Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Using police to pull people off the road is the first wrong move. Police should not be involved in any way, nor should people be forced off the road to take part.

From the description that D-Usa posted of how the NHTSA ran this, it's not unreasonable. They were "randomly selecting drivers"--not just having a roadblock where everyone would be involved.

The point of the survey is to get an idea as to if people are driving drunk or while under the influence of drugs. If you did a roadblock or checkpoint and word got out, then you would have the people you are looking for avoiding the activity you are trying to catch them in the process of.

The point being that you should not be using the police to pull people in for a survey. the choice of participating is very much influenced by the circumstance. Not to mention pulling people over for no reason...

The people doing the survey are more than capable of setting up a sign next to a parking lot advertising cash for samples without having the police giving the implication of force (and indeed actually using force to pull people off the road for no official police reason).

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Using police to pull people off the road is the first wrong move. Police should not be involved in any way, nor should people be forced off the road to take part.

From the description that D-Usa posted of how the NHTSA ran this, it's not unreasonable. They were "randomly selecting drivers"--not just having a roadblock where everyone would be involved.

The point of the survey is to get an idea as to if people are driving drunk or while under the influence of drugs. If you did a roadblock or checkpoint and word got out, then you would have the people you are looking for avoiding the activity you are trying to catch them in the process of.

The point being that you should not be using the police to pull people in for a survey. the choice of participating is very much influenced by the circumstance. Not to mention pulling people over for no reason...

The people doing the survey are more than capable of setting up a sign next to a parking lot advertising cash for samples without having the police giving the implication of force (and indeed actually using force to pull people off the road for no official police reason).

Congratulations, you now have a useless sample population and the entire study is invalid.

 d-usa wrote:
Congratulations, you now have a useless sample population and the entire study is invalid.

Hey, if your study requires you to have to get people pulled off the road by the police in order to collect data, then you have a poorly designed study. Kind of like if I wanted to do a study on how many people have naked pictures on their computers, I could not get the police to go round knocking on people's doors, pulling them onto the street and the "suggesting" that they "answer some completely voluntary questions and submit to a quick probe of their PC"...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congratulations, you now have a useless sample population and the entire study is invalid.

Hey, if your study requires you to have to get people pulled off the road by the police in order to collect data, then you have a poorly designed study. Kind of like if I wanted to do a study on how many people have naked pictures on their computers, I could not get the police to go round knocking on people's doors, pulling them onto the street and the "suggesting" that they "answer some completely voluntary questions and submit to a quick probe of their PC"...

If you are having a study about people operating motor vehicles in busy areas, then having the police involved as part of traffic direction(which is what the study description discussed earlier seems to imply)is the smartest way to do it.

You have to understand as well that if they just put up a sign saying "Come take a breathalyzer test, get blood drawn, and have your cheek swabbed! Get cash money!" there would be claims of entrapment or a breach of privacy if any of the participants were later pulled over or arrested for things like driving drunk or under the influence of narcotics.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congratulations, you now have a useless sample population and the entire study is invalid.

Hey, if your study requires you to have to get people pulled off the road by the police in order to collect data, then you have a poorly designed study.

False. It means you have a study that is able to get a random sample of the driving population in that particular place in that particular time.

Kind of like if I wanted to do a study on how many people have naked pictures on their computers,

Let me know when you are a government agency doing something that they are supposed to be doing.

I could not get the police to go round knocking on people's doors, pulling them onto the street and the "suggesting" that they "answer some completely voluntary questions and submit to a quick probe of their PC"...

If you would bother to actually read the methodology you would have realized that:

The basic survey procedure involved the use of
law enforcement officers to direct traffic at the survey
sites, but not otherwise to interact in any way with the
survey subjects.

But sure, if I distorted the facts and pretended something was happening that isn't actually happening I would be pretty angry about this as well.

Those of us in the or were in the military say past 90 I do believe have our DNA's on file. By blood and not by cheek swab


Also seems the cop is holding a really big flag at a sporting event

 d-usa wrote:
You can, and people did.

I have not heard of anyone who decided to not participate in this study and continued driving instead of pulling over, as they were directed. If that is the case, then I agree that this is fine.

However, I don't think pulling over was optional, and if it was then this introduces another problem where compliance to a law-enforcement directive are optional.

 d-usa wrote:
False. It means you have a study that is able to get a random sample of the driving population in that particular place in that particular time.

One of the reasons that these studies are difficult to both carry out and interpret is you cannot survey the entire population - most statistical analysis is based around using smaller samples to reference the population as a whole. The point of the survey is not to "study the driving population in that particular place in that particular time" (or at a number of locations at a number of times), but to take the data collected and make predictions about the population as a whole based on those who agreed to undertake certain tests.

Which is why sociological studies usually have a p value much higher than that in scientific studies.

Getting the police to force people off the road has no particular bearing on the results you would obtain. You probably could get similar results setting up a booth at a number of supermarkets, parking areas etc, testing people, paying them, asking if they are driving and then observing if they drove in/out of the lot. You still have a very limited, self selecting sample, though probably would get far lower participation rates due to lack of insinuated police authority.

If you would bother to actually read the methodology you would have realized that:

The basic survey procedure involved the use of
law enforcement officers to direct traffic at the survey
sites, but not otherwise to interact in any way with the
survey subjects.

But sure, if I distorted the facts and pretended something was happening that isn't actually happening I would be pretty angry about this as well.

And as I explained, you give a sense of police force to proceedings if you use police to force people to turn off the road into these kinds of survey areas. The implication that you would have some kind of trouble if you failed to take part in the survey, or as the woman in the OP stated, were given no option but to pull over even after indicating that you have no wish to participate, is the point.

The problem is that one person "feeling" that they were being pressured does not mean that every single person does or that they are in fact being pressured.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The problem is that one person "feeling" that they were being pressured does not mean that every single person does or that they are in fact being pressured.

The presence of police always implies at least tacit approval of whatever is taking place and the threat of force if you do something "wrong". And again, I would struggle to understand how this survey got permission to use police powers to bring people in.

In my sociology class my group did a survey. One thing you learn if that pressuring people in answer ans screw results(I have to do the correct answer) and it is high unethical to do so and will often result in a rejection of your proposal from the IRB.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
In my sociology class my group did a survey. One thing you learn if that pressuring people in answer ans screw results(I have to do the correct answer) and it is high unethical to do so and will often result in a rejection of your proposal from the IRB.

However in this case the majority of the data collected related to non-sociological tests so pressure to take part simply increases the number of participants, rather than skewing the "answers" you get. The problem comes, as always, in applying those results to the general population. Especially given that those who truly had been drinking/etc would be very unlikely to participate if there was any way they could avoid it.

It is still considered unethical to pressure them into it

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It is still considered unethical to pressure them into it

Indeed it is.

They have mine already.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The problem is that one person "feeling" that they were being pressured does not mean that every single person does or that they are in fact being pressured.

The presence of police always implies at least tacit approval of whatever is taking place and the threat of force if you do something "wrong".

But you don't know how the police involvement is actually being done so it's a bit ridiculous to assume that the people are only being involved because of the police. For all you know, the police are flashing their lights and getting people to pull over then driving away. In that case the people are not even really interacting with the police beyond being pulled over.

And again, I would struggle to understand how this survey got permission to use police powers to bring people in.

Honestly I don't see how this is so difficult for you to understand. These likely are not rural roads being chosen but rather busy intersections in towns/cities. It's a safety concern and police involvement would be present in any case, whether they are making a roadblock or singling out drivers.

Some people must really gak their pants if a cop is anywhere near them...

Which the cops are fine with, as long as they can collect a sample afterward.

Tye_Informer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You can, and people did.

I have not heard of anyone who decided to not participate in this study and continued driving instead of pulling over, as they were directed. If that is the case, then I agree that this is fine.

However, I don't think pulling over was optional, and if it was then this introduces another problem where compliance to a law-enforcement directive are optional.

At this point I am just assuming that you are willfully ignoring the methodology that has been explained and posted and which makes the amount of police involvement pretty clear...

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Which the cops are fine with, as long as they can collect a sample afterward.

LOL!

 Kanluwen wrote:
But you don't know how the police involvement is actually being done so it's a bit ridiculous to assume that the people are only being involved because of the police. For all you know, the police are flashing their lights and getting people to pull over then driving away. In that case the people are not even really interacting with the police beyond being pulled over.

And you have no idea if that is the case either - we have a limited pool of information which seems to suggest that people have to stop, pull off the road, then be pressured into taking part, etc...

Honestly I don't see how this is so difficult for you to understand. These likely are not rural roads being chosen but rather busy intersections in towns/cities. It's a safety concern and police involvement would be present in any case, whether they are making a roadblock or singling out drivers.

Again, I struggle to see how this research was given the green light in the format it seems to exist in. This survey could have been conducted in any number of ways which did not involve a danger to drivers thereby entirely removing the need for police presence. I would imagine that the police presence was a desired factor in the study design itself, for the reasons already outlined, rather than an incidental factor of the study being run as it is.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But you don't know how the police involvement is actually being done so it's a bit ridiculous to assume that the people are only being involved because of the police. For all you know, the police are flashing their lights and getting people to pull over then driving away. In that case the people are not even really interacting with the police beyond being pulled over.

And you have no idea if that is the case either - we have a limited pool of information which seems to suggest that people have to stop, pull off the road, then be pressured into taking part, etc..

If a man with a clipboard is scary enough to make you feel pressured then I feel sorry for you...

Because it has been pointed out quite a few times, and it is pretty clear in the study itself, that the police have ZERO interaction with the person other than waving them off the road.
.

Honestly I don't see how this is so difficult for you to understand. These likely are not rural roads being chosen but rather busy intersections in towns/cities. It's a safety concern and police involvement would be present in any case, whether they are making a roadblock or singling out drivers.

Again, I struggle to see how this research was given the green light in the format it seems to exist in.

The study was designed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a federal agency in charge of vehicle safety and such wonderful things as determining causes of accidents and maintaining statistics on traffic research. Part of that research is determining how many people drive under the influence of alcohol in order to study the effects that those drivers have on the driving population as a whole and to direct future policy and to study the impact of current policy.

This survey could have been conducted in any number of ways which did not involve a danger to drivers thereby entirely removing the need for police presence.

You cannot have a study of "how many people are driving under the influence (and under the influence of what substance and to what degree)" without pulling random samples of people driving on the road. Dealing with people on the road is dangerous.

I would imagine that the police presence was a desired factor in the study design itself, for the reasons already outlined, rather than an incidental factor of the study being run as it is.

The police is present for safety reasons, since they are trained in directing traffic and in road safety. If you want people to pull over, they are the guys to do it.

Of course if you want to keep on insisting that the police is threatening people into compliance by totally not interacting with them then there isn't really anything else anyone can say to convince you otherwise.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But you don't know how the police involvement is actually being done so it's a bit ridiculous to assume that the people are only being involved because of the police. For all you know, the police are flashing their lights and getting people to pull over then driving away. In that case the people are not even really interacting with the police beyond being pulled over.

And you have no idea if that is the case either - we have a limited pool of information which seems to suggest that people have to stop, pull off the road, then be pressured into taking part, etc...

We have multiple instances of this survey being done since the 1970s. I've thus far only seen this instance of someone "feeling pressured into taking part".

Which makes me wonder if maybe the flaw was that the police lingered or that the woman in question is just too sensitive.

Honestly I don't see how this is so difficult for you to understand. These likely are not rural roads being chosen but rather busy intersections in towns/cities. It's a safety concern and police involvement would be present in any case, whether they are making a roadblock or singling out drivers.

Again, I struggle to see how this research was given the green light in the format it seems to exist in. This survey could have been conducted in any number of ways which did not involve a danger to drivers thereby entirely removing the need for police presence. I would imagine that the police presence was a desired factor in the study design itself, for the reasons already outlined, rather than an incidental factor of the study being run as it is.

I don't see how in the hell you could run this survey any way except for as a "live" study. Having the police involved is a safety precaution. Driving in a US city is not like a city in the UK. It's busy and there is almost always congestion unless you're out at like 3am.

The article has been updated:

**UPDATE TO THE VIDEO ABOVE** Fort Worth police initially said they could not immediately find any record of their officers being involved in the roadblock, but on Tuesday police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Peel said that the department's Traffic Division coordinated with the NHTSA on the use of off-duty officers after the agency asked for help with the survey.

So, off-duty officers. Exactly how do off-duty officers legally set up a road block? Also, from the article

"You can't just be pulled over randomly or for no reason," said attorney Frank Colosi.

He also noted the fine print on a form given to drivers informs them their breath was tested by "passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed."

"They're essentially lying to you when they say it's completely voluntary, because they're testing you at that moment," Colosi said.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And you have no idea if that is the case either - we have a limited pool of information which seems to suggest that people have to stop, pull off the road, then be pressured into taking part, etc...

We have multiple instances of this survey being done since the 1970s. I've thus far only seen this instance of someone "feeling pressured into taking part".

 Breotan wrote:
The article has been updated:

**UPDATE TO THE VIDEO ABOVE** Fort Worth police initially said they could not immediately find any record of their officers being involved in the roadblock, but on Tuesday police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Peel said that the department's Traffic Division coordinated with the NHTSA on the use of off-duty officers after the agency asked for help with the survey.

So, off-duty officers. Exactly how do off-duty officers legally set up a road block?

Being "off duty" does not necessarily mean that the officers no longer have the same authority. "Off duty" can mean any number of things, from plain clothed officers who have gotten permission from the department(necessary in some areas) to work as security for sporting events or bars to officers who are officially off the clock but were requested to be part of an event or study that necessitates police involvement.

When you see police officers at a school sporting event directing traffic, they are commonly "off duty".

Also, from the article

"You can't just be pulled over randomly or for no reason," said attorney Frank Colosi.

He also noted the fine print on a form given to drivers informs them their breath was tested by "passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed."

"They're essentially lying to you when they say it's completely voluntary, because they're testing you at that moment," Colosi said.

Not really. Lying would be not disclosing that.

By making the study voluntary, isn't it already worthless? If the point of the study is to estimate the number of people driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, wouldn't those people just decline to provide samples once they're made aware that its voluntary?

Having drivers pull over, and then asked if they want to give a sample for a study hardly seems that great an inconvenience.

The bigger issue to me is the money spent on this. As a once off to get an understanding of the issue I can see the point, but as an on-going study? How many millions do you want to spend to find out how things might have changed since 2007?

Be warned....we're about to be FDA rated

 d-usa wrote:
They have been doing this survey and collecting samples for decades. The last survey, complete with saliva and blood, was done in 2007. Nobody said anything about it then, but it's an issue now because Obama.

Also, thread title is false and misleading since samples are tested for drugs and alcohol and not DNA.

Stangely this is the first time the police have been involved in pulling people over and asking them to volunteer.