Vehicle tests

vax2002

Roadside vehicle tests are back in most areas as an excuse to breath test drivers.
Your Rights : to refuse the breath test : None, so dont get tanked up the night before you drive:
The vehicle tests are carried out by the highways agency and they appear to be finding lots of faults that people are getting fined for at the road side, that mechanics can not later discover, in other words they are generating easy revenue. :eek:
However you have the legal right to REFUSE a roadside vehicle test to avoid the zealously punishment in a private car.
You can DEMAND, not request DEMAND, a Deferred test.
This is where your vehicle must be presented to a MOT station within 14 days and the vehicle inspected and paper work forwarded.
This gives you the opportunity to have your mechanic check the vehicle over prior to the test.
You will have to pay for the test, but you may escape a zealous fine and points on your licence.
They can only roadside test a private car by "consent" or if it has been involved in a collision.
My advice is, opt for the deferred test option.

JimmyTheWig

Can you not appeal against a fault found at the roadside?

vax2002

You can as often it is a fixed penalty notice, however the Agency tend to claim you have fixed the defect after the vehicle left the inspection.
These are really nasty folk at work here, you need to know your rights.

Trebor16

I take it you are talking about VOSA conducting the tests? The police used to issue vehicle defect retification notices. Is this something that VOSA are able to do but choose not to?

You also say this is a way of generating revenue by finding faults that don't exist. Can you provide some examples of this? It's the first I have heard of such a "scam".

Trebor16

On the subject of the breath tests, police can only require you to take them if you have committed a moving traffic offence, have been involved in a road traffic collision or they suspect that you have been drinking. They have no power to demand a random breath test.

vax2002

Yes these are Multi agency operations and VOSA carry out the roadside tests.
My car is having its deferred test this morning and has passed, the other folk stopped all got fixed penalty notices at the road side,
They insist you have no right to a deferred test and the police become all shouty big mouthed.
Stay calm, do not agree to "understand" anything, insist I DEMAND that the vehicle is subjected to a deferred test.
After several threats of arrest, they gave in and gave a request for a deferred test.

JimmyTheWig

Trebor16 wrote: »

or they suspect that you have been drinking.

I was breathalised once because I "took a corner a bit wide" one night on an empty road. They said it fitted the pattern of someone who had been drinking. (I hadn't, obviously!)
My point is the criteria for "suspecting that you have been drinking" is so loose it means they can basically test you when they want to. Why would they bother if they didn't suspect it, anyway!

Trebor16

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I was breathalised once because I "took a corner a bit wide" one night on an empty road. They said it fitted the pattern of someone who had been drinking. (I hadn't, obviously!)
My point is the criteria for "suspecting that you have been drinking" is so loose it means they can basically test you when they want to. Why would they bother if they didn't suspect it, anyway!

I know that it is possible to try that approach in those circumstances but if vehicles are being pulled over for a multi agency stop then the circumstances are different.

rdwarr

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I was breathalised once because I "took a corner a bit wide" one night on an empty road. They said it fitted the pattern of someone who had been drinking. (I hadn't, obviously!)
My point is the criteria for "suspecting that you have been drinking" is so loose it means they can basically test you when they want to. Why would they bother if they didn't suspect it, anyway!

I think you're right. I was once pulled over and brethalysed for "speeding". I was fairly sure I hadn't been speeding but, as my speedo didn't work, I wasn't going to argue the point! Anyway, as the breath test was clear he "let me off" with a warning.

So, although random breath tests are not legal they are in use in all practical terms. Many people would think this is in the public interest anyway.

ariba10

Trebor16 wrote: »

On the subject of the breath tests, police can only require you to take them if you have committed a moving traffic offence, have been involved in a road traffic collision or they suspect that you have been drinking. They have no power to demand a random breath test.

When can the police require a breath test?
Any person who is driving, attempting to drive, or in charge of a motor vehicle on the road, or in a public place (eg a pub car park or a garage forecourt), may be required by the police to provide a breath test, to ascertain whether they are over the prescribed limit of alcohol - 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood).

Trebor16

ariba10 wrote: »

When can the police require a breath test?
Any person who is driving, attempting to drive, or in charge of a motor vehicle on the road, or in a public place (eg a pub car park or a garage forecourt), may be required by the police to provide a breath test, to ascertain whether they are over the prescribed limit of alcohol - 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood).

But they can only do so if the person has committed a moving traffic offence, been involved in a road traffic collision or they suspect the person may have been drinking.