Warning! How Could I have Missed This!!
Discussion
I think it's just your attitude. It was summed up well in a response to you in another post. Sorry, but that's the way you come across. Good luck in your latest crusade. There's no need for a lengthy reply to this, or the almost certain slagging off from others, coz i won't be responding.....
>> Edited by Hollywood Wheels on Wednesday 8th March 04:39
>> Edited by Hollywood Wheels on Wednesday 8th March 04:39
mojocvh said:
I think it's just your entire attitude
LIKE?
Wanting inside information or opinion in order to 'snipe' at those who try to implement the law fairly!
There is a simple answer to the problem about drink drive law.
DONT! Then you will not have to undergo a test on any device unless of course you have an RTC where ACPO have made recent policy that everyone is tested at least at the roadside!
IOLAIRE said:
I'm warning all of you now, do NOT take a breath test but insist on a blood test if you find yourself in this situation; and don't kid yourself that it wouldn't happen to you.
That is very bad advice. You will be charged with failing to supply and given a mandatory ban. The choice of sample is that of the custody officer and not the defndant. Breath is the only option unless there is a medical reason not to supply it or the readings when taken are between certain limits. In that case, the sample to replace that of the breath will be the decision of the custody officer and not the subject. It will normally be that of blood.
IOLAIRE said:
If it can happen to this young man it could happen to anyone.
Not if you abstain from opertaing motor vehicles and alcohol at the same time on a road or public place.
IOLAIRE said:
This has GOT to be changed.
I insist on the BiB giving me open and frank response to this.
i don't understand ..... why all the fuss all of a sudden?.....it been like this for about 20 years!
mr plod can pull you for a routine check, and still ask you to blow in the little majic box.
i could never understand all the fuss years ago about random breath testing, when effectively they can do it anyway.
mr plod can pull you for a routine check, and still ask you to blow in the little majic box.
i could never understand all the fuss years ago about random breath testing, when effectively they can do it anyway.
What happens if you are unable to product enough lung power to activate the machine? My Mum has asthma and has a very low peak flow reading and I'm a heart patient - what would happen if we couldn't genuinely blow hard enough? Neither of us drive after having a drink but if we were stopped for anything else and asked to blow into the machine and couldn't would we be 'done' for failing to provide.
chrisbb said:
What happens if you are unable to product enough lung power to activate the machine? My Mum has asthma and has a very low peak flow reading and I'm a heart patient - what would happen if we couldn't genuinely blow hard enough? Neither of us drive after having a drink but if we were stopped for anything else and asked to blow into the machine and couldn't would we be 'done' for failing to provide.
Chris, a fair question. I really don't want to go into too much detail, because i don't have a lot of time for this post at all. However, there are measures in place which would see you right. No-one would be out to crucify you, and you would not simply be charged with failing to provide. If you genuinely suffered from asthma you would be ok...
Funnily enough, i think every single drink-drive i've ever brought in has said they suffered from asthma. Funny how they never have their pump with them and their doctor has never been told either...
I've never been breathalysed, how much 'puff' does it take to blow into the bag? Watching cop shows on TV is seems to be mainly the length of the blow rather than the strength, or am I mistaken?
As for the initial posters comments - sounds interesting and something to keep in mind. But I'd rather think I would not be in the situation of being remotely near the limit and driving in the first place.
As for the initial posters comments - sounds interesting and something to keep in mind. But I'd rather think I would not be in the situation of being remotely near the limit and driving in the first place.
Interesting thread.
I think Iolaires approach hasn't helped at all, but given the 'known' problems with other equipment used by the police and allegedly infallible, it's not impossible that what he says has some basis in fact.
I WOULD be interested in understanding the situation a little more - I haven't been pulled for years, but I have to confess to a fear of 'unscrupulous' coppers out to hit targets - there've been too many threads (here and other forums) suggesting such behaviour (and the willingness of magistrates to believe coppers unreservedly) for it to be purely anecdotal.
I would like to believe MOST BiB are honest, but with no frame-of-reference, I cannot validate that belief at all. To combine an ambitious BiB with a fallible machine and a judiciary system that won't acknowledge either as even a possibility presents a risk to the public.
I think Iolaires approach hasn't helped at all, but given the 'known' problems with other equipment used by the police and allegedly infallible, it's not impossible that what he says has some basis in fact.
I WOULD be interested in understanding the situation a little more - I haven't been pulled for years, but I have to confess to a fear of 'unscrupulous' coppers out to hit targets - there've been too many threads (here and other forums) suggesting such behaviour (and the willingness of magistrates to believe coppers unreservedly) for it to be purely anecdotal.
I would like to believe MOST BiB are honest, but with no frame-of-reference, I cannot validate that belief at all. To combine an ambitious BiB with a fallible machine and a judiciary system that won't acknowledge either as even a possibility presents a risk to the public.
To quote from above:
"When was the last time you were in a custody suite for this procedure ? The test is carried out by the Custody Sgt. who under the guide lines has to be independant to all procedures. Also if you will have noticed all custody suites are covered throughout with CCTV so the whole procedure is covered by camera"
In my case Friday night. Carried out by two Traffic cops not based at that Station, Custody Sgt not present in room. No CCTV was apparent in the room with the test equipment.
"When was the last time you were in a custody suite for this procedure ? The test is carried out by the Custody Sgt. who under the guide lines has to be independant to all procedures. Also if you will have noticed all custody suites are covered throughout with CCTV so the whole procedure is covered by camera"
In my case Friday night. Carried out by two Traffic cops not based at that Station, Custody Sgt not present in room. No CCTV was apparent in the room with the test equipment.
GreenV8S said:
I insist on the BiB giving me open and frank response to this.
I'm not a BiB, but if I was I'd tell you to feck right off, who the hell do you think you are to 'insist' that they take their personal time to help you?
That's exactly what I was going to say. Make a point by all means but what gives him the right to insist on the bib answering.
kennyGti said:
In my case Friday night. Carried out by two Traffic cops not based at that Station, Custody Sgt not present in room. No CCTV was apparent in the room with the test equipment.
Well, there's your defence then! Or is this another set of guidelines* (code of practice??) that can be ignored if the revenue stream starts to look iffy?
*Scamera operators' <ahem> "guidelines" anyone?
Paul
Hmmm some interesting issues are potentially raised although the approach has meant the issues have been missed.
If my reading of the post is correct the issue is that the Intoximeter in the police station callibrates itself and therefore is said to be infalliable. However the inference would appear to be that this is only correct if it was set up correctly in the first place, and there is no evidence to confirm that this is the case.
The Courts will believe the evidence of the machine and therefore find people guilty of drink driving on the machine.
Most drivers probably believe that if they are stopped, tested and found positive that they have the option of asking for a blood sample to be taken to proof the case for once and for all. However that does not appear to be the case.
From a police officers point of view I assume that the majority of drivers when stopped plead their innonence and it must be difficult to tell really who has not drunk excessively from those who have. Therefore if I was stopped after 1 glass of wine and the test proved positive the Officer is unlikely to believe me as thats what everyone says.
So the real question is it fair to rely on a machine to prove that one is over the drink drive limit, particularly when the driver protests their innoence? Problem is of course unless one personally experiences being stopped when you don't believe you are over the limit (and are justified in that believe) and still has a positive breath test no one will believe that you weren;t over the limit!
It does make one think though, and whilst the answer is not to drink a drop and drive, that is not really practical whilst one is permitted to drive with some alcohol in the blood.
If my reading of the post is correct the issue is that the Intoximeter in the police station callibrates itself and therefore is said to be infalliable. However the inference would appear to be that this is only correct if it was set up correctly in the first place, and there is no evidence to confirm that this is the case.
The Courts will believe the evidence of the machine and therefore find people guilty of drink driving on the machine.
Most drivers probably believe that if they are stopped, tested and found positive that they have the option of asking for a blood sample to be taken to proof the case for once and for all. However that does not appear to be the case.
From a police officers point of view I assume that the majority of drivers when stopped plead their innonence and it must be difficult to tell really who has not drunk excessively from those who have. Therefore if I was stopped after 1 glass of wine and the test proved positive the Officer is unlikely to believe me as thats what everyone says.
So the real question is it fair to rely on a machine to prove that one is over the drink drive limit, particularly when the driver protests their innoence? Problem is of course unless one personally experiences being stopped when you don't believe you are over the limit (and are justified in that believe) and still has a positive breath test no one will believe that you weren;t over the limit!
It does make one think though, and whilst the answer is not to drink a drop and drive, that is not really practical whilst one is permitted to drive with some alcohol in the blood.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff