Random breath tests - Christmas campain

Posted by: blythe on 11 December 2004

Just drove home from a friend's birthday party and had four rather drunk passengers. As I had elected to drive, I didn't have a single drink. At other times of the year, I would probably have had two glasses of wine over a 5 hour night.
As I drove down Westbourne Road, Edgbaston, the police had blocked off one lane and were randomly pulling over cars.
I was pulled over and the policeman politely asked if I had had a drink in the last 8 hours, to which I honestly replied "no". He simply said "thank you very much, enjoy your evening".
He was admittedly very close to my window when he asked the question and no doubt would have smelt alcohol had I been drinking.
I was actually very pleased to see this happening - it's been a long time coming in this country.
I have previously only ever witnessed random breath tests in Australia, where I have twice been stopped, breathalised and after being negative, carried on my way. It only took about 2 minutes of my time, they were very polite and I felt it a great deterant to drink drivers.
I can't really understand the civil right campainers having a problem with this......

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

Posted on: 15 December 2004 by andy c

HI,
the compromise re the drink drive limit would be to move it from 35 to, say, 10. This would then deal with the issue of medication (benylin sets it of and gives a reading of 5! - this is down to the mouth alcohol).

The fact that you suggest potatoes (this is a new on on me!) may set it off is only attributable to the roadside screening test, which gives the officer grounds to suspect you are over the limit and then arrest you.

The important test is the evidetial test back at the station, whereby the machine there is far more sophisticated, and able to deal with the mouth alcohol issue.

What i mean by mouth alcohol is that you could have a mouthful of lager/beer/whatever, spit it out, then blow into the machine and it could say you are over. The chances of this actually happening are so remote tho, because of legal stipulations taught the officer re when the breath test should be performed.

regards

andy c!

Posted on: 15 December 2004 by John Sheridan

interesting developments...

quote:

A random roadside drug testing station, the first in the world, took just 15
minutes to detect its first alleged drugged driver in Melbourne yesterday.

Preliminary tests on a man, the fourth person to be tested after the station
began operating, returned positive results to methamphetamines from both a
saliva swab and a second more detailed test in a police van.

Posted on: 21 December 2004 by Rockingdoc

Excellent. I don't know why we can't have drug testing too. Although I remain in the anti-speeding camp, I readily concede that drink and drugs are a far greater cause of road death and injury.

Posted on: 21 December 2004 by Berlin Fritz

It's so lovely that you're /We're/I'm, still talking about it and next year it will be just the same though more people will be dead , innit.
because of [B]OUR[/B] inaction and BULLSHITTIN²

Hippy Hypocracy Folks:

Fritz Von Onlywomenbleed

Posted on: 21 December 2004 by Rockingdoc

Fritz, I am assuming that you can read English, despite your apparent inability to write it. So, I'll reply.
How is stating a firm view against driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, when I do neither, hypocrisy?
My job allows me to explain the dangers of such behaviour to people on a regular basis. How is this "bullshittin"?

Posted on: 21 December 2004 by Stephen Bennett

quote:

Deane F wrote:

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.

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.

Mick

Mick

You could paraphrase:

Try talking civil liberties and about the inconvenience of the police breaking down your door on the off chance you have some stolen downloaded music to someone who has been burgled and faeces spread accross their Linn Sondek.

Things are rarely as simple as you usually imply.

Regards

Stephen

Posted on: 21 December 2004 by Mick P

Stephen

There is one hell of a difference between being stopped at randon and having your house searched. The comparison is frankly stupid.

The main reason for randon stops is to prevent some selfish sod from killing an inocent person just because they had one too many.

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 21 December 2004 by Berlin Fritz

quote:
Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
Fritz, I am assuming that you can read English, despite your apparent inability to write it. So, I'll reply.
How is stating a firm view against driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, when I do neither, hypocrisy?
My job allows me to explain the dangers of such behaviour to people on a regular basis. How is this "bullshittin"?

I cannie please all of the people all ov der time, innit John !

Fritz Von Welldonesirmedaltoyerinthenewyear

Posted on: 21 December 2004 by Berlin Fritz

quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Stephen

There is one hell of a difference between being stopped at randon and having your house searched. The comparison is frankly stupid.

The main reason for randon stops is to prevent some selfish sod from killing an inocent person just because they had one too many.

Regards

Mick

WEll said Sir ! diD yew go too the saim scool wot i Did ?

Fritz Von Watchoutforthembleedintaxidriverripoffmerchantstooinnit

NoB. Did you know that only 1% of British Doctor's handwriting is legibubble ?

Posted on: 21 December 2004 by andy c

Er,
There is a similarity between being breath tested, and having your house searched.

They both require the police to point to the relevant legislation they are using to excercise such power!

I have said that the police (in uniform) can stop you and 'then' ask you if you have been drinking. They cannot just stop you and shove the device in your gob without asking you this! (Road Traffic Act 1988)

They can put you door in, but again have to point to the relevant power (PACE Act 1984 or other relevant legislation etc).

The common theme is that both actions need to be: legal, proportionate and necessary (Human Rights Act 1998)

andy c!

Posted on: 21 December 2004 by DArkan9el

Re: Punishment for the crime of drink driving and the potential consequences, I am totally baffled how someone can go out, get drunk, drive home; on the way killing someone, and then get a fine and maybe 3 month in prison, for what in my mind is premediated murder.

I have an Idea, make car parks ticketed, but you only get an exit ticket if you pass a breath test otherwise you don't get out of the pub car park. I think the car park would still be full at 8am lol!

I wonder how many of us can truthfully say they have never drunk and driven Hmmm!

Hmm! I see...

Posted on: 21 December 2004 by Nime

I believe that there is some government discussion over here about confiscating a drunk driver's car at the third offense. Which rather suggests that too many are getting away with it now. The drunk is quite happy to drive whilst disqualified, uninsured and even to use another person's car. So, with regards to the latter, the discussion also includes confiscating whichever car the driver is pretending to be in charge of while drunk.

The works/office parties should be happening around now. Be careful out there. However you travel.

Nime

Posted on: 22 December 2004 by Rockingdoc

I think the responsibility lies with us all to stop this by telling our own; family, friends, colleagues, aquaintances etc. that they are no longer welcome in our; homes, offices, parties etc. if they are drinking prior to driving.
That is where a bit of courage is required.
Of course this won't stop the teenage chavs, but they are a bit easier for the police to spot.

Posted on: 22 December 2004 by Rockingdoc

BTW Fritz, have just heard what sorts of co-ordination and language tests the police will be using to assess drugged-driving here next year.

I guess that's you buggered on a permanent basis then?

Posted on: 22 December 2004 by Stephen Bennett

quote:
Originally posted by DArkan9el:
I wonder how many of us can truthfully say they have never drunk and driven Hmmm!

Hmm! I see...

Me! I can't drink alcohol; ergo never have when driving. I have drunk tea and driven however....

Stephen

Posted on: 22 December 2004 by Berlin Fritz

quote:
Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
BTW Fritz, have just heard what sorts of co-ordination and language tests the police will be using to assess drugged-driving here next year.

I guess that's you buggered on a permanent basis then?

Yes, as from today (for non UK folk out there)random testing begins and is no longer voluntary, and to reply to that observation I trust my chauffer never to take drugs or drink, though one expects the average BA + pilot to be full of charlie etc when in charge of his airbus, innit.

Fritz Von ZERO TOLERANCE

Posted on: 22 December 2004 by Rockingdoc

quote:
Originally posted by DArkan9el:
I wonder how many of us can truthfully say they have never drunk and driven Hmmm!

Hmm! I see...

The point is about changing behaviour.
I have driven after drinking in the past, but I no longer do. That means none, not even the night before.