I have a major problem with check points. I have a problem with many areas that say pulling a u-turn to avoid one means you get pulled over and sobriety-tested regardless. I have a problem with these just as I have a problem with the current controversy over Bloomberg's "stop and frisk" policy.
Yes, drunk drivers suck. Yes, they kill. Yes, it's horrific what details occur in the worse incidents. I think MADD began, or at least continued to exacerbate, the power the "scared suburban moms" have over legislation and public policy, and have cornered legislators from being able to make rational reform, instead having to bow to the emotional kneejerking of their public. Just as Speedracer shows in this thread, people do not justify the drunk stops with rational arguments or logic, they instead try to paint a horrific and gruesome picture and insinuate that anyone who doesn't like such checkpoints is ok with those gruesome events, as if it's simply a binary option with no other complications or side effects.
I've long learned it doesn't make sense to argue such things on this site, though. No one here approaches discussions with an open mind but rather awaits the next post that crosses their opinions and will tear it down into submission or stagnation, whichever comes last.
Especially on issues like this. Issues borne more in emotion than reason are particularly immune to development. When you base your ideas of public safety not on reason, current facts/figures, changes and trends in statistics, but base it in emotional hypotheticals, you can never change or adapt. You will always be stuck to that emotionally charged gruesome picture and you've then been successfully lobbied by whoever sought to convert you - adhering not to reality, reason, or logic, which can adapt and change to suit the best interest of society, but instead to an immortal idea that is stoic and unmoving, regardless of appropriateness or relevance to the modern world.
Yes, drunk drivers suck. Yes, they kill. Yes, it's horrific what details occur in the worse incidents. I think MADD began, or at least continued to exacerbate, the power the "scared suburban moms" have over legislation and public policy, and have cornered legislators from being able to make rational reform, instead having to bow to the emotional kneejerking of their public. Just as Speedracer shows in this thread, people do not justify the drunk stops with rational arguments or logic, they instead try to paint a horrific and gruesome picture and insinuate that anyone who doesn't like such checkpoints is ok with those gruesome events, as if it's simply a binary option with no other complications or side effects.
I've long learned it doesn't make sense to argue such things on this site, though. No one here approaches discussions with an open mind but rather awaits the next post that crosses their opinions and will tear it down into submission or stagnation, whichever comes last.
Especially on issues like this. Issues borne more in emotion than reason are particularly immune to development. When you base your ideas of public safety not on reason, current facts/figures, changes and trends in statistics, but base it in emotional hypotheticals, you can never change or adapt. You will always be stuck to that emotionally charged gruesome picture and you've then been successfully lobbied by whoever sought to convert you - adhering not to reality, reason, or logic, which can adapt and change to suit the best interest of society, but instead to an immortal idea that is stoic and unmoving, regardless of appropriateness or relevance to the modern world.
Last edited:
