Do you mean “gave up” in the sense of “tried, and is trying, again”?
It works in some authoritarian countries. It is not all that expensive on the scale of Telstra (with whom I used to work managing a partnership here in the US). The issue is, will the people put up with it? Your claim of unpopularity goes to that point. Are there local polls and protests that would lead us to believe this is dead in the water?
I didn’t “just find out about it”. I just mentioned it on this thread as it seemed to be germane.
If someone made such a proposal here, our citizens would go berserk in shooting it down. Has that happened there?
This is getting ever more disturbing. Where do you draw the line pray tell about what you accept the government deciding what you could see or not see, own or not own, build or not build, study but not study, who you could communicate with about what or not?
Why would you allow your government to implement what you say is unworkable? What if it is not? What could the purpose be other than political control and consolidation? Has this sort of thing ever been proposed, let alone implemented, for any reason other than that?
I am just expecting you to provide quality cites. Goes with being at University, being able to sort dreck from good stuff. Or at this point, at least something. sicne you are backpdaling from presenting anything (as though you won’t be spending tons of time on here anyway the next few months 
) then yes, it does look like you made stuff up. I don’t think you did, but I don’t think that if you looked at the issue critically, you will find the support you think is there either. All in the name of fighting ignorance of mine and yours, I can’t let you walk away from a claim like you made, and a claim of “Cite”, without noting that I see you walking away with the request unfulfilled. Fine if you want to do that, but then I get to take your claim that “everyone knows this” as unsupported hyperbole, OK?
But you can’t google up anything?
Possibly interesting, but that doesn’t even contain a citation to the study being referenced. I am not really persuaded by the verbiage there that they are suggesting a cause/effect rather than a correlation. Once they seem to do each. So it would be nice to see the actual study instead of a press release type page.
Have you read the paper? Don’t be so credulous about reading an abstract or a press release
And I don’t see anything that suggests roads are “safer for everyone”, let alone that RBTs do that. That is a horse of an entirely different color. I am sure it was not addressed in any of the studies this meta-study refers to. For example, RBTs don’t happen here, so how can our roads be safer as a result of your police policies?
Asserting something is not proving it. You said above you would wait for others to come along to even confirm it. I will await that too. But you have not shown me any data that hints that anyone beyond you alone know what you assert everyone knows, or even how anyone would know it.
If I missed it in a post, please refer me to the post number and I will be happy to re-read and review it.
That is interesting! All of that kind of stuff ends up on google forever here. Does it not end up indexed in your country? I would be surprised, but then, your country wants to limit what you can read clearly, maybe they already have limited it somehow?
You are actually comparing ancient common law such as libel, with the proposed limitations on communications in your country? Of course there are limits here, we like to say you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, or my individual right to speech ends where it harms you. Other than that, pretty much its a free for all. And so it is hard for Americans to understand the proposed limitations on speech, to be implemented by technical means, as proposed and tested, by your government.
Without knowing the full details of your laws, that was my general impression too, until this came up in the news. Why doesn’t Australia have something similar to our 1st Amendment’s speech clauses?
Perhaps “principles” does not mean what you think it means, or at least what I think you think it means?
So that is sufficient grounds in your view to allow police suspicionless searches?
In the old days, no one had bombs and automatic guns in their houses too, but that has happened many times now. So should we allow suspicionless searches in our homes?
Maybe all our data should not be private either? Why not allow the government to look at anything anytime, for any or no reason at all?
Maybe we can just apologize to the Queen about that 18th Century kerfuffle with her predecessor, and ask back in, because it turns out what was important to us then is no longer applicable in the modern world?
Really, how far would you have us take it?
Even if we wanted to, it doesn’t work so simply here. We have 2 hundred years of legal precedence. You can’t simply legislate that away, even if you wanted to. The precedents (and IANAL) include the plain site doctrine, which means if it can be seen then it is not a search. Unlikely you could say “except at a checkpoint” because then you are gonna have cops see a gun that is gonna kill someone later that night, or a known and wanted suspect will go by because only breathalyzers are allowed.
That won’t fly, you can’t separate make stuff invisible by fiat in our legal system.
But what you can do, is simply not search anyone unless you have a good reason too. Then you can be sure that your evidence will stand up in court! And you will achieve your goal to the extent we want it to be achieved as a society without infringing on our principles, such as “innocent until proven guilty” among others.
No, it would not only not solve the problem, it would create new ones.
That’s why we have mutual embassies
Well, for one thing, the breath test itself is a search in those circumstances, one without a warrant. We have implied consent laws, but in conjunction with protection against coerced searches. So, to use your phrase, you are introducing a new kettle of fish in coercing the search.
I don’t have to give a breath test now if I don’t want to. In my state, as mentioned upthread, implied consent does not kick in until after I am arrested. Then, the penalties I would risk are both administrative (loss of license) and criminal. I don’t consent, and I am not drunk, it makes the case hard to prosecute. See how it goes? Not advocating that as a legal strategy, readers, but the point is, I don’t have to give the test now, so how would you justify forcing someone to give it under your new law?
In fact, what you are proposing is even further down the slippery slope that Dinsdale described than what we have now. I understand that the illusion or hope of safety is the appeal, but can’t you think of another way?
I can - maybe no one is allowed out during some set of weekly hours that account for 20% of drunk driving incidents. That could work just as well. What could be wrong with that? Everyone gets to spend more time with family, or at work making money, or whatever? It is perfect, no police searches, no nothing.
Or is it?
