UK and Europe · Public discussion

Motoring groups oppose drink drive tests.

Started by Howard · · Last activity · 16 posts · 1,190 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
26 May 2004
Last activity
30 May 2004
Original author
Howard
Posts
16
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,190
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–16 of 16
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hi folks,

    True to form motoring groups such as the AA (founded in 1905
    especially to aid motorists to evade speed traps) are
    opposing calls for the police to have powers to carry out
    random breath tests. They argue this will be an inefficient
    way of catching drink drivers, totally ignoring the fact
    that the possibility of being caught by a reandom test will
    probabaly be a very good way of deterring them in the first
    place. Even more worringly it seems the 'Government' (I use
    the term loosely) also seem intent on giving drunken drivers
    a 'sporting chance' of getting away with it. Until they kill
    somone that
    is. (Lets not forget these are the same jokers who thought
    that giving schools the power to randomly test pupils
    for drugs is a good idea...).

    Independent. 24 May 2004 Motoring groups oppose calls
    for random drink-driving tests By Tom Whitehead and
    Emily Pennink

    Motoring groups backed Home Office opposition to European
    pressure for random breath testing yesterday.

    The European Commission wants random tests across its member
    states to cut drink-driving and boost road safety.

    The president of the European Traffic Police Network
    (Tispol) warned that the Commission would attempt to make
    its recommendation a directive if it is not followed.

    But the Home Office is resisting, claiming such tests are
    inefficient and not an effective policing method compared to
    specific targeting of suspects.

    Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said:
    "Random tests are not the most effective way of catching
    drink drivers. They [the police] might have to stop 1,000
    motorists to catch five or 10, whereas if they target 100
    people they might catch 100."

    Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA Motoring
    Trust, said: "How do you impose random breath tests on
    someone? Is a chief constable going to be told he must
    conduct 20 tests this month or he is defective in his
    duties?"

    It is the first time Europe has made such a recommendation
    and the majority of member states already carry out random
    tests. Under current British legislation, police can only
    give drivers a breath test if they believe that they have
    been drinking alcohol.

    The Tispol president, Ad Hellemons, who is also the Dutch
    Assistant Commissioner of Police, told BBC Radio Five Live:
    "We can't understand why governments would want to protect
    drink-drivers."

    But the Home Office said that British police forces already
    make effective use of their powers. It believes that
    enhancing those powers, such as when and where tests can
    take place, is more relevant.

    "The Government does not think that the police should have
    unlimited powers to stop and test," a spokeswoman for the
    Home Office said.

  2. mae <[email hidden]> wedi ysgrifennu:

    Quoted message said:

    Hi folks,

    True to form motoring groups such as the AA (founded in
    1905 especially to aid motorists to evade speed traps) are
    opposing calls for the police to have powers to carry out
    random breath tests.

    <...>

    [censored]. You wouldn't want to be a young black man in a
    Merc if plod had the ability 'randomly' to stop vehicles,
    would you?

    --
    Rob

    Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may
    contribute and benefit.

  3. Quoted post said:

    Originally posted by Robert Bruce
    [censored]. You wouldn't want to be a young black man in a
    Merc if plod had the ability 'randomly' to stop vehicles,
    would you?

    --
    Rob

    A good point. We all know how the "stop and search" powers given to the Police were routinely abused until a series of investigations, castigations and ultimately new regulations were introduced. This sounds like it could go the same way - giving the bigots in uniform a new excuse to hassle people.

  4. Robert Bruce said:

    mae <[email hidden]> wedi ysgrifennu:

    Quoted message said:

    Hi folks,

    True to form motoring groups such as the AA (founded in
    1905 especially to aid motorists to evade speed traps)
    are opposing calls for the police to have powers to carry
    out random breath tests.

    <...>

    [censored]. You wouldn't want to be a young black man in
    a Merc if plod had the ability 'randomly' to stop
    vehicles, would you?

    What? Don't you trust the police to be even-handed? ;-)

    This aside, I don't see any problem with random stops. Next
    time I'm driving in Italy I certainly won't leave my driving
    licence in the hotel room! (The officer was very
    understanding and only gave me a light ticking off.)
    --
    Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I've just learned about
    his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial." - Irvin S.
    Cobb www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

  5. McBain_v1 said:
    Robert Bruce said:

    [censored]. You wouldn't want to be a young black man
    in a Merc if plod had the ability 'randomly' to stop
    vehicles, would you?
    --
    Rob


    Quoted message said:

    A good point. We all know how the "stop and search" powers
    given to the Police were routinely abused until a series
    of investigations, castigations and ultimately new
    regulations were introduced. This sounds like it could go
    the same way - giving the bigots in uniform a new excuse
    to hassle people.

    Quite [1] And I would like to hang on to the presumption of
    innocence for as long as possible.

    I don 't understand, however, why the police don't stop
    everyone driving off of a pub car park at closing time, when
    surely there is 'reasonable cause' to suspect they may have
    been drinking?

    A

    [1] and I have a similar concern about h*lm*t compulsion
    --

    email = audmad aaatttt hhhottt mmmaailll dddoottt ccccoommm

  6. Howard said:

    Hi folks,

    True to form motoring groups such as the AA (founded in
    1905 especially to aid motorists to evade speed traps) are
    opposing calls for the police to have powers to carry out
    random breath tests. They argue this will be an
    inefficient way of catching drink drivers, totally
    ignoring the fact that the possibility of being caught by
    a reandom test will probabaly be a very good way of
    deterring them in the first place. Even more worringly it
    seems the 'Government' (I use the term loosely) also seem
    intent on giving drunken drivers a 'sporting chance' of
    getting away with it. Until they kill somone that
    is. (Lets not forget these are the same jokers who thought
    that giving schools the power to randomly test pupils
    for drugs is a good idea...).

    Surely the police can do that anyway? All they need to do is
    stop your car to do a spot check, and breathalyse you if
    they think you've been drinking. You needn't have a light
    out or be doing anything particularly odd to be pulled over
    as far as I know.

  7. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Robert Bruce said:

    [censored]. You wouldn't want to be a young black man in
    a Merc if plod had the ability 'randomly' to stop
    vehicles, would you?

    I should have thought he'd have less to worry about than
    anyone ...

    If he's in a merc, then he can afford to kick up a serious
    fuss - he can take his pick between going to the law or the
    press. ... and if he's black, that becomes a fuss about
    "race", which means lots and lots of trouble ... ... both of
    which plod is well aware of these days ...

    --
    Nick Kew

  8. Howard,
    Did you see the sad letter from the cement mixer woman's relative? I
    suppose he thought we were hijacking his terrible loss for our own agenda,
    but in truth we were defending her and the insinuation that it was partly
    her fault. I'm sorry he took our comments in such a bad way and by his
    description of her injuries it seems the helmet comment by the H D Mail was
    as bad as first feared :-(

    Simon

  9. Following on from Howard's message. . .

    Quoted message said:

    Hi folks,

    True to form motoring groups such as the AA (founded in
    1905 especially to aid motorists to evade speed traps) are
    opposing calls for the police to have powers to carry out
    random breath tests. They argue this will be an inefficient
    way of catching drink drivers, totally ignoring the fact
    that the possibility of being caught by a reandom test will
    probabaly be a very good way of deterring them in the first
    place. Even more worringly it seems the 'Government' (I use
    the term loosely) also seem intent on giving drunken
    drivers a 'sporting chance' of getting away with it. Until
    they kill somone that
    is. (Lets not forget these are the same jokers who thought
    that giving schools the power to randomly test pupils
    for drugs is a good idea...).

    In fact if the police want to breath test you they don't
    find it too difficult.

    You fall into the trap of believing that people moderate
    their behaviour simply on statistics. They don't.
    Statistically it is more dangerous to cycle on the pavement
    than the road for example. A really 'stupid' law will get
    flouted, perhaps a little bit at first and then bit by bit
    more. Bad behaviour comes from people doing bad things and
    if everyone decided to be bad the enforcement resources are
    so minuscule that there isn't much that can be done about
    it. Therefore the first objective is to get people to be
    'law abiding'. The hooha about speed cameras shows how
    difficult it is to counter a culture of law-breaking once it
    has got hold.

    I want plod to be looking out for *dangerous driving* and
    I'm not fussed if Charlie Farnes-Barnes is [censored] as a fart
    but driving safely. Well of course in practice Charlie is
    very unlikely to be a safe driver if [censored] - But the point
    is that public safety cannot be ensured by having targets
    for numbers of breath tests (an inevitable consequence)
    something that takes resources away from more worthwhile
    activities.

    For example, fatigue causes roughly seven times more
    accidents than drink. Banging away at drink and speed (both
    worthy activities) which are easy to measure can lead to
    other areas being neglected as 'too difficult' or 'not on
    our list of targets'.

    The bottom line is: Don't confuse 'more law enforcement'
    with 'safer roads'. It aint necessarily so. (See helmet
    debate for another example of this trap.)

    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since le airport terminal roof
    business collapsed
    [email hidden]
    www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm Witham Cycling Campaign
    www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides East Anglian Pub cycle rides

  10. Nick Kew [email hidden] opined the following...

    Quoted message said:

    If he's in a merc, then he can afford to kick up a serious
    fuss - he can take his pick between going to the law or
    the press. ... and if he's black, that becomes a fuss
    about "race", which means lots and lots of trouble ... ...
    both of which plod is well aware of these days ...

    Apologies to our resident plod but... this presupposes that
    the average plod has enough sense to be aware of these
    things. Out of 5 officers and 2 medics present after I
    phoned for assistance having just seen someone jump / fall
    from a first storey window, none of them managed to notice
    the can of lighter fuel up his sleeve which he was snorting
    from. They were far more interested in getting a battering
    ram so that they could open the door to the flat he'd just
    left. That same encounter produced the following quote: [I
    was asked for a statement, and after plod had scrawled it
    all down, he asked me to sign. I asked if I could read it
    first.] "Wha... er... yeah I s'ppose. I'd prob'ly better
    read it to you, 'cos my writing's pretty bad. <sniggers>
    It's better if they can't read it in court. That way you can
    change it."

    I dutifully signed in my best illegible scrawl. "That
    signature? That's not my signature m'lud. My signature
    actually looks like my name!"

    Jon

  11. "Doki" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Howard said:

    Hi folks,

    True to form motoring groups such as the AA (founded
    in 1905 especially to aid motorists to evade speed
    traps) are opposing calls for the police to have
    powers to carry out random breath tests. They argue
    this will be an inefficient way of catching drink
    drivers, totally ignoring the fact that the
    possibility of being caught by a reandom test will
    probabaly be a very good way of deterring them in the
    first place. Even more worringly it seems the
    'Government' (I use the term loosely) also seem intent
    on giving drunken drivers a 'sporting chance' of
    getting away with it. Until they kill somone that
    is. (Lets not forget these are the same jokers who
    thought that giving schools the power to randomly
    test pupils for drugs is a good idea...).

    Surely the police can do that anyway? All they need to do
    is stop your car to do a spot check, and breathalyse you
    if they think you've been


    drinking.

    Quoted message said:

    You needn't have a light out or be doing anything
    particularly odd to be pulled over as far as I know.

    I'm pretty certain that the police can stop cars with no
    reason - this is in order to check documents and so on.

    As long as this power is used sensibly, I don't see
    the problem.

    As for being inefficient, the AA have a point, in so much as
    having officers allocated to only random drink testing would
    be inefficient. But as the OP points out, there is a certain
    (although I would suggest limited) detterant effect. That
    and there is the officers could be used to deal with other
    situations, by dealing with and dettering other offences.

  12. "Robert Bruce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    mae <[email hidden]> wedi ysgrifennu:

    Quoted message said:

    Hi folks,

    True to form motoring groups such as the AA (founded in
    1905 especially to aid motorists to evade speed traps)
    are opposing calls for the police to have powers to
    carry out random breath tests.

    <...>

    [censored]. You wouldn't want to be a young black man in
    a Merc if plod had the ability 'randomly' to stop
    vehicles, would you?

    They already have the power to stop any motor vehicle at
    any time to check the driver has a driving licence under
    the RTA 1988.

  13. Peter Fox wrote

    Quoted message said:


    You fall into the trap of believing that people moderate
    their behaviour simply on statistics.

    Not quite, I simply belive that criminals are as rational as
    anyone else- they take calculated risks. In fact the reseach
    I have read on this topic indicates there are three factors
    that overwhelmingly determine whether a criminal will commit
    a given crime- firstly the chance of getting away with it,
    then the benefit to them if they do and, to a lesser degree,
    the penalty if caught.

    I certainly don't think people drink and drive because laws
    against this are 'stupid'.

    In 20 years of driving I have been stopped just once- for a
    blow rear light bulb. I would welcome being stopped
    occasionally if all those driving without insurance, while
    drunk and so on were caught more frequently.

    Quoted message said:

    The hooha about speed cameras shows how difficult it is to
    counter a culture of law-breaking once it has got hold.

    Agreed. And how are we to counter such a culture? Start
    actually enforcing the law or ask people nicely not to
    break the law? The problem with this is that if people had
    any sense of social responsibility and empathy for others
    they wouldn't even be a need for laws in the first place.
    To my mind most people are selfish, authoritarian and
    naturally hostile to any social out group or those
    perceived to be of a 'lower status'. In most situations
    these traits are fairly well controlled by social etiquette
    and the law. On the roads 100 years of indulging motorists
    gives drivers free reign to be their 'true selves' and the
    result is not pretty.

    Quoted message said:


    I want plod to be looking out for *dangerous driving* and
    I'm not fussed if Charlie Farnes-Barnes is [censored] as a
    fart but driving safely.

    As I am sure you know, even the basis of the much reduced
    reaction time of a drunken driver there is no way a driver
    can be both drunk and be 'driving safely'.

    Quoted message said:

    The bottom line is: Don't confuse 'more law enforcement'
    with 'safer roads'. It aint necessarily so.

    An interesting point but I feel you would agree that less
    law enforcement does generally lead to more law breaking.
    Just look at the safety camera fiasco. Despite the whining
    of law breaking drivers too stupid to slow down where there
    is a big yellow box by the side of the road the biggest
    effect seems to have been an increase in speeding on roads
    known to be free of these cameras and a corresponding
    increase in road fatalities. Durham, whose CPO has failed to
    use even high visibility cameras, has seen a 55% increase in
    fatalities in the last 3 years.

    The bottom line is that motoring groups will resist ANY
    legislation that would restrict the 'right' of motorists to
    drive however they please. Of course, at the same time
    repeated calls are made for zero tolerance 'clamp downs' on
    the law breaking activies of social out groups, such as
    cyclists who ride on the pavement. Look at the hoo-ha about
    giving civilian officers the power to fine motorists who go
    through red lights ot ignore box junctions. However, a short
    while earlier the same papers were triumphant when community
    wardens were given the power to fine 'pavement cyclists. The
    inescapable conclusion seems to be that the UK is dominated
    by authoritarian/ libertarian/ 'fascist' modes of thinking
    that mean the dominant social group will always be indulged
    whilst the rights of low status social out groups such as
    cyclists will be ignored if this benefits the majority- a
    classical tyranny of the majority situation.

  14. Robert Bruce said:

    mae <[email hidden]> wedi ysgrifennu:

    Quoted message said:

    Hi folks,

    True to form motoring groups such as the AA (founded in
    1905 especially to aid motorists to evade speed traps)
    are opposing calls for the police to have powers to carry
    out random breath tests.

    <...>

    [censored]. You wouldn't want to be a young black man in
    a Merc if plod had the ability 'randomly' to stop
    vehicles, would you?

    Theres a difference between random and arbitary.

    --
    Andy Morris

    AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

    Love this:
    Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
    home.in.tum.deoe quotefix

  15. AndyMorris said:
    Robert Bruce said:

    mae <[email hidden]> wedi ysgrifennu:

    Quoted message said:

    Hi folks,

    True to form motoring groups such as the AA (founded in
    1905 especially to aid motorists to evade speed traps)
    are opposing calls for the police to have powers to
    carry out random breath tests.

    <...>

    [censored]. You wouldn't want to be a young black man in
    a Merc if plod had the ability 'randomly' to stop
    vehicles, would you?

    Theres a difference between random and arbitary.

    I think that's why he wrote randomly in inverted commas.
    --
    Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "He has Van Gogh's ear
    for music." - Billy Wilder www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
    www.macclancy.co.uk

  16. Michael MacClancy said:
    AndyMorris said:
    Robert Bruce said:

    mae <[email hidden]> wedi ysgrifennu:
    > Hi folks,
    >
    > True to form motoring groups such as the AA (founded in
    > 1905 especially to aid motorists to evade speed traps)
    > are opposing calls for the police to have powers to
    > carry out random breath tests.

    <...>

    [censored]. You wouldn't want to be a young black man
    in a Merc if plod had the ability 'randomly' to stop
    vehicles, would you?

    Theres a difference between random and arbitary.

    I think that's why he wrote randomly in inverted commas.

    Yea, ok maybee..

    Just to pedanticlly clear, what I think.

    Random tests, where the police stop say every 10th car on
    the A666 between pissheads cross and manglebury, between 7pm
    and 1am sound like a good idea.

    Arbitary tests where the plods stop anyone they fancy on a
    hunch sound like a bad idea.

    --
    Andy Morris

    AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

    Love this:
    Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
    home.in.tum.deoe quotefix

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.