Instant Ban for Drink or Drugged Driving
Discussion
Police Chiefs are asking for ability to disqualify drunk or drugged drivers 'at the roadside".
https://news.sky.com/story/officers-should-be-allo...
I'm presuming 'at the roadside' would actually mean after an evidential test at a Police Station.
What's the thoughts of the PH community? Good, bad, open to abuse / wrongful disqualification?
Challenges and 'Compo claims' after 'Conviction' ?
(Now on a similar subject, for mobile phone use whilst driving, I'd like to see either the car or phone conviscated at at the roadside. If you can't be trusted to separate driving and phone use one of the options should be removed. Which do you want to keep the car or phone?)
https://news.sky.com/story/officers-should-be-allo...
I'm presuming 'at the roadside' would actually mean after an evidential test at a Police Station.
What's the thoughts of the PH community? Good, bad, open to abuse / wrongful disqualification?
Challenges and 'Compo claims' after 'Conviction' ?
(Now on a similar subject, for mobile phone use whilst driving, I'd like to see either the car or phone conviscated at at the roadside. If you can't be trusted to separate driving and phone use one of the options should be removed. Which do you want to keep the car or phone?)
I have no problems with this
Officers should be allowed to issue a procedural interim driving ban at the roadside and after the evidential at the station say for 2 weeks or until the case is heard at Court.
I'd like to see higher penalties for refusing a test. You could be a few mg over the drink drive limit and refuse. Yet you could be 4 or 5 times the drink drive limit and refuse and the punishment would be similar because the Police don't know how skulled you are. There needs to be say a 5 year ban for refusal.
Officers should be allowed to issue a procedural interim driving ban at the roadside and after the evidential at the station say for 2 weeks or until the case is heard at Court.
I'd like to see higher penalties for refusing a test. You could be a few mg over the drink drive limit and refuse. Yet you could be 4 or 5 times the drink drive limit and refuse and the punishment would be similar because the Police don't know how skulled you are. There needs to be say a 5 year ban for refusal.
vikingaero said:
I have no problems with this
Officers should be allowed to issue a procedural interim driving ban at the roadside and after the evidential at the station say for 2 weeks or until the case is heard at Court.
I'd like to see higher penalties for refusing a test. You could be a few mg over the drink drive limit and refuse. Yet you could be 4 or 5 times the drink drive limit and refuse and the punishment would be similar because the Police don't know how skulled you are. There needs to be say a 5 year ban for refusal.
AIUI failure to provide is treated as if a very high reading was given. Miscreant is marked as a high risk offender, has to jump through medical hoops to get their licence back, possible custodial if previous relevant offences etcOfficers should be allowed to issue a procedural interim driving ban at the roadside and after the evidential at the station say for 2 weeks or until the case is heard at Court.
I'd like to see higher penalties for refusing a test. You could be a few mg over the drink drive limit and refuse. Yet you could be 4 or 5 times the drink drive limit and refuse and the punishment would be similar because the Police don't know how skulled you are. There needs to be say a 5 year ban for refusal.
It's not a short time later though. Typically you can be on your way within a few hours of arrest and get back behind a wheel until the court date.
There are people put there who just won't stop drink or drug driving until its fatal for others.
That's drink or drug driving at any time of the day I.e. morning, afternoon or the wee hours.
There are people put there who just won't stop drink or drug driving until its fatal for others.
That's drink or drug driving at any time of the day I.e. morning, afternoon or the wee hours.
VSKeith said:
vikingaero said:
I have no problems with this
Officers should be allowed to issue a procedural interim driving ban at the roadside and after the evidential at the station say for 2 weeks or until the case is heard at Court.
I'd like to see higher penalties for refusing a test. You could be a few mg over the drink drive limit and refuse. Yet you could be 4 or 5 times the drink drive limit and refuse and the punishment would be similar because the Police don't know how skulled you are. There needs to be say a 5 year ban for refusal.
AIUI failure to provide is treated as if a very high reading was given. Miscreant is marked as a high risk offender, has to jump through medical hoops to get their licence back, possible custodial if previous relevant offences etcOfficers should be allowed to issue a procedural interim driving ban at the roadside and after the evidential at the station say for 2 weeks or until the case is heard at Court.
I'd like to see higher penalties for refusing a test. You could be a few mg over the drink drive limit and refuse. Yet you could be 4 or 5 times the drink drive limit and refuse and the punishment would be similar because the Police don't know how skulled you are. There needs to be say a 5 year ban for refusal.
Turn7 said:
I would say for sure a temp ban until trial maybe ?
Main issue being if the driver is prepared to drive that drunk, he will more than likely be prepared to drive unlicensed as well, probably uninsured at the same time .
Agreed. Difficult to see why a temporary ban shouldn't be applied.Main issue being if the driver is prepared to drive that drunk, he will more than likely be prepared to drive unlicensed as well, probably uninsured at the same time .
No from me.
Much as I despise anyone drink- or drug-driving, this puts far too much power in the hands of the police to be judge, jury and executioner. It would be open to abuse, could have far-reaching ramifications and those who don't care or are habitual offenders will ignore it anyway.
The legal system is there to provide checks and balances and that process should be retained in my view.
Much as I despise anyone drink- or drug-driving, this puts far too much power in the hands of the police to be judge, jury and executioner. It would be open to abuse, could have far-reaching ramifications and those who don't care or are habitual offenders will ignore it anyway.
The legal system is there to provide checks and balances and that process should be retained in my view.
Funk said:
No from me.
Much as I despise anyone drink- or drug-driving, this puts far too much power in the hands of the police to be judge, jury and executioner. It would be open to abuse, could have far-reaching ramifications and those who don't care or are habitual offenders will ignore it anyway.
The legal system is there to provide checks and balances and that process should be retained in my view.
Precisely Much as I despise anyone drink- or drug-driving, this puts far too much power in the hands of the police to be judge, jury and executioner. It would be open to abuse, could have far-reaching ramifications and those who don't care or are habitual offenders will ignore it anyway.
The legal system is there to provide checks and balances and that process should be retained in my view.
Granting powers to the police beyond their remit is a dangerous precedent. Significant step towards enabling a police state.
croyde said:
The stink of weed coming from cars as I ride my motorbike to and from work in London shows that nothing is being done about it anyway.
Half of JLR Solihull could get disqualified driving to/from shift if they banned for weed. You’d think someone would be smarter than being in their uniform with the stink and cloud wafting from their cars but no. Does explain some of the build quality though. croyde said:
The stink of weed coming from cars as I ride my motorbike to and from work in London shows that nothing is being done about it anyway.
One of the first things I noticed when I started riding. It's rife.No mercy for drink drivers but always found it odd that if your arrested while drunk you are kept in the cells for your own safety as your too drunk to make good judgements. They can't interview you cause your drunk. Yet if you decide to drink drive or refuse to give a sample, that decision is seen as your clear choice and isn't clouded by the fact your steaming.
Time4another said:
croyde said:
The stink of weed coming from cars as I ride my motorbike to and from work in London shows that nothing is being done about it anyway.
One of the first things I noticed when I started riding. It's rife.No mercy for drink drivers but always found it odd that if your arrested while drunk you are kept in the cells for your own safety as your too drunk to make good judgements. They can't interview you cause your drunk. Yet if you decide to drink drive or refuse to give a sample, that decision is seen as your clear choice and isn't clouded by the fact your steaming.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff