car accident & drink driving

no-oneknowsme

missymissymoo 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. I was then taken to the police station for further tests; the breathalyzer machine in the station was broken so I had to give a blood sample which took quite a few hours for the Dr to arrive. I told by an officer at the police station that it will take 6/8 weeks to get the blood test results back. In the station it was suggested that I should not worry too much but not to tell my insurance company of this situation re being breathalysed and over the limit, then having the blood sample taken. Has any one else been in a similar situation that can share their experience?

Thanks

Lucylucky - i have quoted the original post for you.....it would appear that you have not actually read it ?

Try reading it , paying close attention to the parts i have hightlighted !

It clearly states that the OP was breathalised at the roadside and she was found to be over the legal drink drive limit !

The bloodtest at the station is merely a formality as the result from the roadside test needs to be backed up with this for any drink drive charge to stand !

Please dont spout nonsense unless you have done your homeworkon the matter in hand

Chorlie

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....

danlojo

lucylucky wrote: »

That is good to know.. Not drinking means there will be no more road traffic accidents.

Brilliant!

There will still be accidents due to careless driving but none caused by alcohol consumption

lucylucky

Can some one link me to the post where it states the OP has been charged with anything?

Anyone?

As stated in a previous (and for some reason now removed post) it is perfectly possible for a blood test to negate the finding of the breathalyser.

So do please let me know where the OP has been charged and convicted of a crime?

The OP is not guilty, perhaps some people need to get a dictionary for Christmas;)

lucylucky

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. Which means they will release the OP with a cheery wave and send them on their way as they will have done nothing wrong

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....

But not necessarily in breach of any law regarding drink driving.

clever_username

lucylucky wrote: »

That is good to know.. Not drinking means there will be no more road traffic accidents.

Strange. Where did the poster say that?

danlojo

My thoughts exactly!!

Ialwaysgetdone

shellsuit wrote: »

Some people lack a bit of sense though.

Me and hubby went out Thursday night and he was driving. He had 1 pint of shandy with his meal (at 7pm) and drank coke for the rest of the night. We got home around midnight.

I used to have this argument with people, who would say that you are allowed X units before you are classed as over the limit and took that as gospel.

But what if you drank on an empty stomach?

What if you were really skinny or really short?

Alcohol affects different people in different ways, so it's just best to have nothing if you know you're going to get behind the wheel.


I have no sympathy with the OP at all, troll or not.

Regarding the shandy, a former classmate of mine lost his licence after only one pint of shandy. I've no idea what he'd had to eat but he was an average sized 18 year old at that time, many many moons ago

lucylucky

clever_username wrote: »

Strange. Where did the poster say that?

They didn't my mind was off at a tangent!

Apologies.

Chorlie

lucylucky wrote: »

Can some one link me to the post where it states the OP has been charged with anything?

Anyone?

As stated in a previous (and for some reason now removed post) it is perfectly possible for a blood test to negate the finding of the breathalyser.

So do please let me know where the OP has been charged and convicted of a crime?

The OP is not guilty, perhaps some people need to get a dictionary for Christmas;)

When I throw the ball through the window (as kid) breaking the glass I was GUILT of that act, now the OP posted they Run into the Back of Someone and they also got into a car and drove it after drinking....These are FACTS as stated by the OP.

Now whether there will be a police conviction due to either or both of these acts, is again another issue, but the OP is GUILTY of their actions just as I when I broke the window.