Crosswords1 min ago
Drink Driving At Christmas.
182 Answers
http://
It appears that our culture of accepting arrest for drink-driving as an occupational hazard is not disappearing as quickly as we might hope.
My views on drink driving are very simple - zero tolerance, lifetime ban.
Any thoughts?
It appears that our culture of accepting arrest for drink-driving as an occupational hazard is not disappearing as quickly as we might hope.
My views on drink driving are very simple - zero tolerance, lifetime ban.
Any thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A blood test is not a possibility until a driver has failed a roadside breath test, 3Ts. The roadside equipment is a "screening" device and simply provides an indication that the driver is over the limit. This enables an arrest to be made for more accurate measurements (which may, in limited circumstances, involve a blood test) to be taken back at the nick.
-- answer removed --
I suppose we digress a little, db, (but it must be better than slagging each other off).
It is arguable that an accused driver is being forced to provide evidence against himself. He can refuse to do so. The problem he then faces is that he commits a separate offence by his refusal so in essence he is being forced to comply under threat of other sanctions.
A similar situation exists with speeding motorists caught by automatic cameras. To make out the offence of speeding the prosecution has to have evidence of who was driving. They get this by asking the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle to tell them. So once again a driver is compelled to provide evidence against himself (or another if he was not driving). Similarly a separate offence (more serious than speeding) is committed if the RK fails to comply.
This principle was tested through the UK courts and eventually went to the European Court of Human Rights. Two motorists, Gerard O’Halloran and Idris Francis had refused to provide driver’s details following allegations of a speeding offence and they took the matter to appeal under their “Right to Silence” and “Right to a Fair Trial”. The ECHR ruled against the two motorists and whilst the verdict is lengthy the important bit this:
“The court does not accept the applicants’ argument that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are absolute rights. While the compulsion [to provide driver’s details] was of a direct nature anyone who chose to own or drive a car knew that they were subjecting themselves to a regulatory regime, imposed because the possession and use of cars was recognised to have the potential to cause grave injury. Those who chose to keep and drive cars could be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations including the obligation, in the event of the suspected commission of a road traffic offence, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver on that occasion.”
So special responsibilities are placed on motorists. I suppose the same principle can be said of drivers suspected of drinking.
But as I say, we digress :-)
It is arguable that an accused driver is being forced to provide evidence against himself. He can refuse to do so. The problem he then faces is that he commits a separate offence by his refusal so in essence he is being forced to comply under threat of other sanctions.
A similar situation exists with speeding motorists caught by automatic cameras. To make out the offence of speeding the prosecution has to have evidence of who was driving. They get this by asking the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle to tell them. So once again a driver is compelled to provide evidence against himself (or another if he was not driving). Similarly a separate offence (more serious than speeding) is committed if the RK fails to comply.
This principle was tested through the UK courts and eventually went to the European Court of Human Rights. Two motorists, Gerard O’Halloran and Idris Francis had refused to provide driver’s details following allegations of a speeding offence and they took the matter to appeal under their “Right to Silence” and “Right to a Fair Trial”. The ECHR ruled against the two motorists and whilst the verdict is lengthy the important bit this:
“The court does not accept the applicants’ argument that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are absolute rights. While the compulsion [to provide driver’s details] was of a direct nature anyone who chose to own or drive a car knew that they were subjecting themselves to a regulatory regime, imposed because the possession and use of cars was recognised to have the potential to cause grave injury. Those who chose to keep and drive cars could be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations including the obligation, in the event of the suspected commission of a road traffic offence, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver on that occasion.”
So special responsibilities are placed on motorists. I suppose the same principle can be said of drivers suspected of drinking.
But as I say, we digress :-)
yes judge I just think I've heard of cases where the roadside breathalyser was not available for some reason and they take them down the nick. I just think to avoid issues they should set a trace limit of say 10mg just to avoid nicking people who had a spoon full of trifle. Broadly I agree the limit is far to high but I dislike absolute laws when a level of something is involved. eg "0" , "forever" etc etc
we should either move to the French system - that is two tiered....a fine for between 50 and 80 and >80, they throw the key away. Or you could go Norwegian/Scot where if you are above the minimum level naturally or on medication - which doesn't mean that you aren't capable of driving, you are permitted a lift of the limit to cover the gap....and you carry a special permit card.
Yes I quite agree, 3Ts, a zero limit would be unjust and practically unenforceable. Far better to have a lower limit than now, something around half of the current limit. (I have tested myself with a DIY kit having had what is sometimes said to be a "safe" number of drinks. I "passed". I know that they are not as accurate as the official equipment but I definitely felt I should not - and would not - drive in such a condition). But along with this should come rigorous enforcement - far more rigorous than the current system which relies on either an accident occurring or a fortuitous “pull” by the police.
-- answer removed --
It is a privilege because it can be taken away. You can have passed a test, paid road fund licence (which is no longer ringfenced for roads) and be insured but if you contravene certain aspects of the Road Traffic Act or other laws, or, are deemed physically or psychologically unsafe, then the privilege can be removed temporarily or permanently.
-- answer removed --
We digress a little again, but I suppose it depends on your definition of a “right”, PP.
Your demonstration of “rights” vs “privileges” does not quite hold water. Both can be withdrawn. Whilst the Queen’s privilege to sit in the three bob seats cannot be withdrawn (bar bloody revolution) many others can. Ever heard of withdrawal of prisoners’ privileges because of poor behaviour?.
If you search for a definition of “privilege” you will find a few:
“a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most”
Clearly, then, driving is not a privilege because it is not “beyond the advantages of most”.
But:
“any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government:”
Arguably then driving is among those privileges because it is available to all (subject to age, capabilities, etc.).
Anyway, it’s certainly not an absolute right but whether it is seen as a right or a privilege does not really matter. To avoid the above argument let’s call it “permission” to drive. Permission to drive is only granted to people if they comply with a number of fairly strict conditions. That permission can be withdrawn if those conditions are not adhered to. Such withdrawal can, in very rare circumstances, be permanent.
The debate here is whether a single transgression for a fairly serious motoring offence (one of the very few that carries a custodial sentence) warrants permission being refused for life. The consensus seems to be that it does not.
Your demonstration of “rights” vs “privileges” does not quite hold water. Both can be withdrawn. Whilst the Queen’s privilege to sit in the three bob seats cannot be withdrawn (bar bloody revolution) many others can. Ever heard of withdrawal of prisoners’ privileges because of poor behaviour?.
If you search for a definition of “privilege” you will find a few:
“a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most”
Clearly, then, driving is not a privilege because it is not “beyond the advantages of most”.
But:
“any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government:”
Arguably then driving is among those privileges because it is available to all (subject to age, capabilities, etc.).
Anyway, it’s certainly not an absolute right but whether it is seen as a right or a privilege does not really matter. To avoid the above argument let’s call it “permission” to drive. Permission to drive is only granted to people if they comply with a number of fairly strict conditions. That permission can be withdrawn if those conditions are not adhered to. Such withdrawal can, in very rare circumstances, be permanent.
The debate here is whether a single transgression for a fairly serious motoring offence (one of the very few that carries a custodial sentence) warrants permission being refused for life. The consensus seems to be that it does not.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
