Unhappy with police action following road traffic collision

irishboy

Hi

Without rambling on too much. I was involved in a road traffic collision 10 days ago. I was breathalised at scene before being taken to hospital. Whilst there I happened to be put in a cubicle next to the other driver. The police attended to breathalise them. I heard the officer go through all the legalities and ask " when was the last time you had an alcoholic drink" to which they replied "last night" (this was now 08:30) the officer then confirmed with the doctor that there was no medical reason that they were unable to provide a specimen of breath. After the first attempt I heard the officer say "you're sucking,not blowing". After the second he said " you're not putting the tube far enough into your mouth. It's my opinion that you're doing failing to do this properly on purpose". They obviously tried again as I then heard him say" that's it. You've had 3 chances". I was then wheeled away to another area.
Over the last 10 days I have not heard anything from the Police regarding the incident despite me trying to contact the traffic department on numerous occasions... Until today.
Today I was told that the other driver had been charged with careless driving and that a report would be submitted. I asked what the other drivers account Of the incident was and was told "they say that they can't remember but they were putting it on". However when I asked about the failing to provide a breath sample I was told that no further action was taken as there was no suspicion that they were impaired. Surely this can't be right? Not that it matters but it was a serious accident that resulted in serious injuries to both parties. It is very fortunate there were no fatalities. Now I understand that people have accidents however on this occasion someone was directly responsible for the collision and whilst I have no wish to add insult to injury, I feel that they should be held accountable and the probable outcome of a fixed penalty ticket really doesn't seem adequate.

Astronaughtwannabe

So you want the charge to reflect the severity of injury regardless of the causation?

irishboy

No. What I don't understand is if there is no suspicion of impairment then why breathalyse in the first place? Surely if you commit to carrying out a procedure then you must see it through to the end. As far as I'm aware, failing to provide a sample of breath for analysis carries the same penalty for being over the limit. In this case that penalty would probably be more severe than the most likely outcome. The reason I mentioned the injuries is to signify that this was more than just a "bump". Even if there had been none I would still feel somewhat dismayed.

Astronaughtwannabe

The collision per se could be the officer's suspicion. Breath tests are routine after a collision. You've no idea what happened after you were wheeled away. Many 'customers' who play up suddenly decide that they will after they are subsequently warned that they'll be arrested for failing to provide.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Serious incidents can occur as much from a lack of attention as they do from dangerous driving. The outcome to the occupants can be bewildering, or put another way, a matter of luck.

ado

Maybe the PC used common sense like I often do and a) accepted what the driver said, b) couldn't smell alcohol, c)the driver was charged with another offence.

irishboy

I agree with you. I'm not suggesting that the collision occurred due to a specific reason. What I don't understand is as a police officer, if you decide to breathalyse someone surely you must carry out that procedure to the end. Ie) if the person refuses or fails to provide a breath sample then blood or urine must be taken. If the person refuses to let that happen then it's an offence. At the time, before attempting to carry out the breath test he did warn them that failing to provide could result in them being arrested. Until today, I didn't know if that had happened or not.
If I was was a police officer and pulled you over for driving erratically early one morning, and you told me you were drinking the night before, I would breathalise you. If you failed to provide a sample of breath I wouldn't just say "ok then...off you go".
I'm not "going" anywhere with it. What's happened has happened. I'm just saying that I have been left feeling disappointed with the way it has been dealt with. I suppose I've entered the "angry" phase. I could accept what has happened if it was the result of an "accident", I don't doubt that didn't set out to cause a collision, but I find it more difficult to accept if that person had got into their car that morning under the influence of alcohol. And ultimately now I'll never know. That's all.

I've attended lots of serious and fatal accidents and yes it's amazing how sometimes the outcome doesn't reflect the damage an vice versa.

Ado- I get that. But surely if someone admits to drinking the night before and this is an early morning collision, if you want a breath sample you don't just shrug it off when you don't get one...especially when the legal limit has been reduced.

pendragon_arther

I always thought that if a driver didn't or couldn't provide a breath test they had to give a blood sample.

photome

pendragon_arther wrote: »

I always thought that if a driver didn't or couldn't provide a breath test they had to give a blood sample.

How does the OP know that he didnt, or provide a proper breath sample

arcon5

Had they got the specimin i'm sure their response wouldn't have been "there was no suspicion that they were impaired". Keyword = suspicion.

Astronaughtwannabe

photome wrote: »

How does the OP know that he didnt, or provide a proper breath sample

I would guess that the driver provided in the end and was UPL.

Astronaughtwannabe

arcon5 wrote: »

Had they got the specimin i'm sure their response wouldn't have been "there was no suspicion that they were impaired". Keyword = suspicion.

Maybe because even if he provided a negative sample he could still have been suspected of being under the influence - however, he wasn't.