Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!sri-spam!robert From: robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.cycle Subject: Re: slow cars in left lane Message-ID: <6122@sri-spam.ARPA> Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 19:42:57 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-spam.6122 Posted: Mon Jul 21 19:42:57 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jul-86 01:03:50 EDT References: <345@valid.UUCP> <246@njitcccc.UUCP> <14522@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <457@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA Lines: 109 Xref: watmath net.auto:11693 net.cycle:1843 In article <457@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU>, dave@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU (Dave Bloom) writes: > In article <6117@sri-spam.ARPA>, robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: > > > > Seatbelt laws for cars, mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles, and > > drunk testing checkpoints are complete bullshit. They are elements > > of fascism (or communism, both restrict personal freedom) which are > > being injected into our society by do-gooders who won't realize what > > a mistake it is until it is too late. > > Truthfully, I couldn't care less whether or not someone else has their > belt or helmet on... But you're a fool if you think drunk-driving test > points are a bad idea. I once saw the car in front of me weave into a > guard rail a number of times. (It's a miracle he was able to 'drive' at > all) I stayed behind him the whole way, since passing him would've been > like playing Russian Roulette with all the barrels full. > > Amazingly, the cops had a testing point on that road, and needless to > say, he was busted. I hope they took his license away for the rest of > his life. So do I, but under that circumstance, even if I was on my motorcycle which offers ZERO impact protection, I would still vote against the checkpoint. If those cops had been out DRIVING the road looking for trouble instead of waiting for it, the drunk might have been intercepted sooner. > > Absolutes are idiotic. Sometimes you've *got* to give in to a few > inconveniences for your own safety. The police were INSURING my RIGHT > to live by getting that idiot off the road. You're as bad as the com- > munists and facists if you think that ALL laws that restrict personal > 'rights' are wrong. If I gave up some kind of 'right' by being delayed > 2 minutes that night, then I did so gladly. Yes, absolutes are idiotic. That's why absolutely searching anyone who happens to come down a particular stretch of road, irregarless of how good they are driving, is idiotic. If I felt that unsafe then I would have pulled to the roadside, or fallen back, or pulled off and called the CHP. I don't think that all laws which restrict or regulate dangerous situations or substances are bad. But I think that such regulations are poor excuses for lukewarm enforce- ment of penalties once one is caught. I'm willing to suffer for doing something wrong, and I demand that others be punished for endangering my- self or others, but I'm not willing to give up my rights just because some jerk couldn't accept some personal responsibility, or a judge released him because it was 'only' a minor violation, or because the guy "promised" to rehabilitate himself. > > > Write your congress-person > > now to strike a blow for personal freedom. The problem isn't that the > > government is getting restrictive, but that people haven't got the > > guts to accept personal responsibility, and vote people and laws into > > power to accept responsibility for them. Geeze people, grow up and > > show some backbone. > > If you're truly worried about losing your freedoms, Reagan has given you > a thousand other reasons to be alarmed... instead of worrying about seat- > belts and drunk-driving checks, try worrying about the important issues. > The sodomy issue you brought up, as are the issues of prayer in schools, > the distribution of pornography, etc. are of far greater impact. Yes, Reagan the big bad fascist. I've heard this a million times. Since this is net.auto, I shall restrict my comments to auto-related stuff. I see the Democrats pushing for seatbelt and helmet laws, as well as lower national speed limits, not Republicans. True, the DOT has threatened states with loss of highway funds for failing to support the 55 mph speed limit, but that isn't Reagan. If anything Reagan has reduced the amount of legislation regarding cars and motorcycles. As far as drunk driving checkpoints... Let's say you're driving along one night and you hit such a checkpoint. Let's also say that you are heading somewhere in earnest, e.g. to see your wife give birth, to attend to a family disaster, to get to a job interview, or to go the bathroom. Now you are stranded in line behind several other cars, it will be slow-going, and no amount of pleading with the CHP is going to convince them that you really do have a viable reason to bypass the checkpoint. Is that a good enough reason for not having checkpoints? No? Well, let's say your physical appearance doesn't meet that of an upstanding citizen. Are you telling me that the CHP might not provide just a bit more scrutiny to your vehicle? If they 'have' probable cause they could detain you for various reasons and search your car. This might just be an inconvenience. Or, if you happened to have any kind of contraband in the car (even if it was concealed, or at least covered), it could be very unfortunate. Of course all of these points are irrelevant. The CHP could just as easily be asking "Are you of Jewish descent?", or "Do you now or have you ever supported or believed in the aims of the Communist party?", or whatever they please, because all are equal invasions of your Civil Rights. Innocent until proven guilty remember? It's true that under California State Law you give implicit consent to a blood, breath or urine test for alcohol, but that rule should be used with restraint. Who's to know whether a checkpoint is looking for alcohol abusers or a particular person who the police want to talk to. How is this different from a checkpoint on a streetcorner asking for "Your papers old man"? In a mobile society the highway checkpoint is the moral equivalent to a booth on your street, and it is wrong. Now, can anyone provide a legal definition of your rights to privacy while driving a car, or the legal implications of implicit consent as regards random spot checks or searches? Robert Allen, robert@sri-spam.ARPA