Sobriety check is another waste of time & money

You have no idea how many people in that area did not drink and drive because of this. THAT if their point, not arrests.Your percentages are invalid. Especially in this day and age of the internet when people post where the check points are so even more people find out about them.

Ryan, that's horse shit. How many people decided not to violated a law is 100% non-quantifiable. You too have no idea, and neither do any of the others who support this pissing away of money to control peoples actions.

When acceptable blood alcohol was at 0.10% people drank too much and drove. Now that it's at 0.08% people still drink too much and drive, BUT the normal behavior of many social drinkers has been declared to be illegal.

What do you want, 0.06? Maybe zero tolerance?

Of course it's a waste of time and resources. I'm sure it's also illegal. How in the hell did this bullshit ever happen anyway. Maybe we should set up checkpoints for bad tires or cell phone checks to see if people have been texting or maybe a registration check to make sure the car isn't stolen, a trunk check looking for kidnapped victims. Heck even a drivers licence check just to be sure.

How is it illegal?

Jim, you sound pro drunk driving. Sad.

I don't think it deterred people from drinking and driving. People probably still went out and just avoided the checkpoint.

Today's blood alcohol policy needs an overhaul. It is a one size fits all system that ignores some important factors. There are dozens of factors that come into play regarding a person and their ability to safely operate a vehicle.

The core mission of all safety forces has lost focus from saving and helping people to protecting bloated budgets and feather bedding pensions and paychecks. Since the aftermath of 9/11 when obscene amounts of funds were dispersed, the general public has been reticent to criticize those protecting us. It might be time to call in the armed personnel guarding corn fields in Iowa.

I don't think it deterred people from drinking and driving. People probably still went out and just avoided the checkpoint. - We have a winner! If you think this stopped people for getting snookered and driving home then you don't understand drunks.

MADD and the War on Drugs could be the biggest sham the US Bully Pulpit Group has ever pulled. In 10 years the insurance companies will have convinced you that if you have sniffed alcohol in the last 24 hours you are DUI.

Driving down the road sloshed is plain stupid, but you shouldn't be afraid to run to the store after a beer and cutting the grass.

Was driving down Navarre and saw the flashing lights and tower spotlight on Friday night. They always do it near Matthews Ford. Was in a hurry to get home, so simply turned down an intersecting road to avoid the traffic

If you think this stopped people for getting snookered and driving home then you don't understand drunks.

That's snockered, not snookered. Furthermore, I think the word you're fumbling for is scam, not sham. You're beginning to sound like Ryan.

The abusive sobriety checkpoint is a violation of our civil rights, but the USSC didn't see it that way. I mean, why not stop all citizens on their way from point A to point B and question them? It doesn't affect the black robed authoritarian sitting on the bench. It's for their own good - right, Ryan?

What MADD, SADD, DADD and GLADD all fail to address are the driving habits of these idiots when they're stone cold sober. Not one of these geniuses needs to be impaired by recreational substances to have an accident. If the government really wanted to help keep the rest of the cattle safe from the bull, they'd bust people for dangerous driving and keep them off the road for several years. Apply the same action to anyone who is at fault in an accident, even a minor fender bender. Take their license away for several years and get them off the road.

DBW is right about one thing: If there are any political activists who understand drunks, they have yet to make themselves known. Politicos, now, that's a little different.

I can attest that they do have some positive effect. The past three times they've announced these, someone in my group has completely abstained from alcohol that evening. None of us drive drunk, but even the "dd" will have a couple throughout the night. When we know there are checkpoints, though, that person sticks to the non-alcoholics for the evening.

Have any of you noticed that most of the citations are for things other than driving while drunk?After one of these checkpoints, the Blade will usually list the citations they issued.Most of the tickets are for other violations like driving with a suspended license,lack of insurance,seat belt use,outstanding warrants,expired plates and possession of drugs.They usually don't get too many DUI citations as compared to other violations.I think it is funny that they call it a sobriety checkpoint when most of the tickets issued are for other offenses.

There should be more checkpoints, not less. Also they should not announce where or where they are.

Good for you and your group Johio. You all seem to "get it".

Funny you mentioned the other "driver distractions" Maggie. I believe the obsession so many people seem to have with their cell phones is epidemic.

For grins, while I sat and waited for the light to change at Talmadge and Sylvania this morning on my way to work, I paid particular attention to how many drivers on Sylvania crossing Talmadge were either yacking on their cell phone or texting as they sped through the intersection. Of the roughly 20 vehicles I observed, more than half - 12 - who were clearly paying closer attention to their cell phone than they were their driving.

Realizing there was nothing scientific about my observation, it certainly is representative of what I see on a daily basis.

While I certainly do not condone drinking and driving, I can't help but wonder what the majority would think if technology was used to peer inside your vehicle to see if you are texting, reading, eating, etc. while driving - and send you the appropriate fine in the mail much like the red light camera system does.

Agreed, Foodie: I have seen some foolish talking and texting motorists on the road whose driving was as bad or worse than drunk drivers. They weave in and out of lanes, speed up/slow down in an erratic fashion, and make sudden and unexpected decisions, like impulsively diving across 2-3 lanes of traffic when they realize they were so busy on the phone they almost missed their destination.

I have read that texting while driving is four times more dangerous than drinking and driving.

"There should be more checkpoints, not less. Also they should not announce where or where they are."

When I read this all I can think of is Eastern European Communist countries.Is this the type of country you would like.

This topic brings up many points.
First, the effectiveness. Having an "Announced" checkpoint is counter-productive in my opinion. It is about as effective as the "War on Drugs". It may prevent a small number of people to drink and drive, but I believe that it probably causes more to just avoid the checkpoint when legally drunk.
Second, violating our rights. Where do you draw the line between protecting and violating? I would love to see an unannounced checkpoint set up anywhere and stop people to check immigration status, valid driver's license, car registration, insurance, drug test, warrants, etc. BUT, like posted above, how long before there becomes a texting parade of where these places are and that the real criminals avoid them? We enjoy our freedom on this country and part of freedom is to be left alone. If I want to be probed, checked, and questioned every second of everyday, I would be living in another country.
Third, the cost. Without really having any hard numbers or stats about what is prevented, no one can say. The biggest criticism I feel is that when I hear about a 17 time DUI driver, how is any checkpoint doing good?

MJ - sham http://i.word.com/idictionary/sham

I have read that texting while driving is four times more dangerous than drinking and driving.

A friend of mine recently completed a meta-analysis of several published studies comparing texting vs. drinking & driving. She was able to show that texting & driving is far more dangerous / impairing, than drinking & driving.

Both are bad, but people have to stop believing the world will stop if they are out of touch while operating a motor vehicle.

dbw8906: You're batting 1000 today. The link results in You have reached the home page for the Merriam-Webster iPhone application. Which will not display on my PC.

:: snort ::

Noting the popularity of the posts by Maggie and HistoryMike, I'm idly wondering if Ryan has asked JR to modify ToledoTalk such that the login names of the votes can be revealed. I mean, what with Maggie being a Republican and all, this could be a conspiracy.

Try not to make EVERYTHING political, lol. I know it will be hard for you, especially since today I got my Obama "Made in America" t-shirt in the mail.

Ryan,

I am not in favor of drunk driving. I am against governmental control for any reason. The checkpoints should be illegal because they are not pulling people over for just cause. There is no reason to inconvenience every law abiding citizen on the highway.

Should the police be allowed into every home on your block to see if the husband is beating the rest of the family? Of course not, there needs to be probable cause, and there is none with these sobriety check points. They are not legal everywhere, but are in Ohio so long as the location is advertised / posted in the newspaper before the event.

http://statepatrol.ohio.gov/sobcheck.stm

Deer1's position of wanting more checkpoints seems foolish to me.

Average DUI offender's BAC was not available for Ohio. In California is was 0.16%. A general blog site supposedly getting posts from the boys in blue shows similar numbers, typically ranging from 0.13 - 0.17.

How then does it make sense to lower it to 0.08? Only to criminalize behavior and allow the government to exert more control.

http://www.adp.ca.gov/factsheets/drivingundertheinfluencestatistics.pdf

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-36464.html

Stand up for your rights or you will surely lose them all to idiots who think more monitoring is a good thing.

Buckeye 178
I guess I'm just not as paranoid as you are

Check points are a waste of tax payers money. Trying to enforce morality on folks through intimidation. I would rather you just step up enforcement and bust people no announcement, no warning. This is grandstanding in a way showing how they are trying to be effective, which they aren't.