Roadside, instant disqualification....
Discussion
...for driving under the influence.
In New Zealand and other parts of the world the Police can issue roadside disqualifications for drivers who receive too many penalty points or fail a roadside drug or alcohol test.
With driving under the influence of drugs becoming as or more problematic in the UK than drink driving...
https://www.norfolk.police.uk/news/latest-news/25-...
...and the amount of time it takes for evidentiary test results to come back or get a court date there have been several cases of drivers who fail a drug test being caught again and failing again days later.
This drunk driver...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-4701...
...could well be back on the road now waiting for a court date.
Is it time for a Roadside Instant Disqualification for drivers who are under the influence of drink or drugs?
This disqualification could be taken into account by the Magistrates and time deducted from the subsequent ban if convicted or if the amount of drugs found in the accused system was below a prescribed limit that time would be lieu of a caution or fine.
An instant roadside disqualification could be as little as a couple of days it takes for test results or as long as it takes to get to court.
Either way with a suspected drunk or drugged driver off the roads instead of going straight back on them wouldn't be the safer option for everyone else?
In New Zealand and other parts of the world the Police can issue roadside disqualifications for drivers who receive too many penalty points or fail a roadside drug or alcohol test.
With driving under the influence of drugs becoming as or more problematic in the UK than drink driving...
https://www.norfolk.police.uk/news/latest-news/25-...
...and the amount of time it takes for evidentiary test results to come back or get a court date there have been several cases of drivers who fail a drug test being caught again and failing again days later.
This drunk driver...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-4701...
...could well be back on the road now waiting for a court date.
Is it time for a Roadside Instant Disqualification for drivers who are under the influence of drink or drugs?
This disqualification could be taken into account by the Magistrates and time deducted from the subsequent ban if convicted or if the amount of drugs found in the accused system was below a prescribed limit that time would be lieu of a caution or fine.
An instant roadside disqualification could be as little as a couple of days it takes for test results or as long as it takes to get to court.
Either way with a suspected drunk or drugged driver off the roads instead of going straight back on them wouldn't be the safer option for everyone else?
janesmith1950 said:
Depends if we're happy with the principle of summary justice without trial.
I was recently involved in a situation where a driver clearly under the influence of Cannabis (he smoked a joint right in front of me) wanted to get in his car. I had no legal authority to stop him, I advised him not to and he ignored it. I felt obligated to report it to the Police. He was stopped, failed a roadside drug test and was taken to the station for evidentiary sampling.
Two days later he crashed his car.
If there was a roadside disqualification; even if it was only "pending results of a test" he would/should not have been on the road and subsequently not have crashed.
Luckily it was a single vehicle collision and only he was hurt but we shouldn't have to rely on "luck".
I am well aware of the juxtaposition "innocent until proven guilty" places the Police, CPS and courts in but it's pass or fail. The only mitigation is by how much and if that is considered enough to impair their ability to drive (prescribed limit guidelines).
Cat said:
If someone is prepared to drive again whilst under the influence having just been caught what makes you think they'll pay any attention to an interim ban?
Cat
Good question and a very good point. "Stupid is as stupid does" after all. Cat
It used to be up to six months in prison for driving while disqualified and a longer ban when they got out. With the government trying to address prison overcrowding by telling judges not to issue six month or less sentences (setting a dangerous "mandatory minimum sentence" precedent but that's a different conversation) and the added irony if they were to be caught driving while disqualified pending results and the test came back as less than the prescribed limit for the execution of the full ban they would have shot themselves in the proverbial foot.
I guess driving whilst serving an Instant Roadside Disqualification would need to be more lenient than the full ban guidelines.
A further ban for driving while disqualified would be futile as they ignored the original ban in the first place so I guess some kind of fine structure or (similar to other countries) their vehicle taken away or clamped until such time as the ban is over.
Better still for example off the top of my head (so this may be daft) each instance of driving while serving a Instant Roadside Disqualification three months added to the overall ban in court.
Even if the test results are below the prescribed threshold a three month ban for every time they were caught driving while serving an Instant Roadside Disqualification.
Could work. What do you think?
In an ideal world it could work. Realistically though it relies on Police actually being out and about, patrolling, people paying attention to them and really the people who will do it, are the people who don't care about fines and bans, and will drive anyway.
People on their phones, to me, should be £1000 fine and 6 points, or phone confiscated until the fine is paid for first time offenders.
This will, in turn put the deterrent back into it and put people off.
People on their phones, to me, should be £1000 fine and 6 points, or phone confiscated until the fine is paid for first time offenders.
This will, in turn put the deterrent back into it and put people off.
good point and can be argued both ways
im with someones suggestion of tsking their cars to the pound and not releasing it till the results come back or the ban is over,see you need to hit it where it hurts as no point just banning as the hardened chap will anyway ignore it
btw does anyone who what happens to disqualified drivers caught as the wheel is it a custodial sentence or further extension of the ban?
im with someones suggestion of tsking their cars to the pound and not releasing it till the results come back or the ban is over,see you need to hit it where it hurts as no point just banning as the hardened chap will anyway ignore it
btw does anyone who what happens to disqualified drivers caught as the wheel is it a custodial sentence or further extension of the ban?
catso said:
Blanchimont said:
In an ideal world it could work. Realistically though it relies on Police actually being out and about, patrolling
Also relies on all Police officers having the correct judgement, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with that...I'm not suggesting the Police become roadside judges. That's what the tests are for. Pass or fail, innocent or guilty.
With drink driving the results of tests at the roadside and back at the station are all that is required to establish guilt. Over the limit or under. No judgement required.
Drugged driving there are margins thanks to the "prescribed limit guidelines" but we would hope the test would be carried out if there were good reason. Driving was witnessed to be erratic by the officer, the driver had been reported or other intelligence for example.
There are field impairment assessments that can be and have been used but would refusal to perform these be considered the same as refusing or failing to provide a sample?
Obviously the roadside drug swabs and other methods are only to tell if drugs are present technology needs to catch up so the roadside test can give an indication as to how much there is. If this were to happen or a better/quicker way of accessing at the station an Instant Roadside Disqualification for pending tests results would not be necessary.
Leveling the playing field for drink and drugs so the Instant Roadside Disqualification would only be used pending a court date.
As mentioned above up to six months in prison for driving while disqualified. more likely an extended ban and fine though.
Prescribed Limit Guidelines.
First off I do not agree that a non-prescription narcotic should have a "prescribed limit" at all and it should be zero. These drugs are illegal.
The guidelines are set at a level where the amount of prescription or narcotic drugs in the system has an effect. Like an "impairment scale" if you will. This is different for everyone but based on averages.
Drink drive limits...
https://www.gov.uk/drink-drive-limit
Drugged drive limits...
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/drug-dri...
Interesting to see that Cannabis is the second lowest parts per liter of blood. Second only to LSD!
First off I do not agree that a non-prescription narcotic should have a "prescribed limit" at all and it should be zero. These drugs are illegal.
The guidelines are set at a level where the amount of prescription or narcotic drugs in the system has an effect. Like an "impairment scale" if you will. This is different for everyone but based on averages.
Drink drive limits...
https://www.gov.uk/drink-drive-limit
Drugged drive limits...
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/drug-dri...
Interesting to see that Cannabis is the second lowest parts per liter of blood. Second only to LSD!
I don't like the idea of police being able to punish. That is not its function.
Temporary bans, though, are a bit different. If a police officer tells someone to go away, in certain circs if they fail to do so they can be arrested. This is often useful in public order situations. The police can keep a driver who has blown positive on a substantive machine until they blow under, there is no likelihood of them driving again, or it's been so long since their positive test that they are patently under the limit.
There are other circumstances where the police can enforce compliance, which in some ways is similar to a temporary ban I suppose. However, it should be possible to challenge these and, if proved unreasonable, damages awarded. All powers are open to abuse so checks are required.
Temporary bans, though, are a bit different. If a police officer tells someone to go away, in certain circs if they fail to do so they can be arrested. This is often useful in public order situations. The police can keep a driver who has blown positive on a substantive machine until they blow under, there is no likelihood of them driving again, or it's been so long since their positive test that they are patently under the limit.
There are other circumstances where the police can enforce compliance, which in some ways is similar to a temporary ban I suppose. However, it should be possible to challenge these and, if proved unreasonable, damages awarded. All powers are open to abuse so checks are required.
Derek Smith said:
I don't like the idea of police being able to punish. That is not its function.
Temporary bans, though, are a bit different. If a police officer tells someone to go away, in certain circs if they fail to do so they can be arrested. This is often useful in public order situations. The police can keep a driver who has blown positive on a substantive machine until they blow under, there is no likelihood of them driving again, or it's been so long since their positive test that they are patently under the limit.
There are other circumstances where the police can enforce compliance, which in some ways is similar to a temporary ban I suppose. However, it should be possible to challenge these and, if proved unreasonable, damages awarded. All powers are open to abuse so checks are required.
Any officer issuing a FPN is already in a position to and has the powers to punish. I see where you are coming from about potential abuse. Temporary bans, though, are a bit different. If a police officer tells someone to go away, in certain circs if they fail to do so they can be arrested. This is often useful in public order situations. The police can keep a driver who has blown positive on a substantive machine until they blow under, there is no likelihood of them driving again, or it's been so long since their positive test that they are patently under the limit.
There are other circumstances where the police can enforce compliance, which in some ways is similar to a temporary ban I suppose. However, it should be possible to challenge these and, if proved unreasonable, damages awarded. All powers are open to abuse so checks are required.
Look at mobile phones. Before if you were seen using a mobile phone in a vehicle the Police would have to follow you and establish that you were distracted enough for your driving to below the standard expected. Pay the mobile phone FPN or take it to court and be looking at Due Care and Attention more points and a heftier fine.
Now all they have to do is see you with any hand held electrical device (sadly not including Vapes yet) for a ticket.
This is supposedly a preventative measure. "You may not crash now but we are stopping you from crashing down the road" kind of ethos.
I'm applying a similar principal here. If the dope fiend I reported was disqualified pending test results he would/should not have crashed into the tree.
Ensuing compliance by impounding vehicles is plausible but; tow fees, storage fees and so on would come from the public pocket if the tests were to come back below the prescribed amounts. Another option would be IN10
If insurers add to their policies an invalidation should the policy holder be over the limit due to drink or drugs then the vehicle could be taken from them until the levels return to below the limit. But that would be a massive tin of worms if they were involved in a collision and over the limit.
Nice "get out clause" for the insurers, terrible for the rest of us as the number Motor Insurance Bureau claims skyrocket.
The tree is fine. I drove past it today. Good news.
Interesting discussion, but until an MP's child gets killed by a drunk or drugged driver awaiting court, I cannot see a lot getting done about it.
After all, one of the qualifications for being an MP is the willingness to drive drunk? Or speed and try to pass it off as someone else's offence?
After all, one of the qualifications for being an MP is the willingness to drive drunk? Or speed and try to pass it off as someone else's offence?
Liquid Knight said:
Any officer issuing a FPN is already in a position to and has the powers to punish. I see where you are coming from about potential abuse.
Look at mobile phones. Before if you were seen using a mobile phone in a vehicle the Police would have to follow you and establish that you were distracted enough for your driving to below the standard expected. Pay the mobile phone FPN or take it to court and be looking at Due Care and Attention more points and a heftier fine.
Now all they have to do is see you with any hand held electrical device (sadly not including Vapes yet) for a ticket.
This is supposedly a preventative measure. "You may not crash now but we are stopping you from crashing down the road" kind of ethos.
I'm applying a similar principal here. If the dope fiend I reported was disqualified pending test results he would/should not have crashed into the tree.
Ensuing compliance by impounding vehicles is plausible but; tow fees, storage fees and so on would come from the public pocket if the tests were to come back below the prescribed amounts. Another option would be IN10
If insurers add to their policies an invalidation should the policy holder be over the limit due to drink or drugs then the vehicle could be taken from them until the levels return to below the limit. But that would be a massive tin of worms if they were involved in a collision and over the limit.
Nice "get out clause" for the insurers, terrible for the rest of us as the number Motor Insurance Bureau claims skyrocket.
An FPN is not a punishment. The accused has to admit the offence by paying the charge. If you don't reckon you are guilty then take it to court.Look at mobile phones. Before if you were seen using a mobile phone in a vehicle the Police would have to follow you and establish that you were distracted enough for your driving to below the standard expected. Pay the mobile phone FPN or take it to court and be looking at Due Care and Attention more points and a heftier fine.
Now all they have to do is see you with any hand held electrical device (sadly not including Vapes yet) for a ticket.
This is supposedly a preventative measure. "You may not crash now but we are stopping you from crashing down the road" kind of ethos.
I'm applying a similar principal here. If the dope fiend I reported was disqualified pending test results he would/should not have crashed into the tree.
Ensuing compliance by impounding vehicles is plausible but; tow fees, storage fees and so on would come from the public pocket if the tests were to come back below the prescribed amounts. Another option would be IN10
If insurers add to their policies an invalidation should the policy holder be over the limit due to drink or drugs then the vehicle could be taken from them until the levels return to below the limit. But that would be a massive tin of worms if they were involved in a collision and over the limit.
Nice "get out clause" for the insurers, terrible for the rest of us as the number Motor Insurance Bureau claims skyrocket.
The tree is fine. I drove past it today. Good news.
The theory is that it is little different from 'the old days'. A bobby would report you and you could plead guilty by post.
Brads67 said:
You would need a judge at the roadside, as the cops cannot enforce the law.
So what happens now (drink)...Fail a breath test. Taken to the station for an evidentiary test. Fail that. Released the following morning as soon as you are sober enough to understand.
Get back in your vehicle as if nothing has happened.
Up to six months later Magistrates read you were over the limit, Police statement, your statement, mitigation, ban, fine and costs.
You blew over the limit therefore you are guilty; no actual judgement involved.
What happens now (drugs)...
Fail the roadside test. Taken back to the station for an FME to take a sample of blood. Released pending the results of that test.
Get back in your car as if nothing has happened.
A few days or a week later you get a call back to the station, told your blood test results. You are found to have been over the limit. Released.
Get back in your vehicle as if nothing has happened.
Up to six months later Magistrates read you were over the limit, Police statement, your statement, mitigation, ban, fine and costs.
Again there is no judgement involved you are over or under the limit. Guilty or innocent. The Magistrates go and have a cup of tea before the next case.
My suggestion is an Instant Roadside Disqualification would mean the guilty parties would not have the months on the road awaiting a trial before they are banned. If you don't drink or do drugs and drive it will never be your problem.
For clarification - New Zealand - fail the higher limit for a roadside breath test or exceed the speed limit by more than 40kmh - is a Suspension of Licence for 28 days - at the roadside.
Rationale - Your standard of driving is so bad - you need to be removed and give you time to think about it.
IF you are foolish enough to drive again, in any vehicle, within that 28 days - the car is impounded - without exception.
Rationale - If you are going to deliberately wave a finger at the law then the vehicle is removed so you don't do it again, and clearly there is a slow learner to deal with.
Maybe tough - but we know the rules - so speed limit 100kmh - do 139kmh - fine and demerits - do 141kmh, fine demerits and walk for 28 days. Yep - you have 28 days to think about - do we have speeders - yes - but that roadside suspension does make me think.
As for a work licence/family reasons/financial hardship - tough.
Rationale - Your standard of driving is so bad - you need to be removed and give you time to think about it.
IF you are foolish enough to drive again, in any vehicle, within that 28 days - the car is impounded - without exception.
Rationale - If you are going to deliberately wave a finger at the law then the vehicle is removed so you don't do it again, and clearly there is a slow learner to deal with.
Maybe tough - but we know the rules - so speed limit 100kmh - do 139kmh - fine and demerits - do 141kmh, fine demerits and walk for 28 days. Yep - you have 28 days to think about - do we have speeders - yes - but that roadside suspension does make me think.
As for a work licence/family reasons/financial hardship - tough.
TVRnutcase said:
As for a work licence/family reasons/financial hardship - tough.
If you rely on having a license for work why risk it? If you are a professional driver you should know better. That's what the "professional" part means.
That's why professional drivers in the UK have to carry their CPC card at all times.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff