Forum menu
Should be a condition of getting your driving license that you agree to it.
Well, seeing as it's illegal to refuse (immediate arrest), it kind of is.
So, at roughly 2.5 units per pint of 4.5 ABV, that’s 20+2 hours
This seems to assume that your body doesn't start processing the alcohol until you go to bed.....
Should be a condition of getting your driving license that you agree to it.
Well, seeing as it’s illegal to refuse (immediate arrest), it kind of is.
Too wooly. Too many "loopholes"
Should be able 100% stoppage no questions asked blow in the bag road user...... Judging by the amount of people hitting the brakes hard today when other cars come towards them....id be suspicious of a high majority of people on the road today ....
@Twodogs - as far as I’m aware it is a rough guide to help keep everyone safe rather than exact medical science. I think therefore it errs very much on the side of caution. Better to arrive late than in a hedge after killing someone.
I do have a problem with the current approach to stopping and testing. It's too bloody soft and kind.
This would be another activity for my proposed motoring police along with nabbing dangerous driving, speeding, stupid parking and driving anything German! Self funded by the fines which would start at £1000 for failing to indicate.
Apocryphal tale of a session in a village pub. Someone called the rozzers to suggest that someone had indicated they were planning to drive home that night, so the police parked up a little bit from the pub and waited. Sure enough the old boy staggers out from the pub, weaves across the car park, drops his keys trying to get them into the lock, falls into the front seat, stalls twice and eventually pulls out of the car park and kangaroos off down the road.
The police follow for a short distance and then pull him over for the questions and breathalyser that blows well beneath the limit. Turns out, he was just a very good actor.
Meanwhile, the rest of the pub has emptied and gone the other way home safe in the knowledge that the only local copper is tied up elsewhere.......
Being stopped by the rozzers is better than getting picked up by the fuzz.
LOL 🙂
Very polite and pleasant to me (and I was clean) but the car driver who was stopped just ahead of me was out of the car and they were giving him a really hard time.
It's like that on the continent. All very good if as you say are good,but mess up and be found drunk in charge they hammer you because over there its seen as being something you consciously, deliberately set about to do, knowing it is illegal.
UK cops just treat you like that from the off. Like they're trying to goad some criminal offence out you, and have you marked down as a potential troublemaker.
But other variables such as body size mean there is really isn’t a standard.
There is. And back-calculation to show you were over the limit at a previous time when not tested is a legitimate avenue of prosecution. Alcohol elimination is very predicable because the levels are so high relative to medicines (gram doses rather than milligrams).
I would have truely random stops - roadblocks in a aussie style. No sympathy. I think it should be mandatory jail - its one of the few times I think a short jail sentence might act as a deterrent.
Every time it’s been fine and have had friendly officers.
I find it’s one benefit of being nice and polite to them *
* although being quiet and respectful can backfire on you at times, like when myself and 3 mates were arrested for suspected drug dealing back in our twenties. Long story short , I was the only one strip searched as they thought I was guilty as I was too quiet 🤨.
Mind you the reason for the stop was , and I quote “ because 3 white kids in a flash car with a black man driving always looks suspicious “.
I doubt they would get away with that these days
Powers to require a preliminary screening breath test:
Suspicion that you’ve been drinking (this can be manner of driving, a third party report, your behaviour following being stopped for some other reason).
After commiting a moving road traffic offence.
If you’ve been involved in a RTC.
Failure to cooperate with a preliminary roadside test is an offence, for which you can be arrested. This is distinct from the station based failure or refusal to provide a specimen.
If you’re asked to provide a sample of breath as part of a drink drive campaign then refusal to take part is not an offence (unless of course one of the above reasons exist).
It’s a good opportunity for officers to engage with the public and give a bit of advice, have a chat and even a bit of light hearted bants. Over the many years and campaigns I did this I never had one refusal, and virtually everyone had a bit of a laugh.
I would have truely random stops – roadblocks in a aussie style.
I wouldn't. There's too many thugs in our police services itching for an excuse to kick-off. Family experience is of several officers in Suffolk trying to goad my lad and his mates (all white, middle class and late teens) at an inspection facility after a routine stop.
goad my lad and his mates (all white, middle class and late teens) at an inspection facility after a routine stop.
Goad them into what exactly.....
NZ weekend inspections are little more than a stop. Blow into the tube and move on. You don't even get out the car ..... Or at least you didn't
can think of a few bunts who would happily be a total arse about these things and refuse one just because they legally could.
So you're saying that you believe it's acceptable for those trusted to enforce the law to be above it themselves?
I'm all for the police keeping the roads safer, but they have to follow process or it's anarchy. If the process is inadequate then we change the process, we don't just ignore it because it's inconvenient.
So you’re saying that you believe it’s acceptable for those trusted to enforce the law to be above it themselves?
Did you quote the wrong post before asking your question ?
Not yet this year, but most others. They do seem to struggle with the idea that some people don't drink and think I'm taking the urine about not drinking since 2001.
Also used to get routinely stopped when I had a white van and heading home to mid Wales from South Wales at night. Anything after half 11 was pretty much a guaranteed stop at Brecon.
Would refusing to voluntarily give a sample be reasonable grounds for them to suspect you were over the limit?
Yes, a lad I know has been arrested more than once for refusing a breathalyser. He's actually been jailed twice for drink driving offences (and caught and fined on several other occasions) so they had good reason to pull him over, he was warned the last time that he faced an indeterminate sentence should he be convicted again
Did you quote the wrong post before asking your question ?
Quite possibly, actually.
NZ weekend inspections are little more than a stop.
Therein is the difference having watched the Highway Patrol programmes the NZ Police appear to be class above a lot of other forces seen on the box. Invariably polite despite a lot of provocation whereas on West Island they're a whole lot more thuggish on TV.
If random stops = fewer drink driving incidents, then the Police should be allowed a free reign.
I think the important IF at the start of your sentence may be the issue. Presumably if chief constables believed this was the most effective way to deal with this they’d have convinced a Home Secretary at some point in the last 34 yrs it was worth an amendment to the road traffic act to permit random breath tests.
In terms of modern policing it takes a lot of resources to set up proper “road block” random stops. The vast majority of people who are inconvenienced are the law abiding public. Meanwhile some guy is battering his wife and nobody is responding, and the drunk driver is sneaking round the backroads to avoid the high profile / high volume road block, white van gammon is harassing cyclists, sober boy racers are doing donuts in car parks, and tired drivers are half asleep but sober. Random is good to create the fear of getting caught in the normally compliant who might be tempted to take a chance, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the best way to resource road policing for maximum safety.
I actually suspect that cannabis impaired drivers are actually a bigger issue - same logic should apply - but roadside drugs tests are fairly slow (10 mins?) - is it reasonable to delay those who raise no suspicion? Do we create more speeders with people trying to catch up lost time the more people we stop?
I suspect if a random (non breath) stop doesn’t create a reason to suspect drinking (smell, answers to questions, slurred speech) and identifies no moving traffic offences the odds of the breath test being positive are low and that time would be better spent on the next car coming along the road (who as well as drink driving might be uninsured, no mot, invalid license, dodgy tyres etc) but on all but the quietest roads whilst they are spending time having a nice chat to people like the OP other drivers are passing unhindered.
It's fair to say, spliffed up drivers are much more common than they used to be. It's now a frequent occurrence to be passed by a smelly car rather than rare to never which it used to be. Who knows what else people are taking and driving, stuff that doesn't leave a distinctive pungent trail...?
"So other than being drunk….what grounds would anyone. Have for refusing a breath test while driving a car other than being a capital unt."
Because many people have had experiences of plod where where the officer involved has been a Capital Unt themselves. It only takes a couple of bad experiences with them to not feel inclined to co-operate...
Is that where plod turns up drunk for his shift in the motor pool?
the Police should be allowed a free reign.
Beautiful slip.
That’s a 999 job isn’t it? Someone like that needs taken off the road right away, not after an email
Agreed. Sending an email is pointless. I phoned the police an hour after getting hit by a drunk driver and they said there was no point whatsoever in visiting him as he could just claim to have drunk loads in that last hour.
i'd wager most "voluntary" breath tests are submitted to as the person doesnt honestly believe that refusal is an option.
everyone knows damn well that refusing a breath test will see you arrested and most will assume that despite it being a 'random' stop & test, refusal or even hesitation will simply see the copper invent a reason.
similarly im not keen to submit to a drugs swab or random dna sample.
some of you on here would vote for random covid tests, likely followed by roadside execution.
it wasnt really a baby robins face - they just made that bit up to scare you.
‘Not to worry sir. When did you last have a drink?’
‘9 August 2018’
OP there's your problem. He probably thought you were a recovering alcoholic who might have slipped off the wagon 😉
i’d wager most “voluntary” breath tests are submitted to as the person doesnt honestly believe that refusal is an option.
everyone knows damn well that refusing a breath test will see you arrested and most will assume that despite it being a ‘random’ stop & test, refusal or even hesitation will simply see the copper invent a reason.similarly im not keen to submit to a drugs swab or random dna sample.
some of you on here would vote for random covid tests, likely followed by roadside execution.
it wasnt really a baby robins face – they just made that bit up to scare you.
I don't think I'd agree to one either really. Likewise, if a police officer knocked on my door and said "excuse me sir, we're checking the local area for crime, you won't mind if we have a look round your house to see if any crimes are being committed?" I'd ask for the warrant. You don't have to be a dick about it. But I think in general, power should be resisted as it's a thin edge of the wedge thing. Once one small thing gets normalised it's used as justification for the next higher attack on liberties. There's nothing wrong with standing up for your rights. Just don't be a dick. I've only ever had positive dealings with the police, but I'm aware that that's not the case for everyone.
Having had an apprentice at work killed the week before his 18th birthday as a result of drink driving, I don’t think there should be any excuse whatsoever. The limit in England should be reduced to match Scotland.
I’ve been driving for 20 years, and only ever been breathalysed once which was visiting an event in Finland. Guaranteed that if I was to ever take a chance I’d be stopped before the end of my street though.
After colliding with a mahoosive SUV on a blind bend (bicycle vs car) and gaining my pilots licence, I was asked to take a breath test in the back of an ambulance whilst being tended to by Paramedics. By one of 'those' officers - officious, cynical and verging on plain rude.
I knew I wasn't compelled to blow, told him so and that I would by my choice to rule out any speculation that alcohol was a contributing factor. After blowing negative, the Policeman continued to be unnecessarily unpleasant (aka 'a dick'). I asked the Paramedic if I had to put up with him so she kicked him out.
knew I wasn’t compelled to blow, told him so and that I would by my choice
Despite being involved in a road traffic colision....which is infact one of the legit reasons to brealyse someone.
Sounds like he thought you had a bit of a 'tude
What does gaining your pilots license have to do with crashing your bike into a SUV?
If you crashed your plane, and survived you'd also have to take a breath test, and if you refused you'd be arrested. I don't see what the big deal is.
I think he meant he went over the bars.
Despite being involved in a road traffic colision….which is infact one of the legit reasons to brealyse someone
Hmm. Not sure that's the case for a cyclist as we're not obliged to submit to a breath or a blood test afaiu? Anyone qualified care to comment?
Ah yes rules on being in a fit state to use the road for some users of the road but not others.
No wonder this countries ****ed the law doesn't even make sense.
(I am aware there is no alcohol limit for cyclists how ever being impaired enough to cause a crash on the public highway regardless of mode of transport should be treated the same regardless of mode of transport) .....
Good for the goose good for the gander.
@trail_rat There's a big discussion up there^ about the Police overstepping their authority and this is another example of it. Being breathalysed whilst riding a bicycle (or falling off one) is not mandatory. It's got nothing to do with equal responsibility or geese... You cannot be compelled to and there is no penalty for not blowing whilst riding or crashing a cycle. The copper was chancing his arm pretending it was compulsory (whilst generally being a dick) and was called out. I don't think I had an attitude, just concussion and a broken neck...
Similarly, you can't be prosecuted for breaking the speed limit on a cycle as it's not mandatory to fit them with speedometers so how would you know...?
Pilots licence = over the bars (and the XC90). Keep up at the back. Tsssk. 🙂
Ah yes rules on being in a fit state to use the road for some users of the road but not others.
No wonder this countries **** the law doesn’t even make sense.
There are load of road laws that are different depending on what vehicle you are in. I'd say it generally makes sense as a concept
Ironic really given it is against the law to ride your bike under the influence of drink or drugs.....
It's a monetary fine mind you. And with no compulsion to take a breath test there is unlikely to be a conviction that sticks
But I guess your right in the same way that if you want to kill a cyclist and get away with it....use a car
If you want to get about drunk and cause mayhem use a bike.
Ain't loopholes brilliant
* Edit....it's all away on a tangent. Not saying boblo was drunk on his bike. I just find it hard as a concept that we have one group of road users who have to prove they were in a fit state at the time of an accident and the other who could be contributory bleezing..... More so that given the state of our roads that a cycling forum was against more policing of our roads.....
I cannot remember the last time I was pulled over period .....
How does one cause mayhem on a bike? Assuming it's not fitted with an anti-aircraft gun.
@Trail_rat Sorry, wasn't trying to start an argument on this. Just adding the anecdote about some Officers already overstepping the mark with the breathalyser. The discussion was tangentially about that specific experience so seemed relevant.
I'm not suggesting we should all go and get trollied then ride round the one way system with impunity 'cos we can'. Whatever mode of transport we choose, being sensible, responsible, law abiding and avoiding anti social behaviour (aka 'pissing people off for fun') are paramount.
<edit> Drunk? Not a chance. 10:00am and no alcohol for 17 years at time of collision. I'd been waiting for the 'when did you last have a drink?' question for ages. '02/01/04' was my very prompt reply 🙂
Ironic really given it is against the law to ride your bike under the influence of drink or drugs…..
Its actually "unfit" not under the influence IIRC - meaning its a higher bar. Basically if you can ride it you are OK - fall off and you broke the law!
Cops have to show you are unfit not just under the influence
I have to say IMO / IME everyone who complains about police abuse is being a richard and they failed the attitude test. Politeness goes a long way. The MET being the exception. They are some of the nastiest most racist cops around. Here? The only people I know have had issues with cops are all dickheads. mate of mine once woke up on his sofa with a note taped to his chest saying " your bike is locked up at the pub, you were too drunk to ride it, we took you home - your local cops"
No wonder this countries **** the law doesn’t even make sense
Sorry if I've caused your blood pressure to rise. I was just asking a question.
TJ - that's genius!