NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-04-2018, 01:29 AM
It's a simple bill, located at this link: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_Status/billText.aspx?sy=2018&id=1090&txtFormat=html
I emailed the five sponsors with research showing roadblocks don't work. I'm sure they already know a lot of this, but maybe there is something new they have not seen. I also emailed all 18 members of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
Hope I don't sound like a carpetbagger,:p:D but I'm simply sending research.
Here is partial text from my email. It's the text showing roadblocks don't work. Many people are not swayed by constitutional arguments, which is why I researched these practical arguments. I happen to think the 4th amendment and practicality go hand-in-hand (e.g., randomness never works), but a lot of people don't make that connection.
Some research showing roadblocks don't work:
1.The FBI compared saturation patrols vs. checkpoints in Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee. The study showed that, “Overall, measured in arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective method of apprehending offenders.” (Source: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January 2003)
2. "I'm no big fan of them," Chief Deputy Pat Butler [Ohio County, West Virginia] said about checkpoints. "They're OK for informational purposes, but I think DUI saturation patrols are much more effective." (Source: Kansas City Star, July 8, 2008)
3. The Maryland anti-drunk driving campaign called Checkpoint Strikeforce was evaluated for deterrence. The review found that there was no deterrent effect:
"To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries. This conclusion is drawn after examining statistics for alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk. (Source: Health Promotion Reports, July 1 2009)
4. "States with infrequent checkpoints claimed a lack of funding and police resources for not conducting more checkpoints, preferred saturation patrols over checkpoints because they were more "productive," and used large number of police officers at checkpoints." (Source: Accident Analysis and Prevention, November 2003)
5. “If you look at statistics, statistics will probably tell you a saturation patrol is more successful…” said Lt. David Kloos, barrack commander for the Maryland State Police Hagerstown barrack. A typical checkpoint uses about 10 troopers for five hours and costs about $2,000, he said. During the last State Police checkpoint in Hagerstown, held Oct. 31, troopers stopped 880 cars and made three DUI arrests, Kloos said. Saturation patrols watching alternate routes around the checkpoint made one additional DUI arrest, he said. A saturation patrol without a checkpoint requires only three or four troopers and costs a fraction of what a checkpoint costs. The troopers work four hours of overtime, usually from 11 p.m. until 3 a.m., and each aims to make three to four stops per hour, Kloos said. (Source: Hagerstown Herald Mail December 28 2008)
6. A checkpoint in Tuscon Arizona yielded a less than one percent arrest rate. A total of 571 vehicles passed the checkpoint, with 4 DUI arrests, a rate of 7/10 of one percent. (Source: Pima County Sheriff’s Document October 5 2005)
7. Saturation patrols vs. checkpoints in Worcester County Maryland:
August 27, 2010 checkpoint
739 cars
0 DWI arrests
Arrest rate: 0%
August 27, 2010 roving patrol
32 cars
2 DWI arrests
Arrest rate: 8%
Source:
www.delmarvanow.com
August 29, 2010
8. People reject checkpoints when they know the facts:
From trafficsafetyinfo.net:
Gov. Chris Gergoire’s plan to institute checkpoints to catch drunk drivers has stalled in Olympia. Judging by the results of an online poll by the Whatcom County Traffic Safety Task Force, local residents wouldn’t have taken too kindly to it either.
From Traffic Safety Coordinator Doug Dahl:
Two weeks ago our online poll asked Whatcom County drivers if they wanted sobriety checkpoints in our state. Visitors to our site overwhelmingly voted “NO” to DUI checkpoints. The final results were as follows:
yes: 20% (30 votes)
no: 80% (117 votes)
Some people who responded also included an e-mail explaining their point of view. You can read those responses at www.trafficsafetyinfo.com.
***********************************
More here:
Roadblock proponents often refer to the literature review by the Centers for Disease Control suggesting a 20% decline in crashes related to roadblocks. That was a review of 23 studies of checkpoints in the U.S. and abroad. I have looked at many of those studies and found the methodology of most to be poor. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) also rated the methodologies. They rated 20 of the studies “fair.” Only three studies by IIHS rated “good.”
I found that many of the methodologies had two distinct problems: A). They did not distinguish between variables, such as saturation patrols and checkpoints; and B). The studies often did not distinguish between alcohol-related crashes and crashes involving no alcohol. Here are two examples:
1. Study: Voas R, Holder H, Gruenewald P. The effects of drinking and driving intervention on alcohol involved traffic crashes within a comprehensive community trial. Addiction 92(Suppl 2):S221–S236, 1997.
Problem: A). No distinction (variable control) made between effects of roving/saturation patrols and checkpoints. B). Publicity took place in both checkpoint and non-checkpoint communities (no variable control due to overlapping media markets).
2. Study: Mercer, G.W., P.K. Cooper, L. A. Kristiansen. “A Cost/Benefit Analysis of a 5-Month Intensive Alcohol-Impaired Driving Road Check Campaign.” Proc. 40th Annual AAAM (1996): 283-292.
Problem: The study compared checkpoints with rate of insurance claims for crashes. The insurance claims did not distinguish between alcohol-related crashes and all other crashes. It would be hard to infer therefore, how a checkpoint influences a traffic intersection crash that involved no alcohol.
I emailed the five sponsors with research showing roadblocks don't work. I'm sure they already know a lot of this, but maybe there is something new they have not seen. I also emailed all 18 members of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
Hope I don't sound like a carpetbagger,:p:D but I'm simply sending research.
Here is partial text from my email. It's the text showing roadblocks don't work. Many people are not swayed by constitutional arguments, which is why I researched these practical arguments. I happen to think the 4th amendment and practicality go hand-in-hand (e.g., randomness never works), but a lot of people don't make that connection.
Some research showing roadblocks don't work:
1.The FBI compared saturation patrols vs. checkpoints in Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee. The study showed that, “Overall, measured in arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective method of apprehending offenders.” (Source: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January 2003)
2. "I'm no big fan of them," Chief Deputy Pat Butler [Ohio County, West Virginia] said about checkpoints. "They're OK for informational purposes, but I think DUI saturation patrols are much more effective." (Source: Kansas City Star, July 8, 2008)
3. The Maryland anti-drunk driving campaign called Checkpoint Strikeforce was evaluated for deterrence. The review found that there was no deterrent effect:
"To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries. This conclusion is drawn after examining statistics for alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk. (Source: Health Promotion Reports, July 1 2009)
4. "States with infrequent checkpoints claimed a lack of funding and police resources for not conducting more checkpoints, preferred saturation patrols over checkpoints because they were more "productive," and used large number of police officers at checkpoints." (Source: Accident Analysis and Prevention, November 2003)
5. “If you look at statistics, statistics will probably tell you a saturation patrol is more successful…” said Lt. David Kloos, barrack commander for the Maryland State Police Hagerstown barrack. A typical checkpoint uses about 10 troopers for five hours and costs about $2,000, he said. During the last State Police checkpoint in Hagerstown, held Oct. 31, troopers stopped 880 cars and made three DUI arrests, Kloos said. Saturation patrols watching alternate routes around the checkpoint made one additional DUI arrest, he said. A saturation patrol without a checkpoint requires only three or four troopers and costs a fraction of what a checkpoint costs. The troopers work four hours of overtime, usually from 11 p.m. until 3 a.m., and each aims to make three to four stops per hour, Kloos said. (Source: Hagerstown Herald Mail December 28 2008)
6. A checkpoint in Tuscon Arizona yielded a less than one percent arrest rate. A total of 571 vehicles passed the checkpoint, with 4 DUI arrests, a rate of 7/10 of one percent. (Source: Pima County Sheriff’s Document October 5 2005)
7. Saturation patrols vs. checkpoints in Worcester County Maryland:
August 27, 2010 checkpoint
739 cars
0 DWI arrests
Arrest rate: 0%
August 27, 2010 roving patrol
32 cars
2 DWI arrests
Arrest rate: 8%
Source:
www.delmarvanow.com
August 29, 2010
8. People reject checkpoints when they know the facts:
From trafficsafetyinfo.net:
Gov. Chris Gergoire’s plan to institute checkpoints to catch drunk drivers has stalled in Olympia. Judging by the results of an online poll by the Whatcom County Traffic Safety Task Force, local residents wouldn’t have taken too kindly to it either.
From Traffic Safety Coordinator Doug Dahl:
Two weeks ago our online poll asked Whatcom County drivers if they wanted sobriety checkpoints in our state. Visitors to our site overwhelmingly voted “NO” to DUI checkpoints. The final results were as follows:
yes: 20% (30 votes)
no: 80% (117 votes)
Some people who responded also included an e-mail explaining their point of view. You can read those responses at www.trafficsafetyinfo.com.
***********************************
More here:
Roadblock proponents often refer to the literature review by the Centers for Disease Control suggesting a 20% decline in crashes related to roadblocks. That was a review of 23 studies of checkpoints in the U.S. and abroad. I have looked at many of those studies and found the methodology of most to be poor. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) also rated the methodologies. They rated 20 of the studies “fair.” Only three studies by IIHS rated “good.”
I found that many of the methodologies had two distinct problems: A). They did not distinguish between variables, such as saturation patrols and checkpoints; and B). The studies often did not distinguish between alcohol-related crashes and crashes involving no alcohol. Here are two examples:
1. Study: Voas R, Holder H, Gruenewald P. The effects of drinking and driving intervention on alcohol involved traffic crashes within a comprehensive community trial. Addiction 92(Suppl 2):S221–S236, 1997.
Problem: A). No distinction (variable control) made between effects of roving/saturation patrols and checkpoints. B). Publicity took place in both checkpoint and non-checkpoint communities (no variable control due to overlapping media markets).
2. Study: Mercer, G.W., P.K. Cooper, L. A. Kristiansen. “A Cost/Benefit Analysis of a 5-Month Intensive Alcohol-Impaired Driving Road Check Campaign.” Proc. 40th Annual AAAM (1996): 283-292.
Problem: The study compared checkpoints with rate of insurance claims for crashes. The insurance claims did not distinguish between alcohol-related crashes and all other crashes. It would be hard to infer therefore, how a checkpoint influences a traffic intersection crash that involved no alcohol.