Vehicle tests

ariba10

Trebor_16 wrote: »

or they suspect the person may have been drinking.

"Hello, Hello, Hello. I suspect you have been drinking."

Sirdan

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).

YES that's the first paragraph , you somewhat conviently forgot to add the second paragraph which says this :-

"
The request must be made by a police officer, but note the officer does not have to be in uniform anymore to require a preliminary test (breath test), but he does have to be in uniform to administer it (unless after an accident then the police officer does not have to be in uniform for either the requirement or to administer any of the preliminary tests). The request can only be made if one of the following situations apply :-

the police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that you have committed, or are currently committing a moving traffic offence, or
if, having stopped, an officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the person driving/attempting to drive/in charge of the vehicle has consumed alcohol, or
the police officer has reasonable cause to believe that you were the person driving/attempting to drive/in charge of a motor vehicle which was involved in an accident.

Sirdan

ariba10 wrote: »

"Hello, Hello, Hello. I suspect you have been drinking."

Indeed but that is an observation on police conduct not a point of law.

Although I accept for practical purposes the "reasonable cause" requirement is something of a moot point when dealing with a significant proportion of police officers.

ariba10

You try and beat a Policeman on a point of law, and you had better look to changing your car for one with a different registration number.

Sirdan

ariba10 wrote: »

You try and beat a Policeman on a point of law, and you had better look to changing your car for one with a different registration number.

Possibly, although it can depend on one's own position within the "system".

Wrong,but true.;)

The_Turner

vax2002 wrote: »

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.

Why demand and pay for a deferred test, unless you know there is a defect with your vehicle?

Sirdan

The_Turner wrote: »

Why demand and pay for a deferred test, unless you know there is a defect with your vehicle?

Because you can have the vehicle independently checked prior to the test.

Whereas at the roadside if they say there is a fault , you get a fixed penalty without any independent assessment therefore they could find fault where there is in fact none.

However to strike a balance "independent" garages are perfectly capable of the same, after all some "faults" are subjective.

My vehicle had a fault highlighted on MOT which although not a fail was marked up as in need of attention prior to the next test. (Corrosion on brake pipes)

Two tests later (different garage) and no mention has been made of this "fault" ..odd really when you consider that corrosion is an ongoing process over a period of time ..so six years ago it's a problem but now it isn't ..hmmm ???

I suspect "faults" in the brakes are the most commonly highlighted ones by garages who are being somewhat less than honest.

They will be relying on the owners ignorance and of course fear ...after all who would risk not having faulty brakes seen to ??

HO87

ariba10 wrote: »

You try and beat a Policeman on a point of law, and you had better look to changing your car for one with a different registration number.

I can see that you live close to the DVLA but I thought that (excluding personalised plates) when you changed your car the new ones generally had different registration numbers to their predecessors.

My goodness there's some paranoia on the loose today.

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

I can see that you live close to the DVLA but I thought that (excluding personalised plates) when you changed your car the new ones generally had different registration numbers to their predecessors.

My goodness there's some paranoia on the loose today.

Not really paranoia , just a distinct mistrust of the police ..an ongoing situation which a minority in the police by their (mis) behaviour have inflicted on the majority.

However the idea that the police have the time or resources to single out a particular vehicle for a vendetta is pretty far fetched.
The complete absence of traffic patrols (except maybe on motorways) has significantly contributed to a sharp fall in driving standards IMO.

peter_the_piper

Presumably because although they use the "same" criteria for the test, getting a deferred test done at least saves you from getting a FPN for a minor fault.