Police Stops - Festive Drink Drive Campaign

Nilrem

DaveMacD wrote: »

Got to be honest, I've never been stopped at one of these things. Have been stopped twice for 'travel surveys'. The Police pull you over and then some busybody interrogates you about where you've been and where you are going. Didn't seem too impressed when I told them it was none of their damn business.

The "busy bodies" in question will probably be with the highways agency, usually doing it in relation to a proposal for a new road/upgrading the roads in the area (they can tell the amount of traffic easily enough through automated means, but it still requires someone to ask questions to find out how many are just locals, and how many might be using the route as a shortcut/to passthough).
So it's usually in your interest to answer, especially if you're a local/have problems with the road.

The police are present to pull you over, but after that you can decline to answer the question without issue iirc.
I've only been pulled over for such a thing once, but was polite and it only took a minute (which was less than I often wasted in traffic on the route:p).

Rolandtheroadie

Is the "travel surveys" not the benefits agency trying to catch people working but claiming benefits? Any time I was stopped I was in a van.

Anihilator

Officer_Dibble wrote: »

A classic case of a little knowledge being dangerous.

Ex special:rolleyes:.

You can only be arrested if they suspect you are unfit to drive through drink or drugs. Section 4. Once at the station if it's drink you are required to provide two specimens on the station machine.

Technically he is correct

There is 2 laws regarding drink driving they use. 1) Being over the prescribed limit or 2) Being unfit to drive

Normally drink drivers are under number 1 but they can be done under 2 as well however I have never actually seen it, probably, due to the fact in the vast majority of cases if they are genuinely unfit they will be over the limit which is easier to prove and secondly that the courts I would imagine dont prosecute many number 2 due to the costs,times and difficulty of proving it.

rev_henry

Anihilator wrote: »

Technically he is correct

There is 2 laws regarding drink driving they use. 1) Being over the prescribed limit or 2) Being unfit to drive

Normally drink drivers are under number 1 but they can be done under 2 as well however I have never actually seen it, probably, due to the fact in the vast majority of cases if they are genuinely unfit they will be over the limit which is easier to prove and secondly that the courts I would imagine dont prosecute many number 2 due to the costs,times and difficulty of proving it.

That's what I thought. Isn't the second subjective, and often used when someone is completely paralytic and can't even manage to give a breath test?
And can't the police also arrest people for 'failing to provide a breath test'?

There's lots of subjective offences. I believe one can technically be prosecuted for speeding just because a policeman saw you drive past him 'too fast' in his eyes.

Anihilator

Officer_Dibble wrote: »

If someone is arrested for being unfit they are then still subject to a station breath test. So a piece of pi$$ to prove.

Unfit and over the limit are the powers of arrest.

What you don't seem to be getting though is that they don't need to fail the breathaliser.

They could pass the breathaliser and still be charged with being unfit to drive.

hothothot_3

If you are asked for a roadside test, it is worth bearing in mind that if you tell the officers you are suffering from a cold, they will unlikely give a breath test as legally it can be contested. You would be taken to the station at which point you would be required to have a blood sample taken, any medical issues must be considered, such as a fear of needles.
Two samples of urine will then have to be taken instead, which are the least accurate way of detecting alcohol in blood content.

hothothot_3

Officer_Dibble wrote: »

The medical excuse for failing to provide doesn't come into things until you are at the police station.

Even if you fail at the roadside you will still be required to provide at the station so very little to contest.

I know, I said all that.

The issue of stating that you have a cold affects the accuracy of the test and could be contested later in court - which is why police would prefer to then have a blood sample/urine sample taken at the station.

Anihilator

Officer_Dibble wrote: »

For being unfit through drugs maybe, drink I very much doubt it.

Unless you have evidence to suggest othereise.

Being unfit to drive

It is an offence to drive, attempt to drive, or be in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or public place while unfit through drink or drugs.
You would be considered unfit if your ability to drive properly is impaired (even if the amount of alcohol in your body is within the prescribed limit). Evidence of being unfit may be found, for example, in erratic driving, the occurrence of an accident, or your condition.

Cut and pasted off a motoring website.

Basically you could have 1 pint, be within the limit and still be charged if evidence - such as an unexplained accident - exists that it affected your driving.

hothothot_3

Officer_Dibble wrote: »

Where did you get that from?

wont say here, but I have some direct knowledge from my previous line of work. The blood-alcohol ratio is based on a normal body temperature. Therefore, if you have a cold your body temperature will be lower, and as a result this would affect the readings. Of course the officer could insist on a reading anyway, and it would be an offence to refuse, but by declaring you have a cold to the officer, it would be something your defence lawyer could use to dispute the accuracy of the measurements. (shifting the burden of evidence away from beyond reasonable doubt).

spike7451

Over here in Northern Ireland,the Police have always been able to stop anyone & breathalise you,indeed it's standard practice at any RTA,no matter how minor or severe.