Jump to content
guinness

new traffic laws

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Grandpa Steve said:

 

Another insightful reply but totally out of context, the question asked was "How much can I drink and still be legal to drive?”

I was disagreeing with your statement that, "the law isn’t black and white".  So it's not out of context!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kelper said:

I disagree.  The law says you must not drive with over 0.08% alcohol in your blood.  That is the law in black and white.  It does not say anything about impairment; the offence is committed regardless of what effect the alcohol has on you.  

There is an offence of driving or being in charge whilst the ability is impaired through drink or drugs (Section 4 Road Traffic Act 1988). This offence requires no evidence from breath, blood or urine specimens, although in practice it would be obtained. The prosecution would just have to prove that the ability to drive or be in charge was impaired by the person's consumption of alcohol or drugs. Theoretically, a person below the 0.08% prescribed limit (Section 5 Road Traffic Act 1988) could still be impaired and commit the Section 4 offence.

It should also be noted that drug driving applies to legal and illegal substances. Drivers have been convicted of impairment after taking Night Nurse!

 

A person shall be deemed not to have been in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs. e.g. someone in a motorhome who has put the keys aside, got into pyjamas, climbed into bed and gone to sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grandpa Steve said:


Unfortunately the law isn’t black and white, one person can have a pint or two and even though they are not over the legal limit of 35, be impaired sufficiently to be unsafe to drive.

Another person can have 5 pints, blow over 35 but actually be safer than the first example.

If you managed to get home without being stopped, you then have to take into consideration how quickly an individual absorbs the alcohol before the level drops below the legal limit, every one is different, so again it’s not black and white.

 


I think if you bother to read AJ Galaxy’s other posts you will see it was a rhetorical question,  as he has all along advocated a zero limit.

Absolutely correct GPS, the point I am making is it's nigh on impossible for the man in the street to determine their blood alcohol level, I know you can get breathalysers but how many people on here have, have you Fat Albert? Without this vital bit information the law is far from black and white, people will believe they are OK after 'x' amount of alcohol but in fact they don't know. As already stated everyone is different and a single person can be different day to day dependent on food, exercise etc so it really is a grey area as to whether it's below the level or not. I maintain that making it black and white, zero limit would remove any potential beliefs that people are below the limit after one or possibly two drinks. I know for sure that I wouldn't feel safe after one glass of wine, I don't know what my Alcohol level would be at that, maybe it would be interesting to find out at some point.

So far as Scotland is concerned, as I stated earlier, the figure may not have changed with the lower limit, but the data is skewed anyway, not all accidents are reported to the police and therefore minor accidents may have shown an improvement but we will never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal Eagle - thanks.  What's the law on random breath tests?  Can the police stop cars as they leave a pub carpark and breathalyse every driver?  what about roadside stops?  Do you think a drunk test, as used in the States would be enough?  I mean where they ask the driver to stand on one leg, touch  his nose while videoing him - that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, kelper said:

Do you think a drunk test, as used in the States would be enough?  I mean where they ask the driver to stand on one leg, touch  his nose while videoing him - that sort of thing.


As I posted previously they would have a field day with me.

 

I have an artificial right knee, a malformed and weak right ankle, my right leg is 2.5cm shorter than my left, arthritis in more joints than I have fingers and toes, so I walk on the tilt with an inclination to constantly go in a right  circle, and I can’t stand stand on one leg to balance to save my life.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Grandpa Steve said:

:)I have an artificial right knee, a malformed and weak right ankle, my right leg is 2.5cm shorter than my left, arthritis in more joints than I have fingers and toes, so I walk on the tilt with an inclination to constantly go in a right  circle, and I can’t stand stand on one leg to balance to save my life.

Can you do hand stands?  :)

 

 

Edited by kelper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kelper said:

Legal Eagle - thanks.  What's the law on random breath tests?  Can the police stop cars as they leave a pub carpark and breathalyse every driver?  what about roadside stops?  Do you think a drunk test, as used in the States would be enough?  I mean where they ask the driver to stand on one leg, touch  his nose while videoing him - that sort of thing.

Random breath testing is not catered for in our legislation and cannot be conducted for that reason (unlike other countries). A police officer must either suspect alcohol or drugs after stopping and speaking to the driver, or the manner of driving raises suspicion, or the driver has commited an offence e.g. speeding or has been involved in a collision.

In order to prove a Section 4  impairment offence a sobriety test would provide the best evidence and one can be required either roadside or at a police station but it must be carried out by a specially trained and authorised officer.

1 hour ago, Grandpa Steve said:


As I posted previously they would have a field day with me.

 

I have an artificial right knee, a malformed and weak right ankle, my right leg is 2.5cm shorter than my left, arthritis in more joints than I have fingers and toes, so I walk on the tilt with an inclination to constantly go in a right  circle, and I can’t stand stand on one leg to balance to save my life.

So they wouldn't ask you to do that but they would be able to smell if you had been drinking, see if you're eyes are glazed, hear if your speech is slurred and ask you to close your eyes and touch the tip of your nose with an index finger as well as ask you carry out certain verbal exercises to test cognisance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I don't like the breath test in principle for reasons I have stated earlier,  it is all we have at the moment, therefore I would support random testing.  I suspect most drivers would as long as it was done in a timely manner,  nobody would want to have to wait 20 minutes to leave a car park.  The real problem is, as with other crime, the lack of police to enforce the law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

Random breath testing is not catered for in our legislation and cannot be conducted for that reason (unlike other countries). A police officer must either suspect alcohol or drugs after stopping and speaking to the driver, or the manner of driving raises suspicion, or the driver has commited an offence e.g. speeding or has been involved in a collision.

In order to prove a Section 4  impairment offence a sobriety test would provide the best evidence and one can be required either roadside or at a police station but it must be carried out by a specially trained and authorised officer.

So they wouldn't ask you to do that but they would be able to smell if you had been drinking, see if you're eyes are glazed, hear if your speech is slurred and ask you to close your eyes and touch the tip of your nose with an index finger as well as ask you carry out certain verbal exercises to test cognisance.

How does that cover the "Christmas crack down" we see every year?  I very much support it, just an academic question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Guzzilazz said:

How does that cover the "Christmas crack down" we see every year?  I very much support it, just an academic question

Although random breath testing is not permitted there are many reasons a police officer can stop you, and once he/she smells alcohol on your breath....

A classic is a spot check on your lights, then you wind down your window to Talk .......

Or he interprets the speed at which you pull out of a pub carpark as "erratic driving"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stevan said:

Although random breath testing is not permitted there are many reasons a police officer can stop you, and once he/she smells alcohol on your breath....

A classic is a spot check on your lights, then you wind down your window to Talk .......

Or he interprets the speed at which you pull out of a pub carpark as "erratic driving"

 

Along with...

 

”Just a routine check sir, is this your car? Can you tell me the registration number? Oh! Have you been drinking? In that case I shall require you to provide me with a specimen of breath  for a breath test..........” and so on! 

 

Nothing “random” about that is there ;)

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drink Driving be it a glass of wine with your lunch or a pint on the way home after work is being more and more recognised as socially unacceptable and frowned upon. I think some of us on here are kidding themselves on with their one pint one  glass of wine only goody two shoes scenario when out and about in charge of their motor vehicles . My Bazooka  !!

 

The Professor Pat Pendings ( clever guys in white coats) reckon that drivers are 6 times more likely to die in a road traffic accident with a blood alcohol concentration between 50 and 80mg than a blood zero alcohol. Whats the drink driving limit in England ? There is no need to Drink and Drive be it one pint or a half pint and this dependent on your body mass , had a large lunch nonsense , yes it's a nonsense. Why would you want to jeopardise your license and endanger other road users. I honestly think its a very selfish attitude .... 

 

GAS ...:rolleyes:

  • Like 2
  • +1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr Plodd said:

 

Along with...

 

”Just a routine check sir, is this your car? Can you tell me the registration number? Oh! Have you been drinking? In that case I shall require you to provide me with a specimen of breath  for a breath test..........” and so on! 

 

Nothing “random” about that is there ;)

 

Andy

 

Many years ago I was stopped for 'speeding' and breathalysed at about 20:00 one evening on the A38 into Derby.

 

I passed the breathalyser and got off the speeding offence.

I proved to the court that had I been doing the speed claimed, the Police car couldn't have caught me in the distance from where the Policeman said he first saw me to where he stopped me.

I also complained about him following me at dusk without lights, for which he was suspended from driving Police cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lost in France said:


I also complained about him following me at dusk without lights, for which he was suspended from driving Police cars.

 

:blink:... Reminds me of my days in Her Majesty's Royal Air Force when trying to sneak my Sweetheart back to the single man room accommodation. Adjacent to the Block as we called it was a row of garages we could rent out and low and behold the Snowflakes (RAF Coppers) due to their white hats would sit in the garage door open , lights out in their Police Land Rover and wait in silence. Great Guys Eh ?? Looking for a bit of fun and frolics but ending Charged in the Guardroom with ma Bird getting banned off camp... 

 

Sneaky people very sneaky indeed.... :angry:

 

GAS ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guzzilazz said:

How does that cover the "Christmas crack down" we see every year?  I very much support it, just an academic question

Despite what the media report, the Summer and Christmas campaigns are not random testing operations which would be unlawful. As I said, a police officer must suspect alcohol or drugs through manner of driving or, having stopped a driver, by smell/demeanour, or the driver commits a driving offence or is involved in a collision. During those campaign periods the police greatly increase the number of vehicles stopped and by doing so can check demeanour and other tell tale signs to form their suspicion that alcohol or drugs may have been consumed,  if appropriate.

It's a law that has successfully operated since roadside testing was introduced by Barbara Castle in 1967.

Edited by Legal Eagle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grumpy Auld Smeesh said:

 

:blink:... Reminds me of my days in Her Majesty's Royal Air Force when trying to sneak my Sweetheart back to the single man room accommodation. Adjacent to the Block as we called it was a row of garages we could rent out and low and behold the Snowflakes (RAF Coppers) due to their white hats would sit in the garage door open , lights out in their Police Land Rover and wait in silence. Great Guys Eh ?? Looking for a bit of fun and frolics but ending Charged in the Guardroom with ma Bird getting banned off camp... 

 

Sneaky people very sneaky indeed.... :angry:  Don't get me started on ''snowflakes'' and their underhand tactics :ph34r:

 

 

GAS ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   I have been breathalysed twice. The first time in around 1985 on the way home from Blackpool with my wife, mother and 2 kids in the car, we had stopped at a pub for some "refreshments", as we left I noticed a police car pull out of a car park across the road from the pub. After about half a mile the blue lights came on so I stopped. I had the usual "good evening sir. Is this your car. Have you been drinking? Would you come and sit in my car please." He was extremely dissapointed when I blew a zero! However he did advise me to get my exhaust looked at because "it's a bit noisy". The second time was after a car drove into the side of my truck whilst I was waiting for traffic lights to change. No damage to the truck but the car's front bumper was a mess. 

  I will not drink if I am going to be driving  the following day and will not drive for 24 hours after a drink, not that I drink that much anyway. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grumpy Auld Smeesh said:

Drink Driving be it a glass of wine with your lunch or a pint on the way home after work is being more and more recognised as socially unacceptable and frowned upon. I think some of us on here are kidding themselves on with their one pint one  glass of wine only goody two shoes scenario when out and about in charge of their motor vehicles . My Bazooka  !!

 

The Professor Pat Pendings ( clever guys in white coats) reckon that drivers are 6 times more likely to die in a road traffic accident with a blood alcohol concentration between 50 and 80mg than a blood zero alcohol. Whats the drink driving limit in England ? There is no need to Drink and Drive be it one pint or a half pint and this dependent on your body mass , had a large lunch nonsense , yes it's a nonsense. Why would you want to jeopardise your license and endanger other road users. I honestly think its a very selfish attitude .... 

 

GAS ...:rolleyes:

Your bazooka wasn’t aimed very well. Firstly, as one of your targets I am no goody two shoes as you put it but yes, I am content with my one drink. I don’t always do it but sometimes I do, as is my right. It is not illegal: it is not jeopardising my license: it is not endangering other road users. It is absolutely not selfish. I know I am without a doubt below the legal limit. 
A big problem is that we have absolutely no baseline data to determine what is considered to be acceptable in terms of reaction time, perception, awareness of hazards etc etc. So to simply say there is some impairment after alcohol - and the studies vary anywhere between 0 and 20mg before any measurable impairment happens - takes absolutely no account of of ones ability before having a drink. I would have no objection whatsoever in scientifically comparing my personal reactions, awareness, perception and overall driving ability with what one might consider normal; I am absolutely certain I would be fine.
If one wants to adopt a draconian “zero” policy the logic dictates you must also ban driving after taking any medication that possibly affects your ability to drive; we must also adopt legislation to retest a persons eyesight more regularly, particularly at night when many people have seriously degraded visual acuity and are a complete and utter menace; anyone with a headache must also be precluded from driving, or indeed any other mildly debilitating  illness or condition because that will, to some degree I pair their driving. Very quickly the whole situation becomes ridiculous and seriously impinges on ones quality of life and basic freedoms. 
I absolutely concur that anyone caught driving above the legal limit deserves to feel the full force of the law. 
Professor Pat Pending was a character in Wacky Races was he not? 

Edited by Fat Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your one drink?  I'd like to know the ABV and the size or serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police do sometimes drop serious clangers !!!

 

Way back in 1994/5 I was driving along Manchester Old Road through Openshaw on route to Audenshaw with my then lady friend after having spent an evening drinking a quality red wine which had acted as a catalyst and set her off in a rather obnoxious mode.

I decided at circa 22:00 hrs that she must go home from my then home in UpHolland.

 

I drove this road regularly and moved out so as avoiding a sunken manhole cover at the crest of a bridge.

within seconds there were blue lights and noise everywhere from a following white transit van.

 

I was pulled over and given the perfunctory inspection as was my immaculate Ford Granada 2.8i Ghia Auto Estate,then promptly issued with a HORT1.

It showed me as unaccompanied and on Ashton New Road.

 

The next day I rang into the traffic headquarters and pointed out the errors of judgement that had prevailed and suggested that the officer should be refreshed on his knowledge of the major city routes and be tested at SpecSavers;this was after respectfully pointing out that the officer might have been suffering with a defective sense of smell and had completely missed the fact that the interior of the car smelled like a wine tasting party had been getting conducted within.

 

Nothing more was done about my HORT1 and 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Fat Albert said:

Your bazooka wasn’t aimed very well. Firstly, as one of your targets I am no goody two shoes as you put it but yes, I am content with my one drink. I don’t always do it but sometimes I do, as is my right. It is not illegal: it is not jeopardising my license: it is not endangering other road users. It is absolutely not selfish. I know I am without a doubt below the legal limit. 
A big problem is that we have absolutely no baseline data to determine what is considered to be acceptable in terms of reaction time, perception, awareness of hazards etc etc. So to simply say there is some impairment after alcohol - and the studies vary anywhere between 0 and 20mg before any measurable impairment happens - takes absolutely no account of of ones ability before having a drink. I would have no objection whatsoever in scientifically comparing my personal reactions, awareness, perception and overall driving ability with what one might consider normal; I am absolutely certain I would be fine.
If one wants to adopt a draconian “zero” policy the logic dictates you must also ban driving after taking any medication that possibly affects your ability to drive; we must also adopt legislation to retest a persons eyesight more regularly, particularly at night when many people have seriously degraded visual acuity and are a complete and utter menace; anyone with a headache must also be precluded from driving, or indeed any other mildly debilitating  illness or condition because that will, to some degree I pair their driving. Very quickly the whole situation becomes ridiculous and seriously impinges on ones quality of life and basic freedoms. 
I absolutely concur that anyone caught driving above the legal limit deserves to feel the full force of the law. 
Professor Pat Pending was a character in Wacky Races was he not? 

 

 Your entitled to your opinion as I am mine Fat Albert and who said I was targeting you ?   I would adopt a draconian "zero" tolerance in a heart beat if the end result saves lives and injury and who cares if its draconian. Have had my fair share as a Firefighter dealing with drink related incidents and agree thorough drug and medication legislation should be enforced. 

 

I like a good bevie from time to time like many but I simply don't see the sense in playing with fire drink driving and again drink does effect your overall driving ability to say it doesn't is simply daft but you know better and yes Professor Pat Pending was in Wacky Races. We will have to agree to disagree .....

 

GAS... 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

Random breath testing is not catered for in our legislation and cannot be conducted for that reason (unlike other countries). A police officer must either suspect alcohol or drugs after stopping and speaking to the driver, or the manner of driving raises suspicion, or the driver has committed an offence e.g. speeding or has been involved in a collision.

 

Rather strange legislation?  Where we lived in SA it has been known for them to have roadblocks on just about every road into or out of a town or city.  Every one would be stopped and checked.  Most towns and cities had their own independent traffic departments and were not associated with the police.

The downside of this was that drinkers carried on drinking waiting until the road blocks had moved on or a family member came to collect them.  It did make you very aware of how much you would consume.  They still do roadblocks around main cities and towns and still catch a lot of people for other offences besides being over the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kelper said:

What is your one drink?  I'd like to know the ABV and the size or serving.

It depends, and I always know how many units that equates to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grumpy Auld Smeesh said:

I would adopt a draconian "zero" tolerance in a heart beat if the end result saves lives and injury and who cares if its draconian.

 

I chemist friend said this recently about a zero limit

 

"So how will you deal with someone who has a gut fermentation problem and doesn't know it? Or someone who does physical work in an environment containing other alcohols - there are many different types of alcohol, not merely those we humans consume for relaxation and pleasure. Or someone whose metabolic processes are far slower than yours such that they still have alcohol in their blood stream more than 48 hours after consuming half a glass of very weak wine: conversely, how do you deal with someone with a very fast metabolism who consumes a single glass of alcohol and has fully metabolised it well within an hour - like your hubby?

Draconian measures always bite back and cause suffering and injustice. Or, as lawyers are happy to remind us: hard cases make bad law.

Law and the way in which we regulate and manage our society are all about safe sensible achievable balances. Total bans on anything never work - see Prohibition in the USA - and trying to force them to work just makes extra bureaucracy and significant added problems, not least by creating opportunities for criminal behaviour.

Try asking police forces how many extra staff and road traffic monitoring vehicles and other equipment they'd need in order to effectively enforce a total ban on drink-driving. Then ask yourself if you want to live in a society in which every person leaving a pub club restaurant or wine bar gets stopped and breathalysed.

Changing laws doesn't make society change. We didn't start using seat belts decades ago because of changes to the law; we did so because people made changes to the way they thought about safe driving in ever-increasing levels of busy traffic; we as a nation started thinking that driving without a belt was uncool and stupid. It was the clunk-click ads which changed people's minds, and they did that many years after the law had changed. Just as the Christmas drink drive ads made it uncool to drink drive and seriously reduced the numbers of incidents many years after the law on drink driving were introduced. What makes society change is other people's thinking and attitudes, not laws. Laws aren't deterrents, laws don't change societies; they are prescriptions for what to do when things go awry.

You need to be aware that zero tolerance cannot be made to work, just as zero incidents of drink driving is also not achievable.

  • +1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grumpy Auld Smeesh said:

 

 Your entitled to your opinion as I am mine Fat Albert and who said I was targeting you ?   I would adopt a draconian "zero" tolerance in a heart beat if the end result saves lives and injury and who cares if its draconian. Have had my fair share as a Firefighter dealing with drink related incidents and agree thorough drug and medication legislation should be enforced. 

 

I like a good bevie from time to time like many but I simply don't see the sense in playing with fire drink driving and again drink does effect your overall driving ability to say it doesn't is simply daft but you know better and yes Professor Pat Pending was in Wacky Races. We will have to agree to disagree .....

 

GAS... 

 

I am sure I wasn't personally in your sights but seeing as I am one of those who has openly said I am happy to have a perfectly legal bevvy I fitted the criteria for your target selection. I can’t subscribe to the “even 1 life saved is worth it” mentality  - if that were the case we would, for example, drive everywhere at 20mph or less. 
Clearly my assessment of risk vs personal freedom is different to yours. Agreeing to disagree is probably the best thing to do ;-) 

Edited by Fat Albert
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...