Discussion
When plod decides to pull you over to breathalise you, am I correct in thinking that he must have a reason to suspect you of drink driving first? ie having commited a driving offence, or wobbley driving, just come out of the pub, tip-off etc.
Surely a policeman doesn't have the right to pull someone over and waste their time by the roadside, just because they picked a particular vehicle out randomly? If this is the case then a bored policeman could just merrily go about ruining everyone elses' day by pulling them and making them even later for work.
Surely a policeman doesn't have the right to pull someone over and waste their time by the roadside, just because they picked a particular vehicle out randomly? If this is the case then a bored policeman could just merrily go about ruining everyone elses' day by pulling them and making them even later for work.
Its either a moving traffic offence, or susp alcohol in body.
The only people i have herd argue about a waste of time are usually the ones who goto red when required to provide a sample of breath!
A few mins delay is all it takes to stop a drink driver, and if your in the clear i would have thought it was a bonus to see police doing their jobs.
Cant win sometimes.
Oh and seconded what jamesson has said above!
The only people i have herd argue about a waste of time are usually the ones who goto red when required to provide a sample of breath!
A few mins delay is all it takes to stop a drink driver, and if your in the clear i would have thought it was a bonus to see police doing their jobs.
Cant win sometimes.
Oh and seconded what jamesson has said above!
As far as I'm concerned random breath testing is fine. We're not talking about breaking a speed limit set for political or revenue reasons. More police on the roads doing what they are supposed to do (keeping the dangerous drivers off the road) will always gain my support, if you're over the limit, no mitigation, no excuses, it's a fair cop. I think we all agree there are enough idiots out there anything that is done to stop them is Ok, even if I'm a few minutes late for work.
I am more than happy for the BiB to pull me over at any time for a breath test or a word (preferably not involving cautions).
However please note that:
1. I would prefer a cute blonde GiB given the choice (chance would be a fine thing)
2. Please don't do it in Winter and then want to talk outside!!!
Thank you
Sean
However please note that:
1. I would prefer a cute blonde GiB given the choice (chance would be a fine thing)
2. Please don't do it in Winter and then want to talk outside!!!
Thank you
Sean
Picking a vehicle out and stopping it for no reason is good policing. It's amazing the amount of serious offences that are discovered by those very means. Problems arise when you stop someone who seems to think that its because they are black, catholic or double-jointed.
In answer to the original question the answer is No. But, the period of 'detention' has to be reasonable and you would expect to be treated nicely until they find that bald tyre!
Scott
In answer to the original question the answer is No. But, the period of 'detention' has to be reasonable and you would expect to be treated nicely until they find that bald tyre!
Scott
Ok so a few people here have got entirely the wrong end of the stick. Do you really think I am in some way condoning drink driving.
The question really was quite simple. Can police pull you over for no particular reason or not. There was no need to go assuming reasons behind me asking the question and then attacking me because of it.
The question really was quite simple. Can police pull you over for no particular reason or not. There was no need to go assuming reasons behind me asking the question and then attacking me because of it.
tombaron said:
When plod decides to pull you over to breathalise you, am I correct in thinking that he must have a reason to suspect you of drink driving first? ie having commited a driving offence, or wobbley driving, just come out of the pub, tip-off etc.
Surely a policeman doesn't have the right to pull someone over and waste their time by the roadside, just because they picked a particular vehicle out randomly? If this is the case then a bored policeman could just merrily go about ruining everyone elses' day by pulling them and making them even later for work.
We can stop you for a routine check, and if we suspect you have been drinking request a breath test, simple. We really do have beter things to do than waste people's time.
purpleheadedcerb said:Ah, the Brunsturmfurher argument ... speeding motorists are all likely to have committed (other) criminal offences.
Picking a vehicle out and stopping it for no reason is good policing. It's amazing the amount of serious offences that are discovered by those very means.
Now I'm very much in favour of getting drink and drug impaired drivers off our roads, but the only time I have been stopped and "breathalysed" was back in the "blow in this bag, my chips are hot" days and I was stopped for no reason (I had not committed a moving traffic offence - which was the criterion then, IIRC) other than the sheer arsiness of the panda driver (whom I subsequently discovered I knew by that very reputation). Mind you, I don't drink and drive. I have subsequently been stopped in a "roadside survey" by a TrafPol, who first asked with some interest about the Tiv and then enquired, "Have you had a drink recently, sir?" When I replied, "Not an alcoholic one." he graciously waved me away. I wasn't seriously delayed, but have friends and (past) colleagues who have been in similar circumstances.
It's a difficult dilemma to satisfy the objectors on both sides.
And how "random" is random? Every fifth car? No! Snooker? Better. Maybe stopping the Nth car after the current one, based on the last digit of the current number plate?
Streaky
We all (I think) agree that we need more trafpol to address the serious problem of dangerous drivers, whether the danger is caused by drink, drugs, tailgating, inappropriate speed or whatever, however the problem with the current DD system is that it relies on a random number for ease of prosecution. So it's not totally removed from the speed limits thing. If someone is incapable of controlling their vehicle that's one thing, a number on a print-out is another. Often the two will be the same but not always, given that the punishment for drink-driving is severe as required for the genuine article, we need to be sure that someone really is a danger before potentially taking away their livelihood and good name.
The research that gave us our present blood alcohol limit, the Borkenstein Grand Rapids survey, showed that a small amount of blood alcohol led to a decreased accident risk, and although the authorities have been trying the usual statistical shenanigans to re-write this result in the language of political correctness, it's there in the data. So the floggemhangem brigade's push for a zero blood alcohol limit has no basis in safety. Also the thought of being fined a grand and banned for a year or more just for eating sherry trifle / taking Holy Communion (some churches do use alcy wine) / taking medicine / using a mouthwash, is perverse.
To avoid similar comments as previously, it should be clear that I'm not condoning real drink-driving, just asking where the balance should be between convenience, deterrence, and justice, if we've got it right at the mo, and in hope that a pointless zero limit never arrives. Edited to add some reading that might be of interest
>> Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 29th December 12:56
The research that gave us our present blood alcohol limit, the Borkenstein Grand Rapids survey, showed that a small amount of blood alcohol led to a decreased accident risk, and although the authorities have been trying the usual statistical shenanigans to re-write this result in the language of political correctness, it's there in the data. So the floggemhangem brigade's push for a zero blood alcohol limit has no basis in safety. Also the thought of being fined a grand and banned for a year or more just for eating sherry trifle / taking Holy Communion (some churches do use alcy wine) / taking medicine / using a mouthwash, is perverse.
To avoid similar comments as previously, it should be clear that I'm not condoning real drink-driving, just asking where the balance should be between convenience, deterrence, and justice, if we've got it right at the mo, and in hope that a pointless zero limit never arrives. Edited to add some reading that might be of interest
>> Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 29th December 12:56
Yugguy said:That's no reason at all, tbh, because being above a zero limit does NOT mean that you've been drinking and does NOT prove you are dangerous behnid the wheel.
The best reason for having a zero amount limit is that it would end all speculation as to wether you'd had too much or not.
Yugguy said:
The best reason for having a zero amount limit is that it would end all speculation as to wether you'd had too much or not.
So to make detection and conviction easy, you would lose sight of the original problem?
Drink-driving - in the sense of being impaired to drive through drink - is a serious problem, but the impairment is variable and incremental, and (as turbobloke states) there is a (small) drop in accident rates for small amounts of alcohol. So you define a limit where the impairment starts to effect driving - statistically - and its about right at the moment.
IIRC the accident rate at half the drink-drive limit was down about 1% on zero alcohol, and at the drink-drive limit was 4% above the zero rate - but climbing steeply.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff