"No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post Reply
User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by mistermack » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:06 am

JimC wrote:Sure, drink driving is only one factor amongst many, but it is one that is fully controllable by personal decisions, and one most amenable to reducing by appropriate law enforcement, including the random breath testing supported by the majority of people in Oz, and the majority of people on this thread.
People are always ready to impose things on others, if it isn't going to affect them in any way. That's why there is nearly always a majority in favour of the death penalty.
Would the same majority in Oz support random driving tests? I don't think so. Because it might catch THEM out. But if you can't pass it, you shouldn't be driving. The same logic applies.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by Feck » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:28 am

This isn't about people imposing things on others that don't affect us . Jim drives and is not Teetotal nor am I . This thread was about the refusal of drivers to supply a breath sample . You are the one trying to convince us all that drink driving is acceptable you have twisted and turned offered Strawmen as argument tried distraction by blaming mothers and dog owners and people with friends up as more risk than a drink driver ,you have suggested that drivers with more training are no safer .
You have even tried to explain how there is a conspiracy to make the figures for the risks of drink drivers look worse .

And your justification for overturning all practical ,medical and sensible wisdom is that You haven't killed anyone (yet ).
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by mistermack » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:50 am

Feck wrote:And your justification for overturning all practical ,medical and sensible wisdom is that You haven't killed anyone (yet ).
You don't offer any evidence for your claim that all practical , medical and sensible "wisdom" supports your own point of view.
Just you saying it doesn't make it true. It's just windy rhetoric. And 45 years of driving with nobody even scratched proves something. If my driving was regularly SERIOUSLY impaired, you would expect accidents or convictions in such a long period.
And I regularly take a lot of notice, when I read reports of fatal crashes. By FAR the leading pattern is people under thirty, late at night, with four or more people in the car.
It's even getting to the stage where insurance companies are imposing restrictions on the number of passengers newly qualified drivers are insured to carry, after early evening. Newly qualified drivers are THAT dangerous, far more dangerous than someone who is a few points over the limit, tested at random.
.
ie, one passenger only.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74223
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by JimC » Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:39 am

mistermack wrote:
JimC wrote:Sure, drink driving is only one factor amongst many, but it is one that is fully controllable by personal decisions, and one most amenable to reducing by appropriate law enforcement, including the random breath testing supported by the majority of people in Oz, and the majority of people on this thread.
People are always ready to impose things on others, if it isn't going to affect them in any way. That's why there is nearly always a majority in favour of the death penalty.
Would the same majority in Oz support random driving tests? I don't think so. Because it might catch THEM out. But if you can't pass it, you shouldn't be driving. The same logic applies.
A rather silly comparison. A random breath test is very brief, non-intrusive (one opens the window and blows into the proffered tube...) and has no consequences for those doing the right thing. Random driving tests are the opposite in most respects...

Perhaps the need to pass a driving test to regain a license after it has been suspended would be a useful and practical measure...

Or even when one has reached a certain age... :?

I find the American reflex "taking away our precious liberties" rant quite amusing, when it is applied to simple, practical issues like this one... ;)
Feck wrote:This isn't about people imposing things on others that don't affect us . Jim drives and is not Teetotal nor am I . This thread was about the refusal of drivers to supply a breath sample . You are the one trying to convince us all that drink driving is acceptable you have twisted and turned offered Strawmen as argument tried distraction by blaming mothers and dog owners and people with friends up as more risk than a drink driver ,you have suggested that drivers with more training are no safer .
You have even tried to explain how there is a conspiracy to make the figures for the risks of drink drivers look worse .

And your justification for overturning all practical ,medical and sensible wisdom is that You haven't killed anyone (yet ).
The forum will be shocked, I tell you, shocked! Next you'll be telling us that Dries doesn't mind a drink! :shock:

:hehe:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74223
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by JimC » Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:53 am

mistermack wrote:

By FAR the leading pattern is people under thirty, late at night, with four or more people in the car.
It's even getting to the stage where insurance companies are imposing restrictions on the number of passengers newly qualified drivers are insured to carry, after early evening. Newly qualified drivers are THAT dangerous, far more dangerous than someone who is a few points over the limit, tested at random.
.
ie, one passenger only.
I'll approach this from 2 directions:

Firstly, a lot of what I read in Australia agrees with the thrust of your first point, that night driving, driving by young males (mostly in the first year of their license...), and driving with a group in a car, are very significant risk indicators for crashes, particularly when taken together. No surprise, in some way, when you think of the psychology of the demographic involved... In response, in Australia, there are restrictions to the number of passengers a 1st year driver may carry, and much of the TV campaigns attempt to reach just that demographic...

However, the fact that these are serious risk factors does not alter the clear danger from driving under the influence. (And by the way, your last sentence is a little strange; do you imply that "a few points over" is somehow different when not tested, or not tested at random?)

I prefer to restrict as much as possible the numbers of drivers whose reflexes have been clearly shown to be impaired by numerous scientific tests...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by Trolldor » Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:28 am

I guess Macintosh drinks and drives or he wouldn't be so defensive.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
normal
!
!
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:23 pm
About me: meh
Location: North, and then some
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by normal » Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:36 am

This thread has deteriorated from Quite Silly to Borderline Retarded :lol:
Image
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -Douglas Adams

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by Hermit » Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:47 am

Normal wrote:This thread has deteriorated from Quite Silly to Borderline Retarded :lol:
Now that you have taken to posting in it, it has definitely become fully retarded. ;)

I think you should go back to shooting tea pots. It's the more normal thing to do, and it's not as boring as rummaging around in threads you have no particular interest in in the first place.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
normal
!
!
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:23 pm
About me: meh
Location: North, and then some
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by normal » Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:50 am

Seraph wrote:
Normal wrote:This thread has deteriorated from Quite Silly to Borderline Retarded :lol:
Now that you have taken to posting in it, it has definitely become fully retarded. ;)

I think you should go back to shooting tea pots. It's the more normal thing to do, and it's not as boring as rummaging around in threads you have no particular interest in in the first place.
Fuck off, you cunt
Image
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -Douglas Adams

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by Hermit » Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:53 am

Normal wrote:
Seraph wrote:
Normal wrote:This thread has deteriorated from Quite Silly to Borderline Retarded :lol:
Now that you have taken to posting in it, it has definitely become fully retarded. ;)

I think you should go back to shooting tea pots. It's the more normal thing to do, and it's not as boring as rummaging around in threads you have no particular interest in in the first place.
Fuck off, you cunt
No!

Naaa naaa na naa na. :razzle:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
normal
!
!
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:23 pm
About me: meh
Location: North, and then some
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by normal » Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:54 am

Seraph wrote:
Normal wrote:
Seraph wrote:
Normal wrote:This thread has deteriorated from Quite Silly to Borderline Retarded :lol:
Now that you have taken to posting in it, it has definitely become fully retarded. ;)

I think you should go back to shooting tea pots. It's the more normal thing to do, and it's not as boring as rummaging around in threads you have no particular interest in in the first place.
Fuck off, you cunt
No!

Naaa naaa na naa na. :razzle:
Ok.
Image
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -Douglas Adams

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by Hermit » Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:57 am

So, which thread will you bless with your pronouncement from on high next? :ask:

The choice is huge.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
normal
!
!
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:23 pm
About me: meh
Location: North, and then some
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by normal » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:08 am

Seraph wrote:So, which thread will you bless with your pronouncement from on high next? :ask:

The choice is huge.
It was light hearted, and posted in the morning fog. Try to ignore it. Harping on about it like this will make me feel bad.

I humbly apologize before your immense being for intruding upon your precious thread with invaluable input you didn't approve of.
Image
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -Douglas Adams

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74223
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by JimC » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:23 am

I wish I had a home breathalyser unit, just for the lols... :awesome:

Right now, I estimate 0.09% :eddy:

I ain't going anywhere! :tup: :td:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: "No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

Post by Hermit » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:25 am

Normal wrote:It was light hearted, and posted in the morning fog. Try to ignore it. Harping on about it like this will make me feel bad.

I humbly apologize before your immense being for intruding upon your precious thread with invaluable input you didn't approve of.
Awwwww, poor bub. :console:

:whisper: ...and it's actually Coito's precious thread. My own opinion about it is quite akin to yours. :whisper:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests