No alcohol check points at nascar races?

[cobb]

I attended another race and to my surpsie, desipte the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people who attend the races smelling of beer and driving away, all the cops and other uniformed people do not say a word. Why is that?

Maybe the traffic is soo congested that no on can get any speed up to cause some real damage?

One thing thats fun to watch is for someone to start shouting or reving their engine while slowly exiting the track. Out of no where a uniformed officer approaches with a light and shines it on them standing in plain view and they quit.

Just wondering....

 

[cobb]

Anyreason cops do not check folks leaving sporting events for being intoxicated?

 

[ibcj]

Anyreason cops do not check folks leaving sporting events for being intoxicated?

There are tens of thousands of fans that attend large events and typically a couple hundred police at the most. If each police officer were to get tied up with an arrest for an intoxicated person, then within a short time, there would be nobody to assist with traffic control or emergencies (ie-violence, medical, etc). When traffic backs up, people become upset which has the potential for more violence and there wouldn't be anyone able to handle the situation, which is not safe for the spectators or the police.

If a police chief were to assign almost the entire department to the event to arrest intoxicated persons it would create numerous issues, such as: a very high overtime bill, public perception of the police will be very poor (people aren't paying top dollar to watch an event, only to get arrested after it), the jails will get full very quickly, even for the minor stuff. When the people don't show up for the court date after the arrest, it means warrants and more paperwork.

All in all, the function of police at a large event is to maintain order. People can only hope that most of the intoxicated people are using designated drivers and acting responsibly. If someone is out of control, then the police will deal with the individual. If the police set up a DWI roadcheck at the exit of the event and it took 10 hours for you to get out of the event, I think you'd be a little upset.

Just a few things to think about.

 

[Alin10123]

Same principle like at concerts. When music midtown used to come to Atlanta. There would be cops everywhere and you'd see tons of underage drinkers and you'd smell drugs everywhere. But the cops just see it and let it pass. I was kind of surprised at first. But then figured if they took everyone to jail that they saw... it would never workout. Although... they could just use a couple people as an example and the others will stop.

 

[MrTwoTone]

I'm pretty sure that the cops don't make any arrests(unless it's an extreme case)because it would be bad for business.The same reason we can't control our southern border.

 

[Coop]

If a police chief were to assign almost the entire department to the event to arrest intoxicated persons it would create numerous issues, such as: a very high overtime bill, public perception of the police will be very poor (people aren't paying top dollar to watch an event, only to get arrested after it), the jails will get full very quickly, even for the minor stuff. When the people don't show up for the court date after the arrest, it means warrants and more paperwork.

...And if one single fatal accident caused by one of those drunk drivers could be prevented by doing so, it would all be worth it...

imho all people driving under the influence should have their driverslicense AND car taken away. If a drunk driver causes a fatal accident and does not have a valid excuse for driving while intoxicated (like a medical emergency) should be subjected to a game of russian roulette right then and there. As they are willing to gamble with other peoples lives, why shouldn't they do so with their own?

 

[ibcj]

...And if one single fatal accident caused by one of those drunk drivers could be prevented by doing so, it would all be worth it...

I agree that DWI's should be strictly enforced, however it is tough to say how many fatal accidents could be prevented.

As a taxpayer, how much more money would you be willing to pay to prevent possible dwi fatal accidents ? Extra patrols could be put on the road everyday, but there would be a cost to taxpayers. Many people would scream about extra costs, unless they have been directly affected (such as the loss of a loved one). Dealing with such issues is a balancing act, but I think that a zero tolerance approach is a step in the right direction. - JMHO

 

[ibcj]

What am I thinking ? I come here to talk and learn about flashlights, not rant about police dwi enforcement. my 2 cents are in on this one.

 

[Coop]

What am I thinking ? I come here to talk and learn about flashlights, not rant about police dwi enforcement. my 2 cents are in on this one.

Well, you can skip the Cafe next time you read the forums as it is the place for off topic items...


A lot of accidents can be prevented, especially with the big events. Have a checkpoint at every exit of the parkinglot, and have every driver do a breathalizer test. Make sure this is clear in advance. If people refuse, they can leave their car and find other means of transportation. If they fail the test, well, you know how I think about that... (they can organise a raffle to get rid of the impounded cars and have the profits of the ticketsale go to a worthy cause).
Sure it will create a traffic jam, but only on the parkinglot (where there would be one anyway) outside the parkinglot traffic would be less chaotic as cars would come out of the lot in a regulated manner...

 

[xochi]

...And if one single fatal accident caused by one of those drunk drivers could be prevented by doing so, it would all be worth it...

imho all people driving under the influence should have their driverslicense AND car taken away. If a drunk driver causes a fatal accident and does not have a valid excuse for driving while intoxicated (like a medical emergency) should be subjected to a game of russian roulette right then and there. As they are willing to gamble with other peoples lives, why shouldn't they do so with their own?

The thing I really don't understand is the fantasyland expectation that intoxicated individuals act responseably. There are literally millions of examples of individuals who cannot operate normally while intoxicated. It's like expecting a schizophrenic to just ignore the roaches he sees and feels crawling all over his body. Please don't misunderstand me as saying that every individual drinks the quantity of alcohol (which is highly variable, btw) required to seriously effect judgement. Most drinkers do at one point or another in there lives, some frequently, some very rarely.

Alcohol is big business and the entertainment industry depends on alcohol to get people to show up. Nascar would be crippled as would most rock concerts if alcohol wasn't sold. Bars that actually follow the alcohol sales laws that we have in Atlanta, Ga wouldshut down. My girlfriend and I go shoot pool at a local bar, I don't drink at all and she tends to drink a little too much on occasion. She'll order a pitcher to save a little money and drink 75% of it over about 3 hours. The funny thing is that , when ordering the pitcher, the barkeep always hands over the pitcher and two glasses because it's against the law to sell a pitcher for one person to drink from. They explain this as they break the spirit, and maybe even the letter of the law. The alcohol laws around here reguarding sales at bars and events are almost universally ignored or circumvented despite the fact that the vast majority of attendees have to get transportation home. Do they insure that the individuals who filled their pockets to become intoxicated aren't driving? Hell no.

There are several kinds of drunks. Some are hardcore alcoholics who drive drunk constantly because they are constantly drunk. These people are pretty rare. Many are just alcoholics who get drunk every night and watch TV. These people only drive drunk when they run out of alcohol or tobacco. Then there are those drinkers who may also be alcoholics of a type who drink to excess in social events and my guess is that these people are the major cause of drunk driving accidents yet nearly all of these accidents could be prevented by enforcing current laws and holding those selling the alcohol responsible. I find it odd that "the war on drugs" almost views the user as a victim and the dealer as the devil incarnate yet as far as alcohol is concerned the situation is reversed. Isn't it sickening to think that for many DUI fatalities, somebody made a tidy profit while selling the perpetrator the alcohol needed to kill someone? Just as sickening is that the accident wouldn't have happened if law enforcement made some effort at enforcing current laws. Hell , even more sickening is the thought that right at the bar the killer got drunk at, is most likely a cop moonlighting as security for fat wages who sits by as bartenders rack up alcohol sales violations one after the other.

Also, don't misunderstand me as saying that the perpetrator shouldn't be held culpable for his actions. What I am saying is that taking his car and liscense, while a deterent, really just ends up as a funnel for folks into welfare. What really needs to happen is the 'dealers' need to be held responsible for the consequences of selling a dangerous drug and current alcohol sales laws need be strictly enforced and penalties increased.