|
Police seemed to be more interested in speeding than more serious crimes. I live in a small village outside woking in surrey, and the only police around stop drivers for speeding. I do think drinking and driving is bad, but there seems to be less police presence around to stop other much more antisocial crime.
|
Mention is made of Breath Test Road Blocks at Christmas which strictly speaking is not correct but is seized upon to spread the Don't Drink Drive message at a time of year when
there is a distinct possibility this message will be ignored to the detriment of Road Safety.
Plod CANNOT legally carry out random Breath Test stops. Following the Aussie protocol ACPO would like this to be but not yet in force in England.
In his uniform he can only request Breath Test if he has reasonable cause to suspect that:
(1) a person is/has been driving with alcohol in his body.
(2) Is or has been committing a moving traffic offence (No Excise Licence is not one of these)
(3) Driver of vehicle involved in a road accident.
(S6 RTA 1988)
However under S.163 RTA 1988 a person driving a vehicle on a road must stop on being required to do so by a Constable in uniform.
So having made a lawful stop under S163, Plod speaks to driver and smells alcohol can then request under S.6.
But at this time of year in particular there are a lot of 'goodies' which can be acquired by the bad guys who no longer walk the street in striped jerseys carrying bags of swag but take the easy method and carry stolen goods on four wheels, so Plod will be be looking into this aspect as well and not just concentrating on the The Bag. In addition may well have a look at Con and Use and Driving Docs as well.
Hope this goes someway to assure that on these checks he is crime orientated as well.
My day they used to call it the Holly and Poultry checks.
DVD
|
Hi DVD
My earlier post was made on the basis of my own personal experience last year. The roadblocks have been used in Halton for at least the last three years and the procedures are as follows.
One is driving on a reasonably busy road in or around the town and then you encounter a queue of static traffic. At the head of the queue will be two or three traffic cars and 5/6 officers. Two each side of the road and two hovering. One of the officers is directing cars to halt.
Once stopped if you question why you are stopped the response is "random vehicle check" when this occurred to me I asked if such a check was legal, "we are checking lights and tyres" was the reply. The check consisted of one officer briskly walking round the car whilst his colleague readied a breathalyser. At no point was I asked to switch on lights or indicators (it was 11.15am so they were not on any way).
Following the circuit of the car I was asked to blow into the breathalyser, at this point I asked what their "reasonable cause might be" the response was "do you know the penalty for failing to provide a sample" afetr asking again and also stating I was not refusing merely to trying to understand the situation he replied "I can smell you have been drinking". I had not been and the green light proved this. Totally amazed by what had just happened I drove 50 yards up the road pulled over into a car park and walked back to watch what was happening. At this point there were 7 other vehicles stopped in the queue and the same identical procedure was applied to each irrespective of the type of driver. Some argued and some did not however none were arrested. After some 20 or so cars were stoppped they packed up shop and moved off.
At the time I was furious and was fairly certain such a type of stop and test operation was not legal.
I then continued on my way only to find the roadblock had now moved to the top of town and they were setting up to start again.
I can only conclude the message was we will get you if you do D+D but the figures for prosecutions as a result of their efforts last year were the lowest for some time indicating that not so many D+D anymore and that the message has probably gone as far as it can. The local paper has already announced such checks will operate this year.
as ever
Mark
|
Hi,
Understand what everyone is saying here on this thread, but, as someone else has pointed out somewhere, if these checks save just *one* life then surely they are worth it. If they discourage just *one* drinker not to use his car, and risk killing someone, then surely they are worth it.
I understand fully the frustrations felt by drivers who are stopped for no good reason that they can see - but on the other hand with these checks there is still the chance that these police *could* catch the driver who otherwise might have mown down any one of us, or our loved ones.
HF
|
This is probably a silly question. It was mentioned earlier on here that it may be easier, after say having one can of lager and being asked by police if you have been drinking, to deny it to avoid the inevitable breath-testing. However, if the police smell the alcohol on your breath and decide to do a test anyway, is it illegal to have lied to the police even if the test subsequently proves negative?
HF
|
|
|
HF,
Giving police the right to 'check' anyone and everyone they wish, on the basis that 'if it saves *one* life'; is the first step on a long slippery slope towards 1984. You have just given away the rights of a particular section of the community (drivers) because they *might* be doing something illegal. Once you've done that, where do we stop ?
Kevin...
|
Giving police the right to 'check' anyone and everyone they wish, on the basis that 'if it saves *one* life'; is the first step on a long slippery slope towards 1984. You have just given away the rights of a particular section of the community (drivers) because they *might* be doing something illegal. Once you've done that, where do we stop ? Kevin...
>>
Point taken, Kevin, but I will have to agree to disagree with you here. To me, this argument is similar to the one we have currenly about ID cards. I see no reason why honest, law-abiding people would refuse to have one of these, if it prevented just one terrorist from committing an atrocity in our country. In the same way, why should decent, law-abiding drivers object to the occasional (and surely in most cases it is *very* occasional) check-up by the police?
IMHO, it isn't leading us to 1984, but towards a system where some, just some, potential offenders might think twice before offending, for the fear that they might get caught/lose their license etc. And to me, if it saves just one life, then it is indeed worth it.
HF
|
HF
The problem with your suggestion is that terrorists and the like don't obey the law. If we all had compulsory id cards, they would find a way of getting round the system (forgeries).
Its the same with gun control. Normal law abiding people don't normally carry guns. The ones that did were mostly responsbile. Now the only people who carry guns are criminals and they don't bother with the law.
If you are still not convinced, have a quick look at the following link.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/camp...l
or more specifically
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001...l
Why not ask yourself if the liberty of a whole country should be reduced to prevent the actions of a few?
In my opinion stop and search on a wide scale basis is not law enforcement, nor is it detective work, it is however an abuse on the freedom of the citizens who they are there to protect.
Jonathan
|
Jonathan,
I really really don't want to get into too much of a debate here.
I understand your points about people fooling the system, whether it be ID cards, guns, or something else.
But as to whether "the liberty of a whole country should be reduced to prevent the actions of a few" - I'm sorry, I do disagree, but as I said I don't want to make this into some sort of ongoing argument.
Personally I would be glad to give up aspects of my personal liberty if it meant that even one person was saved from death or serious injury, from drunk drivers or terrorists or anything else. Maybe ask people who have been victims of such things, and see their reactions (no I haven't been one, I have been lucky so far, but I have had family wiped out by a drunken driver - not close family, but family nonetheless. 2 children aged 6 and 8. It hurts whether they're immediate family or not).
So, I do disagree with your opinion on stop and search - and I know the vast majority of people would probably see it your way rather than mine. To you, it is an abuse of freedom. To me, it is, as I said before, something that sometime might save one life. And to me that makes it worth it.
Regards
HF
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin. The police already have the right to stop, question and search anyone they wish to. (Unless the law has changed in the last few years.) Leif.
|
|
|
|
|
|
