularity of alcohol
3 - marketing campaigns against dui
4 - law enforcement as a deterrent
5 - less miles driven per capita
6 - more entertainment at home or closer to home
7 - safer cars
8 - safer roads
9 - dumb luck
10 - punishment
11 - increase in usage of other drugs
etc.
Yet you say that everyone in Australia KNOWS what the cause is? I don’t dispute that the rate has dropped, I am only curious as to why?
I don’t care to prove you wrong. I am genuinely interested to see you prove yourself right. You raised an interesting point to me, so perhaps YOU can continue the fine SDMB threads “Share how things work in your own country because others are curious” and “Cite”.
Personally I am skeptical that such proof exists, but that may be me projecting my own personal experience. I am thrilled to know “Everyone in Australia” knows this, even if you don’t have the cite handy right now.
May I ask how everyone in Australia came to know this? How did you come to know it?
No, sorry if I gave that impression. Actually, I do live someplace like Barstow I think. Remote and small city in California where people have been here for generations and are “salt of the earth” type people but extremely suspicious of each generation of newcomers. Of which I am one of the newest newcomers, and a completely different breed than seen before. Not here to work the fields, full of “big city ways”.
My objection is not because of local issues, those are just illustrations. My concerns are quite similar to Dinsdale’s, in that some very important principles that our country and society are founded on are being washed away big-time, and these DUI checkpoints are a prime example of a larger and growing class of such intrusions.
My understanding of YOUR country in this regard is limited, so correct me if I am wrong: Your protections as a basis for your society regarding liberty, privacy, and the willingness to allow some crime to go uncaught (for now) in order to not infringe on rights of individuals, while not non-existent, is both different and less fundamental than it is in the US. That is neither good nor bad, just different.
So, even if you could and do present me a sufficient study from your country that the RBTs play a major role in the decrease in drunk driving, it still might not address the root issue in the US, which is that we have different principles on which to work.
IOW, what worked to reduce drunk driving there might not (and probably won’t) work here, and probably a program of the type you have described will not be allowed here anyway, it goes beyond even what we have here now, which is sketchy at best judged against principles.
For example, our Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoints may not be “Random”, but must check every nth person with n>=1 to meet scrutiny of admissibility by showing no fishing or profiling was happening. Yours seems based on the Random aspect to begin with. So, big issue in the ability to transfer your program here, even if we wanted to.
But because it goes so far beyond our principles and our DUI checkpoint regime, AND your country recently allowed new infringements on its internet freedom of speech with nary a peep from the population, it could be argued that your country has already gone far down the slippery slope that Dinsdale described.
For just as it is inconceivable to me that we would allow your RBT approach here, even if we end up keeping the one we have, it is even more inconceivable that we would allow the type of freedom of speech restrictions you have to be applied here.
Although to be fair, if 10 years ago, I would have said the same of the Patriot Act, which I still find abhorrent and repugnant. But look what it took for us to get that, an compare it to what it took for the speech restrictions in Australia.
My point being, that we are comparing apples and oranges because of the fundamental differences in our approaches to organizing society when we compare our checkpoints to yours, regardless of the efficacy of yours in your country.
Wait, because the Australian government is considering a publicly debated and controversial plan to block foreign child porn sites, Australia has fallen into tyranny?
I’ve done all that and I’m still getting nothing that’s well, not “old news” or common knowledge to anyone here with an interest in Freedom Of Speech & Information.
There’s no Constitutionally Defined “Freedom Of Speech” here in Australia (with the exception of Political & Economic matters laid down in ABC v Lange), but nothing has changed there recently that I’m aware of.
Only three of those “News” stories (on the first page) relate to Australia censoring the Internet, and it’s worth bearing in mind that at the moment the filter isn’t in place and the last time the Government tried it was proven the whole thing is an expensive, unworkable mess and gave up. There’s no reason to believe this time around will be any different. The consensus from my colleagues at University (who are far more knowledgeable than I on the subject) is that “It won’t happen”, because it’s A) Unpopular, B) Expensive, and C) Unworkable.
In short, it’s something that you’ve just found out about but is “Old News” to everyone here. And- even though I’m against a 'Net Censoring Scheme- the reality is that most of the sites on the blacklist are/would be things that right-thinking people wouldn’t want to be looking up anyway. It’s like being told it’s illegal for you to own a Spaceship. Theoretically it’s an outrage, but realistically, you’re never going to own one anyway, so why get worked up about it?
Universities here don’t go back for a couple of months, and honestly, when I am back on campus I’ll be far too busy doing my own coursework to go looking up things of tangential interest just to “win” a months-old argument on the SDMB. If you don’t want to take my word for it, fine. But seriously, don’t go expecting me to do “Research Paper” level investigations just to convince you that I’m not making things up.
I’ll wait for some of the other Aussies on the boards to come in and back me up, but the short answer to that is “Yes, they do”, with the obvious exceptions of small children and people living in Aboriginal missions and things like that.
I’m pretty sure there was a paper (.pdf) from MADD that went into all that sort of stuff and came to the same conclusions, FWIW. It was a few links down from the UoA one.
That would, I think, support my view that RBTs reduce drink-driving accidents and therefore make the roads safer for everyone.
Which I think I’ve done. I’m not polling all 22 million people in Australia just to satisfy you.
It’s on the news, in the papers, the subject of innumerable Press Releases by the Police and Ministers For Various Road And Transport Related Things which are widely heard by anyone with a radio or TV or news website access when they’re released but entirely too time consuming to go and actually look up for the purposes of a disagreement on an internet messageboard, basically.
And I do wish you’d stop going on about “Speech Restrictions”. You have libel laws in the US, right? Do you consider the US to have “Speech Restrictions” because of them? No.
Personally, I’d like to see a “Freedom of Speech” clause put into our Constitution, but for the time being we’ve got the next best thing.
At the risk of sounding inflammatory (and I’m honestly not trying to be), perhaps some of those principles are… in need of adjustment for the modern world? I mean, let’s face it, if you get shitfaced on bourbon and climb on your horse in 1786, the horse can more or less get you home on his own, and the most dangerous thing you’re likely to crash into is a tree or a fence. The only person you’ll hurt is yourself, and assuming you don’t fall off, you’re not likely to be hurt that badly (or at all). That’s an entirely different kettle of fish to polishing off a bottle of bourbon and climbing into a one-tonne motor vehicle capable of driving over 100km/h on a road with lots of other cars and people on it.
Why not petition your local MP to have the law amended so that all they can do at a DUI checkpoint is breathalyse the driver, check that the vehicle is registered, and that’s it? Wouldn’t that solve the problem for you? Safer roads, and no concerns about the police deciding to search people’s cars for no particular reason.
I’d say that’s accurate at a basic level, but the nuances could probably keep a Ph.D student busy for some time.
I don’t see why not. Instead of just breathalysing random people, you’d just breathalyse every Nth person to avoid accusations of profiling. The rest of of wouldn’t have to change in any fundamental way that I can see.
“Tyranny” seems like an effort to color a discussion before it starts.
Let’s look at facts: Australia is proposing, and has conducted tests already with its primary ISP (Telstra) to implement filtering software of the type that we associate more with China, Egypt, Iran, and other authoritative regimes.
This is not what we generally think of when we think of Australia, at least not in the US.
Nor is stopping its citizens randomly to check for crimes, but according to our correspondent in this thread, Australians are quite fine with being stopped in such a fashion.
I find these two items side by side to be quite interesting, surprising, and more than a little disturbing.
That’s more than a bit disingenous, as has repeatedly been explained. The police aren’t stopping people to “check for crimes” (searching cars to look for drugs etc). They ask you how your evening is, ask you to blow into the Breathalyser, and (assuming you’re not over the limit) send you on your way. It takes longer and is more inconvenient to get a drive through meal from any major fast food restaurant.
I can remember in the 70s when this shit started, the ACLU did in fact protest, so I don’t think slamming them is fair on this.
I think the solution is that if cops and politicians think this is important enough that when they have a checkpoint that the cops and local politicians should have to dress up in Nazi drag.
