Safe Speed Forums

Yeah, but think it through. Two Officers. Stopping vehicle. Identifying driver. Taking breath test. Recording result. And those officers need management, training and breath test kits need to requisitioned, stocked and disposed of. It HAS to be 15 officer minutes.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Not necessarily 2 officers. PNC check will take 2 minutes or so. Admin person will probably handle the stocking of the blow-tubes.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

The Australian system is more like 6 officers, one pulling over a line of cars, 5 doing checks as the cars arrive in front of them (possibly 1 waiting for those who decide to run?). Show me your license, blow in the tube, see you later (btw, none of this show your license a week later stuff, if you don't have it you're in trouble). The results are automatically recorded by the equipment. No need to record any extra details if it's negative. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good use of resources but I think your time estimates are way off.

If the driver says he has had a drink recently isn't the minimum time before a test can be carried out 20 min ?

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_504532.hcsp

Interesting human rights aspect in this .pdf from Thames Valley

I think I've been breath tested just once, and that was in the 70s. But then they have no reason to test me because I hardly drink and never when driving.

Surely you're not suggesting that a single officer could test 60 in an hour? And he works without management?

I'd love to firm up the estimate. How many do we think a practical team of six would test in an hour in a roadblock type operation?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I've linked to Pistonheads SP&L, to get the opinion of the BiB there. See: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 6&f=10&h=0 (requires registration).

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/01/26/police_radios_can_trigger_positive/

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s20p2.htm

http://www.madd.ca/english/research/newzealand.pdf

they're obviously testing a lot if they can manage to test over 20000 a day.

Without management? Why should sending officers to do rbt be different to any other policing?

I think it would take allot longer than a couple of minutes if what happened in this article happened in the UK, the transcript further down makes interesting reading.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

No different - but all (common) Police activity is managed by Police officers, so when you try to guage the resources required it's smart to make an allowance for management.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

In Victoria I am 100% sure that an officer can get through 60 negative tests in an hour. I have been stopped at many of these roadblocks and can attest to the professional manner in which they are operated.

I agree with an earlier post that random stops are likely to deter people from drink driving. We are constantly bombarded with advertising reminding us that we could be stopped at any time for a random test. The police do not need any reason whatsoever and are legally entitled to stop any car at any time for a breath test or licence check.

While it may be an inconvenience, I do not mind being stopped even though I do not normally drink and drive. I have on occasions driven when I know I am close to the limit and on one occasion I was tested in that state and sent on my way.

Over here it is always in the back of your mind that you may be stopped and checked so I am sure that the number of drink drivers is reducing.

When the police have a major operation, such as on a motorway, and find very few drivers over the limit they still advertise the results and praise motorists for driving sensibly. The police have cars patrolling any alternate routes and will give chase to anyone leaving the highway just before a checkpoint and give them a roadside test. They also position these checkpoints in such a way that they are virtually impossible to see until there are no escape points.

They are also now doing drug tests at these checkpoints but I am against these as the test will show drugs in your system up to a week after using them and therefore long after the drug has stopped having any effect on the abilities of the driver. .... No I do not use drugs of any kind (prescribed drugs and headache tablets excluded) but I see no point in charging someone with driving under the influence of a drug that may have absolutely no effect on the driver at the time of the check.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

A random check outside a military base is probably a good way to reinforce the message about drink driving as if you test someone on their way home they will mention it when out on the lash with mates, also dependant on the size of the base it could be a similar situation to doing the same with a small town / village