Instant Ban for Drink or Drugged Driving
Discussion
Whataboutery abounds on this thread.
DD is a major danger to everybody.
Drug driving is too and is becoming so prevalent that I expect to smell the stench from a car in front almost every time I drive.
Sure, there's other stuff that warrants attention.
Go start a thread about it
This thread is about the good idea on its own to crack down harshly on intoxicated drivers.
DD is a major danger to everybody.
Drug driving is too and is becoming so prevalent that I expect to smell the stench from a car in front almost every time I drive.
Sure, there's other stuff that warrants attention.
Go start a thread about it
This thread is about the good idea on its own to crack down harshly on intoxicated drivers.
I could see this working in a couple of ways. Sounds a good idea in principle however it works.
1. A sort of FPN procedure whereby some sort of fine and ban were given by the police at the police station. Would cut down on court time if people accepted it (many drink drives are very straightforward acceptance of guilt) with the usual right to a court hearing. Comes with the slight risk of trivialisation, and there would need to be some incentive ie a perceived lower penalty which might be distasteful, although I'm not sure how politically unpopular a lower fine would be if the ban remained the same.
2. A ban starting at the point of being charged, ie a sort of bail condition, which would count towards a ban in the event of being convicted. Closer to the status quo and probably comes with fewer hidden problems.
1. A sort of FPN procedure whereby some sort of fine and ban were given by the police at the police station. Would cut down on court time if people accepted it (many drink drives are very straightforward acceptance of guilt) with the usual right to a court hearing. Comes with the slight risk of trivialisation, and there would need to be some incentive ie a perceived lower penalty which might be distasteful, although I'm not sure how politically unpopular a lower fine would be if the ban remained the same.
2. A ban starting at the point of being charged, ie a sort of bail condition, which would count towards a ban in the event of being convicted. Closer to the status quo and probably comes with fewer hidden problems.
As I see it, broadly speaking There are two types of offender; those for whom the punishment for dui will have severe ramifications and those for whom it won't (often because they'll just carry on driving while banned etc anyway)
Not sure how an insta ban while sounding "impressive " will impact either more than the current system?
Not sure how an insta ban while sounding "impressive " will impact either more than the current system?
I do not think the Police should have these powers. The bedrock of our legal system is innocent until found guilty and the right to have the proof of tested in front of someone independent, whether it be magistrates or a jury of Peers.
However, these cases are often straightforward. I don't see why they should not be fast-tracked to a weekly court so they are off the road very quickly.
However, these cases are often straightforward. I don't see why they should not be fast-tracked to a weekly court so they are off the road very quickly.
surveyor said:
I do not think the Police should have these powers. The bedrock of our legal system is innocent until found guilty and the right to have the proof of tested in front of someone independent, whether it be magistrates or a jury of Peers.
However, these cases are often straightforward. I don't see why they should not be fast-tracked to a weekly court so they are off the road very quickly.
If you're worried about that, then it could be taken out of the police hands altogether. Charge for drink drive = automatic referral to the DVLA and an automatic temporary revocation of licence, pending the court outcome.However, these cases are often straightforward. I don't see why they should not be fast-tracked to a weekly court so they are off the road very quickly.
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.
I cycle into London most days and you're right. Weed, people watching Netflix as they drive, numpties on illegally eBikes doing 40mph in the bike lanes... the number of people who give zero f***s about anyone else is huge.whimsical ninja said:
surveyor said:
I do not think the Police should have these powers. The bedrock of our legal system is innocent until found guilty and the right to have the proof of tested in front of someone independent, whether it be magistrates or a jury of Peers.
However, these cases are often straightforward. I don't see why they should not be fast-tracked to a weekly court so they are off the road very quickly.
If you're worried about that, then it could be taken out of the police hands altogether. Charge for drink drive = automatic referral to the DVLA and an automatic temporary revocation of licence, pending the court outcome.However, these cases are often straightforward. I don't see why they should not be fast-tracked to a weekly court so they are off the road very quickly.
But I agree wholeheartedly that the police SHOULD NOT have these powers.
Is DD / drug-driving a problem - absolutely. And those found guilty should be punished properly. But it's a problem because people don't think they're going to be caught, and don't care if they are caught in the main. This proposal will do f
k-all about either of those issues, so therefore it won't help the situation - it's just a naked power grab by the police.Plus there are too many* emotionally-immature cops out there who enjoy the power of being a copper, and whilst this seems like a black and white situation, it might not be...and the consequences of an immediate ban before an appeal weeks/months later could easily be loss of job / loss of income / loss of home for someone.
* Not a majority, I'm very sure, but enough to tarnish the rep of the force and make even innocent people nervous when dealing with them.
megaphone said:
bigothunter said:
megaphone said:
Vasco said:
megaphone said:
5% of road deaths are alcohol related. I'd rather see the police cracking down on the other 95% of causes.
But, DD is an easy nic, cut and dried, makes good headlines, appeases the hysterical masses whilst they carry on driving badly.
How can the police crack down on one of the biggest causes - inattention/distraction ?But, DD is an easy nic, cut and dried, makes good headlines, appeases the hysterical masses whilst they carry on driving badly.
At least drink/drugs is a specific that all drivers can avoid.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-...
Point being I bet a drink driver is a lot more likely to crash than a speeding driver.
Worst all depends how you look at it.
Pit Pony said:
Alex Z said:
This ^^^^
Everyone knows that a driving ban (under any circumstances) may get ignored but they are still issued. It just means that the penalties when caught again can be higher.
If you get banned, and you drive again, there should be prison time. Everyone knows that a driving ban (under any circumstances) may get ignored but they are still issued. It just means that the penalties when caught again can be higher.
Dingu said:
megaphone said:
bigothunter said:
megaphone said:
Vasco said:
megaphone said:
5% of road deaths are alcohol related. I'd rather see the police cracking down on the other 95% of causes.
But, DD is an easy nic, cut and dried, makes good headlines, appeases the hysterical masses whilst they carry on driving badly.
How can the police crack down on one of the biggest causes - inattention/distraction ?But, DD is an easy nic, cut and dried, makes good headlines, appeases the hysterical masses whilst they carry on driving badly.
At least drink/drugs is a specific that all drivers can avoid.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-...
Point being I bet a drink driver is a lot more likely to crash than a speeding driver.
Worst all depends how you look at it.
A 'drunk' just over the limit and doing 40 on a quiet country road may be preferable to an idiot driving at 80 through a built up area.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Not in my Force.
You can't be charged/bailed if you're intoxicated.
No different if you're arrested for being Drunk and Disorderly.
Blow over or refuse at the station, you're staying in Custody until the Duty Sergeant feels you're fit to be charged/bailed.
The same for drug driving. You aren't being released immediately after giving/refusing bloods. The Duty Sergeant is waiting until you're fit before being bailed.
Are you sure that's not incase you may drive, potential to drive if released? A custody Sergeant may hold you until they feel you can be? You can't be charged/bailed if you're intoxicated.
No different if you're arrested for being Drunk and Disorderly.
Blow over or refuse at the station, you're staying in Custody until the Duty Sergeant feels you're fit to be charged/bailed.
The same for drug driving. You aren't being released immediately after giving/refusing bloods. The Duty Sergeant is waiting until you're fit before being bailed.
Nibbles_bits said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Not in my Force.
You can't be charged/bailed if you're intoxicated.
No different if you're arrested for being Drunk and Disorderly.
Blow over or refuse at the station, you're staying in Custody until the Duty Sergeant feels you're fit to be charged/bailed.
The same for drug driving. You aren't being released immediately after giving/refusing bloods. The Duty Sergeant is waiting until you're fit before being bailed.
Are you sure that's not incase you may drive, potential to drive if released? A custody Sergeant may hold you until they feel you can be? You can't be charged/bailed if you're intoxicated.
No different if you're arrested for being Drunk and Disorderly.
Blow over or refuse at the station, you're staying in Custody until the Duty Sergeant feels you're fit to be charged/bailed.
The same for drug driving. You aren't being released immediately after giving/refusing bloods. The Duty Sergeant is waiting until you're fit before being bailed.
s10 RTA 1988 said:
Detention of persons affected by alcohol or a drug.
(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, a person required under section 7 or 7A to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine may afterwards be detained at a police station (or, if the specimen was provided otherwise than at a police station, arrested and taken to and detained at a police station) if a constable has reasonable grounds for believing that, were that person then driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, he would commit an offence under section 4, 5 or 5A of this Act.
(2)Subsection (1) above does not apply to the person if it ought reasonably to appear to the constable that there is no likelihood of his driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst—
(a)the person's ability to drive properly is impaired,
(b)the proportion of alcohol in the person's breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, or
(c)the proportion of a specified controlled drug in the person's blood or urine exceeds the specified limit for that drug.
Cat(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, a person required under section 7 or 7A to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine may afterwards be detained at a police station (or, if the specimen was provided otherwise than at a police station, arrested and taken to and detained at a police station) if a constable has reasonable grounds for believing that, were that person then driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, he would commit an offence under section 4, 5 or 5A of this Act.
(2)Subsection (1) above does not apply to the person if it ought reasonably to appear to the constable that there is no likelihood of his driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst—
(a)the person's ability to drive properly is impaired,
(b)the proportion of alcohol in the person's breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, or
(c)the proportion of a specified controlled drug in the person's blood or urine exceeds the specified limit for that drug.
E-bmw said:
Puddenchucker said:
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.
I would presume "at the roadside" meant exactly that, not "at the police station" personally.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.
The intention is that the offence is entirely dealt with at the roadside.
Given the relatively rapid dissipation rate and the often spectacular delays in getting drivers to a Custody Suite and then to an Evidential Test, there must be a VERY high proportion of offenders who escape penalty because of these delays - Therefore roadside testing to evidential standard makes a lot of sense imho.
Note the article focuses on the Policing issue, the reality is developing the tech which can be relied on by the roadside.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff