On Sat, 3 May 2003 19:05:51 +0000 (UTC), Alex Graham <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Woodall wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure about the breathlyser though. Police are entitled to stop and breathlyze motorists
>> and their passengers (almost) without cause[1].
>
>
> Surely drunk passengers are legal?
>
They are. But I seem to remember a "how well do you know your road traffic law" quiz in a Sunday
"comic" where this came up and ISTR that the answer was that the police can breathlyze the
passengers as well as the driver (Presumably so that if the drivers breath test comes up negative
but the police can smell alcohol then can help eliminate the possibility that the driver is using a
trick - such as cyclical breathing[1] - to distort the result. It may also be to prevent the driver
and passenger swapping seats when they see a police car following them - the police will still have
to show that the passenger was driving when drunk but they can collect the evidence that the
passenger was drunk without first having to prove the passenger was driving in court which would
cause obvious problems)
> So theres no legal limit, but if you are cycling in an irresponsible manner and drunk then you are
> in the sh!t? Is this right?
>
Yup. But the same applies to pedestrians so getting off and pushing your bike doesn't put you in the
clear if you are that drunk. (I suspect that if you are in control of your bike then you are
probably not sufficiently drunk to be prosecuted regardless of what your blood alcohol levels might
be - but that doesn't make it sensible to cycle when plastered - assuming you can)
Regards,
Tim.
[1] Those who move in musical circles will probably know at least one sax player who claims to have
done this although whether it is really true or possible I don't know.
--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/