A friend was breathalysed the other night in what he said was a 'roadblock' type whereby every car was being stopped. No problem in this case but am I right in thinking that such methods are 'outside the law' as it stands. I understood that the police must have a 'reason' to stop you ie your driving has giving them cause for concern. My friend was merely asked if he had been drinking and would he take a test. No other reason for being stopped was stated.
I've no problem with this practice in principle but in reality it would be impossible to operate on anything but the quietestt roads -- which rather defeats the object doesn't it.
|
|
I thought plod had to have reasonable suspicion that you had been drinking, turning without indicating, driving erratically etc or that you had to have commited a moving traffic offence, obscured number plate, failed brake light and so on. If, on speaking to you, he forms the opinion that you have been drinking he can ask you if you have and you can have to take a breathalyser test whatever your answer is, if he thinks you have been drinking. SFAIK!
|
Such "blanket" roadside tests have been conducted many times in the past by various police forces.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
About 25 years ago I was stopped after a night out at a nightclub. The police were stopping all vehicles on the basis of looking for stolen vehicles. The question came up had I been drinking, which I answered truthfully - yes Coca Cola all night. The policeman laughed due to his ambiguous question and then bade me goodnight. In all I was stopped for less than a minute.
Did I object to being stopped? No, it was very late at night.
Did I think the police were looking for stolen cars? No.
Have I ever been stopped since? No.
Do I think stopping all traffic to check for drunk drivers should be permitted? Definitely not.
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. You need to pass a test to show you meet a required standard. Once a licence is issued then you should be able to go about your business at any time of day or night without hinderance from the police. If the police see a driving error or fault with your vehicle then they have every right to stop the car. This is the way I believe the law was drafted and I can see no reason for this to be changed.
Over the past 25 years there may have been the odd occasion when I was either close to or possibly slightly over the legal limit. This was only due to the almost impossible way of knowing the exact alcohol level in my blood stream. I am very aware of what I drink and try to be very careful not to exceed the limit.
Any driver who has been involved in an accident should be tested for alcohol. This is what should happen as someone has made an error and caused an accident. It may be that an innocent party in the accident was over the limit, but the law has been used fairly. They should have known what amount of alcohol and when they drank it, and calculated whether they were still over the limit.
There is no reason why a driver should not be reported to the police. They may not act on the information, but eventually that driver will get caught. Hopefully in the interim they have not been involved in an accident or caused any injuries.
The police should never be given the power to stop drivers without due cause. The law has been drawn up to protect the innocent majority. The way the legal process works for drinking and driving is sensible and does not need to be changed. Anyone caught should expect to be punished and lose their right to drive a car.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
I was stopped and b tested at 11.30pm driving at 27mph through our local town centre.. I was tired having been up at 6am and driven 400 miles that day. Ostensible reason for stopping was "driving too slowly".
I passed . Did I worry about being stopped ? No
Was I concerned about civil liberties? No.
madf
|
|
|
There are two types of road checks allowed under various bits of legistlation (or not actually disallowed)
1. So called PACE checks where the world and his dog are stopped in the course of a Murder enquiry. These need to be authorised by
a senior officer.
2. Road Safety Checks, which I presume they are using to bag people in a randomised way. Personally I support it, but would challange the legitimacy of an arrest of faliure to provide a sample if the driver hadn't been drinking (which has happened around here) Early morning checks like this are a good trhing especially if it catches the morning after crowd. This is real roads Policing catching real crooks and drink drivrs.
|
|
|
|
.*******
|
I wonder if 'leaving a pub car park' is grounds for reasonable suspicion!
Cheers (alcohol-free, of course), Sofa Spud
|
|
I suppose I used an unapproved word meaning inebriated, when I commented, to the effect, that its OK by me if BiB haunt the vomitoria of the pub?
|
My brother was stopped last night and breathalysed. He is semi-asthmatic and he was still wheezing this morning as a result.
Anyway, he is going to Trading Standards - he had one bottle of "The King of Beers" an hour before he was stopped, and the breathalyser had a zero reading! Copper told him it would be positive, negative or zero. I assume negative means alcohol in system but not over the limit?
So supposedly 5%ABV, and didn't register!!
I have asked him why he got stopped and if it was random, as per this thread title - will let you know when he emails me back.
|
The body apparently metabolises one unit of alcohol per hour. A unit is typically considered to be 10ml of pure alcohol, which translates to about 200ml of "the king of beers" - or slightly less than half a pint.
If your brother had one bottle (let's assume half a pint) it's plausible he could have already dealt with it by he was breathalysed.
Of course if the "king of beers" is as strong in alcohol as it is in flavour he could have got away with 10 pints. The only thing I've had that tastes weaker than KOB is KOB lite. Water comes a close 3rd. [/pilsener review]
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
|
Being teatotal and a little biased in my opinion anybody who attempts to drive after taking any alcohol or drugs no matter how small should be banned for life.
|
Being teatotal and a little biased in my opinion anybody who attempts to drive after taking any alcohol or drugs no matter how small should be banned for life.
I think a bit more than just "a little biased" !
|
|
|
|
|
This is another example where, through custom and practice rather than the law itself, police have established a protocol about enforcing the law, so as to prevent accusations of applying the law in a way which is arbitrary . Similarly, there is no legal requirement for speed cameras to be identified, painted yellow, etc.
Ironically this practice leads to people being stopped for initial reasons which do not relate to being under the influence, for example having a failed brake light.
There do seem to be holes in the way this all works.
We have reported via Crimestoppers , months ago, someone who every night drinks well over the limit, then drives home from a pub which is situated where in the winter, all the customers have to get there by car. He has not been stopped, despite us giving details of his vehicle. But based on our report the police could say they had grounds for suspicion to stop him.
On this topic I heard a phone-in this week about making the legal limit zero. I can see why people might think this would help. But if you look at court reports of people being convicted for DD , you will mostly see they are way over the current limit. That would suggest that most of the DD cases are where people disregard the law ( and for that matter, morality ) entirely, rather than just make a misjudgement.
|
Bear in mind there are two offences:
Driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs - power of arrest no breath test required (S4 RTA 88)
Driving over the prescribed limit (S6RTA88) Breath test procedure.
If a constable in uniform has reasonable cause to suspect
a person driving or in charge has alcohol in his body,or
has committed a moving traffic offence (this does not include no Excise Licence), or
involved in a road accident.
then these are the valid reasons for requesting a breath or the American Road side impairment test (for drugs) and if refused offence power of arrest but only if evidence of the presence of alcohol.
But also bear in mind that Police have other powers to stop a vehicle and on doing so if the they they come up with presence of alcohol then they can go into the procedure.
The suspicion need not be formed while the driver is driving and can be come apparent after being stopped or spoken to for some other reason [R v Roff 1976]
So officers can randomly stop but not randomly request a breath test.
Currently being discussed in the Road Safety Bill is the provision of the power to Police where it is known that a function involving drink is known then on authorisation of a Supt random testing can take place at that locus.
dvd
|
In the days when I had a "local", the local cops would sometimes pop their heads around the door at the end of the evening to check that drinking up time was being observed. The law always seemed impressed that the regulars would scatter the moment they came into the pub.
What they did n't cotton onto was the fact that the regulars knew that if the plod was in the boozer then they could drive home without being stopped. I'm not saying that they were all over the limit but I'll bet many of them were border line.
Personally, I think the occasional "blanket testing" is necessary to remind people that they cannot flaunt the laws with impunity. If they catch a few tax dodgers along with the DDs they all the better.
???????????????????
Time to get on with some work ???
|
If the police want to stop me routinely every once in a while then they are welcome to do so. I certainly wouldn't get excited about it, unless they physically damaged me or my car in the process. I have more important things to worry about.
--
L\'escargot.
|
I'm not convinced that a road block is an effective way to catch drink drivers. Of course, this depends on the location. It is, however, an effective way to advertise the traditional seasonal drink driving message.
Loitering in pub car parks at 11:20 would be much more effective.
|
|
The problem in my opinion is that given such wide ranging powers get abused. As one contributer said, take the sus laws, and more recently, the very wide ranging anti-terrorist laws, as only yesterday they were used to arrest, charge, and convict a lone british woman reading the names of soldiers killed in Iraq in London. And earlier this year an elderly man at the Labour party conferance who dared to shout "nonsense" at a politition was roughed up by the stewerds and then arrested by Police under anti-terrorist laws, until the end of the speech. These are only the ones we hear about, so should the police be given such wide powers to stop, check, and arrest. In my opinion, until police can learn not to abuse them, then no, they should not.
|
Personally I think a good idea over Christmas is for the Police to go into pubs by agreement with the landlord, and offer breath tests on a voluntary basis.
Those who were over the limit would NOT be prosecuted, as they would have not committed a crime, some of them may not even ahve the car keys with them.
However those who are (or even those who are not) could be given the opportunity to pass or fail a breath test.
Having the keys in your hand but not having got in your car yet, then failing a breath test IMO would be a sobering thought! I've never been brethalysed but I know if this happened I would be full of relief that I hadn't been caught on the road, or even worse killed someone.
In that case the PC could then explain to the drinker step by step what would happen to him, how long his ban is likely to be, the effect of this on his family life and job, mortgage etc.
|
In that case the PC could then explain to the drinker step by step what would happen to him, how long his ban is likely to be, the effect of this on his family life and job, mortgage etc.
As long as they are not too sozzled to take it all in...
Good idea though.
|
|
|
However those who are (or even those who are not) could be given the opportunity to pass or fail a breath test.
>>
I have only taken a breath test once.
It was about 11am on a Police stand at a motor show.
I just tried it as it was free and was surprised how hard I had to blow into it.
They also invited other stand staff to try it. Many having had a good previous evening in their hotels failed the test.
There were certainly a few surprised folk who had at least the rest of the day before a re-check.
I have been through a road block in Australia that was set up for blanket breath tests. My host told me what was round the corner as a squad car was parked up waiting for anyone who decided a U turn might be called for.
|
Avon and Somerset police have started playing the usual Christmas media tunes:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somers...m
I don't feel it would be an invasion of privacy, but driving standards have deteriorated to the extent that we need more traffic police carrying out random checks all year round, not just for the festive season.
Unfortunately the breathalyser doesn't check for recreational drugs which is far more of a problem with the younger generation than a few pints down the pub was in my day.
[/old man mode]
|
|
|
|
Those who were over the limit would NOT be prosecuted, as they would have not committed a crime, some of them may not even ahve the car keys with them. However those who are (or even those who are not) could be given the opportunity to pass or fail a breath test. Having the keys in your hand but not having got in your car yet, then failing a breath test IMO would be a sobering thought! I've never been brethalysed but I know if this happened I would be full of relief that I hadn't been caught on the road, or even worse killed someone.
Personally I dont think it could work like that. The police would first establish whether you were intending to drive or not. If you told them you were intending to drive, then proceeded to fail a breath test, I'm sure they would take a very dim view on that. Rather than the friendly ticking off about what could have happened, I'm sure you would be escorted to the station to stay in one of their cosy cells. I dont know the law, but there may be enough intent to arrest you for drunk driving, or a lesser charge?
Im totally against drink driving, and me and my mates always walk round the pubs and get taxis when we need them. Im happy with an increased police presence on the streets, and it wouldnt bother me if they sat in pub car parks watching people get in cars. But I dont think Police entering pubs offering voluntary breath tests is the right way to go about it.
I've been breathalysed twice (both green of course) and the first time was not particularly pleasant. If anybody has to do one, make sure you take a very deep breath, and dont stop blowing until they tell you you can.
|
|
|
|
|
