Random Breathalyzer Testing?

[Frenchieboy]

 

 

By that logic we should ban all guns!

 

 

 

Are you sure about that? I'll expand on this point, there seem to be a significant number of incidents in fieldsports where safety was clearly not the number one priority. Let's not forget all the shoots that have a boozy lunch and then go out and do a few more drives.....

 

OK, if you want to use that sort of logic(?) then take a look at the amount of lives lost to shooting accidents/incidents compared to the amount of lives lost to drink drivering incidents.

I'm sorry but I don't think you can use gun related accidents/incidents as a fair or reasonable comparison to drink driving!

Edited December 22, 2012 by Frenchieboy

[unapalomablanca]

Its a shame they cant pull over arsey, late, yawning, reckless women that seem to be in abundance in the mornings.

[digger]

Jonathan. Read, digest, type. Laird Lugton was referring to the limit for pilots. If you are going to jump on every post best check what has been written

[Dirty Harry]

 

 

It's 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath,

 

J.

 

Not for pilots.

[Dirty Harry]

Police can stop any vehicle on a road to check their driving documentation. If when they stop them they smell or suspect alcohol they can conduct a breath test.

 

Not hard is it.

[Muggins.]

I never used to be a fan of the police waving motorists into laybys when they should be frying bigger fish but that said .. If you haven`t been drinking then you have nothing to worry about, you do it at your own peril!!

[rustybucket]

I'm all for random testing got stopped earlier copper was extremely polite about it, blew in the tube and sent me on my way.

 

I get stopped a lot due to my job involves a lot of night time driving and I've never complained once about it. To echo some previous comments even if it save one life it's worth it

[Livefast123]

When you've swept up, picked up, seen bodies obliterated and families that are ripped apart by the loss of a loved one who left in the morning with a kiss and never came home, then you come to realise that roads policing is an important tool that should not be allowed to wane. There are very few collisions that are actual genuine accidents.

 

There are lots of ways to legally stop vehicles under the Road Traffic Act and if you happen to smell alcohol when speaking to the driver, thats your cue to breath test. I don't know why people are kept at these checks unless the officer suspects another offence, you can smell the alcohol as soon as the window opens.........or copious amounts of Lynx

 

If I take 1 drunk / drugged / dangerous / driver off the roads then that is a job well done for me.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Livefast123

[happypig]

aviation, maritime and railway limits

 

for pilots, all air crew and air traffic controllers

(a)

in the case of breath, 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,

( B)

in the case of blood, 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and

 

©

in the case of urine, 27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

for engineers the limits are the same as car drivers

35 microgrames breath, 80 milligrams in blood and 107 milligrammes in urine

 

for train drivers, signal men etc see car levels

 

for professional seamen see car levels

Edited December 22, 2012 by happypig

[Vince Green]

It isn't worth 'bending' (you actually mean breaking) the law for. If it's a good thing to do then Parliament can change the law to allow it. The ends do not automatically justify the means. If this is worth 'bending' the law for then what else is and what is the justification for not doing so?

 

J.

 

Its not breaking the law. "Grounds for suspicion" can mean anything you want it to mean. Out at 11pm on the Saturday night before Christmas can be reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Vince Green

[bobt]

so how come one in three cars I see have faulty lights?

either one out or worse, the bulb fitted wrong so it blinds all oncoming traffic.

[southeastpete]

You know what, why not test everyone leaving anywhere that sells alcohol, or where someone may have had a drink. so thats all shops and pubs and homes etc overed. Tell you what while we're at it, lets take DNA too, and fingerprints and eye scans and photographs. And email addresses and bank details, so they can check what you look at on the internet, and buy. Its all for national security, and lets face it, if your innocent you have nothing to worry about. In fact, we may as well then, tag all cars, and people, so we can track everyone everywhere. Because its not just drink driving thats awful, so are rapes and murders, and to be honest, burglaries are horrible, and most crimes, thats why they are illegal. So lets randomly stop for everything, and seeing as prevention is better than cure all the tagging will be better than the random checks. Why not gather biometric data from all babies as they are born!

I am not for any drink driving either, I think there shouldnt be a limit, it should be drink OR drive. BUT, where does it stop? There needs to be some trust. There will always be those who abuse it, but that is why we have police. It wont always work, But thats a risk we all take stepping outside. I am not a criminal, (sometimes I may stray over the speed limit, and when i was about 8 a nicked a packet of chewing gum from tesco), so I have nothing to hide from the police, but that doesnt mean I want to live in a world of cctv(too late) barricades and stop checks, fingerprinting, DNA testing etc etc. I want to be free to live my life, make mistakes as I see fit, and be accountable, as others are, if my mistakes affect others.

[southeastpete]

That is not correct. Suspicion someone has had a drink IS enough. 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres is for driving. They were on about flying which is much lower.

Then they need to check them as they leave the plane, NOT the airport. They could have anything to drink between the plane and the car.

[southeastpete]

Jonathan. Read, digest, type. Laird Lugton was referring to the limit for pilots. If you are going to jump on every post best check what has been written

Not for pilots.

aviation, maritime and railway limits

 

for pilots, all air crew and air traffic controllers

 

(a)

in the case of breath, 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,

 

( B)

in the case of blood, 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and

 

 

©

in the case of urine, 27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

for engineers the limits are the same as car drivers

35 microgrames breath, 80 milligrams in blood and 107 milligrammes in urine

 

for train drivers, signal men etc see car levels

 

for professional seamen see car levels

 

Again, they were checking on the way out of the airport, they would be unable to convict for fkying under the influence as tehy could have drunk anything betweeen the plane and the car.

[Dirty Harry]

Slightly off topic Pete but I would be for DNA and fingerprinting of everyone if it was to be used to solve serious crime. Arrested people are done anyway but there are lots of people out there who remain at large because they are not on the system. It may also deter people from committing crime in the first place.

 

Harry

[ordnance]

I always thought they had to give a reason or suspect someone of drinking driving for wanting to breathalyse an individual? Or is random breath testing now the norm

 

They would make something up for stopping you. They might get one of there colleges to pretend he was a civilian and email the police to say they seen you speeding or something. PS Then agian that's probably a bit far fetched.

[GingerCat]

Section 136 if the road traffic act 1988 gives plod the power to stop ANY vehicle on a public road to check for documents ie driving licence insurance and mot. If during that stop the officer suspects you may have had a drink he MAY form suspicion that you are driving over the limit or unfit to drive through drink (sec 4&5) of the rta 1988 he may then ask you to take a breath test orbjust arrest u. Refusal will also result in arrest. A negative test and docs in order and your on your way. There is also an offence of being drunk in charge of a vehicle. U do not have to be actually driving that vehicle to be arrested, just drunk and in charge of it, plod will excercise descretion here.

Once arrested and taken to a station you can have a another chance to take a test or refuse. Refusal will result in being charged and thats about it. That's how the law is written. It's not up to plod, but parliament.

Should u blow under and some do then u get to go home immediately. It does not mean the arrest is unlawful. If over then its off to court for your disqualifacation and fine.

Personally I think cars and drink don't mix, not even a drop. Lost count of how many people are over the limit the morning after a heavy night. And the woeful excuses and insults about catching proper criminals. They use cars as well, if a drunk or drugged driver is caught as well then good, saves someone telling relatives at 1am that there mum/dad/son/daughter has been killed by a drunk driver. thats about as awful as it gets.

If u exit a pub and drive off expect to be stopped and checked, not unreasonable is it ?

[Vince Green]

They would make something up for stopping you. They might get one of there colleges to pretend he was a civilian and email the police to say they seen you speeding or something. PS Then agian that's probably a bit far fetched.

"we thought the car was being driven erratically" always used to be enough.

[Blackbart]

Slightly off topic Pete but I would be for DNA and fingerprinting of everyone if it was to be used to solve serious crime. Arrested people are done anyway but there are lots of people out there who remain at large because they are not on the system. It may also deter people from committing crime in the first place.

 

Harry

 

 

Good idea, you could then tattoo a number and a symbol on the ones that have given DNA and when you see someone without the " MARK" you could round them up.

 

I think this has been done before though and it did not go down too well.

[digger]

What? I really mean that. Who the hell is on about breath testing a pilot about to drive after flying? Seriously wish keyboards had a breath test on them. World would be a better place

Edited December 22, 2012 by digger

[TopDown]

Then they need to check them as they leave the plane, NOT the airport. They could have anything to drink between the plane and the car.

 

Might I suggest with the greatest respect that you re-read this thread.

[Laird Lugton]

I stand corrected it is .2 milligrams per millilitre of blood. My company ops manual doesn't state the breath level.

 

However I'm surprised that so many are happy for the Police to bend the law to secure a conviction. Out of interest where do you draw the line with respect to this, drink driving, burglary conviction, murder, terrorism?

 

To me the Police have to work within the law, if they go outside the law the they are no better than the criminals they seek to convict.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Laird Lugton

[bedwards1966]

Slightly off topic Pete but I would be for DNA and fingerprinting of everyone if it was to be used to solve serious crime. Arrested people are done anyway but there are lots of people out there who remain at large because they are not on the system. It may also deter people from committing crime in the first place.

 

Harry

 

You don't feel that it's an invasion of human rights to be forced onto a system?

I have never committed any crimes, nor do I intend to, so in theory I have nothing to 'fear' from being on the system. I still don't want to be on it though.

 

I understand that there may be a lot of criminals out there who's details are not on file, but the first place to start would be for the police to start doing their jobs correctly, not taking every person's DNA. There are enough people out there with enough evidence against them where the police have failed to do them through incompetence, laziness or some other reason.

 

Would it be going too far to have everybody tagged with a GPS locator? You could them watch every suspected criminal, catch anybody and always know the movements of everybody.

 

There comes a point where you have to balance the freedom of the public against catching criminals.

[Dirty Harry]

I understand that there may be a lot of criminals out there who's details are not on file, but the first place to start would be for the police to start doing their jobs correctly, not taking every person's DNA. There are enough people out there with enough evidence against them where the police have failed to do them through incompetence, laziness or some other reason.

 

If your mother/wife/daughter was raped late at night with no CCTV or witnesses, the offender had no previous, was not from the area and there was nothing else to go on the DNA would tell the police who to look for straight away.

I remember one where a bloke got nicked for stealing a kit kat. Some may say that it was over the top to arrest someone for this, especially as they had no previous. His DNA was taken and he was found to be the offender for a rape a few years previous.

 

It would help catch offenders and prevent crime and I would be for that.

[keg]

I am all for random breathe testing. In NZ, they just close the road and feed you through a checkpoint. Takes seconds and works a treat.

 

As for DNA, i can see where Dirty Harry is coming from and agree, but recently a guy was released from a sentence as his DNA samples had been mixed up. It is 99.9% accurate but not 100% as claimed.