|
|
Post by thelma on Mar 8, 2008 19:14:25 GMT -5
Swimmy - feel free to correct me when I am wrong as I'm far from being an "expert" on anything!
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 8, 2008 19:20:07 GMT -5
Unfortunately, revoking one's license doesn't necessarily stop someone from driving drunk or sober. Someone once voiced the opinion to me that drivers' licenses and auto insurance are for the middle class. |
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Mar 8, 2008 22:04:06 GMT -5
If I hear "fair" one more time today ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 9, 2008 0:50:46 GMT -5
fare  Oh wait, it's tomorrow. Fairhahahahahahahahahahahahaha! |
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 9, 2008 1:45:31 GMT -5
 Good one Swimmy. ;D Sorry Frank, but you left yourself wide open for that one. 
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Mar 9, 2008 7:41:33 GMT -5
Yeah, and he's been learning from a world-class pro.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 9, 2008 20:40:27 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 22, 2008 13:28:02 GMT -5
I just realized, you can't really "hear" me say "fair", nor can you hear me type it. So "fair""fair""fair""fair""fair""fair""fair""fair""fair""fair" "fair" "fair" "fair" "fair" "fair" "fair" "fair" "fair" "fair" "fair" "fair" "fair" "fair""fair" "fair" "fair"
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Mar 22, 2008 20:15:45 GMT -5
You know, nobody likes a smart ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Mar 22, 2008 20:44:58 GMT -5
Nah......he's not a smart ass, just intelligently cheeky!!!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by wcup102 on Mar 22, 2008 21:28:09 GMT -5
DWI has dropped in this area. There is no way short of jailing them for life to get them to stop. They are now trying the ignistion lock techniques which need a clean breath sample to unlock the ignition of previous offenders. That's all I know of the workings of that program.
It takes about 2 to 3 hours to process a DWi arrest. How many are driving around while the officer is off the street? If the taxpayers would approve or cover the cost of(taxes, of course) maybe we could have a central drop off point, or at the jail, an area that processes arrests and DWI's and that would free up the officer. More progressive states and agencies do that already. AND STOP ADVERTISING WHEN AND WHERE YOU ARE GOING HAVE CHECKPOINTS!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 23, 2008 0:10:51 GMT -5
Oh come on, wcup102. You mean to tell me you still haven't figured out that NYS is a regressive state? lol!
I agree with what you mention, and think it makes perfect sense. Maybe some day we will see that in NY.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Mar 23, 2008 3:29:47 GMT -5
AND STOP ADVERTISING WHEN AND WHERE YOU ARE GOING HAVE CHECKPOINTS!!!!! Just playing devil's advocate here, if the intent is to catch drunk drivers, it would make sense to stop advertising where the checkpoints are. If on the other hand, the intent is to reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road, it makes sense to advertise as much as possible. What you wrote about making the patrols more effective and efficient really does make a lot of sense.. |
|
|
|
Post by wcup102 on Mar 23, 2008 7:30:25 GMT -5
Frank,
I understand your viewpoint completely, but the goal is 0% DWI even though that will never happen. By advertising, they are making people take alternate routes on roads they may not be familiar with, thus increasing the chance of an accident(IMO). Most DWI's use familiar roads. I wish we did have a "central booking" area because that also could be considered a consolidation move. Again, let me re-iterate, I am all for NYSP absorbing OCSO!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by thelma on Mar 23, 2008 9:02:48 GMT -5
WCUP - having a "drop off" point for processing the arrests made by Police Officers is an excellent idea. Too bad, UPD and the Sheriff Dept. couldn't work together; UPD arrests them - the OCJ processes them! Sounds good to me and I'm a taxpaper and would be willing to pay a little more in my taxes.
|
|
Good one Swimmy. ;D
