Page 2 of 2

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 18 Dec 2011, 1:01pm
by hubgearfreak
reohn2 wrote:What has that got to do with drinking and driving?


nothing, sorry :oops:

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 20 Dec 2011, 9:36pm
by Steve Kish
Unfortunately it wasn't a cyclist that was killed. If so, may well have been an 18-month suspended sentence! :evil:

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 21 Dec 2011, 10:05am
by thehappycyclist
IIRC isn't it illegal to sell alcohol to anybody already drunk? At three times over the limit I would expect her to be clearly showing signs of drunkenness.
How long can pubs go on washing their hands of their part in all these cases?

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 21 Dec 2011, 8:59pm
by pete75
karlt wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:Going back to the earliest days of the breathalyser, there has been a feeling in some quarters that the police should not routinely test drivers leaving pub car parks as though it's a bit unsporting, like punching below the belt, fishing for salmon with dynamite, or hunting foxes with pump-action shotguns. I've never really gone along with that, because the primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime.


Ditto hidden speed cameras. Main objection to them boils down to " 't i'n't fair if I don't know you're checking."


The whole point of speed cameras is to ensure drivers slow down at danger spots on the road. They need to be visible to ensure this happens.

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 21 Dec 2011, 9:18pm
by Mike Sales
pete75 wrote:
The whole point of speed cameras is to ensure drivers slow down at danger spots on the road. They need to be visible to ensure this happens.


I thought the point was to get drivers to obey speed limits all the time not just where they have already killed. Speed limits are not optional. At the moment they are ignored most of the time, to the danger of the vulnerable. In our bypassed village my mother is frightened to cross the high street, and my nephews are intimidated cycling home from school. Painting the cameras yellow just does not work.

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 21 Dec 2011, 11:03pm
by gilesjuk
hubgearfreak wrote:
gilesjuk wrote:Cue my drinking licence idea. If caught drink driving you have to either surrender your driving licence or drinking licence.


seriously? :?

why shouldn't one drink whilst having no intention of driving, or one drive whilst having no intention of drinking?
i can do both in a week - do i need to re-apply between fri afternoon and the following tuesday?


I meant if you got caught and were going to be banned from driving. You could be given the chance to carry on driving but give up being able to drink for 12 months. It then forces home the point about how important a driving licence is to people and how it is a privildge to drive.

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 22 Dec 2011, 9:59am
by reohn2
gilesjuk wrote:............. You could be given the chance to carry on driving but give up being able to drink for 12 months. It then forces home the point about how important a driving licence is to people and how it is a privildge to drive.


I've a better idea,the driving licence is taken away and the culprit is retested before s/he's allowed the priviledge of driving again,second offence 5years and retest,third banned for life.
Fines should be £1000 minimum, £2000,£5000 respectively.If a collision/injuries to other parties is involved bans and fines doubled.these are minimum sentences.
Gaol(strange word isn't it?) and hard labour should be freely available to the court.


I'm dreaming again :?

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 22 Dec 2011, 4:44pm
by Tonyf33
Problem is neither can be or are enforced that rigourously, time & time again we see uninsured, untaxed drivers, some whom have never passed a test or are from countries were they get a rudimentary test at best. Then we have the banned drives who carry on driving regardless. Banning people doesn't stop a decent proportion of them from getting behind a wheel anyway. If you can afford it you could keep the car taxed & insured in your spouses name & it wont come up on a ANPR check that the car is uninsured unless you were driving like an idiot to garner attention in the first instance.
The chances of getting caught these days are very low sadly and many do take that risk so those people aren't removed from the road in the numbers we'd like to think they should be.

A lifetime ban for just drink driving times isn't really going to work, nor would be looked at as reasonable, I tend to agree personally.
30-39mg of breath I think just gets you a caution, 40 and over is down to the station for a double breath test (when i think you can request a blood/urine sample test?)
If say just over you might be looking at a 12 month ban, 9 if you take a driving course from what i've read.
Still, subsequent bans are supposed to be 3 years (if within 10 years) I think any bans after the second should remain at 3 years and a mandatory enhanced driving test AND a DD course (to be paid for by the guilty party).
I think the limits are set just right, I wouldn't want them altered in any way but getting a caution for a 39mg breat reading seems wrong as that is 30% over the prescribed limt :shock:

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 24 Dec 2011, 9:58pm
by [XAP]Bob
Household driving bans - that'd be interesting....

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 24 Dec 2011, 10:17pm
by thirdcrank
Tonyf33 wrote:... getting a caution for a 39mg breat reading seems wrong as that is 30% over the prescribed limt :shock:


I've no idea what current prosecution policy is. I'm unaware of leeway in the limits. In the relatively early days of the breathalyser, when the evidence (rather than the roadside screening) all came from blood or urine specimens, I've had a blood result which ended in conviction and the reading was only something like 81 ie 1 over the limit. (memory may be faulty, but it was that close.)

I think that the present breath limit with the Lion Alcolmeter (evidential breath tester) is 35 (I ought to know because I'm a trained operator) so 39 is only around 10/% over. IIRC, the policy you are referring to is to allow for any inaccuracy in the analysis, which is also why up to a certain level, a punter can request a second blood/ urine test. I think it is probably wrong to say that somebody with a specimen in the area just over 35 is cautioned, in the sense of a formal disposal which requires, apart from anything else, an admission of guilt etc. I'm fairly sure it's a warning, of the type "Your breath specimen is very close to the legal limit, probably above it. Bearing in mind that your blood alcohol level may continue to increase depending on how recently you have consumed alcohol, it would be unwise to drive a motor vehicle until the alcohol in your blood is dispersed."

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 25 Dec 2011, 2:27am
by Tonyf33
Sorry, I was reading about what triggers a potential roadside caution and I'd written down 30 and it stuck in my head which of course it totally wrong & is as you say 35mg of breath :oops: From the reading, it seems that some people are let off with an informal roadside caution if up 39mg.

Re: A realistic sentence

Posted: 25 Dec 2011, 8:25am
by thirdcrank
Tonyf33 wrote:Sorry, I was reading about what triggers a potential roadside caution and I'd written down 30 and it stuck in my head which of course it totally wrong & is as you say 35mg of breath :oops: From the reading, it seems that some people are let off with an informal roadside caution if up 39mg.


From what you are saying, things must have changed. Although I have seen a version of the roadside screening device - the little box with the white disposable mouthpices - that gave a digital reading, that version was rejected for various reasons. The only version I have any experience of has three "traffic lights" to give the result of the test: geen = negative, red = positive and amber = borderline. Only the red justifies arrest and down to the nick for a sustantive test. It would be normal to advise somebody giving an amber result that they may be over the limit or that unabsorbed alcohol could soon take them over it. I suppose if somebody was legless, they would still be liable to arrest under other provisions.

Bear in mind that for various reasons, I have administered loads of breath tests, I retired in 1997.
==========================================================
PS I see there's all sorts about this on the internet, much of it poorly disguised ads from solicitors. Here's my free tip as a former insider on how to beat the breathalyser every time:

Don't drink and drive.