I’d wager most other people besides me think Celine Dion creates music for a living. Unlike that case, rights in the US are not a popular vote or poll. Your country is different in that regard?
In the US, rights are inalienable. They can not be “amended”.
It might surprise you that that does not describe me. What also might surprise you is that we are not subjects of our government, we are free citizens, and the government is there for our collective convenience in governing. The government exists at the pleasure of the people, whereas in other countries (maybe ALL other countries?) the opposite is true in that the people are subjects of a prior existing government.
At what point did “the toothpaste come out of the tube” pray tell? In my lifetime? Because I was sure not taught about it in school in history class, quite the opposite. Are kids learning something different now?
By that standard, perhaps “times will change” in your country to match ours, rather than the other way around as you seem to suggest.
People who live here saying “We do not drink and drive because of the likelihood of being caught by an RBT and losing our licences” not good enough for you?
And what “other alternatives” are there besides “Do nothing and take your chances” or “Take a blood alcohol reading after a likely fatal accident”?
Yes, I’d say so. Because there’s only a few Constitutionally Guaranteed rights here, if something becomes unpopular enough (gun ownership, for example), it can be legislated away (or severely restricted) by parliament, knowing they’ve got the support of their constituents.
The reality is a lot more complicated than that, of course, as you can imagine.
Sounds great but that doesn’t match up with my understanding of Realpolitik in which you get to choose between two parties who don’t care about you to make decisions that you disagree with.
Sometime between the 1930s and 1950s from what I can tell, so likely before your time. Defintely before mine.
Unlikely. Many Australians tend to resent the encroaching Americanisation of our society and changing our entire constitutional structure to be more like you guys is… something that might make a good Alternate History short story, actually.
You still haven’t answered my question about whether you’ve actually been to Australia or spent any time here. Your posts come across as if you think we live in some sort of repressive Police State and that is, frankly, insulting.
I would say otherwise. To just pick a few nits, read the last two bullet points in the Executive Summary section and explain to us how they are describing anything other other than imagination and hopeful wishing?
There is no statistical analysis presented in this paper, only descriptive statistics. And it never mentions the “20% reduction everyone knows about” that I challenged.
Not only that, it appears from this paper that the randomness (such as it is) is not enough, because the advice is to step up enforcement to increase avoidance and to further deter. But this is all Orwellian, because if the pointis to make it impossible to avoid, then it is not really random is it, nor is any effect claimed “deterrence”.
Of course it is not enough. You have ~22 million people. That is roughly the size of LA, San Francisco Bay Area and New York City Metro Area combined. I am pretty sure with that many people I can cherry pick any opinion anecdotally about any topic on earth. You have to do better than that.
Without commenting on the effectiveness or desirability of any of these:
1 - Marketing (propaganda) campaigns to change broad behavior patterns
2 - Car interlock devices
3 - Respect for rights
4 - Research into improving safety of roads and vehicles
Those are just some broad categories of ways to proceed. Sorry you couldn’t think of a single one. I am sure some of these are already happening, even in your country, because they are listed in the paper linked above.
And by the way, part of living in a free society is interacting with people. We take our chances on safety all the time, even crossing the street. But we don’t randomly stop drivers to see if they have run a red light, or walkers to see if they have crossed against traffic. With existing technology, we could even have a record of that. So why not save lives and subject everyone to random stops to prove they are being “safe for others” somehow?
Well, that is the difference then. You simply don’t understand our situation, which is opposite to that - we have all rights, whether enumerated or not, and government is granted specific responsibilities, never to conflict with individual rights no matter the potential group benefits.
Separate issues at separate layers. In brief, people can bitch about 2 party system, but universally, as I and others above have stated, those folks have never read the actual founding documents and their contemporary discussions. If they did, they would understand that our Founding Fathers put in place a system that was designed to have many checks and balances, and to run the will of the voter through many independent filters, so that in the long term, the representation would represent the will of the voters as much as possible, without subjecting minorites to the tyranny of the majority.
Regardless of any opinions about the politics of the day, I have never seen a serious argument that the system we have now does not still meet the goals and purposes for which it was designed. Have you? If so, I’d like to read it!
Yes, before my time. What precisely give you that idea? I can’t even guess, so I will wait to hear from you why you think it is so,
Well, what are they doing about it besides making their country more like China (or Singapore if China is too harsh for you)?
I wrote a long post yesterday morning but didn’t post it because it was too long. Maybe it was in there.
No I have not been to Australia, but I am sure it is a great place to visit. Compared to other place in the world, I have always thought not only that, but it could be a great place to live long term.
I don’t think of Australia as a “police state”, but the recent trend in news, undisputed by even you, is that rights of individuals are limited, and subject to increased limitations with far fewer checks and balances than we have in our system regarding changes to rights.
That last part is abstract, but the particular implementations of it, such as RBT (with the call for more in the lined paper above, taking it out of the realm of “R” and into the realm of “mandatory”), the serous calls for abridgment of freedom of speech and privacy by high levels of the government without (so it appears since no one has presented any examples) any organized opposition, these are particulars that indicate that in these important areas of individual liberty, Australia may in fact be changing before our very eyes, moving towards a cluster of countries that already have these types of policies which I fully understand modern Australians would not want to be lumped into.
Just like you say you think we changed in the 1930-150s, but didn’t give any examples of why, it appears to me (and I am open to being shown otherwise) that your country is in fact changing in important areas that I have listed before yours and my very eyes.
Does that mean you are a “police state”, or even not a fun place to visit still? Of course not. But it raises serious questions about your future if you as a society do not head this trend off at the pass.
Well this pretty much seems to sum up your position. You want the right to drive drunk, and seem to believe that unless and untill you kill somebody while driving drunk you have every right to do so.
It seems that Martini Enfield and myself can provide you with cites and personal experience spanning three countries and upwards of 30 million people and you will still be spluttering and saying …
but but the eeeevil police want to break down my door and drag me away in chains for laughing at our short president…
I really cannot comprehend how, a police office saying, Good Evening Alice, have you been drinking tonight? Is a violation of your rights. You can answer it as you see fit - in actual fact it really doesn’t matter how you answer, it just a genial opening statement. If he is holding an alcohol sniffer (which incidentally I would much prefer he does as its an objective rather than subjective judgement of intoxication) then whatever you say is fine…(and will be largely ignored anyway)
And for those that say “alchohol sniffers constitute illegal search” my rejoinder would be that “breathing out alcohol on your breath constitutes releasing a noxious substance”
This may be all well and good when you are talking abt Australia, I will not go into either accepting or rebutting your arguments - but what abt my experiences in both New Zealand and Singapore with RBT? In New Zealand breath testing in certain circumstances IS mandatory, which the vast majority of the population supports.
And if you run into a checkpoint driving home after a night out, its not thought of as an inconvenience, most people are PLEASED that the Police are out ya know, enforcing the law.
Perhaps the closest thought I could come would be, I assume that in the US you have some form of periodic inspection for a certificate of roadworthiness? Do you consider this an “infringement of your rights”? Breath testing is a whole lot less instrusive than this, and cheaper…
I have been through checkpoints in both New Zealand and Singapore, drinking and not drinking, (but never drunk). many many many of my friends have also been through…
To share an anecdote (but this is typical of the attitude)…
Friends of the family went to a golf event, the two hubby got drunk, so the two wives drive home. The hubby buy a couple of six pack and drink in the back seat on the way home. Not wearing seatbelts (illegal in NZ). They go through a checkpoint. Policeman just asks the guys in the back seat to buckle up, tells the ladies “good job on driving home” and sends everyone on their way.
This is VERY typical of the checkpoint experience…vehicle numbers are not recorded, licenses are not asked for or anything else…
I want my universal right to be free of suspicionless searches to apply, that is all. I don’t recall any “but he might be driving drunk” exceptions in the Bill of Rights.
You and your countryman’s rhetorical skills are appalling btw. You both try to summarize my position in the worst light possible without actually demonstrating you understood anything at all. I know our Fox New’s owner is Australian and all, but come on, is that the best we have?
Let me know when you provide me those scientific cites. I haven’t seen one yet. Nothing that rises to even 1st year undergraduate level descriptive statistics. Feel free to explain why your cites are better than that, because they aren’t, your explanations will be very amusing
I am not aware of the height of your President. Perhaps you can actually quote where I said your police are evil, where I said they want to break down your door, or anything else you accuse me of. Stop putting words in my mouth, this place is better than that and so are you. Act like it.
So then, perhaps you should ask, instead of spitting out hyperbolic assertions about what I said?
It is clear you don’t understand, and that is fine. Ask for clarification about what you don’t get from what I said, and I will be glad to answer specific questions.
I am sure he is being polite and jolly.
In the US, because of the rights we have, which apparently you don’t have in Australia, being compelled to interact at all with police officers, absent their reasonable cause of a crime to investigate, is problematical.
If I pulled over to chat with him of my own volition, that is different. But in the case under discussion, he (and his cohorts working to stop me depending on the configuration) compelled me to stop and interact with him. I am not free to 8not* interact with him.
Does that help you understand the difference?
I agree that would objectively be better evidence. But it is contrary to our plain sight doctrine. He stopped me, then he went sniffing, with his nose or otherwise.
If he can stop me in my car randomly without suspicion to test me for a class of crimes, then why not other classes of crimes? Why not in my home, my office, in the public square, or on 3rd party private property?
In the US, he can’t do those things without a reasonable suspicion of a crime, or a warrant, which requires roughly the same suspicions.
What protects you from those types of searches in your country, given that you, unlike us, are subject to (not truly) random searches in your vehicles? That is an honest question, I would like to know the legal principle involved since I provided our counterpart to you.
Breathing a noxious substance is not illegal here, is it there?
The reason it would be an illegal search is because it is compelled without suspicion of a crime, even if it did in fact uncover a crime. Courts toss evidence from illegal searches routinely, that is a check and balance on the power of the police, and the state to prosecute. In the US anyway. YMMV, but if it does vary far from that, you might want to reconsider closely and honestly where you TRULY are on the spectrum of non-police-state vs. police-state. Just sayin’ …
Well Mr Enfield and myself are not, strictly speaking countrymen…we were once but then he crossed over to the dark side.
I am not Australian, and do not live in Australia.
I am not a statistician, I do not have access to any database of scientific journals, and in any case I don’t have enough invested in this argument to give the sort of detailed analysis you are asking for.
There have been at least two studies cited in this thread that “prove” (at least to the writer) that RBT works. But as noted in one study I read, you cannot tell, and will never know “scientifically” as you have difficulty getting a control group.
Now by the same token as you keep asking us to show proof, which have at least fronted up with at least something, you have yet to front up with any evidence that RBT has led to an erosion of rights, or contributed to a “police state” as per your assertion. Where are YOUR studies that RBT leads to police oppression, an erosion of rights, and a more UNSAFE road?
If you are determined to poke holes in every study, then it will be easy for you to do. If you are willing to listen to the experience of those that have grown up with RBT, its implementation and effects then perhaps you will learn something.
Further, perhaps there is some sort of problem with implementation where you are, because where we are NOBODY thinks that you car gets “searched” when you are stopped at a checkpoint. Nobody views spending 15 seconds talking to a cop as in any way improper or a violation of their rights.
How does saying “Good evening officer, I have not been drinking tonight, I went to a show” constitute a search? (or if you prefer - “mind you own bisness you bleedin nosey bugger, it ain’t got nothing to do with you”)
To cross a border, you must show a passport correct? Isn’t this also a violation of your rights? Shouldn’t they just trust you that you are allowed to travel?
A checkpoint (when done properly) takes all of 20 seconds or so per driver, nobody is asked for ID, the vehicle is not scrutinised, the driver is just asked to talk towards an alcohol sniffer. That is it, nothing more. It is no more intrusive than having the police ask if you are having a good day or not.
Really,.before you were foaming at the mouth wiithout offering any actual rebuttal. I guess this is progress
Yeah, Singapore is one of the world’s best known places where the will of the people is paramount :rolleyes:
If you say that NZ is essentially the same as Australlia in these matters, it would not surprise me, but I have no prior knowledge of it. If it is in fact the same, then my answer is the same.
As a tourist or visitor, I am all for “When in Rome…”, but as a broader principle of liberty, Americans tend to take the bigger picture into account.
In the US, we have more than one law you know
Example: I live in a relatively small rural city. On this past New Year’s Eve, our police force concentrated their efforts at several checkpoints, nabbing exactly 0 people for drunk driving, while expending costs far and above a typical night.
Now, I was on the roads for sure, my gf doesn’t drink, so she drove. I suggested she take the backroads home, and she did. Are you suggesting that because there were roadblocks, there were no other drinking drivers on the roads? I maintain they were pushed to the backroads, making our ride LESS safe, not MORE safe than had all those police resources been mobile, patrolling everywhere.
We have no such thing where I live in California.
If the police suspect reasonably a rad-worthiness law is being violated by a vehicle, they are free to stop it. We call those “fix-it” tickets. They are very common for some people I hear. I have never got one myself, although I am sure there have been times I qualified with an old Jeep I used to have
But I don’t understand your line of reasoning as to why demonstrating the matching of a civil safety regulation (if it exists in some state, and it is clearly a state matter, not a federal one) for a machine is comparable to a fundamental federal right to not be stopped absent suspicion of a crime?
It would depend on the particulars I suppose, it is all hypothetical to me beyond what I just said. If a police could stop any vehicle at any time and demand proof that the vehicle was road-worthy, that would not fly here. It just doesn’t happen that way anywhere. That seems most akin to your RBT.
BFD, so what. I have individually been through a per-9/11 very personally intrusive airport search in Japan. It is a travel story to share, not a reflection on the proper nature of airport security.
We are not talking about attitudes of people, we are talking about underlying organizing principles of societies and attitudes of leadership.
Well, in the US, the seatbelts and the open containers would have been cause, and probably requirement, for the “routine stop” to turn into a full stop, with searches, tests of the wives, citations, the whole nine yards. That these officers did not abuse, or even use, their discretion does nto mean they didn’t have it, and that could be worse.
But in the US, at a DUI checkpoint, if that happened, there would probably be little to no discretion allowed. They can’t or won’t choose to “look the other way” once they have observed something, hence the data that these stops result in arrests, charges, etc. for everything BUT dui. In fact, I think we did have a seatbelt one here on NYE.
Typical now perhaps. Wait until there is an evil child molester murderer that looks like you they need to catch. Well, you know what I mean I hope - that now the infrastructure for more is in place, and the public has been supportive of it. Some trouble happens once, then the cops put cameras in their cars to record everything “for safety”. Then what? Do you object? If not, then why even raise the point that no recording happens?
As has been repeatedly pointed out - all the way back to the thread title - this isn’t about DUI’s. DUI enforcement is just the reason the government came up with to get its foot in the door. I don’t feel the police should be allowed to pull me over whenever they feel like as long as they say the magic words “DUI”.
When the police officer hits his flashing lights or sets up a roadblock he is compelling you to stop. You don’t have the option of deciding you don’t want to stop and driving on. So your actions are being compelled by the police power of the government. And while I accept that there is a necessity for police power, I believe as a matter of principle it should be held to the lowest possible minimum.
Yeah…and I was really talking about Singapore in (that section) of my post, …you may have been clued in by “In New Zealand breath testing in certain circumstances IS mandatory, which the vast majority of the population supports”
Yep Police in both New Zealand and Singapore can do just that (and I think Australia) and again, I have never heard it complained about. I don’t believe in any way shape or form that New Zealand is “less free” than the US, in actual fact I think New Zealanders have, if anything GREATER freedom than you do.
Well in NZ, “open container” is not against the law, and no seatbelt is just a ticket, it would not requrie a “full stop”, ANY sort of search, not any ID required for anybody other than the driver and offender (both get ticketed). Even if the officer wrote a ticket, it would not have involved “tests” on the wives or anything
I don’t get what you’re trying to say here?
What if we change the circumstances just a little. Let’s say the police have credible and verified information that The Zodiac Killer is going to be driving down Timbuktoo avenue on the 21st of March, and that if asked directly he will tell the truth. Would you have a problem with the police setting up a roadblock and asking the driver (and only the driver) the ONE question
I can accept that. Hell, I’ve manned roadblocks like that. If the police have specific information that a criminal might be traveling by car in an area then they have a valid reason to stop and search cars in that area.
OK that is vague, perhaps you can clarify your pont of view then?
OK, nut your country does not have access to google scholar, and other online repositories of academic papers? Where are you precisely?
I accept you THINK those are proving something, but if fact, they don’t prove anything. They barely even assert what you think they prove, and they are internally contradictory at that as I pointed out. And they don’t even claim the same thing that Martini Enfield claims “everyone knows”.
What do you mean? The hypothesis you are testing is “RBTs cause a decline of (say as ME did) 20% in drunk driving”.
Skipping “20% of what?”, where is the difficulty in actually measuring that?
And if you can’t measure it, then why bother doing RBT at all except to make people feel good (= “Security Theater”)?
You front me a study that doesn’t even purport to show what you said it did, and put words in my mouth about me saying your country or any other, is a police state. I never said that, so quit suggesting I did.
I did however list (on this thread spinoff ) a partial series of restrictions on speech in Australia, none of which have comparables in the US, and which presumably were set in place over time, not all at once. This makes their implementation a trend, by definition.
I have not claimed any of that regarding your country, although I haveshow, that despite your claims otherwise, your rights have been eroded.
I am simply not interested in a “safer roads” argument, for your country or mine. In mine, we do not have any right to “safer roads” whatever that means, but we most certainly DO have a right to not be stopped absent suspicion. Why would you have us toss our rights for something we could agree on by legislation if we so chose without giving up rights?
Not really true either. I read academic studies all the time regarding this sort of statistical analysis, and I am fine with most of it. I worked closely with my gf on her PhD dissertation, particularly the statistical analysis part of it, and while I disagreed with the design of the study (something neither she nor I had control over) , at least the statistical t3echniques themselves were used on actual data, with an actual hypothesis that might or might not be shown to be true within a certain (statistical!) confidence level.
Tip number one: If a paper does not describe a hypothesis, its testing statistically, and describe the confidence level of the conclusions, then it is not the final word on the subject. It still might not be, but at least that would be grounds to look at the argument being made scientifically instead of anecdotally as the papers listed in this thread have done.
I suspect there is such research out there, that works that way regardless of the conclusion. Since your side are the one asserting that papers exist, it doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to apply some google-fu to find papers of that nature, or even their abstracts.
I am sure our colonial forebears were satisfied with the approaches of the British for a while, until it took a turn for the worse too. I am sure there are people in places such as China, Tibet, Burma, Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and more, who live happy lives day to day and just put up with things as part of life to be endured. Doesn’t make it right though.
Hey have you ever read the novel 1984? If not, may I suggest you do? If you have, may I suggest re-reading it?
In your legal tradition, maybe they don’t get searched. In ours, what you describe as RBT is an illegal search, and sorry to tell you, the US Supreme Court has already ruled as such. I noted earlier that is why we don’t have your method of checkpoints.
The only real question of interest in the US, is does the method of checkpoints we have still go to far, and that is a very fuzzy line at best. NO one here suggests seriously that a random process would be better or stand scrutiny.
Sorry to burst that bubble for you, but it should have been clear days ago on this thread.
Nobody views spending 15 seconds talking to a cop as in any way improper or a violation of their rights.
[/QUOTE]
Which may be true, and maybe even your courts see it that way (for now).
Serious questions:
How many times a week are you willing to be stopped that way?
What if your cars had a mandatory breath interlock, so you would never be stopped, but your car simply would not start if you didn’t blow clean?
Singapore is a VERY small country, there are very limited ways to get home from popular nightspots. On any given Friday or Saturday night you can GUARANTEE that a drunk driver WILL travel down that road. So they set up checkpoints.
In New Zealand the police tend to target areas where there are greater numbers of drunks travelling, or that are popular routes following a night out drinking.
I hear where people are coming from about being detained, and searched “without cause”.
What really really needs to be understood about the way this is implemented in Australia and New Zealand is that it IS NOT any more intrusive than saying hello to a police officer. The stops really are only used to detect drinking drivers. Nobody is intimidated, searched, asked for ID (or even a driver’s license). They have been going on for many years, and they have not gotten any more intrusive.
Singapore also has the same experience, although a do have a small problem with Singapore more related to their DIC law …here they have an absolute, objective measurement, in addition a phrase that states something like “in the judgement of the officer if you are too impaired to control a motor vehicle”.
Why I have a problem with this is that it makes the DIC law subjective, and there is nothing in the statute to say what constitutes impairment, nor how the officer is to judge it.
When I went to through a roadblock here in Singapore after a beer or two, my identity was recorded, even though I passed all tests. I view this though as a result of the Singapore judicial system, not of RBT. Remember, it is compulsory here to carry your govt ID at all times…And the police can and will record your particulars if you are just walking down the street minding your own business, and this was happening for a long time before RBT, so to say it is a result of checkpoints would be more than just a bit misleading
Martini is I believe a New Zealander who has taken up Australian citizenship, I am a New Zealander who is living in Singapore.
But you still have not addressed my question - how is talking to an officer for 15 seconds a search?
And since you obviously have very extensive experience in statistical studies, you should have no trouble whatsoever showing us a study that proves that
RBT does not work
b) RBT leads to an erosion of other rights
One of the studies that I read did note and fully acknowledge that even if following RBT, drink driving dropped by 20% you wouldn’t be able to attribute it to RBT alone, as they might be other factors, and in the real world there will always be other factors.
Intuitively (yeah I know, not with a pound of pigshit, but still) you would expect that
People being afraid of encountering a checkpoint
Drunk drivers being arrested and taken off the roads
Would amount to less drunk driving.
And if all it takes to achieve this is that I say “Hello” to a police officer at a checkpoint on a Friday night, I don’t see what is the problem. As I keep saying over and over and over,
When you are stopped at a checkpoint in NZ or Singapore (Martini can talk abt Australia) your car IS NOT searched, you only say hello to a traffic officer and that is it. Nothing more.
IMHO, when you constrain the police so much that they cannot even say hello to a driver, then you push them towards other means to catch people out?
And to add, I wouldn’t have a huge problem with an alcohol interlock based on a few assumptions
I will note that it was only post-9/11 when we (US Citizens) had to start showing passports to come INTO the US. I know this for a fact because my brother was married in Mexico as that was changing, and it was a big deal, a lot of the extended families needed to get passports to be able to attend.
As for the rest, that is subject to treaty. I don’t know about your country, but people from the US can go lots of places without showing a passport when inbound.
Mexico for instance.
Start another thread sometime (not now please , don’t have the time to expand there) if you want me to discuss that aspect of it.
In the US, we fought our War of Independence precisely to be free of such levels of intrusions by the representatives of the ruling government. Sorry, but that is our history, and so far what has happened since has generally worked out OK
Well, you know what I mean I hope - that now the infrastructure for more is in place, and the public has been supportive of it. Some trouble happens once, then the cops put cameras in their cars to record everything “for safety”. Then what? Do you object? If not, then why even raise the point that no recording happens?