[Prometheus The Supremo]

That's what theyre doing. They have no clue any actual crime happened, nor was any crime reported. They are randomly pulling people over (fishing) hoping to get lucky as opposed to someone reporting a crime and them properly investigating it. Can you really not tell the difference? Most people on this board seem pretty smart. And it's only going to get worse. Now its the airpots with naked body scanners, next it could be who knows? Strip searching your children before school to check for weapons? Will you be all for that too?

but RIDE isn't a random pull over. everybody passing through a particular point is subjected to it.

 

[nfitz]

How drunk are you off of 2 beers in 3 hours? Answer: unless youre a complete light weight the answer is not probably not drunk at all. But that amount of drinks puts you close to the danger zone and facing losing your license for a year and a $2000 fine?

Why are you telling lies? You have to hit 0.8 to get a $1000 fine and a one-year licence suspension. The worst you'll get for your 3rd offence at 0.5 is a 30 day suspension and a $150 fine (and higher insurance LOL). You can't get 0.8 with only 2 beers unless you are female under 100 lbs or male under 80 lbs. At 3-hours you'd have to be a 64-pound male to exceed 0.8 with 2 beers. A 150-pound male would have to drink 4 beers in one hour to exceed 0.8.

2 beers in 3 hours would give a 100 pound male a blood alcohol of 0.038. Why are you making like this is going to get your licence pulled?

If someone is stumbling drunk then by all means throw the book at him but like my example of a beer at a bbq... It's a stupidly harsh penalty in that case in my opinion.

We've already done this. I demonstrated clearly that 1 beer at a BBQ is not going to come anywhere close to being a problem - unless one weighs less than 70 lbs and one drinks and leaves; after 3-hours a male would have to weigh less than 45 pounds to hit 0.05 with 1 beer.

 

[EnviroTO]

I have no patience for drunk drivers either. But in my opinion road side check points are something that belong in iraq. I think it violates our god giving freedoms to unreasonable search.

RIDE programs don't give the police the right to search you and the tests only apply to the driver. How else, besides following up after an accident, are the police going to stop impaired drivers? Drop obstacles out the back of police cars to see if people's response time is quick enough? The elimination of RIDE would be the elimination of the only program that catches impaired drivers before they cause an accident.

 

[gweed123]

The reason is police should not be stopping you unless they have a reason to do so. Random road side checks are something out of nazi germany and current day middle east war zone. It is not something that should take place in a supposedly "free country".

And yes 2 beers can put some people over now with the new ridiclously low .05% level. That's literally a 2 beers every 3 hours for most people. How drunk are you off of 2 beers in 3 hours? Answer: unless youre a complete light weight the answer is not probably not drunk at all. But that amount of drinks puts you close to the danger zone and facing losing your license for a year and a $2000 fine? If someone is stumbling drunk then by all means throw the book at him but like my example of a beer at a bbq... It's a stupidly harsh penalty in that case in my opinion.

But a RIDE program isn't a "random roadside check". Random implies that only 1 of every X number of vehicles will be checked. That's not the case. It's not like they only question black people or young people or men or someone driving a sportscar. EVERY vehicle is checked.

And no, 2 beers in 3 hours for a 160lb male would give a BA level of 0.012% (0.021% for a female of the same weight). Even 2 beers in 1 hour for a 160lb male would give a BA of 0.036%. These stats are derived from the BA calculator from the Colorado Dept of Transportation.

I think you need to recheck your facts.

 

[gweed123]

With this whole 'full body scanner vs RIDE' debate regarding invasion of privacy, I think the two are on completely different levels.

1) RIDE checks don't digitally strip you naked. And unless there's very good suspicion that you're smuggling coke in your ass, I don't think a RIDE check will come anywhere close to your ass hole.

2) RIDE checks don't cost billions to implement. In fact, the only capital cost incurred is buying the breathalizers.

3) RIDE checks actually work. How many would-be terrorists have actually been caught by a TSA agent? If they have eluded the FBI and the CIA (mostly people who have university educations, with Masters or higher), what's someone with a light-up wand a highschool education going to do? Airport security is nothing but a placebo to make passengers feel safer, and to line the pockets of those companies who manufacture the equipment.

So in conclusion, being asked "have you had anything to drink tonight?" is not even remotely on the same level as a TSA security check, especially with the new measures. Most important of all, RIDE checks actually catch drunk drivers.

 

[jwill]

But a RIDE program isn't a "random roadside check". Random implies that only 1 of every X number of vehicles will be checked. That's not the case. It's not like they only question black people or young people or men or someone driving a sportscar. EVERY vehicle is checked.

RIDE is a random road-side check. The locations of the checks are 'random' and not every car going through a checkpoint is actually stopped and checked. It's meant as a deterrent as much as a way to find drunk drivers on the road.

Its ridiculous to compare RIDE to war zone or nazi checkpoints. The OPP isn't doing anything nefarious, just upholding laws against drunk driving and preventing accidents and deaths in the process. It wouldn't be necessary if everyone followed the rules and had some common sense, but thats not the case. Its a free country, but driving is a privilege, and safety on the roads is a right.

 

[dob467]

Can we get back to the Dufferin Jog? Maybe start a new thread on the RIDE program?

I'm more interested in when the 501 streetcar will get a stop named Dufferin than whether you guys think a beer or two is drunk driving.

 

[JasonParis]

Moreover, driving isn't a right, but a privilege. Therefore you enter into it as a contract with the government basically. StIdes might have a good argument if this were about a RIWE (Reduce Impaired Walking Everywhere) Program, but it clearly isn't.

I've moved this to a new thread in General Discussions.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Also, you live in Toronto. Find alternative means to get to your buddy's barbecue. Then you can drink without worry!

 

[jn_12]

As someone who has had a family member killed by a drunk driver who was as close to the limit as you can get without going over, I have very strict views on this. In my opinion whatever one beer gets you on the meter, that's too much.

As for the point of this thread, if you have to stop and talk to an officer for a few seconds and feel it as an inconvenience, imagine how infinitely worse you'd feel if you lost a loved one because a program like RIDE wasn't in place? They're not perfect, but if they save one life, that's worth it to me.

Oh and by the way, no one has "God-given freedoms." Maybe you should stick to your Tea Party meetings?

 

[Hank]

Regarding the comment about the police searching your car at a RIDE check, this was actually the subject of a Supreme Court case (Mellenthin) whereby the court found that a visual inspection of a car with a flashlight after dark was necessary to conduct a correct RIDE check, but also specifically stated that "a check stop does not and cannot constitute a general search warrant for searching every vehicle, driver and passenger that is pulled over. Unless there are reasonable and probable grounds for conducting the search, or drugs, alcohol or weapons are in plain view in the interior of the vehicle, the evidence flowing from such a search should not be admitted."

The idea is that yes, driving is a privilege, and so a standard RIDE check is fine as a way for the government to enforce the terms of that privilege but no, a RIDE check doesn't give a cop the right to search your car unless you're stupid enough to leave drugs or whatnot lying around in plain view (what's the cop supposed to do about that if he sees it...ignore it?) or the cop has other grounds to support a search in the circumstances. If a cop goes further than that and finds something, then it'll likely be thrown out in court.

I'm also pretty sure that those statistics on body weight and alcohol are wildly exaggerated (towards making people think that they'll be over .08 when they likely won't be). My criminal professor in law school said that he once hung out for a night with some of his cop buddies who brought a breathalyzer, and he said that he was completely plastered (after many drinks) before he blew over .08. A friend of mine was also pulled over after drinking about three and a half pints in maybe three hours (if that), and he blew .025.

 

[spider]

We have to remember that the RIDE program is largely theatre, it's purpose is to scare drivers out of drinking and driving rather than actually catching offenders. If it were intended to make arrests it is woefully inefficient with a miniscule ROI. Why not establish fishing holes outside bars, they like the principle when harvesting speeders.

 

[gabe]

Ride is a good thing, Looks like people still haven't learned not to drink and drive

http://newsdurhamregion.com/opinion/article/166707

Early RIDE results cause for concern in Durham

If the first week of RIDE spot checks in Durham Region are any indication, we could be in for a frightening Christmas season on local roads.

Police officials issued a record-high number of drunk driving offences -- 21 in total -- in the first week of their annual RIDE campaign during the festive season. That's nearly double the number of similar charges brought during the first week of last year's campaign.

Those are sobering numbers and they have spurred Durham police Chief Mike Ewles to order his RIDE teams to work ever more aggressively to fight the scourge of impaired driving.

But RIDE and regular patrols notwithstanding, police simply can't be everywhere. It therefore falls to each of us to make appropriate decisions around travel and the tendency for some to imbibe a little more liberally during the Christmas season.

Mindful motorists, too, have an obligation not only to practise safe and sober driving, but to be aware of those who are sharing the road with them. If you suspect a drunk driver is behind the wheel, pull over and make your suspicions known to police.

There are too many stories of loss and catastrophic injury associated with impaired driving. Too many families have been forever altered, too many children left without mothers, fathers or close relatives.

Though it's true that the incidence of impaired driving has been reduced considerably through education and strict legislation in the last generation, this week's numbers indicate a step backward, perhaps a creeping apathy surrounding the issue.

Durham Regional Police officers must not only continue to aggressively patrol and set up spot checks to remove impaired drivers from local roadways, Chief Ewles should consider expanding them throughout this festive season and well into the new year.

This time of year should be about fellowship, reconnecting with those closest to us, celebrating the season and looking forward to a new year and the promise that it holds.

The RIDE program is a visible and important reminder that when you drive in Durham, you must drive safely and responsibly, with care for those sharing the road with you and without alcohol impairing your ability to do so.

When you head out on local roads this Christmas season, make sure you've made arrangements to get home should you indulge in drinking, designate a driver, or spend the night.

Don't contribute to the horrible statistics. Don't become one.

 

[nfitz]

In my opinion whatever one beer gets you on the meter, that's too much.

I don't think there's any evidence that a single beer for most people causes any reduction in driving skill or reaction time.

Though playing with the calculator, from my past experience of when I have driven after 2-3 beers and felt uncomfortable about it (aware that I can feel the alcohol), my reading would be about 0.03 to 0.04. So perhaps 0.05 is a little higher than it should be. And certainly the 0.08 restriction before any serious consequences is quite high.

 

[jn_12]

^ As much as there's perhaps no evidence, I still fee very strongly that even one is too many. It might not be rational but it's just my belief in this area.