I always wonder why the police warn about roadblocks in advance. The only benefit is to make me excited about the upcoming drama. Yesterday's Advocate announces a roadblock for tonight downtown. In today's Advocate, a letter writer rips the idea to shreds in a succinct four sentences. My summary: roadblocks are highly publicized, so people can avoid them. Enforcement money is better spent on roving patrols; a DOT official states that roving nets ten times more DUIs. Therefore, the roving patrols roadblocks (typo, sorry!) are a waste of tax money. I can't argue with that logic!
Although, is it possible that the roadblock warning causes people to drink and drive less? In any case, if you're out tonight, you'll probably see some roadblocks, so don't be doing weird things in your car.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Snap! Stamford DUI Roadblock Criticized
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that the argument is way too simplistic. Catching DUIs is all about location; A block on Bedford and Washington would do a lot to curb drinking/driving because there is no possibility of getting from the bar section of the city through to North Stamford without being checked unless a decision is made to make a large detour. Conversely, roving in the wrong spot, such as blindly along the Merritt, can also be highly ineffective.
Okay so my argument's a little facetious; all I'm saying is that you can't judge a policy on a simple 4 sentence argument. Unfortunately I see many other policy decisions made in this town through a similar lack of thorough reasoning.
LI is right. Location, location, location. Post the blocks outside the downtown parking garages or I--95 onramps and see how effective they are.
Oh certainly, they post it. But if someone is "over the limit" are they really going to remember where the DUI roadblock is?
And the letter writer is from Washington, D.C.?
Post a Comment