<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14058325\x26blogName\x3dChiswickite++-+formerly+The+Croydonian\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://croydonian.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_GB\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttps://croydonian.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-3471229122068008905', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Drink driving

There are moves afoot to cut 'the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg', and to introduce random testing.

As the law stands, 'police can only breathalyse drivers if they have reason to believe a driving offence has been committed and that motorists are under the influence of alcohol'.

However, consider these figures: "And if you think you won't get caught, more than half a million breath tests are carried out each year and on average 100,000 are found to be positive". Or for the Lancs Plod, "Throughout the month of December police officers conducted 3,130 breath tests in Lancashire...The total number of drivers who tested positive or refused to provide a sample of breath was 191 (6 per cent) compared to 211 (8 per cent) in 2004".

A 1 in 5 hit rate does not sound very well targeted, does it? Still less a 1 in 20. We could not possibly have random testing, wholly outside the police's authority could we?

I do not have a car, by the way, and do not think that driving under the influence is a good idea. Random testing , if added to the stature books would be a monstrosity, and I will offer the usual odds that once that particular icebreaker has done its work, there will be more, much more, of the same.
« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

Blogger CityUnslicker said... 2:24 pm

..and failing to provide a sample is a little more dodgy than one may think if you consider it

'You are breathing too hard sir, or too softly, sir.'

'You have failed to give a sample and will be charged.'

This is very open to abuse as far as I can see, espcually if they want to massage the numbers up.  

Anonymous Anonymous said... 3:06 pm

This is also a deliberate but unannounced step towards harmonisation (I hate that word) of accepted levels of alcohol in drivers across all of our European enemies.

The Spanish have what is in effect the same policy as these proposals. It doesn't make the roads any safer though. In fact, as anyone who has driven in Spain will confirm - it would help to have a couple of drinks inside you for courage (and that also applies for a pedestrian!)  

Blogger The Hitch said... 3:29 pm

there is a very simple way to blow a negative (unless you are really pissed) but as i very much disapprove of drink driving im not telling you how , and no it doesn't involve a coin in your mouth.  

Blogger Newmania said... 3:30 pm

Its a very blunt instrument but I can see the point .There is very good case for a limit of nothing to drink for under 25s..but really that should be men under 25 which begins to show you how we get this the wrong way round .

The great problem is its always and "and" never "or".... I very much doubt that the overall risk people will accept will ever change ,it will only move .State control of your life will therefore always have areason to move further out into the wild West until it reaches the Pacific .


Anonymous Anonymous said... 4:32 pm

I would have thought the next most obvious anti-motorist step (and probably quite a sensible one) would be to raise the driving age to 18 from 17.
re. driving while intoxicated, haven't I read elsewhere htat DUI cannabis is now as large aproblem as DUI alcohol? Rather than just turning the screw furthe ron alcohol, perhaps it would be more sensible to get the boffins working on a cannbis breath test...  

Blogger Croydonian said... 4:45 pm

Indisputable evidence of being stoned is finding Cheech and Chong funny...  

» Post a Comment