An unmarked police car pulled my mate in on Friday on a rural road. He was acting as taxi for my wife and friends and had finished off a small mouthful of alcohol in the pub before setting off.
Given that he was 100% honest with the police they made the decision not to test him.
Is this because:-
1. They believed him and his story
2. It costs money to test people so they were thinking about the state of the public finances
3. They didn't want a test failure on their records because the more people they catch the better?
Just surprises me because I reckon most culprits would say 'I've only had one drink gov'.
|
Just surprises me because I reckon most culprits would say 'I've only had one drink gov'.
Calling a police officer "gov" might get his back up. "Sir" or "Officer" would be safer.
Edited by L'escargot on 18/10/2009 at 08:58
|
|
|
|
Perhaps they were just using their judgement, a latitude too rarely allowed, or at least employed, by public servants these days.
|
The nose can be a powerful instrument in these circumstances.
But as the car will probably have wreaked of drink from the passengers, I'm surprised the driver wasn't asked to take a breath test.
|
Answer is probably 1.
It costs nothing to breathtest someone apart from the price of a plastic tube.
If we are looking at statistics then negative tests have the same 'brownie points' as positive - shows you are working.
There is another scenario and that is that they did not actually have a breathtest machine with them - whoops!
Edited by Fullchat on 18/10/2009 at 11:23
|
There is another scenario and that is that they did not actually have a breathtest machine with them - whoops!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>i would agree with this
|
|
I was stopped under similar circumstances by police at a road block on a quiet main road at 1am. Car full of "happy" people, (I had not had a drink for days). The police were armed with a transit van and if they did not have a breath tester I am sure they could have summoned traffic colleagues if they thought I was in need of one.
|
I was stopped and invited to take a breath test some years ago. It was, in fairness, about 2.00 am. I had gone to collect my wife and a couple of her friends from a night out. I was driving a then, pretty much brand new, Citroen Xantia diesel. Not exactly your typical boy-racer-mobile It was in perfect condition. I was stone cold sober, I'm not teetotal but drink rarely and on that occasion had not had alcohol for weeks. I know for sure I hadn't been speeding or commited any other traffic offence but still I was stopped.
After having, of course, passed the breath test and having had my car thoroughly inspected we were told to go on our way. I was so taken aback at all this that I meekly cooperated and failed to ask the obvious question as to why I had been stopped.
I remain mildly puzzled by this event to this day.
I can only assume they had a given number of stops to make that night and I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Not whinging really, just bemused.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 18/10/2009 at 13:43
|
The police can basically stop you for any reason they wish (alleged weaving whilst driving a vehicle would be one example), but that time of the morning would be more reason to stop you (potential drug dealers, users etc).
Still surprised you were given a breath test though under the circumstances.
|
In Australia they have reandon breath tests (RBTs). In Queensland a couple of months ago along a 5 mile route on a Saturday afternoon I passed one RBT and was pulled in at another. I had been out on a boat fishing and had had a couple of tinnies over a 6 hour period so I was okay. In comparison, I have been breath tested in Britain twice in 30 years, one of which seemed to be a random-type stop and the other was late at night. (passed both, phew!!)
According to our aussie relatives thse RBTs make people think twice about drinking and driving. Perhaps we need this approach here?
|
According to our aussie relatives thse RBTs make people think twice about drinking and driving. Perhaps we need this approach here?
You don't need it, if an officer wishes to see if someone has been drinking, then they can stop someone at random to enquire whether or not they have a driving licence or insurance....then you can bung your head through the door/window and use your sense of smell
then combined with the power to request a breath test after an accident or the commission of a moving traffic offence (e.g. 31mph in 30mph limit) or because you suspect them of having been drinking for other reasons (e.g. poor lane control or you've stopped them for the insurance check, can't smell anything, but their eyes are glazed to hell)...then the power is there already
|
"You don't need it, if an officer wishes to see if someone has been drinking, then they can stop someone at random to enquire whether or not they have a driving licence or insurance....then you can bung your head through the door/window and use your sense of smel"
No you miss the point. They set up road blocks and test EVERYONE that pases through. They choose the most likely times, the most likely routes. The chances of getting caught in Australia is CONSIDERABLY* higher than in the uk.
*unless of course you are in a one horse town in the bush.
|
Merseyside and Lancashire police forces set up road blocks regularly, especially at holiday periods, to check out motorists and commercial vehicle drivers for possible drink driving, tax and insurance cover and any other relevant motoring offences.
|
They are not allowed by law to set up a road block to detect drink driving offences in the uk.
|
They are not allowed by law to set up a road block to detect drink driving offences in the uk.>>
Well I can show you at least two road check areas for that very purpose which are set up quite frequently - and even more so at Christmas and New Year - to catch out drivers still over the limit from the night before.
|
WP explained it above. There is no legislation to empower the Police to random breathtest. There is legislation for the Police to stop and examine vehicles, their drivers and their documents. Any request to breathtest falls out of that interaction.
Breathtest can be required on Suspicion of Alcohol having been consumed, Moving Traffic Offence and Collision.
Suspicion of alcohol can be the smell on the drivers breath to their demeanour or glazed expression.
It would be illegal to run a roadcheck and immediately request a breathtest. There is some other factor which is a catalyst for the request.
That is not to say that the purpose of the roadcheck is to catch drink drivers but it is a convoluted route to get there. Other offences fall out of the roadcheck as well.
Edited by Fullchat on 19/10/2009 at 01:33
|
|
After having of course passed the breath test and having had my car thoroughly inspected we were told to go on our way. I was so taken aback at all this that I meekly cooperated and failed to ask the obvious question as to why I had been stopped.
They wouldn't have told you why. They would have just ignored the Q. or given you a load of old Carp. I have been stopped several times and some of their lines are an insult. One of them subject of a complaint. Fair is fair. Bull is Bull.
MD
|
"Excuse me Officer but why have you stopped me?"
"Because I can Sir"
:-)
Edited by Fullchat on 18/10/2009 at 21:03
|
"Because I can Sir" :-)
and of course we all then think " what a witty policeman !"......"quite the card !" don't we.....
;-)
|
|
I worry about the eyesight requirements for the police service. Twice in the 1970s I was mistaken for Stirling Moss.
|
|
The police round here don't need to do 'random' stops - all they have to do is to pull over the 1 in 10 with dodgy lights. They'd be guaranteed some success - with, at least, a pull for dodgy lights and , as a bonus, the occasional drunk/no insurance/drugs/etc etc. This approach would also have the beneficial effect of persuading folks to get their lights fixed.
|
|
|
|
