I spent freshman year of university in The Bronx, an borough in NYC which has highest poverty rate of any urban area in the States and by far the most dangerous of the NYC boroughs. I remember early on being afraid of seeing cops outside the bar we all wen't to that openly served minors, but they had more important things to do, such as protecting us on the walk back to campus. J walking is almost encouraged just so you keep you moving. The people police have to deal with are some of the scariest I've ever seen.
Further, every couple days we get an email about students getting mugged or worse, and every time the assailant is black or Hispanic. Without fail, despite 50+ notices at this point. Please, tell me how a cop can put away racial prejudices with statistics like that? Should they? Of course, but it's not that simple.
Ultimately I think the largest problem is the militarization of the police force. An army is supposed to fight an enemy, the police are supposed to protect citizens and mixing up the two becomes very dangerous very quickly.`
*Edit Typos and clarity
Completely agree with this.
Over the past few years I have noticed this militaristic attitude creep into the Australian police force (and private security businesses, as they always copy what the police do). It is as though they are all just waiting for some massive global uprising that's never going to happen.
What bothers me is the attitude that comes with this new uniform tends to provoke responses from drunk idiots that are inline with these unspoken fears.
Then you will not be surprised to know that this is happening in the US too. Apparently the police in South Carolina need a "mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle"[1]
[1] http://benswann.com/sc-police-department-gets-u-n-blue-tank-...
Without another incident, they'd require a suspicion of erratic driving before arbitrarily stopping someone for drink driving.
> Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police can require a person to take a screening breath test if they have a reasonable cause to suspect that:
> ● the person is or has been driving or attempting to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with alcohol in their body (section 6(2) and 6(3));
> ● has committed a moving traffic offence (section 6(4)); or
> ● has been involved in an accident (section 6(5)).
> The subsequent evidential test carried out at the police station can be submitted as evidence in court.
> The prescribed alcohol limit is 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath, which equates with 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100ml of blood.
> It is an offence to refuse to take a breath test when required to do so by a police officer unless there is a reasonable excuse. Court penalties for refusing an evidential test are the same as being above the prescribed limit.
(in the UK)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758...
Why are refused tests counted with positive tests?
From what I've heard in any other state I've lived in (US), it is the same or similar there.
That is a weird rule.
Here (I live in Europe) they make routine breath tests during the holidays and week end for every car in X place (not surprisingly close to bars and clubs, but not always).
As a driver, I'm glad they try to reduce drunk driving, and I don't see how they could do it without regular tests (which are less invasive, than say, car that don't turn on if you fail the breath test inside the car. Yes, that was proposed at some point)
The idea of a forced breath test without any evidence of intoxication is simply mind boggling to me.
I'm in Australia, random breath tests have been around for many years and they have helped a lot with a culture of getting drunk and driving home.
What overly broad reasoning. Flip it around and apply it to other things that you could do to hurt people and you can apply that reasoning to all parts of your life.
If that's not the impression you want to give, you might want to reconsider your approach.
Enjoy it while the delusion of being right lasts!
Where did you get the idea that driving is a human right?
In the US, for probably 90% of the country there is no easily accessible public transit, cabs are financially infeasible for the working class, and attempting to walk down roads without sidewalks is very dangerous, and outright illegal for interstates and some highways. For a large percentage of the population, taking away the "privilege" of driving would entirely remove their right to move about the country freely.
When there is no alternative to driving to reach a grocery store, your place of employment, etc. can it really be considered a privilege?
It's a far easier problem economically to focus on those who can't afford a car than to build out public transportation networks. Perhaps in the future when there are driverless cars everywhere, driving could be a privilege. As it is now, and for the foreseeable future, driving is a requirement for many americans. I moved to a city with public transit to avoid driving, but not everyone has that option, and it's important to remember that.
That's a very shortsighted statement. The costs of universal driving in terms of property damage, human injury and death, unproductive time spent commuting, traffic, inefficient urban design, resource expenditure, road maintenance, etc. are significantly higher than those of public transit.
And if you don't believe me about people who simply can't afford to drive, what about people who physically can't drive, like the blind? Or people who physically shouldn't drive, but are sometimes forced to do so, like people who suffer from narcolepsy or get intermittent seizures?
The only reason people don't have the option of avoiding driving is because of poor public infrastructure decisions and in some cases poor personal decisions when we can easily afford to do otherwise. Why do we make these poor decisions? Because we think driving our fat asses around in 5000-pound behemoths is a "right" that needs to be accomodated everywhere, but walking and cycling aren't. It's not science fiction--people managed to do without cars for thousands of years.
Setting all of that aside, if you're operating a motor vehicle that could easily kill people out of inattention, you're putting the public at risk and you have a responsibility to demonstrate you can do so competently and responsibly. Not being killed by cars is a more important right.
Mass breath-testing programme always get a few complaints, but I think they'd get a lot more if people realised how few drunk drivers are caught, or if police were rude. Blowing into a tube for X seconds is invasive, but sobriety tests (walking a straight line, touching your nose, etc) feel weirder to me. (I realise that in both US and UK neither of these can be done unless they think you're drunk, and GP post was talking about tests done with no suspicion of drunkeness).
From what I've heard, these already exist for repeat DUIs.
I'm actually not opposed to breathalyzers inside of the car - it seems far less invasive than cops doing it for you, with the authority to ruin your life. If the car won't let you drive, call a friend or a taxi.
In any event, I'd prefer to avoid the hassle and feeling of being a suspected criminal that accompanies being stopped on the way home at a checkpoint. Papers please? (jk...?)
You might notice someone being completely drunk that way, but not someone who's just moderately drunk reacting 10 times slower; unless something happens, of course, but you don't want that either.
Of all the times it's happened to me, I've actually completed one breathylzer test (it was zero).
It's borderline harassment at best, at worst solicitation of a bribe. I always ask, "what caused you to stop me or aroused your suspicions that I have been drinking?" and I never get an answer.
The UK sometimes has anti drink-driving campaigns. Police forces increase the number of breathalyser tests. They're only allowed to use a breathalyser if they have reason to suspect someone is drunk - they saw them leaving a pub or driving erratically.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...) Page 77
> • During 2009, there were 813,288 screening breath tests carried out. This is a 14 per cent increase from 711,658 in 2008. This increase coincides with the introduction of new digital recording equipment, which may have streamlined breath test procedures for many forces.
> • The number of positive or refused tests in 2009 increased by three per cent from 91,666 in 2008 to 93,973 in 2009 after a three year decline.
> • The proportion of tests that were positive or refused in 2009 was 12 per cent, one percentage point lower than in 2008.
It seems that traffic officers come into contact with very many people who they think are criminals but who are not criminals.