Drink drive insurance loading

[jakesmith]

Just watched a ‘police interceptor’ with the Mrs where the guy kept blowing (annoyingly he was blowing below the limit) but wouldn’t blow the full amount of air required for the test. He got charged with failure to provide in the end.

What sort of impact does that have on insurance? Must be similar to regular drink driving right? Most insurers ask about convictions in the last 5 years so if you get a 2 year ban that’s 3 years of expensive insurance before you don’t have to declare it right? Or does it stay longer for DD / fail to provide?

Just asking out of curiosity I am not ‘the man on the program’! I never DD, ever ever. License and love of driving too important to me and I mainly drink at home anyway these days!!

[scottyp123]

DD or DR10 stays on your licence for 11 years I think but I'm sure you only have to declare it for 5 years. Could be wrong, its something I picked up on a few years ago.

[V8 Bob]

Normally for five years but endorsement is valid for ten years and on your licence for 11 years from the date of conviction.

The guy seemed a real fool, the police tried to tell him what would happen and that it appeared he was under.

[Aretnap]

Failure to provide (along with blowing a very high reading, or being convicted of DD more than once) puts you in the DVLA's high risk offender bracket, and so once the ban has expired you have to undergo various medical tests to prove that you don't have a drink problem before you can get your licence back at all.

As for insurance it's declarable for 5 years like almost all other motoring convictions. The fact that the endorsement stays on your driving record for 11 years is a red herring in this respect. There's case law to say that the conviction is still "spent" under the rehabilitation of offenders act after 5 years and so doesn't have to be declared to employers, insurers etc even if they ask.

As for loading it will depend on your particular circumstances and on the insurer. Some time ago I had a play on a comparison site to see what sort of effect various convictions would have on my insurance and found that even with drunk driving it wasn't as big as I expected - about 50% more than I was paying already. But I'm middle aged, middle class and generally quite boring; other people might find that it makes more of a difference.

[Pit Pony]

If you'd been done for drink driving, and were not an alcoholic, surely you'd be less likely to do it again ?

So your risk of crshing whilat under the influence would be cloaer to zero.

What do the statistics say ?

[KungFuPanda]

Pit Pony said:

If you'd been done for drink driving, and were not an alcoholic, surely you'd be less likely to do it again ?

So your risk of crshing whilat under the influence would be cloaer to zero.

What do the statistics say ?

Were you drunk whilst typing that post?

[Drawweight]

Pit Pony said:

If you'd been done for drink driving, and were not an alcoholic, surely you'd be less likely to do it again ?

So your risk of crshing whilat under the influence would be cloaer to zero.

What do the statistics say ?

You’d like to think so.

Like you I’ve no idea of the statistics but read time and time again about drivers getting banned more than once for drink driving.

But maybe that’s the kind of case that attracts media attention ?

[bad company]

I can think of 4 people locally with previous dd convictions, all still regularly drive after drinking.

[InvisibleSpider]

I've never understood people who fail to provide. I've had several in my (relatively short) time. The outcome of fail to provide is nearly always going to be harsher than blowing over, unless you blow something astronomical. Not to mention that if you only blow over a little, you'll be walking out without charge...
Personally, I would ALWAYS provide a sample. Daft not to. But then, I guess most making the decision are by definition, impared.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Pit Pony said:

If you'd been done for drink driving, and were not an alcoholic, surely you'd be less likely to do it again ?

So your risk of crshing whilat under the influence would be cloaer to zero.

What do the statistics say ?

The stats show that people with a drink drive offence are more likely to have claims in the future, even if they don't drink and drive. I guess for many drink drivers, it tells you something about their character, that they are prepared to take risks, often put themselves first, and have little regard for others. Those traits don't make for safe or defensive drivers.

[dontfollowme]

Saw on traffic cops last week that a drunk driver had got home and was in house. What would have happened if he had not answered the door when the Police rang the door bell?

[Driver101]

Drawweight said:

Pit Pony said:

If you'd been done for drink driving, and were not an alcoholic, surely you'd be less likely to do it again ?

So your risk of crshing whilat under the influence would be cloaer to zero.

What do the statistics say ?

You’d like to think so.

Like you I’ve no idea of the statistics but read time and time again about drivers getting banned more than once for drink driving.

But maybe that’s the kind of case that attracts media attention ?

I also have the opinion that it's the same people drink driving all the time. Even the people who are caught think they've been unlucky and soon return to their ways.

[Pit Pony]

KungFuPanda said:

Pit Pony said:

If you'd been done for drink driving, and were not an alcoholic, surely you'd be less likely to do it again ?

So your risk of crshing whilat under the influence would be cloaer to zero.

What do the statistics say ?

Were you drunk whilst typing that post?

No. Driving. Past a school.

I can't drink and type at the same time.

[Pit Pony]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Pit Pony said:

If you'd been done for drink driving, and were not an alcoholic, surely you'd be less likely to do it again ?

So your risk of crshing whilat under the influence would be cloaer to zero.

What do the statistics say ?

The stats show that people with a drink drive offence are more likely to have claims in the future, even if they don't drink and drive. I guess for many drink drivers, it tells you something about their character, that they are prepared to take risks, often put themselves first, and have little regard for others. Those traits don't make for safe or defensive drivers.

In which case higher insurance costs may not stop them, but reflect the risk.

Thanks for that.

I Once had an accident. My fault, but completely sober.

My insurance went down. Apparently 40 years olds with 23 years no claims who have one accident are less likely to have another. Causation is that they become complacent.

[InvisibleSpider]

dontfollowme said:

Saw on traffic cops last week that a drunk driver had got home and was in house. What would have happened if he had not answered the door when the Police rang the door bell?

If the cop reasonably believes the driver to be inside, and that the driver is unfit to drive through drink or drugs, they can put the door in. Ditto same for failure to stop.

[KungFuPanda]

InvisibleSpider said:

dontfollowme said:

Saw on traffic cops last week that a drunk driver had got home and was in house. What would have happened if he had not answered the door when the Police rang the door bell?

If the cop reasonably believes the driver to be inside, and that the driver is unfit to drive through drink or drugs, they can put the door in. Ditto same for failure to stop.

If they put the door through and said driver was sat there drinking a large glass of neat vodka, what would happen then?

[InvisibleSpider]

KungFuPanda said:

If they put the door through and said driver was sat there drinking a large glass of neat vodka, what would happen then?

It's called the hipflask defence. And then it gets complicated! Not something that's happened to me personally, but I've heard of it happening (well, drink drivers stopped literally swigging from tinnies - defence claim wasn't drunk at the time of driving etc.Back calculations can be made based on how much they've apparently drunk since, and how much they blow on the machine (or blood measurement obviously). The alcohol in the house would be seized too (my wife would hit the roof at this point)
I'm not familiar with the exact ins-and-outs but more details likely if you googled either 'hip flask defence' or 'drink drive back calculation'

[Heartworm]

What happens if you can’t provide a breathalyser sample, I’d always thought they then did a blood test? I never, ever, have anything to drink before driving.
I’ve had some health issues before which requires me to do the test at the drs where you blow into a tube to see how hard you can breathe and always hard to do it several times due to not being able to blow hard enough on them.

[Aretnap]

Heartworm said:

What happens if you can’t provide a breathalyser sample, I’d always thought they then did a blood test? I never, ever, have anything to drink before driving.
I’ve had some health issues before which requires me to do the test at the drs where you blow into a tube to see how hard you can breathe and always hard to do it several times due to not being able to blow hard enough on them.

If there's a medical reason why you are unable to provide a sample, that would count as a reasonable excuse (and they'll ask you beforehand if you have any medical conditions which would prevent you from providing one). But my understanding is that a medical problem has to be fairly severe before it will prevent someone from providing a sample; mild asthma for example shouldn't stop someone from breathing well enough to get the machine to work.

Barring a medical excuse or something similar the driver doesn't get to choose whether to provide breath, blood or urine. That's an urban myth which seems to owe a lot to Withnail and I.

[InvisibleSpider]

Heartworm said:

What happens if you can’t provide a breathalyser sample, I’d always thought they then did a blood test? I never, ever, have anything to drink before driving.
I’ve had some health issues before which requires me to do the test at the drs where you blow into a tube to see how hard you can breathe and always hard to do it several times due to not being able to blow hard enough on them.

The officer can elect to require you to provide blood or urine. You (the customer) don't get the choice, the cop does.
We're told in training (and often recite for the purposes of those who clearly are trying to delay) that the machines are designed that "a person with one lung can provide a sample". It's not a tricky or difficult procedure, and I've tested several people with asthma with no issues for example.

Realistically, if a person who said they only had one lung came in for drink driving (or proposed another medical reason they couldn't provide a breath sample), a cop has the power to go directly to bloods/urine.