breathalysing after an accident
Discussion
My brother was recently involved in an accident. Nobody hurt but his car was written off and the other car quite badly damaged. The police were called. He offered to be breathalysed and was quite surprised when they said it wouldn't be necessary. Neither driver was breathalysed. I thought it was a routine thing to do this to all parties after any accident? Can anyone confirm this or is it at the discretion of the officer concerned? The only reason I ask is because he had a mild suspicion that the other motorist may have been drinking.
It is at officer's discretion, although I think certain types of accidents will automatically have a breath test.
I had a minor prang when I was 18 (not even an insurance claim) and the first car past was a traffic cop. I had been in the pub all night but was stone cold sober, not even one drink. 2 mates were quite drunk.
Cops could smell booze and smokey pub, asked my friends if I had been drinking and didn't test me because they said no.
Spoilt my fun
I had a minor prang when I was 18 (not even an insurance claim) and the first car past was a traffic cop. I had been in the pub all night but was stone cold sober, not even one drink. 2 mates were quite drunk.
Cops could smell booze and smokey pub, asked my friends if I had been drinking and didn't test me because they said no.
Spoilt my fun
It should be mandatory.
Everyone gets breathalysed, even if a hospital breath test is required.
The Accident report book has a section where the officer has to sign to say that a breath test has been carried out.
That is - if it is a reportable rta, if not, then indeed it is discretionary.
Everyone gets breathalysed, even if a hospital breath test is required.
The Accident report book has a section where the officer has to sign to say that a breath test has been carried out.
That is - if it is a reportable rta, if not, then indeed it is discretionary.
What would happen if a drunk (or mildly over the limit driver, crashed into your car.) You could smell the drink, but it was clearly their fault (they ran into the back of you at traffic lights. If the other driver was breathalysed and found to be over the limit, wouldn’t their insurance refuse to pay out and cancel the Insurance policy (as D/D void’s insurance – I so I’ve always thought).
You then have to make a personal claim against them (and if they have no money) will end up with the usual ‘I’ll pay you £4 per week’ line. Would it be better not to have the other driver breathalysed, then just let the insurance company pay out…?
jj
You then have to make a personal claim against them (and if they have no money) will end up with the usual ‘I’ll pay you £4 per week’ line. Would it be better not to have the other driver breathalysed, then just let the insurance company pay out…?
jj
As far as I am aware the insurance company must honour all third party claims, they will probably refuse to pay out for the drunk's own vehicle. Another point is that you are not drunk in charge until you have been to court and been found guilty, therefore your claim should be paid before this happens.
porsche944 said:
That is - if it is a reportable rta, if not, then indeed it is discretionary.
I've often wondered this - and seeing as how it's now been brought up I'll ask - what counts as a "reportable" accident/incident? At what point are you supposed to contact the police?
You're meant to call the police if there is an injury or any damage to third party property, for example, a road sign. Or, if the incident requires "management", such as road blockage or the other driver is angry and potentially violent. Or if you've got a flashy car wrapped around a tree. I'm always keen to see imaginative ways to wreck cars.
silverback mike said:
It should be mandatory.
Everyone gets breathalysed, even if a hospital breath test is required.
The Accident report book has a section where the officer has to sign to say that a breath test has been carried out.
That is - if it is a reportable rta, if not, then indeed it is discretionary.
Just wondering; what do BiB consider a reportable RTA? I had someone drive into the back of me, minor, minor damage to my car, but a trafpol happened to come past after we'd got out & breathalysed us both.
Everyone should get Breathalised when involved in an Accident.
In reality, when its during the day and its a Nun and you have spoken to her and she doesnt smell of alcohol then she probably wouldnt get tested....again its down to common sense. However, the box will be ticked that its been done.
I personally dont see anything wrong with that,its called using sound judgement.
However, this is the part that i totally disagree with.
Regulations say that EVERYONE should be breath tested at the scene of an Accident.........this then gives rise to the statistics of Drink Drive being manipulated and falsly represented, with the result that the public is misled as to the actual true percentage.
Say for example, 500 people are breath tested as result of Accidents and only 5 people are found to be over the limit. You will probably find that only 20 or so should have been tested as alcohol was present.
This is then publicised as being a very small % of +tive tests so in real terms Drink Driving has gone down - WRONG!
However, if you give me a breath test kit with 10 tubes, i could go and stop loads of cars and use all 10 tubes and probably get a 100% hit rate....then the results are again publicised to show that Drink Driving is going through the roof.
Staistics eh...never believe them
In reality, when its during the day and its a Nun and you have spoken to her and she doesnt smell of alcohol then she probably wouldnt get tested....again its down to common sense. However, the box will be ticked that its been done.
I personally dont see anything wrong with that,its called using sound judgement.
However, this is the part that i totally disagree with.
Regulations say that EVERYONE should be breath tested at the scene of an Accident.........this then gives rise to the statistics of Drink Drive being manipulated and falsly represented, with the result that the public is misled as to the actual true percentage.
Say for example, 500 people are breath tested as result of Accidents and only 5 people are found to be over the limit. You will probably find that only 20 or so should have been tested as alcohol was present.
This is then publicised as being a very small % of +tive tests so in real terms Drink Driving has gone down - WRONG!
However, if you give me a breath test kit with 10 tubes, i could go and stop loads of cars and use all 10 tubes and probably get a 100% hit rate....then the results are again publicised to show that Drink Driving is going through the roof.
Staistics eh...never believe them
Message Board | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff