Random breath tests - Christmas campain

I don't believe in random breath testing simply because the police would then be able set up their little roadblock in rush hour and make a lot of sober and innocent people late home, or late for work if they were trying to nail those who'd been drinking the night before.

quote:

---

It only took about 2 minutes of my time, they were very polite and I felt it a great deterant to drink drivers.

---

Had they done the same at, say, 8 am or 5 pm, it would have added about an hour to your journey.

I thought random breath testing was illegal anyway, so is this another case of the government moving the goal posts without bothering with due process?

If someone has been drinking it is fairly obvious by just following them, without having to pull people over at random causing disruption and congestion.

However, late at night the police should have the powers to wait by pub car parks and follow those who drive out of them. Currently they are not permitted to do this as it is considered to be "intrusive surveillance."

Regards,

Steve.

The civil rights campaigners have a problem with the police trawling for crimes. It is an impingment of civil liberty in that it affects the citizens' right to freedom of movement.

Imagine if the police could conduct house-to-house searches just on the off-chance that they might find some stolen goods. Instead, in nearly all cases, police are expected to act on reasonable suspicion only.

I don't blame the campaigners for taking civil liberties as seriously as the law takes drink-driving. Oppression is only a few laws away at any time. One thing I have noticed is that the police ALWAYS want more powers to help deal with crime but are not very forthcoming with apologies or willingness to take responsibility for mistakes. But perhaps the UK is different from New Zealand in this respect?

Deane

Chaps

Try talking civil liberties and about the inconvenience of being pulled in for a random test to the relative of someone who has been run down by a drunken driver or someone who has been injured for life.

The only people to blame for this are the persistant drinkers and it is obvious that the existing penalties are too soft to deter them.

Perhaps a 3 month mandatory spell inside would focus their minds a bit more.

Regards

Mick

I was stopped one Christmas Eve on my way home from work, the policeman put his head in thru the window and asked me to switch on my lights to check them - it was about 1pm - he saw that they were OK

I asked if he was actually checking for the smell of alcohol - he smiled - I went on my way

Nice to see the police ensuring that one has a correctly functioning and legally compliant car - I wonder if they do servicing as well <g>

Derek

<< >>

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deane F:

Imagine if the police could conduct house-to-house searches just on the off-chance that they might find some stolen goods. Instead, in nearly all cases, police are expected to act on reasonable suspicion only.


Deane

---

This is always going to be a difficult one. I classify a random breath test in the same terms as I would random stop and frisks for firearms. There's a big difference between pulling drivers over to check for fitness to drive and crashing through your door at 3am on the off chance. Having been seriously injured by a drunk driver I admit to being biased. Imposing a zero alcohol law for driving couldn't come soon enough for me - but you still have to catch the bastards.

Cheers

Harry

[This message was edited by HTK on Sun 12 December 2004 at 12:06.]

Statistically the police would probably find stolen goods in many homes today if they were allowed random searches. Pirated software? Illegally downloaded music, video and films?

Nime

quote:

---

Had they done the same at, say, 8 am or 5 pm, it would have added about an hour to your journey.

---

that's why RBTs aren't set up at this time. They're run late at night when there tend to be greater numbers of drunks on the road. Drink related fatalities in NSW have (according to newspaper reports) fallen from 40% to under 30% since RBTs started.

Of course the police can still pull you over at other times if they suspect you've been drinking. I was once pulled over and after I'd blown up a big zero the officer said they thought I might have been drinking because I was driving slowly - I was driving at the speed limit!

quote:

---

If someone has been drinking it is fairly obvious by just following them, without having to pull people over at random causing disruption and congestion.

---

nice theory but in the UK there aren't any cops on the roads anymore.

John

I have a few police friends who pick up quite a few drink drivers at 2/3 in the afternoon.

Evidently males in their 40/50's are the worst culprits. Lunchtime drinking is still an ingrained habit.

Most people in their 20's have a cultural aversion to drink driving, which if nothing else, bodes well for the future.

Regards

Mick

true Mick, the lunchtime bender is another danger. Not sure if they run RBTs in the early afternoon.

quote:

---

Most people in their 20's have a cultural aversion to drink driving, which if nothing else, bodes well for the future.

---

while this is true in itself, unfortunately drugs have taken the place of alcohol.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

Try talking civil liberties and about the inconvenience of being pulled in for a random test to the relative of someone who has been run down by a drunken driver or someone who has been injured for life.

The only people to blame for this are the persistant drinkers and it is obvious that the existing penalties are too soft to deter them.

Perhaps a 3 month mandatory spell inside would focus their minds a bit more.

Regards

Mick

---

Well Here's a first ! Yes Our Micky, I totally agree with you on this one, slam
the Bastard's; male, female, pretty or ugly, third offence "LIFE BAN" no
disussions or ever reviewed (NEVER). The majority of people on this forum will have lost friends, etc, etc, by the stupidity and selfishness of others due to drink driving, ZERO TOLERANCE² (All year round)


Fritz Von ZEROTOLERANCE.

P.S. For the benefit of Civil Serviles (including Policemen) who regularly take
the piss in this regard (they know who they are) the same applies to them, and
trying to play/sing the old old old argument of I've only had two pints, it's my
medication, I've only smoked a spliff, I can't feed my family without a driving
license, etc, etc, BOLLOCK'S TO THEM ALL, miners can't work without pits, and
fishermen can't live without fish, but they do don't they, if you're dead you
don't have a choice do you ? It affects all of society (dangerous driving
included) as well as cycling drunk, and even walking and causing an accident
(where here you also lose your license if you possess one), the logic obviously
being, if yer cannie even walk doon the rood withoot smashin things up, how can
yee drive a fuckin motor ? (Ball's to the Country - City argumant as well, it just does not tally with Common Sense).
Draconian random searches of houses for stolen goods are another matter, but do not endanger life persay! the well rehearsed Suss-Laws, and Stop & Search Laws long used in UK, do not apply to the majority of us, firstly because I assume most of us are white, And secondly we don't drive black BMW's with smoked out windows: But that's an entirely seperate matter, innit.


N.B. I've personally experienced many idiots drunk in charge of yachts, motor boats etc ect, as well, just as deadly, wooooosh.

the majority of pedestrians killed/injured are drunks who step in front of cars. Other than banning alcohol completely, one wonders what can be done about this.

quote:

---

Not sure if they run RBTs in the early afternoon.

---

That's where the 5pm rush hour blockade comes in.

They have a few jars at lunchtime in a pub across the road from the office, go back to work and then drive home at 5.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

I thought random breath testing was illegal anyway, so is this another case of the government moving the goal posts without bothering with due process?

---

They can stop your car and ask you all sorts (driving doc's etc - owner of vehicle), in accordance with the road traffic act. The request for a breath test can be made for one of three reasons: after a crash, moving traffic offence, and suspicion (hence the question posed by the cop above). Thats why they don't just stop you and shove the device in your mouth.

John,
I am interested as to where you get your info from re

quote:

---

the majority of pedestrians killed/injured are drunks who step in front of cars. Other than banning alcohol completely, one wonders what can be done about this.

---

,

as this is not my experience.... please can you evidence this?

regards,

andy c!

but Steve, if lunchtime is 12-2 and a 'few jars' is 3 pints at most then you'll be under the legal limit by 5 - I'd be more worried about your work capacity.

Andy,
here's the first Link I found :

quote:

---

A study from 1998 revealed that the majority of pedestrian fatalities for adults occurred on Fridays and Saturdays and between 6:00 pm and midnight. As with occupant injuries, alcohol consumption was also a major risk factor for the pedestrian, the driver, or both. (Safe USA - 2001 - Pedestrian)

---

The original I read was regarding NSW road deaths and the study was reported in the SMH. I've read something similar in a newspaper here as well although this is the only UK report I could dig up quickly -
UK Stats - which seems to show slightly less than 50%.

John,

It's probably 5 or 6 pints between 12 and 3. It's crimbo so they have a longer-than-usual liquid lunch break.

Regards,

Steve.

Thanks, John,
I'll do some digging of my own re UK Police Stats and get back to you...

Interesting you talk about 'most' being back under the limit... that depends on all sorts; regular alcohol intake generating tolerance to use, metabolic rate, food itake, other drug useage causing antagonistic or additive effects (depending upon drug taken) etc etc.

andy c!

well I say most because they say the average male (whatever that is) can drink 3 standard drinks (half a pint of beer, a nip of spirits, a glass of wine) in the first hour and then 1 drink every hour after that to stay just under .05 (UK limit is .08). 3 pints is 6 standard drinks which means 4 hours to stay under the .05 limit. After 5 hours you should be well under .05 let alone .08. For women they recommend 2 drinks in the first hour if you want to stay under the limit.
Of course if you're planning on driving the best action is to just not drink in the first place.

John,
For my sins i have taught drink/drive legislation, and the question of 'how much can you drink?' comes up every time. you ask anyone in the medical profession, or any other 'expert', and they can measure actual alcohol content etc, but estimating the mean or average reduction after consumption - you'd be better off guessing 6 numbers on the lottery.

Your last comment, however, is bang on!

andy c!

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Sheridan:
but Steve, if lunchtime is 12-2 and a 'few jars' is 3 pints at most then you'll be under the legal limit by 5 - I'd be more worried about your work capacity.

---

Last time I read anything on the subject, I was led to believe that 1+1/2 pints was about the max before you went over the limit.
3 pints of Pedigree and I'm virtually pissed anyway!
1/2 pint = 1 unit
Glass of wine (small pub measured glass) = 1 unit and that's based on 11% alcahol content apparently - I, like most people I know, don't usually bother with wine of less than 13% !!!

I guess the "random breath testing" subject that I used wasn't accurate, as they purely asked me a question....
Had I sped off, the police car parked just down the road would no doubt have chased me, or if I smelt of booze, they would have had good reason to do the breath test..

Computers are supposed to work on 1's and 0's - in other words "Yes" or "No" - why does mine frequently say "Maybe"?......

quote:

---

Last time I read anything on the subject, I was led to believe that 1+1/2 pints was about the max before you went over the limit.

---

yes, but obviously the amount of time involved is a factor as well unless you somehow manage stay pissed forever.

quote:

---

3 pints of Pedigree and I'm virtually pissed anyway!

---

Assuming that beneath the head in the 568ml glass there is 500ml of liquid, a pint of Pedigree @ 4.5% ABV is 2.25 units*. So after 2 pints (4.5 units) you'd most likely be over the limit unless you were a really big guy.

A person of average build would be borderline on 4 units one hour after finishing their last drink. From that point onwards they will lose 1 unit per hour from their bloodstream.

A person of slight build could be over after just 3 units; a bigger-built person could get away with 5.

*A unit is 1cl of pure alcohol.

Regards,

Steve.

PS: Just going about my job I found myself behind no fewer than 8 vehicles this evening that I'd suspect were being driven by drunks.

The symptoms included driving below speed limits, weaving in the road, erratic braking etc.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

I guess the "random breath testing" subject that I used wasn't accurate, as they purely asked me a question....
Had I sped off, the police car parked just down the road would no doubt have chased me, or if I smelt of booze, they would have had good reason to do the breath test..

---

I support this kind of roadside stopcheck as it doesn't exactly constitute random breath testing per-se, as you correctly point out.

However, I remember such a road block (for want of a better description) a couple of Decembers ago causing a two-mile tailback on the approach to my town at around 5.30 pm.

In such a case, the police should be answerable to charges of obstructing the public highway.

Police resources should be increased to allow more patrol cars to drive around looking for bad driving, and then taking appropriate action when they see erratic driving taking place in front of them.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

Try talking civil liberties and about the inconvenience of being pulled in for a random test to the relative of someone who has been run down by a drunken driver or someone who has been injured for life.

The only people to blame for this are the persistant drinkers and it is obvious that the existing penalties are too soft to deter them.

Perhaps a 3 month mandatory spell inside would focus their minds a bit more.

Regards

Mick

---

I completely agree with everything Mick has said.
What can this mean?

I also support far more; random testing, "suss" stop and search, pulling over cars with no tax discs etc.

I am perfectly willing to be delayed if even one drunk driver is caught as a result.

If you are a decent member of society, the Police work to protect you from those who aren't.