So that'll be speeding causing another death then

[jesusbuiltmycar]

link

echo said:

Blood tests showed that Mr Ttoffali, who died from a head injury, had consumed nearly one and a half times the legal drink-drive alcohol limit and recently taken cocaine and cannabis.

coroner sheriff payne said:

Recording an accidental death verdict, Mr Payne said speed had caused the crash.

So a few drinks, some bolivian marching powder and a spliff did not contribute to the accident then?

Edited by jesusbuiltmycar on Wednesday 24th October 15:07

[FiveStar]

Because drugs stay in the system for a few weeks its difficult to prove they are the cause of any accident. This is why no one gets done for drug driving. There is no conclusive way of proving when you took the drug so there is no way to say if it still having an affect on you.

Basically you can take as many drugs as you want but dont have two pints or you will be ed. Its a funny world!

Edited by FiveStar on Wednesday 24th October 15:22

[s2art]

FiveStar said:

Because drugs stay in the system for a few weeks its difficult to prove they are the cause of any accident. This is why no one gets done for drug driving. There is no conclusive way of proving when you took the drug so there is no way to say if it still having an affect on you.

Basically you can take as many drugs as you want but dont have two pints or you will be ed. Its a funny world!

Edited by FiveStar on Wednesday 24th October 15:22

Are you sure about that? A blood test will show the level of intoxication.

[SplatSpeed]

FiveStar said:

Because drugs stay in the system for a few weeks its difficult to prove they are the cause of any accident. This is why no one gets done for drug driving. There is no conclusive way of proving when you took the drug so there is no way to say if it still having an affect on you.

Basically you can take as many drugs as you want but dont have two pints or you will be ed. Its a funny world!

Edited by FiveStar on Wednesday 24th October 15:22

its true thats why my friends smoke weed

[tigger1]

SplatSpeed said:

FiveStar said:

Because drugs stay in the system for a few weeks its difficult to prove they are the cause of any accident. This is why no one gets done for drug driving. There is no conclusive way of proving when you took the drug so there is no way to say if it still having an affect on you.

Basically you can take as many drugs as you want but dont have two pints or you will be ed. Its a funny world!

Edited by FiveStar on Wednesday 24th October 15:22

its true thats why my friends smoke weed

Driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs? Difficult to prove (in the case of drugs), but not impossible

[streaky]

Was in possession of cocaine, so use might have been recent.

article said:

When asked by coroner Sheriff Payne about a glass phial found in her husband's pocket containing cocaine, Mrs Ttoffali replied: "I don't know anything about it."

But this is the quote to end all quotes:

article said:

In a statement, Mr Ttoffali's son Baille, who was a rear-seat passenger, said ... "I didn't think Dad was drunk. He had drunk too much to be driving."

Eh?

Streaky

[FiveStar]

streaky said:

But this is the quote to end all quotes:

article said:

In a statement, Mr Ttoffali's son Baille, who was a rear-seat passenger, said ... "I didn't think Dad was drunk. He had drunk too much to be driving."

Eh?

Streaky

err he wasnt drunk but was over the limit??

[SplatSpeed]

tigger1 said:

SplatSpeed said:

FiveStar said:

Because drugs stay in the system for a few weeks its difficult to prove they are the cause of any accident. This is why no one gets done for drug driving. There is no conclusive way of proving when you took the drug so there is no way to say if it still having an affect on you.

Basically you can take as many drugs as you want but dont have two pints or you will be ed. Its a funny world!

Edited by FiveStar on Wednesday 24th October 15:22

its true thats why my friends smoke weed

Driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs? Difficult to prove (in the case of drugs), but not impossible

it is for sussex police

[Bing o]

FiveStar said:

streaky said:

But this is the quote to end all quotes:

article said:

In a statement, Mr Ttoffali's son Baille, who was a rear-seat passenger, said ... "I didn't think Dad was drunk. He had drunk too much to be driving."

Eh?

Streaky

err he wasnt drunk but was over the limit??

Err, he was so shitfaced that I can't believe the could even physically put the key in the lock....

[FiveStar]

anyone know if there has ever been a successful conviction driving whilst under the influence of drugs?

I remeber watching traffic cops(?) or similar and there was a guy who was pulled by the police. He walks out stumbling all over the place like he is VERY drunk. BIB automatically pull out the breatherlyser(sp?) and he passes it. So they give him the walking test like in USA and he fails so they take him to the cop shop for blood tests. Apparently they found traces of nearly every drug from cannabis to heroin. What did he get? nothing! not even taken to court!!!

[AndyRw]

FiveStar said:

anyone know if there has ever been a successful conviction driving whilst under the influence of drugs?

It isn't an offence to drive while under the influence of drugs. The offence is under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, driving while unfit through drugs. Can be difficult to prove as you have to show that the driver was impaired and that the impairment was from the drugs. Presence of drugs is easy - blood test. Some BiB are trained to carry out the Field Impairment Test - the walk the line, touch your nose, etc... which shows impairment. This would normally be combined with an impairment test by a Police doctor in custody. The forensic scientist who analyses the blood would normally write about the likely effects of the drugs found in their statement. Put the two together and hope it shows that the impairment seen was a likely effect of the drugs consumed.

If they're pissed as well, it simply isn't worth all that effort to prove the drugs element. For example, I had a biker in last week who blew 81 on the intoximeter. He admitted he'd snorted some cocaine and smoked a fair bit of weed too. That went on the relevant forms and my statement, so the court should be aware, but there is no benefit in doing anything further about it.

SplatSpeed said:

it is for sussex police

Eh? Where'd they come into it?

[SLCZ3]

With the increased incidence of controlled/dangerous drugs being consumed by the general public why can the goverment not amend the requirement, of being under the influence, to something on the lines of, driving with one or more of the following drugs, A-B-C present in the bloodstream, with a given limit, in the same manner as alcohol limits are applied.

[Chrisgr31]

SplatSpeed said:

tigger1 said:

SplatSpeed said:

FiveStar said:

Because drugs stay in the system for a few weeks its difficult to prove they are the cause of any accident. This is why no one gets done for drug driving. There is no conclusive way of proving when you took the drug so there is no way to say if it still having an affect on you.

Basically you can take as many drugs as you want but dont have two pints or you will be ed. Its a funny world!

Edited by FiveStar on Wednesday 24th October 15:22

its true thats why my friends smoke weed

Driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs? Difficult to prove (in the case of drugs), but not impossible

it is for sussex police

I thought they had a campaign on this recently?

[Big Fat F'r]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

link

echo said:

Blood tests showed that Mr Ttoffali, who died from a head injury, had consumed nearly one and a half times the legal drink-drive alcohol limit and recently taken cocaine and cannabis.

coroner sheriff payne said:

Recording an accidental death verdict, Mr Payne said speed had caused the crash.

So a few drinks, some bolivian marching powder and a spliff did not contribute to the accident then?

Yes, it looks like it did contribute to the accident. The full quote is...

coroner sheriff payne said:

Recording an accidental death verdict, Mr Payne said speed had caused the crash.

He added: "Mr Ttoffali had consumed alcohol and there was also cocaine and cannabis in his system which may have caused him to be slightly over-confident and reckless.

Direct cause was judged to be the speed in excess of 90mph (he was travelling at 3 times the posted limit, but it is unclear if the limit was 30mph when the crash occurred), but the drink and drugs contributed.

BFF

Edited by Big Fat F'r on Friday 26th October 12:41

[FiveStar]

AndyRw said:

FiveStar said:

anyone know if there has ever been a successful conviction driving whilst under the influence of drugs?

It isn't an offence to drive while under the influence of drugs. The offence is under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, driving while unfit through drugs. Can be difficult to prove as you have to show that the driver was impaired and that the impairment was from the drugs. Presence of drugs is easy - blood test. Some BiB are trained to carry out the Field Impairment Test - the walk the line, touch your nose, etc... which shows impairment. This would normally be combined with an impairment test by a Police doctor in custody. The forensic scientist who analyses the blood would normally write about the likely effects of the drugs found in their statement. Put the two together and hope it shows that the impairment seen was a likely effect of the drugs consumed.

If they're pissed as well, it simply isn't worth all that effort to prove the drugs element. For example, I had a biker in last week who blew 81 on the intoximeter. He admitted he'd snorted some cocaine and smoked a fair bit of weed too. That went on the relevant forms and my statement, so the court should be aware, but there is no benefit in doing anything further about it.

SplatSpeed said:

it is for sussex police

Eh? Where'd they come into it?

thanks. makes things a lot clearer.

But what if you catch someone smoking a spliff whilst driving? However they was no alcohol present and the passed the roadside impairment test (they walked in a straight line)? Would they just be arrested for possesion (although I believe they are not arrested now?)?

Edited by FiveStar on Friday 26th October 13:12

[Mr2Mike]

echo said:

Blood tests showed that Mr Ttoffali, who died from a head injury, had consumed nearly one and a half times the legal drink-drive alcohol limit and recently taken cocaine and cannabis.

coroner sheriff payne said:

Recording an accidental death verdict, Mr Payne said speed had caused the crash.

I think it's been interprested wrongly. The guy was off his trolley on booze, nose candy and weed, but amphetamines were to blame.