Disqualify Drink/Drug Drivers at Roadside

[sheddy]

Police Chiefs looking at tests to ban motorists at the roadside

https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/ca...o-ban-drug-and-drink-drivers-at-the-roadside/

 

[Slick]

Makes sense.

 

[Slick]

Although police, judge and jury isn't ideal.

 

[classic33]

Although police, judge and jury isn't ideal.

Be able to ban them until their case is heard in a court.
It might avoid them injuring anyone in the meantime. And it'll give them time to realise what they stand to lose.

It'll be another offence if they're caught driving in the meantime, which would give an insight into whether they'd be likely to ignore a court imposed ban.

 

[Slick]

Be able to ban them until their case is heard in a court.
It might avoid them injuring anyone in the meantime. And it'll give them time to realise what they stand to lose.

It'll be another offence if they're caught driving in the meantime, which would give an insight into whether they'd be likely to ignore a court imposed ban.

Ah, that makes more sense.

 

[classic33]

Ah, that makes more sense.

That's my view. Stopping them from further use until their case is heard.

Hit by an uninsured driver, over the limit,no license or insurance, and it wasn't his car either. Had the police had the power then, he'd have to either walk home or find a taxi willing to take him.

If the vehicles are seized at the scene, then there's storage fee's to consider.

 

[Drago]

The big issue is that roadside intoximeters aren't considered accurate enough to be used evidentually - they're only a screening device.

The suspect has to be dragged to the nick to give a sample on a proper machine, so it's isn't going to happen at the 'roadside'.

Drug testing is even worse, as it can take months for the evidential test to be returned, and that could well come back as clear.

A nice idea, but without improvements in technology and the home office licencing of roadside devices for evidential level use it simply is not going to happenl

 

[Slick]

The big issue is that roadside intoximeters aren't considered accurate enough to be used evidentually - they're only a screening device.

The suspect has to be dragged to the nick to give a sample on a proper machine, so it's isn't going to happen at the 'roadside'.

Drug testing is even worse, as it can take months for the evidential test to be returned, and that could well come back as clear.

A nice idea, but without improvements in technology and the home office licencing of roadside devices for evidential level use it simply is not going to happenl

Yeah that's true.

My own probably inaccurate perception is that drug use has exploded in all walks of life and has become a huge issue everywhere, but none more so than on our roads.

 

[classic33]

The big issue is that roadside intoximeters aren't considered accurate enough to be used evidentually - they're only a screening device.

The suspect has to be dragged to the nick to give a sample on a proper machine, so it's isn't going to happen at the 'roadside'.

Drug testing is even worse, as it can take months for the evidential test to be returned, and that could well come back as clear.

A nice idea, but without improvements in technology and the home office licencing of roadside devices for evidential level use it simply is not going to happenl

And if having been dragged back for the evidential test, they then fail that, they should be able to prevent them driving until their case is heard.

Seperate issue, but similar in ways, if you suffer a seizure whilst driving, you lose your license almost straight away.
You then have to wait anything up to a year to be able to get it back. And await the results of tests before being able to apply for it back.

The aim is to prevent you being a danger to any other road users. And that can be done from the roadside. The worst case is assumed.
Should driving whilst under the influence be treated any different?

 

[Brandane]

In my Policing day (20 years ago now) if a person failed the roadside test, and then were found to be over the prescribed limit on the intoximeter machine at the Police office, then they were only released after signing an undertaking to present themselves at the local Sheriff court on a date within 7 days. At court, it was up to the accused person whether they pled guilty or not guilty.

Guilty and obviously an immediate ban. Not guilty would result in a trial date being set several months down the line. The accused could be given conditional bail in the meantime, and one of the conditions imposed was that they were not allowed to drive. So effectively a ban.

Where this all falls down though, is the lack of proactive Policing. Drivers who have been banned for whatever reason continue to drive, safe in the knowledge that the chances of being caught are very slim. Unless they do something stupid under the nose of the Police.

When was the last time anyone here was stopped randomly for a Police check? I have been driving for 40+ years (averaging about 15k miles per year - car, motorbike, and HGV's for 10 of those years) and it has NEVER happened. Two VOSA checks while driving HGV's, but they weren't interested in my licence.

 

[oldwheels]

In my Policing day (20 years ago now) if a person failed the roadside test, and then were found to be over the prescribed limit on the intoximeter machine at the Police office, then they were only released after signing an undertaking to present themselves at the local Sheriff court on a date within 7 days. At court, it was up to the accused person whether they pled guilty or not guilty.

Guilty and obviously an immediate ban. Not guilty would result in a trial date being set several months down the line. The accused could be given conditional bail in the meantime, and one of the conditions imposed was that they were not allowed to drive. So effectively a ban.

Where this all falls down though, is the lack of proactive Policing. Drivers who have been banned for whatever reason continue to drive, safe in the knowledge that the chances of being caught are very slim. Unless they do something stupid under the nose of the Police.

When was the last time anyone here was stopped randomly for a Police check? I have been driving for 40+ years (averaging about 15k miles per year - car, motorbike, and HGV's for 10 of those years) and it has NEVER happened. Two VOSA checks while driving HGV's, but they weren't interested in my licence.

I have been stopped twice for a vehicle check. The last time was 8 years ago at Dalmally on the A85. This was once with a van and second with a camper van. They probably had a sniff at my breath at the same time but both times clear personally and no vehicle problems found.

 

[cyberknight]

In my Policing day (20 years ago now) if a person failed the roadside test, and then were found to be over the prescribed limit on the intoximeter machine at the Police office, then they were only released after signing an undertaking to present themselves at the local Sheriff court on a date within 7 days. At court, it was up to the accused person whether they pled guilty or not guilty.

Guilty and obviously an immediate ban. Not guilty would result in a trial date being set several months down the line. The accused could be given conditional bail in the meantime, and one of the conditions imposed was that they were not allowed to drive. So effectively a ban.

Where this all falls down though, is the lack of proactive Policing. Drivers who have been banned for whatever reason continue to drive, safe in the knowledge that the chances of being caught are very slim. Unless they do something stupid under the nose of the Police.

When was the last time anyone here was stopped randomly for a Police check? I have been driving for 40+ years (averaging about 15k miles per year - car, motorbike, and HGV's for 10 of those years) and it has NEVER happened. Two VOSA checks while driving HGV's, but they weren't interested in my licence.

stopped once in about 30 years , my car looked like one they were looking for im guessing it was before anpr as it was about in car as it was 1990 ish

 

[Electric_Andy]

The big issue is that roadside intoximeters aren't considered accurate enough to be used evidentually - they're only a screening device.

The suspect has to be dragged to the nick to give a sample on a proper machine, so it's isn't going to happen at the 'roadside'.

Drug testing is even worse, as it can take months for the evidential test to be returned, and that could well come back as clear.

A nice idea, but without improvements in technology and the home office licencing of roadside devices for evidential level use it simply is not going to happenl

I'd be interested to see if what happened to us is common: Drink driver ploughed into our garden wall, one of the neighbours was quick thinking and grabbed the car keys before he could drive off. He was arrested 20 mins later, but refused a breath test. He was so violent at the hospital that they couldn't get a blood test. So he got off because no evidence of drink driving could be obtained

 

[figbat]

In my Policing day (20 years ago now) if a person failed the roadside test, and then were found to be over the prescribed limit on the intoximeter machine at the Police office, then they were only released after signing an undertaking to present themselves at the local Sheriff court on a date within 7 days. At court, it was up to the accused person whether they pled guilty or not guilty.

Guilty and obviously an immediate ban. Not guilty would result in a trial date being set several months down the line. The accused could be given conditional bail in the meantime, and one of the conditions imposed was that they were not allowed to drive. So effectively a ban.

Where this all falls down though, is the lack of proactive Policing. Drivers who have been banned for whatever reason continue to drive, safe in the knowledge that the chances of being caught are very slim. Unless they do something stupid under the nose of the Police.

When was the last time anyone here was stopped randomly for a Police check? I have been driving for 40+ years (averaging about 15k miles per year - car, motorbike, and HGV's for 10 of those years) and it has NEVER happened. Two VOSA checks while driving HGV's, but they weren't interested in my licence.

Once in 37 years, and that was about 35 years ago - a roadside drink driving campaign around Christmas time. They pulled me over into a lay-by and asked if I’d had a drink recently. I said “no” and they sent me on my way. I assume they made an objective assessment of my manner and odour and agreed I was likely telling the truth.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I'd be interested to see if what happened to us is common: Drink driver ploughed into our garden wall, one of the neighbours was quick thinking and grabbed the car keys before he could drive off. He was arrested 20 mins later, but refused a breath test. He was so violent at the hospital that they couldn't get a blood test. So he got off because no evidence of drink driving could be obtained

That conclusion sounds wrong, or the story is incomplete/inaccurate.

There is a specific offence of failing to provide a breath/urine/blood specimen for testing, and the punishment is the same for drink driving.