car accident & drink driving

exup

Ialwaysgetdone wrote: »

You'd expect drink related accidents to be lower obviously but it could be that they still do it and just get caught (or not).

I wouldn't be surprised if their overall accident rate was much higher going by the state of some of the vehicles in some of those countries

there may be certain vehicles that you can ride or drive without a licence in those countries, so they drive them instead - then they don't lose their licence. although France has a limit of alcohol, they have this problem with certain vehicles.

mikey72

Bit out of date though

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_copy_of_copy_of_PIN%20Flash%205.pdf

newer info

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/Drink%20Driving%20Monitor%20October%202010.pdf

olly300

Chorlie wrote: »

As you state "They simply stated they failed the breathalyser"

How or why as listed in your points 1 to 4, isn't the point.

The law states that your driving is effected if over the limit, the breathalyser shows she was.....End Of.

The Blood Test will either confirm this or not.

But like you say, we don't know how long she had be driving before the crash, it maybe of been 5 mins or a couple of hours, but I take it you'll of been happy for her to of run one of your family members over and the police delaying taking the second sample (possibly letting the level in her blood down below legal limits) because there station machine wasn't working.... Nice to know you're so understanding.

If the OP is over the limit they are a nice easy conviction for the police and CPs, so they have no reason to delay in getting her to the police station.

In fact they probably will not have much hassle in getting her to plead guilty if she fails the blood test.

BTW There is no need to make personal attacks on people when you want to argue your point as it makes your arguments weaker.

I had a sister run over and killed by a driver when a child. So I have a very strong dislike for all sorts of behaviour on the road but I know you don't take the law into your own hands and that people are innocent until proven guilty.

real1314

olly300 wrote: »

I had a sister run over and killed by a driver when a child. So I have a very strong dislike for all sorts of behaviour on the road but I know you don't take the law into your own hands and that people are innocent until proven guilty.

It's good to see that you have come to terms with what happened.
I have twice hit children whilst driving. I've also been breathalysed twice.
There's a lot more to pedestrian injuries than drivers.

starrystarry

As other posters have said, having a zero blood alcohol level is unrealistic. How could anybody ever be certain they don't have a tiny amount of alcohol in their system? It's in so many things other than drinks.

Also, I've always felt a zero limit would target the wrong people. It wouldn't deter the people who already drink & drive, they'd carry on regardless. They're not bothered by the current limit so what difference would it make to them if the limit was reduced to zero? What it would do is punish the people who might currently have half a shandy in the pub, or a small glass of wine with a meal. It would mean I'd be too scared to drive the morning after having one glass of wine, in case there was any miniscule amount left in my system. Surely that's not the way we want to go.

Anybody who gets caught over the current limit deserves all they get and surely these drivers are the ones we want to target. Let's not demonise everybody.

bluetownbarry

vaio wrote: »

the not paying third parties is nonsense which throws doubt on the rest of the post

Admiral will not pay for your damage if you are convicted for any alcohol/drug driving offence following an accident. They are legally obliged under the Road Traffic Act to satisfy any third party claim, however, they will persue you for these costs.

It's very clearly written in their policy booklet and if memory serves me correctly, it's even written on the certificate of insurance.

Tammer

bluetownbarry wrote: »

Admiral will not pay for your damage if you are convicted for any alcohol/drug driving offence following an accident. They are legally obliged under the Road Traffic Act to satisfy any third party claim, however, they will persue you for these costs.

It's very clearly written in their policy booklet and if memory serves me correctly, it's even written on the certificate of insurance.

It's also a fundamental point of law that you cannot benefit (through insurance) from committing an illegal act. E.g. if you are covered for life insurance and get shot by the police while robbing a bank, the insurance would not pay out. I don't think it matters whether it's in the policy conditions or not.

newfoundglory

Chorlie wrote: »

I've just had car accident and unfortunately ran into the back of someone on the slip road of motorway, I was breathalysed at the scene & the results came back that I was just over the drink drive limit.


The OP is at the moment GUILTY, the blood test will either confirm this and then the police will take whatever action they need or enough time will of passed for the level to be within the permitted level as set by law, then the police will again action the OP in the way needed.

There are two parts to this, the Drink Driving and the Car Accident (which again they stated They run into the back of).

So they are GUILTY of the accident & also the Drink Driving, they were after all over the limit and even if the Blood Test shows below the limit, we all know that at some point before the accident the OP was driving down the road over the Drink Driving Limit....

I think you are going off on a tangent here. A roadside breath test is just an INDICATION. It is not evidence which is admissible in court, and the OP may not have even been over the limit (roadside test is not accurate enough to determine that if its close)

Its highly likely that if the OP hadn't had anything to drink for at least 30 mins to an hour before being stopped, and it was several hours before blood was taken - then a conviction is probably very unlikely. Remember, the body can process 1 unit of alcohol per hour. Hopefully OP will learn and never drink-drive again, but in reality there is nothing the Police can do.

If anything, we should probably be criticising the Police for not doing more to secure convictions like this. The machine at the station was broken? It took several hours to get a doctor to take blood? If I was the OP at the Station i'd be laughing at how incompetent the Police were, because it means i'm off the hook.

I mean, why do the Police even bother?:mad:

dacouch

Tammer wrote: »

It's also a fundamental point of law that you cannot benefit (through insurance) from committing an illegal act. E.g. if you are covered for life insurance and get shot by the police while robbing a bank, the insurance would not pay out. I don't think it matters whether it's in the policy conditions or not.

An exclusion such as this does need to be in the policy, hence why Admiral make it clear in their policy.

Having a third parties claim paid would not be classed as benefiting from a crime as the driver has not derived a benefit.

The majority of Insurers do not contain this exclusion, it tends to be the cheap end of the market that use this exclusion.

I'm not over keen on the exclusion where they reserve the right to recover the third party costs as this in my mind is onerous. There can very occassionally be mitigating circumstances where someone is just over the limit and receives a conviction. With the third party exclusion there is the potential that if the third party claim is tens of thousands (Which is not that unusual) for the person to be bankrupted and lose their house.

I do not agree with drink driving but there can be unusual circumstances eg their drink was spiked etc where the person receives a conviction. When you work in Insurance you see amazing sets of coincidences which stack up to cause freak incidents. The third party exclusion gives the potential for an "innocent" person to lose everything. Especially when you take into account the cheap end of the market Insurers such as Tradex etc who use them who are renowned for using any small print to avoid paying a claim

Tammer

dacouch wrote: »

An exclusion such as this does need to be in the policy, hence why Admiral make it clear in their policy.

Having a third parties claim paid would not be classed as benefiting from a crime as the driver has not derived a benefit.

The majority of Insurers do not contain this exclusion, it tends to be the cheap end of the market that use this exclusion.

I'm not sure that you're correct. I thought that if there was legal precedent (there is for insurers not paying out for a claim resulting from an illegal act) that means you don't have to explicitly mention it. Let's not get in a fight about it though as I'm just trying to remember my insurance exams from 13 years ago!