Talk:Sobriety checkpoint

Text and/or other creative content from Booze bus was copied or moved into Sobriety checkpoint with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Versus roving patrols[edit]

I copied this paragraph from the section Sobriety checkpoints#Legality in the United States:

The matter is often hotly argued, with some reporting that roving patrols are the more effective way to identify impaired drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, after extensive field studies, concluded that "the number of DWI arrests made by the roving patrol program was nearly three times the average number of DWI arrests made by the checkpoint programs". [1]

However, the quotation cannot be found at the provided link. In fact, the source mentions a study that supports checkpoints over roving patrols:

Many of the reasons for the non-use of sobriety checkpoints (e.g., they are too expensive, require too much personnel, do not yield enough DWI arrests) (Ross, 1992b) are being overcome by the results of this program and of those in North Carolina and New Mexico (Lacey, Jones and Fell, 1995). A recent study (Stuster and Blowers, 1995) shows that sobriety checkpoints yield greater public awareness of the program and greater decreases in alcohol-related crashes than an enforcement program involving roving patrols.

Searching for a source that supports the quotation found press releases from the American Beverage Institute:

Additionally, a landmark NHTSA study has shown roving patrols to be nearly three times more effective than roadblocks at catching drunk drivers, while a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation official has testified in that state’s Supreme Court that roving patrols are ten times more effective. [2]

I was unable to find the NHTSA study, either identified by title or in full. Flatscan (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.9.63.180 removed the paragraph in question. The ref is pretty good, although dated, and could be used to support other content. Flatscan (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Booze bus[edit]

This sounds like it's the same as what we in Australia call a random breath test, and which is briefly discussed on the booze bus page. The scope of this article should be broadened to be more internationally inclusive and probably should be merged with the booze bus article (or at least, that article should become a subsection of this one). —Felix the Cassowary 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Against the merge. The article on the booze bus is significant in and of itself. The booze bus should be mentioned and linked in this article, or it should be listed under a "See also" section. The booze bus article is also categorized into Australia-specific categories. - Dh2 (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MADD links[edit]

I replaced a non-working link to a MADD.org page with a seemingly similar page on the same website dated March 2009. I have since removed that link because it's an unsourced opinion piece, and the article already includes at least two other references to MADD. While MADD is notable, it is still a primary source and not the reliable sources we should be using to reference article information. Flowanda | Talk 05:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]