Unhappy with police action following road traffic collision

bod1467

I think arcon5 was commenting that the police response should have been worded differently if there was proof of being under the limit.

AdrianC

irishboy wrote: »

What I don't understand is if there is no suspicion of impairment then why breathalyse in the first place?

So they suspected you were impaired through alcohol, too?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

FWIW, some police forces may breathalyse as a matter of policy. I got breathalysed on the M5 when stopped by the police, blew zero (as I expected), and the policeman told me that as policy they breathalysed everyone they stopped.

Given that there has been an accident, it may well be policy to breathalyse those involved. It sort of makes sense, to have a serious accident points to some sort of impairment of judgement on at least one of those involved.

Herzlos

It's standard policy here to breathalyse all drives involved in an accident, suspicion or not.

Astronaughtwannabe

Herzlos wrote: »

It's standard policy here to breathalyse all drives involved in an accident, suspicion or not.

It's been 'standard policy' all over since time immemorial but doesn't always happen, particularly in hospitals. Having suspicion that a driver may be in drink is far more likely to see that a specimen is provided in one form or another.


The OP was tested, the other driver was last heard obfuscating but at that point he was wheeled away. In all probability, the other driver gave a negative test shortly after.

MEM62

irishboy wrote: »

No. What I don't understand is if there is no suspicion of impairment then why breathalyse in the first place?

Because breathalyser tests are standard procedure for any driver involved in an accident.
I appreciate that you have been involved in an accident that you believe was not your fault and that you feel the emotional need for some redress - in this case by ensuring that the other driver in punished as heavily as possible. Just let the Police do their job and concentrate on you own recovery.

irishboy

The other party did not provide any type of sample in the end. That's the sticking point especially when they admitted to having alcohol the night before. Is that not grounds for suspicion of impairment?
Irrespective As astronaughtwanabee said the reason suspicion could have arisen (on both parts) as a collision occurred.
Mem62- I think your right to a certain extent. It's not the case that I want them to be punished as severely as possible it's more the fact that in my opinion, the police maybe didn't do their job as effectively as possible, and as such I'll never know if they were over the limit or not.
My other half is a police officer and neither she or her sgt can understand why a sample wasn't obtained.

bod1467

irishboy wrote: »

The other party did not provide any type of sample in the end.

How do you know that for a fact?

irishboy

Bod- I know this as the investigating officer told me when he contacted me yesterday.

Astronaughtwannabe

In which case the officer should be able to justify his decision making process....