Random breath testing

The guards aren't checking the car, they are breath testing the driver. They are not entering the car, they are asking you to step out, or to blow into something. It is not the same as a house search.
 
They are assuming you are guilty until proven innocent.
What would happen if you refuse to give a sample?
 
umop3p!sdn said:
They are assuming you are guilty until proven innocent.
What would happen if you refuse to give a sample?
Click to expand...

Same as it currently is if you refuse to give a sample. Its assumed to be a failed test and you'll be banned. If a Garda stops you to check tax and insurance do you also feel in someway violated?
 
If a Garda stops you to check tax and insurance do you also feel in someway violated?
Click to expand...

Yes, actually I probably would. However, I've never been stopped.
 
So how are the Gardai supposed to catch and prosecute the uninsured, the tax evaders and the drunk drivers?
 
You're assuming that I agree with the current model of law enforcement, ie, giving gardai such authority in the first place.
 
No, I didn't assume you agreed with anything. I asked:

"So how are the Gardai supposed to catch and prosecute the uninsured, the tax evaders and the drunk drivers?"

leaving it open for you to tell me just how the law should be enforced?
 

If they are over the limit then they are obviously too drunk to be in control of a car. Whether it is at 2 am on their way home, or 8 am the next morning, when they are going to work it shouldn't matter. If someone is going to get so drunk at night that they are over the limit the next morning then they shouldnt be driving to work.
 
No, I didn't assume you agreed with anything. I asked:

"So how are the Gardai supposed to catch and prosecute the uninsured, the tax evaders and the drunk drivers?"

leaving it open for you to tell me just how the law should be enforced?
Click to expand...

If the question was directed at me, it implicitly assumed that I agreed that the gardai should be responsible for catching and prosecuting the uninsured, the tax evaders and the drunk drivers.

I don't know how the law should be enforced. I have my doubts about the fundamentals of democracy, law enforcement and government in general.

This is going a bit off topic, so I'll leave it rest.
 
Ok, let's ignore how you feel about law enforcement, democracy, government etc.

Do you agree that people should not drink and drive?

If so, how should we (the citzens) do our best to ensure that people do not drink and drive, or of they do, that there is a reasonable chance that they will be caught?

Earlier you said

umop3p!sdn said:
The publicans wouldn't be too happy with that! - and we all know how powerful they are.

How about providing some alternative means of transport?
Click to expand...

So, do you assume that publicans actually support drink driving? Isthere any evidence that publicans have stood in the way of anti drink driving measures before?

And with regard to alternative means of transport-who would provide this, what form would it take and how would it be financed? Is there any guarantee that if alternative means of transport available, people would use them as opposed to their own car?
 
Do you agree that people should not drink and drive?

If so, how should we (the citzens) do our best to ensure that people do not drink and drive, or of they do, that there is a reasonable chance that they will be caught?
Click to expand...

My opinion is that the current system is adequate if enforced properly. There is no proof that random breath testing will in fact either deter potential drink drivers or that it will 'catch' more offenders.

Balancing the loss of our civil liberties involved in this suggestion against the potential benefits, my opinion is that the loss of civil liberty is not worth the slim potential.

I also believe that more gardai on the beat would do more to address the problem than any such random testing. I feel that furthermore the potential for abuse of such a power is too great.

I do not agree that the invasion of one's home is not a comparative example. We have very strict laws in this country to protect our civil liberties which afford a measure of privacy and sanctity in our homes and property. That is as it should be, in my opinion.
 

I disagree. If stopped and asked to take a breath test while driving I wouldn't feel that my liberty is infringed in any great way. Like I said, I don't really see it as being much different from being asked to provide my licence-I am required to have it while driving, same as I am required to be sober while driving.

For sure, there is no proof that the introduction of random breath testing will deter drink drivers, and more enforcement of existing laws is required, but more resources are not necessarily the issue either-I would say that it is just as likely to be solved by smarter use of existing resources.
 
AFAIK when random breath testing was introduced in Australia there was a large reduction in drink related accidents. I don't have a link to support this and don't have the time to find one at the moment but if any of you computer wizards are so inclined to do the google thingie then feel free.
 
If they tried random breath testing I'd be delighted as it would be a sign someone is trying something. If it did any good I think it's a small price to pay to reduce the number of accidents. I want to see DD behind bars and I'll happily do any amount of breath tests if it means that DD are also being breath tested.
 
If they tried random breath testing I'd be delighted as it would be a sign someone is trying something.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately these days too many bad laws are introduced "as a sign (that) someone is trying something" even though the laws themselves are useless in achieving what they are supposed to do (except maybe to boost state coffers) and do nothing but frustrate & annoy citizens and bring the law of the land into disrepute.

Just look at the penalty points system. The Gardai have justified their practice of issuing penalty points to people caught doing slightly over 60kph on some dual carraigeways because it shows the public that they are serious about catching speeding motorists. Meanwhile one can travel tens of thousands of miles per annum on minor roads, at speeds a lot faster that 60kph, and never see a speed trap.

Anyone who thinks that this policy improves road safety needs their head examined, (especially as very few people die as a result of speeds of 65-70kph on dual carraigeways), even if this policy is an excellent example of "someone trying to do something" about the speeding problem on our roads.

Btw, suspected drink drivers ARE breath tested under the present law. The introduction of random breath testing would mean that both apparently drunk AND plain sober drivers would HAVE to be breath tested as part of any testing exercise. I think this would be a pointless waste of resources.
 
AFAIK when random breath testing was introduced in Australia there was a large reduction in drink related accidents.
Click to expand...

Statistics can be used to prove almost anything, and can mislead. When penalty points were introduced here, the statistics in the months immediately afterwards showed a sharp fall in road accidends and deaths. Official Ireland clapped itself on the back, and Seamus Brennan used the statistics to show the success of his policy.

Sadly, this was later shown to be a statistical blip and the longer-term trend showed no appreciable fall in the volume of road accidents and deaths. Needless to say, Brennan did not use the statistics to admit the failure of his policy.
 

Even if your assertion that the long term trend in the vol. of road deaths/accidents has not fallen the fact that there is much more traffic on the roads today indicates an improvement in road safety . That aside the chart on page 10 in here [broken link removed]
shows a decrease in road deaths in absolute terms and , more importantly in my view, in relative terms.
 
That chart is absolutely meaningless to any discussion of the effects of the penalty points system as it illustrates the road accidents/deaths trend between 1993 and 2003. The penalty points system was only introduced in October 2002.
 
I never mentioned penalty points above. I was merely illustrating that your assertion that "the longer-term trend showed no appreciable fall in the volume of road accidents and deaths " was incorrect. The trend in road deaths has been falling in absolute terms since 1999 and "per million registered vehicles" since 1995. A figure that might interest you is that Road deaths dropped by 108 during the 20 months following the introduction of penalty points compared with the previous 20 months and as I have already shown the long term trend is down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register