Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Random sobriety tests for drivers
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 10:39, 5 July 2008 (edit) Matthew.graham26 (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 10:40, 5 July 2008 (edit) Matthew.graham26 (Talk | contribs) (→External links and resources:) Next diff → |
||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
==External links and resources:== | ==External links and resources:== | ||
- | * [http://www.ias.org.uk/factsheets/drink-driving.pdf Institute for Alcohol Studies report] | + | * [http://www.ias.org.uk/factsheets/drink-driving.pdf | Institute for Alcohol Studies report] |
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3739599.stm BBC News on the rejection by the UK of the European Commission’s recommendations] | * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3739599.stm BBC News on the rejection by the UK of the European Commission’s recommendations] | ||
* [http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/driving/drinkdrive_policy.htm RosPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents)] | * [http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/driving/drinkdrive_policy.htm RosPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents)] | ||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
* [http://breaking.tcm.ie/2005/10/17/story225819.html Report on a delay in introducing random breath-testing in Ireland] | * [http://breaking.tcm.ie/2005/10/17/story225819.html Report on a delay in introducing random breath-testing in Ireland] | ||
* [http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/january/injuryfund.htm Proposals for policy change in South Africa] | * [http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/january/injuryfund.htm Proposals for policy change in South Africa] | ||
- | |||
==Books:== | ==Books:== | ||
* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000CP11R/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Motoring offences and breath test statistics: England and Wales 2001 (Home Office statistical bulletin)] : Margaret Ayres | * [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000CP11R/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Motoring offences and breath test statistics: England and Wales 2001 (Home Office statistical bulletin)] : Margaret Ayres |
Revision as of 10:40, 5 July 2008
Are random breath tests for drivers a good idea? |
This article is based on a Debatabase entry written by Alex Deane. Because this document can be modified by any registered user of this site, its contents should be cited with care.
Background and Context of Debate:Random breath testing of drivers for excess alcohol in the blood is a policy that intends to bring down the number of drink drivers. The European Commission believes that the police forces of all member states of the European Union should be able to conduct random breath tests. This could, for example, involve officers being sent to a different road every day and pulling over perhaps every hundredth car to subject its driver to a compulsory breathalyser test. If the driver failed the test, they would be prosecuted and mostly likely punished. However, some countries (such as the UK) have laws that state that drivers can only be tested if officers have a reason to believe that they have been drinking, usually because of the erratic manner in which they have been driving. This has therefore been a debate in Europe for some time. Random testing is currently legal in several EU countries, and in Australia. |
Is random breath testing "time well-spent" by police? | |
Yes
|
No
|
Are random breath tests necessary to stop drink driving? | |
Yes
|
No
|
Are random breath tests "unreasonable searches" that "invade people's privacy"? | |
Yes
|
NoThere are civil liberties issues concerned that must not be swept aside. Random testing constitutes an ‘unreasonable search’ in USA terminology – i.e. it is being carried out without due cause. The state should not interfere with citizens unless it has just cause to suspect that they are doing something wrong. Permitting things like this distorts the nature of the relationship between citizen and state. |
Are breath test readings fair and accurate? | |
Yes
|
No
|
Is it wrong to assume people can judge for themselves if they're okay to drive? | |
YesThe opposition can hardly rely on the notion that individuals should be allowed to judge for themselves, since the very point is that people have consistently failed to behave responsibly – that’s why we need testing at all. After all, one of the key effects of alcohol is that it clouds judgement. This is also an opposition to testing in general rather than just random testing. |
NoIt is still legal to have a drink and then drive – but the culture of nanny state control is increasingly meaning that self-righteous moral pundits condemn people for doing so, when in truth it should be up to the individual to judge whether they are ok to drive. People should be judged by the consequences of their actions, not by theoretical possibilities. Having random tests will only add to this. |
Are random breath tests a waste of money? | |
Yes |
No |
Are random breath tests revenue raisers? | |
Yes |
No |
References:Motions:
In legislation, policy, and the real worldSee also on Debatepedia:External links and resources:
Books: |