[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

Then you are a ****ing moron.

Do you think your Aunt feels the same way as you? Why don't you tell her your views and see if she agrees with you.

A 2009 University of Maryland study found that checkpoints don't have "any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors or alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk."

County police should employ roving - or saturation - patrols in which officers patrol the roadways for dangerous drivers. State Supreme Court cases from both Pennsylvania and New Hampshire revealed that roving patrols caught 10 times more drunken drivers than checkpoints.

According to the FBI, "It is proven that saturation efforts will bring more DUI arrests than sobriety checkpoints."

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...TTER/120829894

According to the Governor's Highway Safety Office in Columbus -- the group that doles out federal money in the form of state grants to ''sobriety task forces'' in 10 counties -- 117,858 drivers have gone through ''sobriety checkpoints'' in Ohio since last October.

That's one driver for every 65 licensed drivers in the state. And that doesn't include checkpoints run by the Ohio State Highway Patrol or local agencies.

Of those 117,858 drivers the equivalent of 51/2 sell-out crowds at Quicken Loans Arena only 485 were arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OVI).

Even if every one of those 485 people was found guilty which was not the case that's a drunk-catching success rate of less than one-half of 1 percent.

Far more people were caught driving under suspension (611) and driving without a license (507). The highest total by far was for ''other citations,'' which included seat-belt violations. That number was 1,277.

http://www.ohio.com/news/sobriety-ch...ctive-1.100059