39 replies to this topic

[Jase71]

If even with those numbers it prevents one death or injury then job done.

I agree 100%. After having to deal with the aftermath of drink drivers for the last 18 years One drink drivers too many. I'm sure no-one on here condones it but to even ask if its a waste of Police time and money is absurd.

[1984mini25]

If you have such a big problem with being stopped for random breath testing, don't drink and drive, simples.

 

Also a lot of people do drink and drive without realising it or in complete ignorance. like those that have a few drinks/bottle of wine etc. with or without a meal at home then go off out for more drinks, without getting caught and therefore getting away with it. But then fail to realise that they still might be over the limit to drive to work the next morning, yet still do so.  

[Ethel]

Typically, it's rare to be pulled over at random, they have to have cause to do so.  They can then breathalyse you if they so wish but dont have to unless they have their suspiscions.  Most of the time, its easy to tell.

It's unlawful to stop you without some due cause. In reality it's not difficult find one if they stay on your tail for long enough. The time I got stopped for driving a van at Xmas was probably stretching it a bit! (Something to do with Xmas prezzies being knicked in the area)

[M J W J]

 

A mate of mine got banned a few years back. He was randomly pulled over and the police were just lucky that he was slightly over the limit. While I do not condone my friends actions he was genuinely unlucky. In court the police had to come up with some bull***t reason of why they pulled him over. They claimed that his car had illegal headlights so they tried to charge him for that. After the court appearance he was banned from driving but they had to drop the charges about the head lights as his car was perfectly legal.

How was he genuinely unlucky? Did someone pin him down and pour booze down him then force him to drive, lol.

 

 

He was unlucky as he got hit with impound fees, recovery fees, DVN notice fine and the cost of a new MOT to prove that the vehicle was legal when there was nothing wrong with it. The DVN was dropped but if the police have to recover a vehicle for any reason whether you are at fault or not, you get the bill. No reason was given to why he was pulled over at the side of the road. He only found out when he was sent the letter to attend court.

 

As for getting banned for driving, he was over the limit so as far as I am concerned he should have got banned for that. I do wonder though how many other vehicles went past that same police car that evening and the drivers were over the limit by a lot more though. My friend blew a lowest reading of 36 and so was given the option of a blood test and it was that, that got him nicked.

[CityEPete]

 

 

A mate of mine got banned a few years back. He was randomly pulled over and the police were just lucky that he was slightly over the limit. While I do not condone my friends actions he was genuinely unlucky. In court the police had to come up with some bull***t reason of why they pulled him over. They claimed that his car had illegal headlights so they tried to charge him for that. After the court appearance he was banned from driving but they had to drop the charges about the head lights as his car was perfectly legal.

How was he genuinely unlucky? Did someone pin him down and pour booze down him then force him to drive, lol.

 

 

He was unlucky as he got hit with impound fees, recovery fees, DVN notice fine and the cost of a new MOT to prove that the vehicle was legal when there was nothing wrong with it. The DVN was dropped but if the police have to recover a vehicle for any reason whether you are at fault or not, you get the bill. No reason was given to why he was pulled over at the side of the road. He only found out when he was sent the letter to attend court.

 

As for getting banned for driving, he was over the limit so as far as I am concerned he should have got banned for that. I do wonder though how many other vehicles went past that same police car that evening and the drivers were over the limit by a lot more though. My friend blew a lowest reading of 36 and so was given the option of a blood test and it was that, that got him nicked.

 

If the police had set up a road block as others have mentioned above they would have caught the "worse offenders" than your mate, but as you can see people do not appear to like that method either, damned if they do, damned if they don't aren't they?

 

I don't see the need for the police to give a reason to pull people over, the copper had a hunch, it was correct so if anything I think it is a shame they needed to come up with a false reason instead of just being given a pat on the back for removing your unfit to drive mate from the road that evening but that is the world we live in.

[CMXCVIII]

Of course there's random breath testing, particularly during the party month of December which is why I never drink any alcohol at all and then get into a car during that month. 

 

My own last breath test story was a December night more than 20 years ago. As I left a friend's flat in the Finchley Road I could see a driver being tested across the road and 200 yards further was another one. Obviously the Area Inspector had designated it raid night - and in answer to people above, that sort of exercise is an inglorious waste of Police time and public money!

 

Not having drunk alcohol for several days, I played a little game with myself and determined to drive perfectly; 29mph all the way with precise lane positioning and signals and all due care and attention. About four miles later, there was a torch waved at me in the middle of the road, and two drippy little coppers called me in. "You have comitted an offence and we require you to take a breath test! You drove down the wrong side of the road!"  They couldn't answer my question about the claimed offence, what I should have done instead of crossing the dotted white line in the middle of the road. Did they want me to stop and wait behind the bus that had pulled into the bus stop in front of me or perhaps scratch down the side of it? ...

 

I fear though I'm responsible for the saddest story of someone being disqualified for drunken driving.

 

I was working in my office around midnight for a meeting the next day when two nasty scallywags walking up the road, punched the mirror off my Golf pram convertiblek, snapped someone else's aerial and then found an unlocked Fiesta and set to steal it. At which stage I dialled 999. When the police arrived, the guys had hot wired the car and were trying to push start it down the road. They fled at the sight of the flashing blue lights but the Rover driver who stopped because the road was blocked by Fiesta and who had been helping someone push start their car, was breathalized and arrested. Even the copper I spoke to seemed a little embarrassed at the criminal's bad fortune.  Truly, no good deed should go unpunished!

[Cooperman]

There are some very different points of view on this subject and other aspects of motoring law.

 

It has always been a basic principle of English law that, first of all, a person is innocent until proven guilty and, secondly, that there is no requirement for an individual to incriminate him/her-self. Indeed, the basic caution says that "you are not required to say anything....".

Motoring law is, so far as I'm aware, the first time an individual does not have this right, inasamuch as with the breathaliser he/she is required to take the test which may incriminate him/her. In other words they are required to provide the evidence, rather than the police providing it. This has spun off into the RTA Section 172 which requires a vehicle's keeper to identify who was driving in the case of certain camera-detected alleged offences, even if that means a basic 'confession', as the alternative is a charge of failing to identify the driver which carries twice the penalty the original alleged offence would carry. The idea here is 'Fess up or risk being banned from driving for not 'fessing up'.

 

If a group of individuals are involved in an incident where one of them must be guilty of an offence, there is no requirement for one random person from that group to identify the actual perpetrator of the offence or face double the penalty which the offender would suffer when identified.

 

Is this a slippery slope in terms of justice? You decide, but we are talking a principle here rather than the emotive 'if it saves one life.....'. What value is there in terms of lives for the ancient ides enshrined in our laws to be safeguarded? 500,000 British Commonwealth citizens died in WW2 to keep our democracy, laws and traditions of fairness.

 

Yes, the breathaliser has undoubtedly saved lives, although I'm not convinced the application of camera detection and the S172 requirement has done any good, except generate a lot of cash for the treasury. Make up your own minds.

[Big Sam]

If you're blowing over you've drunk a lot and you are not just "unlucky". I knew a few coppers who on their xmas night out would take a breathalyser with them, whoever failed first paid etc, its a lot more than you think. 

[sonikk4]

At the end of the day if you have drunk more than the legal limit and you drive then you are a idiot plain and simple no iff's no buts. The fact you then put not only your life at risk and other road users, pedestrians etc is not only foolhardy but is just incredibly selfish. There is nothing unlucky about it at all.

 

Its simple DONT DO IT. If you get tugged and loose your licence, your job etc then blame no one else but yourself.

 

And to use WW2 deaths as an emotive in this particular thread i feel is wrong and not warranted.

 

The Police have a job to do that to be honest judging by comments on here people feel is misguided etc. The problem is their senior officers tell them what they have to do, much like the armed Forces. They make decisions that we Joe Public do not always agree with but its part of their Job Remit. So without them what would happen?? Oh we would all get along in cloud cuckoo land and nothing criminal would happen      nope that Utopia is something that will never ever happen. They have a job to do much like we all do ours.

 

Whether we like it or not they will keep pulling people over, some will just be a random check, others will be breathalysed. Most people will be fine but the small percentage that are not will suffer the consequences of their actions. Is it against the law for the Police to do a random roadside test?? well personally i don't know, does anybody on here know 100% if they can or not and have the proof to back it up??

 

Anyway i'm off my soap box, we all have our own feelings on these things and we will all agree to disagree. 

[CityEPete]

I've been pulled at random in my van coming home late, I always thank them and tell them I hope they will be about if it ever gets stolen, five minutes and I'm on my way. Five times maybe in twenty one years driving equals twenty five minutes of my life to possibly save a few others, not exactly police harassment is it?

I've shopped a few drink drivers and forcibly stopped one myself to stop him entering a built up area as the police were still far away as we spoke hands free, he blew 4 times the limit and was still drinking when the police arrived

[Spider]

I started this thread and maybe I kicked off on a slightly wrong foot with it.

 

I don't condone drink driving nor anything the endangers other road users.

 

What does 'get me going' so to speak is that there is a disproportionate imbalance of the use of police resources.

 

There's an overly heavy presents in things like random breath testing (here at least) which ties up anything from 5 to as many as 25 officers for hours, yet our street are awash with illegal guns, every time I see the news it's a good day if there's only be one murder and we have kids who have been 'stolen' for periods of over a year.

 

I know and accept that not every crime can be solved in an hour (like they do on TV) and some will take time to get to the bottom of, but maybe I could stomach things like random breath testing if crime in general was in better check.

 

It's disproportionate, out of control and getting worse.

 

For the record, last time I had a drink was June 2014, after getting to the Top of Big Red. I'm not a drinker, I need a clear head 24 / 7 - besides - I'm silly enough without it.

[CMXCVIII]

I agree with your sentiments entirely, Moke. Policing is disproportionate and it is [from my standpoint at least] getting worse.

 

I don't know if you follow the UK model down there, but we really are out of control. Whole police forces services no longer investigate burglaries or thefts - I suppose that's OK because their actual clean up rates were pretty poor - but they now devote a lot of officers' time to following up complaints about offence given online - be it real or imagined - and interviewing the posters!

 

That's mainly on Twitter or Facebook, but remember it will reach Theminiforum too, ya lousy drongo!

[Ethel]

"It has always been a basic principle of English law that, first of all, a person is innocent until proven guilty and, secondly, that there is no requirement for an individual to incriminate him/her-self. Indeed, the basic caution says that "you are not required to say anything...."

 

Noteworthy, since drink driving has become a criminal offence. Things have got rather messy since Parliament has given law making over to the tabloids and their ability to whip up public indignation. Still, if it's a symptom of social abhorrence for drink driving - that will be effective in itself. I'm sure many will be happy to criminalize drink driving, but it should be with the same checks and balances of other criminal offences. If the intent of the law remains  to reduce drink driving accidents, then you also have consider the difficulties criminalisation will have caused if there's a case for lowering the limit to a level that can be accidentally exceeded.

 

The police have been able to take your fingerprints against your will for many years, and DNA, but they have needed enough evidence to arrest you first.

 

The truth is that there will always be some drink driving, as long as we have cars and alcohol. There's no point in inconveniencing the general population and spending time and resources that might save more lives if invested elsewhere. I've no idea if we've reached that point, but we shouldn't let our indignation for drink driving blind us to it.

[Cooperman]

The issue is not with the actual testing, it is with the principle of not having to self-incriminate.

If you are driving erratically or are involved in an accident, and thee is the smell of alcohol on your breath, then there is actual evidence that a drink-driving offence may have been committed. Thus a breath test is required, although some do still think that it is a requirement to self-incriminate. However, it is probably no more self-incrimatory than being seen acting suspiciously near the location of a crime and being required to give your fingerprints.

What cannot happen with fingerprints is the fingerprinting of a large number of random individuals in case they had committed an offence.

Why should motoring legislation be any different and, with the requirement for an offence to have been committed before a sample of breath can be collected that requirement is mainly seen as reasonable.

The one area of motoring legislation which I believe is badly conceived is the Section 172 requirement for a keeper to identify a driver after a camera spots an alleged offence. If the keeper genuinely doesn't know who was driving he has to prove he doesn't. This could be difficult, but the failure to know and identify is twice the penalty for admitting the offence. There is no doubt that many keepers do admit to an offence even if innocent, as 6 points for failure to declare the driver plus a larger fine is serious stuff. The system actually encourages such behaviour. There is no legal requirement for a keeper to keep a log of who drives when & where, although the law seems to require such information to be at hand. So the law is saying that if a vehicle registered to you is seen allegedly committing an offence, you either admit it or name someone who will. Is this a good system or the 'thin end of the wedge' in terms of the requirements for evidence to be gathered by the police? 

[CityEPete]

Who "really" doesn't know who was driving their car two weeks ago?