Drink Driving

I thought I'd take migrator's post as an opportunity to start a discussion on Drink Driving.

Perhaps someone in the know could provide an answer as to why the police are not allowed to stop and breathalyse motorists unless they have reasonable suspicion that the driver is intoxicated. OK, at this time of year there are limited random breath testing stops but for most of the time the police can't do anything without suspicion.

I travel to Australia on business several times a year. In Perth they have a great system known as a "Booze Bust". It's basically a police road block set up where everyone is stopped and breathalysed as they pass through. If over the limit there is a police bus with cells in and you are instantly arrested and detained in the cells. There is a doctor on site ready to take blood samples so no waiting for a doctor to turn up while one's blood alcohol level is reducing. The "Booze Busts" can appear anywhere at any time, main roads, back roads, slip roads and even small residential streets to combat the people who think they can avoid the breathalyser. Obviously they were a more common sight on Friday and Saturday nights but I saw them throughout the week and sometimes even in the mornings and during the daytime.

We need something similar here, with it's own budget so the costs involved don't get absorbed into detecting other crime, with police officers dedicated to that one job. Maybe then could we drive safe in the knowledge that the idiot driver in front, obviously p!ssed and swaying from side to side while toching their brakes all the time, will, one day soon, be caught for their stupidiy and recklessness.

Oh yes, and a five year minimum ban too. Maybe a fine of a few thousand pounds (which could then be partly pumped back into the campaign against drink drivers - kinda like the whole speed camera farce) and a lengthy community service sentence. Some of the community service could be spent alongside a counceller who helps families of victims of drink drivers.

If someone re-offends (either whilst still banned or once they have their licence back) then the original punishment is doubled albeit with a mandatory prison sentence (I quite often don't agree with prison sentences but they have had one warning already). Maybe that would make people think twice before drinking and driving.

Andy

Excellent idea - I would support this 100%.

Also those that habitually drive with no insurance, tax and MOT.

Also obligatory DNA test at birth.

But then we have the Human Rights Crowd that really get on my t*t.

If you have done nothing wrong then nothing to worry about.


Karl

Karl,

I think we were twins separated at birth! The DNA thing is something I have thought for a long time too. All DNA info could be stored on an international database for use as and when required.

Human Rights! Rapists and murderers have a "human right" to be treated well in prison! Balls. Such people give up ALL rights when they commit such awful crimes.

Some people may argue the booze bust would cause them inconvenience. Well two minutes of my life every day is worth the extra peace of mind.

We should start our own political party.

Andy

I have to agree about sentencing them to several years if there is the no MOT, insurance or driving licence. To own a gun you have to have a licence and a gun is not dangerous unless you have some idiot holding it. If you are caught with an unlicensed firearm it is invariable a jail sentence. What is the difference between an idiot behind the wheel without a driving licence, MOT or insurance and someone with an unlicensed firearm?
If they run into you what is the chances of getting anything out of them to pay of any damages?

Yes I agree with all the points you guys raies. Drink Drivers in my book are the lowest form of scum on the roads. Bring in random and widespread testing, and hit them with lengthy bans and severe financial penalties.

the problem with drunk drivers is in the main they know the chances of being detected are very slim, gatsos sadly dont catch the drunk, uninsured, untaxed, unlicensed driver and as long as the police authorities road safety policy is predominatly geared to generating revenue above anything else, nothing will change, the number of traffic police who are the only deterent these people have, will continue to decline whislt "safety cameras" will carry on there relentless increase, they are just too good a source of easy revenue for the police authorities, (who now of course in most cases retain this swag) to abandon, the ordinary decent motorist is far to easy a target for things in my humble opinion to alter.

[Wentworth Man]

Booze Bust - Good idea, Thames Valley first in the queue please
Busted when caught in possession of unlicensed weapon (AKA the Car) - Good
DNA test at Birth - what makes you think they don't already (anyone seen the X-Files?) and what makes you think the database would have any accuracy at all viz DVLA, Inland Revenue, et al et al. Remember just because it says Jo Bloggs has this particular profile doesn't mean he actually does and the Good can get caught up with the wrong information just as easily as the Bad. National ID Card here we come!

"will continue to decline whislt "safety cameras" will carry on there relentless increase"

Andy,

Agree with your comments re so called "safety cameras" with one exception. I'd like to see a huge increase in the number of traffic light cameras. I couldn't care less if 200% of the revenue raised by these goes to the local police force, as long as the number of idiots jumping red lights falls.

There is a distinct difference between a speed camera and a traffic signal camera. People who jump red lights are a much bigger danger than those who exceed the speed limit in good driving conditions.

Andy

[migrator]

Do you include those who jump the red lights at road works in this?

[Networkguy]

>Yes I agree with all the points you guys raies. Drink Drivers
>in my book are the lowest form of scum on the roads. Bring in
>random and widespread testing, and hit them with lengthy bans
>and severe financial penalties.

As somebody who is/ was very close to me found out, the best way is not lengthy bans and severe financial penalties.

It's a 6 month vacation at her majesties.

And before anybody says it's a holiday camp.

For the last month of his stretch he was in a low security place that was like Butlins BUT for the majority of the time, he spent 23 hours a day in a cell with rats outside the window and a bowl to pee in.

Having now lost his job and more importantly his digity (and yes he got a 3 year ban as well), I can assure you he will not do it again.