(Brent P)
I don't see it that way, though. One could make the same argument about the government requiring an annual vehicle inspection, or even requiring a drivers license. :-)
Almost any law or regulation can be viewed as an "infringement of liberty", if one wants to look at it that way. I'm not allowed to rewire my house, although would be perfectly capable of doing it. Instead I need a licensed electrician to do it.
Why should the government care? Well, there are a couple of reasons that come to mind. Fire is an ever present problem in the Australian climate, enough so that "strike anywhere" matches are banned as they can ignite if a mouse or rat gnaws on them.
Now if I lived 20 miles away from the nearest neighbor out in the desert, perhaps it shouldn't matter. However, I do have neighbors and if my carelessness results in them being burned out they will be understandably annoyed.
There are other factors: Australia has a universal health care system. Therefore the government require motorists to wear seat belts, riders of motorbikes to wear approved safety helmets, riders of bicycles and horses to wear bump caps, etc. If I mess around with home wiring and this results in injuries, or a botched job results in a fire where my wife and I are badly burned, then it is expensive to take care of us. I don't blame the government to try to keep down costs.
I consider it very reasonable that motorcycle riders are required to wear helmets. They reduce the severity of head and neck injuries. If some idiot breaks his neck because he isn't wearing a helmet why should the rest of us provide quadriplegic care for him for the rest of his life?
As far as I can see the ones here do. I cannot comment on how your state handles DUI checks. Here all you have to do is show your drivers license and breathe into the test instrument. Neither the driver nor the vehicle is searched. If they catch someone driving without a valid license, or someone with a warrant out against them, that is a bonus.
Arrest warrants usually cover more than mere "paperwork" offenses. :-)
Unless the teenager is traveling with a plastic bag of pot sitting on the seat beside him, they aren't going to spot it. There is no search of the vehicle, driver, or pbuttengers. Nor is driver even usually asked to get out of the vehicle. This can vary, depending on the amount of traffic in the roadblock area.
I don't consider law enforcement as intrusive control. The driver can, in fact, refuse to take a breath test. However, the penalty for refusal is as high or higher than being caught with a high blood alcohol reading. :-)
Driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a "basic right". If a person wants to drive, then he obeys the license conditions. If he wants to get to the nearest pub, he can walk or use public transport, or get a friend to drive him and his friends there. Being drunk is not an offense. Drink driving is.
Well, would have to agree that it would probably be possible to purchase a policy to get through an inspection then cash it in once the inspection had been pbutted. I really don't know if the insurance companies have to report this.
Am not saying that all mechanics would be un bribable, but most mechanics or garages would want more than a "small" bribe. Vehicle inspections provide a good source of revenue.
For the sake of argument, suppose an inspection costs the motorist the equivalent of US$25. It is a reasonable price for 15 or 20 minutes work, especially if the mechanic doesn't have anything else to do.
So suppose that motorist "A" offers a bribe to mechanic "B" rather than have the problem repaired. Suppose in the next few hours or days motorist "A" is stopped by cop "C" who notices a fault. In that case, the cop issues a defect notice on the vehicle and reports mechanic "B". Mechanic "B" then has the garage inspection certificate suspended for at least a year and loses a lot of revenue if he is the owner of the garage.
If he is an employee, accepting that bribe and losing the inspection certificate will probably means that he will lose his job.
I wouldn't say that bribery "couldn't happen" but I suspect that much more than a "small" bribe would be required.
In addition, of course, if the mechanic takes a bribe to overlook something like faulty brakes or bald tires, and motorist "A" is involved in an accident as a result, then mechanic "B" could find himself involved in civil or criminal actions as well.
The RTA Road Transport Authority has some nice TV ads dealing with drink driving. They are pretty graphic. In case I haven't mentioned them on this group, or you have missed them, no problem to repeat them.
In one, the scene is a courtroom where a judge is sentencing a driver who has accidentally run down and end a little girl crossing the street. His wife and daughter are present. The judge says something along the lines of "Mr. Smith, the court realises that your offense was not deliberate. Nevertheless, you were over the 0.05% limit and a child died as a result. I sentence you to two years imprisonment. Bailiff, remove the prisoner. Bangs gavel Next case! ...At which point the bailiff leads the driver away, and his daughter turns to her mother and asks "Mummy, where is daddy going?"
Another good one is a young wife who returns home from work to find a message on the phone answering machine. I don't remember the exact wording, but it is roughly "Hi, honey, I'll be a little late tonight. Am going to have a couple of drinks with some workmates before coming home. " The impression is given that they haven't been married long. After she gets the message, the doorbell chimes. She opens the door to find a male and female cop. The male cop says "Are you Susan Smith", the wife of John Smith? or whatever name is used She says she is, and the officer says "I'm afraid we have some very bad news for you. The female officer moves in to comfort her.
Both these commercials are pretty short, but they are very well done, and should convince any reasonable person that they shouldn't drink and drive.
Posting from misc.survivalism, 8:51 PM Christmas day. Merry Christmas to all readers!
