Police Stops - Festive Drink Drive Campaign

DaveMacD

If memory serves, taking certain prescription medications or cold relief can also skew results of certain tests as well.

brightonman123

dont mind being stopped for genuine purposes like these- if it just catches one d/d, its worth it-

JUST DONT DRINK AND DRIVE. it causes so much pain for the people left behind.

sebdangerfield

There are far too many Bar room barristers on here!

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.

I assume number one is S.5 RTA and number two is S.4RTA?

I've seen both in equal numbers. There are far more specific differences than you mention. It doesn't normaly come down to if someone is genuinley unfit or not, there is far more wide use of the drugs aspect of S4. But the differences continue far further than could be expressed here.

sebdangerfield

hothothot wrote: »

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).

I've never once heard of that in many years of law.

It's common for certain cold remedies to contain ethanol and this obviously has an effect on the roadside screening test as the ethanol will stay in the mouth and corrupt the result. In a similar manner guidlines state that 20 minutes should be left between the last drink/cigarrette/cold remedy before the roadside breath test so as not to corrupt the reults.

sebdangerfield

hothothot wrote: »

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.

You'd still be requested to provide for the roadside screening device at the roadside. You should be asked when the last time you used a cold remedy and wait 20 mins from then before starting the test. Exactly the same procedure applies.

hothothot_3

sebdangerfield wrote: »

I've never once heard of that in many years of law.

It's common for certain cold remedies to contain ethanol and this obviously has an effect on the roadside screening test as the ethanol will stay in the mouth and corrupt the result. In a similar manner guidlines state that 20 minutes should be left between the last drink/cigarrette/cold remedy before the roadside breath test so as not to corrupt the reults.

Not many people know about it, however I have came across a case where it happened to a police sgt. Incidentaly the they were found guilty based on the urine specimens provided anyway, but it is worthwhile to note that out of the three tests, the urine one is the least accurate at detecting alcohol levels in the blood.

hothothot_3

sebdangerfield wrote: »

You'd still be requested to provide for the roadside screening device at the roadside. You should be asked when the last time you used a cold remedy and wait 20 mins from then before starting the test. Exactly the same procedure applies.

I never said cold remedy. I said cold.

but thanks for that information anyway, wasnt aware of it.

sebdangerfield

hothothot wrote: »

Not many people know about it, however I have came across a case where it happened to a police sgt. Incidentaly the they were found guilty based on the urine specimens provided anyway, but it is worthwhile to note that out of the three tests, the urine one is the least accurate at detecting alcohol levels in the blood.

Nobody at my practice has ever come across this. I'm assuming the incident above with the Police sergeant is now a stated case as a result? Which case is it so I can read up?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

i totaly agree with the roadside BT's why would anyone disagree with them (unless somepeople drink drive reguarly and if thats the case hope you lose the right to drive) i wouldnt mind at all being pulled by an officer festive season or not and provide a specimen of breath at least when it come back clear he can say good you aint been drinking and i can say good how your protecting roadusers and the public. if the breatholise 1000 motorists and 1 was over the limit at least that one cant continue motoring on and potentially kill a pedestrian or other motorist or roaduser, and to boot how many many people drive uninsured? how many people drive with unroadworthy cars,motorbikes,vans,trucks? how many not licenced? if the police stop and find as many as possible then the likely hood of a fatality this christmas is reduced, in my opinion there shouldnt be an achohol limit different people are affected in different ways with booze slower reactions, impaired vision, even off one pint (especially if you havent had a drink in months) how hard is it to keep a £10.00 and pick up the phone and call a taxi or a relative or have a designated driver or walk ive seen on tv people who live yards away from the pub and decide to drive home !!!!ed up why even drive to the pub? i dont get those who drink and drive appart from the likey hood of loosing you livelyhood you could kill someone a family member friend someones son or daughter a child.

i have never had a drink and then got behind the wheel of any motor vehicle i value my licence too much and my family and friends respect me fot it.

DaveMacD

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

i dont get those who drink and drive appart from the likey hood of loosing you livelyhood you could kill someone a family member friend someones son or daughter a child.

While I agree with the majority of your post, the reason (and I'm not excusing the act by any means) people do drink and drive, especially those older drivers, is because they have done it for years, and never had an accident. They may have spotted a few in their mirrors, but 'luckily' they missed them. The impression is, rightly or wrongly, that the chance of you being nabbed for DD is very low, and getting caught is just 'bad luck'. In nearly 13 years of driving between my home in South Lanarkshire, and my work in Glasgow, I've never been stopped and breathalysed, even during the high profile campaigns at Christmas. I've only ever spotted 1 'roadblock' for it, and I was going in the opposite direction. If you barely even see a traffic cop, never mind see them trying to enforce these laws, it's little wonder that some knuckleheads think they can get blootered and then drive home.