Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps

[mosx]

Wrong.
Wrong.
Absolutely wrong (and you have no idea by how much).

Yeah? Prove hes wrong.

Have you been through a checkpoint? First question is always "license and registration", never "have you been drinking?". In fact, they rarely ask if you have been drinking.

Then your car gets checked for any violations like burnt out lights or cracked or tinted windows. If you have any you get written up for it.

As I said before, during the last holiday weekend here, 1,300+ cars were "screened" in a DUI checkpoint and only 2 were suspected of DUI, but not arrested. But a good 60+ cars were written up for fix it violations. Meanwhile, across town, thanks to depleted man power for actual patrols, a REAL drunk driver swerved into oncoming traffic and killed people. Was on a major street. Roving patrols, which the FBI has concluded are 90% more effective than checkpoints, could have prevented it.

We will see how you guys feel about ths, when you lose a loved one to an inconsiderate selfish ****** who decided to drive drunk.

Read my post. Thanks to A "DUI checkpoint" taking manpower away from roving patrols, people DID lose their lives to a drunk driver. A checkpoint requires 10x the man power of roving patrols, and roving patrols are 90% more effective according to the FBI. Had the police been conducting roving patrols, those lives could have been saved.

Edit: I also like how the posts in this thread that point out the reality of DUI checkpoints, our rights, etc. are getting voted down while those supporting taking away our rights and Apple's stance are getting voted UP. heh.

It doesn't make a driver slow down at all lights. It makes them feel safe to run any light not listed as camera enforced if they are so inclined. It makes them slow where, and only where, they know they will be punished. Therefore, this ensures a driver who disregards red lights as a habit, will never be punished by the law. Without a practical way of knowing which lights were protected, most would be more cautious at all lights. The very nature of the App proves their desire to avoid fines, and their nature to only obey regulations where they know they are enforced. If you don't run red lights as a rule, you have absolutely no use for the App. Zero.

Completely wrong. At least in California and most US states, red light cameras and speed enforcement camera warnings are posted prior to the intersection/camera. So you know in advance anyway if there is a camera ahead.

Trapster has MANY legitimate uses. It warns you of school zones, dangerous turns, car accidents, road kill, closed roads, etc. And as myself and others have said, as someone who has never drank, I just don't like having my fourth amendment rights violated nor do I want to have to deal with the traffic jam of a checkpoint. So it warns me in advance of the state's law requiring signs be posted far enough in advance to take an alternate route.

Which brings up another point that has already been stated, most states require checkpoints to be announced in the news prior to actually holding the checkpoint AND they require signs be posted far enough in advance for drivers to choose to take an alternate route.

So if someone is "drunk" and trying to avoid "getting caught", simply paying attention to road signs (which requires less coherency than using a smartphone app to avoid "getting caught") will help them around the checkpoint. Basically, using the logic of checkpoint advocates here, STATE LAWS HELP "Drunk drivers" not get caught by requiring ADVANCED WARNING both in the news and ahead of the checkpoint.

 

[notabadname]

Knowing the location of a speed camera causes drivers to slow down - therefore achieving the objective of the camera.

Knowing the location of a red light camera prevents drivers running a red light - therefore achieving the objective of the camera.

It doesn't make a driver slow down at all lights. It makes them feel safe to run any light not listed as camera enforced if they are so inclined. It makes them slow where, and only where, they know they will be punished. Therefore, this ensures a driver who disregards red lights as a habit, will never be punished by the law. Without a practical way of knowing which lights were protected, most would be more cautious at all lights. The very nature of the App proves their desire to avoid fines, and their nature to only obey regulations where they know they are enforced. If you don't run red lights as a rule, you have absolutely no use for the App. Zero.

 

[iEvolution]

Good ol' apple knows whats best for us, what a joke.

I don't even drink and I think this is stupid.

This is exactly why I'm not jumping into iOS, Apple just does what they want to do and tell everyone how they should use their device.

iPod Touch is the furthest I'll go.

 

[Mr Fusion]

Let's Recap:

Good job everyone, we've covered just about everything. Mainly...

- Apple's doing this to protect their business, not because they enjoy playing "censor."

- Drunk people can still use their iPhones.

- DUI traps are how cash-strapped cities make money.

Apple. iPhones. Money.

 

[stangaroo]

kinda sucks but not really

I use this app to avoid the checkpoints just for the sake of inconvenience, honestly, there is absolutely no reasonable argument to defend an app that warns drunk drivers of a checkpoint...

...and unfortunately that's what the DUI feature is probably used for most of the time.

As long as I know where the speed traps are I'm ok with them taking out the DUI function

 

[stangaroo]

Good job everyone, we've covered just about everything. Mainly...

- Apple's doing this to protect their business, not because they enjoy playing "censor."

- Drunk people can still use their iPhones.

- DUI traps are how cash-strapped cities make money.

Apple. iPhones. Money.

When will they be able to put a stop to drunk texting though?

...and how will the city profit from it?

 

[dukebound85]

The supreme court does not have a say. The constitution is not subject to reversal from the bench. The supreme court can declare that obama poops skittles and rides to work on a unicorn, for all the relevance it has under the law.

Though I do find it hilarious that we're talking about cops-- aka "Law Enforcement Officers" breaking the law, and getting the "ok" from another agency of government... and somehow you think it is legitimate.

Every evil action in every tyrannical regime in history has been "legal" under the perspective of the people doing it.

So, for you to say that the supreme court made it legal-- which, they didn't, by the way, they didn't even rule the way you imply-- is to say you reject the rule of law, and choose the rule of men.

I hope you are joking. If not, I suggest you learn what the function of the Supreme Court is

By the way, the SCOTUS does not write the laws so it couldn't even do what you wrote in your post. One of their roles is to determine if a law is Constitutional. They ruled DUI checkpoints are. As such, they are entirely legal on a federal level. Now states can enact further legislation to suit their needs as long as it doesn't run counter to what the SOCTUS says (ie if the SCOTUS said they were illegal, states could not say they are legal but the vice versa is entirely fine)

 

[eNcrypTioN]

People will just find another way to access this information on their iPhones.

 

[robair]

The intention of the app is clear...

It is intended to help drunk drivers avoid unannounced checkpoints. By extension, it is intended to help drunks stay on the road. By extension, this app helps promote road kill. What a stupid, irresponsible app. I am very happy that Apple banned it. Too bad someone doesn't make an app to easily report drunk drivers... oh, yeah, the phone: 911. Report these idiots. Anything to get drunks off the road is a good thing. Apps like this help KEEP drunks on the road... ridiculous!

 

[Glideslope]

I am all for free speech, but this is a reasonable limitation. If it saves a single life, it is worth it.

Precisely. It is a "reasonable" action. There is no counter argument to this.

If people get worked up over this one, get your Xanax increased.

 

[0098386]

I have a Kimber (45 caliber) I dont need cops...cops are not here to protect us, they are here to screw us over

I'm so glad the American public has cops to protect them from the likes of you.

Precisely. It is a "reasonable" action. There is no counter argument to this.

If people get worked up over this one, get your Xanax increased.

But what if people are busy or in a rush? Think about them! They might really really need to get somewhere.

 

[mosx]

It is intended to help drunk drivers avoid unannounced checkpoints. By extension, it is intended to help drunks stay on the road. By extension, this app helps promote road kill. What a stupid, irresponsible app. I am very happy that Apple banned it. Too bad someone doesn't make an app to easily report drunk drivers... oh, yeah, the phone: 911. Report these idiots. Anything to get drunks off the road is a good thing. Apps like this help KEEP drunks on the road... ridiculous!

Your profile says you're in San Francisco. So you need to learn the laws of your state. In California, unannounced checkpoints are very illegal. State law requires announcement of the checkpoint prior to conducting it, as well as signs posted far enough in advance of a checkpoint to allow drivers to take an alternate router around it. So, using your logic, California state laws are helping drunks stay on the road a whole lot more than an app like Trapster is.

And, again, FBI data has shown that roving patrols are 90% more effective than DUI checkpoints. Google is your friend. And like I've repeated many times, during the last holiday weekend here, a DUI checkpoint took man power away from roving patrols that lead to an actual DUI related crash that caused deaths and yet caught no drunk drivers. But it did get quite a few fix it tickets written!

 

[Ivabign]

Me. I don't drink. I do work til 11pm to 1am most nights. Running into checkpoints and sitting in a line for an hour while the police look for drunks? Okay. But every single night when I've just worked a 16-18hr day? No thank you.

So you need an app that tells you where a checkpoint is that you seem torun into every night? Sounds like you are drinking and driving.

Personally I think driving while intoxicated should be punished far more severely than it is now. Mandatory jail time. If you lose your job - boo hoo, you should have thought about that first.

They need to make the punishment so painful that idiots who drink reallynthink about it prior to picking up the keys.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

I speak from the experience of the non-sober mind.

Again, so do I.

I have been out, had easily over the limit of .08 BAC for driving and been competent enough to both make the decision not to drive, as well as call a cab or a friend to pick me up.

Great. Then you are the exception, not the norm. Probably because of your thoughtful vigilance due to your pilot's license. The average person is going to think that they are either A)Sober enough to drive that they do not need to know about checkpoints so they will not look for them or B) Too drunk for it to occur to them to get out their phone, find an app, and somehow use it correctly.

You keep mentioning "3 sheets to the wind" and other types of references that I would refer to as "plastered". Correct, a plastered person will not make good use of a smart phone. But absolutely, I bet 9 out of 10 people could easily use an iPhone App at .08 BAC. Anyone, anyone? Bueller? Backup here? 3 to 4 beers and you are "sheets to the wind" is not normal.

Keep mentioning? I've made reference to "3 sheets to the wind" a grand total of ONCE (the post you replied to) and now this post makes two times. I may have used plastered earlier perhaps but even then two references would not invoke a "keep mentioning" notion in my mind. And as for it being not normal....whatever. 3 or 4 beers in the what, one hour period you mentioned? Yeah...I will be drunk.

 

[pubwvj]

1st Amendment

Discussing DUI check points is freedom of speech. The Supreme Court will not like this.

Besides, the App developers need just move their project to the web.

 

[Daveoc64]

Discussing DUI check points is freedom of speech. The Supreme Court will not like this.

They are completely powerless.

What a private company chooses to do is not subject to the constitution (at least not in this context).

Just like these forums aren't the place to discuss S&M or talking about piracy, the App store isn't somewhere you can find out how to dodge a checkpoint.

 

[dukebound85]

Discussing DUI check points is freedom of speech. The Supreme Court will not like this.

Besides, the App developers need just move their project to the web.

Free speech only applies to the government interaction with the populace.

Apple has every right to allow whatever apps it wants in its own store

 

[farleysmaster]

And, again, FBI data has shown that roving patrols are 90% more effective than DUI checkpoints. Google is your friend. And like I've repeated many times, during the last holiday weekend here, a DUI checkpoint took man power away from roving patrols that lead to an actual DUI related crash that caused deaths and yet caught no drunk drivers. But it did get quite a few fix it tickets written!

What is the primary source for this? All I can find is repeated quotes from someone in the alcohol lobby.

 

[farleysmaster]

Free speech only applies to the government interaction with the populace.

Apple has every right to allow whatever apps it wants in its own store

Additionally, there are always limits to free speech, specifically incitement.

 

[CubusX]

Not really...

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Stupid. The information that these apps had were given IN ADVANCE by the local police departments!

Why don't these Senetors spend their energy on fixing unemployment and out of control spending.

The info in the trapster app was added by the users and not law enforcement.

The users added the DUI checkpoints, camaras, and police cars spotting drivers going over the speed limit.

 

[reactions]

You'd likely change your mind if you suffered the loss of a loved one as the result of drunk driving.

hmm.

how do you feel about speed traps?

 

[thatrandomguy]

There is no legal reason to remove the apps. The argument that such apps enable drunk drivers to "get away with it" is spurious at best. In fact, the DOT recommends it more as a word of mouth scare technique than to stop drunk drivers at the checkpoint (see page 7).

The Senate wanted to look tough and appeal to those who feel strongly about drunk driving, and the reality is that Apple did not want to appear to be a company that condoned drunk driving. It's easier to just ban the apps than to go through the political & media circus created out of nothing (Apple's helping drunk drivers evade the police! More at 11.). Sadly, when you reap the benefits of a centralized app store, you must also take the downfalls (assuming you don't jailbreak).

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Apple is not a government entity. They are private. They can accept what they want in their curated store.

 

[JohnDoe98]

They are completely powerless.

What a private company chooses to do is not subject to the constitution (at least not in this context).

Just like these forums aren't the place to discuss S&M or talking about piracy, the App store isn't somewhere you can find out how to dodge a checkpoint.

So why did Google voice complain to the FTC about having their app rejected or pulled from the app store? Did it have to do with anti-competitive behavior from Apple? What's the lesson here? Sadly, Apple isn't a liberty to reject anything they please. They must do so in ways that do not demonstrate discrimination, anti-competitiveness, and various other possible scenarios. In short, if Apple wants to prohibit certain things from the App store it will have to give good and reasonable explanations as to why. What is the explanation in this case?

 

[Daveoc64]

So why did Google voice complain to the FTC about having their app rejected or pulled from the app store? Did it have to do with anti-competitive behavior from Apple? What's the lesson here? Sadly, Apple isn't a liberty to reject anything they please. They must do so in ways that do not demonstrate discrimination, anti-competitiveness, and various other possible scenarios. In short, if Apple wants to prohibit certain things from the App store it will have to give good and reasonable explanations as to why. What is the explanation in this case?

It's in bold.

There isn't a "other possible scenario" as you put it.

Pulling an App because you fear it might compete with you is potentially illegal.

Pulling an App because you don't think that it's good for your ecosystem is not illegal.

Apple is not required by law to accept any and every App to its store.

 

[thatrandomguy]

So why did Google voice complain to the FTC about having their app rejected or pulled from the app store? Did it have to do with anti-competitive behavior from Apple? What's the lesson here? Sadly, Apple isn't a liberty to reject anything they please. They must do so in ways that do not demonstrate discrimination, anti-competitiveness, and various other possible scenarios. In short, if Apple wants to prohibit certain things from the App store it will have to give good and reasonable explanations as to why. What is the explanation in this case?

Anti-competitive behavior and freedom of speech are two different things. There are specific laws regarding anti-competitive behavior, while freedom of speech is not a required gift from a private corporation.

If Apple were to pull DUI checkpoint apps, then sell a service for DUI checkpoints, that might be more of an argument.