Instant Ban for Drink or Drugged Driving

[E-bmw]

Puddenchucker said:

Police Chiefs are asking for ability to disqualify drunk or drugged drivers 'at the roadside".

https://news.sky.com/story/officers-should-be-allo...

I'm presuming 'at the roadside' would actually mean after an evidential test at a Police Station.

I would presume "at the roadside" meant exactly that, not "at the police station" personally.

[VSKeith]

vikingaero said:

VSKeith said:

AIUI failure to provide is treated as if a very high reading was given. Miscreant is marked as a high risk offender, has to jump through medical hoops to get their licence back, possible custodial if previous relevant offences etc

The typical penalty for failure to provide for 1st offence is 12 month ban and a fine of 75-125% of weekly income. So as I say, you could be completely bladdered and get away with a minimal ban and fine, which is why I think a harsher penalty is needed.

Ok, so maybe not as black and white as I thought, but it seems there are categories of seriousness depending on associated factors.

https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_sentenc...

According to the above, being visibly bladdered and deliberately refusing would put them in a higher category where the starting point is community order and 17-28 months. No idea how that's applied in the real world. Maybe some with enforcement/legal experience could enlighten us

All refusals mean HRO status and medical exam required to have licence returned.

I'm not saying that punishment shouldn't be harsher but it is taken more seriously than being at the lower end of the scale having given evidential samples

[agtlaw]

Puddenchucker said:

Police Chiefs are asking for ability to disqualify drunk or drugged drivers 'at the roadside".

https://news.sky.com/story/officers-should-be-allo...

I'm presuming 'at the roadside' would actually mean after an evidential test at a Police Station.

What's the thoughts of the PH community? Good, bad, open to abuse / wrongful disqualification?
Challenges and 'Compo claims' after 'Conviction' ?

If there's an appeal procedure then not necessarily a bad idea.

[s p a c e m a n]

markjmd said:

s p a c e m a n said:

Is the roadside test for drug driving just a swab test? What's the actual procedure when you get back to the station?

Pretty sure that will be a blood test, and obviously a far from instant result.

Your car smells of cannabis sir, you're now banned from driving until we receive blood test results

[nutsyH]

Vasco said:

Nothing will physically stop them - but they will be immediately logged so that ANPR picks them up.

Until they change their car, or the registration number. If you live in a rural area or small town, the cops will probably know you as a DD by sight - but in London, or any other large town/city???

[megaphone]

5% of road deaths are alcohol related. I'd rather see the police cracking down on the other 95% of causes.

But, DD is an easy nic, cut and dried, makes good headlines, appeases the hysterical masses whilst they carry on driving badly.

[Vasco]

megaphone said:

5% of road deaths are alcohol related. I'd rather see the police cracking down on the other 95% of causes.

But, DD is an easy nic, cut and dried, makes good headlines, appeases the hysterical masses whilst they carry on driving badly.

How can the police crack down on one of the biggest causes - inattention/distraction ?
At least drink/drugs is a specific that all drivers can avoid.

[megaphone]

Vasco said:

megaphone said:

5% of road deaths are alcohol related. I'd rather see the police cracking down on the other 95% of causes.

But, DD is an easy nic, cut and dried, makes good headlines, appeases the hysterical masses whilst they carry on driving badly.

How can the police crack down on one of the biggest causes - inattention/distraction ?
At least drink/drugs is a specific that all drivers can avoid.

Excessive speed is one of the major factors.

[IJWS15]

Having a PCSO standing incognito at major junctions with a notebook would result in huge numbers of prosecutions for handheld phone use which is one of the major distractions.

No technology needed beyond notebook and pencil.

Don’t know why more forces don’t do it

[bigothunter]

megaphone said:

Vasco said:

megaphone said:

5% of road deaths are alcohol related. I'd rather see the police cracking down on the other 95% of causes.

But, DD is an easy nic, cut and dried, makes good headlines, appeases the hysterical masses whilst they carry on driving badly.

How can the police crack down on one of the biggest causes - inattention/distraction ?

At least drink/drugs is a specific that all drivers can avoid.

Excessive speed is one of the major factors.

Driver inattention/carelessness accounted for 54.8% of fatalities.


https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-...

[megaphone]

bigothunter said:

megaphone said:

Vasco said:

megaphone said:

5% of road deaths are alcohol related. I'd rather see the police cracking down on the other 95% of causes.

But, DD is an easy nic, cut and dried, makes good headlines, appeases the hysterical masses whilst they carry on driving badly.

How can the police crack down on one of the biggest causes - inattention/distraction ?

At least drink/drugs is a specific that all drivers can avoid.

Excessive speed is one of the major factors.

Driver inattention/carelessness accounted for 54.8% of fatalities.


https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-...

Yes, DD is only 10% on that chart, speed and bad driving is far worse.

[Stick Legs]

croyde said:

The stink of weed coming from cars as I ride my motorbike to and from work in London shows that nothing is being done about it anyway.

The smell of failure.

Usually a ratty VW with a rear wiper deleted.

[119]

Gets my vote.

[Nibbles_bits]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Time4another said:

croyde said:

The stink of weed coming from cars as I ride my motorbike to and from work in London shows that nothing is being done about it anyway.

One of the first things I noticed when I started riding. It's rife.

No mercy for drink drivers but always found it odd that if your arrested while drunk you are kept in the cells for your own safety as your too drunk to make good judgements. They can't interview you cause your drunk. Yet if you decide to drink drive or refuse to give a sample, that decision is seen as your clear choice and isn't clouded by the fact your steaming.

Your tested and kicked straight out again. Unless there's a question mark over whether you were driving or not - then it's interview.

Not in my Force.

You can't be charged/bailed if you're intoxicated.
No different if you're arrested for being Drunk and Disorderly.

Blow over or refuse at the station, you're staying in Custody until the Duty Sergeant feels you're fit to be charged/bailed.

The same for drug driving. You aren't being released immediately after giving/refusing bloods. The Duty Sergeant is waiting until you're fit before being bailed.

[LosingGrip]

markjmd said:

Pretty sure that will be a blood test, and obviously a far from instant result.

I'm waiting for blood results from an arrest in September...

I believe Oz Police do something similar for drink driving.

I'd like to see roadside evidential breath tests in the UK.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Nibbles_bits said:

Not in my Force.

You can't be charged/bailed if you're intoxicated.
No different if you're arrested for being Drunk and Disorderly.

Blow over or refuse at the station, you're staying in Custody until the Duty Sergeant feels you're fit to be charged/bailed.

The same for drug driving. You aren't being released immediately after giving/refusing bloods. The Duty Sergeant is waiting until you're fit before being bailed.

Are you sure that's not incase you may drive, potential to drive if released? A custody Sergeant may hold you until they feel you can be?

[768]

IJWS15 said:

These people have a disregard for the law and the safety of others.

Yeah. I'd rather they let the courts do their thing too rather than being judge, jury and executioner.

IJWS15 said:

Can someone explain how an instant ban would actually stop them driving?

Oh.

[jules_s]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Not in my Force.

You can't be charged/bailed if you're intoxicated.
No different if you're arrested for being Drunk and Disorderly.

Blow over or refuse at the station, you're staying in Custody until the Duty Sergeant feels you're fit to be charged/bailed.

The same for drug driving. You aren't being released immediately after giving/refusing bloods. The Duty Sergeant is waiting until you're fit before being bailed.

Are you sure that's not incase you may drive, potential to drive if released? A custody Sergeant may hold you until they feel you can be?

In my case (yes I got caught DD - young/stupid/just over) I was held in custody until I blew under on the station machine.

Banned 5 days later.

Did the course - never DD again (literally)

[Ezra]

vikingaero said:

The typical penalty for failure to provide for 1st offence is 12 month ban and a fine of 75-125% of weekly income. So as I say, you could be completely bladdered and get away with a minimal ban and fine, which is why I think a harsher penalty is needed.

The MINIMUM penalty for failure to provide 1st offence is 12 mth ban plus a fine of 125-175% of income.

In cases where there's a deliberate refusal and high level of impairment (which tbh is most), the starting point is 12 weeks custody plus a ban of >2yrs.

That's the same as someone who did actually blow at the very highest levels.

So, someone completely bladdered who refuses to give a sample wouldn't get away with a minimum ban and fine.

[Pit Pony]

croyde said:

The stink of weed coming from cars as I ride my motorbike to and from work in London shows that nothing is being done about it anyway.

Merseyside police have been having a crackdown

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-680...