Instant Ban for Drink or Drugged Driving

[Puddenchucker]

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?)

[vikingaero]

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.

[VSKeith]

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 etc

[anonymous-user]

There's no need for this. The impaired driver is already removed from the roadside at the time of the test and uncontested court hearings following a positive test often take place within a short timeframe.

Adding more actors into the mix isn't going to improve justice.

[Muzzer79]

IMO, the only issue comes in those (rare) cases of mitigation.

For example, if your drinks were evidentially spiked or there is a genuine emergency requiring you to drive under influence.

You can’t prove that at the roadside, hence going to court.

[croyde]

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.

[s p a c e m a n]

Is the roadside test for drug driving just a swab test? What's the actual procedure when you get back to the station?

[markjmd]

s p a c e m a n said:

Is the roadside test for drug driving just a swab test? What's the actual procedure when you get back to the station?

Pretty sure that will be a blood test, and obviously a far from instant result.

[Turn7]

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 .

[vikingaero]

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 etc

The typical penalty for failure to provide for 1st offence is 12 month ban and a fine of 75-125% of weekly income. So as I say, you could be completely bladdered and get away with a minimal ban and fine, which is why I think a harsher penalty is needed.

[Vasco]

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.

[Funk]

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.

[IJWS15]

These people have a disregard for the law and the safety of others.

Can someone explain how an instant ban would actually stop them driving?

[bigothunter]

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

Granting powers to the police beyond their remit is a dangerous precedent. Significant step towards enabling a police state.

[Vasco]

IJWS15 said:

These people have a disregard for the law and the safety of others.

Can someone explain how an instant ban would actually stop them driving?

Nothing will physically stop them - but they will be immediately logged so that ANPR picks them up.

[Time4another]

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.

[E-bmw]

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.

[VSKeith]

vikingaero said:

VSKeith said:

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 etc

The typical penalty for failure to provide for 1st offence is 12 month ban and a fine of 75-125% of weekly income. So as I say, you could be completely bladdered and get away with a minimal ban and fine, which is why I think a harsher penalty is needed.

Ok, so maybe not as black and white as I thought, but it seems there are categories of seriousness depending on associated factors.

https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_sentenc...

According to the above, being visibly bladdered and deliberately refusing would put them in a higher category where the starting point is community order and 17-28 months. No idea how that's applied in the real world. Maybe some with enforcement/legal experience could enlighten us

All refusals mean HRO status and medical exam required to have licence returned.

I'm not saying that punishment shouldn't be harsher but it is taken more seriously than being at the lower end of the scale having given evidential samples

[agtlaw]

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.

What's the thoughts of the PH community? Good, bad, open to abuse / wrongful disqualification?
Challenges and 'Compo claims' after 'Conviction' ?

If there's an appeal procedure then not necessarily a bad idea.

[s p a c e m a n]

markjmd said:

s p a c e m a n said:

Is the roadside test for drug driving just a swab test? What's the actual procedure when you get back to the station?

Pretty sure that will be a blood test, and obviously a far from instant result.

Your car smells of cannabis sir, you're now banned from driving until we receive blood test results