Quantcast
Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching? - Page 10 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 9 10
Results 181 to 192 of 192

Thread: Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cjblair View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Interesting. Assuming your numbers are representative, why on earth do the police bother with checkstops then?
    Because that isn't always representative of how many people are stopped/caught. It all depends where and when it's being done, and further to that, sometimes the deterrent effect alone is enough to justify it. I've heard our traffic guys set up a 5 or 6 man team in little out of the way backroad spot to catch the people trying to avoid the main roads, and they'll call in asking for a 24hr or an impaired every five minutes. Just like anything, every situation is different.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jun 1987
    Location
    SK
    My Ride
    S/C '00 Prelude '15 Tacoma '06 Vstar 1100
    Posts
    2,841
    Rep Power
    36

    Default

    I've lived in my city since 1996 and only ever encountered one check stop. What I do know though is that when the police announce they are having one at a random location, most of my social media is abuzz with warnings for reminders to everyone to make sure you don't drink and drive tonight.

    Just the public threat of there being check stops almost assuredly prevents some people from drinking and driving.
    Originally posted by SJW
    Once again another useless post by JRSCOOLDUDE.
    Originally posted by snowcat
    Don't let the e-thugs and faggots get to you when they quote your posts and write stupid shit.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    1,819
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JRSC00LUDE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I've lived in my city since 1996 and only ever encountered one check stop. What I do know though is that when the police announce they are having one at a random location, most of my social media is abuzz with warnings for reminders to everyone to make sure you don't drink and drive tonight.

    Just the public threat of there being check stops almost assuredly prevents some people from drinking and driving.
    Exactly.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Food Court Wifi
    My Ride
    100% SAVAGE
    Posts
    5,271
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Yeah, the big public checkstops are as much about deterrence as anything else. But they still catch people even when they are visible from miles away, or visible on various social media or navigation apps.
    I like foodie meets

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Technically the NE
    My Ride
    C63S
    Posts
    3,649
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Iím way more afraid of getting a DUI for my cracked windshield considering the new laws and my record with never seeing a checkstop. Just like Iím more afraid of bears than Sasquatch.
    Last edited by killramos; 01-19-2019 at 06:53 PM.
    Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

    If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
    Originally posted by Toma
    fact.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,111
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by killramos View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I’m way more afraid of getting a DUI for my cracked windshield considering the new laws and my record with never seeing a checkstop. Just like I’m more afraid of bears than Sasquatch.
    You drunk?

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Leduc, Alberta
    Posts
    47
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phil98z24 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I am contributing in a useful manner - my information comes from training and knowledge provided to us by the Crown, who has laid it all out with respect to enforcing this new set of laws. I'm not making this up and it's not my opinion. It's just the facts. I'm sure if someone doesn't want to hear the facts because they don't align with their preexisting bias regarding a given "thing", but sticking your fingers in your ears and saying something is wrong doesn't make it so. At least I've stepped up to the plate and clarified it, but you certainly aren't seeking out the facts.

    FYI, I'm not talking about one post with your repeated opinion. That wouldn't be a repeated opinion. I'm talking the numerous posts in this forum, where you are quickly turning into another Toma or Gestalt. I'd suggest looking inward and seeing who is contributing useful discussion around here.
    I'm not disputing where your information comes from. But you seem to be under the guise that just because it was communicated to you in this manner, means that is how it will be handled by any and all others in your position. And as we know, this is most definitely not the case. Just because your superiors have communicated how this SHOULD be handled, does not mean that it cannot be handled in all the negative ways we are being warned about by legal professionals. Hence the discussion at hand.

    If your ignorance and refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue some how paints me as a Toma or Gestalt, then maybe I'll just treat this place as an entertainment zone from now on. Be like the rest of the sheep and just not discuss anything serious with serious dialogue.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Leduc, Alberta
    Posts
    47
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CompletelyNumb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think the biggest gap here is that CPS members are posting about what "would" and "should" happen, where as the media is talking about what "could" happen.

    There is room for this new two hour window law to be abused.

    And this is Alberta, where police can arrest you and charge you with a crime, only for the crown to drop charges afterwards if they feel it's a low chance of prosecution. No criminal brecord, but you will have an arrest record.

    Angry step parent calls the police, tells them they saw rage2 driving drunk. Rage2 is at home drinking. Police "should" investigate, and perhaps "should" have a warrant, but they "can" just knock on the door and ask for a breath sample. He fails that test, they "can" arrest him and charge him, even if the charges get dropped for lack of evidence.

    And this is the disconnect for the police making comments. Maybe it's a statement about their high level of character? But it's also their downfall, they assume that because they wouldn't abuse the law themselves, that no other law enforcement professional would do it either.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Leduc, Alberta
    Posts
    47
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cjblair View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You don't have to re-explain the logic to me, I get it.

    I was just saying that I'd bet the percentage of traffic stops that actually result in impaired charges (lets stay on topic here, because I'm comparing with check stops) is probably super low.
    And here is the other question. If you were re-assign these traffic enforcement officers to police work that is specifically designed to identify these randomly speeding criminals, would there be a better arrest record than they get with current methods?

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Technically the NE
    My Ride
    C63S
    Posts
    3,649
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beyond_ban View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You drunk?
    I wish...
    Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

    If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
    Originally posted by Toma
    fact.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Red Deer, Alberta
    My Ride
    1995 WRX STi
    Posts
    1,491
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterman View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not disputing where your information comes from. But you seem to be under the guise that just because it was communicated to you in this manner, means that is how it will be handled by any and all others in your position. And as we know, this is most definitely not the case. Just because your superiors have communicated how this SHOULD be handled, does not mean that it cannot be handled in all the negative ways we are being warned about by legal professionals. Hence the discussion at hand.

    If your ignorance and refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue some how paints me as a Toma or Gestalt, then maybe I'll just treat this place as an entertainment zone from now on. Be like the rest of the sheep and just not discuss anything serious with serious dialogue.
    A lot of people have been hating on you lately, but this is 100% true. phil suffers from assuming all of his colleagues are standup guys like him. They aren't. And I am firmly in the 100% support the police camp and even I can see this. Them confiscating guns in the flood was the perfect example.
    sig deleted by moderator, click here for info

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterman View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not disputing where your information comes from. But you seem to be under the guise that just because it was communicated to you in this manner, means that is how it will be handled by any and all others in your position. And as we know, this is most definitely not the case. Just because your superiors have communicated how this SHOULD be handled, does not mean that it cannot be handled in all the negative ways we are being warned about by legal professionals. Hence the discussion at hand.

    If your ignorance and refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue some how paints me as a Toma or Gestalt, then maybe I'll just treat this place as an entertainment zone from now on. Be like the rest of the sheep and just not discuss anything serious with serious dialogue.
    You're the one who came in here throwing around nonsense as if it's simple fact, and when called out, you act like you know better than those of us who work in this field and have real world experience with it. I've tried to explain to you how it isn't set up for abuse and why the law as it already stands doesn't allow us to just use this law in a manner that would amount to the boogeyman stuff being rustled up by those who have a vested interest in saying it will - but you want to ignore it. That's fine, but don't shit on me for that. Trying to turn this into a thing about me being ignorant and refusing to engage isn't exactly supported by this thread and what I've said, perhaps you should look back for yourself and you'll see that for yourself.

    I've been more than clear on what I'm saying and gone back to correct anything that hasn't come across in it's intended way, and even engaged you despite you already holding a firm position based in what seems to be wilful ignorance of what you're being told. Say what you wish, that's not on me.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 9 10

Similar Threads

  1. New driving laws and changes laws coming into force in Onterrible

    By killramos in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 56
    Latest Threads: 06-05-2015, 03:48 PM
  2. Coupon sites: How far is too far?

    By Isaiah in forum General
    Replies: 9
    Latest Threads: 03-13-2013, 04:20 PM
  3. Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving.

    By iloveit in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 46
    Latest Threads: 08-19-2008, 02:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •