Dui checkpoints: How to proceed when the gistapo ask for your paperz

Sunbiz1 said:

I never mentioned mandated health insurance, kindly re-read.

As for the remainder, go ahead and pay in. As I have mentioned, insurance is a small portion of the issue. I'm done here.

Time to get high and watch a paid-for movie.

Click to expand...

Sorry, my bad, you implied or inferred mandated health insurance by stating the following:

Sunbiz1 said:

And I'll bet you support mandatory insurance laws as well, the insurance industry has for decades. In the same way pharmaceutical companies have manipulated Federal law.

Our last 2 governors have been convicted of misappropriating tax dollars, one of them was secretary of state here...the department that rules the roads.

Now go run for office.. ya patsy bitch.

Click to expand...

Anyone who brings up mandatory insurance is likely implying or at least thinking of the new generation, of these mandatory health insurance laws.

Auto insurance is far different form most types of insurance given it's very specific circumstances regarding what one thinks is a "right".


Didn't you say earlier you "don't have an issue with mandatory insurance"? So why would you tell UB "I bet you support mandatory insurance laws as well"? I understand "supporting" and "not having an issue" are different, but they are relative to some degree. I don't get what your point is and how it relates to the subject at hand.


All I was pointing out is your belief, that you think you're somehow being duped with auto insurance, thus you want some sort of a refund or opt-out option. The fact is if there was an opt-out option, many people who got in severe wrecks who had opted-out, would just file bankruptcy and the victim of that accident would get royally fucked.

If you chose an opt-out option, sure you may end up lucky with no issue, however if you severely crippled someone in an auto accident you simply couldn't afford to cover the costs unless you're worth millions upon millions of dollars. You don't deserve any sort of refund because like I said, if you hit someone tomorrow it can rack up a multi-hundred thousand dollar hospital bill in less than 12 months, which is far beyond what you've payed in insurance in the past 20 years... unless of course you drive five Bugattis.

Wll it seems to me some of your have Rights confused with responsibility, and common sense. guess you have to have a license on order to drive a car responsibly. Licensed drivers never speed or drive erratically, never have accidents, and apparently have never operated their cars without insurance.
Licensed drivers never drink and drive and have never killed anyone.

Just because I may do something you dont like, doesnt mean its wrong. i would think being a bunch on stoners around here youd kind of understand that.

traveling about as I may wish does not hinder your rights in any way shape or form. If you think it does, then your just an idiot, and as such I will not waste any more time of thought on your insignificant point of view.

If anyone is traveling and has an accident they are personally responsible or ANY damages they may cause. Thats why its just SMART to carry insurance. A license doesnt guarantee a good driver.

unohu69 said:

traveling about as I may wish does not hinder your rights in any way shape or form.

Click to expand...

while that may be true for you, it is certainly not universally true.

every right you have is abridged, every last one of them. you have freedom of speech, but it is abridged in ways, such as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre or "fighting words". not all speech is protected.

would you feel comfortable with letting a mentally retarded person drive? a blind person? a 7 year old kid? if, like me, you prefer that blind people not be allowed to drive on the same road that we do, then how do you suppose we keep them off the road? just simply trust them? sorry, that's just a libertarian wet dream and doesn't cut it in real life.

you seem to think your rights are absolute and must be respected even if they infringe on my rights. that is not how it works.

UncleBuck said:

i sure do support mandatory insurance laws.

i'm not going to risk everything my wife and i own over $40 a month, and i don't trust that everyone will have the means to cover my medical bills if they roll over me with their minivan while they are texting on their phone.

another example where your right to drive without insurance is summarily trumped by my right to not go bankrupt because you caused an accident.

Click to expand...

I didn't know New Hampshire was really Somalia. According to your logic, New Hampshire is the bankruptcy capital of America. It's surprising more of the lawless rioting, which is happening all the time there, isn't constantly showcased on PBS, CNN, CBS and MSNBC to prove the world needs more feel good laws and communism.

It's really funny. Car insurance is so bullshit, I pay about half you do with a Canadian company.

i roll down my window and say......hello officer. i don't drive drunk. or, freshly stoned.

If you create enough laws nothing bad will ever happen. You seem to think statutes, and code of conduct rules will protect you more than intelligence and common sense. You take a risk just getting out of bed in the morning, if your that scared of life maybe:



that way at least fate is truly in your hands.

Checkpoints don't really work unless your blitzed. I can go through one at .15 or more and appear like i just left sunday school. I keep a buzz and I have never gotten a dui. You just have to articulate clearly and don't slur your Ssses or become beligerant or combative. Keep talking to a minimum. Mouthwash/cologne helps too.

I drink in moderation, but i drink everyday and drive most of those days. Even been stopped at a roadblock on a not so moderate day. The cop gave me a ticket for no insurance, but i had a card at home, just didn't open the gieco letter yet. So I drove my drunk ass home, found the letter, then drove back to the roadblock to show the officer and he took his ticket back.

My friends wife has 4 dui charges, but she can't drive sober, i think she has bad eyesight so its bound to happen, especially when she has a few drinks. But a DUI is my definition of a drinking problem, so she shoulda stopped after the first or second one.

It does get harder when you get older, eyesight fades, reflexes slow, get tired quicker, but you hopefully get wiser and slow it down. When I was younger, I didn't believe in moderation or going slow, but it seemed my car knew the way home, well almost. I woke up at a corner store a few blocks from my house with the car still running once, not knowing how I got there.

Don't try this at home kids, all stunts are professionally planned and executed. Luck favors those who prepare.

I know it sounds like a douche and your probably right, but thats just the way it has been so far. Just thought of a few more past examples but it already sounds douchey enough

UncleBuck said:

i sure do support mandatory insurance laws.

i'm not going to risk everything my wife and i own over $40 a month, and i don't trust that everyone will have the means to cover my medical bills if they roll over me with their minivan while they are texting on their phone.

another example where your right to drive without insurance is summarily trumped by my right to not go bankrupt because you caused an accident.

Click to expand...

Thats not correct unless everything you own is only about 70K anything above the coverage you are still liable for.

State minimum
wyoming example : 25/50/20 50K max medical 20K property damage

So you hit two old folks in a 2012 top of the line vette
Right off the bat you owe about $80K over the property damage limit for the $100K vette.

Old folks are a bit weak and feeble so if they are both hospitalized for any length of time you go over the $50K limit and owe the rest yourself.

In California the minimum is California 15/30/5 or $35K max coverage.
You would owe $95K for the vette and easily could go over the $30K limit or $15K for one person

Very interesting thread lots of opinions .Coming from up north of youfrom a different country .I know what to do up here, but wondered what to do if stopped south of the boarder.

Anyone know what my rights ( as being Canadian ) would be if stopped
or am I free game.

Here is a thought:

Putting up a random road block on a darkly lit stretch of highway at 2am is DANGEROUS! At what point do the DUI checkpoints become just as dangerous or more dangerous than the drunk drivers themselves?

Many years ago (late '80's) there were several accidents from random checkpoints being thrown up. The State was found liable for several deaths because they had essentially put a hazard in the road way. Those lawsuits changed the was DUI checkpoints are setup, where they are setup, there are minimum sight distances, etc. The DOT is involved in selecting sights for checkpoints AND the State Patrol is the only agency authorized to setup a checkpoint. It may be staffed with local police but the State Patrol is in charge. If a Senior Trooper is NOT on sight the checkpoint is illegal under State law. MANY DUI's have been thrown out because of this.

Around here DUI checkpoints used to be really common. Not so much anymore. You can still occassionally read about the arrests in the local paper on Monday. The report shows arrests for insurance violations, child support warrants, expired tags, unpaid parking tickets, etc. the list goes on. Sadly, the report usually lacks many DUI arrests. Last article I read in the paper they arrested 29 people with only 1 DUI. So I pose a question: Was the purpose of the checkpoint really to reduce drunken driving?

HydroDawg421 said:

Here is a thought:

Putting up a random road block on a darkly lit stretch of highway at 2am is DANGEROUS! At what point do the DUI checkpoints become just as dangerous or more dangerous than the drunk drivers themselves?

Many years ago (late '80's) there were several accidents from random checkpoints being thrown up. The State was found liable for several deaths because they had essentially put a hazard in the road way. Those lawsuits changed the was DUI checkpoints are setup, where they are setup, there are minimum sight distances, etc. The DOT is involved in selecting sights for checkpoints AND the State Patrol is the only agency authorized to setup a checkpoint. It may be staffed with local police but the State Patrol is in charge. If a Senior Trooper is NOT on sight the checkpoint is illegal under State law. MANY DUI's have been thrown out because of this.

Around here DUI checkpoints used to be really common. Not so much anymore. You can still occassionally read about the arrests in the local paper on Monday. The report shows arrests for insurance violations, child support warrants, expired tags, unpaid parking tickets, etc. the list goes on. Sadly, the report usually lacks many DUI arrests. Last article I read in the paper they arrested 29 people with only 1 DUI. So I pose a question: Was the purpose of the checkpoint really to reduce drunken driving?

Click to expand...

There is a residual effect of a check point. Those 29 people are less likely to drink excessively and drive that road because they successfully went through a check point. They are going to bitch about it to 10 people each so 300 people hear about the check point.

The fear of getting caught is what reduces drunk driving.

NLXSK1 said:

There is a residual effect of a check point. Those 29 people are less likely to drink excessively and drive that road because they successfully went through a check point. They are going to bitch about it to 10 people each so 300 people hear about the check point.

The fear of getting caught is what reduces drunk driving.

Click to expand...

Really? Because the fear of being put to death hasn't stopped murders from occurring. Nor has the fear of getting caught prevented ANY crime. Have you listened to what you just wrote? Seriously!

If your analogy was correct Prohibition would have worked.

NLXSK1 said:

There is a residual effect of a check point. Those 29 people are less likely to drink excessively and drive that road because they successfully went through a check point. They are going to bitch about it to 10 people each so 300 people hear about the check point.

The fear of getting caught is what reduces drunk driving.

Click to expand...

And 300 people will then avoid that checkpoint. Bottom line is that with today's social networks, email & text messaging a DUI checkpoint is broadcast to 1,000's of people within minutes of being opened. Thereby rendering it pretty much an exercise in futility!!!

HydroDawg421 said:

Really? Because the fear of being put to death hasn't stopped murders from occurring. Nor has the fear of getting caught prevented ANY crime. Have you listened to what you just wrote? Seriously!

If your analogy was correct Prohibition would have worked.

Click to expand...

So you equate commiting a crime of passion and murdering someone with drinking too much?

Did you read what you just wrote? Seriously?

HydroDawg421 said:

And 300 people will then avoid that checkpoint. Bottom line is that with today's social networks, email & text messaging a DUI checkpoint is broadcast to 1,000's of people within minutes of being opened. Thereby rendering it pretty much an exercise in futility!!!

Click to expand...

Yes, because we all know that every single individual driving down that road is checking their text and e-mail every moment of their journey, especially in states where that is illegal.

Your arguments are assinine.

i was on 44 coming into st.louis it was bumper to bumper bout 75 mph ........... the highway sign goes over the top of the road says stuff....u know the ones.......it says......... ROAD BLOCK AHEAD PREAPARE TO STOP............... first thought in my mind was o fuck were all gonna die.....

turns out they were trying to be sneaky the road block was on the next off ramp....they almost tricked me...........

anyhow my lawyer says i give em my liscense insurance card and her card then i wait for my ticket if he has any other questions i ask if im being detained if he says no i ask if im free to go .............. not another word

The fear of punishment has NEVER stopped a crime. DUI or otherwise. If so MADD would have eliminated DUI arrests completely 25 years ago.

NLXSK1 said:

Yes, because we all know that every single individual driving down that road is checking their text and e-mail every moment of their journey, especially in states where that is illegal.

Your arguments are assinine.

Click to expand...

Yes. Most likely they are riding around texting in violation of the law. Once again, laws only punish after the fact. They do little to prevent the illegal behavior. To be more specific, I created a text message mailing list. I named the list '5-0' and added all my close friends. When I see a checkpoint, speed trap or other police presence I send a broadcast text that goes to 17 different people. I don't know if they are driving or not. But I feel obligated to let my friends know when/where I see an increased police presence. I know for a fact that text gets forwarded immediately and would guess at least 100 people get that text within minutes advising them to a avoid these areas. I also receive texts from my friends of a similar nature at least once or twice a week.

If you really want to have some fun and to test the checkpoint wisdom posted above.... Try driving thru Western Nebraska down I-80 coming from Colorado, they have the check points, dozens of State Troopers and a few puppies waiting for you! And no this is not a DUI checkpoint, they are looking for the evil weed; sad part is they get some sucker at least once a week trying to run multiple pounds of crap ass dirt weed to the East coast.

Even sadder is most don't get hit at the check point; they get hit because of doing 80 in a 70, blown tail light or expired plates!

HydroDawg421 said:

Really? Because the fear of being put to death hasn't stopped murders from occurring.

Click to expand...

you're right, we should just take murder laws off the books then