Random breath tests planned for motorists
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...
Random breath tests planned for motorists
By David Millward, Transport Editor
Last Updated: 6:29am GMT 21/01/2008
Motorists face being subjected to random breath-testing as part of the biggest shake-up of drink-drive laws since the introduction of the breathalyser 40 years ago, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Ministers are convinced that tougher enforcement is the key to cutting the number of alcohol-related road deaths. Their plans for random testing will be unveiled within weeks.
Under the new proposals a random checkpoint could be set up for up to 24 hours by a senior police officer
Police can currently carry out a breath test only if a motorist has been driving erratically, been involved in an accident or committed another offence while driving, such as having a faulty tail light or speeding.
The proposed changes would allow breath tests to be carried out at any time, with roadside checkpoints being set up at points where police were confident they could catch lawbreakers.
Ministers have previously rejected random breath-testing but it is understood that there was a change of heart when the results of the latest Christmas campaign against drink-driving were revealed.
These showed that while the number of tests carried out in England and Wales rose six per cent, the number of drivers who failed fell to 7,800 - down from 9,700 in 2006.
Ministers believe that the results prove that increasing the number of tests acts as a deterrent.
There is also concern that a new generation of motorists has little or no memory of the hard-hitting advertising campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s that effectively made drink-driving socially unacceptable.
According to Department for Transport figures, drink-driving among teenagers has risen by more than a quarter, with 1,050 involved in drink-drive accidents in 2005 compared with 810 a decade ago.
Under the new proposals a checkpoint could be set up for a maximum of 24 hours by a senior police officer - of inspector rank or above - anywhere there was a reasonable belief that drink- or drug-impaired driving may occur.
It could be left in place for a further 24 hours on the authority of a superintendent.
But the proposals - which will be detailed in a consultation document - have been criticised by John Spellar, a former Labour transport minister, and some drivers' groups as a further infringement on law-abiding motorists.
"Yet again they are straining the tolerance of the British public, when they should be focusing on the minority who are grossly over the limit and causing mayhem," he said.
"This system has been working well for many years and has left us with one of the best safety records in Europe.
"There is a serious danger this will erode the confidence of the public in the police and create ill will."
A spokesman for the Association of British Drivers said: "It seems like an infringement of people's liberty.
"It is as if our freedom of movement is being withdrawn. We would need to be convinced that it would save lives."
A spokesman for Brake, the road safety charity, welcomed the plan but said it did not go far enough.
"Random testing of drivers is long overdue," he said. "These proposals are a step in the right direction but to have greater impact all levels of police officer should have the power to test anyone, at any time.
"Only if the Government combines random testing with increased year-round enforcement and a lower drink-drive limit will we see a drastic reduction in the devastating numbers of people killed and injured in drink- and drug-driving offences."
The number of drink-driving related deaths on the roads has remained relatively stable for the past decade. There were 540 in 1997. In 2004, the figure was 580. By 2006 it was back down to 540.
No decision has been taken on whether to reduce the drink-drive limit from 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams, which would bring Britain into line with most other European countries.
Some police forces have already found ways of effectively carrying out random breath tests, such as by stopping motorists to warn them of a hazardous stretch of road and then breath-testing when they smell alcohol.
Sheila Granger, the RAC campaigns manager, said random testing would "formalise" a situation that already effectively existed in some areas and the motoring organisation would not oppose it.
Robert Gifford, the director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which drew up the proposals for random testing, said: "This will send a message to road users that ministers are taking the issue of drink-driving seriously."
Random breath tests planned for motorists
By David Millward, Transport Editor
Last Updated: 6:29am GMT 21/01/2008
Motorists face being subjected to random breath-testing as part of the biggest shake-up of drink-drive laws since the introduction of the breathalyser 40 years ago, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Ministers are convinced that tougher enforcement is the key to cutting the number of alcohol-related road deaths. Their plans for random testing will be unveiled within weeks.
Under the new proposals a random checkpoint could be set up for up to 24 hours by a senior police officer
Police can currently carry out a breath test only if a motorist has been driving erratically, been involved in an accident or committed another offence while driving, such as having a faulty tail light or speeding.
The proposed changes would allow breath tests to be carried out at any time, with roadside checkpoints being set up at points where police were confident they could catch lawbreakers.
Ministers have previously rejected random breath-testing but it is understood that there was a change of heart when the results of the latest Christmas campaign against drink-driving were revealed.
These showed that while the number of tests carried out in England and Wales rose six per cent, the number of drivers who failed fell to 7,800 - down from 9,700 in 2006.
Ministers believe that the results prove that increasing the number of tests acts as a deterrent.
There is also concern that a new generation of motorists has little or no memory of the hard-hitting advertising campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s that effectively made drink-driving socially unacceptable.
According to Department for Transport figures, drink-driving among teenagers has risen by more than a quarter, with 1,050 involved in drink-drive accidents in 2005 compared with 810 a decade ago.
Under the new proposals a checkpoint could be set up for a maximum of 24 hours by a senior police officer - of inspector rank or above - anywhere there was a reasonable belief that drink- or drug-impaired driving may occur.
It could be left in place for a further 24 hours on the authority of a superintendent.
But the proposals - which will be detailed in a consultation document - have been criticised by John Spellar, a former Labour transport minister, and some drivers' groups as a further infringement on law-abiding motorists.
"Yet again they are straining the tolerance of the British public, when they should be focusing on the minority who are grossly over the limit and causing mayhem," he said.
"This system has been working well for many years and has left us with one of the best safety records in Europe.
"There is a serious danger this will erode the confidence of the public in the police and create ill will."
A spokesman for the Association of British Drivers said: "It seems like an infringement of people's liberty.
"It is as if our freedom of movement is being withdrawn. We would need to be convinced that it would save lives."
A spokesman for Brake, the road safety charity, welcomed the plan but said it did not go far enough.
"Random testing of drivers is long overdue," he said. "These proposals are a step in the right direction but to have greater impact all levels of police officer should have the power to test anyone, at any time.
"Only if the Government combines random testing with increased year-round enforcement and a lower drink-drive limit will we see a drastic reduction in the devastating numbers of people killed and injured in drink- and drug-driving offences."
The number of drink-driving related deaths on the roads has remained relatively stable for the past decade. There were 540 in 1997. In 2004, the figure was 580. By 2006 it was back down to 540.
No decision has been taken on whether to reduce the drink-drive limit from 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams, which would bring Britain into line with most other European countries.
Some police forces have already found ways of effectively carrying out random breath tests, such as by stopping motorists to warn them of a hazardous stretch of road and then breath-testing when they smell alcohol.
Sheila Granger, the RAC campaigns manager, said random testing would "formalise" a situation that already effectively existed in some areas and the motoring organisation would not oppose it.
Robert Gifford, the director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which drew up the proposals for random testing, said: "This will send a message to road users that ministers are taking the issue of drink-driving seriously."
Colonial said:
Random Breath Tests by the side of the road are something I cannot fathom opposing in any way shape or form.
We have them here, and it is really not a drama. And unlike a spirited drive along a quiet rural road, there can be no justification for drink driving.
We have them here, and it is really not a drama. And unlike a spirited drive along a quiet rural road, there can be no justification for drink driving.
Agreed, can only be a good thing.The only problem that I can see with this is that, errr, who is going to do it? In order to be effective there must be a good chance of getting stopped and that requires a large, visible police presence. If there is little likelihood of being stopped then there is little likelihood of being breathalysed.
Other than that, bring it on!
Other than that, bring it on!
John Spellar said:
"Yet again they are straining the tolerance of the British public, when they should be focusing on the minority who are grossly over the limit and causing mayhem," he said.
WTF? So drink driving is OK, as long you're not grossly over the limit?IMO the police should do targeted random breath testing, e.g. outside/nearby pubs.
Drink driving here in Ireland is a huge problem, particularly in rural areas where there are many fatal SVAs late at night. The police rarely release details of whether the corpse was over the limit (maybe out of respect, or because they don't do blood alcohol tests on dead drivers?). Crazy stuff.
John
OK. I do not condone drinking and driving. But nor do I want "random" breath testing. I prefer breath testing when there is a reasonable cause to require a driver to provide a breath sample.
My reasoning is its prefectly reasonable to watch a pub at closing time and see if people are getting into cars and driving off. By all means stop one or two and check they've been on the orange juice.
What I do not want is roadblocks causing miles-long tailbacks at sodding rush-hour as "random" testing is carried out on a big queue of drivers whilst I am trying to get to work.
Once you allow "random" rather than "with reasonable cause" that is what will happen. I don't want the jams. And I doubt it would catch enough to be worth it.
My reasoning is its prefectly reasonable to watch a pub at closing time and see if people are getting into cars and driving off. By all means stop one or two and check they've been on the orange juice.
What I do not want is roadblocks causing miles-long tailbacks at sodding rush-hour as "random" testing is carried out on a big queue of drivers whilst I am trying to get to work.
Once you allow "random" rather than "with reasonable cause" that is what will happen. I don't want the jams. And I doubt it would catch enough to be worth it.
Don said:
OK. I do not condone drinking and driving. But nor do I want "random" breath testing. I prefer breath testing when there is a reasonable cause to require a driver to provide a breath sample.
My reasoning is its prefectly reasonable to watch a pub at closing time and see if people are getting into cars and driving off. By all means stop one or two and check they've been on the orange juice.
What I do not want is roadblocks causing miles-long tailbacks at sodding rush-hour as "random" testing is carried out on a big queue of drivers whilst I am trying to get to work.
Once you allow "random" rather than "with reasonable cause" that is what will happen. I don't want the jams. And I doubt it would catch enough to be worth it.
just as long as you're not inconvenienced eh ?My reasoning is its prefectly reasonable to watch a pub at closing time and see if people are getting into cars and driving off. By all means stop one or two and check they've been on the orange juice.
What I do not want is roadblocks causing miles-long tailbacks at sodding rush-hour as "random" testing is carried out on a big queue of drivers whilst I am trying to get to work.
Once you allow "random" rather than "with reasonable cause" that is what will happen. I don't want the jams. And I doubt it would catch enough to be worth it.
Fittster said:
Can't say I'm in favour of the police having these sort of powers. Why not random stop and searches or the ability or random house searches?
Another example of the growing power of the state.
Just because you think you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not all out to get you !Another example of the growing power of the state.
I only ever got stopped on a Friday and Saturday night, from about 9.30 on
Never seen one during peak hour, never been delayed for more than 5 minutes, and that was only because of a drunk driver delaying things.
Once again, apart from loony tunes conspiracy nuts, any viable reason for not having them?
Never seen one during peak hour, never been delayed for more than 5 minutes, and that was only because of a drunk driver delaying things.
Once again, apart from loony tunes conspiracy nuts, any viable reason for not having them?
Colonial said:
I only ever got stopped on a Friday and Saturday night, from about 9.30 on
That would change/Colonial said:
Never seen one during peak hour, never been delayed for more than 5 minutes, and that was only because of a drunk driver delaying things.
Because there has to be "reasonable cause". In rush hour there isn't. That's why you haven't seen one. Once it can be completely random, then you will.Colonial said:
Once again, apart from loony tunes conspiracy nuts, any viable reason for not having them?
And they would catch people.
Of course they would. The partygoers who had too much the night before. The issue, for me, is whether or not it's worth it. It might be. It might not. There are other things we could be doing with Trafpol's time. I'm not sure "random" stops are necessarily the right thing.
Could seriously hurt the mouthwash industry. Funky Teapot said:
Don said:
OK. I do not condone drinking and driving. But nor do I want "random" breath testing. I prefer breath testing when there is a reasonable cause to require a driver to provide a breath sample.
My reasoning is its prefectly reasonable to watch a pub at closing time and see if people are getting into cars and driving off. By all means stop one or two and check they've been on the orange juice.
What I do not want is roadblocks causing miles-long tailbacks at sodding rush-hour as "random" testing is carried out on a big queue of drivers whilst I am trying to get to work.
Once you allow "random" rather than "with reasonable cause" that is what will happen. I don't want the jams. And I doubt it would catch enough to be worth it.
just as long as you're not inconvenienced eh ?My reasoning is its prefectly reasonable to watch a pub at closing time and see if people are getting into cars and driving off. By all means stop one or two and check they've been on the orange juice.
What I do not want is roadblocks causing miles-long tailbacks at sodding rush-hour as "random" testing is carried out on a big queue of drivers whilst I am trying to get to work.
Once you allow "random" rather than "with reasonable cause" that is what will happen. I don't want the jams. And I doubt it would catch enough to be worth it.
Imagine being stopped on the way to work
and no I am not leaving 10 minutes earlier.Surely the issue is that the current laws are not being implemented, due to a lack of Police resources, so the idea of amending the law is a complete waste of time that will do nothing to help reduce road casualties? This is more politically motivated headline grabbing, and has nothing to do with real world policing or reducing the number of drink drivers and road casualties.
Don said:
OK. I do not condone drinking and driving. But nor do I want "random" breath testing. I prefer breath testing when there is a reasonable cause to require a driver to provide a breath sample.
My reasoning is its prefectly reasonable to watch a pub at closing time and see if people are getting into cars and driving off. By all means stop one or two and check they've been on the orange juice.
What I do not want is roadblocks causing miles-long tailbacks at sodding rush-hour as "random" testing is carried out on a big queue of drivers whilst I am trying to get to work.
Once you allow "random" rather than "with reasonable cause" that is what will happen. I don't want the jams. And I doubt it would catch enough to be worth it.
We can't do that at the moment. I agree it would be good if we could, in a similar fashion to stopping drivers at will to check documents.My reasoning is its prefectly reasonable to watch a pub at closing time and see if people are getting into cars and driving off. By all means stop one or two and check they've been on the orange juice.
What I do not want is roadblocks causing miles-long tailbacks at sodding rush-hour as "random" testing is carried out on a big queue of drivers whilst I am trying to get to work.
Once you allow "random" rather than "with reasonable cause" that is what will happen. I don't want the jams. And I doubt it would catch enough to be worth it.
JulianHJ said:
Don said:
OK. I do not condone drinking and driving. But nor do I want "random" breath testing. I prefer breath testing when there is a reasonable cause to require a driver to provide a breath sample.
My reasoning is its prefectly reasonable to watch a pub at closing time and see if people are getting into cars and driving off. By all means stop one or two and check they've been on the orange juice.
What I do not want is roadblocks causing miles-long tailbacks at sodding rush-hour as "random" testing is carried out on a big queue of drivers whilst I am trying to get to work.
Once you allow "random" rather than "with reasonable cause" that is what will happen. I don't want the jams. And I doubt it would catch enough to be worth it.
We can't do that at the moment. I agree it would be good if we could, in a similar fashion to stopping drivers at will to check documents.My reasoning is its prefectly reasonable to watch a pub at closing time and see if people are getting into cars and driving off. By all means stop one or two and check they've been on the orange juice.
What I do not want is roadblocks causing miles-long tailbacks at sodding rush-hour as "random" testing is carried out on a big queue of drivers whilst I am trying to get to work.
Once you allow "random" rather than "with reasonable cause" that is what will happen. I don't want the jams. And I doubt it would catch enough to be worth it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff