Drink-driving - someone do the maths here?
Gary Baldi
21,000 motorists stopped
3,000 motorists breathalysed
137 arrested
Random stops are still illegal, aren't they?
ian field
"Gary Baldi" <tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:cf39e505-d643-4147...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
All they need is "reasonable suspicion" - a conveniently vague term.
Rob
They are not illegal per se, however the overt pre--publiced operations
require the unlawful use of their powers to demand breath tests, backed up
with the implied threat to commit perjury in court should anyone actually
refuse, though few seem to care about that.
--
Rob
Steve Walker
No. Random breathalyser tests are though.
Mr X
"Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:N-ednZMueqrrPa7W...@bt.com...
I expect that most people commit a moving traffic offence everytime they
take to the roads.
Richard
> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Christmas-drink-driving-crackdown...
>
> 21,000 motorists stopped
>
> 3,000 motorists breathalysed
>
> 137 arrested
>
> Random stops are still illegal, aren't they?
So is shooting innocent people on the London
tube.................doesnt stop the cunts getting away with it though
does it?
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
Who has been shot now?
-- -
Culex -- the Infamous Culex
Ret.
Police officers can stop anyone driving a motor vehicle at any time for a
multiplicity of reasons. If, having stopped someone, they then smell drink -
they can request a breath test.
Kev
Rob
|| "Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
|| news:N-ednZMueqrrPa7W...@bt.com...
||| Gary Baldi wrote:
|||||
|||
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Christmas-drink-driving-crackdown-nets-137-drivers/article-1637670-detail/article.html
|||||
||||| 21,000 motorists stopped
|||||
||||| 3,000 motorists breathalysed
|||||
||||| 137 arrested
|||||
||||| Random stops are still illegal, aren't they?
|||
||| They are not illegal per se, however the overt pre--publiced
||| operations require the unlawful use of their powers to demand
||| breath tests, backed up with the implied threat to commit perjury
||| in court should anyone actually refuse, though few seem to care
||| about that.
|||
|| Because few have any opposite to random breath tests.
Hardly the point though is it? - the ends don't always justify the means.
I've no objection to random breath tests myself, provided they're done on a
proper legal basis. If we (the public) want random breath tests, then we
shouldn't need to turn a blind eye to unlawful police activities to get
them - we should legislate.
|| I expect that most people commit a moving traffic offence everytime
|| they take to the roads.
'Appen.
--
Rob
Ret.
The police have the power to stop any motorist at any time - for example to
check driving documents. *If* having stopped a motorist they smell drink -
then they can request a breath test - perfectly lawfully. That's why there
were 21k 'stops' - but only 3k breath tests. There is no point in a police
officer wasting his time requesting a breath test if there is no evidence of
drink (although it can happen of course - and in some circumstances, eg
following an accident or a moving traffic offence, perfectly legally).
Kev
Norman Wells
> The police have the power to stop any motorist at any time - for
> example to check driving documents. *If* having stopped a motorist
> they smell drink - then they can request a breath test - perfectly
> lawfully.
It may be strictly lawful, but do you consider it within the _spirit_ of the
law? If there is no substantive reason to stop someone and ask for their
documents, as there usually isn't, then the stopping is essentially random,
and requesting a breath test on any subset of a randomly stopped sample is
therefore random too. However, the framers of the legislation have never
gone so far as to endorse random breath tests. Is it not therefore a police
fiddle to fall within the strict letter of the law but ignoring what was
actually intended?
I ask this not condoning any drink driving, but just as one who thinks the
police ought to abide by what the law is meant to be, not as they wish it
was.
Rob
Yes Kev we know what the book says...
|| That's why there were 21k 'stops' - but only 3k breath
|| tests. There is no point in a police officer wasting his time
|| requesting a breath test if there is no evidence of drink (although
|| it can happen of course - and in some circumstances, eg following an
|| accident or a moving traffic offence, perfectly legally).
Out of 3000 tests, over 95% were negative - so for the overwhelming majority
that means either:
there was something seriously wrong with the officers' judgement;
they had all been drinking but were 'under';
there was little or nothing to suggest drink driving at all.
Bearing in mind what the actual and well publicised purpose of these
operations is, I know where my money is.
--
Rob
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> Out of 3000 tests, over 95% were negative - so for the overwhelming majority
> that means either:
>
> there was something seriously wrong with the officers' judgement;
> they had all been drinking but were 'under';
> there was little or nothing to suggest drink driving at all.
>
> Bearing in mind what the actual and well publicised purpose of these
> operations is, I know where my money is.
They weren't collecting 'protection money' from publicans, were they?
gareth erskine-jones
Police can stop a vehicle at any time without reason. When they stop
you, they can ask you to take a breath test ("have you been
drinking?", "no", "then you won't mind taking a breath test"). I
suppose at that point you could decline - they can only insist if they
suspect you've been drinki
>
>|| I expect that most people commit a moving traffic offence everytime
>|| they take to the roads.
>
probably, but not that's not necessary for the police to stop you.
GSEJ
Ret.
Different forces operate these drink-drive 'purges' in different ways.
Certainly in my old force we didn't stop people at random - just tended to
breathalyse everyone who was stopped for a genuine legitimate reason. So
someone who would have been stopped and verbally cautioned for a minor
speeding offence - would be breath tested as well. Personally, I never
breath tested anyone I didn't believe had been drinking. The only exception
for me was after a collision when the force instruction was that *all*
drivers involved should be breath tested - and an explanation was called for
if they weren't.
Kev
Ret.
I 'drink and drive' - but I would never fail a breath test even though my
breath may smell of drink. So I believe it goes for very many drivers - they
may have a pint, but stop there. Of course you are right - the whole purpose
of such purges is to act as a deterrent - and publicising a story like this
just before Christmas may be just enough to deter some drivers from drinking
to excess and driving. IMO that can't be a bad thing.
Kev
Gary Baldi
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kev, what are your views on a clearly coned off area just after a
roundabout with an equally clear sign marked "drink-drive check area"
and uniformed officers guiding random vehicles emerging from said
roundabout into said coned off area.
Something you would condone?
Something you would be happy doing if you were instructed to do by
your superiors?
Ret.
I don't believe that such a practice would be legal and hence I don't
believe any officer would be instructed to take part in such a practice.
Kev
Mike Ross
That figure is somewhat interesting. What is totally fascinating is the figure
for breath tests and arrests:
>>>>>> 3,000 motorists breathalysed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 137 arrested
This to me suggests that either the police are piss-poor at detecting people who
have been drinking, or the breath tests are pretty damn close to random. I don't
know what would be considered 'reasonable' - 50% positive tests? 5%? When you
get to ** less than 0.5% ** of breath tests being positive, you KNOW it's random
and unlawful.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Mike Ross
title!), but my argument stands.
johannes
Has there ever been a case where a driver was over the limit and stopped,
but the case was thrown out of court because there could not have been
reasonable suspicion; i.e. the driving could not have raised suspicion?
Rob
But this is my point - what do you suppose would happen if the driver,
knowing that a) he hadn't had a drop, and b) the officer had no reason to
suspect otherwise, decided to 'decline'? The whole campaign would be
pointless if the police were to then not take refusers to court - where the
officers would, when challenged have to commit perjury to make their breath
test demand retrospectively lawful. A statutory power to require a breath
test without requiring a reason would be better imo.
--
Rob
Ret.
There was, of course, the celebrated case, shortly after the introduction of
the legislation, when a drunk driver was acquitted, because a court decided
that a police officer not wearing his hat was not 'a police officer in
uniform'.
Kev
Ret.
Not necessarily. What proportion of drivers who drink will stick to just one
drink to avoid the danger of losing their licence? Their breath will still
smell of drink, and hence a breath test legitimate - they will simply be
under the limit. I know very few drivers who wont drink at all when they
are going to drive - but I know many who will, like me, will just have a
single drink.
Kev
Paul Cummins
mi...@corestore.org (Mike Ross) wrote:
> This to me suggests that either the police are piss-poor at
> detecting people who have been drinking, or the breath tests are
> pretty damn close to random.
It suggests to me that lots of people had just one drink because they
knew they were driving...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Norman Wells
Yeah, yeah, but you're answering questions I didn't ask.
What about the ones I did?
Alex Heney
<tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote:
>http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Christmas-drink-driving-crackdown-nets-137-drivers/article-1637670-detail/article.html
>
>21,000 motorists stopped
>
>3,000 motorists breathalysed
>
>137 arrested
>
>Random stops are still illegal, aren't they?
No.
Random *stops* have never been illegal.
Compulsory random breath tests are, but any reasonable suspicion after
(or before) having stopped you is sufficient.
The fact that only 1/7 of those stopped were tested suggests it wasn't
completely random.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I tried being reasonable once. I didn't like it.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Gary Baldi
North:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8426410.stm
ARWadsworth
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:ebj7j5l1bhp1dvb49...@4ax.com...
Not as piss poor as South Yorkshires police.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8426410.stm
In three weeks they breathalysed 23,153 people with 177 positive or refused
tests.
Adam
johannes
I was once stopped because the young police officer said I has "swerved".
Yes I did swerve to drive around a big pile of gravel at the nearside.
I only stopped because a police car behind me refused to pass when I
gave it plenty of opportunity. The offesser then claimed they had
flashed, but it must have been extremely sparingly, because I never
saw it, although I had them in my rear view mirror constantly. LOL!
Mr X
"ARWadsworth" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B6%Ym.18790$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Not as piss poor as South Yorkshires police.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8426410.stm
>
> In three weeks they breathalysed 23,153 people with 177 positive or
> refused tests.
>
Seems like good work.
Mike Ross
Well we don't know how many of those 177 were stone cold sober and refused the
test because they were annoyed at being asked to take one.
Mr X
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 12:30:00 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"ARWadsworth" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:B6%Ym.18790$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Not as piss poor as South Yorkshires police.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8426410.stm
>>>
>>> In three weeks they breathalysed 23,153 people with 177 positive or
>>> refused tests.
>>>
>>So tha's 177 dangerous drivers off the road then.
>>Seems like good work.
>
> Well we don't know how many of those 177 were stone cold sober and refused
> the
> test because they were annoyed at being asked to take one.
>
Nobody would risk their license to prove a point in such a bloody minded
fashion.
Ret.
I accept that using a legal random stop as means of then determining if the
driver has been drinking is not within the spirit of the existing law on
drink driving. Having said that, I suspect that there are many who would
argue that those who framed the drink-drive laws missed a trick when they
didn't include the right to randomly stop for the purpose of breath testing.
The main purpose of the law, of course, is to act as a deterrent to
drink-driving. The minority who continue to drink to excess and drive do so
in the knowledge that the chances of them being stopped are remote in the
extreme.
Kev
Ret.
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 12:30:00 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "ARWadsworth" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:B6%Ym.18790$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Not as piss poor as South Yorkshires police.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8426410.stm
>>>
>>> In three weeks they breathalysed 23,153 people with 177 positive or
>>> refused tests.
>>>
>> So tha's 177 dangerous drivers off the road then.
>> Seems like good work.
>
> Well we don't know how many of those 177 were stone cold sober and
> refused the test because they were annoyed at being asked to take one.
If they did they were incredibly stupid!
Kev
Norman Wells
I don't think it's conceivable that they 'missed a trick'. It's such an
obvious thing that it couldn't possibly have escaped all of their
attentions. I think they deliberately did not include that right for
political reasons because of the public's intense dislike of random
policing, and their wish to pursue their lives without undue harassment.
> The main purpose of the law, of course, is to act as a deterrent to
> drink-driving. The minority who continue to drink to excess and
> drive do so in the knowledge that the chances of them being stopped
> are remote in the extreme.
Indeed. It's always a fight between civil liberties and the forces of the
law, who cannot afford to act without general public support.
Ret.
I wasn't meaning it in the sense that they 'overlooked' it - so much as
missed an opportunity.
I think they deliberately did not include that right for
> political reasons because of the public's intense dislike of random
> policing, and their wish to pursue their lives without undue
> harassment.
Or, at the time, it was a major change to road traffic policing and it was
felt that it was a step too far to introduce random testing immediately...
>
>
>> The main purpose of the law, of course, is to act as a deterrent to
>> drink-driving. The minority who continue to drink to excess and
>> drive do so in the knowledge that the chances of them being stopped
>> are remote in the extreme.
>
> Indeed. It's always a fight between civil liberties and the forces
> of the law, who cannot afford to act without general public support.
I suspect that the majority would support random testing. Being searched at
airports is a pain in the arse - but most people recognise the need.
Kev
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>>> I accept that using a legal random stop as means of then determining
>>> if the driver has been drinking is not within the spirit of the
>>> existing law on drink driving. Having said that, I suspect that
>>> there are many who would argue that those who framed the
>>> drink-drive laws missed a trick when they didn't include the right
>>> to randomly stop for the purpose of breath testing.
>>
>> I don't think it's conceivable that they 'missed a trick'. It's such
>> an obvious thing that it couldn't possibly have escaped all of their
>> attentions.
>
> I wasn't meaning it in the sense that they 'overlooked' it - so much
> as missed an opportunity.
>
> I think they deliberately did not include that right for
>> political reasons because of the public's intense dislike of random
>> policing, and their wish to pursue their lives without undue
>> harassment.
>
> Or, at the time, it was a major change to road traffic policing and
> it was felt that it was a step too far to introduce random testing
> immediately...
Obviously they did, but I don't know that anyone sensible had random breath
testing in mind as a goal in the future. Random policing is just not
something that goes down well with the public.
>>> The main purpose of the law, of course, is to act as a deterrent to
>>> drink-driving. The minority who continue to drink to excess and
>>> drive do so in the knowledge that the chances of them being stopped
>>> are remote in the extreme.
>>
>> Indeed. It's always a fight between civil liberties and the forces
>> of the law, who cannot afford to act without general public support.
>
> I suspect that the majority would support random testing.
It depends how you phrase the question, and what the consequences are. I
suspect you'd rapidly lose support from anyone innocent who is stopped
randomly or is even held up because of random tests.
> Being
> searched at airports is a pain in the arse - but most people
> recognise the need.
But there you're not being delayed except from rushing excitedly to the
'Gatwick South Food Hall and Shopping Plaza Experience'. Most would prefer
an intimate body search with rubber gloves to that.
It's different if you're driving home.
ARWadsworth
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hh2b8g$mh6$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
But that was only 177 people. I do believe that the police could have caught
far more drunks by using common sense instead of using road blocks.
I was stopped just after leaving the pub car park with 4 passengers. The
officer said my car stunk like a brewery and asked me to jump into his car.
As soon as I was in his car the officer smelt my breath and said "fine I
know you have not been drinking". Then it was just two quick questions as to
why I was driving a car that did not belong to me and I was on my way.
Adam
Ret.
Fair point!
Kev
Usenet Nutter
<cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
snipped >>
>Indeed. It's always a fight between civil liberties and the forces of the
>law, who cannot afford to act without general public support.
Well they are sure trying their hardest !!!
ARWadsworth
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
news:38idnWXYLst3Xa7W...@pipex.net...
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Ret. wrote:
>>
There are some 12 year old (incomplete?) stats about the police
breathalysing people after an accident in the Christmas period here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/45462.stm
In some areas of the country more than 10% of drivers involved in an
accident that were breathalysied were over the alcohol limit.
I can see why the police have changed tactics. You cannot close the stable
door after the horse has bolted.
Adam
Cynic
>I 'drink and drive' - but I would never fail a breath test even though my
>breath may smell of drink. So I believe it goes for very many drivers - they
>may have a pint, but stop there. Of course you are right - the whole purpose
>of such purges is to act as a deterrent - and publicising a story like this
>just before Christmas may be just enough to deter some drivers from drinking
>to excess and driving. IMO that can't be a bad thing.
It's one of the very few times when I will agree with such intrusive
policing, due to the fact that I believe that the deterrent effect has
a very significant probability of preventing a significant number of
serious accidents.
I can live with such things for a week or two out of the year. I was
however surprised to have driven 25 miles along a major road at
midnight on Christmas eve/Christmas day and not seen a single police
vehicle or roadside check. I had imagined that the place would be
swarming with them, and had been quite prepared to be stopped at least
once.
Had I known, I would have had a few more beers and a few less coffees!
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>>>>>>> 3,000 motorists breathalysed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 137 arrested
>
>This to me suggests that either the police are piss-poor at detecting people who
>have been drinking, or the breath tests are pretty damn close to random. I don't
>know what would be considered 'reasonable' - 50% positive tests? 5%? When you
>get to ** less than 0.5% ** of breath tests being positive, you KNOW it's random
>and unlawful.
No, what it suggests to me is that people were going out for a few
drinks, but were deterred from having sufficient to risk being over
the limit.
It's exactly what I did on Christmas Eve - and I know what many of the
other people I was with did as well.
--
Cynic
Mr X
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v6ccj51pf03pkmmkk...@4ax.com...
IME those of my generation will not drink anything before driving but those
of yours will.
Gary Baldi
>
> I don't think it's conceivable that they 'missed a trick'. It's such an
> obvious thing that it couldn't possibly have escaped all of their
> attentions. I think they deliberately did not include that right for
> political reasons because of the public's intense dislike of random
> policing, and their wish to pursue their lives without undue harassment.
>
If you strip away the emotion of seeing mothers on tv crying because
their young one has been killed by a drink-driver, all you're left
with is an infraction of the law.
Except tv isnt too keen on showing ordinary families on tv crying when
their worldly possessions have been ransacked by a burglar........not
so newsworthy, you see.
But a same infraction of the law, nevertheless.
So....if you're gonna have random stops of drivers suspected of
potential law infractions, then you have to accept random stops of
shoppers coming out of BHS (because they might be shoplifters and
therefore guilty of potential law infractions). Likewise anyone
walking down an urban street, because they might be on their way to
commit a burglary........
See where I'm going with this?
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> So....if you're gonna have random stops of drivers suspected of
> potential law infractions, then you have to accept random stops of
> shoppers coming out of BHS (because they might be shoplifters and
> therefore guilty of potential law infractions). Likewise anyone
> walking down an urban street, because they might be on their way to
> commit a burglary........
>
> See where I'm going with this?
Random 'stops' of suspected electricians who look at the police 'in a
funny way'?
-- -
Culex -- the Infamous Culex
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> Ret. wrote:
> > Being
> > searched at airports is a pain in the arse - but most people
> > recognise the need.
>
> But there you're not being delayed except from rushing excitedly to the
> 'Gatwick South Food Hall and Shopping Plaza Experience'. Most would prefer
> an intimate body search with rubber gloves to that.
Too much information!
What Kevin and you like to do to each other is your own business, but
please do it behind closed doors.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> Mike Ross wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >> "ARWadsworth" <adamwadswo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:B6%Ym.18790$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>> Not as piss poor as South Yorkshires police.
>
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8426410.stm
>
> >>> In three weeks they breathalysed 23,153 people with 177 positive or
> >>> refused tests.
>
> >> So tha's 177 dangerous drivers off the road then.
> >> Seems like good work.
>
> > Well we don't know how many of those 177 were stone cold sober and
> > refused the test because they were annoyed at being asked to take one.
>
> If they did they were incredibly stupid!
Alternatively, due to illness, they may have been unable to provide a
breath sample at the roadside; this inability to provide a sample is
sometimes recorded by plods as a refusal to provide a breath sample,
even though the motorist has genuinely tried to comply with the
request. The motorist is then arrested, taken to the local nick and
required to provide two breath samples, a set distance of time apart,
into a far more sensitive contraption which would then give a better
estimate of the motorist's blood alcohol level.
To avoid such cases, perhaps the traffic plods could be told what are
the symptoms of emphysema?
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
wrote:
> I was once stopped because the young police officer said I has "swerved".
> Yes I did swerve to drive around a big pile of gravel at the nearside.
> I only stopped because a police car behind me refused to pass when I
> gave it plenty of opportunity. The offesser then claimed they had
> flashed, but it must have been extremely sparingly, because I never
> saw it, although I had them in my rear view mirror constantly. LOL!
So you admit you were driving without paying due attention to the
traffic in front of you?
Why, a little child could have run into the road and you'd have been
none the wiser until she got stuck under the car.
Mr X
"Culex (The Infamous Culex)" <the....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:31c187e7-b4b2-4db3...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I'm sure they are.
If someone is so ill that they cannot provide a breath test I do woner if
they should be on the road!
If your empthsema is that bad perhaps you should be o home oxygen!
johannes
Yeah you can't win, innit?
Ret.
Having administered hundreds of breath tests over the years (from the early
glass tubes with green crystals that turned yellow, to the modern electronic
devices), I have seen many dozens of drink-drivers 'pretend' that they are
incapable of maintaining an exhalation for the required period of time. If
you can explain just how a police officer, at the roadside, can determine
between a bluffer and a genuine problem breather, I would be interested to
know. Incidentally, I don't know if you have ever been required to provide
a breath test, but there is no effort to it. It's not like trying to blow up
a balloon - you simply take a deep breath and then exhale slowly through the
tube. It's surprising how many who are 'unable' to provide a breath sample
at the road side - can suddenly provide two into a Lion Intoximeter at the
police station, after the implications of failing to provide a specimen are
explained to them...
Kev
Smurf
> "Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:N-ednZMueqrrPa7W...@bt.com...
>> Gary Baldi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 21,000 motorists stopped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 137 arrested
>>>>
>>
>> operations require the unlawful use of their powers to demand breath
>> tests, backed up with the implied threat to commit perjury in court
>> should anyone actually refuse, though few seem to care about that.
>>
> Because few have any opposite to random breath tests.
Wow, I thought parliament and the courts decided on the powers of the
police, not opinion polls/
> I expect that most people commit a moving traffic offence everytime
> they take to the roads.
Well, in that case the Police shouldnt need to act unlawfully, should they?
Smurf
Missed a trick? I suspect the parliamentarians who put together the law were
a bit concerned about enforcing people to undergo an intrusive medical
procedure, without the standard levels of suspicion that have defined the
relationship between the crown and the citizen for many generations, was a
step to far.
Francis Burton
Culex (The Infamous Culex) <the....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> gave it plenty of opportunity. The offesser then claimed they had
>> flashed, but it must have been extremely sparingly, because I never
>> saw it, although I had them in my rear view mirror constantly. LOL!
>
>So you admit you were driving without paying due attention to the
>traffic in front of you?
How is seeing a car in the rear view mirror constantly inconsistent
with paying attention to the traffic in front?
Francis
Ret.
You can be stopped randomly at any time so that a police officer can check
if your tyres are legal, or your washer bottle is not empty, etc. why not
for a breath test?
Kev
Gary Baldi
>
> You can be stopped randomly at any time so that a police officer can check
> if your tyres are legal, or your washer bottle is not empty, etc. why not
> for a breath test?
>
See my earlier post about stopping pensioners coming out of BHS.
Ret.
Which hardly answers the point I am making. The police do already have the
power to randomly stop any motorist at any time - although, of course, they
very very rarely use that power because they have better things to do with
their time.
Kev
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
Such as deciding whether to get a free Indian or a free Chinese take-
away.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> In article <91c1a7a3-7712-43d7-81d7-cba8ad501...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Culex (The Infamous Culex) <the.cu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> gave it plenty of opportunity. The offesser then claimed they had
> >> flashed, but it must have been extremely sparingly, because I never
> >> saw it, although I had them in my rear view mirror constantly. LOL!
>
> >So you admit you were driving without paying due attention to the
> >traffic in front of you?
>
> How is seeing a car in the rear view mirror constantly inconsistent
> with paying attention to the traffic in front?
If one is concentrating on a police car behind one, it is axiomatic
that one cannot simultaneously be concentrating on the traffic in
front of one's vehicle.
Had a little child run across the motorway - as is very likely at any
time of the day or night - one wouldn't have seen them until it was
too late to avoid a tragedy.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> if your tyres are legal, or your washer bottle is not empty, etc. why not
> for a breath test?
With what should a washer bottle be filled and how, if at all, did you
test the contents?
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
When the motorist's face turns either red or cyanotic and they nearly
collapse when trying to provide a breath sample, that might be a clue
that they were not malingering.
> Incidentally, I don't know if you have ever been required to provide
> a breath test,
Never.
> but there is no effort to it. It's not like trying to blow up
> a balloon - you simply take a deep breath and then exhale slowly through the
> tube. It's surprising how many who are 'unable' to provide a breath sample
> at the road side - can suddenly provide two into a Lion Intoximeter at the
> police station, after the implications of failing to provide a specimen are
> explained to them...
How predictably smug!
Ret.
The vast majority of your posts contribute nothing to the debate but are
just silly schoolboy responses as above. Have you actually anything
intelligent to say?
Kev
Ret.
Oh dear. You just operated the washer control in the car - if nothing
squirted onto the screen then clearly the bottle was empty, or the washer
was defective - either being an offence.
I don't know what you put in your washer bottle (whisky perhaps?) - but most
people use water, occasionally with added screenwash liquid.
Kev
Ret.
In that case- I have never ever had a genuine problem breather - although I
have had plenty of people 'pretending' that they are.
>
>> Incidentally, I don't know if you have ever been required to provide
>> a breath test,
>
> Never.
>
>> but there is no effort to it. It's not like trying to blow up
>> a balloon - you simply take a deep breath and then exhale slowly
>> through the tube. It's surprising how many who are 'unable' to
>> provide a breath sample at the road side - can suddenly provide two
>> into a Lion Intoximeter at the police station, after the
>> implications of failing to provide a specimen are explained to
>> them...
>
> How predictably smug!
Nope - just 100% accurate - but I wouldn't expect someone who constantly
makes excuses for criminals to understand that.
Kev
Ian
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
> Culex (The Infamous Culex) wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 5:12 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>> You can be stopped randomly at any time so that a police officer
>>> can
>>> check if your tyres are legal, or your washer bottle is not empty,
>>> etc. why not for a breath test?
>>
>> With what should a washer bottle be filled and how, if at all, did
>> you
>> test the contents?
>
> Oh dear. You just operated the washer control in the car - if
> nothing squirted onto the screen then clearly the bottle was empty,
> or the washer was defective - either being an offence.
Or the jet frozen up. Not a defect. Not an empty bottle.
johannes
"Culex (The Infamous Culex)" wrote:
>
Maybe that's why motorway speed limits apply day as well as 3am at
night, which some people here fail to appreciate...
Smurf
That power was only introduced in the eighties. You dont believe that people
should be free to carry out their business, unless their activite causes
genuine suspicion ?
> Kev
Smurf
>
> I 'drink and drive' - but I would never fail a breath test even
> though my breath may smell of drink. So I believe it goes for very
> many drivers - they may have a pint, but stop there. Of course you
> are right - the whole purpose of such purges is to act as a deterrent
> - and publicising a story like this just before Christmas may be just
> enough to deter some drivers from drinking to excess and driving. IMO
> that can't be a bad thing.
> Kev
If an officer stops you, and smells drink, he has easily established
reasonable suspicion that you may be over the legal limit. Breaking the law,
and abusing the powers giving to a police officer is, IMO a bad thing.
Mr X
"Smurf" <sm...@smurf.com> wrote in message
news:7pv9u4...@mid.individual.net...
> That power was only introduced in the eighties. You dont believe that
> people should be free to carry out their business, unless their activite
> causes genuine suspicion ?
>
Not in the case of motoring. A car is so dangerous that there must be extra
checks and balances to it.
Ret.
So how many people searched at airports have aroused genuine suspicion? Do
you object to that?
Kev
Cynic
>Oh dear. You just operated the washer control in the car - if nothing
>squirted onto the screen then clearly the bottle was empty, or the washer
>was defective - either being an offence.
I start off on a 50 mile journey. 25 miles later, my washer water
runs out. Must I stop immediately and walk to the nearest garage to
get water? What if I am on a motorway - must I pull over onto the
hard shoulder and call for rescue?
--
Cynic
Ret.
Clearly, as with a duff bulb, you would have to convince the officer that
all was in order when you started your journey. You must have a small
washer bottle if it runs out after just 25 miles. I top mine up very
regularly (certainly before a long journey) and cannot recall ever running
the bottle dry. I also carry a full set of spare bulbs and my instrument
panel not only tells me that a bulb has failed - but which one, which
enables me to replace it very rapidly.
Kev
Ian
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
practised PPPPPPPPPP every - and I mean EVERY - time.
--
Please visit our appeal at
http://www.donatetobreastcancer.org/nakedbikeride
Thanks
Ian
Cynic
>>> Oh dear. You just operated the washer control in the car - if nothing
>>> squirted onto the screen then clearly the bottle was empty, or the
>>> washer was defective - either being an offence.
>> I start off on a 50 mile journey. 25 miles later, my washer water
>> runs out. Must I stop immediately and walk to the nearest garage to
>> get water? What if I am on a motorway - must I pull over onto the
>> hard shoulder and call for rescue?
>Clearly, as with a duff bulb, you would have to convince the officer that
>all was in order when you started your journey. You must have a small
>washer bottle if it runs out after just 25 miles. I top mine up very
>regularly (certainly before a long journey)
50 miles is not a long journey for me. As there is no guage for my
washer bottle, it is pure guesswork as to when it is about to run out.
I'll usually fill it whenever I get petrol, though it is surprising
how many times the garage does not have any working facillity for
doing so.
IMO the offence should be that of having an overly dirty windscreen,
not of having no washer. The first couple of cars I owned didn't
*have* a windscreen washer.
--
Cynic
Ret.
Nope, neither did mine - although I did fit retro-fit one once. It operated
off a rubber 'bulb' on the floor that you pumped with your left foot!
Kev
Charles Bryant
}> roundabout with an equally clear sign marked "drink-drive check area"
}> and uniformed officers guiding random vehicles emerging from said
}> roundabout into said coned off area.
}>
}> Something you would condone?
}>
}> Something you would be happy doing if you were instructed to do by
}> your superiors?
}
}I don't believe that such a practice would be legal and hence I don't
}believe any officer would be instructed to take part in such a practice.
Why not? Are police so saintly that they *never* do anything wrong?
Charles Bryant
}Smurf wrote:
}> You dont believe that
}> people should be free to carry out their business, unless their
}> activite causes genuine suspicion ?
}
}So how many people searched at airports have aroused genuine suspicion? Do
}you object to that?
The cost of security theatre at airports is grossly disproportionate to
the benefit. The cost consists of the money spent on personnel and
equipment, as well as the cost of the inconvienence to the travellers.
The security always focuses on preventing a few specific attacks on the
assumption that the attackers will use them. Since an attacker will
adapt their methods to the security we effectively rely on attacker
incompetence as the main protection.
Charles Bryant
Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
}
}It's one of the very few times when I will agree with such intrusive
}policing, due to the fact that I believe that the deterrent effect has
}a very significant probability of preventing a significant number of
}serious accidents.
}
}I can live with such things for a week or two out of the year. I was
}however surprised to have driven 25 miles along a major road at
}midnight on Christmas eve/Christmas day and not seen a single police
}vehicle or roadside check. I had imagined that the place would be
}swarming with them, and had been quite prepared to be stopped at least
}once.
}
}Had I known, I would have had a few more beers and a few less coffees!
Are you serious? If you think drinking and driving is so outrageously
dangerous that it justifies exceptionally intrusive policing, then why
would the chance of being caught be more important than the chance of
crashing?
Charles Bryant
}The police have the power to stop any motorist at any time - for example to
}check driving documents. *If* having stopped a motorist they smell drink -
}then they can request a breath test - perfectly lawfully.
Only if smelling drink is reasonable suspicion. Given the low rates of
offences found in some campaigns, it seems that either smelling drink
is not grounds for reasonable suspicion, or the police are
systematically dishonest. In either case they have proved that they
cannot be trusted with the powers they currently have and the power to
stop at random should be removed.
Ret.
"Charles Bryant" <n211387...@chch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2010-01-0...@chch.demon.co.uk...
Which, of course, did not answer the question I raised...
Kev
Cynic
I was either being outrageously hypocritical, or making a joke.
--
Cynic
Ret.
Of course not - but it would be unusual in the extreme for a pre-planned
operation such as this to be set up if the basis for it was not founded in
law.
Kev
Ret.
The reason for the low rates is that today, the majority of drivers still
drink - but they do not drink to the extent that would put them over the
limit. Hence they have the smell of drink on their breath, thus justifying a
breath test, but are then found to be under the limit. No mystery to the
figures.
Kev
Bob Ferguson
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
> johannes wrote:
>> ian field wrote:
>>>
>>> "Gary Baldi" <tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cf39e505-d643-4147...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Christmas-drink-driving-crackdown-nets-137-drivers/article-1637670-detail/article.html
>>>>
>>>> 21,000 motorists stopped
>>>>
>>>> 3,000 motorists breathalysed
>>>>
>>>> 137 arrested
>>>>
>>>> Random stops are still illegal, aren't they?
>>>
>>> All they need is "reasonable suspicion" - a conveniently vague term.
>>
>> Has there ever been a case where a driver was over the limit and
>> stopped, but the case was thrown out of court because there could not
>> have been reasonable suspicion; i.e. the driving could not have
>> raised suspicion?
>
> There was, of course, the celebrated case, shortly after the introduction
> of the legislation, when a drunk driver was acquitted, because a court
> decided that a police officer not wearing his hat was not 'a police
> officer in uniform'.
>
I also recall that similarly soon after the legislation another case was
thrown out because the police officer that stopped the driver whistled up a
traffic car to perform the breath test. The case apparently failed the
requirement that the police officer (performing the breath test) had to have
suspicion that the driver had consumed alcohol. The case was thrown out
because the officer concerned had formed no such suspicion as he had relied
on the opinion of another.
Bob Ferguson
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Ret. wrote:
>>
>>> The police have the power to stop any motorist at any time - for
>>> example to check driving documents. *If* having stopped a motorist
>>> they smell drink - then they can request a breath test - perfectly
>>> lawfully.
>>
>> of the law? If there is no substantive reason to stop someone and
>> ask for their documents, as there usually isn't, then the stopping is
>> essentially random, and requesting a breath test on any subset of a
>> randomly stopped sample is therefore random too. However, the
>> framers of the legislation have never gone so far as to endorse
>> random breath tests. Is it not therefore a police fiddle to fall
>> within the strict letter of the law but ignoring what was actually
>> intended?
>> I ask this not condoning any drink driving, but just as one who
>> thinks the police ought to abide by what the law is meant to be, not
>> as they wish it was.
>
> Different forces operate these drink-drive 'purges' in different ways.
> Certainly in my old force we didn't stop people at random - just tended to
> breathalyse everyone who was stopped for a genuine legitimate reason. So
> someone who would have been stopped and verbally cautioned for a minor
> speeding offence - would be breath tested as well.
If there was no actual suspicion that would be illegal.
Bob Ferguson
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>>> believe had been drinking. The only exception for me was after a
>>> collision when the force instruction was that *all* drivers involved
>>> should be breath tested - and an explanation was called for if they
>>> weren't.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, but you're answering questions I didn't ask.
>>
>> What about the ones I did?
>
> I accept that using a legal random stop as means of then determining if
> the driver has been drinking is not within the spirit of the existing law
> on drink driving. Having said that, I suspect that there are many who
> would argue that those who framed the drink-drive laws missed a trick when
> they didn't include the right to randomly stop for the purpose of breath
> testing.
>
They didn't miss any trick. The law was deliberately framed to make random
breath testing unlawful. That the police have perverted the legislation
into effectively performing such testing is completely wrong.
Whether random testing should be unlawful is another matter.
Ret.
And this is where 'justice' is certainly an ass - where there is no doubt
about the guilt of an offender, but he gets off because of a 'loophole' like
this.
Kev
Ret.
Anyone committing a 'moving traffic offence' can be breathalysed,
irrespective of suspicion of drinking. A waste of time IMO and something
that I never did other than when I was instructed to do so during an Xmas
'purge'.
Kev
Bob Ferguson
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
But often these random stops are for nothing more than an ownership check
for which the legislation does not provide an automatic right to
breathalyse.
Rob
Well exactly. I'm sure you would agree that the law should be set in stone
for us plebs, but should no more than a flexible guideline for the police.
--
Rob
Charles Bryant
On Usenet whatever you read, however outrageous, you can never be
certain that the author wasn't serious: whatever you write, however
outrageous, you can never be certain that someone won't take you to be
serious.
Charles Bryant
What question do you mean?
My answers to the literal questions quoted are "either none or a
miniscule proportion" and "Yes, strongly".
Cynic
<n63811...@chch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>}>}Had I known, I would have had a few more beers and a few less coffees!
>}>Are you serious? If you think drinking and driving is so outrageously
>}>dangerous that it justifies exceptionally intrusive policing, then why
>}>would the chance of being caught be more important than the chance of
>}>crashing?
>}I was either being outrageously hypocritical, or making a joke.
>On Usenet whatever you read, however outrageous, you can never be
>certain that the author wasn't serious: whatever you write, however
>outrageous, you can never be certain that someone won't take you to be
>serious.
Yes, that's true. Same with police, customs and security staff - any
joking remark will be treated as if it was meant in deadly
seriousness.
--
Cynic
Steve Firth
> On Usenet whatever you read, however outrageous, you can never be
> certain that the author wasn't serious: whatever you write, however
> outrageous, you can never be certain that someone won't take you to be
> serious.
You cannot be serious!
Alex Heney
No it wouldn't.
They can legally require a breath test if there is actual suspicion OR
if a moving vehicle offence has occurred or if an accident has
occurred involving the driver.
----------------------------------------
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable cause to suspect—
(a) that a person driving or attempting to drive or in charge of a
motor vehicle on a road or other public place has alcohol in his body
or has committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion,
or
(b) that a person has been driving or attempting to drive or been in
charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with alcohol
in his body and that that person still has alcohol in his body, or
(c) that a person has been driving or attempting to drive or been in
charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place and has
committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion,
he may, subject to section 9 of this Act, require him to provide a
specimen of breath for a breath test.
(2)
If an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a
road or other public place, a constable may, subject to section 9 of
this Act, require any person who he has reasonable cause to believe
was driving or attempting to drive or in charge of the vehicle at the
time of the accident to provide a specimen of breath for a breath
test.
----------------------------------------------
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Which way to Castle Anthrax?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Mr X
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dv09k55iuk5varjsr...@4ax.com...
joke?
Bob Ferguson
"Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uqudnVHtspAd6t7W...@bt.com...
I thought that was the case. Or at least the police certainly believe it to
be the case.