Police breath testing [Archive]

teach

8th March 2010, 16:35

scumdog

8th March 2010, 16:46

They COULD have done as you suggested.

I suspect since the law says you have to have beeen riding/driving before they can require you to undergo a breath screening test they did the test on those actually riding.

Plus people have in the past have asked to be tested, passed - then a half hour later been stopped and been over the limit - and then screamed blue murder about how they had beene tested and were not over the limit yadda yadda yadda..

At the end of the day it is surprising they haven't realy targetted people leaving rallies, going by comments made by some of those KBers who went to the March Hare last year it's long overdue, I for one dont' want to share the roads with any more drunk drivers/riders than I have to.:no:

Personal responsibility people, personal responsibility..if you get pinged for DIC it is YOUR fault and yours alone.:yes:

grusomhat

8th March 2010, 16:47

Owl

8th March 2010, 16:51

Personal responsibility people, personal responsibility..if you get pinged for DIC it is YOUR fault and yours alone.:yes:

No real argument against that!:yes:

JimO

8th March 2010, 16:54

i find it hard to believe that the people that are so pissed at 2am that they cant stand up or walk can get on their bikes at 8am and be sober enough to share the road with the rest of us

scumdog

8th March 2010, 16:55

i find it hard to believe that the people that are so pissed at 2am that they cant stand up or walk can get on their bikes at 8am and be sober enough to share the road with the rest of us

They can't.

JimO

8th March 2010, 17:11

They can't.

and thats the truth

98tls

8th March 2010, 17:31

I asked one of them if i could blow the guage thing to see if i was over,he declined but did give me the reason as SD posted,which makes sense to me,i wasnt 100% sure so simply found a shady spot as did a few others and gave it some time and food,all good.The end result was 5 got busted,surely theres no one to blame but yourself if you know there at the gate and you still ride out knowing theres a chance you could be over.If instead of having it at the gate they had put them a few kms north/south the numbers would have been higher i am certain.Good on them i say they at least they had it all right there,the decision to go was entirely up to oneself.

JimO

8th March 2010, 17:35

im surprised there wasnt a checkpoint at the vincent

CookMySock

8th March 2010, 18:02

The end result was 5 got bustedHow many people at the event? Surely five is a small number?

I make no excuses for those five, but it sounds to me potentially 50% of the people riding out could be over.

Why not just smoke dope instead? The next morning you are straight as an arrow.. and surely a much better time to be had..

Steve

Fatjim

8th March 2010, 18:04

I look back with fondness at the time a copper let me blow in the machine just before I got on the bike. It goes to show that there are decent human beings who are coppers.

However, I have to disagree with Scummies propsed reasoning for not letting people test their limit for the following reasons

1. If a machine that is calibrated and is used to insist someone accompany a cop to a station for the purposes.... can get it "wrong", then how can the person who has drunk a few beers know where he's at.
2. there's no answer to being under the limit when you start driving, and being over the limit 30 minutes later because of alchohol limits. Shit happens.
3. The obvious one, to let a drunk drive untill he hits a check point is worse than showing him he shouldn't drive at all. It goes against all the rhetoric we constantly see about crime prevention.

In my view, the more positive interaction the police have with members of the public, before they become "criminals" the better. Because lately, its been mostly negative.

98tls

8th March 2010, 18:09

How many people at the event? Surely five is a small number?

I make no excuses for those five, but it sounds to me potentially 50% of the people riding out could be over.

Why not just smoke dope instead? The next morning you are straight as an arrow.. and surely a much better time to be had..

Steve

They ran out of Badges mid Saturday afternoon at 2800,to be honest to me 5 seems a huge number considering they were right outside the gate,would have to be the 5 dumbest people out of 3000 or so surely,as for smoking dope whatever floats ya boat i guess.

98tls

8th March 2010, 18:16

In my view, the more positive interaction the police have with members of the public, before they become "criminals" the better. Because lately, its been mostly negative.
From where i stand having it outside the gate was positive,there not babysitters,it was all out in the open and the choice to get on the bike was entirely up to each rider.They could have easily been lets say "less positive ways of going about it"just my 2c.

Indoo

8th March 2010, 19:23

1. If a machine that is calibrated and is used to insist someone accompany a cop to a station for the purposes.... can get it "wrong", then how can the person who has drunk a few beers know where he's at.

By not drinking to the point where they are even close to the limit, its not like its a target.

2. there's no answer to being under the limit when you start driving, and being over the limit 30 minutes later because of alchohol limits. Shit happens.

And if a cop tells someone they are ok to drive at the venue and said person takes off and crashes & dies shortly there after and a later blood test shows he's over the limit who is that shit going to land on? I know who the media and his family will be blaming...

3. The obvious one, to let a drunk drive untill he hits a check point is worse than showing him he shouldn't drive at all. It goes against all the rhetoric we constantly see about crime prevention.

I'd say it would be alot worse to tell a few hundred people they are ok to drive as a result of what will be at the time an inaccurate reading resulting in many going on to ride and be over the limit or close enough to it to be a danger. How many of them will also think that because they blew under that means they are ok to drive regardless of how pissed they actually feel?

Five stupid drunks got caught and got what they deserved, how many drink driving offences did they actually prevent by putting a checkpoint right outside the venue as opposed to how many offences they would have caused by testing inside it?

Broomrider

9th March 2010, 07:22

We were told about the booze bus being there as early as Friday. The girls were standing at the gate stopping every biker and telling them, so no one had an excuse. It was those riders leaving at 3, 4 and 5 in the morning I suspect may have been avoiding to cops for what ever reason...sadly it's me, my family and friends who are on the roads with the drunks... :( I agree by being at the gate they stopped a lot of potential drunk drivers from being on the road... I would rather be put off my bike by a cop than be scraped off the road by one.

Okey Dokey

9th March 2010, 07:29

I have no problem with what the police did. They are trying to keep people safe, for goodness sake.

T.W.R

9th March 2010, 07:45

Why not just smoke dope instead? The next morning you are straight as an arrow.. and surely a much better time to be had..

Steve

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) residue lasts in the system quite a lot longer than alcohol does and is as easily detected :yes:

As for the munters who believe it's the total aim to get written off during the night then ride early the next morning deserve to get nailed DIC.
The Booze bus being there at the Hare was the hot topic on the Saturday night & the tart wondering around early on Sunday broadcasting the fact was just a late starter who was probably half cut anyhow.

Where they set the B/B up wasn't well thought out by any means

jellywrestler

9th March 2010, 07:54

So why hasn't the March Hare crew taken the initiative and provided a breath testing service on site like so many other rallies do and have done for the last few years????

Coldrider

9th March 2010, 08:20

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) residue lasts in the system quite a lot longer than alcohol does and is as easily detected :THC can be detected up to 3 months from last use, (employee drug testing beware).

Marmoot

9th March 2010, 09:54

With all these drink driving education ads and things, I can't help but wonder...

Is it reasonable to expect smashedlydrunk person to think reasonably?

Doesn't alcohol impair judgement?

Broomrider

9th March 2010, 11:12

So why hasn't the March Hare crew taken the initiative and provided a breath testing service on site like so many other rallies do and have done for the last few years????

Because we know drinking and driving doesn't mix... and isn't it a rule of thumb that "if in doubt leave it out?" ......we don't need a breath test machine or cops on the side of the road to tell us that... we need to take responsibility for our own actions... this rests wholly and absolutely on our own shoulders.

Coldrider

9th March 2010, 11:24

Next year when the club applies for a liquour license the cops can object using the five riders caught as an example. If they don't stop the issue (most likely they can't), they may be able to apply for extra conditions imposed on the sale of liquour.

neels

9th March 2010, 11:57

I didn't have any particular issue with the breath testing, it's not like it was a covert operation trying to catch anyone out they couldn't have been more obvious. The cop I spoke to said the aim was to get people thinking and maybe stop for some breakfast and wait a while before riding, which certainly seemed to work looking at the numbers that were around later than usual.

It would have been nice if they could have tested before you got on your bike, but I guess that's not really their job and therefore as has been said personal responsibility etc etc.

Muppet

9th March 2010, 13:35

Interesting comments. I was speaking to a woman in Kaikoura last year who moaned that police wouldn't breath test her to see how much she'd had to drink, she was walking around at the Seafood Festival. She then said that classic phrase "What do I pay my taxes for?" (you ever hear that one scumdog?) I told her "not to breath test pedestrians!" This is the point, say police breath test you and tell you that you're 'under', then you go for a drive and cause a crash who are you going to blame? Police for saying you could drive, or yourself?

BiK3RChiK

9th March 2010, 13:54

Having been hit head-on by a drunk driver who had lost control on a bend and was sliding sideways down MY side of the road and survived, I for one say that ONE drunk driver on our roads is ONE TOO MANY!! Personal responsibility is where it's at, and if riders/drivers KNOW there is a checkpoint right outside the gate but CHOOSE to ride/drive after having had a few, then it serves them right when they get busted! GO THE POLICE!!!! (on this one...)

The Pastor

9th March 2010, 14:22

Coldrider

9th March 2010, 14:45

You can still be under the influence of alcohol and not be over the limit.

peasea

9th March 2010, 14:56

You can still be under the influence of alcohol and not be over the limit.

I wish.

I'd be much cheaper to run.

Seriously, a couple of pints (maybe three) could well line you up for a DIC but two or three pints won't do much for my state of mind.

Coldrider

9th March 2010, 15:01

I wish.

I'd be much cheaper to run.

Seriously, a couple of pints (maybe three) could well line you up for a DIC but two or three pints won't do much for my state of mind.Me niether, binge drinking is good (says in mitre10 mega big guy voice).

peasea

9th March 2010, 15:08

Me niether, binge drinking is good (says in mitre10 mega big guy voice).

I've been a good boy recently, so last w/e I cut loose. Monday was a bit slow, can't do it like I used to. I rode out to a wedding, parked the bike behind the pub we aere staying at, got a ride to the reception and didn't have to ride the bike home until the afternoon. Parked the bike in the shed at home, walked to a mate's and got hammered again. Walked (staggered) home at about 9.30pm. Bloody great w/e and no DIC.

jellywrestler

9th March 2010, 15:17

Because we know drinking and driving doesn't mix... and isn't it a rule of thumb that "if in doubt leave it out?" ......we don't need a breath test machine or cops on the side of the road to tell us that... we need to take responsibility for our own actions... this rests wholly and absolutely on our own shoulders..
By providing a breath testing service, with suitable quality gear the law enforcement will see that you are trying to be pro-active in this area.

I use a top quality tester, not for when I'm having a beer and wanting to drive/ride, I know what my limit is here, but for the morning after as you may feel fine but still be over the limit, then again you may still feel 'like the north end of a south bound cow' and still be under the limit. Then personal responsibility is up to you.
Take a look at the next rally that this service is offered, its well attended so people are taking note.
If they do choose to offer the service, people need to be aware that it is ONLY AND INDICATION and suitable indemnities are on show.
As for the comments that 'you could offer the service and tell someone they're under; they drive off down the road and crash and you're blamed' What a load of trash, the cops automatically let people drive off that are under and they have the same issues if there's a problem afterwards.
This is like not wearing a seat belt cause one in 10,000 people who crash are killed by their belt.
We are fortunate in this age to be able to obtain personal good quality breath testing gear so why not use it????
Hell I'm sure if the club were to talk to the right people thay could lease the gear the OMCC use for the Brass Monkey at a good price.

scumdog

9th March 2010, 18:11

except its impossiable to tell excatly what your blood alcohol level is isnt it.

Oh the Police have ways - but by then it's too late.

FYI: IF you do get processed for EBA (DIC) and you're given the option of a blood sample?

All I can say is: you have a one chance in a thousand that you blood sample will work out lower than the breath one.:yes:

Your only hope is that Martians steal the blood sample.

Coldrider

9th March 2010, 18:18

The Brass Monkey used to get hammered by breath test cops, not uncommon up north, plan the weekend around it is the way to go if there is confusion between motorcycles and pissing up. Friday night binge drink, :beer::drinknsin Saturday night take it easy.:niceone::Police:

pc220

9th March 2010, 18:36

SAdly personal responsibility has been hidden under the same rock as respect and common sense. Zero tolerance to drink driving/riding is the only acceptable solution.

ukusa

9th March 2010, 22:36

It would have been nice if they could have tested before you got on your bike, but I guess that's not really their job and therefore as has been said personal responsibility etc etc.
The problem with personal responsibility is that you can feel as good as gold & feel perfectly ok to drive/ride, but the unknown factor is what the breath test machine says. How long are you supposed to stay after drinking heavily? Are there guidelines for the number of hours based on the number of drinks? I don't think so.
Should we just all just be tea totallers, or all just smoke dope & not drink? Never going to happen!
Without the use of a pre ride test, the hard thing is to guess what to do, do I stay behind an extra 2 hours?, maybe 4 or 6. Maybe just stay another whole day?
As it was I left by the back gate (along with alot of others) where there was no checkpoint. I felt fine by the time I left, but there was no way in hell I was going to risk leaving the other way even if I did feel fine. It's too much of an unknown factor.
As for the 5 who apparently got caught, they obviously knew there was a checkpoint outside the gate, but also must have honestly believed they were under the limit at that time, otherwise they would have waited. Maybe everyone should have waited until about mid day to leave, would have meant a long day for the cops

grusomhat

9th March 2010, 23:23

How long are you supposed to stay after drinking heavily? Are there guidelines for the number of hours based on the number of drinks? I don't think so.

Um, one standard drink and hour sound familar?

Seems to me like a good guide. 10 standards? Wait 10 hours before driving.

Usarka

9th March 2010, 23:57

maybe stop for some breakfast and wait a while before riding

So we have all these bikers taking their time and munching food...... according to the latest advertising that's grounds for a compulsory drug test sonny.

awayatc

10th March 2010, 05:56

Um, one standard drink and hour sound familar?

Seems to me like a good guide. 10 standards? Wait 10 hours before driving.

Can't even count my feet after a good night out......

doc

10th March 2010, 06:41

:gob: Ferk dont you ppl have lawns to mow in the weekends or something ? Time for you ppl to think about moving north. We are more responsible up here. Less rallies = less chance of getting caught. Cmon its pretty simple really.:shit: Ive met some of those southernerners, They are really a bad influence

ukusa

10th March 2010, 16:56

Um, one standard drink and hour sound familar?

Seems to me like a good guide. 10 standards? Wait 10 hours before driving.

Bollocks. One standard drink (eg a stubby of beer) would not put an average sized man over the limit, let alone require him to wait an hour before driving. As for 10 standards, it would all depend on how long those 10 drinks were drunk over. If I demolished them in a couple of hours, yeah I would say maybe a few hours before driving. If I drunk them over say 10 hours, I would almost tend to think I would still be under the legal limit. Problem is, no foolproof test other than the one where you risk a fine & loss of licence.

scumdog

10th March 2010, 19:25

As for the 5 who apparently got caught, they obviously knew there was a checkpoint outside the gate, but also must have honestly believed they were under the limit at that time, otherwise they would have waited. Maybe everyone should have waited until about mid day to leave, would have meant a long day for the cops

Or maybe the booze clouded their judgement?

And the cops would have not worried if they had a long and possibly 'unproductive' day, at the end of the day if it kept a few drunks off the road they would have been happy - I know I would have.

PS: Shitloads of drunk drivers who end up in court 'honestly believed they were under the limit' too....

98tls

10th March 2010, 19:32

Or maybe the booze clouded their judgement?

And the cops would have not worried if they had a long and possibly 'unproductive' day, at the end of the day if it kept a few drunks off the road they would have been happy - I know I would have.

PS: Shitloads of drunk drivers who end up in court 'honestly believed they were under the limit' too....
Or as i posted earlier they were simply thick buggers:yes:Lets call a spade a spade eh.Fwiw they provided some entertainment for those of us (about 15 or so) that ended up having a graze and snooze under the willow tree across the road,at one stage one of the watchers said "you dumb fuck" when watching his mate exit the gate to try his luck,sure enough helmet off and bike parked up he was done.Taking candy from a baby springs to mind.

kwaka_crasher

10th March 2010, 21:12

I felt fine by the time I left, but there was no way in hell I was going to risk leaving the other way even if I did feel fine. It's too much of an unknown factor.

How dare you use your own personal good judgement to determine any imparment! Next you'll be wanting to vote!

Berries

10th March 2010, 22:46

Time for you ppl to think about moving north. We are more responsible up here.

. :shake: :stupid:

Fatjim

11th March 2010, 13:48

And if a cop tells someone they are ok to drive at the venue and said person takes off and crashes & dies shortly there after and a later blood test shows he's over the limit who is that shit going to land on? I know who the media and his family will be blaming...

Lets be logical at least. There's no difference to a breath test at a check point to one before you get on a bike/in your car. You could later be just as over the limit. The argument does not hold water.

I'd say it would be alot worse to tell a few hundred people they are ok to drive as a result of what will be at the time an inaccurate reading resulting in many going on to ride and be over the limit or close enough to it to be a danger. How many of them will also think that because they blew under that means they are ok to drive regardless of how pissed they actually feel?

If I blew under at a checkpoint five minutes after skulling a bottle of Cpt Morgan, am I any less DIC in 20 minutes time than if a copper happened to let me blow in the bag at the pub?

nico

11th March 2010, 16:00

scumdog

11th March 2010, 20:12

Berries

11th March 2010, 23:04

Bikers disappointed in police operation
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/3416281/Bikers-disappointed-in-police-operation
heresz the linky, got send it thru naaf ridyers as most of the guys were there
fairly poor efort on nz police behalf

Big ups to the 'bikers'. Five out of 2000 is a pretty low rate compared to a normal Saturday night I am sure. Mind you, the five must have been pretty munted seeing as they knew the checkpoint was there. The only thing I don't understand is why that copper has the dude in a head lock on the photo ? I know it was a Ducati, but come on......

Mully

12th March 2010, 08:57

The only thing I don't understand is why that copper has the dude in a head lock on the photo ? I know it was a Ducati, but come on......

He's giving the guy a cuddle - he thought it was a Honda.....

What percentage of riders was done - 2009 tested, 5 charged - 0.0024%

I would dare to suggest that's lower than the average from the general population

Coldrider

12th March 2010, 10:57

20 metres down the road in full view, fark, did the five think they were blowing IQ scores or something?

Patrick

12th March 2010, 13:27

except its impossiable to tell excatly what your blood alcohol level is isnt it.

ESR test will give the "exact" level.... they then reduce it (to the drivers favour) and that is the level one is now done for.... slightly lower than the "actual" level...

.....If they do choose to offer the service, people need to be aware that it is ONLY AND INDICATION....
As for the comments that 'you could offer the service and tell someone they're under; they drive off down the road and crash and you're blamed' What a load of trash, the cops automatically let people drive off that are under and they have the same issues if there's a problem afterwards.....

Exactly what I tell them, when given a test before they go to drive off, or if a fail youth level is blown (for 20 and over...). "It could be different a few minutes later down the road, depending on how long ago you actually had that last drink....."
Ost heed it. Dumb ones won't, and never will.

........ All I can say is: you have a one chance in a thousand that you blood sample will work out lower than the breath one.:yes:

Your only hope is that Martians steal the blood sample.

Yep. But one can't tell the pissed driver that, at the time of the test......

Lets be logical at least. There's no difference to a breath test at a check point to one before you get on a bike/in your car. You could later be just as over the limit. The argument does not hold water.

If I blew under at a checkpoint five minutes after skulling a bottle of Cpt Morgan, am I any less DIC in 20 minutes time than if a copper happened to let me blow in the bag at the pub?

You lost me here. At the pub, the breath could be at x limit. 5 minutes later, it could be at another lower x level, due to "sobering up" from not having any drinks for the last 3 hours, or a higher x level as the body has, and continues, to process the gut full of Captain Morgan.... The argument does hold water, just not alcohol....

MarkH

12th March 2010, 13:32

After last years Cold Duck Rally I went through a check point. It wasn't right outside the rally though - more like 20+ kms away (I think). It was set up in Hastings (the nearest town) IIRC.

No worries for me though - I had stopped drinking around 10 or 11pm and didn't leave the rally until over 10 hours later. I wasn't plastered at the point that I stopped drinking either. I may break the occasional speed limit - but I have never in my life driven/ridden a vehicle while over the alcohol limit. I like to have my wits about me when riding.

MarkH

12th March 2010, 13:36

Bollocks. One standard drink (eg a stubby of beer) would not put an average sized man over the limit, let alone require him to wait an hour before driving.

I'm pretty sure you have missed the point. The average human body can process about 1 standard drink per hour. Drink ten standard drinks and around 6 hours after you started you would expect to be currently under the influence of about 4 standard drinks.

So yes - there are guidelines. Though you need to have a reasonable idea of how many drinks you have consumed and what time you started to be able to work it out.

MarkH

12th March 2010, 13:40

Bikers disappointed in police operation
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/3416281/Bikers-disappointed-in-police-operation

Of the 2009 motorcyclists breath tested, five returned excess breath alcohol limits, police said.

"What normally takes an hour took five hours as we had to have people diverting traffic flow."

I wouldn't have been happy if I was one of the bikers - 2004 of the 2009 bikers tested were breaking no laws, but they were inconvenienced and the last of them were delayed by 4 hours due to the police action. I think getting the drunks off the road is a good thing, but the innocent were held up for 4 hours which is a bit unfair when they were doing nothing wrong.

Patrick

12th March 2010, 14:59

I wouldn't have been happy if I was one of the bikers - 2004 of the 2009 bikers tested were breaking no laws, but they were inconvenienced and the last of them were delayed by 4 hours due to the police action. I think getting the drunks off the road is a good thing, but the innocent were held up for 4 hours which is a bit unfair when they were doing nothing wrong.

Donno about that, breaking no laws bit.... Everyones warrant, rego and license was current? Diverts taking 4 hours longer than normal...? Diverts to where - Auckland? How many sobered up in that 4 hours? A full booze bus crew can check 2009 riders out in fairly quick time over a long period, as not eveyone left en masse, did they? Can't believe everything one sees in the papers......

nico

13th March 2010, 11:27

I fail to see any problem barring a bit of congestion for rally leavers......
absultly no problem if a rider over the limit burn him, am only going on what i was told from the boys who were there, was more the blocking the road off causing trafic jams why couldnt they move off the road and test every one as inside the gate and i aggres the 5 that got done musta beeen munted of harley riders hahahahaaaaa

rwh

13th March 2010, 11:50

With all these drink driving education ads and things, I can't help but wonder...

Is it reasonable to expect smashedlydrunk person to think reasonably?

Doesn't alcohol impair judgement?

That's why I think that recidivist drunk drivers should have their licence to drink revoked.

Of course, that would require introducing a licence to drink ...

Richard

Berries

13th March 2010, 13:23

Of course, that would require introducing a licence to drink ...

I'd like to see that test. Perhaps a graduated licence system is called for -

Learner - alcopops and maybe cider, but only with a full licence holder on hand to help mop up.
Restricted - beer and bourbon (but not after 10pm unless you have an exemption)
Full - whisky, tequila and meths

Not worked out a demerit system yet.

Roadrash

13th March 2010, 14:35

I think half of you would moan no matter what they did, If you thoink you've had to much to drink don't ride, If you've had that much to drink that your close to the limiy your probably not in much shape to be ridding anyway, why should they walk around the camp and ask who wants a breath trest, if your stupid enough to not work it our yourself then you deserve to get caught.

scumdog

13th March 2010, 14:55

I wouldn't have been happy if I was one of the bikers - 2004 of the 2009 bikers tested were breaking no laws, but they were inconvenienced and the last of them were delayed by 4 hours due to the police action. I think getting the drunks off the road is a good thing, but the innocent were held up for 4 hours which is a bit unfair when they were doing nothing wrong.

And, how pray do you find out who these innocents are???

If was held up and it took one drunk iriot off the roads I was about to share I'd be happy.

Why not blame the drunks that are the reason such booze-bus operations are held???

Genestho

13th March 2010, 15:27

5 out of 2009 Riders is a pretty good innings possibly compared to Friday night up town, and well done to those who at least heeded the warnings, but, unfortunately it does only cause one person to cause mass carnage.

Three hours does seem a long time to be inconvenienced, perhaps things could've been done better - I wouldn't know, I wouldn't want to do that job...

But I tell ya what, 3 years and not just my life has been understatedly inconvenienced, think yourselves lucky that it were only 3 hours, and you got to ride home to your family after.

If the police have saved any of your lives by doing this - which you'll never know, that has to be a good thing? This thread indicates many were aware and parked up, good stuff.

Cheers.

Ixion

13th March 2010, 15:42

Perhaps the five were youff? It doesn't takeuch to go over the low youff limit- just residual from the night before maybe? I doubt that anyone would feel any effect at the youff limit.

Four hours seems a long delay. I must say I, d be pissed at such a delay that could seriously impact travel plans, bookings etc. it's very easy for police to be pious about " any delay is worth it if it gets one driver off the road etc" . But usually people are committed to travel plans which don't have 4 hours slack in them. And any safety benefit from the " one less driver" etc is likely to be negated by the greater hazards of 2000 bikers despatetly trying to make up that 4 hours or by 2000 bikers having to ride through the night because of the delay. Isn't fatigued driving supposed to be as bad as drink driving. I think that's a bad attitude by the police. If they want to test the departing riders well and good but they need to roster in enough testers to ensure that there are not unreasonable delays.

MarkH

13th March 2010, 19:54

And, how pray do you find out who these innocents are???

If was held up and it took one drunk iriot off the roads I was about to share I'd be happy.

Why not blame the drunks that are the reason such booze-bus operations are held???

I wasn't saying that there isn't a need to get the drunks off the road - just that I'd be pissed off at being held up for 4 hours. I also wasn't saying that I didn't place any blame on the drunks.

It's just that the times I have been through a police checkpoint they haven't significantly inconveniences me and I don't generally mind them (apart from the time that the nice looking police woman asked me to say my name and address when I was barely able to - I just mumbled into the sniffer "I've just been to the dentist"). But being delayed by several hours seems to be pretty bad IMO, much more than the normal minimal inconvenience.

scumdog

13th March 2010, 21:30

just that I'd be pissed off at being held up for 4 hours.

I thought it was three - or even less?

MarkH

14th March 2010, 07:09

I thought it was three - or even less?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/3416281/Bikers-disappointed-in-police-operation
"What normally takes an hour took five hours as we had to have people diverting traffic flow."

Well, the stuff.co.nz article suggested that 4 hours had been added to the time to get the bikes out of there - that seems like a pretty huge inconvenience to me. Tough titties to the 5 over the limiit, but a bit of a bugger to the other 2000.

AD345

14th March 2010, 09:55

The drink-drive hysteria is one of the biggest beat-ups of the 21st century. Trying to get definitive numbers of people found to be over the limit versus total number of people tested is proving more difficult than I'd hoped it would be but what I've found so far is that it would seem to be between 1% and 3%.

So between 97% and 99% of all drivers on the road are NOT under the influence

As a country we should be a lot more proud of that than we are instead of continually being harangued by "the powers that be" on how we are all guilty until proven innocent and that the evils of drink drivers threaten to undermine the entire fabric of civilisation

piss off

red mermaid

14th March 2010, 10:06

AD345

14th March 2010, 10:21

Tell that to the families of the people killed each year by drunk drivers (not forgetting those with serious injuries) and see what they think of your conclusion.

I doubt you will get any sort of agreement.

The only comment you have made that makes any sense is "piss off" and as it says, lay off the piss if you intend to drive.

The standard response - the party line. Yawn

Sorry mate but I am not responsibile for any of those deaths and neither is anyone I know. Making me and thousands of others prove my innocence time after time after fucking time is not going to bring anyone back

the war is over

it's been won

By all means keep the message in the front of everyone that is it not OK to drink and drive, keep reinforcing that it is socially unacceptable (cos it is, and rightly so) but stop fucking treating me like a criminal

scumdog

14th March 2010, 10:37

the war is over

it's been won

By all means keep the message in the front of everyone that is it not OK to drink and drive, keep reinforcing that it is socially unacceptable (cos it is, and rightly so) but stop fucking treating me like a criminal

The 'war' is not won - drop the pressure and the drink-driving will increase:yes:

And nobody is treating you like a criminal mate - not until you get pinged for DIC anyway....

3umph

14th March 2010, 11:02

I left sat morn as I had something else on (bugger it) so did not see the checkpoint... I may be dumb... but ... so a 3-4 hour delay it took people to leave the venue??? that a load of shit... so the first rider leaving took 4 hours through the checkpoint???

or it took people longer to leave then usual as they were not in a rush to go throught and line up for the checkpiont...

so how long did it take for someone at the busy part of leaving to get through?? 20min? 30min? 1 hour or more??? can not see it being an extra 3 hours for someone to go through... how long was the checkpoint there for?

quite honestly I think every rally and big sporting events etc should be targeted at some time... and to give people that tink they are on the limit time to think about there levels and stay off the road and have a bite to eat to help soak up the excess prior to leaving is a good thing...

Test screening would of been nice but whatif you screened ok then failed the checkpoint... maybe people need to invest in personal testers if they think they are going to have some hard nights at rallies so they can have a better indercation if they are over or under...

I'm sure I myself has driven the day after but still over the limit... and may look at getting my own tester for piece of mind or a guide

MarkH

14th March 2010, 11:50

I left sat morn as I had something else on (bugger it) so did not see the checkpoint... I may be dumb... but ... so a 3-4 hour delay it took people to leave the venue??? that a load of shit... so the first rider leaving took 4 hours through the checkpoint???

That just doesn't make sense - surely the first person was pretty darned luckly to be first and got through within a couple of minutes. But half an hour after people started leaving I bet there was a big queue waiting to get through that bottle neck.

Personally I don't get too bothered if I am held up for 5 minutes due to a police booze checkpoint - it is worth it to get the dangerous drunks off the road. If I am held up for 10 minutes I get annoyed and can't help wonder if the police could have done a better job of the time/placement/whatever of the checkpoint. Once I am held up for over 15 minutes I am thoroughly pissed off - when I have done nothing wrong why should I suffer through a long wait like that? I would guarentee there must have been riders that had a ferry to catch - it seems a bit off to make those people miss their ferry.

The checkpoint I went through after the Cold Duck Rally didn't bother me in the least, held me up for less than 2 minutes. Of course it wasn't just outside the gates to the venue so any bikes coming through that checkpoint were well spread out. Surely the police should work hard to avoid pissing off the law abiding majority while trying to nab the criminal minority?

AD345

14th March 2010, 13:22

The 'war' is not won - drop the pressure and the drink-driving will increase:yes:

And nobody is treating you like a criminal mate - not until you get pinged for DIC anyway....

Define the the criteria for victory then. If it is more than a 97% success rate it's bullshit. if the aim is to have no-one get hurt by a drink-driver then take vehicles off the road.

There is no other option

You treat me like a criminal every time you enter my life and demand that I prove my innocence - thats what a check point is. A search without cause from which I cannot abstain. Failure to comply with a breathtest at a checkpoint is taken as evidence of guilt

THAT is bullshit. THAT is state control at it's extreme and I will (and already am) be fucked off with everyone involved every single time. No point telling me that it is the fault of the drink-drivers that we have these check points - we have already shown that they are unnecessary - 97% (minimum) of the population already complies with the law!

It's a power trip by politicans and senior police - nothing more nothing less than state control.

MarkH

14th March 2010, 14:20

THAT is state control at it's extreme

I think you are going a bit far there - speaking into a sniffer so that the police can find out if you have alcahol on your breath doesn't seem that extreme to me. If the police can be orginised well enough so that the motorists aren't unduly held up from going about their business then I have no real problem with it.

Does anyone know how long the bikers leaving around the middle of the Rally exodus were held up? i.e. rider #1004 of 2009 had to wait for how long? It really seems that 2004 bikers were held up for quite a long time so that the police could find those 5 idiots. Getting those .25% off the road was good, inconveniencing the other 99.75% would have made this a negative PR exercise - not the best police work IMO.

AD345

14th March 2010, 16:08

I think you are going a bit far there - speaking into a sniffer so that the police can find out if you have alcahol on your breath doesn't seem that extreme to me. If the police can be orginised well enough so that the motorists aren't unduly held up from going about their business then I have no real problem with it.

.

Its not the time nor the conveience of it

"afternoon sir. Please spend the next 2 minutes proving you did not rape your neighbours grandhcild by blowing in this bag. If you don't blow in the bag you will be arrested, charged and found guilty of having committed the offence"

It's not ME that's going too far

scumdog

14th March 2010, 16:18

Its not the time nor the conveience of it

"afternoon sir. Please spend the next 2 minutes proving you did not rape your neighbours grandhcild by blowing in this bag. If you don't blow in the bag you will be arrested, charged and found guilty of having committed the offence"

It's not ME that's going too far

"Hey, I'll tell ya what offisher, I ain't blowing into that silly thingamabob you've got and then ya can't prove I'm pished to shee ya later" -THAT is what you would like to see instead????

(Just chucking in the opposite end of the spectrum)

AD345

14th March 2010, 16:33

"Hey, I'll tell ya what offisher, I ain't blowing into that silly thingamabob you've got and then ya can't prove I'm pished to shee ya later" -THAT is what you would like to see instead????

(Just chucking in the opposite end of the spectrum)

I'd like to see the end of random breath testing thanks very much.

That's all

If you have REASON to think I'm over the limit - by all means breath test me and arrest me if I don't play ball

But don't keep nagging me and thousands of other just because you CAN

scumdog

14th March 2010, 17:25

If you have REASON to think I'm over the limit - by all means breath test me and arrest me if I don't play ball

THAT is precisely why th elaw was changed to allow random testing.

Too many drunk-drivers got off because the cop didn't have a reason to think they were over the limit and lawyers with no social conscienc use to get them off on that techincality..

Didn't matter that the driver WAS plastered beyond belief.

SixPackBack

14th March 2010, 17:36

The call went out at what seemed like 6am Sunday morning at the March hare rally (just gone) that the police were stopping ALL riders leaving the venue, and breath testing them. Surely there would have been a better publicity stunt if the police came inside the venue and said for your own safety check that you are safe and under the limit before you leave as you may get stopped outside on the main road.
Then they could have saved tax payers money by not needing the boose bus there and only half the staff to help check everyone.
Wouldnt that have been the right thing to do???

I hate it when the coppers are right LOL

Random breath testing is probably the quickest 'stop' you can experience by the coppers. Often they take no notice of warrant/rego, they are mostly polite and cheery, and my experience is less than a minute of inconvenience.

'Course making sure you are sober is easy and ultimately your responsibility alone......you were sober teach?

AD345

14th March 2010, 17:48

THAT is precisely why th elaw was changed to allow random testing.

Too many drunk-drivers got off because the cop didn't have a reason to think they were over the limit and lawyers with no social conscienc use to get them off on that techincality..

Didn't matter that the driver WAS plastered beyond belief.

I'd love to know what numbers make up "too many" but it doesn't matter anyway.

The culture has changed - a lot. There is absolutely zero reason to think that it is suddenly going to become "a bit of a lark" again for people to start driving under the influence.

The random breath test - in particular the mass check point stoppages of thousands of motorists - has done its job and had its day. It was always a dodgy infringement of rights but was sold as a response to a crisis.

And we were dumb enough to believe it

The crisis is over but the right of freedom from unreasonable search and siezure has gone forever. It is a salutary lesson for all of us

red mermaid

14th March 2010, 19:45

If the crisis is over, why is the number of drink drivers prosecuted increasing?

I'd love to know what numbers make up "too many" but it doesn't matter anyway.

The culture has changed - a lot. There is absolutely zero reason to think that it is suddenly going to become "a bit of a lark" again for people to start driving under the influence.

The random breath test - in particular the mass check point stoppages of thousands of motorists - has done its job and had its day. It was always a dodgy infringement of rights but was sold as a response to a crisis.

And we were dumb enough to believe it

The crisis is over but the right of freedom from unreasonable search and siezure has gone forever. It is a salutary lesson for all of us

AD345

14th March 2010, 20:22

If the crisis is over, why is the number of drink drivers prosecuted increasing?

Really? says who?

red mermaid

15th March 2010, 05:29

While I find those stats;

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3448485/Are-Kiwi-drivers-fit-to-be-on-the-road

red mermaid

15th March 2010, 05:31

A quick search found this.
Do you want more?

http://police.govt.nz/news/release/3181.html

awayatc

15th March 2010, 06:25

Drink drivers are inexcusable......
Should get convicted of attempted manslaughter...

Get them all off the road,
because one of them could easily get you one day....

T.W.R

15th March 2010, 06:50

- just that I'd be pissed off at being held up for 4 hours.

If anyone has bothered to do the maths on the processing time at the checkpoint at the rally it roughly works out to a total time of 20secs per individual.........20 seconds lol a major catastrophe :shit:

davereid

15th March 2010, 06:59

I'd like to see the end of random breath testing thanks very much.

There is no doubt that being randomly stopped and searched when there is no evidence, (or even real suspicion) of a crime crosses an important line.

I completely agree with you, that the importance of the outcome, does not justify this kind of random approach.

I'd also be very pissed off at being held up at a check point for hours - in fact even minutes.

Its true that innocent people are regularly killed by drunk drivers, we have to do all we can.

But if the argument holds that its acceptable to be randomly searched to see if you have been drinking, then by logical extension, it can easily be extended to all aspects of our lives.

Police are very clearly using this power to harass. An entire ferry was ignored, so police could "randomly" test the hells angels, (twice.)

My conclusion remains the same. I accept it saves lives. But so would reducing the speed limit to 20km/hr. We choose to drive at higher speeds, accepting the increase in risk, as we value the convenience. I think we should choose to end random stopping, accepting the increase in risk, as we value freedom without random search and seizure.

SixPackBack

15th March 2010, 10:58

While I find those stats;

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3448485/Are-Kiwi-drivers-fit-to-be-on-the-road

A quick search found this.
Do you want more?

http://police.govt.nz/news/release/3181.html

The stats prove nothing. It could be argued that the degree of Policing determines the degree of offending, and the degree of policing is just as likely to change on political expediency and the likelihood of promotion should the number be stacked in a favorable way at a favorable time.

red mermaid

15th March 2010, 11:07

And this would play back into the tricky lawyers arms, whereby when a driver is stopped and processed for drink driving the arguement in court would not be about the drink driving offence they had committed but whether the police officer had cause to stop the driver.

There is no doubt that being randomly stopped and searched when there is no evidence, (or even real suspicion) of a crime crosses an important line.

I completely agree with you, that the importance of the outcome, does not justify this kind of random approach.

I'd also be very pissed off at being held up at a check point for hours - in fact even minutes.

Its true that innocent people are regularly killed by drunk drivers, we have to do all we can.

But if the argument holds that its acceptable to be randomly searched to see if you have been drinking, then by logical extension, it can easily be extended to all aspects of our lives.

Police are very clearly using this power to harass. An entire ferry was ignored, so police could "randomly" test the hells angels, (twice.)

My conclusion remains the same. I accept it saves lives. But so would reducing the speed limit to 20km/hr. We choose to drive at higher speeds, accepting the increase in risk, as we value the convenience. I think we should choose to end random stopping, accepting the increase in risk, as we value freedom without random search and seizure.

MarkH

15th March 2010, 11:12

If anyone has bothered to do the maths on the processing time at the checkpoint at the rally it roughly works out to a total time of 20secs per individual.........20 seconds lol a major catastrophe :shit:

Is this a serious post or just a troll?

If it is serious then I am astounded by the level of crazy. If it normally takes 1 hour for 2000 bikers to clear out and they were held up by an average of 20 seconds each then the time would go from 1 hour to 1 hour 20 seconds. For it to take 5 hours instead of 1 hour the last rider must have been waiting for 4 hours longer than on previous years.

If you simply think about 2009 bikers leaving a venue and the police setup a checkpoint creating a bottleneck - the idea that on average only 20 seconds extra time was added is just freakin' nuts! :crazy:

bogan

15th March 2010, 11:33

My conclusion remains the same. I accept it saves lives. But so would reducing the speed limit to 20km/hr. We choose to drive at higher speeds, accepting the increase in risk, as we value the convenience. I think we should choose to end random stopping, accepting the increase in risk, as we value freedom without random search and seizure.

But its not about a change in limit, its about enforcing the current one, speeding is pretty easy to detect, drunk drivers not so much, either let most of em get away till they stuff up and crash, or accept breath testing. We accept the risk with increase speeds as the benefits outweigh the risks (to the majority), just as I (and a large portion if not the majority of others) accept the need for breath testing as the benefits (or maybe its just perceived benefits) outweigh the risk (or is it perceived risk). Though I agree there needs to be more thought involved in setting up the breath tests so there is less inconvenience.

T.W.R

15th March 2010, 11:50

Is this a serious post or just a troll?

If it is serious then I am astounded by the level of crazy. If it normally takes 1 hour for 2000 bikers to clear out and they were held up by an average of 20 seconds each then the time would go from 1 hour to 1 hour 20 seconds. For it to take 5 hours instead of 1 hour the last rider must have been waiting for 4 hours longer than on previous years.

If you simply think about 2009 bikers leaving a venue and the police setup a checkpoint creating a bottleneck - the idea that on average only 20 seconds extra time was added is just freakin' nuts! :crazy:

:laugh: were you there? nah probably not

I've never seen a rally in over 22yrs ever where all the attendees left at exactly the same time :blink: though I've seen plenty where there's been congestion & delays caused just by the mere fact of site access & numbers of individuals trying to leave.
If someone is the last person in the line attempting to leave the site and thus held up the longest the answer is simple........tough shit, wake up earlier, pack up quicker and avoid the congestion :shutup:
I was there along with a couple of others we were up at 7.30 packed up and set to go by 9am and the only hold-up leaving the Hare was a few seconds which involved saying Hi & being asked to count to 5 whilst speaking into the meter then a thanks have a safe ride & on your way :yes:
And there were plenty of Bikes that had already departed prior to us

MarkH

15th March 2010, 14:49

:laugh: were you there? nah probably not

Thanks for the red rep - very mature.

No, I wasn't there - so unfortunately I have only what I read here to go on.

From this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/3416281/Bikers-disappointed-in-police-operation

I read:

"The booze bus was set up in the middle of the road safety area.

"What normally takes an hour took five hours as we had to have people diverting traffic flow."

Mr Rowley said police had caused a bottleneck in the road outside the venue as every motorcyclist was stopped.

I am happy for those that were there to say that the info in the article wasn't completely accurate and that most people leaving didn't have to wait all that long - unlike TWR I am happy to hear different opinions, even if it proves me wrong. But I just can't make sense of the police causing a bottleneck and checking over 2000 riders leading to an average of only 20 seconds delay to the riders, that really doesn't seem very likely.

Maybe others that attended the rally could chime in with their experience and how long they were delayed. Of those 2009 riders there must be quite a few that are members of this forum.

red mermaid

15th March 2010, 15:03

Perhaps Mr Rowley was less than truthful and had some sort of agenda to push?

He issued the statement so I don't think you can really blame the media for printing what he told them.

T.W.R

15th March 2010, 15:03

Thanks for the red rep - very mature.

No, I wasn't there - so unfortunately I have only what I read here to go on.

From this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/3416281/Bikers-disappointed-in-police-operation

I read:

I am happy for those that were there to say that the info in the article wasn't completely accurate and that most people leaving didn't have to wait all that long - unlike TWR I am happy to hear different opinions, even if it proves me wrong. But I just can't make sense of the police causing a bottleneck and checking over 2000 riders leading to an average of only 20 seconds delay to the riders, that really doesn't seem very likely.

Maybe others that attended the rally could chime in with their experience and how long they were delayed. Of those 2009 riders there must be quite a few that are members of this forum.

You're a lucky recipient of some rep :msn-wink: as the two options are I agree or I disagree

Instead of whining here go and read the actual rally thread

and the 20sec is about the average time of the actual processing of each individual rider :weird:
it's just a hard luck story if someone managed to be towards the end of the queue waiting to leave.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/116929-March-Hare-Rally-(5-7-March-2010)?p=1129674966

scumdog

15th March 2010, 15:43

d rep - very mature.

No, I wasn't there - so unfortunately I have only what I read here to go on.

From this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/3416281/Bikers-disappointed-in-police-operation

You believe a newspaper?:blink:

Sheesh, that's worse than believing what you read on KB!!:laugh:

MarkH

15th March 2010, 15:54

Instead of whining here go and read the actual rally thread

This isn't the thread to whine about the police checkpoint?

[QUOTE=T.W.R;1129684279]and the 20sec is about the average time of the actual processing of each individual rider :weird:

So when you said:

20 seconds lol a major catastrophe

You were just dismissing the half hour or whatever that the rider had to wait as irrelevant because the breath test itself only took 20 seconds?

it's just a hard luck story if someone managed to be towards the end of the queue waiting to leave.

Yes, somehow all 2009 riders should have figured out how to leave first . . .

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/116929-March-Hare-Rally-(5-7-March-2010)?p=1129674966

Thanks for the link - I might just have a good read. It'll make me want to take another trip to the SI though. At least I can get a cheaper ferry crossing now though. If I see you there next year I'll buy you a drink to make nice!

davereid

15th March 2010, 16:16

sinned

15th March 2010, 16:44

If you exceed the speed limit on state highways the odds are you will be ticketed and often enough to mean you slow down - ever wondered why so few speed? However, drinking and driving poses a low risk of being stopped, except in those areas and at times of the so called random testing spots. The last two times (in 3 years) I have been stopped were for speed - so those who drink and drive have little chance of being stopped unless they speed or are so pissed they draw attention to their driving.

I am all in favour of a lot more stops for breath testing and while doing that a few other checks should be done. It should be more regular than random. BTW I don't drink and drive/ride.

AD345

15th March 2010, 17:16

A quick search found this.
Do you want more?

http://police.govt.nz/news/release/3181.html

Yes I do want more. Despite Mr Plod saying that a 0.2% shift is statistically significant - that isn't actually so. It would fall pretty comfortably within the margin of error of the sampling data.

here's what I have found though:

Injury crashes per 100,000 people: 1973 (when we started to get serious) 162.5, 2008 46.7. Thats a 71.2% decrease - which actually IS statistically significant.

If someone could refresh my memory as to when random breath testing became compulsory (alcohol has fucked my memory) I can do the same look-up. I'm willing to bet some fairly serious money that there will be an equally serious drop in the crash rate.

Drink-driving = bad

Removal of freedom from unreasonable serach and seizure = bad too

I don't want the police to have these powers any more

FJRider

15th March 2010, 17:29

If someone could refresh my memory as to when random breath testing became compulsory (alcohol has fucked my memory) I can do the same look-up. I'm willing to bet some fairly serious money that there will be an equally serious drop in the crash rate.

Drink-driving = bad

Removal of freedom from unreasonable serach and seizure = bad too

I don't want the police to have these powers any more

It matters little when it was introduced ... it would take a very brave political party to REMOVE it from law.

If you are in control of a motor vehicle, it is reasonable to assume that you are not (should not) be impaired by alcohol ...

If you are NOT ... you have nothing to fear ...

Perhaps ... if you get clobbered by a "vehicle operator" who IS over the legal limit ... YOU may change YOUR view ...

FJRider

15th March 2010, 17:34

However, drinking and driving poses a low risk of being stopped, except in those areas and at times of the so called random testing spots. The last two times (in 3 years) I have been stopped were for speed - so those who drink and drive have little chance of being stopped unless they speed or are so pissed they draw attention to their driving.

I am all in favour of a lot more stops for breath testing and while doing that a few other checks should be done. It should be more regular than random. BTW I don't drink and drive/ride.

Most times you are stopped for speeding ... the breath test comes part of the package ...

JimO

15th March 2010, 17:39

I

Perhaps ... if you get clobbered by a "vehicle operator" who IS over the legal limit ... YOU may change YOUR view ...

this is the truest thing ever said, all those bleating on about being tested and police state would change their tune if they were on the receiving end of a drunk driver THEN they would be saying WHY didnt the cops do their job!

davereid

15th March 2010, 17:44

If you are in control of a motor vehicle, it is reasonable to assume that you are not (should not) be impaired by alcohol ..If you are NOT ... you have nothing to fear ....

Absolute rubbish.

Police regularly use this power to harass. You DO have something to fear.

The Hells Angels were "randomly" stopped by police on boarding and getting off the ferry, again at Hira, and Motueka. While ignoring every other motorist.

OK, so your not a Hells Angel, big deal.

But maybe you are a commie. Or a libertarian. Or maybe you dont like the government.

It doesnt really matter. Police have already demonstrated they will use this power, not to detect drink driving, just to harass.

Toaster

15th March 2010, 17:46

No problem with breath or impairment testing. Bring it on and keep it up if it means getting some drunks and drugged drivers off the road.

Having long delays to go through a checkpoint, if that in actual fact really occurred, is more a matter of better checkpoint planning and management.

FJRider

15th March 2010, 18:08

Absolute rubbish.

Police regularly use this power to harass. You DO have something to fear.

The Hells Angels were "randomly" stopped by police on boarding and getting off the ferry, again at Hira, and Motueka. While ignoring every other motorist.

OK, so your not a Hells Angel, big deal.

It doesnt really matter. Police have already demonstrated they will use this power, not to detect drink driving, just to harass.

No ... I'm not ... ARE YOU ... ????

If you drive/ride distintive vehicles ... you will be noticed. (the DOWN side of custom paint work .... people remember seeing them ...) wear distinctive clothing (ie: patches ... of any "club" ) you will be noticed ...

The "cops" play within the rules prescribed by Goverment ... if you don't like the rules ... vote them OUT ... and vote IN one that will CHANGE them...

AD345

15th March 2010, 18:08

It matters little when it was introduced ... it would take a very brave political party to REMOVE it from law.

If you are in control of a motor vehicle, it is reasonable to assume that you are not (should not) be impaired by alcohol ...

If you are NOT ... you have nothing to fear ...

Perhaps ... if you get clobbered by a "vehicle operator" who IS over the legal limit ... YOU may change YOUR view ...

A not unexpected but completely facile argument

In order to hold that warm conviction in your heart then you MUST agree with the following statement:

If you are in around children it is reasonable to assume that you are not (should not) be impaired by drugs...therefore random strip searches of every adult near a school, playground, family restaurant etc are perfectly justfiable. Even to the extent that every adult entering these areas may be stopped, queued up and searched in every body cavity before being allowed to proceed. Failure to comply is taken of evidence of guilt and you WILL be prosecuted (thus driving up the drug prosecution rates) and found guilty.

There is no difference

This is not about drink driving - its about state control.

As for this bit:
Perhaps ... if you get clobbered by a "vehicle operator" who IS over the legal limit ... YOU may change YOUR view ..
and also jimjims
this is the truest thing ever said, all those bleating on about being tested and police state would change their tune if they were on the receiving end of a drunk driver THEN they would be saying WHY didnt the cops do their job!

I have 2 responses

1. The police are there to enforce the law - not protect me from harm
2. I've not only been hit by an intoxicated driver but also lost friends and relatives to them. It does not change my view on this

rwh

15th March 2010, 18:12

scumdog

15th March 2010, 18:12

Drink-driving = bad

Removal of freedom from unreasonable serach and seizure = bad too

I don't want the police to have these powers any more

When has 'search and seizure' been the norm with breath screening?

ANd...Soooo.... YOUR answer is??:wait::scratch:

rwh

15th March 2010, 18:16

If you drive/ride distintive vehicles ... you will be noticed.

Driving a distinctive vehicle is a crime now? If it has 'Get your dope here' painted down the side, I might accept that.

Richard

bogan

15th March 2010, 18:17

1. The police are there to enforce the law - not protect me from harm

how do you propose the police enforce the drink driving laws then if they are not allowed to test for it?

davereid

15th March 2010, 18:20

If you drive/ride distintive vehicles ... you will be noticed. (the DOWN side of custom paint work .... people remember seeing them ...) wear distinctive clothing (ie: patches ... of any "club" ) you will be noticed ...

Of course. Thats why, bikers were held up at the March Hare, debatably for 4 hours.

The police knew they could get away with it, cos its bikers, a distinctly different identifiable group.

Even half an hours delay at a motorway on ramp is headline news.

No 4 hour delay at Womad, or the cricket....

rwh

15th March 2010, 18:22

how do you propose the police enforce the drink driving laws then if they are not allowed to test for it?

They're welcome to test for it - when they have cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated.

Richard

rwh

15th March 2010, 18:22

FJRider

15th March 2010, 18:24

Driving a distinctive vehicle is a crime now? If it has 'Get your dope here' painted down the side, I might accept that.

Richard

I never suggested it WAS ... "Boy Racer" paint-jobs attract attention ... because of "likelyhood" of offending ...

FJRider

15th March 2010, 18:28

They're welcome to test for it - when they have cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated.

Richard

So ... at 7 am on a Sunday morning ... exiting a motorcycle rally site would NOT be ... ???

bogan

15th March 2010, 18:29

They're welcome to test for it - when they have cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated.

Richard

like when a driver is leaving a party or establishment that serves alcohol?

rwh

15th March 2010, 18:33

So ... at 7 am on a Sunday morning ... exiting a motorcycle rally site would NOT be ... ???

like when a driver is leaving a party or establishment that serves alcohol?

That would be for the courts to decide, I guess.

There must be many other cases where it's been established whether there was reasonable cause to suspect someone.

Richard

davereid

15th March 2010, 18:35

like when a driver is leaving a party or establishment that serves alcohol?

No. Thats like assuming that because someone has a fishing rod, they have undersize fish.

Or that because you have a cock you are a rapist.

bogan

15th March 2010, 18:44

No. Thats like assuming that because someone has a fishing rod, they have undersize fish.

Or that because you have a cock you are a rapist.

So cops would have to watch out for the symptoms of drunk drivers, which I think is mainly poor reaction times (unless you are really wasted of course), which sounds quite hard to spot to me. The point I'm getting at is, if there were no checkpoints drunk drivers would be very difficult to stop until they were in a serious accident and tested (or would that still not be reason enough to test them?), do you really want more drunk drivers on the road?

FJRider

15th March 2010, 18:45

No. Thats like assuming that because someone has a fishing rod, they have undersize fish.

Or that because you have a cock you are a rapist.

No ...it's assuming that because you have a fishing rod ... you've been fishing ... actually.

APPARENTLY ... you DON'T need a cock to be a rapist .... :innocent:

T.W.R

15th March 2010, 18:49

This isn't the thread to whine about the police checkpoint?

If being there and being horribly held up by the actual checkpoint yeah maybe but as you weren't even there and just using second hand news to blurt on about it...it'd be better to :shutup:

You were just dismissing the half hour or whatever that the rider had to wait as irrelevant because the breath test itself only took 20 seconds?

FFS I've been held up longer trying to get to a rally and on occasion that has been caused by the exact thing the cops are trying to stop by doing the checkpoint :yes:

Yes, somehow all 2009 riders should have figured out how to leave first . . .

Well the majority are long term rally goers realise that getting away early does cause less hassle and once upon a time rallies were more than heading somewhere to get totally pissed up which unfortunately a lot of johnny come latelys think is the main drawcard of a rally :angry:

Thanks for the link - I might just have a good read. It'll make me want to take another trip to the SI though. At least I can get a cheaper ferry crossing now though. If I see you there next year I'll buy you a drink to make nice!

Always helps to have a bit of insight to the actual event before saying something about it via 2nd hand news.
08 Magpie madness was your last one down here wasn't it......least you wont have to have your tent moved halfway through the night again :yes:

davereid

15th March 2010, 18:57

So cops would have to watch out for the symptoms of drunk drivers...

Yes of course. If there is no reason to suspect you, why should you be subject to search ?

scumdog

15th March 2010, 19:07

Yes of course. If there is no reason to suspect you, why should you be subject to search ?

Yeah, so if you're pissed?
Drive REALLY good and the cops won't be allowed to stop you - and you can drove on pissed-as!!

bogan

15th March 2010, 19:13

Yes of course. If there is no reason to suspect you, why should you be subject to search ?

Its not a search, its a test. Like when a cop flicks his radar gun onto you to see how fast you are going, or should they only be able to do that if they suspect you are speeding?

davereid

15th March 2010, 19:17

Yeah, so if you're pissed?
Drive REALLY good and the cops won't be allowed to stop you - and you can drove on pissed-as!!

Hmm, if you can drive really well, the cops should be looking for someone else I would think !

rwh

15th March 2010, 19:30

Yeah, so if you're pissed?
Drive REALLY good and the cops won't be allowed to stop you - and you can drove on pissed-as!!

Yeah, so if you're walking down the street with an overcoat full of illegal guns - lots of guns?

Walk really normally, and the cops won't be allowed to search you, and you can go on to your murder site. Nothing new there, is there?

Richard

davereid

15th March 2010, 19:35

Its not a search, its a test. Like when a cop flicks his radar gun onto you to see how fast you are going, or should they only be able to do that if they suspect you are speeding?

No its a search, a radar gun is merely an observation.

I hate drink drivers, don't miss-understand my motives.

But this was one of the first issues over which police got the right to randomly stop people, when there was no evidence they had broken the law, and then look for that evidence, requiring the co-operation of the suspect.

But it hasn't worked. Police use it to stop and harass people they don't like. It fails all the basic tests.

rwh

15th March 2010, 19:35

Its not a search, its a test. Like when a cop flicks his radar gun onto you to see how fast you are going, or should they only be able to do that if they suspect you are speeding?

The radar gun doesn't slow you down.

And you're providing them with a lungfull of air, which they will search for alcohol molecules.

If the cop can smell your breath (maybe assisted by a bumper-mounted air tester?) from driving along behind (and it looks like you don't have any passengers), that might count as sufficient reason.

Richard

red mermaid

15th March 2010, 19:42

Im sure I've said it before, perhaps not in this thread, but since at least 1983 police (and MoT) could stop any vehicle at random.

You have never have to give a reason, just a random because you felt like it.

Some people read to many American comics.

No its a search, a radar gun is merely an observation.

I hate drink drivers, don't miss-understand my motives.

But this was one of the first issues over which police got the right to randomly stop people, when there was no evidence they had broken the law, and then look for that evidence, requiring the co-operation of the suspect.

But it hasn't worked. Police use it to stop and harass people they don't like. It fails all the basic tests.

davereid

15th March 2010, 19:45

Im sure I've said it before, perhaps not in this thread, but since at least 1983 police (and MoT) could stop any vehicle at random.

And search it without cause as well ?

bogan

15th March 2010, 19:45

No its a search, a radar gun is merely an observation.

I hate drink drivers, don't miss-understand my motives.

But this was one of the first issues over which police got the right to randomly stop people, when there was no evidence they had broken the law, and then look for that evidence, requiring the co-operation of the suspect.

But it hasn't worked. Police use it to stop and harass people they don't like. It fails all the basic tests.

I agree that it can be abused in order to harass people which is bullshit and there should be measures in place to stop that (archived patrol car camera footage perhaps?). And if they conduct a search of the vehicle it seems a bit OTT, but just taking a breath sample I got no problem with, to me thats no more of an impingement on my freedom/rights etc than being pinged by a radar.

davereid

15th March 2010, 19:49

I agree that it can be abused in order to harass people which is bullshit and there should be measures in place to stop that (archived patrol car camera footage perhaps?). And if they conduct a search of the vehicle it seems a bit OTT, but just taking a breath sample I got no problem with, to me thats no more of an impingement on my freedom/rights etc than being pinged by a radar.

Well, it all academic really. Police DO have the ability to randomly stop you and require a breath test. They DO use it to harass. They will NEVER give up these powers.

Doesn't mean I approve of it or think its correct.

scumdog

15th March 2010, 19:53

And search it without cause as well ?

Nah, they got to have cause - only some don't (in their mind) agree they had ENOUGH cause.

I bet their is a country somewhere that doesn't have such laws...

red mermaid

15th March 2010, 19:54

How can they harass you by asking for specimen of breath?
If you've had no alcohol you will return a negative test and that will be the end of the matter, bye bye, have a nice day.

And don't put words in my mouth...I said vehicles could be stopped at random, you take that and imply further with " search it without cause as well?"

That is a completely different subject, nothing to do with drink driving.

Genestho

15th March 2010, 20:02

Anecdotely - It's said the higher conviction rates are due to more booze buses and random testing, last year the figures jumped to 38000 convictions.

In 2007 the figure of overall convictions were 27,829, in 2006 the convictions were 24,240, 13% Rise in convictions across the board from '06 to '07.

With an 11% rise in 3+ convictions. Source is Official Info Act Request:Crossroads.

Going by the numbers of conviction rates and the sharp rise last year, clearly the police are working hard to stop drink drivers, and clearly random breath testing is working for its particular purpose....how else would these driver's have been stopped?

MarkH

15th March 2010, 20:40

If being there and being horribly held up by the actual checkpoint yeah maybe but as you weren't even there and just using second hand news to blurt on about it...it'd be better to :shutup:

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that this discussion thread was only for those with direct first hand experience of this particular incident. I guess I'll go and hang my head in shame now.

Ixion

15th March 2010, 20:52

They're welcome to test for it - when they have cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated.

Richard

by and large I agree with you. But I think that it could be argued that the requirement is reasonale grounds to suspect that the driver may have taken intoxicating liquor. And that if the driver is leaving a place where the majority of those present have been drinking there is reasonale grounds to suspect that any particular driver may have done so also. I'd think it a reasonable real world assumption that people leaving a pin have had a drink . Cirumstantial grounds for suspicion

rwh

15th March 2010, 21:04

by and large I agree with you. But I think that it could be argued that the requirement is reasonale grounds to suspect that the driver may have taken intoxicating liquor. And that if the driver is leaving a place where the majority of those present have been drinking there is reasonale grounds to suspect that any particular driver may have done so also. I'd think it a reasonable real world assumption that people leaving a pin have had a drink . Cirumstantial grounds for suspicion

I think we're mostly on the same page here, but I still think that's a bit far.
From the stats from this event, they tested 2000 people and got 5 fails - that's a 0.25% chance that any one person would be intoxicated. That's way too low, in my opinion, and would not be tolerated in any other area.

The fact that there was a near 100% chance that they'd get someone is certainly not good enough.

Imagine picking some 'dodgy suburb', and performing a simultaneous raid on all the dwellings at once (ignore resourcing constraints for the time being).

You'd probably get a thousand or so stashes of pot, a few P labs, and probably find a few domestic assaults in progress, etc etc. Would that make the raid justified? Hell no. Why should we be subject to different rules because we're in or on vehicles?

Richard

rwh

15th March 2010, 21:13

by and large I agree with you. But I think that it could be argued that the requirement is reasonale grounds to suspect that the driver may have taken intoxicating liquor. And that if the driver is leaving a place where the majority of those present have been drinking there is reasonale grounds to suspect that any particular driver may have done so also. I'd think it a reasonable real world assumption that people leaving a pin have had a drink . Cirumstantial grounds for suspicion

Actually I went off on a bit of a tangent there - I'd been thinking up the analogies, and wrote what I was thinking about rather than responding to your post.

Yes, there's a good chance that a person coming out of a pub has had something to drink. But that's not illegal, even if they get in their car and drive off. In every other case, you have to have reason to believe an offence has been or is being (or is going to be?) committed. That means you would have to have reason to believe that the person had drunk too much - and that simply isn't true for the vast majority of pub patrons driving away.

Richard

Ixion

15th March 2010, 21:14

Perhaps the test of that is whether the repeat the exercise next year. PC Spokesmansays might argue " we knew there were all these people there and a lot of drinking going on. So we thought we had reasonable grounds to suspect that a lot of them would be over the limit. "

In fact, turns out there weren,t. 5 out of 2000 is random. Which would mean no reasonable grounds next time. But until they did the test the cops couldn't know that.

FJRider

15th March 2010, 22:17

Perhaps the test of that is whether the repeat the exercise next year.

In fact, turns out there weren,t. 5 out of 2000 is random. Which would mean no reasonable grounds next time. But until they did the test the cops couldn't know that.

There "may" be a similar testing at/after the Brass Monkey ... not just out the gate. But some distance away ... So NO warning ... and NO chance to eat a bit more, and a have few more cups of coffee. All said and done ... how may bikers would have left the March Hare site KNOWING they were over. AND knowing they WOULD be tested .... ???

kwaka_crasher

15th March 2010, 22:26

Tell that to the families of the people killed each year by drunk drivers (not forgetting those with serious injuries) and see what they think of your conclusion.

That would be a significantly more easily undertaken task than telling the families of those killed on the roads each year through sheer driving incompetence which is most of them..

rwh

15th March 2010, 22:48

Tell that to the families of the people killed each year by drunk drivers (not forgetting those with serious injuries) and see what they think of your conclusion.

It always seems harsh, but I'm firmly of the belief that law made as a response to the extremes of emotion relating to specific cases - especially the emotion of people close to the case - is rarely good law.

Richard

kwaka_crasher

15th March 2010, 23:33

I'd think it a reasonable real world assumption that people leaving a pin have had a drink . Cirumstantial grounds for suspicion

I'd call it assumption by association.

Ixion

16th March 2010, 10:20

(Pub, leaving the [B]pub[/]. Bloody predictive txt).

True, but nont the less valid for that.

The context was whether the cops were unfairly harassing bikers. If someone's leaving a site where there's known to be a lot of alcohol been consumed, it's not unreasonable to suspect that they may have shared in that consumption. And ask them to do the testy thing to see. Not harrassment. Delaying people for 4 hours (if that happened) is another matter. But that's an operational issues , not one of fairness.

Coldrider

16th March 2010, 10:25

I'd call it assumption by association. I'd call it association by consumption :drinknsin

kwaka_crasher

16th March 2010, 16:06

If someone's leaving a site where there's known to be a lot of alcohol been consumed, it's not unreasonable to suspect that they may have shared in that consumption.

While I normally agree with you on matters of civil liberties, I can't buy into the 'grounds for suspicion based solely on proximity' argument.

Delaying people for 4 hours (if that happened) is another matter. But that's an operational issue, not one of fairness.

But the effect is the same. If the 4 hours is true, that's undue delay.

sinned

16th March 2010, 16:15

I thought the Police could only hold you at a check point for 15 minutes, unless there was an offense to process.

kwaka_crasher

16th March 2010, 16:23

I thought the Police could only hold you at a check point for 15 minutes, unless there was an offense to process.

15 min for the purpose of establishing identity. However they hadn't reached the checkpoint yet - they were technically stuck in traffic...

{.bLanK}G_o_D

16th March 2010, 16:24

The first goal of a breath testing site is to reduce the amount of intoxicated people driving/riding on the road.
If that means making a song and dance out of it by all means.
The more visible they are to the public the better.
The more pubs, rallys, racing events, partys etc etc etc they park out side, the better.

Why not just smoke dope instead? The next morning you are straight as an arrow.. and surely a much better time to be had..

Steve

You need to find better dope dude. :doobey:

Ixion

16th March 2010, 16:25

Yes and no. They can , in theory , only detain you for 15 minutes for the purpose of checking identity. But that's not really an issue in this instance. Problem is , that if you're at the back, it takes a LONG time to work up to the front. Cos of the 2000 bikes ahead of you. Once you GET there, the test is only a few seconds.</br/>
But, allowing the claimed 20 seconds, assume two cops testing , working flat out, and no time needed to process fails (there were only 5). That's one bike every 10 seconds. 6 a minute . 360 an hour . That'd be 6 hours to process the 2000. Granted not everyone would intend to leave at the same moment. But most would expect to head out in the first hour or so of the day. So, a delay of 4 hours seems arithmetically about right.

While I normally agree with you on matters of civil liberties, I can't buy into the 'grounds for suspicion based solely on proximity' argument.

I'm not that flash with it myself , TBH. But, if I see a guy coming out of a brothel, I'm going to suspect he's just gotten laid. If I see a guy come out of a restaurant I'll suspect he's just had a feed. The grounds for suspicion to test for alocohol doesn't need to be strong, even in the States (here of course they don't legally need any grounds - which IS wrong).

kwaka_crasher

16th March 2010, 16:35

I'm not that flash with it myself , TBH. But, if I see a guy coming out of a brothel, I'm going to suspect he's just gotten laid. If I see a guy come out of a restaurant I'll suspect he's just had a feed. The grounds for suspicion to test for alocohol doesn't need to be strong, even in the States (here of course they don't legally need any grounds - which IS wrong).

I believe (if my many hours of watching COPS is to amount to anything other than just the complete waste of time I always suspected it was...) that in the USA they have to get an admission or perform an impariment test if you're suspected of being under the influence prior to being allowed to take an evidential sample.

Personally, I think the drink-driving factor is blown all out of proportion, just like speeding is, but the trouble is our culture here of binge drinking means without serious policing it will quickly escalate.

The reality is that it's plain old incompetence that kills the most people.

Ixion

16th March 2010, 16:41

I believe (if my many hours of watching COPS is to amount to anything other than just the complete waste of time I always suspected it was...) that in the USA they have to get an admission or perform an impariment test if you're suspected of being under the influence prior to being allowed to take an evidential sample.

Personally, I think the drink-driving factor is blown all out of proportion, just like speeding is, but the trouble is our culture here of binge drinking means without serious policing it will quickly escalate.

The reality is that it's plain old incompetence that kills the most people.

Pretty much the same here - they can't require an evidential test (I think - correction is welcome) , or a blood test, until you fail the 'name and address' thing - which is an impairment test. Or, fail one of the old 'blow in bag' things , if any are still in use, or the even older 'stand on your head repeating limricks' tests. (There are a few exceptions for special cases I think)
Agreed on incompetence being the bigger problem - but incompetent drivers are doubly so when drunk .

davereid

16th March 2010, 16:46

But, if I see a guy coming out of a brothel, I'm going to suspect he's just gotten laid. If I see a guy come out of a restaurant I'll suspect he's just had a feed.

Thats not evidence, its just correlation.

Leaving a pub correlates with the possibility of drinking. But it does not form evidence of drinking. And even if it did prove drinking, it does not establish reason to believe the breath alcohol limit has been exceeded.

There is a correlation between having a meal and going to a restaurant.
But lots of people have entirely legitimate reasons to be in a restaurant without eating.

There is a correlation between the time of day or night, and criminal offending.
But lots of people go out at night without offending.

There is a correlation between race, and criminal offending.
But not all maori are criminal.

Does correlation therefore mean if a maori is out at night that he can be regarded by police as having provided evidence he is a criminal ?

98tls

16th March 2010, 16:55

There is a correlation between race, and criminal offending.
But not all maori are criminal.

Does correlation therefore mean if a maori is out at night that he can be regarded by police as having provided evidence he is a criminal ?

Only if he was stupid enough to smile.

{.bLanK}G_o_D

16th March 2010, 16:58

There is a correlation between race, and criminal offending.
But not all maori are criminal.

Not "all" of them.

Ixion

16th March 2010, 16:59

Thats not evidence, its just correlation.

Leaving a pub correlates with the possibility of drinking. But it does not form evidence of drinking. And even if it did prove drinking, it does not establish reason to believe the breath alcohol limit has been exceeded.

No, of course not. But it's not being used as evidence. It' would be used (though as noted, not required in NZ) as a basisi of suspicion. Even the "name and address" test isn't evidential. But I think it is reasonable, if the cops see a person leaving a pub, to assume he's had a drink. That seems reasonable grounds to ask him to do the screening test. Then, only if THAT fails, do you get the evidential test.

Even before CBT , walking out of a pub and jumping in a car was likely to invite a "Good evening Sir. Have you had anything to drink tonight ?" from a cop who saw you. Followed by chalked lines and limericks etc.

There is a correlation between race, and criminal offending. But not all maori are criminal. Does correlation therefore mean if a maori is out at night that he can be regarded by police as having provided evidence he is a criminal ? Not a matter of evidence. But, if PC Plod gets a call on the radio "A big Maori bloke just robbed the bank and ran off down X street ". And PC Plod happens right then to spot a big Maori bloke running down X Street ? Being Maori and running down X Street isn't evidence of being a banK robber. But it does give justification for PC Plod to stop the Maori bloke and ask some questions. I'd be pretty pissed off if he *didn't*. Of course , the Maori bloke may be totally innocent, and was just running for his bus (and while PC Plod is questioning him the real bank robber strolls past on the other side of the road). But the correlation is reasonable grounds for suspicion IMHO.

red mermaid

16th March 2010, 17:05

98tls

16th March 2010, 17:09

:shit:Cant belive this has gone on so long really,whats the problem?they set up outside the gate,everybody was forewarned 5 tried there luck and failed,pretty logical that sooner or later it would happen,amazed it wasnt sooner.Theres plenty on here that rant on about drink driving but it seems have a problem with the cops doing something about it:zzzz:At times this place is far removed from a motorcycle forum and simply a place to bitch.

BiK3RChiK

16th March 2010, 17:14

For the avoidance of doubt, the facts are;
Police stop any vehicle randomly.
Police can require a breath screening test randomly.
A positive, failed, or refused test is grounds to require you to accompany for an evidential breath test.
A positive evidential breath is grounds to charge you with an offence, or you may request a blood test.

That is it in its simplest form and until you have spent a few years picking up the bits and pieces left after a drunk driver has done his bit I don't give tuppence h'penny for all this pie in the sky talk of rights and whether drink driving is really a problem.

It is, it kills and don't forget seriously injures people, and its about time a little more emphasis was put on responsibilities to society.

AMEN!!!

When I get stopped and breath tested, I applaud the Police for doing their job. Good on them!

When I see people loop around the back street of my place to avoid the checkpoint at the end of the street, but the Police see them and whip around and pull them up just outside my house, I laugh! Good on the Police for doing their job.

One only needs to be hit once by a drunk driver, and, if one survives and has to live with the pain of injuries sustained in the 'accident', I bet that person would not talk about people's rights associated with drinking and driving either! Go the Police!! I hope they get them all...

kwaka_crasher

16th March 2010, 17:17

Pretty much the same here - they can't require an evidential test (I think - correction is welcome) , or a blood test, until you fail the 'name and address' thing - which is an impairment test. Or, fail one of the old 'blow in bag' things , if any are still in use, or the even older 'stand on your head repeating limricks' tests. (There are a few exceptions for special cases I think)

They have the power to require you to undergo a breath screening test if you are operating a vehicle on a road. If you refuse they can require you to accompany them to a place for the purpose of an evidential breath and/or blood test. If you refuse to accompany you can be arrested. If you go but refuse the evidential test you can be arrested and charged with failing to supply the specimen for which the maximumn penalty is identical to failing the evidential.

I never give my name and address for the screening test. Unless I actually am Luke Skywalker of secret rebel base, Hoth and just don't realise.

Agreed on incompetence being the bigger problem - but incompetent drivers are doubly so when drunk .

So we're all agreed? Roadside death penalty for drivers who are drunk and are shit drivers even when they're not? :lol:

kwaka_crasher

16th March 2010, 17:21

One only needs to be hit once by a drunk driver, and, if one survives and has to live with the pain of injuries sustained in the 'accident', I bet that person would not talk about people's rights associated with drinking and driving either!

You're far more at risk of being hit by some fuckwit who doesn't know the GIVE WAY rule which in my experience seems to be almost half of all drivers. When are they going to do something about THAT? How about staking out carpark entrances? Or does getting hit by a drunk hurt more?

Ixion

16th March 2010, 17:21

...I don't give tuppence h'penny for all this pie in the sky talk of rights .

....

And the police wonder why the public don't respect them. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ? indeed . The public need a Sam Vimes I think.

kwaka_crasher

16th March 2010, 17:26

And the police wonder why the public don't respect them.

I'm sure they don't - they know full well.

BiK3RChiK

16th March 2010, 17:32

You're far more at risk of being hit by some fuckwit who doesn't know the GIVE WAY rule which in my experience seems to be almost half of all drivers. When are they going to do something about THAT? How about staking out carpark entrances? Or does getting hit by a drunk hurt more?

For me, being hit by a drunk driver hurt a whole lot! And still does....

I understand that they are looking at the give way rule, but surely, with experience, one should be able to 'read' drivers as to whether they are going to give way to you or not! Good luck trying to 'read' the driver coming towards you if he's drunk!!

And I'm sure that being hit in either situation is going to hurt. Albeit, one is usually slow speed and the other (as in my case), the speed is astronomical...

98tls

16th March 2010, 17:37

And the police wonder why the public don't respect them.. Is that 1 or 2 or are you speaking for the whole police force?

kwaka_crasher

16th March 2010, 17:47

For me, being hit by a drunk driver hurt a whole lot! And still does....

I understand that they are looking at the give way rule, but surely, with experience, one should be able to 'read' drivers as to whether they are going to give way to you or not! Good luck trying to 'read' the driver coming towards you if he's drunk!!

And I'm sure that being hit in either situation is going to hurt. Albeit, one is usually slow speed and the other (as in my case), the speed is astronomical...

I'm sorry but isolated anecdotal evidence does not modify my opinions. Or are you saying you're encountering drunk drivers in near misses on almost a daily basis?

Sure, you learn to pick the drivers ignorant of the GIVE WAY rule but you can also pick the impared ones, be it alcohol or just stupidity, to a similar degree. Often just seeing the vehicle is enough to raise suspicion and place me on alert - tissue box in the rear window, chandelier hanging from the rear vision mirror, stuffed toys on the dash etc. :msn-wink:

Ixion

16th March 2010, 17:47

Is that 1 or 2 or are you speaking for the whole police force?

Just echoing their own Spokesplod. And their Minister (and the Prime Minister)

98tls

16th March 2010, 18:02

Just echoing their own Spokesplod. And their Minister (and the Prime Minister)

Fair call,didnt hear of it.All things said n done i simply cant understand the whinging over the March Hare business to be honest,full marks to em for doing it and doing it right outside the gate i say.I was there myself and can say without any doubt that if the testing had been done on one of the 4 roads out of Waimate with nothing at the gate then they would have had more than 5 .I may well have been one of em,no idea but what i do know is there presence at the gate made me realistic.

BiK3RChiK

16th March 2010, 18:04

I'm sorry but isolated anecdotal evidence does not modify my opinions. Or are you saying you're encountering drunk drivers in near misses on almost a daily basis?

Sure, you learn to pick the drivers ignorant of the GIVE WAY rule but you can also pick the impared ones, be it alcohol or just stupidity, to a similar degree. Often just seeing the vehicle is enough to raise suspicion and place me on alert - tissue box in the rear window, chandelier hanging from the rear vision mirror, stuffed toys on the dash etc. :msn-wink:

You can be 'on alert' all you like, but IME, with a drunk driver who has lost control in the country on that bend up ahead and is sliding sideways down your lane.... well, being 'on alert' is going to do sweet fanny all! Cause y'see, this is not going well, you decide in all your awareness, I'll just go on the opposite side of the road to avoid him! But guess what? His car is losing speed as it slides (which you've failed to take into account in the rush of it all) and then all of a sudden it gains traction as he is wildly turning the steering wheel every which way, and then he crosses the centre line back into his lane only to collect you head-on at the centre line!

I think the scenario is a lot different to 'knowing' that fulla ain't gonna give way to me! I better haul up and let him through.... idiot that he is!

And No, I don't encounter drunks every day (or at least I hope not!) Just like I don't encounter people not giving way every day either. Actually, I think that's more of an effect of people's impatience and the 'need to be there now' mentality than anything else...

scumdog

16th March 2010, 18:14

I never give my name and address for the screening test.

Like the cops really care..

(Paranoid that they might remember it and wait for you on the way home??)

kwaka_crasher

16th March 2010, 18:23

And No, I don't encounter drunks every day (or at least I hope not!) Just like I don't encounter people not giving way every day either. Actually, I think that's more of an effect of people's impatience and the 'need to be there now' mentality than anything else...

All I'm saying is that it's a pretty isolated event compared to failing to GIVE WAY which has just as much potential to cause serious injury in that the mass of a motorvehicle and it's momentum doesn't care if the driver is drunk or just plain stupid.