They can set up random stops for any miriad of reasons but not drink driving.
So they set one up for any other excuse they like, and once stopped the officer can then talk to you and as an aside ask if you have been drinking - or form an opinion and ask you to take a breath test.
----------------------------------------
TourVanMan < yes its RF reborn >
|
|
There was a TV program on recently,watched some of it before it became too repetitious,they were doing this in New Zealand.Some of the people they pulled out of cars could barely walk.They even had a bus to do the evedential test to save having to take them all to the cop shop so it appears to be a big problem over there.
|
|
...and personally I have no problem with the police using whatever mechanism they can to make sure it doesn't become a big(ger) problem over here...
|
I've no problem with "blanket breath tests" but I guess if you were stopped regularly it would become tiresome.
|
|
Well I do have a problem with blanket tests! I know the fashionable position is to hold that drink driving is a crime on a par with genocide and therefore that any measure to stop it is fine, and no punishment is harsh enough, but this should not mean that the police should have the right to trample over our civil liberties. We should have the right to go about our lawful business without state interference. If the police have grounds for believing that a driver is under the influence then fine, but pulling everyone over for some from of "spot-check" is an impertinence.
|
|
Friend involved in a nasty accident a couple of weeks ago car written off etc, though she escaped unhurt. Attending officer adminstered a (negative)breath test on basis that it was now routine procedure at all accidents, is this national or just in North Wales where incident occurred?
|
|
I'm in favour of anything that rids the roads of these idiots. If that means innocent people are inconvenienced and their civil liberties impaired, then that's a cost I think is worth bearing.
|
The original post said the friend "was asked would he take a test". He presumably obliged, so the test was voluntary. No police powers are required to offer tests to people who opt for them.
If the friend had declined of course, then doubtless the policeman would pretty quickly have formed an opinion that he had a valid reason for enforcing his demand.
|
|
|
I'm in favour of anything that rids the roads of these idiots. If that means innocent people are inconvenienced and their civil liberties impaired, then that's a cost I think is worth bearing.
And exactly how many people who have been caught DD drive when disqualified with no regard for the ban, the only way around it is to jail them for the length of the ban.
As for pulling everyone over, great idea, lets check tread, MOT, insurance at the same time.
|
Anyone DD near me is infringeing MY civil liberties: placing ME at risk.
madf
|
But anybody who is not DD, yet is randomly tested, is potentially having their liberties compromised.
Slippery slope stuff.
|
Is breathtesting someone placing any civil liberties at orsk?
madf
|
Probably not, no.
But now you've set a precedent which says that pulling you over for no reason at all, simply because I didn't like your face is acceptable.
|
But now you've set a precedent which says that pulling you over for no reason at all, simply because I didn't like your face is acceptable.
Depends whether it's selective. Testing everyone at a roadblock (as in islandman's example) isn't inherently selective, though obviously there can be selectivity in where the roadblocks are placed.
I share the concern about pulling people in at random, but that isn't what we are told happened here.
|
If it's an offence to refuse, then yes.
Be very wary of the argument "the innocent have nothing to fear". It can be used to justify pretty much anything.
|
|
On a similar subject, Police have been used to stop drivers where I live for the only purpose of some temporary employee of the council to ask a few questions on your travelling habits. Firstly I don't like being forced to answer questions about my travelling habits (although I suppose the national census has to be completed by law, but thats another matter) and secondly I object to using police time. Thats life though!
|
|
|
|
Given the number of accidents caused by alcohol which we'll take as a given, there is good reason for the police to conduct random breath tests.
I've been stopped (whilst a passenger) at a spot check, we had a nominated driver who spoke to the policeman, a bit of cheery banter and we were away.
I saw this as a positive PR exercise for the police and see your civil liberties being trampled as inconsequential compared to the civil liberties of those involved in accidents caused by alcohol.
State interference or drunk drivers - your choice but I know mine.
|
Interesting debate on this --- It's often a case of balance and whilst I would support blanket testing I guess I may get a bit annoyed if I was held up regularly at these. It other words I suppose it great idea as long it doesn't inconvenience me!
Is the answer to reduce this problem much stiffer penalties or some sort of sliding scale eg If double the limit banned for 10 yrs and if kill or injure someone then automatic ban for life.
Thought?
|
|
Anybody remember how reasonable the "suss" laws sounded, and how sensible the reasoning seemed, until it started to get used in a way that was not intended or envisaged ?
|
Suss = police right to Stop and Search under reasonable Suspicion.. of carrying knives/guns/burglarying tools/ shopping/purse/makeup..
Ended up 75% of all stopped were black.
So it was stopped as racially unfair (which it was) and crime rates went up iirc...
madf
|
>>So it was stopped as racially unfair (which it was) and crime rates went up iirc...
The corollary of that statement, madf, is that you have to stop 10% of all nuns that pass you, if you wish to stop 10% of young black men driving new mercedes in inner London.
There is a very fine line between infringing the rights of the innocent, and 'getting' the guilty. I think blanket breath tests infringe our freedoms sufficiently (what if you're late? do you want to spend 10 minutes waiting to blow into a bag?) that the risk of not catching a drunk driver is an acceptable risk. I am not in favour of DD, but I am not in favour of being stopped by the police either.
|
I (think) I'm n agreement with Mapmaker here. Surely it's a sheer coincidence that 75% of people stopped happened to be black?
It's the same with anything. Would you be happy being searched on your way to the shop whilst walking down the high street? Of course not. You wouldn't want to be frisked whilst browsing in Woolies would you?
Don't get me wrong - I'm against drinnk driving but I don't think stopping people "on the offchance of them being drunk" is the way to go to be honest.
|
Don't get me wrong - I'm against drinnk driving but I don't think stopping people "on the offchance of them being drunk" is the way to go to be honest.
Yeah. Perhaps we could do it on some sort of honour code. Some sign says "Could everyone who is drunk please pull-over onto the lay-by on the left" and when they do the police nab them. Oh, wait. That won't work will it.
It's a difficult position. Theoretically someone who is over the limit could pass a police car quite inconspicously and get away with it, but in an emergency situation they may not be able to react quickly enough. But should we allow the police to check up on us?
Ultimately, who cares? I've been driving for 11 years and I've not been breathalysed once, yet. If this is infringing my civil liberties, let them get on with it. I can afford 5 minutes a decade to keep drunks off the road.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
Sarcasm aside, I should point out, I'm more than happy for people to be breathalised but not indiscriminately.
What you say is right but you have to bear in mind that if this were to happen, theoretically, you could get pulled twice a day.
I'll return to a point I made earlier. What if it wasn't drink driving? What if you got stopped by every single cop you walked past on the offchance you were carrying a bomb/gun/knife?
Personally, I'd be all for the abolision of the drink drive limit anyway. I know that means nothing in this debate but as I've said before - if one of my friends drinks two glasses of wine then you'd struggle to have an intelligent conversation with her (although before you say it, that's probably me!) yet she'd be close (or possibly under - no idea how much wine you can drink before being able to drive) the drink drive limit.
|
Sarcasm aside
Harsh, but fair.
What you say is right but you have to bear in mind that if this were to happen, theoretically, you could get pulled twice a day.
That's true. Though unlikely. There are X police and there are Y drivers and Y is a magnitude (or several) larger than X. It's implausible that we'll get stopped much more than we are now. If there were that many police around we'd have revolted ages ago over the amount of tax we were paying for them all.
I'll return to a point I made earlier. What if it wasn't drink driving? What if you got stopped by every single cop you walked past on the offchance you were carrying a bomb/gun/knife?
Now there's the important bit. You're right, it sets a dangerous precedent. And that's where the law has to be careful not to alienate Joe Public like it has done with speeding recently, though that's another topic. Again, I could be cynical and say "I can't remember the last time I saw a rozzer when I was out walking" but that's skirting the issue. As with many laws, there is a fine line between keeping the public safe and infringing on their rights. And the problem here is public perception. I'd guess as a whole we're happy to be breathalysed once every now and again to keep drunks off the roads, but we're less happy to be searched because either it's a greater infringement of our rights or we see stabbings as less of a threat to our wellbeing than DUI.
Ultimately, the law can't satisfy everone all the time. Certain people have a "chop their hands off" attitude and others have a "I was only nicking it to support my family" outlook, and somewhere between them is the compromise that gets reached (with a bit of temporary revenue-generation thrown in, in some cases).
Personally, I'd be all for the abolision of the drink drive limit anyway.
Yes and no. There's margin for error. There may be times the morning after where there are traces of alcohol in your bloodstream even though you are more than capable of driving. With a zero-tolerance attitude to this, you could be banned for a year without reasonable cause. As it stands at the moment, most people are safe enough as long as they are not over the limit, but there's no danger of freak-bannings. If you're over the limit you're bang to rights. But if they wanted to halve the limit, that'd suit me fine, despite my borderline alcoholism.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
I have to say I can't fault anything you've said in that post - couldn't agree more.
Oh and,
>> Sarcasm aside Harsh, but fair.<<
Sorry - long day.
|
The SUS issue has side-tracked this somewhat.
This is about random stops which may or may not involve breath testing.
If I understand you correctly, you wouldn't have a problem with genuinely random tests.
|
|
|
|
