Cyclist breathalysed

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Do you have any source or links I could quote and I'll feed it back. We dislike the practice anyway, but have never known they shouldn't be doing it. Fair enough on your term correction for 136, my apologies.

Actually I may have been wrong.....

Is there a difference in regards to 'detain' and 'arrest' from a policeman's point of view? The MHA stipulates detain, to me as a mental health practitioner it does matter - as I said due to stigma. But I've never considered it from a policeman's job.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Thank you. As we are veering off topic I'll PM you

 

[CopperCyclist]

Actually I may have been wrong.....

Is there a difference in regards to 'detain' and 'arrest' from a policeman's point of view? The MHA stipulates detain, to me as a mental health practitioner it does matter - as I said due to stigma. But I've never considered it from a policeman's job.

No, there isn't any true difference, though the term detain is doubtless better, for precisly that reason!

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

No, there isn't any true difference, though the term detain is doubtless better, for precisly that reason!

Ah! thank you.

 

[Wildswimmer Pete]

A bit of a thorny one: while a pedelec is technically a pedal cycle it's also motorised. Could the police demand a breath test under Section 172? I hold that an electric bike is not a motor vehicle so the rider can't be subjected to a roadside breath test.

However I do have another concern. I'm not allowed to ride motorbikes any more due to a full stroke, but one legacy of the stroke is poor speech. If I'm having "bad speech day" my speech is slurred and to those who don't know better I can be regarded to be drunk.

Advice appreciated.

 

[Dan B]

A bit of a thorny one: while a pedelec is technically a pedal cycle it's also motorised. Could the police demand a breath test under Section 172? I hold that an electric bike is not a motor vehicle so the rider can't be subjected to a roadside breath test.

Looking at https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules (CBA to check the legislation itself right now) my guess would be that assuming your bike meets the requirements to be an EAPC then it is legally a bicycle not a motor vehicle

 

[CopperCyclist]

A bit of a thorny one: while a pedelec is technically a pedal cycle it's also motorised. Could the police demand a breath test under Section 172? I hold that an electric bike is not a motor vehicle so the rider can't be subjected to a roadside breath test.

However I do have another concern. I'm not allowed to ride motorbikes any more due to a full stroke, but one legacy of the stroke is poor speech. If I'm having "bad speech day" my speech is slurred and to those who don't know better I can be regarded to be drunk.

Advice appreciated.

Section 172 road traffic act? The right for us to require details of the driver? Nothing about breathalysing there?

The answer is probably no anyway. As long as a pedelec fits the description of an electric bike in the standard restrictions posted by the poster above, it is written into legislation that it is not to be considered a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' and as such would be treated as any normal bike would.

Not sure what you are referring to by 172 though!

 

[Ganymede]

However I do have another concern. I'm not allowed to ride motorbikes any more due to a full stroke, but one legacy of the stroke is poor speech. If I'm having "bad speech day" my speech is slurred and to those who don't know better I can be regarded to be drunk.

Advice appreciated.

No personal experience of this but I would get a note from your doctor and laminate it!

Hurrah for wild swimming btw.

 

[ufkacbln]

Why is an alcohol blood level above a small prescribed limit considered drunk by so many people?
The definition is "Intoxicated with alcoholic liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties"

The drive limit in Scotland is now 50mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood.
So how is 124mg almost 5 times over the limit according to the Journalist?
The cyclist should have politely declined the offer of a breath test.

From the CTC:

1) Riding whilst under the influence of drink or drugs is an offence:The Road Traffic Act 1988 section 30 says:
Cycling when under influence of drink or drugs
(1) A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be
incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
(2) In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section.
(3) In this section “road” includes a bridleway

A breathalyser is a suitable and established method of proving that the individual has exceeded the "limit"

Of course the limit is always going to be arbitrary - It may be that the guy who has been in the pub, downed 5 pints with chasers and drives home may be "Safer" than his wife who doesn't drink and hence is more affected by a single large glass of wine

As with all of these things there is a need to have a stated limit at which the research shows there is an impairment in the "average" person and this is than applied to all

The "drunk" is simply a common colloquial description as it is assumed that if you are impaired then you cannot be sober and must be "drunk"

 

[Andy Roadie]

"As with all of these things there is a need to have a stated limit at which the research shows there is an impairment in the "average" person and this is than applied to all" Drivers of Motor Vehicles (Fixed that for you)
Once again. Being over the drive limit does not mean one is drunk.















As with all of these things there is a need to have a stated limit at which the research shows there is an impairment in the "average" person and this is than applied to all

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Once again. Being over the drive limit does not mean one is drunk.

And being below the limit doesn't mean you're not drunk.

GC

 

[Brandane]

Once again. Being over the drive limit does not mean one is drunk.

And being below the limit doesn't mean you're not drunk.

GC

Hence the reason (as GC will know) for two separate offences in Road Traffic law. One for driving whilst "drunk", and the other for driving whilst "over the prescribed limit".
If you have been stupid enough to drink and drive then it is more than likely you will fit one charge or the other.

To get back to the original point though, cycling is not driving. You can go and drink as much as you like and then jump on your bike, as long as you are not "drunk". That is the bit that is open to interpretation!

 

[benb]

And anyone who disagrees with that doesn't understand physics.