Safe Speed Forums

I would have thought if someone is unable to produce a breath test that common decency suggests they should be allowed to have a blood test.

Plenty of people have various respiratory ailments that may be undiagnosed and many prevent them from completing a breath test.

It is unreasonable in the extreme if people are banned from driving purely for failing to produce a breath test without any evidence that they were over the limit.

But, hey, that is just the dictatorial police state we live in nowadays

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I favour the Swedish idea. They have a limit which is 20 in blood as compared with our 80. That allows for cough mixture and the occasional alcoholic chocolate but rules out a pub drink.

We see an awful lot of drivers who are just over. Often they have been subjected to a routine breath test following a moving traffic offence or been the victim of some one elses poor driving.

A surprising percentage can trace it back to their local pub changing the size of the wine glasses or changing the beer to a stronger brew. An alcohol related driving conviction can wreck your life even if you did no damage and were only just over. Lowering the limit would make it clear that a drink before driving is unacceptable and would prevent a large number of convictions.



There is no similarity at all. In 30+ years of A&E duty I have no doubt whatsoever that alcohol is involved in a huge number of injury causing accidents. There is no doubt that alcohol adversely affects co-ordination and judgement. There is no doubt that the affects of alcohol vary from person to person so that it is not possible to predict how badly an individual will be affected.


One car going off the road doesn't come close.

Would you prefer a situation where drunk drivers refuse the test and get away with it because there is no proof they were over the limit?


Police and courts exercise the powers given to them by parliament.

I don't quite understand this. You said on the previous page that the meter is very difficult for some people to blow into correctly, even if they don't have a recognised lung complaint, but at the same time you seem quite happy to ban people through no fault of their own purely because of this technological shortfall? How will allowing a choice of blood test instead let them get away with it?

I am just trying to set out how the system is at present.

My reason for explaining that some people can't manage to give a specimen was to counter those who assume that fail to supply a sample is always deliberate. Remember the anaemic dehydrated kitten?



If the OP continues to maintain he was unable, rather than unwilling, there will be a trial to decide the issue.

The comment from PeterE did not mention that, and seemed to be implying that there would be an automatic ban. My response was not as clear as it should have been.

To clarify.
I would like to see a severely reduced limit to cut the number of accidental "just over" incidents and the attendant distress that goes with them.

I would like to see the offer of blood or urine testing for those who try, but fail, to supply a specimen of breath. Refusal to accept the offer should grounds for conviction for fail to supply.

And which bans behaviour that causes no risk whatsoever on the road.


I find this highly unlikely. The "conventional wisdom" on drink-driving contains a substantial safety margin. I really doubt whether many folks are being convicted immediately after leaving the bar in the sincere belief they were under the limit.

Indeed I understand the average BAC of convicted drivers is around twice 80 mg.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

so it looks like im going to loose my license without any proof i was over the limit!

wheres the justice in that?

how can i be convicted of an offence when theres no proof that i committed?

what ever happend to "innocent until proven guilty" ?

From what you say you've been charged with failing to take the breath test rather than being drunk, and the evidence that you failed to take the breath is pretty incontrovertible. It seems you were some way over the speed limit, and apparently marginally drunk. Without wanting to appear smug I would say you were asking for it and got what you deserved, the rest of us can count ourselves lucky that the police were there to catch you and you didn't go on to hit somebody.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

quote

"you've been charged with failing to take the breath test rather than being drunk, and the evidence that you failed to take the breath is pretty incontrovertible"

i have been to see my GP today & they have done some tests & found out that...:

"my spirometry reading are BELOW normal"

i just have to see what happens next i supose...

IIRC Sweden has a waiting list to imprison those who have exceeded the drink driving limit,

I happens. Its not every case or even most cases but its not rare either.


Just leaving a bar is where a huge percentage are caught. Anywhere that promises a mix of cars and booze is a good place for a police officer to wait.


If I understand correctly you are suggesting that the average across the board for drink driving is twice the limit.

That sounds about right. From memory, of the ones I see the majority by far are about twice or a bit less. A significant number are in the just over category and the odd one really stands out by being 4 or 5 times over.

You are not likely to be charged with being over the limit. Based on what you have posted it will be failing to provide.

By your own admission a suitable specimen was not provided. Justice will be acheived by taking the charge of failing to provide through the system.


You won't be convicted without proof.


Its alive and well in the courts up and down the country. Its just that you are seeing it from (what I presume is ) a new angle.

If there was a normal distribution, you would expect there to be far more offenders just over than twice over, but that isn't the case. That would suggest there aren't a lot of people "just chancing it" but instead offending is mainly related to a hard core who have no compunctions about being well outside the law.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Depending on how far below normal and whether the doctor is prepared to state on oath that you had the problem at the relevant time the CPS may well decide not to prosecute at all.

Sweden and to a lesser extent the USA do run a waiting list system.

For offences where there is no immediate risk to public the idea has some merit.

It saves on prison building and staffing costs for a start. It also enables offenders to organise someone to look after the cat, store the car, explain it all personally to their kids.

I think part (if not all) of this stems from the police exercising discretion in the only-just-over bracket and cautioning the offender in several cases.

And where police are in short supply, using intelligence to tackle the worst cases.
Intelligence usually means disgruntled neighbour who you had an argument with last year over the state of is fence, or your kids kicking a ball into his garden!
Just goes to show a little politeness and goodwill can go a long way (even if you really think the guy is a jerk)!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

The problem with this is that blowing for the doctor is no more reliable than blowing for the police, and in this case not very much different to you, given that you clearly went to the doc's in order to try to get this diagnosis.

A spirometry test is no harder than a breath test, and unless your readings are way below what would be expected for someone of your age, height, weight, & sex then I don't think this is going to help you in your defence (especially as you would notice if you had a problem in normal day to day life).

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Do you know of any instances where a caution has been issued? The reason I ask is that I am not aware of such a thing happening and the guideance makes no mention at all of cautions.

The limit for breath is 35 micrograms so score under 35 and no action can be taken.

It is standard practice not to prosecute unless the reading is 40 or more. This stops interminable arguments in court about machine accuracy and has been adopted throughout the country as far as I know. Its certainly part of the documentation used by police for conducting evidential breath tests in each of the counties I have been involved with.

Score 41 or more and you walk for a year.