Breathalyzing drivers of motorhomes

[The Wino]

You did actually read his facile question?
"I mean any sort of incident like clipping the kerb, parking half in a bay/ clipping another vehicle etc as well as reported accidents"
That was the civil answer.

Do you have two wrong sides on the bed! It was a statement not a question. The point I was making was that I think it's reasonable in any small incident not ones that the police are normally called out for like collisions and ones involving breaking the law. Obviously that for some strange reason has annoyed you I'm not really sure why? But hey ho it takes all sorts!

 

[gus-lopez]

I think lane assist was made mandatory in EU few years back for new cars and has to be enabled by default. Aftermarket permanent disabling would thus make the vehicle no longer roadworthy in EU. Or I don't actually know how that'd work, technically the car wouldn't any more fulfill the requirements for type approval.

They could be sold in the Uk without anything now that the UK is not in the EU.They would also be legal ineurope as they would come under the vienna convention as 'what is legal in your own country etc'

though it's not activated on me so far.

I usually test mine every couple of weeks when the road is clear behind.

 

[Ernesto]

Precisely why all the agencies with arrest and/or prosecution powers have independent complaints processes, or can be judicially reviewed. Lets not assume that things we don't personally like are abuses of power. Yes there have been examples, but equally there have been many examples where individuals or organisations have been censured for over stepping the line.

An independent complaint process is not the same as protection under the law.
I am a thoroughly law abiding citizen but part of what made, and still makes Britain great, is the rule of law, applied to everyone without prejudice.

 

[The Wino]

An independent complaint process is not the same as protection under the law.
I am a thoroughly law abiding citizen but part of what made, and still makes Britain great, is the rule of law, applied to everyone without prejudice.

Provided that breath tests are carried out at random how would it be an example of prejudice it could be quite the opposite?

 

[Coolcats]

Get used to it folks. Since July 2024, all new vehicles in the EU have been pre-installed with an interface allowing a breathalyser-based locking system to be connected to the car, which can stop the vehicle if the driver fails a breathalyser test. The so-called "alcolocks" are not compulsory in the EU, just the interface on newly-built cars. You can see what will be coming next. I can’t imagine the UK won’t follow the EU (sorry Nigel).

I don’t have a problem with it so long as the technology is reliable and can be easily repaired.

Should have druglocks too

 

[Coolcats]

I once come over the Honfleur bridge at re-entry speed half way down I noticed the gendarmerie waiting at the bottom…I said to wife I reckon I’m getting a speeding ticket. I was pulled over and breathalysed thank goodness for that I was then waived on.

We should all take the position that we could be asked for a sample of breath at any time and be legal to drive.

 

[meanders]

An independent complaint process is not the same as protection under the law.

The IOPC, and most, if not all of the others, are governed by statutory regulations. So have the same effect as Primary Legislation in law. So your statement is incorrect.

I am a thoroughly law abiding citizen but part of what made, and still makes Britain great, is the rule of law, applied to everyone without prejudice.

I agree. That said, there always has been, and always will be cases where there are miscarriages, and indeed inappropriate targeting of groups or individuals. I am content that the Equality Act, and other legislation has reduced those incidents.

The legal position for a police officer deciding they have reasonable grounds to ask for a breath test is perfectly clear except for the definition of the word 'reasonable' for which there is no legal definition or precedent. Indeed, you would have to demonstrate that it was unreasonable (or contrary to the Equality Act) for them to draw that conclusion, but if you blow positive, there is no leg to stand on.

If you drink, don't drive. Simple!

 

[scotzsue]

Not read all the way through.
Will be pointing others, mostly non funsters to this thread.
The ones who laugh at me because I won’t drink alcohol after 6pm if I am driving g the next morning. Had an ex who worked for BR they had random tests for alcohol, he was not a train driver, their rules were no alcohol for 12hours prior to duty. Really made me think.
Won’t be doing any driving for a few weeks so could indulge myself if I wanted

 

[Ernesto]

Provided that breath tests are carried out at random how would it be an example of prejudice it could be quite the opposite?

Requiring police officers to have reasonable suspicion, is clear and well versed legal requirement. The test of reasonableness is used in many cases. Requiring the police to be "random" is not.

 

[Ernesto]

The IOPC, and most, if not all of the others, are governed by statutory regulations. So have the same effect as Primary Legislation in law. So your statement is incorrect.

I agree. That said, there always has been, and always will be cases where there are miscarriages, and indeed inappropriate targeting of groups or individuals. I am content that the Equality Act, and other legislation has reduced those incidents.

The legal position for a police officer deciding they have reasonable grounds to ask for a breath test is perfectly clear except for the definition of the word 'reasonable' for which there is no legal definition or precedent. Indeed, you would have to demonstrate that it was unreasonable (or contrary to the Equality Act) for them to draw that conclusion, but if you blow positive, there is no leg to stand on.

If you drink, don't drive. Simple!

The burden of proof is on the police to prove reasonable suspicion. Not the accused to prove unreasonableness.

I fully support not drinking and driving. But I also support the law and the police need to operate within those laws as well as us.

 

[bobnick]

And if nobody broke ANY law we would have no need for rozzers and criminal courts.

 

[B+W vanman]

And if nobody broke ANY law we would have no need for rozzers and criminal courts.

And all the redundant busies, lawyers, judges and court officials would be forced into a life of crime to support themselves………m’lud

 

[meanders]

The burden of proof is on the police to prove reasonable suspicion.

I agree but the the test itself is entirely subjective based on the fictional legal term "reasonable person" for which there is not a legal definition albeit some relevant precedents refer. In reality, the onus therefore falls on you to show that the officers decision was unreasonable else the court will have little choice but to concur that the reasonableness test has been passed.

 

[Ernesto]

Of course a policeman can make something up …but if they want to risk that in a world of cameras and constant video surveillance, then thats a risk they can take.
I dont disagree - you’d probably need a very good lawyer and probably some good dash-cam footage as well.

But the guidance is clear and unequivocal. The onus is not on you in the eyes of the law. Its an important distinction and one that should always be there

…”if a police officer stops you and suspects you've been drinking, they can and should tell you the reason for their suspicion, such as your driving being erratic, or you admitting to drinking alcohol. The reason for the stop must be provided upon request to ensure you understand your rights and the situation, according to guidance from Citizens Advice”

 

[BILL 875]

Here is a tale a friend of mine came out of a pub and went to his car and the police decided to give him a test, so one copper stays on site while the other goes to the cop shop to get a breatherlizer kit, they couldn't find one in the cop shop so ring round the cop shops to locate the others as they have 4 dotted around nobody could find a kit so he went back to the pub empty handed, so they let him go and he admitted he would probably have failed.

 

[gus-lopez]

…”if a police officer stops you and suspects you've been drinking, they can and should tell you the reason for their suspicion, such as your driving being erratic, or you admitting to drinking alcohol. The reason for the stop must be provided upon request to ensure you understand your rights and the situation, according to guidance from Citizens Advice”

how does that work with the usual " do you know why I have stopped you?"

 

[Ernesto]

how does that work with the usual " do you know why I have stopped you?"

Thats a simple offer to incriminate yourself. Best answer is “no” …although if you are bang to rights, it might be better to acknowledge it.

 

[Tiger Bear]

how does that work with the usual " do you know why I have stopped you?"

"Err, because my car is blue and you were just three pots from a 147".

 

[meanders]

"Err, because my car is blue and you were just three pots from a 147".

That at least might bring a grin...... Just before the 'I suppose you think you are being funny sir!"

 

[Tiger Bear]

That at least might bring a grin...... Just before the 'I suppose you think you are being funny sir!"

Not sure about that; some coppers I've met appeared to have been devoid of the requisite muscles to create a grin or smile.

 

[McLouis]

I’ve known building sites to do that.

I have no issue with it.

This was the case where I worked, regularly entire teams were drink and drug tested before starting.

 

[Reallyretired]

Wow, let me explain this as if you are 5, if the people with the blue flashing lights turn up, it is an "incident", clear enough?
Half in a bay is not an incident that is a captial offence.

Glad its not. Parking badly is something I do regularly as my polymyalgia makes it difficult to get out of my car unless I can open the door fully and most parking spaces are too narrow to do this. The local council won't give me a blue badge as their requirements are very strict.