Summer Drink Drive Campaign.

[Harrythedog]

Does anyone know why these roadside stops for DD are in the morning as opposed to an evening time, bearing in mind the majority of incidents involving DD occur at night?

 

[MOCAŠ]

Does anyone know why these roadside stops for DD are in the morning as opposed to an evening time, bearing in mind the majority of incidents involving DD occur at night?

Because there's an awareness campaign at the moment to get people to realise that if they drink a skinful in the evening, there's a fair chance they'll still be drunk the following morning.

The sort of people who wouldn't dream of drivng on the night they've been drinking apparently think nothing of getting behind the wheel the following morning.

 

[DSM10000]

Because there's an awareness campaign at the moment to get people to realise that if they drink a skinful in the evening, there's a fair chance they'll still be drunk the following morning.

The sort of people who wouldn't dream of drivng on the night they've been drinking apparently think nothing of getting behind the wheel the following morning.

Quite.

A colleague in A&E has seen a rise in injuries caused by early morning motoring accidents where the driver, though apparently sober on examination proved to be over the legal limit on formal testing. The majority of these, not surprisingly perhaps are on Saturday and Sunday mornings

 

[DSM10000]

No, it was a straight point. I may be driving along oblivious to some fault on my car (eg: inoperative lights) or unaware of some misdemeanour I may have committed. But if instructed to stop by a police officer I would do so without question.

My apologies, it is sometimes difficult to get the correct context of a reply.

 

[johnsco]

SPX ... Know thy place lad !!

 

[Dieselman]

Also if you are nervous about stopping you are quite within your rights to drive to the nearest police station as the police use some strange unmarked cars these days and it could be any d*ckhead with blue strobes in the grill looking to rob you as was the case recently in Sheffield

So that's how the CLK got damaged, the Mrs pulling over innocent motorists.

 

[Dieselman]

I've just been out for a short walk and noticed a number of cars left near a local pub, one of which was collected as I was there.

Are these drivers under the limit yet?

 

[MOCAŠ]

I've just been out for a short walk and noticed a number of cars left near a local pub, one of which was collected as I was there.

Are these drivers under the limit yet?

Time to swap the paintmeter for a breathalyzer...

 

[colin.c43]

Is it within the powers of the police to stop you for no reason then, that's my question?

If you want to look it up, Section 163 Road Traffic Act. No need for a reason.

Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 and section 49 of the Police Reform Act 2002, allows a constable in uniform to stop a mechanically propelled vehicle being driven, or a cycle being ridden, on a road.
163(1) A person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform or a traffic officer.
163(2) A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform or a traffic officer.
163(3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

 

[st13phil]

...where the driver, though apparently sober on examination proved to be over the legal limit on formal testing.

It's very difficult for the individual to tell whether or not the residual alcohol in their system has fully metabolised without resort to some form of testing device. The old pilot's rule of "not less than twelve hours from bottle to throttle" is a reasonable guide if the level of alcohol consumed is modest, but not if someone's had a shedfull.

Are these drivers under the limit yet?

Assuming that they finished their drinking around midnight and weren't too inebriated when they did, then probably. The wise ones will have used something like this to find out with more certainty:

 

[bedwards1966]

I'm generally not keen on the police doing everything they can to catch motorists (they often take minor things beyond any reason), but drink driving is one of those things that does need sorting out.
In this day it's impossible not to know what effects alcohol in any amount (never mind enough to be illegal) has on the body, and the effects on driving. Therefore it's fair to say that anyone who is drinking and driving is aware of the danger but doesn't care, making them highly irresponsible and dangerous. They need to be dealt with severely as there is no excuse for it, and if catching them the following morning works then it should be done. It's impossible to not know that alcohol is still affecting you in the morning, so it's still irresponsible to ignore that and drive regardless.
Keep catching them, whatever it takes.

 

[Dieselman]

I'm generally not keen on the police doing everything they can to catch motorists (they often take minor things beyond any reason),

I think you couldn't be more wrong, they are very lax and lazy regarding motoring offences.

Drivers seem to forget they are only allowed to drive under licence. If they breach any of the rules of that licence they can be suitably punished.

 

[st4]

I think you couldn't be more wrong, they are very lax and lazy regarding motoring offences.
.

And I thank the lord for it that they are off doing other things. Means I can drive fast because I think driving fast is fun. Hands up if I get caught, but the odds for a speedy driver are overwhelmingly in their favour for not getting caught.

 

[stevieb15]

This kind of post is always so emotive and opinions fixed and often illogically polarised. There are so many crap, careless, reckless, blind, ignorant, bullying, completely unskilled drivers who cause far more accidents, injuries and deaths than drink drivers, and does anyone care?
No off course they don't, because it's easier to just target the driver who's had a drink.
Personally I don't care which of the felons drives into me and kills me, I just hope they don't, but what I do know is, it's much less likely to be a drink driver than one of the others and therefore I can live without the populist hysteria but would like to see more effort put into ensuring those who don't drink and drive are also safe to be on the roads.
In another post on the subject of MOTs I suggested drivers should be tested annually, if we can test cars I really can't see the arguement for not testing drivers.
It'll definitely save more lives than targetting drinkers.

 

[flango]

I agree on testing drivers but not every year, as a condition of having my advanced instructors licence I sit a full UK test and advanced test every 3 years. It's amazing how the regs change in the 3 year intervals and how driving do's and don'ts change too not always for the better. I'd also toughen up the driving test to reflect real modern situations

I'd start with annual testing for adi's as some of them are shocking then I'd retest drivers every 3 or 5 years based on what the system could handle the standard of driving of some people never ceases to amaze me so the sooner we get them educated to a competent standard the better.