Drunk driver doing a runner from an accident

[TRIUMPHBULLET]

fourstardan said:

I think getting this sort of tosser off the Road would be enough punishment.

Why do CCTV's never work or be there when you need them.

Fear, the places that have them used in court cases sometimes get attacked by person or persons unknown shortly after.

[Nibbles_bits]

Griffith4ever said:

iDrive said:

There is limited awareness of the different offences of being "Over the Prescribed Limit" vs being "Unfit through drink/drugs" - for the latter offence you can be *under* the drink drive limit, but the manner of your driving is the evidence, and street cctv, the collision, witness evidence etc can be used to prove

Whatever the result of the investigation, you can expect that the Police will seek him out in future too - Drink Drivers are rarely one-off offenders, no matter how many times they might protest such, they are habitual risk-takers - The Police will most likely look at other vehicles, replacement vehicle, driving habits, employment and where he might be caught in future - It can take months, but they "get lucky" with surprising regularity, just happening to be in the right place at the right time.

You assume the police have a lot of time to focus on a single drunk driver, and I assume you are way off the mark :-)

Really?
I know of a driver that was arrested 4 times in 1 week (albeit for drug driving).

I booked him on one evening, came back on duty the next day and saw him in custody. Assumed he was still in and his PACE was close to expiring.
Nope, he'd been released and stopped by the same RPU Officer as the previous evening. Hadn't even got home to change his clothing.

[J__Wood]

Fortunately this one didn't get away:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-berkshire...

Just the average drink driver...

[Forester1965]

TRIUMPHBULLET said:

fourstardan said:

I think getting this sort of tosser off the Road would be enough punishment.

Why do CCTV's never work or be there when you need them.

Fear, the places that have them used in court cases sometimes get attacked by person or persons unknown shortly after.

Licensed premises don't like being on the radar of the Police/Licensing committee for being a place creating offences, either. They have to balance that with any licence conditions requiring operational CCTV, of course.

[Octoposse]

scrw. said:

Stunk of booze, was seen drinking in a local pub for a few hours before the crash, slurring words, I am sure a good lawyer would have the latter as a bang on the head though. (un)Fortunately the CCTV system in the pub he was drinking in has been sent away to be repaired, I understand the police asked to see it.

In our area, having a functioning CCTV system is often a condition of the License - so the pub might be in the doggie doo as well.

[Griffith4ever]

Nibbles_bits said:

Griffith4ever said:

iDrive said:

There is limited awareness of the different offences of being "Over the Prescribed Limit" vs being "Unfit through drink/drugs" - for the latter offence you can be *under* the drink drive limit, but the manner of your driving is the evidence, and street cctv, the collision, witness evidence etc can be used to prove

Whatever the result of the investigation, you can expect that the Police will seek him out in future too - Drink Drivers are rarely one-off offenders, no matter how many times they might protest such, they are habitual risk-takers - The Police will most likely look at other vehicles, replacement vehicle, driving habits, employment and where he might be caught in future - It can take months, but they "get lucky" with surprising regularity, just happening to be in the right place at the right time.

You assume the police have a lot of time to focus on a single drunk driver, and I assume you are way off the mark :-)

Really?
I know of a driver that was arrested 4 times in 1 week (albeit for drug driving).

I booked him on one evening, came back on duty the next day and saw him in custody. Assumed he was still in and his PACE was close to expiring.
Nope, he'd been released and stopped by the same RPU Officer as the previous evening. Hadn't even got home to change his clothing.

Sounds like he's throwing himself at the feet of the law.

Where I am, in Somersset, it's very much a rarity to see a police car outside of the town centre.

I would also add that "drug driving" is a very unfair law at present. You can be completely straight (i.e. not under the influence) but fail a THC test none the less because of something you smoked a long while back. A clumsy law.

I know people who smoke whilst thjey drive - which to me is utterly daft, but then I guess they have assumed the chance of getting stopped is remote - which of course does not take into account getting involved in any kind of incident and then tested. Its little suprise someone is getting repeatedly booked. He probably smokes all day every day and is never, ever, going to pass a THC test, regardless.

[Terminator X]

Petrus1983 said:

No proof. Can't see anything happening. Fleeing an accident at worst.

Same. That's why they run.

TX.

[Terminator X]

scrw. said:

Stunk of booze, was seen drinking in a local pub for a few hours before the crash, slurring words, I am sure a good lawyer would have the latter as a bang on the head though. (un)Fortunately the CCTV system in the pub he was drinking in has been sent away to be repaired, I understand the police asked to see it.

How would you know that?

TX.

[agtlaw]

Griffith4ever said:

Sounds like he's throwing himself at the feet of the law.

Where I am, in Somersset, it's very much a rarity to see a police car outside of the town centre.

I would also add that "drug driving" is a very unfair law at present. You can be completely straight (i.e. not under the influence) but fail a THC test none the less because of something you smoked a long while back. A clumsy law.

I know people who smoke whilst thjey drive - which to me is utterly daft, but then I guess they have assumed the chance of getting stopped is remote - which of course does not take into account getting involved in any kind of incident and then tested. Its little suprise someone is getting repeatedly booked. He probably smokes all day every day and is never, ever, going to pass a THC test, regardless.

Define “a long while back”

[Random_Person]

iDrive said:

The Police will most likely look at other vehicles, replacement vehicle, driving habits, employment and where he might be caught in future - It can take months, but they "get lucky" with surprising regularity, just happening to be in the right place at the right time.

This just demonstrates you have absolutely zero understanding or experience of policing today - none / nada / zilch. Unless you live in a Scottish hamlet.

[iDrive]

Griffith4ever said:

Sounds like he's throwing himself at the feet of the law.

Where I am, in Somersset, it's very much a rarity to see a police car outside of the town centre.

I would also add that "drug driving" is a very unfair law at present. You can be completely straight (i.e. not under the influence) but fail a THC test none the less because of something you smoked a long while back. A clumsy law.

I know people who smoke whilst thjey drive - which to me is utterly daft, but then I guess they have assumed the chance of getting stopped is remote - which of course does not take into account getting involved in any kind of incident and then tested. Its little suprise someone is getting repeatedly booked. He probably smokes all day every day and is never, ever, going to pass a THC test, regardless.

In terms of "You never see a Police Car outside of the Town Centre", it does require the person making the comment to be aware of their surroundings too...

I know the unmarked cars swell as the marked and even in the most rural of locations, still see them.

With the Telematics tech, its also easy to see where they have been and when - Whilst the rural parts of the UK have a Police presence less than half of that in some of our European neighbours, its why they target their time as above, use Analysts to "get lucky" and why the folks who have something to fear need to be lucky every time.

[Griffith4ever]

agtlaw said:

Griffith4ever said:

Sounds like he's throwing himself at the feet of the law.

Where I am, in Somersset, it's very much a rarity to see a police car outside of the town centre.

I would also add that "drug driving" is a very unfair law at present. You can be completely straight (i.e. not under the influence) but fail a THC test none the less because of something you smoked a long while back. A clumsy law.

I know people who smoke whilst thjey drive - which to me is utterly daft, but then I guess they have assumed the chance of getting stopped is remote - which of course does not take into account getting involved in any kind of incident and then tested. Its little suprise someone is getting repeatedly booked. He probably smokes all day every day and is never, ever, going to pass a THC test, regardless.

Define “a long while back”

I can't. That's why the law is clumsy.

Alcohol is a test of blood content ( in your lungs) which is indisputable (of course some people are affected more than others, but, a line has to be drawn somewhere).

Weed testing at the roadside targets thc residue in your mouth. You can have some in there without being remotely stoned/ influenced. It's clumsy. It WILL have made criminals of a huge amount of people not remotely stoned whilst driving. It's is rushed law that penalises a minority that take weed as their drug instead of alcohol.

Edited by Griffith4ever on Saturday 13th April 14:30

[Random_Person]

The roadside test is merely grounds for arrest. Then a blood sample is taken by an FME and sent off for analysis. So your point is flawed.

Nobody is getting convicted for drug driving on saliva. Besides, if you are stupid enough to take drugs in the first place, then I have little sympathy. The fact is around 30% of drivers on the road today, right now, will have drugs in their system beyond legal tolerances.

[VSKeith]

Random_Person said:

The roadside test is merely grounds for arrest. Then a blood sample is taken by an FME and sent off for analysis. So your point is flawed.

Nobody is getting convicted for drug driving on saliva. Besides, if you are stupid enough to take drugs in the first place, then I have little sympathy. The fact is around 30% of drivers on the road today, right now, will have drugs in their system beyond legal tolerances.

For cannabis, those legal tolerances are ridiculous and are intended as a zero tolerance approach, but allowing for accidental exposure. As stated above, many have probably been criminalised who were not remotely impaired at the wheel.

The hand wringing daily mail appeasing idiots who introduced this law allow medicinal cannabis users to have much higher levels. The medical guidance is effectively: 'Don't drive if you feel stoned'. This indicates that they know impairment occurs at much higher levels than those allowed, as they would never allow medicinal users of alcohol (if there were such a thing) to drive above the current legal limit.

[iDrive]

Random_Person said:

iDrive said:

The Police will most likely look at other vehicles, replacement vehicle, driving habits, employment and where he might be caught in future - It can take months, but they "get lucky" with surprising regularity, just happening to be in the right place at the right time.

This just demonstrates you have absolutely zero understanding or experience of policing today - none / nada / zilch. Unless you live in a Scottish hamlet.

Bless you

[Random_Person]

VSKeith said:

For cannabis, those legal tolerances are ridiculous and are intended as a zero tolerance approach, but allowing for accidental exposure. As stated above, many have probably been criminalised who were not remotely impaired at the wheel.

The hand wringing daily mail appeasing idiots who introduced this law allow medicinal cannabis users to have much higher levels. The medical guidance is effectively: 'Don't drive if you feel stoned'. This indicates that they know impairment occurs at much higher levels than those allowed, as they would never allow medicinal users of alcohol (if there were such a thing) to drive above the current legal limit.

You are probably right, THC is very different to alcohol and that includes the way it remains in your body and affects it. But it is what it is. Lucky for me I don't smoke da herb, but I know many that do and I understand they face a more problematic outcome, and possibly one not proportionate to how actually impaired they may be. However, the answer is, like speeding, just don't do it and then you have no worries!

[Griffith4ever]

Random_Person said:

The roadside test is merely grounds for arrest. Then a blood sample is taken by an FME and sent off for analysis. So your point is flawed.

Nobody is getting convicted for drug driving on saliva. Besides, if you are stupid enough to take drugs in the first place, then I have little sympathy. The fact is around 30% of drivers on the road today, right now, will have drugs in their system beyond legal tolerances.

Re the roadside test and the follow up test - interesting, I have learnt something new. Be interesting to know the thresholds fot the actual test.

Re being "stupid enough to take drugs" - do you drink at all? because if you do, you are as "stupid" as cannabis smokers. They are both drugs, with one actually being far far more harmfull to society, and health, than the other. Clue - one of them is government "approved" and taxed.

Edited by Griffith4ever on Saturday 13th April 20:44

[donkmeister]

VSKeith said:

Random_Person said:

The roadside test is merely grounds for arrest. Then a blood sample is taken by an FME and sent off for analysis. So your point is flawed.

Nobody is getting convicted for drug driving on saliva. Besides, if you are stupid enough to take drugs in the first place, then I have little sympathy. The fact is around 30% of drivers on the road today, right now, will have drugs in their system beyond legal tolerances.

For cannabis, those legal tolerances are ridiculous and are intended as a zero tolerance approach, but allowing for accidental exposure. As stated above, many have probably been criminalised who were not remotely impaired at the wheel.

The hand wringing daily mail appeasing idiots who introduced this law allow medicinal cannabis users to have much higher levels. The medical guidance is effectively: 'Don't drive if you feel stoned'. This indicates that they know impairment occurs at much higher levels than those allowed, as they would never allow medicinal users of alcohol (if there were such a thing) to drive above the current legal limit.

From what I can see from a cursory 2 minute google, there is only one THC threshold and no exemption for medical marijuana users. If you are sure that's the case do you have a link to where it's defined please?

It's been many many years since I held a joint and didn't inhale however even I know that medical marijuana is different to marijuana bought from illicit sources. Lower THC, higher CBD. So you would need to do a lot more of it to hit the THC threshold vs the sticky icky grown in someone's loft.

[FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive]

agtlaw said:

Griffith4ever said:

Sounds like he's throwing himself at the feet of the law.

Where I am, in Somersset, it's very much a rarity to see a police car outside of the town centre.

I would also add that "drug driving" is a very unfair law at present. You can be completely straight (i.e. not under the influence) but fail a THC test none the less because of something you smoked a long while back. A clumsy law.

I know people who smoke whilst thjey drive - which to me is utterly daft, but then I guess they have assumed the chance of getting stopped is remote - which of course does not take into account getting involved in any kind of incident and then tested. Its little suprise someone is getting repeatedly booked. He probably smokes all day every day and is never, ever, going to pass a THC test, regardless.

Define “a long while back”

Typically THC is present in saliva for approximately five days after last use. Clinical studies show that impairment lasts 4-6 hours, with it returning to baseline by hour 8 after consumption (specifically via smoking or vaporising it). Sublingual oils and edible forms are longer lasting (6-12 hours). It's maddening that those who use cannabis for recreation can potentially lose their driving licence, job/career over a substance that has no deaths directly attributed to it and is often used medically for undiagnosed illness/pain etc.

I'm a medical patient and I absolutely don't condone driving while impaired.

The current limit is 2mg per litre of blood (https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=978c0ee1-93c0-ec11-983e-002248438848) - which is absurdly low. Government asked their medical board for a sensible limit - who recommended a limit of 5mg per litre of blood so as not to penalise those who had a joint/vape the previous night and who are no longer impaired/under the influence when behind the wheel. So what did the government do? Promptly ignored the advice and set it at 2mg because 'tough on drugs' stance.

[FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive]

VSKeith said:

For cannabis, those legal tolerances are ridiculous and are intended as a zero tolerance approach, but allowing for accidental exposure. As stated above, many have probably been criminalised who were not remotely impaired at the wheel.

The hand wringing daily mail appeasing idiots who introduced this law allow medicinal cannabis users to have much higher levels. The medical guidance is effectively: 'Don't drive if you feel stoned'. This indicates that they know impairment occurs at much higher levels than those allowed, as they would never allow medicinal users of alcohol (if there were such a thing) to drive above the current legal limit.

Finally, someone who understands the absurdity of the current THC limit.