|
Putting us in-line with most other countries-a lesser level with a lesser penalty as well as our current legislation.
|
>> ....with a lesser penalty as well as our current legislation.
>>
I think people who know the rules elsewhere are assuming the penalty would be reduced but I haven't seen that mentioned in news articles. If the penalty is reduced so that there's no ban at the lower limit then it could have the effect of encouraging people to take a chance.
The comment in the linked BBC article about the road-side result standing and not needing confirmation back at a Police station is new to me, too.
I reckon a lot more people will get caught out in "morning after" tests than they do now.
|
|
Why is it being done? no indication that it would achieve anything. Why not enforce the one we have?
|
|
Don't think I have ever seen a news report that said "the driver had been drinking but was below the drink drive limit", it's usually "the driver was found to be x times over the drink drive limit".
|
>> Why is it being done? no indication that it would achieve anything. Why not enforce
>> the one we have?
>>
No profit in it, it costs to put police on the roads. Cameras produce income.
|
Two questions there Z.
There is plenty of evidence that judgment is already impaired at the curent limit. That is why most other countries in Europe have adopted a lower one.
Argument about the resource allocated to enforcement is independant of the limit.
|
>> Two questions there Z.
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence that judgment is already impaired at the curent limit. That
>> is why most other countries in Europe have adopted a lower one.
But what are they trying to fix? We have the lowest accident rates in europe. There is no evidence, none, to suggest our higher limit is an issue.
And you can not divorce enforcement from limits. A limit without enforcement is nothing.
|
>> There is plenty of evidence that judgment is already impaired at the curent limit.
There is not much evidence that it is significantly impaired, though.
N.B. judgement may be impaired at a lower level should (say) a lifelong teetotaller drink less than the current absolute limit. Such people may already be prosecuted for "driving under the influence". Being "under the limit" does not necessarily mean that you're safe from prosecution.
>> That is why most other countries in Europe have adopted a lower one.
Many have a lower limit - however, the penalty is lower, too. They also tend to have a higher limit, the same as ours, above which the penalty is more severe.
It is quite noticeable that the accident rate in countries with a "lower" limit is not more respectable than ours.
>> Argument about the resource allocated to enforcement is independant of the limit.
Most people who are "pinched" tend to be well above the limit. This is often because of what they do to become noticeable.
|
I also think people might actually end up drinking more as a result thinking they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb....
I think they should leave it at 80mg or if they reduce it to 50mg then there has to be a lesser penalty which will probably reduce the stigma of drink driving. If you start catching loads of people and banning them when there wasn't actually anything wrong with their driving at the time then you are going to find that drink driving laws will start to be held in contempt like speeding ones are now. But drink driving presents more of a risk.
Unless publicans start offering better alcohol free drinks then they're going to be out of business.
|
|
Publicans have to pay full duty on Low alcohol drinks(Government legislation)because the drinks are made with alcohol in which is then removed.
|
|
Interesting point from jc2; is there a source for it?
|
www.wsta.co.uk/Guidance-and-Research.html#2010
Rates of duty shown here.
Doesn't seem to support the point
|
|
I saw something about this on the "Breakfast" programme this morning. A chappie being interviewed made some valid points about why it is not a useful idea. I agree, it is not a useful idea.
|
I can't drive after two pints I just feel too impaired. My mate once drove about 500 yards after having two pints of fosters with food so probably wasn't technicaly over the limit but I noticed a change in his driving and he even said it felt strange.
I am not against this new limit but I am not sure what it would acheive. I am also a bit worried about the morning after effect. On Saturday I stayed and had four pints of fosters and finished the drink at midnight. At 2:30pm the next day I had to drive to pick some mates up I knew there was no way I would be over the limit after four weak beers I had started drinking at 7 the night before.
I sometines drink ten pints (its rare though) so with the new laws I probably would not drive for 48 hours! I think I will buy one of those kits but they are very expensive. Cheap ones are not accurate and give a false sense of security.
|
A article on "Why not ban all drink-driving? "
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8741847.stm
Some interesting info.
|
Interesting, but not particularly useful. How about:
Banning the use of all telephones when driving.
Reducing the speed limit to 50MPH across the board where it's currently greater.
Not allowing people under 25 to drive during the hours of darkness at all.
Etc., etc. etc.
Edit: Actually, the last chart in that article is very interesting.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Wed 16 Jun 10 at 12:23
|
My guess, and certainly my hope, is that they won't do it. There really is no point at all in this idea. It's just politicians fiddling and faddling to show they 'care', the carphounds.
These arguments about impairment really set my teeth on edge. Hardly anyone has the faintest idea what they are talking about. Individuals vary enormously in their ability to do all sorts of things after moderate quantities of alcohol. The sort of 'impairment' most people suffer at the legal limit won't affect their driving significantly. But if, like Sheikh Rattleandroll, they think it will, then like him they are capable of deciding not to drive.
Driving isn't brain surgery. Millimetres don't matter.
|
>> I can't drive after two pints I just feel too impaired. My mate once drove
>> about 500 yards after having two pints of fosters with food so probably wasn't technicaly
>> over the limit but I noticed a change in his driving and he even said
>> it felt strange.
>>
Rattle, you should check your units....
IIRC 2 pints IS over the current limit, it's about 1 1/2 pints of ordinary strength beer or 3 small glasses of wine (so 1 or 2 in reality), the Fosters almost certainly put your mate over the limit.
I prefer not to drink at all if I'm driving, then my conscience is clear.
The big concern has to be 'the next morning', however I seem to recall that your body metabolises about 1 unit of alcohol per hour, therefore you can make an estimation of when you'll be safe to drive, I personally include 100% contingency in this and am absolutely open to having my facts corrected as I'd rather be safe than sorry.....
|
Do we really need to adjust the law here?
Our judicial system is struggling for pennies to fulfil its current remit. Or is the hidden subtext of this that breaches will be dealt with by fixed penalty and are forecast to be a net gain in coffers?
What do we gain over the current system? Are there a lot of borderline accidents wrt the current alcohol limit?
I'd rather let individuals choose and have the hard limit set at a level where you just cannot be in charge of a vehicle in all reasonable circumstances (the current limit's maybe a tad on the hard side) for guiding those who can't take responsibility for themselves. Set the advisory limit at 50mg.
By all means institute something along the lines of "if there's an accident, no matter who's fault, and you are found to be over the advisory limit of 50mg, it's automatically your fault, no further contest".
Let people take responsibility for themselves. Yeah sure some are incapable of doing so, but thats not really a reason to stop the majority who can.
|
>> By all means institute something along the lines of "if there's an accident, no matter
>> who's fault, and you are found to be over the advisory limit of 50mg, it's
>> automatically your fault, no further contest".
But this would be a wrongness, wouldn't it.
|
My concern is the morning after or even the day after. I actually like driving and not having a licence would seriously hinder my quality of life. However I also do enjoy my clubbing at a weekend, I am a punk and punks need their music and beer and saturday nights are the only time I truely let go and become a form of John Travolta. I don't want to be worry on the nighr I best have a few less in case I am still drunk by Monday!
As I said to I don't drive Sundays at all unless I don't go out Saturday as its just saver and even if I am not over the limit on Sundays I am tired due to inproper sleep.
I really cannot decide if a lowered limit would effect me at all. I never drink and drive anyway. I often drive to pubs to have a meal friends but I just drink coca-cola. In fact it wouldn't in occure to me just to have a half. I think a lot of my generation have been bought up with the attitude don't drink and drive so we don't.
I think drunk driving is a major problem too but at the moment too many people are getting away with it.
|
>> saturday nights are the only time I truely let go and
>> become a form of John Travolta. I don't want to be worry on the nighr
>> I best have a few less in case I am still drunk by Monday!
I don't think it would be possible for you to drink so much on a Saturday night, that you would still have alcohol in your system on Monday morning AND be alive on Sunday morning
|
...I don't think it would be possible for you to drink so much on a Saturday night, that you would still have alcohol in your system on Monday morning AND be alive on Sunday morning...
Quite so.
A cautious and responsible attitude is to be applauded, but let us keep things in proportion.
It is generally accepted the average person metabolises half a pint of beer or a single measure of spirits, or a small glass of wine in an hour.
So six pints should be dealt with in 12 hours.
It is worth pointing out the metabolising process begins with the first sip, not the last.
Drink six pints between 9pm and, say, midnight, and you should be fine by 9am the next morning.
Some people get into difficulty by drinking a great deal more than my example, and doing so into the small hours.
Of course, there's no harm in building a good safety margin into any calculations.
|
>> So six pints should be dealt with in 12 hours.
Not sure how accurate this online calculator is
www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_bloodalcoholcontentcalculator.php
But I put in Male, 25 years old, 12 stone, 36 hours from first drink and 15 pints of 4% beer drunk - it said that the person's system would be clear.
Upping it to 20 pints had the person still way over the limit 36 hours later.
Even in my first year as a student, I think the best I ever did was 16 pints, and that was probably more like 3% (or less, depending upon how much the student union watered it down).
|
...I don't think it would be possible for you to drink so much on a Saturday night, that you would still have alcohol in your system on Monday morning AND be alive on Sunday morning...
Agreed, a cautious attitude is to be applauded, but let us keep things in proportion.
It is generally accepted the body metabolises a half pint of beer, or a small glass of wine, or a small spirit, in an hour.
It is also worth remembering the absorption process begins with the first sip, not the last.
Drink six pints over three or four hours starting at 9pm and you should be clear of alcohol, and certainly well within the limit, by 9am the next morning.
Some people get into bother by drinking a lot more than that, and doing so into the early hours.
I rarely drink a lot, or very late, these days, and I always build a safety margin into any calculations.
|
I can't help wanting to remind people of a truth that is obvious to anyone who has driven much and drunk much: some drivers well over the limit are still far more competent and safe than some other drivers stone cold sober. What is done about these legal menaces?
Nothing, that's what.
|
It's not an easy target AC.
Everything's got to be digestible in bite size chunks. If it can't be explained in a sentence, pick something easier.
|
>> some drivers well over the limit are still
>> far more competent and safe than some other drivers stone cold sober.
No doubt correct, and I know that this is the thrust of your arguments against drink driving and speeding legislation, and the logic is flawless.
My question would be, if you are more competent at driving than somebody else, and that somebody else is allowed to drive, does that mean that (legally or morally) you should be allowed to reduce your competence to their level (say by becoming intoxicated)?
Put a different way, should you be allowed to make yourself more dangerous on the road, just because others are that dangerous?
|
If you start drinking at 9pm, and drink 3 pints you should be clear by midnight.
So assuming Rattle's mate hadn't necked his two pints and got straight into his car (after giving it time to work), he probably was fine.
That said, the drink-drive limit is surely not a target, but a buffer.
|
>> If you start drinking at 9pm, and drink 3 pints you should be clear by
>> midnight.
No, No, No. Three pints is six units so at at least six hours. And remember the half pint unit assumes beer of 3% ABV not the 4.5-6% of premium lagers etc.
|
|
He's saying that you'll be "legal", I think, and is quite correct as long as the beer is something "weakish" - e.g. John Smith's 3.6ABV or weaker, and that you weigh about 11 stone.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Wed 16 Jun 10 at 17:36
|
Yeah so it will be 3:00am you're clear by but its not that simple.
Also it is very hard to find beer at less than 4% volume now. Sometimes when I go out during the week I like going to a Joseph Holt pub because I can have three pints of their 3.5% stuff and not even feel the slightest bit drunk (e.g I get a proper night sleep).
|
I don't think any changes to the law are indicated by that truth SS, unless of course some sort of general tightening up of competence requirements is being contemplated (chance would be a fine thing).
I'm not sure though that having had a few drinks does make a competent, mature driver 'more
dangerous'. Such drivers are quite likely for example to slow down slightly to give themselves more of a margin if they think they may be a bit impaired.
Waddling, incompetent, unaware drive-by-numbers mimsers are another matter though. They are dangerous by definition and completely unaware of the fact. So a couple of drinks will almost certainly make them worse.
|
|
The drink/drive law does not need to change...because...the ones that are the real problem drink far more than the limit as it is now....so grabbing a few extra people who are fairly marginal will have very little impact on any accident figures (pardon the pun).
|
What is strange is according to that link on a typical 6 pint drinking session on a hour afterwards I would be just under twice the legal limit. That is 5% beer.
Also last Sunday when I drove after drinking 4 cans the night before according to that my BAC was 0.00%.
I have a big trip to Anglesey in October and I am driving, we always drink quite a bit the night before, at least now I know if I drink 6 or 7 pints of carlsberg stop drinking at midnight and leave at 6:00pm the next day I should have 0% alchohol in my body.
Its amazing though after 6 strong pints I am only just under twice the legal limit yet I would not even want to try and drive a car. It makes you realise just how drunk people who get caught at twice the limit and are above really are.
|
|
Fancy meeting up on Anglesey Rattle ? Live in the area these days.
|
I've only skimmed this thread because I'm slightly drunk but I just caught a Ch5 news item covering this. It centred on a case study of a woman's son who was killed by a drink-driver and she was campaigning for a zero tolerance limit. The problem was, the driver was 3.5 times over the limit - I kind of think that any limit would have been disregarded by this bloke. The statistic quoted was a saving of 100 lives a year. A whole hundred? Ten times ten? Out of 70 million?
I think the UK has admiral road safety statistics as it is. Leave it alone.
|
Drinking on a school night Dave? How Bohemian.....
:-)
|
|
If you were one of the hundred you would not be happy it should be zero.
|
Once upon a time I drove home after having smoked Cannabis for 48 hours non-stop.
Once upon a time I drove home to London from Hastings whilst hallucinating from a bad LSD trip.
I have often driven whilst drunk as a skunk.
Reducing the DD limit would not deter idiots like me but it would target the little ole dear having a few Sherry's at the W.I.
BadDog.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 17 Jun 10 at 01:04
|
>> If you were one of the hundred you would not be happy it should be
>> zero.
far more than 100 drunk pedestrians stumble into the road, you want to ban them drinking too?
|
Its not going to happen. Heard Philip Hammond Sec State Transport on radio this evening. "Need to study report in detail...... Whether this is best way to deal with drink driving......not sure this is best use of police resources etc etc.
|
|
He's my MP, I had a word with him.
|
"Its not going to happen"
I live in a mainland European country that already has 50mg per 100 ml and our drink-drive stats are worse than the UKs.
Humph - yes - drinking on a schoolnight, but it's a special night and a I'm hoping for special birthday sex. I'll let you know how I get on.
|
|
Schoolboy birthday sex? Thats a dirty mag and a lot of hope type sex for you.
|
"Schoolboy birthday sex?"
You have so distorted my post. My wife has gone to bed. I'm off too.
Fingers crossed everyone...
|
|
Its idiots like you that should be locked up
|
>> Its idiots like you that should be locked up
Idiots like whom exactly Collos? BBD? Zero? Dog? Me?
Perhaps we should all be locked up. But when we are, we will be hoping that you are locked up at the same time.
We will need something to play with in the slammer.
(Sinister leer)
|
>>Its idiots like you that should be locked up<<
I have actually been 'locked up', many times in fact, but not for drink or drugs,
neither have I injured anyone for being unfit through drink or drugs, damaged a few cars though (my own!)
GoodDog.
|
Collos, your argument is completely unfeasible and fatuous, and you call me an idiot?
Do you know how many drunken pedestrians get knocked down and killed? Find out before you call me an idiot.
|
"If you were one of the hundred you would not be happy it should be zero."
If I were one of the hundred, I would be dead.
If you had a country, population 1 million and that country had 1 million fantastic jobs, you'd still have several thousand unemployed. Likewise, you will never eradicate drink-driving as long as there are cars, people and alcohol. Be realistic. Rejoice in the great stats that the UK boast.
Would you like to live where I live where the limit is half and the deaths are double?
100 is nothing. One of my cousins was killed by a bus, another by a car overtaking an ice-cream van. Would I ban either? no.
|
Not sure if I will be able to in October due to my mates but if I get confident to drive there by myself (without mates sat in the passanger) seat then I will probably be going up there quite often so it would be great to see you.
Or should I see sideways quite often?
I was replying to Pug but for some reason the reply ended up down here.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 16 Jun 10 at 20:33
|
>> I was replying to Pug but for some reason the reply ended up down here.
See threaded view: www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=1654&v=t
Your reply to Pug followed BBD's, but lots of people replied to BBD and they appear (and will continue to appear if any more reply) before yours.
|
>> Or should I see sideways quite often?
STOP PRESS
1.1l. Fiat Panda 'overtook high-powered motorcycle sideways on blind bend in North Wales', prosecution claims.
Prominent South Manchester businessman detained by anti-terrorist squad.
Sheikh 'may have been taken to Guantanamo Bay', mates allege.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 16 Jun 10 at 21:48
|
Well I was refering to North Wales really being a lot further west to Manchester than it is south. I reckon Anglesey is only 30 miles south from where I live, but its a good 100 miles west.
So I can't go up because its not up north, I can't go down because its not really south either. So sideways it is.
PS I've had the misfortune to be in a car sideways, stupid 18 year old ex mate just passed his test and had a 89 G Fiesta with a some sort of machanical ABS system. He tried to prove you could not skid in it, sadly the car park he choose was like an ice rink and went sideways for 300 metres.
And in focus of the thread he was completly sober :(
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 16 Jun 10 at 21:52
|
|
I'll meet you for a pint somewhere like the Ship in Red Wharf Bay - it's definitely up to Anglesey from here !
|
>> I've had the misfortune to be in a car sideways, stupid 18 year old ex mate just passed his test and had a 89 G Fiesta with a some sort of machanical ABS system. He tried to prove you could not skid in it, sadly the car park he choose was like an ice rink and went sideways for 300 metres.
Honestly Rattolo I absolutely despair of you. No one but a total wimp would regard going 300 metres sideways in a car park without hitting anything as a 'misfortune'. Most below the age of 100 would see it as harmless fun.
What's more, I don't believe it was 300 metres. I'd be surprised if it was over 30.
Shape up young man! Stop pretending to be a nervous virgin spinster.
|
|
Ice covered car parks are meant to be traversed sideways. Preferably with a dab of handbrake, much right foot and an armful of opposite lock.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 16 Jun 10 at 23:10
|
According to that website I can drink 14 bottle of Miller and be safe to drive after 12 hours from my first sip?
But this calculation has a fatal flaw in that it doesn't know when each drink was taken? Could have had 6 bottles in the last hour?
|
|
Well its not exactly tennants extra or a pint o heavy is it!
|
4.7%, didn't think it would be as high as that!
One of my worst ever drinking sessions involved Tennents Extra, a Scotland v England game, hot weather and ruining a complete party that someone had taken a month to prepare!
|
I had a party for my 50th at home. I only remember drinking a few Pernod and lemonades as a starter. I was sat on the stairs and keeled over and fell down the lot.
Must have been a bad bottle...off.... or something.
Missed me own do...but I still paid for it. ( in several ways ! )
I remember Cold Shoulder being on the breakfast menu !
Ted
Last edited by: silence of the cams on Wed 16 Jun 10 at 23:59
|
|
Bring back the good old days of no rural speed limits and no drink/drive limits. Whatever limits will they think of imposing next? The establishment is steadily taking all the enjoyment out of driving. They've abolished the sensible death penalty for murder and heaped misery on the motorist instead.
|
Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of a mind altering drug (like alcohol) is all very well but.
if a road accident occurred because of that and the result was an innocent was maimed or killed,
the outcome would be many lives ruined - on both sides.
My policy (these days) is nil alcohol when driving = nix, zilch, nada, zero.
|
^^ What Dog said.
Completely agree; it's not hard to avoid drinking if you're going to drive home afterwards. I'd be quite happy to see European (.04) limits for alcohol in the UK and zero tolerance for professional drivers (PSV, HGV, taxis etc).
I can't walk straight after two pints, my driving would be atrocious.
What would be good is if pubs supported the designated driver a bit more - eg free soft drinks and the occasional bar snack. That sort of attitude is pretty much the norm in the US, don't see why we can't do the same.
I'm inclined to feel that this will actually be less of a problem going into the future anyway. The mindset amongst younger drivers that I know is vastly different to the older generation who see nothing wrong with having a few pints and driving home failing to consider the increased strength of alcohol; the increased traffic on the roads; more powerful cars; and the reduced mental capabilities that come with age.
|
I'd love to know where the figures come from for 100 lives saved. The difference between 50 and 80 with blood is not that great.
By far the majority of problems are from people who are well 'ripped'.
|
|
Watching one of the "Traffic cop" TV programmes recently I saw a car stopped for a "known drug use" check. No drugs found but after letting the driver leave the police commented between themselves about what a mess the driver was in. If that was obvious I am surprised he was allowed to drive away. Unfit through drink or drugs?
|
>> Unfit through drink or drugs?
Currently, there is no "drugalyser" to give a reading, so the police let people go unless they're too far gone for decency.
|
>> >> Unfit through drink or drugs?
>>
>> Currently, there is no "drugalyser" to give a reading, so the police let people go
>> unless they're too far gone for decency.
>>
I missed the edit and then didn't bother.
The driver admitted taking heroin earlier that day. It's a pity the few police we have on the roads don't have the tools to drug test, for whatever reason (whether the kit exists, or is too expensive etc).
|
I'm sure I read in yesterday's Torygraph that 800 people a year are killed by "drunk" drivers. and that 3/4 of these deaths could be prevented bt reducing the limit from 80 to 50. Intuitively this seems unlikely.
Clearly my intuition doesn't trump proper data and analysis, but I can't see how such a conclusion could ever be credibly reached. Do they mean that 3/4 of the 800 were killed in accidents where the driver was between 50 & 80? I doubt it, but even if that's what it means, how can it be ascertained that the alcohol was the critical factor?
|
>> I'd love to know where the figures come from for 100 lives saved. The difference between 50 and 80 with blood is not that great.
Out of the air? Absolutely Wp. Pure invented cobblers.
We've all heard a lot of dodgy numbers in our time. But some of us still swallow and regurgitate them as if they were food, rather than dishwater.
People know that statistics are very often unreliable and hard to interpret. So they think anything goes. Truth and reason mean nothing to most people these days. They don't even know what they are. But of course it was always a bit like that.
|
Less than one in six of all road deaths annually are caused by drink drivers (see link) - surely the onus should be on eliminating the far more substantial causes of the deaths and injuries on our roads.
Most of us are well aware that a handful of drivers (mostly those who have been driving for many years) drive over the limit These are the ones who should be brought to heel.
Some information on drink driving road deaths at:
www.drinkdrivingfacts.com/drinkdriving/drink_driving_facts.aspx
|
I was stopped and breathalised in the early hours of Saturday morning, I had a pint of Becks at 21.30 and a pint of shandy at 23.00, breathalised at 1AM and the reading was zero.
The copper said thats all he'd done all night because someones kicking a bag of wind around...............
He'd caught 2 over the limit at that point, those new Mondeos are roomy in the back..................................
|
Try to imagine this scenario for a moment ... groups of people in various parts of the country get together to produce a psycho-active drug and then distribute it to various outlets throughout the country to be 'pushed' by dealers.
This drug impairs judgement in humans,and it can be a catalyst for reckless or irresponsible behaviour, but its consumption by drivers of motor vehicles is actually lawful in small doses.
This could never happen of course in a civilised society in the 21st century, but its worrying none the same.
|
|
The same could be said for car manufacturers supplying cars to the UK capable of doing 150 MPH+ when we have a 70 MPH maximum. The copper said he'd followed me for a mile or so and there was nothing wrong with my driving, a spot check simple as.
|
...I had a pint of Becks at 21.30 and a pint of shandy at 23.00, breathalised at 1AM and the reading was zero...
That figures because your body would have dealt with the Becks in two hours - 23.30 - and the shandy about an hour or so after that, so you might have hit zero by 00.30.
|
>> , so you might
>> have hit zero by 00.30.
He will have a hospital appointment if he tries.
|
...so you might have hit zero by 00.30...
I think most people on here would admire his patience for not doing so earlier. :)
|
>> The same could be said for car manufacturers supplying cars to the UK capable of
>> doing 150 MPH+ when we have a 70 MPH maximum. The copper said he'd followed
>> me for a mile or so and there was nothing wrong with my driving, a
>> spot check simple as.
He cant do that, he needs *some* reason to stop you, even if he just makes one up.
|
>>
>> He cant do that, he needs *some* reason to stop you, even if he just
>> makes one up.
>>
He said spot check, all he did all night was to pull people over, a nice geordie bloke :o)
I welcome being stopped at any time, the neighbours must have had a good rattle about the blue lights flashing for the duration.........
[Attn Humph] I also got a parking ticket for staying over 90 mins on Morrisons car park Nantwich on the same day, I'm sure it used to be 120 mins, guilty so I've paid :o(
Last edited by: WozDox on Fri 18 Jun 10 at 10:23
|
>> He cant do that, he needs *some* reason to stop you, even if he just
>> makes one up.
>>
31 mph in a 30mph limit....or thought he'd been drinking by the manner of his driving e.g. too fast, too slow, poor lane control... in other words you don't need much of a reason as the reasons to stop are subjective and down to the individual officer...and why it's pure claptrap when politicians harp on about needing random breath test powers. They're virtually available anyway.
|
which is why I said "make one up"
One thing he cant say is that this is a random test or spot check.
|
Zero, Martin
You are right of course....but...to claw something back. A Cop is entitled to stop any motor vehicle, at random, to see if the driver has a driving licence or insurance. Once you've done that, if you formed the opinion that the driver has been drinking e.g. smell it on their breath, then you're entitled to request a breath test.
All of that is above board and might explain why it was a random stop.
|
>>They're virtually available anyway.
>>
Untrue.
They ARE available as you well know.
Reg's.....M
|
I have come across a police roadblock at 1am and although I am sure the official line would be "We are looking for a mad axeman" the policeman stuck his head close to me and asked several questions so that he could smell my breath.
I was ferrying home a car full of drunks, SWMBO included, from an office Christmas party that I had not attended. Westpig is right, he doesn't need random powers.
|
Lower drink-drive limit proposed - jc2
