A fifth of drivers get behind the wheel the morning after, survey finds

brooksby wrote:

I think the problem is that the police don't do random tests, all year round, on just anybody (yes, even you in the big Audi who needs to get somewhere).

As we all know, they will pull over someone who's driving is particularly iffy, and test people involved in accidents, but other than that its just the morning and evening high publicity spot checks at around the Xmas party season.

They really need to either start installing breathalisers in cars (that can't be hacked), or do a heck of a lot more random checks.

(And when I mean random, I mean random. My local paper publishes as a 'news story' the times, dates and places where our local force will be conducting 'random' speed checks, as they are obliged to make it public knowledge. Apparently nobody speeds in our area.).

(On a lighter note, my wife always tells people the story of being pulled over as part of an Xmas drink-drive campaign (Operation Rudolf's Nose, or some such stupid name). "Have you been drinking alcohol in the last twenty four hours, ma'am?" (pause while he notices my wife's eight-and-a-half months pregnancy bump) "Ah, OK, I'm guessing not; on your way, then.")

Sorry to be a pain and I agree with you but the police cannot legally undertake random breath test in the UK. They are not permitted to.

But they do have a work around. The police have the power to stop you for any reason. It's an offence not to comply. Thay also have the power to breathalyse you if they suspect you of drink driving. They need reasonable suspicion to test you. They do have various means of creating this but it requires a couple of cops to possibly tell a fib like they can smell alcohol. It has not been unknown for them to say this even if it is not actually true in order to cover the purpose of the test. Refusing a test is an offence in itself. In other words the stopping and testing is carried out under the ancient "Police Ways and Means Act" not as a proper legal power. That's why they are a bit timid about it.

It needs to be a specific right to mount a road block and test any driver on a random basis. If they had that power then they could use random tests agressively.

oozaveared wrote:

It needs to be a specific right to mount a road block and test any driver on a random basis. If they had that power then they could use random tests agressively.

And I guess you then need to think about every possible situation where the police might use the power to mount a road block ... on a random basis. Like when any law is enacted, and the government says its for a specific, good, reason, and people protest because what if the government turns evil. Which is a pity, because I really don't see how the powers that be can properly address the issue of drink driving (which is clearly seen by so many people as a non-crime) without truly random breath testing, any time, any place (but mainly roadside, obviously).

ironmancole wrote:

Never understood this supposed battle, seems a bit like Hitler crashing through Europe on his campaign of slaughter and misery then bursting into tears crying bad sportsmanship when someone has the 'audacity' to shoot back.

Simple. Sells papers.

Stop seeing the media as information. Start seeing it as an advertising business that gains eyeballs by providing entertainment. Then it all makes much more sense.

This applies to media which don't carry advertising too by the way, since they're competing for audience with those which do.

(rant mode off)

don simon wrote:

Zero tolerance.
Nobody has to drink alcohol and certaily nobody HAS to drink alcohol and then drive.

But then how would little Tommy get to school on time?

don simon wrote:

Zero tolerance.
Nobody has to drink alcohol and certaily nobody HAS to drink alcohol and then drive.

zero is a measurable number. If you drank any alcohol even over the last few weeks you may get a reading above zero. Mouthwash, sherry trifle, the beer you had before the weekend, even non alcoholic drinks with high sugar content that might have fermented slightly will give a reading above zero.

A completely teetotal person could easily fail that test. It's not therefore even useful in terms of testing sobriety or impairment. That's why the limit is set so that normal sober people that are not impaired won't be prosecuted.

There is an argument about the level of blood alcohol that defines impairment and therefore some merit in this regard for a lwer limit but see my post above the key is not making it easier to catch the unimpaired or very marginally impaired but in actually catching the really and severely impaired that are just flouting the law completely.

oozaveared wrote:

don simon wrote:

Zero tolerance.
Nobody has to drink alcohol and certaily nobody HAS to drink alcohol and then drive.

zero is a measurable number. If you drank any alcohol even over the last few weeks you may get a reading above zero. Mouthwash, sherry trifle, the beer you had before the weekend, even non alcoholic drinks with high sugar content that might have fermented slightly will give a reading above zero.

A completely teetotal person could easily fail that test. It's not therefore even useful in terms of testing sobriety or impairment. That's why the limit is set so that normal sober people that are not impaired won't be prosecuted.

There is an argument about the level of blood alcohol that defines impairment and therefore some merit in this regard for a lwer limit but see my post above the key is not making it easier to catch the unimpaired or very marginally impaired but in actually catching the really and severely impaired that are just flouting the law completely.

I'm not talking about a zero limit, I'm talking about zero tolerance to drinking and driving which is why I mentioned that nobody has to drink. BTW I would count eating sherry trifle as taking alcohol, so don't do it (before driving) kiddies.

paulmcmillan wrote:

Why not just copy Scotland's approach to drink drive limits?

It worked with the smoking ban.

It's a bit pointless though. Very few drivers done for DD are only just over the current limit. Most are way beyond it. The vast majority of people are not drink driving and the few that are seem to be completely ignoring any limit.

It's eye catching to set a new lower limit for DD. But the real bang for your buck is getting to grips with the people flouting the current DD limit.

Almost all of Europe has that lower limit. Most of Europe also has a much bigger drink drive problem because of tacit acceptance and ipso facto low priority for the police. In places like Poland the lower limit also applies to people riding bicycles for example and half of all their DD prosecutions are of cyclists. Having been a professional driver all over Europe it would turn your hair white the absolute flagrant abuse of the law and endemic drink driving.

By all means lower the limit but don't think lowering the limit solves the problem. It is serious policing and social attitudes that does that.

The killer application (at whatever level of DD you choose) would be random breath tests set up by the police as road block style stops. Where drivers are pulled into a road side bay and breathalysed and as soon as the next bay is free the next driver happening along gets pulled in and breathalysed. You put them on major routes and their back ways a different place everyday. It not only catches drink drivers it actually affects behaviour because people see that there is actually a chance that they will be stopped and breathalysed.

Here's an example I got a driving licence in 1977. I was also a professional international driver all over Europe but also occasionally in the US and Australia. I dread to think of the miles I have covered in the last 37 years on the road. I have never once been stopped and breathalysed. I think that sends out a very bad message indeed. I think that on average motorists should think the chances of being stopped and breathalysed are reasonably high. They should see that it is random and can happen anywhere and see that other people in the traffic just like them are being routinely pulled over and tested.

Great point. I guess in retrospect its a bit more obvious if someone is smoking too!

In Scotland there is a push to get people to view drinking and driving as socially unacceptable, and the change in the limit is backing that up.

Totally agree that if people don't think they will get tested (low risk of ever being breathalysed as you said) then there is more chance that they will do it as they expect not to get caught. I've seen those russian driving youtube clips....

The problem lies in making routine testing happen.
To use an analogy (doping) the costs involved in carrying out enough testing to be confident that you catch everyone is prohibitive.

Lowering the limit has to be a good move, although as you say not the answer alone.