Police to check driver's eysight

AdrianC

kmb500 wrote: »

My ability to read text at a long distance has nothing to do with not seeing hazards.

You really are in denial.

besides i've done far worse things than drive dangerously

"Worse" in what way? In terms of threat to the lives of innocent people who happen to be in your vicinity?

Joe_Horner

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Well in answering hjis question you were wrong.

No, i wasn't.

S4 creates a separate offence from S5 and can, in theory, be charged without an alcohol measurement. So - as Car69 rightly said - both offences still exist. It's still on the statute books, ergo it's still an offence.

The fact that one of them is seldom, if ever, used nowadays because of the ease of proving the other doesn't alter that one iota.

Which, if your understanding of the law was a half of what you claim, you'd know.

kmb500

AdrianC wrote: »

You really are in denial.


"Worse" in what way? In terms of threat to the lives of innocent people who happen to be in your vicinity?

just meant in regard to his thread of prison. Not that I am stupid enough to disclose anything I've done on a public forum.

AndyMc.....

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, i wasn't.

S4 creates a separate offence from S5 and can, in theory, be charged without an alcohol measurement. So - as Car69 rightly said - both offences still exist. It's still on the statute books, ergo it's still an offence.

The fact that one of them is seldom, if ever, used nowadays because of the ease of proving the other doesn't alter that one iota.

Which, if your understanding of the law was a half of what you claim, you'd know.

No, what he actually said was.

Car_54 wrote: »

I may well be wrong, but I seem to remember that the introduction of the breathalyser did not supersede the previous legislation, i.e. a person can still be convicted if an officer can persuade the court that he was drunk.

Perhaps Andy can confirm, or otherwise.

I'd hazard a guess he's talking 60 if not earlier RTA which has been rewritten more than once.

AndyMc.....

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Seems to me that the only real problem with this is the question of revoking rather than suspending the licence.

Akaik there's no current system to place a temporary suspension on a licence for this, which leaves those caught having to go through a full re-application process.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of Parliament to create a suspension system which can be lifted with a simple eye test and, if required from that test, receipt of prescription glasses for "first offenders" with revocation kept for subsequent offences.

That would simplify things enormously for those who genuinely didn't realise or who got caught out by a "bad" roadside test, while still leaving scope to deal with those habitual offenders who place vanity ahead of road safety.

It's the same thing unless it's done under the new drivers act.

Mercdriver

kmb500 wrote: »

just meant in regard to his thread of prison. Not that I am stupid enough to disclose anything I've done on a public forum.

Well you are stupid enough to get into a car knowing you have a visual impairment that risks the life of others as well as yourself, and then drive anyway without the prescribed solution. So, who knows?

Norman_Castle

kmb500 wrote: »

no I dont like wearing glasses, am meant to and they do make detailed things (eg text) [eg, everything] clearer but they are uncomfortable, look stupid and they hurt my eyes.

Frames come in different sizes. The wrong size will be uncomfortable.

Glasses don't make you look stupid, they allow you to see how stupid you look

Joe_Horner

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Seems to me that the only real problem with this is the question of revoking rather than suspending the licence.

Akaik there's no current system to place a temporary suspension on a licence for this, which leaves those caught having to go through a full re-application process.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of Parliament to create a suspension system which can be lifted with a simple eye test and, if required from that test, receipt of prescription glasses for "first offenders" with revocation kept for subsequent offences.

That would simplify things enormously for those who genuinely didn't realise or who got caught out by a "bad" roadside test, while still leaving scope to deal with those habitual offenders who place vanity ahead of road safety.

AndyMc..... wrote: »

It's the same thing unless it's done under the new drivers act.

Do you ever place the bits you choose to snipe at in context? Or do you see a sentence you disagree with and jump immediately to "post reply" without ever reading the rest?


Look, to make it easy for you I've placed the context bit in red bold underlined in the quote above.

Clearly, I'm NOT talking about under the current system if I suggest that parliament could create an appropriate system.

Joe_Horner

AndyMc..... wrote: »

No, what he actually said was.



I'd hazard a guess he's talking 60 if not earlier RTA which has been rewritten more than once.

And what he said is actually right.

A person can

still be convicted if an officer can persuade the court that he was drunk.

he would, as I also rightly pointed out, be convicted in such a case under S4 rather than the (admittedly far more common) S5 of the RTA.

The fact that S4 may well never be used for charging ever again because S5 is easier to prove and harder to defend - doesn't change the fact that someone can still be convicted under it if the court can be convinced he was drunk on less alcohol than that required to put him above the legal limit.

My mother would genuinely get drunk on less than half a pint of lager. It was just how alcohol affected her. She'd have the whole giggles, lack or balance, can't walk a straight line bit going before finishing that half pint. My older sister is similar but to a lesser extent, so it may well be genetic.

Were Mum to get in a car after half a pint, she would almost certainly not be over the limit but she would undoubtedly be impaired by alcohol.

If she was stopped, admitted to the half pint (so the fact of alcohol was established), and couldn't come up with a valid other reason why she was giggling uncontrollably, slurring, swaying, and losing her balance like a drunk person in front of the policeman - who she kept referring to as "oshhssssiffferrr (hic!)" then - despite being under the limit - she could (and should) be charged under S4 as being impaired by alcohol.

AndyMc.....

Joe_Horner wrote: »

And what he said is actually right.

A person can



he would, as I also rightly pointed out, be convicted in such a case under S4 rather than the (admittedly far more common) S5 of the RTA.

The fact that S4 may well never be used for charging ever again because S5 is easier to prove and harder to defend - doesn't change the fact that someone can still be convicted under it if the court can be convinced he was drunk on less alcohol than that required to put him above the legal limit.

My mother would genuinely get drunk on less than half a pint of lager. It was just how alcohol affected her. She'd have the whole giggles, lack or balance, can't walk a straight line bit going before finishing that half pint. My older sister is similar but to a lesser extent, so it may well be genetic.

Were Mum to get in a car after half a pint, she would almost certainly not be over the limit but she would undoubtedly be impaired by alcohol.

If she was stopped, admitted to the half pint (so the fact of alcohol was established), and couldn't come up with a valid other reason why she was giggling uncontrollably, slurring, swaying, and losing her balance like a drunk person in front of the policeman - who she kept referring to as "oshhssssiffferrr (hic!)" then - despite being under the limit - she could (and should) be charged under S4 as being impaired by alcohol.

It wouldn't happen.