Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!im4u!ut-sally!pyramid!hplabs!ucbvax!jwl
From: jwl@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.cycle
Subject: Re: slow cars in left lane
Message-ID: <14953@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 22-Jul-86 08:03:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.14953
Posted: Tue Jul 22 08:03:52 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jul-86 04:57:50 EDT
References: <345@valid.UUCP> <246@njitcccc.UUCP> <14522@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <6117@sri-spam.ARPA> <457@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: jwl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 58
Xref: watmath net.auto:11718 net.cycle:1844

In article <457@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> dave@andromeda.UUCP writes:
>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. 
>[story about (presumably) drunk driver getting nailed at a 
>drunk-driving checkpoint]

Careful with the ad hominem attacks, Dave.

I think checkpoints are a bad idea.  They set a precedent of allowing
the police to detain people without probable cause.  You might think
it's a justifiable tactic to catch drunk drivers, but suppose the police
decided to start setting up checkpoints on public sidewalks, and, say,
running a check for outstanding warrants on everyone who passed through?
Would you be as enthusiastic then?   And if we're going to forget about
probable cause, why bother with search warrants? Surely you don't mind if
the cops pay you a visit, to make sure you don't have any stolen goods or
contraband in your house?

Back to drunk drivers. Yeah, they're a problem, and we need to find a
way to deal with them. My point is that whatever method used must respect
the rights of the other people on the road.  Why not just put more police
on the roads so they can spot dangerous drivers? (Advantage: that way we
can deal with drivers who are just plain incompetent, as well as the drunks.)
Or maybe something like what's being done in the Bay Area....setting up
a 911 service that's accessable to people with cellular phones, so that
anyone who spots something dangerous or illegal can report it to the police.
These methods don't bother me, because they don't give the police extra,
unnecessary powers which could easily be abused.

>
>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.

Seems like something *you* value is a RIGHT, while something someone else
values is only a 'right'. What's the difference?

>
>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.

These issues are all facets of the same conflict: the right to privacy versus
the responsibility of the government to protect the populace. In my opinion,
these issues are all equally important.

>Dave Bloom

-- Jim Lewis
   U.C. Berkeley

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."