Haha, until about 3 years ago, pubs in England closed at 11pm!
(just checked... more like 8 years ago...)
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Haha, until about 3 years ago, pubs in England closed at 11pm!
(just checked... more like 8 years ago...)
The convulted logic of many of the posts in this thread is hilarious.
The overreaction of the sky is falling crowd is pretty hilarious too.
I used to co-manage a pub, well, I did the morning stuff whilst the big boss slept in
. I didn't know much about the nightly going ons but I'm sure they stopped letting people in and serving at midnight, but everything would wind down and they'd let folk stay there till 2-3am. The pub next door does that too.Yeah, of course, though it probably depended how rural you were. I'd say Lock-ins in London may have been more of a risk. 3 hours is a long time without being served, though... (I'm guessing pre-smoking ban and everyone buying themselves 6 pints for last orders...?)I used to co-manage a pub, well, I did the morning stuff whilst the big boss slept in
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Suck it up, kid. Here in NY, if you're under 18 the curfew is 9pm-5am. (Age changes to 17 with driver education certificate). And if you're under 18 and need to drive home from work past 9pm, your employer fills out a short form which allows you to drive home from work after the curfew. I'm 20 now so whatever.
While I dont use trapster anymore, I disagree with apple removing these types of apps. I figure if you're truly too drunk to drive, you wouldn't have the competence to take out the phone and use the app properly. And those checkpoint apps are pretty much useless in our area as cops are only in one location for a checkpoint for a relatively short period of time until they move. Same with speed traps... They usually pull one person over and then move somewhere else.
Dmac77 said:
Suck it up, kid. Here in NY, if you're under 18 the curfew is 9pm-5am. (Age changes to 17 with driver education certificate). And if you're under 18 and need to drive home from work past 9pm, your employer fills out a short form which allows you to drive home from work after the curfew. I'm 20 now so whatever.
While I dont use trapster anymore, I disagree with apple removing these types of apps. I figure if you're truly too drunk to drive, you wouldn't have the competence to take out the phone and use the app properly. And those checkpoint apps are pretty much useless in our area as cops are only in one location for a checkpoint for a relatively short period of time until they move. Same with speed traps... They usually pull one person over and then move somewhere else.
Apple certainly caved in quickly on this one.
The kitty can't Roar, yet it's called Lion.
How much more hypocritical can Apple be...
The kitty can't Roar, yet it's called Lion.
How much more hypocritical can Apple be...
"Those that would give up freedom for safety deserve neither."
A rough quote from someone but I forgot their name.
I kind of agree with this. The responsibility is on the person who drinks and drives, the app doesn't promote it, but don't tell me guys who have had a few too many won't use this to get around checkpoints.
People die because of drunk drivers. Fact.
People die because of drunk drivers. Fact.
Don, you misunderstand the law a bit. While I agree it is over bearing, a lot of it makes sense. You are exempt if you are going to or from work, school, or school events. I do agree that you should more leeway on non-school nights thought. Here in Florida, at 17 I had until 1am.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Generally speaking Liberty's to do with the right not to be imprisoned or enslaved. Not a lot to do with the freedom to demand Apple sell any apps that you'd like to use.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin. A notable scientist, inventor, and a Founding Father of the United States of America. Published 1775.
After thinking about it, and reading the actual wording, I can agree with it, ONLY if it's enforced literally. An app promoting drug use while driving should be rejected. There should be no restriction on an APP from displaying PUBLISHED information. Many cities require the police publish before hand if they will be setting up a DUI check-point.
The wording; "Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected."
The wording; "Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected."
news flash, even back in the 1700's we had laws regulating people's behavior for the welfare and safety of others
Innocent people are killed every day by idiots texting while driving, which studies have shown has the same affect on drivers' concentration as driving drunk. If you're going to use that as an argument, Apple needs to remove the texting capability from the iPhone too.
So if i tweet the location of an unpublished checkpoint or even the message "Drunk driving is good!" then the twitter app will be rejected.
That is awesome, i guess?
Good to know that I can murder someone and it won't be illegal unless I'm caught then, right?
Kids.....Good on Apple for shutting this down - it was a stupid app.
And the "free speech" issue is pointless since Apple can do what they want.
I was unaware that Apple banning these apps physically prevented you from going elsewhere to look it up? Please.
Quit it with the bogus notion that Apple is "restricting your freedom".
Does no one study CIVICS in school anymore?
Perhaps you have never been stopped by the police, or encountered a random DUI checkpoint, but I can assure you the Constitution is not high on the list of priorities for the officers. Leaning inside the car, looking everywhere they can, sniffing around, asking you to get out, shining lights in your face and inside the car all are forms of search. And of course, if the officer claims he "thinks he smells something," they will open everything and do a full search. And NO, I have never been arrested or accused of DUI, open container or any other illicit substance crime. That's the point, they are doing all this with NO probable cause.
If you'd like a better argument, here it is:
It's not Apple's place to enforce laws (drunk driving or otherwise.) If the government tried to pass legislation outlawing this type of app, it would probably be found unconstitutional. It's much easier for them to just get corporations to go along with their suppression of free speech, then they avoid those nasty constitutional challenges. That's why AT&T and other communications corporations willingly give access to their customers' cell phone and email communications to the government (in the interest of "national security," "the war an terror," or some other dubious justification.)
Even if you object to THIS particular app, you should be more concerned about Apple's willingness to be a government proxy. Their response should have been, "Show us a court order to remove the app, then we'll do it."
Perhaps you have never been stopped by the police, or encountered a random DUI checkpoint, but I can assure you the Constitution is not high on the list of priorities for the officers. Leaning inside the car, looking everywhere they can, sniffing around, asking you to get out, shining lights in your face and inside the car all are forms of search. And of course, if the officer claims he "thinks he smells something," they will open everything and do a full search. And NO, I have never been arrested or accused of DUI, open container or any other illicit substance crime. That's the point, they are doing all this with NO probable cause.
If you'd like a better argument, here it is:
It's not Apple's place to enforce laws (drunk driving or otherwise.) If the government tried to pass legislation outlawing this type of app, it would probably be found unconstitutional. It's much easier for them to just get corporations to go along with their suppression of free speech, then they avoid those nasty constitutional challenges. That's why AT&T and other communications corporations willingly give access to their customers' cell phone and email communications to the government (in the interest of "national security," "the war an terror," or some other dubious justification.)
Even if you object to THIS particular app, you should be more concerned about Apple's willingness to be a government proxy. Their response should have been, "Show us a court order to remove the app, then we'll do it."
The thing that bothers me to most about all this is that these four politicians are asking Apple to do something they won't or at least haven't done themselves.
If they were serious about these "concerns" they would propose a law that makes it a federal crime to share the location of unpublished DUI checkpoints. That way people couldn't use twitter or even a jailbroken iPhone without possible legal repercussions.
I could be mistaken and they haven't gotten that far in the process yet. But i don't know that Reps Reid, Schumer, Lautenberg, or Udall have written or endorsed any laws like that.
IMO: this is just a chance for them to look like they are doing something without actually doing something. It's very typical for politicians to find (or make up) problems and talk about them and then never go far enough to offer real effective solutions. Like i said, if this is serious concern that merits the letter they sent it should be followed by legislation. I mean damn, that is really what they were elected to do, write laws not letters.
If they were serious about these "concerns" they would propose a law that makes it a federal crime to share the location of unpublished DUI checkpoints. That way people couldn't use twitter or even a jailbroken iPhone without possible legal repercussions.
I could be mistaken and they haven't gotten that far in the process yet. But i don't know that Reps Reid, Schumer, Lautenberg, or Udall have written or endorsed any laws like that.
IMO: this is just a chance for them to look like they are doing something without actually doing something. It's very typical for politicians to find (or make up) problems and talk about them and then never go far enough to offer real effective solutions. Like i said, if this is serious concern that merits the letter they sent it should be followed by legislation. I mean damn, that is really what they were elected to do, write laws not letters.
Bravo! Or people glued to the iPhone using the Navigation. I see that everyday, weaving all over, only to see them staring at Google Maps.
Pretty much! Well to the 6 pints bit, used to walk my dog if she was scratching to go out at 12am+ and see tables cluttered with full pints. And yeah it's quite rural up here so they probably got away with it easily.
Or perhaps it's something they would have done, if they had thought about it, and they didn't think about it until their attention was drawn to it by the politicians.
If you do a google search, you will find Artiles like this showing that checkpoints do work.
http://www.bermanexposed.org/node/137
The only people who are against them are drunk drivers and the Alcohol beverage industry.