31–40 of 60 posts
Trapster was designed from the ground up to be a platform for drivers to share relevant geo data.
The Trapster moderators have worked to curb DUI checkpoint sharing since its inception but users find ways around it.
So really this is a platform discussion - is it the platform's responsibility to proactively moderate the content?
If so doesn't that have wider implications for Twitter, Facebook, etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of people (I'm not one of them), particularly movement libertarians, who believe that blood alcohol limit laws are unreasonable. Different people metabolize alcohol differently, what you want to eliminate is the actual impairment, etc. If you're one of those people, camping out to catch people just over the limit is an injustice, as it'll tag lots of people who are innocent of impairment.
When I drink, I stay home. Contrary to popular libertarian thought, I'm happy with new laws as long as they are consistent. If we want to do things to reduce risk of death while driving I don't especially like having government rules, but I'll take them as long as they are self-consistent. The thing with drinking and driving is that, contrary to popular belief, you don't drink four beers and go run over a school bus…
I don't know that this is true, but even if it was I don't know that it's useful information in terms of minimizing harm, just as pointing out that some people smoke their whole lives, live to be 90 and die in their sleep.
The devil is in the averages. The data shows that drunk drivers kill more people than sober drivers.
About the rest of your post, no downvote from me, you make a great point. You're right that society treats drunk driving as worse, but don't forget that texting while driving is a (relatively) new problem. Drunk driving used to be fine by society, and then values changed. Texting while driving is now undergoing a similar change, we're just much earlier in the process.
In principle you're right though, if texting while driving kills people (and it does) then we should treat that as aggressively as drunk driving.
Perhaps the difference here is that you can camp a bar, whereas it's harder to camp texters. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Avoiding checkpoints if you're sober and don't want the inconvenience of waiting in line at a checkpoint for one. Also see the explanations of other people in this thread describing how announcing the locations of the checkpoints ahead of time can be more effective.
Really? All these sales are to upstanding citizens wanting to save a traffic stop? Then why isn't the app called "traffic stop"? Its called "Tipsy" or something like that. It covers only DUI traffic stops. Who is this marketing to? Who is buying it? We all know the answer. Yes, its good to protect freedom of speech. Its also good to make the streets safer. And DUI is a real problem, not a strawman.
When I was a teenager I knew a lot of cops. They used to tell me they didn't feel right "baiting" drunk drivers, for instance sitting hidden outside of popular bars and waiting for closing time. They felt like if they observed you driving impaired, you got pulled over, and if you were drunk you got a ticket. To them this was just the right way to act. I think there is a natural balance between people being outrageous…
> They used to tell me they didn't feel right "baiting" drunk drivers, for instance sitting hidden outside of popular bars and waiting for closing time. They felt like if they observed you driving impaired, you got pulled over, and if you were drunk you got a ticket. To them this was just the right way to act. I can't understand that at all. I would agree if it were a victimless crime, or perhaps if they were actuall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quote is taken directly from the article: in fact, it shouldn't even be available
...they stated. When they were "asking" to have the app taken down. Not banning, not legislating. Just asking.
While I certainly don't condone driving while impaired - I feel like the government trying to outright ban legal technologies that allow citizens to avoid government authority sets a dangerous precedent. this technology should not be promoted to your customers--in fact, it shouldn't even be available. It shouldn't even be available? That sounds sketchy to me. I know slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but if this li…
That's going a bit far. People May use encryption for illegal activities. What possible use does the DUI checkpoint software have, outside of enabling drunk drivers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's going a bit far. People May use encryption for illegal activities. What possible use does the DUI checkpoint software have, outside of enabling drunk drivers?
Feel free to write an app that helps the police arrest drunk drivers if you dislike them so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They used to tell me they didn't feel right "baiting" drunk drivers, for instance sitting hidden outside of popular bars and waiting for closing time. They felt like if they observed you driving impaired, you got pulled over, and if you were drunk you got a ticket. To them this was just the right way to act. I can't understand that at all. I would agree if it were a victimless crime, or perhaps if they were actuall…
There are a lot of people (I'm not one of them), particularly movement libertarians, who believe that blood alcohol limit laws are unreasonable. Different people metabolize alcohol differently, what you want to eliminate is the actual impairment, etc. If you're one of those people, camping out to catch people just over the limit is an injustice, as it'll tag lots of people who are innocent of impairment.
When I was a teenager I knew a lot of cops. They used to tell me they didn't feel right "baiting" drunk drivers, for instance sitting hidden outside of popular bars and waiting for closing time. They felt like if they observed you driving impaired, you got pulled over, and if you were drunk you got a ticket. To them this was just the right way to act. I think there is a natural balance between people being outrageous…
> They used to tell me they didn't feel right "baiting" drunk drivers, for instance sitting hidden outside of popular bars and waiting for closing time. They felt like if they observed you driving impaired, you got pulled over, and if you were drunk you got a ticket. To them this was just the right way to act. I can't understand that at all. I would agree if it were a victimless crime, or perhaps if they were actuall…
There is, of course, the argument that punishing people that try to drive after drinking too much may get them to change their behavior. Regardless, doing it this way makes one wonder if income from tickets, rather than safety, is the real goal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...they stated. When they were "asking" to have the app taken down. Not banning, not legislating. Just asking.
Apple complying with their request and passing legislation have the same outcome.