Mr Loophole

[Flinders]

If there were no loopholes, how would rich and well-connected people avoid punishment for their misdeeds? We can't have them being actually punished, they might have to *shock horror* take the consequences of their actions, like us peasants have to, and that would never do.

Guess who makes the laws with the loopholes in:
a) peasants like us
b) rich and well-connected people and their friends
Answers on a postcard.

[Cunobelin]

Maybe they could lurk in the hedges near pub car parks

There aren’t enough police officer to have any of them waiting anywhere.

Maybe we need electronic ignition control, with a smart card license and in built breath analyser.

...which the passenger breathes into

[[XAP]Bob]

Maybe they could lurk in the hedges near pub car parks

There aren’t enough police officer to have any of them waiting anywhere.

Maybe we need electronic ignition control, with a smart card license and in built breath analyser.

...which the passenger breathes into

That takes two things... one sober person, and two people in the vehicle.
It also misses those who drink at the wheel, doesn’t deal with drugs etc...

But it does improve the management of driving bans etc...

[thirdcrank]

Unless the ignition-key cum breathalyser was almost instantaneous in operation, it would delay a lot of stone-cold sober drivers to little effect. Perhaps there would be some exceptions, especially for people who needed to get going in a hurry and if so, the loopholes are already being built into the fortifications.

[bovlomov]

Who are these drink-drivers? People who are usually responsible but have an isolated lapse? People who occasionally drink and drive but hope to luck that they are below the limit and/or won't get caught? Regular hardcore boozers who drink and drive as a matter of course?

The first two types can be influenced by advertising and social pressure. The last type, sadly, are probably only influenced by life-threatening injury or jail.

[thirdcrank]

Who are these drink-drivers? People who are usually responsible but have an isolated lapse? People who occasionally drink and drive but hope to luck that they are below the limit and/or won't get caught? Regular hardcore boozers who drink and drive as a matter of course?

The first two types can be influenced by advertising and social pressure. The last type, sadly, are probably only influenced by life-threatening injury or jail.

I suspect that a common feature is a feeling that the chances of being caught are dwindling and that's the biggest influence. Consider the reasons for breath-testing and two - suspicion of alcohol and moving traffic offence - need police deciding to stop and check drivers and that no longer happens on any scale. The other - following an accident - needs the police to attend crashes routinely, which they no longer do. And so on. Being involved in a bad smash is perceived as the only certain way of being breathalysed. Unless they are planning suicide, I doubt if anybody sets off anticipating a crash.

In short, if you rarely see a police car, you don't worry about being stopped by the police.

Also, there are few loopholes to explore in the breathtesting procedure, but the online adverts from the learned friends imply the opposite, contributing to a feeling of they-can't-touch-you-for-it.

[[XAP]Bob]

Unless the ignition-key cum breathalyser was almost instantaneous in operation, it would delay a lot of stone-cold sober drivers to little effect. Perhaps there would be some exceptions, especially for people who needed to get going in a hurry and if so, the loopholes are already being built into the fortifications.

It only needs to be quicker than putting on the seatbelt and it's no hold up at all.
I don't see why you'd need to put in exceptions - the whole point of this thread is that the exceptions get battered open and abused.

[thirdcrank]

I didn't mean that you would need to have exceptions permitting drink-driving, just that eg when the firefighters are sliding down the pole and jumping onto their clean machine, every split-second counts.

[Flinders]

My personal take on this is that there are simply not enough traffic police, hence the fact that large numbers of people routinely use their phones when driving, and for what it's worth, I don't think hands-free ones should be allowed either; tests show they are very nearly as distracting. But when it comes to texting, I think anyone doing that whilst driving should be facing an automatic two-year ban regardless of the circumstances.
But people know the chance of getting caught using a hand-held phone and/or texting is nearly negligible compared to the numbers doing it. So they will carry on doing it.
It's partly the risk of getting caught, partly the penalties are sill not big enough even when people are caught, and partly the psychological impression that enforcement is so weak in this area it can't really be all that bad a thing to be doing.

[bovlomov]

I suspect that a common feature is a feeling that the chances of being caught are dwindling and that's the biggest influence.

That reminded me...

Many (perhaps 20) years ago there was an anti-drink-drive campaign that emphasised the terrible human cost. That is, funerals and bereaved relatives; life changing injuries, and so on. The following year the message was different. Rather than 'Don't drink and drive - you might kill someone', it became ' Don't drink and drive - you might lose your licence'.

I remember thinking that they must have done some research and discovered that the prospect of killing someone was less of a deterrent than the threat of not being allowed to drive.

[reohn2]

My personal take on this is that there are simply not enough traffic police, hence the fact that large numbers of people routinely use their phones when driving, and for what it's worth, I don't think hands-free ones should be allowed either; tests show they are very nearly as distracting. But when it comes to texting, I think anyone doing that whilst driving should be facing an automatic two-year ban regardless of the circumstances.
But people know the chance of getting caught using a hand-held phone and/or texting is nearly negligible compared to the numbers doing it. So they will carry on doing it.
It's partly the risk of getting caught, partly the penalties are sill not big enough even when people are caught, and partly the psychological impression that enforcement is so weak in this area it can't really be all that bad a thing to be doing.

Plus if anyone is caught a slick lawyer such a Mr Loophole will put a sob story together claiming their client needs his licence to work and his family will suffer should s/he be banned,blah,blah,etc,etc..........

[thirdcrank]

Re the crime-preventing ignition, it occurs to me that we've been trying for a century or more to stop thieves driving off in cars but with only limited success.

Re Mr Loophole, he seems to be in that symbiotic relationship with parts of the media which means they publicise his successes and turn to him for a quotable quote on traffic law whenever they need one and it's more publicity for him.

Re inadequate enforcement I suspect NF would agree. The total collapse of traffic policing would mean nobody looking for loopholes.

Re the breathalyser, this is often the first time some members of the bourgeoisie come into contact with the the police on the receiving end and it can be a shock, especially if they end up going into a cell until they are fit to drive. A big leveller. "I want to speak to my lawyer" is expected to strike fear into the heart of these police who don't know their betters, but anybody who's never been in a cell is unlikely to have a lawyer dealing with anything but conveyancing or probate. Things may well have changed but I've never known a solicitor who was contacted out-of-hours for a breathalyser case to attend a police station or advise anything but to comply with police requests and to call into the office later to discuss the case.

[Mick F]

It only needs to be quicker than putting on the seatbelt and it's no hold up at all.

Seatbelts?
Who wears those?

The seatbelt alarm in our Yaris isn't too bad so we can stand it for the 30secs that it warns you ................. but the alarm in the Fiat500 we had was a very loud squeal - but you could turn off the alarm via the dashboard menu ............. which we did.

[thirdcrank]

For anybody thinking of setting up in competition with NF, the motorway regs are here in PDF. (Which means I don't know how to cut and paste them.)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982 ... 163_en.pdf

Driving on the hard shoulder is prohibited by reg 9, subject to the exceptions in reg 7 and reg 7(2)(a) lists "any accident, illness or other emergency."

I've no idea how this explanation didn't emerge earlier. Possibilities might be that the driving was detected by motorway camera and notices were sent without any interview, or that the driver was interviewed and exercised his undoubted right not to answer.
===================================================================
PS
While trying to cut-and-paste that I forgot what it says in the HC (which I can work with.)

Rule 264
.... You MUST NOT drive on the hard shoulder except in an emergency ...

Not something that needs a QC to interpret

[[XAP]Bob]

I didn't mean that you would need to have exceptions permitting drink-driving, just that eg when the firefighters are sliding down the pole and jumping onto their clean machine, every split-second counts.

Every second counts, but IIRC the driver is usually there for a while before all their colleagues have loaded in.

I was actually thinking about cars rather than other vehicle classes.. but yes, it would work well on lorries etc as well.

Unintended consequence of having it not apply in blue light vehicles would be that they would be more likely to be targetted for theft and/or joy riding...

In a firehouse then the driver just needs to not be the last person down the pole - he already has a few seconds of engine starting etc to do while they open the bay doors etc...