Sobriety check point tonight

Boondock Saint · May 6, 2014

People who drive while intoxicated ought be flogged in my opinion. Freedom is dangerous, and that's awesome, but there are consequences, too. Get a DD, take a cab or drink at home. The least of your worries might be getting caught by police and getting a slap on the wrist.

That said, I also think checkpoints are ********. If someone gets caught after choosing to drink and drive, I certainly wouldn't expect them to participate in their own incrimination. I think a refusal to take a breathalyzer in MD results in an automatic 180 day suspension of your license. Small penalty when compared to voluntarily providing evidence that can be used against you in court.

HortusQ · May 6, 2014

be sure to tell the Kind Officers you are a taxpayer and you pay his or her salary (just Kidding) present insurance, drivers license and tell them if you are ccw
be safe its for the children

Fishguy · May 6, 2014

You should answer questions with gibberish. Maybe even the meow game. Have fun with it, change it up once in a while.

Biggfoot44 · May 6, 2014

DWI is a bad thing.

Repeat DWI offenders are a bad thing.

But think for a minute about all the arguments pro checkpoint I am hearing here. "Anything we can do to save one person" , "It's for the Children" , "If you're not breaking the law, you shouldn't mind having your rights ignored" etc . And all based on highly cooked gov't statistics. Where have we seen this all before, almost word for word ?

NHTSA definition of "Alcohol-Related" include the operator OR passenger OR pedestrian having any measurable amount of alcohol, NOT wether the person with the measurable alcohol caused the accident , or even had any means of influencing if the accident happened.

If you limit the discussion to only those people who were at BCA that was illegal in the jurisdiction, the numbers drop to less than 1/3 . If you further filter for wether alcohol had any casuation to the incident , it will drop more ( ie drunk pedestrian staggers in front of sober driver , driver who happened to have been drinking, but was driving legally is struck by a teetotaling , but careless driver).

But, but, the problem is getting so bad we have to do somthing new ? But between 1991 and 2006 Alcohol Related traffic fatalities have already dropped 26% overall, and 28% for people under 21.

Xshot · May 6, 2014

Boondock Saint said:
. I think a refusal to take a breathalyzer in MD results in an automatic 180 day suspension of your license. Small penalty when compared to voluntarily providing evidence that can be used against you in court.

That's the best scare tactic the police use. Yes you use your license but they give you a temporary license. You go to the dmv and get a blow n go (breathalyzer for you car) and you're l back driving again.

Deny drinking.
Refuse field sobriety test.
Refuse breathalyzer.

MikeTF · May 6, 2014

eruby said:
Apologies for my ignorance, but are there no open container laws in Virginia?

I disagree with checkpoints, but the one time i was in one, they asked if I had any alcohol that day, I said no, and I was on my way.

In Virginia, it is acceptable for passengers in a vehicle to drink alcohol as long as the driver is not drinking or impaired.

Seven states currently do not have open container laws, including Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Virginia, Delaware, and Connecticut, even if local ordinances in some of those states do in fact prohibit open containers of alcohol. - See more at: http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-charges/can-a-passenger-drink-in-a-car-.html#sthash.fLuCDt8D.dpuf

eruby · May 6, 2014

MikeTF said:
In Virginia, it is acceptable for passengers in a vehicle to drink alcohol as long as the driver is not drinking or impaired.

Seven states currently do not have open container laws, including Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Virginia, Delaware, and Connecticut, even if local ordinances in some of those states do in fact prohibit open containers of alcohol. - See more at: http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-charges/can-a-passenger-drink-in-a-car-.html#sthash.fLuCDt8D.dpuf

iH8DemLibz · May 6, 2014

r3t1awr3yd said:
Maryland is fun.
Pull out your license.
Read those two sentences at the top.

I think this is related to blowing in a tube if an LEO asks you to.

Has nothing to do with immorally detaining people who do not drink.

You want to go after those who drink and drive, start with where they drink before they drive (not saying go after the bars).

Leave those who don't drink alone to go about their business unimpeded.

r3t1awr3yd · May 6, 2014

iH8DemLibz said:
I think this is related to blowing in a tube if an LEO asks you to.

Has nothing to do with immorally detaining people who do not drink.

You want to go after those who drink and drive, start with where they drink before they drive.

Leave those who don't drink alone to go about their business unimpeded.

I agree with you but I was more referring to the people saying they didn't want to get tested at all. Just be careful of course.

KSFrostie said:
The government only has as much power as we, as a whole, allow them to have.

This is very true.

Smitch521 · May 6, 2014

Remember we're the land of the free! :rolleyes:

eruby · May 7, 2014

Smitch521 said:
Remember we're the land of the free!

Land of the free ....gift with purchase. :cool:

vector03 · May 7, 2014

A breathalyzer machine to start a car costs a couple hundred dollars. They cost that much because they are rarely used. It's pretty effective. If they were required, standard equipment on all cars, it would cost pennies on the dollar to install.

Now, why wouldn't the government require automakers to install them knowing it would be difficult for a drunk person to start the car alone?

MikeTF · May 7, 2014

vector03 said:
A breathalyzer machine to start a car costs a couple hundred dollars. They cost that much because they are rarely used. It's pretty effective. If they were required, standard equipment on all cars, it would cost pennies on the dollar to install.

Now, why wouldn't the government require automakers to install them knowing it would be difficult for a drunk person to start the car alone?

The last thing I want is yet another mandatory piece of safety equipment, driving up the cost of purchasing a new car. The most recent example is the coming requirement to have a 'back up camera' on all new cars, is just wasteful and ridiculous.

At the rate we're going, I can see people being required to wear flame retardant suits, helmets, 4 point safety harnesses, and attachments for their helmets to their seat backs to prevent whiplash.

We need fewer laws and regulations, not more.

Gryphon · May 7, 2014

^^^ THIS! ^^^

iH8DemLibz · May 7, 2014

vector03 said:
A breathalyzer machine to start a car costs a couple hundred dollars. They cost that much because they are rarely used. It's pretty effective. If they were required, standard equipment on all cars, it would cost pennies on the dollar to install.

Now, why wouldn't the government require automakers to install them knowing it would be difficult for a drunk person to start the car alone?

Because .GOV loves drunk drivers and the more the better.

Liquor taxes, liquor licenses, raised insurance rates, auto body revenue, new car sales, etc...

Who needs real domestic growth when we have drunk drivers to move the country forward.

kgain673 · May 7, 2014

Xshot said:
That's the best scare tactic the police use. Yes you use your license but they give you a temporary license. You go to the dmv and get a blow n go (breathalyzer for you car) and you're l back driving again.

Deny drinking.
Refuse field sobriety test.
Refuse breathalyzer.

It's not a scare tactic the police use, you've entered into a contract when you got that license from the MVA, turn over your license and read the top line. If you don't like the contract turn in your license.

GrimReaper · May 7, 2014

kgain673 said:
It's not a scare tactic the police use, you've entered into a contract when you got that license from the MVA, turn over your license and read the top line. If you don't like the contract turn in your license.

using your logic, If you dont like the gun laws in this state, you should turn in your HQL and firearms.

Dont give me the owning firearms is a right speech because that is not the case anymore. These days its more of a privilege, just like driving

r3t1awr3yd · May 7, 2014

GrimReaper said:
using your logic, If you dont like the gun laws in this state, you should turn in your HQL and firearms.

Dont give me the owning firearms is a right speech because that is not the case anymore. These days its more of a privilege, just like driving

Just because YOU say that, doesn't make it so. Period. Right exist because we are human. The right to defend yourself with arms will always be a RIGHT.

We follow the laws that make it difficult because most people want to be lawful. Let them keep infringing and it won't go on forever.

EDIT: Also, that was crappy logic you used. Keep your guns and move to another state is always an option too.

blindnoodle · May 7, 2014

bkuether said:
Guns and freedom is a bad mix. It kills innocent people. People with hopes and dreams, kids with with lives ahead of them. Snuffed out because someone wasn't responsible. Or sometimes it is even worse if they survive. Broken limbs, head injuries. Paralysis. What if this was your 15 year old daughter on her way to a movie, her first date. Now she is bed ridden and eats through an IV. Rotated every hour.

Yes, Bans can be an infringement. And yes, you can take the argument and make it for terrorism and whatever other "public scare" our politicians can use to control us.

But the fact is this. We live in a society that accepts/uses firearms. (We use cars as a primary means to get places. Only sentence that needs to be snipped.) Years of working on the problem hasn't changed much. Perhaps a one and done policy would help. Why don't we have it?

I have no issues with firearms check points. My kids will be driving sooner than I am ready. They have hopes and dreams, and a future. I want them to live to have them.

It is a hard argument and I get the other side as well.

Very easy to replace alcohol with firearms and have the message all too familiar.

Threeband · May 7, 2014

Xshot said:
...You go to the dmv and get a blow n go (breathalyzer for you car) and you're l back driving again.

...

Have you ever had one of those interlocks ("blow-n-go")?

A guy I work with just got his removed, and it was not only expensive, but a horrible ordeal in other ways.

You PAY for that thing, and it ain't cheap. You have to go every month and PAY to have it calibrated or something- it's an expensive hassle.

You do not just "blow-n-go". You blow and WAIT. It took this guy several minutes to get his car started every time.

There are random checks while you are driving. You can be driving in heavy traffic when the thing starts beeping. You have a very brief period to blow into it, or your car shuts down. This can happen at any time.

There are false readings. Many foods can cause a false reading. Foods like bread. This guy knew he had to wait at least an hour after eating before he could take a chance on trying to start his car.

There are severe penalties for failed start attempts and false readings. Try to start your car too soon after eating lunch, and not only does your car shut down, but the event will be recorded on the computer. After I think three such incidents, there are severe penalties. I think you can lose your license permanently.

Did I mention you pay a LOT of money every month for the interlock?

You can also expect to be required to take alcohol/safety classes. This guy had to leave work early every Monday to rush to a BS class that basically filled time with irrelevant subject matter. He told me they talked a lot about drugs and narcotics, even though everyone in the class was there for alcohol. The class was expensive.

When he finally got through his 26 weeks of class, the private company running the class arbitrarily decided to require him to go for an additional period of expensive classes. Apparently there is a clause in the fine print somewhere that allows them to do that.

Obviously, this private company has a strong financial motivation to invoke that clause. Pretty sweet contract they have with the State, n'est pas? I wonder what political influence was involved in awarding that contract?

So yes, you can casually toss off your advise to people here, "Just refuse the breathalyzer. The 'blow-n-go' is no big deal." Easy for you to say, but the two working guys I've known who went that route suffered extreme hardship because of it.

Disclaimer. I do not drink at all. I can take it or leave it, thank god, and for personal reasons I've chosen to leave it. Because I don't drink, I really don't understand the pros and cons or legalities involved in refusing the breathalyzer. But I do know it is a VERY serious decision, and I hope people won't totally f**k their lives up by thoughtlessly following your bad advice.

Sobriety check point tonight

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

When All Else Fails.

Meh.

Banned

Confederate Jew

Frustrated Incorporated

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

When All Else Fails.

I'm sorry for the typos!!

Ultimate Member

Meh.

Livin' the dream!

The M1 Does My Talking

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics