BF2S Forums Welcome to the police state!

ZombieVampire! wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

The laws are certainly an inconvenience, and possibly discriminatory, but it's been repeatedly proven that drivers in the 16-25 age group are the most dangerous.

Your point?

The government has:

1)  Not proven the laws to be effective
2)  Not proven the benefit to outweigh the cost

In fact, their whole logic is yours.  That's not enough to make a law.  That's like declaring that because Africans are over-represented in crime statistics, we'll ban them from entering (which the previous government tried to do), ignoring the fact that it has more to do with their socio-economic situation.

Further, the alcohol interlock laws have no reason to apply only to drivers under 26.

S.Lythberg wrote:

It's unfortunate for the good drivers out there, but it's also a fact.

Shall we ban all cars then?  That would certainly reduce the road toll.

S.Lythberg wrote:

And my old high school doesn't have a school zone around it, a girl got killed in the crosswalk last year...

Perhaps we should install shool zones anywhere there's a fatality?  Regardless of a school being present?

S.Lythberg wrote:

as for the license, I'm not sure about Aussie land, but we have tens of thousands of unlicensed drivers on our roads, and the laws were implemented to get them off.

We don't.  The laws were introduced because police wanted an easier job.

how about an IQ test before licensing?

problem solved.

It may just be populist politics, people see fatalities on tv, and want a quick government fix, rather than actually adjust their driving habits.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Parker wrote:

1. that sounds quite alright with me...thats how it is here, for ANYONE.

Keeping in mind that they can check your license anyway, and it only applies to a particular age group for no particular reason.

Parker wrote:

2. i also have no problem with that, and i agree with you that it should be applied to the entire population.

Keep in mind this effectively applies condition Z (0% BAC) without actually applying it.

Parker wrote:

3. makes perfect sense. a lack of driving experience will be what leads to the accident, and until you have enough experience, more than one passenger could be a distraction.

Note my emphasis.  No evidence was offered.  It drastically reduces the mobility of young people, especially in rural areas.  Further, the designated driving points i mentioned earlier.

Parker wrote:

4. some bars/clubs do that here, but i cant relate cause right across the river, we have a 24 hour club.

This is a legal requirement for clubs though.  Effectively a curfew.

Parker wrote:

5. if you guys have an overwhelming problem with graffiti, this makes perfect sense. the only time you would need to have it in your car, would be to transport it from the hardware store, to whatever job you were using it for.

We don't.  Further, how do you get it from the hardware store to the car legally?

Parker wrote:

6. define "randomly". do they search you if they just feel like it as you are walking down the street, or do you have to be doing something that would make you think you had something you werent supposed to?

AFAIK, they need no reason other than wanting to.

Parker wrote:

7. dont know your gun crime problems......what do they carry now, revolvers?

Yes, revolvers.  They rarely use them (very rarely).

ok, well the age group thing is kind of fucked up, but does having your license on you at all times REALLY infringe on your rights that much? it just sounds like a pain in the ass IMO.
as far as drinking goes, if you have driven drunk once, then you should have that put in your car to guarantee that you wont do it again. if you cant drink AT ALL, then so be it...you had the chance, and blew it (no pun intended).

i can understand that not allowing more than one "underage" passenger would hinder people from getting to where they need to be. however, not ALL of the drivers are responsible enough to pick people that arent going to throw things out the window, or climb all over the interior....or any other crazy shit. its all being punished for what a few would do, unfortunately.

do ALL the bars enforce this "curfew",  or is it just a few?

regarding the spray paint....if you have the receipt from the purchase in your vehicle, or on your person, i dont think you would be in trouble.
what i mean is, as long as you are using it for something legitimate, and take the steps to make sure you wont get in trouble, you will be fine.

that searching policy is pretty screwed...i guess just dont look guilty, or shoot any dirty looks at the police.

finally, revolvers will suffice if they arent facing heavily armed criminals on a daily basis. your equivalent to SWAT has the necessary tools for those situations, so i actually agree with you.

S.Lythberg wrote:

Parker, our police will be issued M4 carbines in the next few weeks.

some cities need more than revolvers.

but cities in the united states are not even comparable to the gun crime that happens in australia.
cops in stl already have a choice between a 12ga, an AR and one of those retarded beretta storm thingys.

if they dont need it on a regular basis, then its something best left to swat.

Parker wrote:

ok, well the age group thing is kind of fucked up, but does having your license on you at all times REALLY infringe on your rights that much? it just sounds like a pain in the ass IMO.

That, specifically, doesn't infringe on rights, but it is pretty stupid.

Parker wrote:

as far as drinking goes, if you have driven drunk once, then you should have that put in your car to guarantee that you wont do it again. if you cant drink AT ALL, then so be it...you had the chance, and blew it (no pun intended).

Except that it can be set to allow you the legal limit.  They choose not t do that.

Parker wrote:

i can understand that not allowing more than one "underage" passenger would hinder people from getting to where they need to be. however, not ALL of the drivers are responsible enough to pick people that arent going to throw things out the window, or climb all over the interior....or any other crazy shit. its all being punished for what a few would do, unfortunately.

Firstly, in Australia underage is under 18.  The laws affect 16-21 year olds.  Further, not all fully license drivers will prevent that (and that isn't the argument put forth).  As a cyclist, I can't count the number of stories I've heard about things being thrown out of cars without P-plates (at other cyclists).

Parker wrote:

do ALL the bars enforce this "curfew",  or is it just a few?

All inner city bars are required to adhere to it, though some are saying they'll ignore it.

Parker wrote:

regarding the spray paint....if you have the receipt from the purchase in your vehicle, or on your person, i dont think you would be in trouble.
what i mean is, as long as you are using it for something legitimate, and take the steps to make sure you wont get in trouble, you will be fine.

But that's the thing: technically just possessing it in public is being in trouble.  Do I honestly expect this law to affect me?  No.  That doesn't mean I don't think the fact it exists is a serious issue.

Parker wrote:

that searching policy is pretty screwed...i guess just dont look guilty, or shoot any dirty looks at the police.

Honestly, I've never seen it happen.  But it's the fact they have the power to that I see as an issue.

Parker wrote:

finally, revolvers will suffice if they arent facing heavily armed criminals on a daily basis. your equivalent to SWAT has the necessary tools for those situations, so i actually agree with you.

There you have it: even the gun nut agrees!