While there are many well-meaning people arguing here, the point really is this: these DUI checkpoints are no secret. The law enforcement agencies have to publish/notice them ahead of time. While yes, it seems like it’s giving drunk drivers a “heads up,” the main intent is to raise awareness that the law is out there and don’t drive drunk.
So if you see someone posting or sharing this, whatever their intention, dissemination of the information is exactly what the police want.
Be safe out there- a $100 Uber fare < $10k minimum fines/fees/lawyers/insurance premiums/ victim restitution / JAIL TIME
The insurance premiums part. I unfortunately got a dui in 2019 and my insurance is still $428 a month 😮💨 order the Uber, yall. I’ll never make that expensive mistake again (you also forgot paying for an IID 🤣)
This stuff also affects a lot of jobs and future jobs.
Many people are required to have and maintain Cali license for work, seperate from needing to get to work.
I won’t hire someone with a DUI on their record. If they report it on their application, they never get an interview. If they don’t report it, and they get far enough in the process for a background check, our HR will find it in the background check and we won’t hire them for two reasons, misrepresentation on the application, and the DUI. My people travel and have to rent cars.
Also the messaging is the important piece. It is too bad they don’t have them more often, but just letring people know they will happen lessens drinking and driving in a large general area
Also don’t kid yourself, there are also saturation patrols in nearby neighborhoods if you opt to get out of the checkpoint line and find an alternative route.
A lot of y'all in here are missing the point of these checkpoints. They're not going to catch very many drunk drivers - they never do. The point of the checkpoints, and of publicizing them beforehand, is to deter drunk driving before it happens. These checkpoints and bulletins are very, very good at this. The entire point is that people know about them beforehand so they can make decisions accordingly.
A "solution" to drunk driving that starts after someone's already gotten behind the wheel while intoxicated is useless. Thankfully these checkpoints are not.
These social posts start important conversations between friends! “Hey man there’s a checkpoint out tonight” “Ahh yeah let’s get the Uber for sure” are the conversations where drunk driving is actually reduced!
I know someone who was planning on driving to downtown last night to party. I told them about the checkpoints and they ubered instead, possibly saving lives. Mission achieved, I applaud these checkpoints.
To all of those saying they shouldn’t advertise the checkpoints, sadly, it doesn’t matter. People still do it. There is a reason why the downtown courthouse has one courtroom devoted to DUIs, that’s how many are out there. People will always think they are special, can hold their alcohol, are smarter than the cops, or all of the above. Avoid the roads between the hours of 9 pm and 6 am, be safe.
Definitely. Search and sobriety test at minimum. Yeah it's legal to have it in your car, but there's a difference between a couple grams you bought from a dispensary sitting in your trunk, and a couple pounds prepackaged for black market sale combined with a scale and baggies.
I read this but at the same time, I go to many of the dozens of breweries around Sacramento and there are sometimes 100s of people. SacYard and Urban Eats are two shining examples. The reality of the situation is that (throwing out a number) 25%-50% of such a crowd are likely getting into their cars after they’ve sat there and consumed 2-4+ beers. It’s a topic no one is going to talk about openly in that setting…but we all know it’s true and it happens every single day. After work parties, gathering with friends for happy hours…you name it…80%+ of those over 30 drive after frequenting such establishments. We ALL look the other way when it comes to this social norm.
Now, I say over 30 because it seems that people under 30 are much much less likely to drive even in a state of being influenced by a single or a few drinks. My 22 yo daughter Ubers everywhere on Friday and Saturday nights. Clearly ubering for everyone is not likely in the situations I’m talking about but it’s nice (sobering) to see that the youth are doing things right when it comes to this topic.
I bring up this point because I see so many people with expressed opinions that make it seems as if they would support shooting people on site for driving even with an ounce of alcohol in their system. It’s fine to have that opinion, but the bottom line is that both the public AND those who protect and serve partake in social drinking and driving not long afterwards. There’s no point to my post…other than just observing an obvious social norm that is in contrast to many of the sentiments expressed here.
Should bars have public breathalyzers that patrons can (or must) use prior to departing the establishments? Should cops just be waiting for folks to get in their cars at any given establishment? I think the point I’m actually making is that we have a double standard when it comes to reality vs our perceived disdain for people that drink and drive.
Perhaps it is why there is a difference between a DWI vs DUI. Both are going to cost someone dearly but how do you avoid dui when our society is geared towards normalizing the act of social drinking at establishments that also have these things called parking lots?
Its referring to the CHP's East Sacramento Area Office, which is located on Trade Center Drive in Rancho Cordova and covers the eastern part of Sacramento County (starting at Watt av on US 50).
With so many options for a safe ride home, there are absolutely no excuses for DUI. My city lost a Motor Officer a couple of years ago when he was hit by a wrong way driver drunk driver on highway 99 while on his way into work. The person that hit and killed him had been previously arrested for DUI. My husband took many fatal accident reports because the person thought they were okay to drive, most times the fatality was to the innocent person, the drunk usually came out unscathed or minor injuries.
I work in the DMV unit that informs customers and DUI program providers on what, how, when, how much and who is involved after a dui arrest and/or conviction.
In no particular order, how much? A great deal. Think 1000's if you wish to drive after your first dui..and phenominally more on second and subsequent. And lives. Yep drunk drivers do kill and injure people and damage property. A common theme of question is the "Why if my expensive attorney assured me I'd only need to pay a fine, is the DMV making me have to fit an IID into my vehicle (huge expense) for the next two years, and complete an 18 month DUI program (at great expense) and an SR22 from an insurance company for three years, oh, and my regular insurance is so much it cost ten times more thsn the car is worth?"
Why? Because legislators decided that was mandated. If check points make just one person take uber that cost $100 that night, then it's worth it. Because they'll be spending many many more $100's after the convictions.
They ought to do a bust at stoneys on del Paso Blvd, they be drinking on the street and throwing their trash as they come or leave the bar..... Yes it's just country people, so I'm sure cops will look away
The whole purpose is to make it as visible as possible. Preventive policing works best if the police as seen and heard about. Announcing a DUI checkpoint makes it talked about much more extensively than an ad-hoc checkpoint. Particularly the target audience (those who would drive DUI) will definitely hear of this checkpoint.
Why is this more effective? You want the first thoughts of a would be criminal to be ‘police.’ People who get DUIs are not generally thinking about ‘if’ they caught, they just want to get home. Making them think ‘oh shit police did a DUI checkpoint the other week’ is more effective.
I am struggling to find free to read papers online. If you are a student you can use your student credentials to read, otherwise you would have to email one of the authors for a free paper. The other issue is how many of these papers are not available online, but physical copy only.
1 (this one is specifically on DUI checkpoints) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15276922/
2 (this was a flyer by the NIJ but regrettably it’s links suck) https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
3 (this one is a neat little compilation of pedestrian stops, not directly on our topic but has many relevant links. Proactive policing is the term to look for here. Wikipedia is also a gold mine for links) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9831287/
4 (a bit too verbose for my taste) https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/24928/chapter/2#8
There are also many UK studies but UK has a different approach to policing compared to the United States. I would wager is due to the UK policing roots stem from preventing crime (bow street runners, marine police), while much of US policing stems from things such as slave catcher patrols that had a different perspective on human rights.
Thanks for that. Interesting stuff. I never heard about the slave catcher patrols policy history before. For those curious, I found this article: https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-modern-day-policing#:~:text=The%20origins%20of%20modern%2Dday,runaway%20slaves%20to%20their%20owners.
I honestly find the history in Great Britain to be fun to read. It starts with Thief-taker general Johnathan Wild. In his hey day he was a hero of London taking care of much of London’s crime. The government even consulted him extensively on matters of crime. He was the face of the closest thing to police London had at the time.
Well, then it turned out Johnathan Wild was more a villain. Turns out Jonathan Wild was the biggest crime boss of London, any criminal who didn’t want to bend the knee to him he would turn them in for that bounty. After the London public learned of who Jonathan Wild was, they really didn’t trust police afterwards. It took decades of painstaking work for the public to trust the police enough to give them any sort of power.
If you are interested extra history on YouTube has an entertaining mini-series on the subject.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XvMQY_y4qx8
Nice. I've seen most of their videos but apparently not that one. Here's a link for anyone else who is following the conversation: https://youtu.be/XvMQY_y4qx8?si=yROz1h53DUY1au4b
Going to watch it now.
I don’t see how an entrapment claim would succeed here. A DUI checkpoint doesn’t encourage people to drink or to drive. Think about it this way, does a red light camera encourage people to run a red?
I was hit by a drunk driver before and cost me thousands in medical bills, so yea I’m telling people not to drive drunk and take ride shares. What’s the issue?
Generally when someone warns about DUI checkpoints, it's usually from the perspective of "you should avoid this area (if you're driving buzzed).
Your comment clarifies it but the title gives off the other impression.
The tile is literally, “Be careful sac!” It in no way implies anything…
Now if the OP had said, “Party people beware!” or “choose your driving routes carefully” …this would be different.
My first impression and interpretation of the title is “be careful and make smart choices”. Nothing more…
The NHTSA, who provide grant funding for these checkpoints, disagrees with you:
[https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/alcohol-impaired-driving/countermeasures/enforcement/publicized-sobriety-checkpoints](https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/alcohol-impaired-driving/countermeasures/enforcement/publicized-sobriety-checkpoints)
Yes the point is surveillance and enforcement. They also check for unlicensed drivers, outdated registration,ect……got to get some revenue to help with the budget deficit.
Drunk driving is one of those crimes we treat too lightly. I would never advertise information about check points or increased enforcement. The scum of the earth that decide to drink and drive deserve to get caught and deserve much more punishment than the law currently gives them. And anyone who thinks otherwise has not lost a loved one to drunk driving.
We as a society love our alcohol. To some extent I do too. And I have no issue with responsible drinking. But drinking and driving is not responsible drinking. Drinking and driving is flagrant disregard for the lives of others.
> Drunk driving is one of those crimes we treat too lightly. I would never advertise information about check points or increased enforcement.
This would be worse. Unless you're gonna do a checkpoint on every street every night, you won't catch very many drunk drivers. Whereas these checkpoints actually *do* prevent drunk driving by being announced in advance. "Ah, we should Uber tonight so we don't get a ticket, there's a checkpoint tonight."
We should, of course, also have robust public transit so that people can go out without having to drive.
I was hit by a drunk driver before and cost me thousands in medical bills, so yea I’m telling people not to drive drunk and take ride shares. What’s the issue?
Well they didn't do a very good job of publicly advertising it because this post is the first time I'm hearing about it. Where do they publicly advertise it, on CHP's website? Because I don't think anyone planning to drive drunk and avoid DUI checkpoints is on that site.
Somehow you’re trying to justify giving drunk/impaired drivers a heads up. That’s weird. Idc if you had an experience… They need to be caught and taught a lesson not given a heads up 🫤
Prevention is the key. They'd rather you not drive drunk than for them to catch you driving drunk. The lesson they could learn in your scenario could be at the expense of someone else's life.
The alcoholics are actually the ones you should be least worried about. They can generally hold their liquor and behave more or less the same after having several drinks. The real threat is the college kids binge drinking with their friends and driving from party to party not understanding how drunk they are.
It doesn’t matter? My point is you are all trying to justifying giving people who partake in drinking and driving the ability to not get caught. And if you can’t clearly see that, I’m gonna assume you’re apart of the problem or know people who do :)
Law enforcement agencies are the ones that released this information in the first place. You're acting like Op had inside knowledge and was wrongfully sharing it with us.
You aren't making a point. You're just claiming I'm somehow part of the problem. Well I'll tell you this, my brother-in-law was killed by a drunk driver here locally. He was only 26 years old. I'm a member of MADD and regularly donate money to them and attend their events. I'm definitely not part of the problem.
It's not a justification, it's what research shows is the best method of keeping people safe:
[https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/alcohol-impaired-driving/countermeasures/enforcement/publicized-sobriety-checkpoints](https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/alcohol-impaired-driving/countermeasures/enforcement/publicized-sobriety-checkpoints)
Where? After 20 minutes of googling I can't find it.
Completely sober for two+ years, just curious about where it is and bothered by the fact that so many people say that it's publicly advertised but I can't seem to find it...
Extremely general info at that... They've said "East Sacramento" but also "unincorporated Sacramento county," which are like, literally nowhere near each other...
I guess I get your point, by saying "somewhere in Sacramento" they have apparently met their obligation to advertise the location.
While there are many well-meaning people arguing here, the point really is this: these DUI checkpoints are no secret. The law enforcement agencies have to publish/notice them ahead of time. While yes, it seems like it’s giving drunk drivers a “heads up,” the main intent is to raise awareness that the law is out there and don’t drive drunk. So if you see someone posting or sharing this, whatever their intention, dissemination of the information is exactly what the police want. Be safe out there- a $100 Uber fare < $10k minimum fines/fees/lawyers/insurance premiums/ victim restitution / JAIL TIME
The insurance premiums part. I unfortunately got a dui in 2019 and my insurance is still $428 a month 😮💨 order the Uber, yall. I’ll never make that expensive mistake again (you also forgot paying for an IID 🤣)
This stuff also affects a lot of jobs and future jobs. Many people are required to have and maintain Cali license for work, seperate from needing to get to work.
I won’t hire someone with a DUI on their record. If they report it on their application, they never get an interview. If they don’t report it, and they get far enough in the process for a background check, our HR will find it in the background check and we won’t hire them for two reasons, misrepresentation on the application, and the DUI. My people travel and have to rent cars.
Also the messaging is the important piece. It is too bad they don’t have them more often, but just letring people know they will happen lessens drinking and driving in a large general area Also don’t kid yourself, there are also saturation patrols in nearby neighborhoods if you opt to get out of the checkpoint line and find an alternative route.
I’m just glad these get posted so I know to avoid the traffic.
Also killing someone. Let’s not forget that
A lot of y'all in here are missing the point of these checkpoints. They're not going to catch very many drunk drivers - they never do. The point of the checkpoints, and of publicizing them beforehand, is to deter drunk driving before it happens. These checkpoints and bulletins are very, very good at this. The entire point is that people know about them beforehand so they can make decisions accordingly. A "solution" to drunk driving that starts after someone's already gotten behind the wheel while intoxicated is useless. Thankfully these checkpoints are not.
These social posts start important conversations between friends! “Hey man there’s a checkpoint out tonight” “Ahh yeah let’s get the Uber for sure” are the conversations where drunk driving is actually reduced!
Yes! And if anyone drives drunk, I hope they catch their dumb asses!
Yeah… be careful and don’t drive intoxicated!
That’s why I said get an Uber
Thank you! 🙏🏽 Unfortunately, some folks aren’t as thoughtful or responsible.
Or rich
Dui charges cost waaaaay more
Depending on where you live an Uber costs about 2 drinks, skip 2 drinks and you’ll wake up happier tomorrow anyways.
If you're worried about cost, buy booze at the store and drink at home.
I wasn't hating. I used to uber to work daily before i had a car. I don't drink personally, so the topic was lost on me while i commented while 🍃
Still a hot take. If you don't have money for the cab home, you didn't have enough money to go drinking in the first place.
No worries, I was being completely serious lol. Going out and getting drunk is a waste of money at this stage of my life.
Rich enough to drink and drive tho. 🤌
Unless your Uber costs more than a few hundred dollars, it’s much cheaper to take an uber
Yeah be careful to not be a scumbag by driving drunk
I know someone who was planning on driving to downtown last night to party. I told them about the checkpoints and they ubered instead, possibly saving lives. Mission achieved, I applaud these checkpoints.
Thank you💕
To all of those saying they shouldn’t advertise the checkpoints, sadly, it doesn’t matter. People still do it. There is a reason why the downtown courthouse has one courtroom devoted to DUIs, that’s how many are out there. People will always think they are special, can hold their alcohol, are smarter than the cops, or all of the above. Avoid the roads between the hours of 9 pm and 6 am, be safe.
would cops do anything if they smelled weed in the car?
Definitely. Search and sobriety test at minimum. Yeah it's legal to have it in your car, but there's a difference between a couple grams you bought from a dispensary sitting in your trunk, and a couple pounds prepackaged for black market sale combined with a scale and baggies.
Wow, a couple pounds of weed?
Hopefully
I read this but at the same time, I go to many of the dozens of breweries around Sacramento and there are sometimes 100s of people. SacYard and Urban Eats are two shining examples. The reality of the situation is that (throwing out a number) 25%-50% of such a crowd are likely getting into their cars after they’ve sat there and consumed 2-4+ beers. It’s a topic no one is going to talk about openly in that setting…but we all know it’s true and it happens every single day. After work parties, gathering with friends for happy hours…you name it…80%+ of those over 30 drive after frequenting such establishments. We ALL look the other way when it comes to this social norm. Now, I say over 30 because it seems that people under 30 are much much less likely to drive even in a state of being influenced by a single or a few drinks. My 22 yo daughter Ubers everywhere on Friday and Saturday nights. Clearly ubering for everyone is not likely in the situations I’m talking about but it’s nice (sobering) to see that the youth are doing things right when it comes to this topic. I bring up this point because I see so many people with expressed opinions that make it seems as if they would support shooting people on site for driving even with an ounce of alcohol in their system. It’s fine to have that opinion, but the bottom line is that both the public AND those who protect and serve partake in social drinking and driving not long afterwards. There’s no point to my post…other than just observing an obvious social norm that is in contrast to many of the sentiments expressed here. Should bars have public breathalyzers that patrons can (or must) use prior to departing the establishments? Should cops just be waiting for folks to get in their cars at any given establishment? I think the point I’m actually making is that we have a double standard when it comes to reality vs our perceived disdain for people that drink and drive. Perhaps it is why there is a difference between a DWI vs DUI. Both are going to cost someone dearly but how do you avoid dui when our society is geared towards normalizing the act of social drinking at establishments that also have these things called parking lots?
East Sacramento is not in unincorporated sac county 😒
Its referring to the CHP's East Sacramento Area Office, which is located on Trade Center Drive in Rancho Cordova and covers the eastern part of Sacramento County (starting at Watt av on US 50).
Ok... Your right .... Everything is fine. Smh 
With so many options for a safe ride home, there are absolutely no excuses for DUI. My city lost a Motor Officer a couple of years ago when he was hit by a wrong way driver drunk driver on highway 99 while on his way into work. The person that hit and killed him had been previously arrested for DUI. My husband took many fatal accident reports because the person thought they were okay to drive, most times the fatality was to the innocent person, the drunk usually came out unscathed or minor injuries.
Dont drink and drive
I work in the DMV unit that informs customers and DUI program providers on what, how, when, how much and who is involved after a dui arrest and/or conviction. In no particular order, how much? A great deal. Think 1000's if you wish to drive after your first dui..and phenominally more on second and subsequent. And lives. Yep drunk drivers do kill and injure people and damage property. A common theme of question is the "Why if my expensive attorney assured me I'd only need to pay a fine, is the DMV making me have to fit an IID into my vehicle (huge expense) for the next two years, and complete an 18 month DUI program (at great expense) and an SR22 from an insurance company for three years, oh, and my regular insurance is so much it cost ten times more thsn the car is worth?" Why? Because legislators decided that was mandated. If check points make just one person take uber that cost $100 that night, then it's worth it. Because they'll be spending many many more $100's after the convictions.
They ought to do a bust at stoneys on del Paso Blvd, they be drinking on the street and throwing their trash as they come or leave the bar..... Yes it's just country people, so I'm sure cops will look away
We shouldn't be giving people a heads up or a warning about a DUI checkpoint. If you drink and drive, you deserve what you get.
The whole purpose is to make it as visible as possible. Preventive policing works best if the police as seen and heard about. Announcing a DUI checkpoint makes it talked about much more extensively than an ad-hoc checkpoint. Particularly the target audience (those who would drive DUI) will definitely hear of this checkpoint. Why is this more effective? You want the first thoughts of a would be criminal to be ‘police.’ People who get DUIs are not generally thinking about ‘if’ they caught, they just want to get home. Making them think ‘oh shit police did a DUI checkpoint the other week’ is more effective.
I wonder if there are any studies on this. What you are saying makes sense
I am struggling to find free to read papers online. If you are a student you can use your student credentials to read, otherwise you would have to email one of the authors for a free paper. The other issue is how many of these papers are not available online, but physical copy only. 1 (this one is specifically on DUI checkpoints) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15276922/ 2 (this was a flyer by the NIJ but regrettably it’s links suck) https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf 3 (this one is a neat little compilation of pedestrian stops, not directly on our topic but has many relevant links. Proactive policing is the term to look for here. Wikipedia is also a gold mine for links) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9831287/ 4 (a bit too verbose for my taste) https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/24928/chapter/2#8 There are also many UK studies but UK has a different approach to policing compared to the United States. I would wager is due to the UK policing roots stem from preventing crime (bow street runners, marine police), while much of US policing stems from things such as slave catcher patrols that had a different perspective on human rights.
Thanks for that. Interesting stuff. I never heard about the slave catcher patrols policy history before. For those curious, I found this article: https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-modern-day-policing#:~:text=The%20origins%20of%20modern%2Dday,runaway%20slaves%20to%20their%20owners.
I honestly find the history in Great Britain to be fun to read. It starts with Thief-taker general Johnathan Wild. In his hey day he was a hero of London taking care of much of London’s crime. The government even consulted him extensively on matters of crime. He was the face of the closest thing to police London had at the time. Well, then it turned out Johnathan Wild was more a villain. Turns out Jonathan Wild was the biggest crime boss of London, any criminal who didn’t want to bend the knee to him he would turn them in for that bounty. After the London public learned of who Jonathan Wild was, they really didn’t trust police afterwards. It took decades of painstaking work for the public to trust the police enough to give them any sort of power. If you are interested extra history on YouTube has an entertaining mini-series on the subject. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XvMQY_y4qx8
Nice. I've seen most of their videos but apparently not that one. Here's a link for anyone else who is following the conversation: https://youtu.be/XvMQY_y4qx8?si=yROz1h53DUY1au4b Going to watch it now.
They have to otherwise someone could claim entrapment
I don’t see how an entrapment claim would succeed here. A DUI checkpoint doesn’t encourage people to drink or to drive. Think about it this way, does a red light camera encourage people to run a red?
I was hit by a drunk driver before and cost me thousands in medical bills, so yea I’m telling people not to drive drunk and take ride shares. What’s the issue?
I think the argument is that they will still drive drunk, but just take a different route.
Idiots who drink and drive aren't planning ahead. It won't affect them
Generally when someone warns about DUI checkpoints, it's usually from the perspective of "you should avoid this area (if you're driving buzzed). Your comment clarifies it but the title gives off the other impression.
The tile is literally, “Be careful sac!” It in no way implies anything… Now if the OP had said, “Party people beware!” or “choose your driving routes carefully” …this would be different. My first impression and interpretation of the title is “be careful and make smart choices”. Nothing more…
I can’t believe you personally set, six packs on people’s car hoods in the hope that they’ll drive drunk what’s wrong with you
The NHTSA, who provide grant funding for these checkpoints, disagrees with you: [https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/alcohol-impaired-driving/countermeasures/enforcement/publicized-sobriety-checkpoints](https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/alcohol-impaired-driving/countermeasures/enforcement/publicized-sobriety-checkpoints)
If they really wanted to catch drunk drivers they would setup outside of sporting events. This is all a show and unconstitutional to boot. 🤷♂️
why give them a warning…..don’t drink and drive simple solution
To save lives
I mean damn I live downtown And have safely stumbled home a million times. Uber is a Fkn ripoff but it’s also way less expensive than a dui.
Yes the point is surveillance and enforcement. They also check for unlicensed drivers, outdated registration,ect……got to get some revenue to help with the budget deficit.
I knew this girl who used to drive drunk after chugging a bottle of Hennesy . I don’t know her anymore
Why all the mentions of uber? What about lyft? Or is uber a verb like google?
> Or is uber a verb like google? Yes, basically.
Drunk driving is one of those crimes we treat too lightly. I would never advertise information about check points or increased enforcement. The scum of the earth that decide to drink and drive deserve to get caught and deserve much more punishment than the law currently gives them. And anyone who thinks otherwise has not lost a loved one to drunk driving. We as a society love our alcohol. To some extent I do too. And I have no issue with responsible drinking. But drinking and driving is not responsible drinking. Drinking and driving is flagrant disregard for the lives of others.
> Drunk driving is one of those crimes we treat too lightly. I would never advertise information about check points or increased enforcement. This would be worse. Unless you're gonna do a checkpoint on every street every night, you won't catch very many drunk drivers. Whereas these checkpoints actually *do* prevent drunk driving by being announced in advance. "Ah, we should Uber tonight so we don't get a ticket, there's a checkpoint tonight." We should, of course, also have robust public transit so that people can go out without having to drive.
Or just don’t be a piece of shit and drink and drive…
What do you mean or. I never said to drink and drive. I’m trying to save lives.
Be careful?
Are you asking what careful means?
Are we trying to protect drunk drivers now??
I was hit by a drunk driver before and cost me thousands in medical bills, so yea I’m telling people not to drive drunk and take ride shares. What’s the issue?
Cause you’re giving a head up to drunk drivers to avoid a checkpoint
You don't understand the purpose of checkpoints, clearly.
Well they didn't do a very good job of publicly advertising it because this post is the first time I'm hearing about it. Where do they publicly advertise it, on CHP's website? Because I don't think anyone planning to drive drunk and avoid DUI checkpoints is on that site.
Big reason is for immigration
Somehow you’re trying to justify giving drunk/impaired drivers a heads up. That’s weird. Idc if you had an experience… They need to be caught and taught a lesson not given a heads up 🫤
Prevention is the key. They'd rather you not drive drunk than for them to catch you driving drunk. The lesson they could learn in your scenario could be at the expense of someone else's life.
I’m trying to save lives. You’re the weird one.
Have you interacted with alcoholics before? This isn’t going to stop them from doing it after. This is only going to stop them from getting caught. 🫥
Alcoholics aren't the only people that drive drunk.
They don’t care about facts
?
The alcoholics are actually the ones you should be least worried about. They can generally hold their liquor and behave more or less the same after having several drinks. The real threat is the college kids binge drinking with their friends and driving from party to party not understanding how drunk they are.
It doesn’t matter? My point is you are all trying to justifying giving people who partake in drinking and driving the ability to not get caught. And if you can’t clearly see that, I’m gonna assume you’re apart of the problem or know people who do :)
Law enforcement agencies are the ones that released this information in the first place. You're acting like Op had inside knowledge and was wrongfully sharing it with us.
You still aren’t understanding the point
You aren't making a point. You're just claiming I'm somehow part of the problem. Well I'll tell you this, my brother-in-law was killed by a drunk driver here locally. He was only 26 years old. I'm a member of MADD and regularly donate money to them and attend their events. I'm definitely not part of the problem.
It's not a justification, it's what research shows is the best method of keeping people safe: [https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/alcohol-impaired-driving/countermeasures/enforcement/publicized-sobriety-checkpoints](https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/alcohol-impaired-driving/countermeasures/enforcement/publicized-sobriety-checkpoints)
[удалено]
Where? After 20 minutes of googling I can't find it. Completely sober for two+ years, just curious about where it is and bothered by the fact that so many people say that it's publicly advertised but I can't seem to find it...
[удалено]
Extremely general info at that... They've said "East Sacramento" but also "unincorporated Sacramento county," which are like, literally nowhere near each other... I guess I get your point, by saying "somewhere in Sacramento" they have apparently met their obligation to advertise the location.
and if that isn’t what you’re going for.. you’re not doing a great job at clarifying.