Random Breath Tests?
Discussion
Ive just seen yet another article on the Tv about whether or not we should have 'Random' Breath Tests.
These are 'apparently' opposed by Civil Rights groups etc etc but in reality this is what we already have!
As long as you are Driving a Vehicle the Police can stop you, so whats different?
These are 'apparently' opposed by Civil Rights groups etc etc but in reality this is what we already have!
As long as you are Driving a Vehicle the Police can stop you, so whats different?
some opinions in GG : www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=101181&f=23&h=0
I heard some coverage on this earlier on today. Apparently drink driving has been on the increase since 1998, about the time of the rise of the 'safety camera' and corresponding fall of traffic police.
The report I saw also said that the governement were opposed on cost grounds. I suppose road safety isn't important if there isn't money to be made from it.
The report I saw also said that the governement were opposed on cost grounds. I suppose road safety isn't important if there isn't money to be made from it.
streaky said:
In the Met, you'd better not pull over too many people from "minority" ethnic groups! - Streaky
I'm not being racist by what i say, i work in Edmonton, and it's hard to pull over people who aren't from other ethnic backgrounds.
You can be required to take a breath test for committing a moving traffic offence (I.E not wearing seatbelt) as well as if there's suspicion of booze.
tonyrec said:
Ive just seen yet another article on the Tv about whether or not we should have 'Random' Breath Tests.
These are 'apparently' opposed by Civil Rights groups etc etc but in reality this is what we already have!
As long as you are Driving a Vehicle the Police can stop you, so whats different?
A world of difference between a law that effectively gives you the ability to random check and one that actual allows you to. At the moment while effectively you have the ability to stop any vehicle you have to have one brain cell thinking of which of the thousand of reasons you will need to give if challenged. Removing that gives the ability to perscute by some of the "bad apples" in the barrel.
I always thought they were random anyway. Drink/drug drivers deserve all they get. Only problem is druggies are usually mental and some of them are armed and don't care, so the Police must be careful when stopping them. OR if like in my neck of the woods the local police leave the drug dealers and gypsies alone - too risky as they are armed to the teeth!! Motorists are an easier target by far.
tonyrec said:
Ive just seen yet another article on the Tv about whether or not we should have 'Random' Breath Tests.
These are 'apparently' opposed by Civil Rights groups etc etc but in reality this is what we already have!
As long as you are Driving a Vehicle the Police can stop you, so whats different?
What's different is that, according to reports, police will be required to set up road blocks and test every driver in the queue.
Little to do with safety and everything to do with yet another measure to make motoring as much of a PITA as possible. All in the name of safety, of course.
The thing that might stop Mr Duncan Disorderly blatting around Letsby Avenue while under the influence of various chemicals is the knowledge that if he does so there is a very good chance he will be nicked.
Whatever method achieves this end has to be be applauded surely.
Sadly the way things are going with traffic sections (sorry smacked wrist Road Policing Units) he's got as much chance of being nicked as he has of getting six numbers on the Wednesday double rollover jackpot.
OK the last bit is an exaggeration (1) I know, but you get the drift.
memo to self "I've told you a million times stop exaggerating"
Whatever method achieves this end has to be be applauded surely.
Sadly the way things are going with traffic sections (sorry smacked wrist Road Policing Units) he's got as much chance of being nicked as he has of getting six numbers on the Wednesday double rollover jackpot.
OK the last bit is an exaggeration (1) I know, but you get the drift.
memo to self "I've told you a million times stop exaggerating"
I dont even think they need to bother doing all of these stops - just spend money on a heavy promotional campaign banging on about how many they wil do - works rather well for TV licenses for starters - as this will stop Mr Disorderly as mentioned earlier. The fear of geting stopped will stop a lot of those 'drift toward not caring cos I havent hurt anyone yet' mentality folks......and this can only be a GOOD thing
I'm in two minds on this. On the one hand, anything that might discourage DD and take offenders off the road is a good thing. But on the other hand part of me thinks the only people that should be stopped are those that are driving badly FOR WHATEVER REASON.
If person A can drive better and with better reactions after 2 pints than person B can stone cold sober, who should get stopped?
Part of me does think that random stops are like speed cameras - only there to meausre an arbitrary limit without taking anything else into account purely because it is easier than "proper" policing.
Any views?
If person A can drive better and with better reactions after 2 pints than person B can stone cold sober, who should get stopped?
Part of me does think that random stops are like speed cameras - only there to meausre an arbitrary limit without taking anything else into account purely because it is easier than "proper" policing.
Any views?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff