-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Sign up with GoogleState to impound drunk drivers' cars
- Thread starter kaspaas
- Start date
Nod
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2005
- Messages
- 10,057
Exactly! They can't even enforce the basics, but are willing to think of new ways of irritating people.
This is not a way to irritate people, it is a way to remove drunk people from the roads. The courts will steer this process, not the police or metro police. In my experience and anyone that's ever worked as a paramedic, most late night fatal crashes are as direct result of drunk driving. Period.
I would also like to add that enforcing of traffic rules is increasingly difficult in a society hell bent on breaking every possible rule at every possible opportunity they get. South Africans are ****ing idiots. There is a belief amongst some people that wearing a seatbelt is akin to being a "mamparra". Some people even go out of their way to avoid being caught by cameras by covering, spraying, altering and even removing their number plates. And loads of people (even on this forum) believe that the safety features built into their cars is a license for them to drive as fast as possible. Strangely, 90% of South Africans surveyed in 2005 indicated that they believe they are excellent drivers. Yet 99% of all drivers on South African roads blatantly and as often as possible disregard road rules.
Woooohooo.
Nod
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2005
- Messages
- 10,057
My point exactly. If they can't enforce the "easy" laws, how do they propose to effectively enforce the more technical ones. This morning no less than 2 metro cops past me in the yellow lane, yet they ignored trucks passing each other, blocking all the traffic in the process, in lanes that specify no trucks. They ignored the guy traveling at snails pace in the "fast" lane, talking on his phone.
If they can't even enforce these "small" problems, they will always look like a devision of law enforcement that are out to make money. Thats my opinion, and I'm sticking to it
If they can't even enforce these "small" problems, they will always look like a devision of law enforcement that are out to make money. Thats my opinion, and I'm sticking to it
My point exactly. If they can't enforce the "easy" laws, how do they propose to effectively enforce the more technical ones. This morning no less than 2 metro cops past me in the yellow lane, yet they ignored trucks passing each other, blocking all the traffic in the process, in lanes that specify no trucks. They ignored the guy traveling at snails pace in the "fast" lane, talking on his phone.
If they can't even enforce these "small" problems, they will always look like a devision of law enforcement that are out to make money. Thats my opinion, and I'm sticking to it
Sure. But my point is not that the Metro cops are not enforcing these tings, but that the general and growing lack of obedience by South Africans is becoming a bigger problem daily. Almost every person traveling on South African roads attempts to break the rules at some or other point. Drunk driving is one such problem, and unfortunately the drunk drivers do not care. Drunk driving endangers lives. So any attempt to remove drunk drivers from our roads gets my vote.
Nod
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2005
- Messages
- 10,057
If people know that they can't get away with the small things, chances are that they will not try the bigger things. But at the moment, everybody know that they will get away with the "small" things, so every time you just get more and more lax.
New York got their crime under control. by being strict with every little law that was broken. People got fined for littering, spitting, etc. And that alone convinced people that they shouldn't even try anything bigger like smoking in a non-smoking area, or changing lanes without signaling.
New York implemented a proper zero tolerance program, something this government will refuse to do. I completely agree, the abhorrent lawlessness prevalent in South Africa is partly due to the inability and inefficiency of an (in)effective law enforcement system, but IMHO more due to the government's unwillingness to actually implement stricter measures against criminals. However, and this is probably where you and I differ: a drunk driver is a criminal. A person recklessly breaking countless traffic rules in an attempt to better his position or to gain an advantage while taking certain precautions (such as removing his/her number plates) to not get caught, is a criminal.
The government must be held to task on this, and unfortunately it is an impossible mountain to climb, as all government officials refuse accountability.
Nod
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2005
- Messages
- 10,057
Actually, we do agree. I just question the reason for "implementing" this. It is illegal to drink and drive in any case. Now, they are just increasing the risk of getting caught. They, however, are not increasing the chance of getting caught, which is another problem, and probably the real problem. Effectively enforcing the current laws.
Koos Custodiet
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 616
Uhuh? You havn't been paying attention then, eh? From that link I posted yesterday :
But noooo, this won't happen here, because, erm, yea, because we respect our citizens' rights. Yes. that. Oh, yes, and we're not as corrupt as them yankee cops. No sir.
Look, in the states forfeiture laws have been, well, laws, for a while. And people have lost their property *without* due process.
As I said, beware the thin end of the wedge.
That, and of course, "quis custodiet ipsos custodes".
Koos.
Koos Custodiet
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 616
Yes. The broken window theory. Catch the kid when he breaks a window and wallop the hell out of him. That stops him from murdering his parents in their sleep a few years later.
It makes sense.
I have a theory about drunken drivers and accidents. I believe that your driving patterns don't change when you're drunk. If you take chances sober, you will take chances drunk. The difference is that you won't get away with it when drunk.
A lot of people [1] are careful drivers when sober. They're also careful when they've had a few. A few people drive like maniacs, causing the rest of us to have to compensate for them [2]. The cops need to take the assholes off the road, whether they are sober or drunk.
But that's work. And we know how the traffic dudes feel about work. Much more fun to sit under a bridge with a radar gun.
They (we?) need to increase the risk *of* being caught, not the risk *when* caught.
Koos
[1] Though it doesn't always look like it
[2] Just the other day, guy screams down the left hand "left turn only" lane, cuts in by the traffic lights. Guy in the correct lane for carrying on straight has to slam on his brakes. Guy behind him is not expecting this, but manages to stop. Next guy in line doesn't manage to stop. Accident caused by selfish arsehole who doesn't want to wait in line, but fourth guy in line is now the guilty party and ******* is gone.
So some groups claim. It remains disputed whether the escalation of police harassment actually reduced crime. Or even whether the police actually kept up the much vaunted programme once the newspapers had moved onto other things.
Anyway it has been posible to ignore traffic and other minor laws in South Africa for decades.
Only after smoking a lot of plastic bags.
The broken window theory is used to describe two different things. One is the idea that if you let an area become rundown people tend to treat it badly and assume no-one cares what they do in that area. i.e. If people see litter already lying on the pavement they'll just contribute further litter. So that's the clean up and maintain the city aspect. This part does make sense. The other idea is that you can deter major criminal behaviour by going after minor crimes. There's not much evidence for this.
It's enough to say that a particular city's crime has gone down. You have to actually prove it was due to specific measures. The evidence that zero tolerance does anything more than let the police do what they like best, which is busting heads, is tenuous at best.
Whenever some suggests the success of New York's broken windows policy, I think of the Parable of the Broken Window, which is quite different to Fixing Broken Windows.
Last edited:
Koos Custodiet
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 616
got this now, is this really true
"The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) yesterday (Thursday, 9 November 2006) decided that a motor vehicle that is driven under the influence of liquor or while the level of alcohol in the driver's blood exceeds the prescribed limit, is liable to be forfeited to the State in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act. Similarly, if someone drives your car whilst over the limit, you could still be held responsible"
"The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) yesterday (Thursday, 9 November 2006) decided that a motor vehicle that is driven under the influence of liquor or while the level of alcohol in the driver's blood exceeds the prescribed limit, is liable to be forfeited to the State in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act. Similarly, if someone drives your car whilst over the limit, you could still be held responsible"