DT78 – Reaction/ coordination tests are very subjective though, are they not?

This is sometimes the case DT78. Some people pass a breath test yet are obviously impaired. The police can do a roadside impairment test and subsequently, if they fail that, have the person examined by a doctor (as well as require breath/blood/urine samples). Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act deals with driving whilst unfit through drink (or drugs), and doesn't rely on the person being above a specific alcohol limit as Section 5 (the normal drink drive offence) does. Interesting point though as to whether this should be the routine procedure as opposed to breathylising.

The american system is widely held to be flawed because the co-ordination tests are so subjective, they rely on the arresting officer's opinion of how well the tests are performed. But given probably cause you'll still be breath/blood/urine sampled.

Our system doesn't require probable cause

skidartist – the UK one is a standard procedure with a variety of tests included. Only trained police officers can conduct it, and there would subsequently be a doctor's opinion on top of the police's.

EDIT – you posted as I was typing, how do you mean doesn't require probable cause?

DT78 – Member
…………………………

Imagine losing your license one morning over the fact you still had some alcohol in your blood stream from having a couple of glasses of wine with the missus the night before.

Which is why I don't advocate a zero limit but a limit around 25% of our current one. You will be over the limit for one drink that evening – but a couple the bight before will be ok. However a bucketful the night before and you will still be over the limit in the morning.

Aye but what I mean is – you can get random testing here, drivers don't need to have demonstrated themselves to be impared.

I've been stopped for other reasons (a dodgy light for instance) and because of the time of year, and time of day, been breathysed too, even though my actions gave no cause to suspect that I had been drinking (and of course I hadn't)

And at this time of year you'll also get random stops for breath tests in the same way you get random pulls for MOT / emissions tests

do you not think that would require a generational shift though TJ? Alot of those in their 60's who were able to do what they wanted before 1965 (the year an alcohol limit was set) still do unfortunately. Those who grew up with DD being made an issue I believe take it more seriously. However I should imagine a large majority on here have driven the morning after when really they shouldn't have been.

"Drink driving only became illegal in the first place back in the 60s/70s"

"Nope, it goes back to 1872."

Drink driving became illegal in 1965.

Aah I see.

There are three circumstances when the police can require you to take a breath test.

1) Suspicion of alcohol (eg. crap driving, staggered out of pub, tip off from public, or smell of alcohol/other sign of impairment on speaking to the driver for some other reason, such as a document check or similar).

2) RTC

3) Moving traffic offence (eg. speeding, careless driving, running red light etc.)

Not quite random, but yes, you can be breathalysed for reasons other than they simply think you're drunk.

It's not even random testing here when they get serious. They just stop every car and everybody blows in the bag. There are motorcycle cops to chase down those that twig and try to nip off. They don't do it often but it certainly makes people think twice.

whippersnapper – the main offender in the UK though are those in their early 20s

Back to the USA comparison… The drink/drive/death rate in the USA is higher even though their alcohol consumption rate is lower than in the UK (and even though our young drink drivers get a 4 year head start)

Annnnnd their sentencing is higher

skidartist that suprises me…

Before 1965 it was the drunk in charge law that applied. My father remembers being asked to walk in a straight line before being allowed to continue.

From Wikipedia:

International Comparisons

In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia drunk driving, and deaths caused by drunk driving are considerably lower than the USA, yet alcohol consumption per capita is higher and the legal age for drinking lower. Research in the United Kingdom has show that the danger group for drunk driving is young men in their early 20's rather than teenagers.[26]
Unlike the USA these countries do not see restricting access to alcohol as having any useful role to play in reducing drunk driving, and their lower drink drive deaths would seem to bear this out. Their experience is that random breath tests, severe penalties, including imprisonment for a first offense, combined with blanket public service broadcasting are the most effective strategy.[27]
It's notable that anti-drink driving adverts in Australia and the UK do not attempt to stigmatize drinking, in fact they make the point that it is a normal social activity – its when you mix it with driving that it becomes a problem.,[28][29]
Australian and British Law also does not recognize the crime of DUI Manslaughter and sentences for causing death by drunk driving much lower than the USA, conversely imprisonment for a first offense is not uncommon.[30]

Using your attempts to wind me up to expose the inconsistencies in your arguments and reasoning. The limits are for practical and judicial reasons. Many countries have decided the 80mg limit still used in the UK was too high, resulted in too many avoidable collisions

What ?? I have no idea what that means.

I know what the limits are there for, and I have said so all along. I am also saying that I don't have sufficient evidence to decide on what the limits should be. I do however know that D & D gets much more attention than other road killers like for example driving whilst using your phone.

It is a given that driving whilst on the phone impairs to a similar degree to driving marginally over the DD limit. So for example show me a case where a driver not involved in any accident has been stopped and as a result given a one year ban and substantial fine.

I'm not arguing that D & D is not serious, I'm not even arguing that the law should be more lenient, merely that there are other equally dangerous things that are not given the same attention.

Not sure why thats so difficult to grasp.

So for example show me a case where a driver not involved in any accident has been stopped and as a result given a one year ban and substantial fine.

In the summer I charged a guy with dangerous driving. He was overtaking on the approach to a bend, and nearly took my police car and two other off the road when I came round the bend the other way. No accident (although I don't know how!), no injuries, no damage. 12 month ban, about a £500 fine.

With phones the law just hasn't been quick enough to catch up yet, and the legislation as it stands left barmy loopholes. The presumed issue with phones was holding the phone, but the risk with hands free is hardly lower, but consumer handsfree systems only really evolved in response the loophole.

You would think that talking hands free would be no less risky than talking to a passenger, but a passenger can actually add to your awareness – if you are mid conversation and a hazardous event begins to unfold your passenger stops talking.

There is a suggestion that the period of risk extends to some 10 minutes after a call, although how thats measured I'm unsure. If someone has called to impart information I presume in the absence of being able to be either note or act on the information must be preoccupying.

But how do you police those 10 minutes?

With phones their widespread adoption and use is just too recent to be able to effectively legislate for yet. I'm sure it'll happen though

Whatever Bandit.

Berm Bandit (Berm Bandit)

Member Since
October 12, 2009 (1 month)
Location
UK
Occupation
Bigot
Interests
Wind ups

and the legislation as it stands left barmy loopholes.

Too right! Recent case law, someone got off driving on their phone because the police officers hadn't seen whether or not he was speaking, even though he was holding it by his ear whilst driving along with one hand on the wheel! Defence argued that if he wasn't speaking he wasn't using the phone, so wasn't guilty. Court agreed.

Surely his phone records would have been sufficient? Spose it depends how accurately you can place the time of the offense though (and unless the phone was seized you wouldn't know what phone he wasn't talking into)

If they had them yes, but it's not routine practice to seize phones. For exactly the reasons you suggest. Even if you seize the phone he pulls out of his pocket, was that definitely the one he was holding when I saw him 30 seconds earlier? Bit of a minefield, do we start searching vehicles top to bottom for a mobile phone offence to make sure there's no more, and take all the passengers phones? It's crap, but it's the reality of prosecution and defence in court.

Bit of a minefield, do we start searching vehicles top to bottom for a mobile phone offence to make sure there's no more, and take all the passengers phones?

Yeah go on! When they start protesting just hand them a copy of the case you refer to justify your actions.

I thought it was an offence to be even holding a phone in a car, whether you are speaking or not?

The point is that a large volume of dosh, time and expertise has been put into making D & D socially unacceptable. As a result attitudes have changed dramatically and it is no longer the jokey socially acceptable misdemeanour that it was.

All I am saying is that if the same effort were put into other issues with frighteningly similar jokey socially acceptable misdemeanour tags as has been put into D & D that would be a good idea. For those jokey things read such things as mobile phone use, assaulting a person with a motor vehicle as recently proposed by both Clarkson and that dickhead chef, and so forth and killing cyclists.

Edukator – Member
Whatever Bandit.

Reading Pass
Comprehension Fail
😉

So did I druidh. The offence is 'using' a mobile phone whilst driving, and using was not further defined, which some defence solicitor has spotted, hence this recent case law.

EDIT This might only apply to Scotland. Prior to this, the High Court (in Scotland) decreed that if you were seen holding it to your ear it could be correctly inferred that you were using it.

OK – but surely the old "driving w/o due care…" bit would still apply?

Yes. That's what the police used to use before the specific mobile phone offence came in.

(Again though, I don't know if you would get it past a court that, on it's own, holding a phone amounted to carelessness. Holding a phone/banana/pie in one hand while steering round a corner would be held to be careless, I've seen that before. Driving down a straight road, not so sure. The new law was meant to be a bit more absolute when it comes to phones. And I'm not saying what happens is right, just highlighting some of the pedantic debates I've seen in courtrooms).

Drink-driving killed 430 people last year

There was a thing on TV about young drivers a few minutes ago. They kill 4 people a day. That's 1460 a year.

Looks like drunk drivers are angels.

Check out old drivers, per kilometre driven they are just as dangerous according to a German report I saw on TV.

Where this all started was the assertion by Zokes that the high profile policing and draconian punishment of drink drivers (regardless of whether they are in an accident or not) is only because detection and prosecution is easy. You can catch someone drink driving purely by accident, without any suspicion or observation.

So the suggestion is that the police and prosecuting authorities would rather direct their efforts at easy busts cherry picking drunk drivers, rather than doing the real work of prosecuting other drivers that are careless in other ways. And that therefore drink drivers are targetted only as quota achieving exercise.

But I've no experience of the police allowing careless drivers to just swan about being careless, simply because there are higher-scoring prizes to be had. There might be an issue though of making the penalties for other driving offenses more effective.

This is indeed my point, and you got it well, up until the final para I've quoted… As other people have said, the UK police do, especially at this time of year, set up roadblocks and breathalyse everyone. No such thing exists for people reading a map, arguing, pacifying kids etc – they have to be caught veering about before something gets done.

Lets take an example…

Car clips kerb, spins into oncoming cyclist, sadly killing them. Police investigate.

a) he's sober, truthfully says he swerved to avoid a sheep and the accident happened. Police investigate, and find in his favour – verdict, tragic accident.

b) same as above, yet he didn't swerve to avoid a sheep, but says he did. In actual fact he was changing radio station / reading a map / arguing / etc. Police investigate and find in his favour.

c) This time he did swerve to avoid a sheep, but had a pint before leaving the pub. Police instead pin death by dangerous driving on him – using the fact he had alcohol in his bloodstream to do so, even though in actual fact it was non-contributory in this case.

d) same as C, yet this time he had 2 pints. He quite rightly gets the book thrown at him.

These are all scenarios that could happen. Comparing A and C is especially interesting, whilst comparing B and C demonstrates exactly my point. Only possible witness is under the car – it's a rural road so sheep are quite plausible, so driver B gets away with death by careless driving, driver C gets a much worse punishment when he didn't deserve it.

Take away your subjective views about it being a cyclist I've hypothetically put under the car, and the stigma attached to DD, and tell me which is the fairest outcome…

Talking of Zokes scenarios, a friend of a friend was driving to work one morning, he`d had a fair few the night before. A doctor was on his way home from pulling a nightshift at the local hospital, the doctor fell asleep at the wheel, swerved across the road and and drove into him. Both were breathalised and the friend of a friend was still a little bit over the limit and was blamed completely for the accident as he should not have been on the road in the first place. He certainly shouldnt have been but neither should the doctor.

Personally I think the limit should be much lower than it is at present, certainly less than a pint. Im a fair size and have always drank quite a bit, takes a lot to get me drunk, I used to ride motorbikes and if I had just one pint I could really notice the difference, you dont notice the difference as easily in a car but its there alright, hence I never drink anything whatsoever anymore if Im driving.