Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by rockape34, Feb 27, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Annual breath test carried out. In excess of 500,000
Number proving positive. Less than 100,000
So when they pick people up for motoring offences or have other suspicions that they might be drunk behond the wheel they get it right less than 20% of the time. I can't see how doing it at random is going to give better results.
Perhaps the government should concentrate on getting more traffic coppers back out on patrols who can catch all manner of motoring offences rather than relying on speed cameras which strangely only catch speeding vehicles.
I am not 100% on this but I thought the police HAVE to breath test anyone in an accident?
If so this would explain the 20%?
How many drivers are still over the limit driving to work in the morning after a night out till after 12?
More to the point how many drivers are under the influence of drugs? which as yet cannot be tested for.
20% detected is still to high.
I also doubt if introducing random testing will make any differance,
Whats the best time to test? After closing time armed with a list of numbers from the pub car parks I surpose!
It's supposed to work as a deterrent I think. The fact that you can be stopped purely to provide a breath specimen (though I think most police officers would say that if you can't find another reason to stop a vehicle you shouldn't be doing the job!) and at random is supposed to give you that 'what if there's a checkpoint or it's just my day to be stopped' type feeling.
Works well in other countries.
I don't want to live in a country where I have a fear of," What if there's a checkpoint?"
As previously stated it's a pretty unimaginative copper who can't find an excuse to pull you over. But officially at random, no sir.
you're not entirely correct on that point mate, I recently watched one of those cop 'shows' on sky, they followed a copper on his rounds in some chav ridden town (could be anywhere then couldnt it!!) and he was stopping drivers and using verbal, tests, visual perception ete etc. to catch the druggies, he could arrest them if he considered them under the imfluence of a banned substance and carry out urine tests back at the cop shop!!
He had gone on a course to discover the secrets of spotting druggies, but obviously they wouldnt show all the tests, i think he was probably one of about 5 trained like this in the whole country!! tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime...right on!!
A good point (I meant alcohol testing checkpoints rather than anything else) but it already happens in some parts of the country during the Christmas season (certainly Lancs. and Cumbria), so it would be an extension of what exists now rather than anything new.
[quote="sanchauk]I don't want to live in a country where I have a fear of," What if there's a checkpoint?"
As previously stated it's a pretty unimaginative copper who can't find an excuse to pull you over. But officially at random, no sir.[/quote]
Excuse me if I appear a little facetious for a minute.
Yeah - it's not as if the powers that be are making us carry id cards, is it?....perhaps the next step......ah b*gger - already planning that one....ehhh....stop and search powers with spurious reasons only required?....nope, that one's in too...prosecution of individuals using peaceful protest calling for political change.....yup - got that one covered......
I take it we are calling these effective police powers.
Sounds like the only thing that is save us from the existance of a police state is the amount of red tape that the cops have to deal with on a day for day basis per arrest.
But did I not see something in print about a new initiative to get more police back out on the streets by reducing the paperwork required for arrests?
Do we really want that?
good point... As well as more options on the soft drink front, cheaper soft drinks might help too. who knows, they could even follow the US designated driver system, where the DD gets free or cheap drinks...
Personally, mine's a pint, but I walk to the boozer
I hope the police don't mind that if I'm driving along minding my own and I'm then subsequently asked to blow in a box or perform aerobics to confirm I'm as sober and drug free as I say I am, that I might get randomly annoyed.
How long have gobments been advocating "don't drink and drive"? 30 year, 40 years? No idea. But it still seems to have had only a negligible effect on the number of fatalities caused every year by drunk drivers.
If these random stops were generally introduced, coupled with an alcohol limit of ZERO (as opposed to all this faffing about with 0.8, 0.5 or zero-point-whatfÃ¼ckinever), I think it might make a real difference in the long run. Particularly if the first dozen or so caught under the "new rules" were summarily executed by firing squad. That'd teach 'em!
Separate names with a comma.