Drunk driver doing a runner from an accident
Discussion
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 :-)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.
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.
Fortunately this one didn't get away:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-berkshire...
Just the average drink driver...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-berkshire...
Just the average drink driver...
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.Why do CCTV's never work or be there when you need them.
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.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 :-)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.
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.
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.
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.
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”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.
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...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.
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.
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”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.
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
anonymous said:
[redacted]
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.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
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
VSKeith said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
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.
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.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”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.
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.
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.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.
donkmeister said:
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.
Medical users have a medical defence - so long as they are not impaired when driving and showing as above 2mg per litre, they are free to carry on with their journey.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.In reality, medical cannabis is much more strict in terms of growing conditions - you'll never find any medical bud to be sprayed with salt, which when combusted is incredibly bad for your lungs and your life.
Regarding your 'lower thc, higher cbd' - not true. Sativex which is available on the NHS (5 prescriptions granted since November 2018...) is made from Skunk #1 with a THC content of 30%. Here is a link to the current strains available for private prescription: https://medbud.wiki/strains/?hideUnavailable=1&...
As you can see, there are a few low THC, high CBD strains but the majority are high THC. A recent report emerged from Canada regarding rates of schizophrenia since 2014 - the increase has gone up in line with cannabis uptake, but in terms of % it is almost exactly the same as it was. It has also emerged that blood THC levels are not accurate markers of impairment for cannabis. There has been a drop in drink-driving due to many taking up cannabis instead - so overall, that has got to be classed as a positive, I think.
Fewer people consuming alcohol meals fewer hospital admissions on Friday and Saturday nights, fewer police and medics needed to staff local night life hotspots and A&E etc. Plus there's no need for liver transplants and dying a horribly painful death from alcoholism.
donkmeister said:
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.
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?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.
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.I stand by the daily mail appeasing idiots comment - illustrated by Fez's highlighting of medical professionals' advice versus what they actually put into law
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I got the info from here: https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=978c0ee1-93c0... so if I'm not correct, therefore the police are not correct."You cannot just go out and expect that you are ok, based on a prescription, and based on an objective test of driving capacity." - what do you mean? Vaping cannabis means impairment lasts for 4-6 hours. If you are driving the next day or days later, why on earth would you not be OK?
If you pass an impairment test and are not under the influence of cannabis and you have a prescription, what exactly would you be arrested/held in custody for? Other than an officer not knowing this particular area of the law.
You do realise that anyone who is prescribed any drug by their GP is subject to the same impairment threshold? It is medically prescribed cannabis, therefore no different in terms of legality to prescribed Codeine, Insulin, Morphine etc. You seem to have seen the word 'cannabis' and reacted hysterically.
Again, you may have a blood THC level of 4mg per litre yet have zero impiarment and a legal prescription - what, exactly, is the problem?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff