subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
that sounds like a gauntlet being thrown down.
theres probably a few old Jakey Neds that have that as their resting alcohol level
Cyclist breathalysed
- Thread starter snorri
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
that sounds like a gauntlet being thrown down.
theres probably a few old Jakey Neds that have that as their resting alcohol level
Rohloff_Brompton_Rider
Formerly just_fixed
As I understand the law, a person riding a bicycle is no different to a pedestrian or a person pushing an empty pram in regards to intoxication.
The breath test is not legal evidence in court unless it is todo with motoring offences - mental health nurses used to break the law by measuring returning patients alcohol levels. Not anymore as it is quite obviously a breach of human rights and European law.
Edit: I need to clarify this statement. What I meant and what I omitted and should have said...
For MH nurses to deny services based on alcometer readings is highly illegal and unethical.
The breath test is not legal evidence in court unless it is todo with motoring offences - mental health nurses used to break the law by measuring returning patients alcohol levels. Not anymore as it is quite obviously a breach of human rights and European law.
Edit: I need to clarify this statement. What I meant and what I omitted and should have said...
For MH nurses to deny services based on alcometer readings is highly illegal and unethical.
Last edited:
CopperCyclist
Veteran
My record result is 139 on the station procedure. He was one of the 'more sober' (in appearance) people I've dealt with too. I remember my colleague at the time saying "I wouldn't have even breathalysed him!" as he had noticed anything strange about him. I thought I could smell a little alcohol so did...
It's to do with your regular intake. An alcoholic drinking daily will show less effects for the alcohol than a teetotaller. You may argue that makes an alcoholic a safer driver on a few pints than a normal drinker, and there may even be a point there - but as a poster above pointed out, (fortunately) there are set arbitrary limits rather than having to argue whether people are unfit or not.
For the record, I have breathalysed cyclists, but have always pointed out it was not a legal requirement, indeed the reason I offer it is in case the other driver later tries to muddy the water by saying "I was breathalysed and they weren't, they were probably drunk". So far the cyclists have always taken up the offer, and have anyways blown zero.
CopperCyclist
Veteran
That's interesting. When we arrest someone on a Section 136 Mental Health Act, the nurses at the MH centre at the hospital breathalyse them (using their own breathalyser) and if they register any alcohol at all, refuse to accept them and transfer them to A&E.
Ganymede
Veteran
- Location
- Rural Kent
Well when I took my bipolar friend into A+E when he'd fallen off a wall, I wish they'd breathalysed him, then they would have realised he was mentally ill rather than drunk, and perhaps diagnosed his broken ribs and got him some help. I'm sure they jumped to prejudiced conclusions because he had a Scottish accent.
Rohloff_Brompton_Rider
Formerly just_fixed
It is actually against the law and human rights. This has been proven in court by patients several times, some trusts just don't seem capable of keeping up. Another example of illegal but common practice along the same lines is; removing sugary items from returning patients if they have diabetes - highly illegal and tbh unethical as the patients are under the mental health act.
See my post edit above, it might clarify some confusion...my fault sorry.
Last edited:
Rohloff_Brompton_Rider
Formerly just_fixed
And you don't arrest someone under the MHA you actually remove them to a place of safety....very different and I just thought I'd clarify that. People with MH issues already suffer enough stigma.
Middle of the day posters.
classic33
Leg End Member
Qualify for all three then.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Am I wrong in thinking that the roadside breath test is just a screening device? I thought that it was just a preliminary to obtaining a blood/urine sample which is what is used in court, as the breath test isn't seen as being sufficiently accurate. If that's the case (and I'm not 100% sure it is) then how useful is the breath test for evidence purposes?
Me, I'd have them for everybody. Especially that rat faced drunk who trod on my foot on the tube yesterday evening, then staggered around and jogged my arm as I filled in a crucial bit of sudoku. Off to chokey with him.
Me, I'd have them for everybody. Especially that rat faced drunk who trod on my foot on the tube yesterday evening, then staggered around and jogged my arm as I filled in a crucial bit of sudoku. Off to chokey with him.
CopperCyclist
Veteran
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.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
Yes, the roadside test is just a screening device and would be little evidential value. I have not read the article and so am not aware of what went on.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
The roadside devices are used for preliminary breath testing to give an indication.
Evidential breath testing is done at the police station on a bigger machine.
Camic is a popular make, although there are others.
Racing roadkill
Guru
I was asked to "give a sample of breath" three years ago, because I fell off the bike right in front of a parked police car, in a lay-by, on a cycle path. I refused ( I hadn't had a drink anyway), they couldn't make me, so that was that. I'm not even sure why they asked, boredom I presumed.
Rohloff_Brompton_Rider
Formerly just_fixed
This does a pretty good job of covering it....
Taken from here...
http://mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/breathalysing-patients/
And this
http://mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/assessing-intoxicated-patients-part-1/
Part 2 is on a link.
Some legal code of practice type stuff...
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2013.pdf
And finally consider the mental capacity act in conjunction with all of the above.
I was given a load of legal type stuff on a course I did but can't find it (I'm assuming the wife has had a purge).
This is more relevant to your question I think...
- Decisions relating to patients experiencing temporary incapacity, for example due to intoxication, should, wherever possible be deferred until the patient has regained decision- making capacity. In an emergency, where lack of capacity is temporary, treatment should be administered in the patient’s best interests in a way which is minimally restrictive to that individual’s freedoms and any decisions which can be deferred until the patient has regained capacity, should be.
Specimens can be taken for diagnostic purposes if doing so is deemed to be in the patient’s best interests. They should not, however, be taken or used for forensic tests except where a blood sample is taken from an incompetent driver under the terms of the Police Reform Act 2002 or the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (see section 3.6).
From here....
http://bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/practical advice at work/ethics/healthdetainees0209.pdf
Last edited:
