HADECS 3 cameras on the M25
Discussion
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
The point about drink driving & other offences is there may be fewer collisions where they are a contributory factor than 'failing to look properly' too. The point about drink drive & other offences is that they aren't ignored because they are a contributory factor in fewer collisions than 'failing to look properly' either.
The reality is about half a million breath tests & 50,000 or more convicted each year for drink drive offences.
How many of that half a million and subsequent 50000 are a result of routine tests carried out after an accident or criminal act or anpr generated stop, as opposed to any genuine attempt to address drink-driving directly?The reality is about half a million breath tests & 50,000 or more convicted each year for drink drive offences.
As a rule any vehicle stops where drink/drive is suspected it's going to result in a breath test.
Drink drive isn't as popular as it was 30-40 years ago & that naturally will mean less people breath tested or arrested for it.
The real irony here is the drunk, doped up waster driving home from the pub in his beat up s
tt@r (thankfully for him with MOT and tax, although it may not have mattered) with bald tyres struggling to drive in a straight line and in a mood to give his Mrs a slap before bedtime who gets a letter 10 days later offering him a place on a Speed Awareness Course for 35 in a 30.
That showed him. He learnt his lesson. Next time he'll slow down for the camera.
tt@r (thankfully for him with MOT and tax, although it may not have mattered) with bald tyres struggling to drive in a straight line and in a mood to give his Mrs a slap before bedtime who gets a letter 10 days later offering him a place on a Speed Awareness Course for 35 in a 30.That showed him. He learnt his lesson. Next time he'll slow down for the camera.
cmaguire said:
The real irony here is the drunk, doped up waster driving home from the pub in his beat up stt@r (thankfully for him with MOT and tax, although it may not have mattered) with bald tyres struggling to drive in a straight line and in a mood to give his Mrs a slap before bedtime who gets a letter 10 days later offering him a place on a Speed Awareness Course for 35 in a 30.
That showed him. He learnt his lesson. Next time he'll slow down for the camera.
That's not the fault of cameras, cameras can only do what is within their design/remit.tt@r (thankfully for him with MOT and tax, although it may not have mattered) with bald tyres struggling to drive in a straight line and in a mood to give his Mrs a slap before bedtime who gets a letter 10 days later offering him a place on a Speed Awareness Course for 35 in a 30.That showed him. He learnt his lesson. Next time he'll slow down for the camera.
vonhosen said:
You can go & look up the stats yourself, point is that it isn't ignored.
As a rule any vehicle stops where drink/drive is suspected it's going to result in a breath test.
Drink drive isn't as popular as it was 30-40 years ago & that naturally will mean less people breath tested or arrested for it.
To use routine tests made as a result of unrelated stops to argue that drink-driving isn't ignored is nonsense. They might as well carry out eye tests at the same time, or perhaps they could check for outstanding child support for the CSA (or whatever it's called now)As a rule any vehicle stops where drink/drive is suspected it's going to result in a breath test.
Drink drive isn't as popular as it was 30-40 years ago & that naturally will mean less people breath tested or arrested for it.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
You can go & look up the stats yourself, point is that it isn't ignored.
As a rule any vehicle stops where drink/drive is suspected it's going to result in a breath test.
Drink drive isn't as popular as it was 30-40 years ago & that naturally will mean less people breath tested or arrested for it.
To use routine tests made as a result of unrelated stops to argue that drink-driving isn't ignored is nonsense. They might as well carry out eye tests at the same time, or perhaps they could check for outstanding child support for the CSA (or whatever it's called now)As a rule any vehicle stops where drink/drive is suspected it's going to result in a breath test.
Drink drive isn't as popular as it was 30-40 years ago & that naturally will mean less people breath tested or arrested for it.
You can't go on fishing trips, so breath tests are legislated to only be carried out following some evidence of the problem.
Point is that where they can legally be carried out they are.
vonhosen said:
Because i've witnessed the cultural change over that time & dealt with it.
Even if I were to accept from you what would be called anecdotal by numerous others on here when it suits, simple black and white drink-driving has been superceded now by the umbrella 'unfit to drive' as drugs (illegal and prescribed) probably account for more offences than drink (and may well have 30-40 years ago also).How proactive are the authorities on that front either? Next to bugg@r all.
vonhosen said:
You can only give a breath test where a) following collision OR b) other moving traffic offence committed OR c) intoxicating liquor suspected.
You can't go on fishing trips, so breath tests are legislated to only be carried out following some evidence of the problem.
Point is that where they can legally be carried out they are.
That never seemed to stop Plod pulling me over 25 years ago, for routine checks. Or did that stop when too many ethnics started moaning about being stopped and political correctness took over?You can't go on fishing trips, so breath tests are legislated to only be carried out following some evidence of the problem.
Point is that where they can legally be carried out they are.
Either way, if they took the issue seriously you might think the authorities would have legislation in place to account for that.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Because i've witnessed the cultural change over that time & dealt with it.
Even if I were to accept from you what would be called anecdotal by numerous others on here when it suits, simple black and white drink-driving has been superceded now by the umbrella 'unfit to drive' as drugs (illegal and prescribed) probably account for more offences than drink (and may well have 30-40 years ago also).How proactive are the authorities on that front either? Next to bugg@r all.
Not an umbrella, different offences.
Field impairment tests have been introduced, we didn't use to have those, so that's more proactive.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
You can only give a breath test where a) following collision OR b) other moving traffic offence committed OR c) intoxicating liquor suspected.
You can't go on fishing trips, so breath tests are legislated to only be carried out following some evidence of the problem.
Point is that where they can legally be carried out they are.
That never seemed to stop Plod pulling me over 25 years ago, for routine checks. Or did that stop when too many ethnics started moaning about being stopped and political correctness took over?You can't go on fishing trips, so breath tests are legislated to only be carried out following some evidence of the problem.
Point is that where they can legally be carried out they are.
Either way, if they took the issue seriously you might think the authorities would have legislation in place to account for that.
vonhosen said:
Excess alco, unfit through drink, unfit through drugs, in charge, are not new.
Not an umbrella, different offences.
Field impairment tests have been introduced, we didn't use to have those, so that's more proactive.
They might exist, but their use is insignificant when compared to the application of speed enforcement. Not an umbrella, different offences.
Field impairment tests have been introduced, we didn't use to have those, so that's more proactive.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Excess alco, unfit through drink, unfit through drugs, in charge, are not new.
Not an umbrella, different offences.
Field impairment tests have been introduced, we didn't use to have those, so that's more proactive.
They might exist, but their use is insignificant when compared to the application of speed enforcement. Not an umbrella, different offences.
Field impairment tests have been introduced, we didn't use to have those, so that's more proactive.
How many times have you driven with excess alco this year?
How many times have you exceeded the speed limit this year?
Drink drive has to be dealt with by a Police stop, speeding doesn't.
It's quite natural in those circumstances that it will result in more speed enforcement/detections/convictions.
vonhosen said:
They can stop you to check your licence etc, but they can't breath test you unless one of those three applies. That's nothing new.
So why aren't countless people being stopped to check their licences in order to carry out the checks they really want to make? Assuming they do of course. Want to stop drink and drugs.cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
They can stop you to check your licence etc, but they can't breath test you unless one of those three applies. That's nothing new.
So why aren't countless people being stopped to check their licences in order to carry out the checks they really want to make? Assuming they do of course. Want to stop drink and drugs.They'll stop people where there is evidence of offending or leads them to believe the driver may be excess/unfit through alco/drugs.
vonhosen said:
Because they aren't fishing, they are using the legislation correctly.
They'll stop people where there is evidence of offending or leads them to believe the driver may be excess/unfit through alco/drugs.
And historically legislation will be changed or amended if political will exists.They'll stop people where there is evidence of offending or leads them to believe the driver may be excess/unfit through alco/drugs.
It obviously doesn't.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Because they aren't fishing, they are using the legislation correctly.
They'll stop people where there is evidence of offending or leads them to believe the driver may be excess/unfit through alco/drugs.
And historically legislation will be changed or amended if political will exists.They'll stop people where there is evidence of offending or leads them to believe the driver may be excess/unfit through alco/drugs.
It obviously doesn't.
As I said drink drive isn't the problem it was & the current powers are adequate to deal with it.
The Police already have the powers they need to deal with it where they encounter or suspect it, random breath testing offers nothing really.
If they have stopped a driver they already have the powers they need to breath test where necessary.
vonhosen said:
There are far more speeders than drink drivers.
How many times have you driven with excess alco this year?
How many times have you exceeded the speed limit this year?
Drink drive has to be dealt with by a Police stop, speeding doesn't.
It's quite natural in those circumstances that it will result in more speed enforcement/detections/convictions.
This isn't about me though, is it? You are fully aware that I am habitually breaking non-urban limits. Once upon a time I also drove or rode regularly over the limit. The reason I don't now is down to circumstance, certainly not through fear of being caught. How many times have you driven with excess alco this year?
How many times have you exceeded the speed limit this year?
Drink drive has to be dealt with by a Police stop, speeding doesn't.
It's quite natural in those circumstances that it will result in more speed enforcement/detections/convictions.
Although I will readily acknowledge that alcohol (or drugs) are far more detrimental to driving on the whole than speeding.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
There are far more speeders than drink drivers.
How many times have you driven with excess alco this year?
How many times have you exceeded the speed limit this year?
Drink drive has to be dealt with by a Police stop, speeding doesn't.
It's quite natural in those circumstances that it will result in more speed enforcement/detections/convictions.
This isn't about me though, is it? You are fully aware that I am habitually breaking non-urban limits. Once upon a time I also drove or rode regularly over the limit. The reason I don't now is down to circumstance, certainly not through fear of being caught. How many times have you driven with excess alco this year?
How many times have you exceeded the speed limit this year?
Drink drive has to be dealt with by a Police stop, speeding doesn't.
It's quite natural in those circumstances that it will result in more speed enforcement/detections/convictions.
Although I will readily acknowledge that alcohol (or drugs) are far more detrimental to driving on the whole than speeding.
There are far more speeding events than drink drive events. Drink drive is far less socially acceptable than it was decades ago.
vonhosen said:
As I said drink drive isn't the problem it was & the current powers are adequate to deal with it.
They absolutely aren't.I could drive to the pub every night and have 7 (lucky number) or more pints. The only way I get grief is if I'm grassed up and the Police bother to respond, or if I crash and the same applies.
I don't do the pub now but plenty do. How worried are they likely to be about that 5 or 10 minute trip home?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff