Wanker Cop

[250learna]

Was in wellington after the game on wednesday, being the sober driver I wasnt drinking much, but did have a few drinks :drinkup:
On the way to the car i saw a motorcycle cop pull up and just sit there doing nothing. I went up to him and asked if he could do a breath test so that i can be sure i am arite to drive home.
The claver idot said yes he has one but not for me to use

If you are on here and reading this I hope you feel special you brain dead moron :weird:
Up yours :motu:

[Biff]

That's a bit daft of him. Isn't accident/crime prevention better than cure/arrest?

I've apprached a cop with the same question before and he actually got on his radio to a colleague of his that had a kit. His colleague drove to where I was just to meet me and test me. I passed (2 glasses of wine). But he did warn about the fact that although I may be legally ok then 5-10 minutes later after my body absorbed more alchomohol I may not have been.

[vifferman]

.
The claver idot said yes he has one but not for me to use
Except perhaps after you've put the key in the ignition to drive away. Surprised he didn't do that - he must've been about to do summat else, like escort duty or summat.

[Eurodave]

This cop was probably waiting for some boy racer /easy meat /big$$$ fine prospect to drive by to bolster his social fund .Just remember its not at all about road safety but ALL about revenue raising

[chris]

So, you had been drinking and were also the designated driver, hmmmmm.

[MSTRS]

On the way to the car i saw a motorcycle cop pull up and just sit there doing nothing. I went up to him and asked if he could do a breath test so that i can be sure i am arite to drive home.
The claver idot said yes he has one but not for me to use

I
Offer to donate to the 'Christmas Fund' didya?

[Slingshot]

claver idot

Reading this I had to wonder what a claver idot was...so after consulting dictionary.com I've come to this conclusion:

Claver: talk socially without exchanging too much information; "the men were sitting in the cafe and shooting the breeze"

Idot: Acronym for Illinois Department of Transportation.


So I can only deduct that this officer was visiting from Illinois and therefore outside of his jurisdiction so all he could do is to talk to you socially without exchanging too much information.

:whistle:

[idb]

So, you had been drinking and were also the designated driver, hmmmmm.
AND he was under the limit.....don't forget that bit.

[Ixion]

Reading this I had to wonder what a claver idot was...so after consulting dictionary.com I've come to this conclusion:

Claver: talk socially without exchanging too much information; "the men were sitting in the cafe and shooting the breeze"

Idot: Acronym for Illinois Department of Transportation.


So I can only deduct that this officer was visiting from Illinois and therefore outside of his jurisdiction so all he could do is to talk to you socially without exchanging too much information.

:whistle:


You cleaver illiot

[idb]

You cleaver illiot
'illiot'
Could that mean 'stupid bastard'?

[Bren_chch]

Reading this I had to wonder what a claver idot was...so after consulting dictionary.com I've come to this conclusion:

Claver: talk socially without exchanging too much information; "the men were sitting in the cafe and shooting the breeze"

Idot: Acronym for Illinois Department of Transportation.


So I can only deduct that this officer was visiting from Illinois and therefore outside of his jurisdiction so all he could do is to talk to you socially without exchanging too much information.

:whistle:

hahaha good one!

[Sparky Bills]

Yeah, there are some asshole cops around welly at the moment.
The ones on bikes are the worst

[Lou Girardin]

That's a bit daft of him. Isn't accident/crime prevention better than cure/arrest?

I've apprached a cop with the same question before and he actually got on his radio to a colleague of his that had a kit. His colleague drove to where I was just to meet me and test me. I passed (2 glasses of wine). But he did warn about the fact that although I may be legally ok then 5-10 minutes later after my body absorbed more alchomohol I may not have been.

It works the other way round Biff, your body metabolises alcohol and reduces the level. The most dangerous time to have a breath test is up to 15 minutes after the last drink when there is still alcohol traces in your mouth.
Wellington has always had a higher proportion of wanker cops. It's closer to headquarters and propects for promotion, it was the same in the MOT.
In fact, some are still there.

[Biff]

It works the other way round Biff, your body metabolises alcohol and reduces the level. The most dangerous time to have a breath test is up to 15 minutes after the last drink when there is still alcohol traces in your mouth.
Wellington has always had a higher proportion of wanker cops. It's closer to headquarters and propects for promotion, it was the same in the MOT.
In fact, some are still there.

Ahhh - thanks Lou.

[spudchucka]

But he did warn about the fact that although I may be legally ok then 5-10 minutes later after my body absorbed more alchomohol I may not have been.
Thats why some cops don't like to test people wanting to know if they are alright to drive. If they have a crash and are found to have alcohol in their system then they start spouting that a cop said he was alright to drive, (who would be the wanker then?).

Bottom line is if you think you need to be tested before driving then you probably shouldn't drive at all.

[ManDownUnder]

You cleaver illiot

that's crever... "CREVER!"

irriiot!
"PIRROCK"

MDU

[Blackbird]

Yeah, there are some asshole cops around welly at the moment.
The ones on bikes are the worst


Not the one who helped me lane split and get through rush hour traffic from just south of Raumati South to get to the ferry on time - he was a great guy!

[marty]

Thats why some cops don't like to test people wanting to know if they are alright to drive. If they have a crash and are found to have alcohol in their system then they start spouting that a cop said he was alright to drive, (who would be the wanker then?).

Bottom line is if you think you need to be tested before driving then you probably shouldn't drive at all.

we used to put 1000 cars a day thru checkpoints, and we NEVER breath tested people who came up to us and said 'i've been drinking - can you see if i'm ok to drive?' if the person fails, should he then have his keys taken and be forbidden for 12 hours? if they pass - say a fail youth - and you say 'it's a fail youth' - they think 'i'm ok for another beer, THEN i'll drive', they get stopped, fail, and bleat all the way to court that they were breath tested and told they were ok to drive.
bottom line is. if you're the designated driver, and you've been drinking, then you obviously have zero respect for your mates, and you deserve to be told to fuck off and walk.

[Da Bird]

we used to put 1000 cars a day thru checkpoints, and we NEVER breath tested people who came up to us and said 'i've been drinking - can you see if i'm ok to drive?' if the person fails, should he then have his keys taken and be forbidden for 12 hours? if they pass - say a fail youth - and you say 'it's a fail youth' - they think 'i'm ok for another beer, THEN i'll drive', they get stopped, fail, and bleat all the way to court that they were breath tested and told they were ok to drive.
bottom line is. if you're the designated driver, and you've been drinking, then you obviously have zero respect for your mates, and you deserve to be told to fuck off and walk.

In our patch, we are now taking keys off anyone who "Fails Youth", even if they are an adult, precisely for the above reason... if we let them go, knowing they have alcohol in their system, then they crash and kill someone, someone will want to know why we let them go.

BC.

[chris]

AND he was under the limit.....don't forget that bit
Erm, how did he know that he was under the limit?


On the way to the car i saw a motorcycle cop pull up and just sit there doing nothing. I went up to him and asked if he could do a breath test so that i can be sure i am arite to drive home.
If the policeman had not been there, would you have just got in and driven anyway? Your statement seems to suggest that you would have done. You obviously not sure whether you were in a fit state to drive.

I am not getting on a moral high horse here, but I would not have got in the car with you.

[spudchucka]

In our patch, we are now taking keys off anyone who "Fails Youth", even if they are an adult, precisely for the above reason... if we let them go, knowing they have alcohol in their system, then they crash and kill someone, someone will want to know why we let them go.

BC.
And that would just be another scandal for Lou and Co to bleat about!

[WINJA]

In our patch, we are now taking keys off anyone who "Fails Youth", even if they are an adult, precisely for the above reason... if we let them go, knowing they have alcohol in their system, then they crash and kill someone, someone will want to know why we let them go.

BC.
HAVE TO AGREE

[scumdog]

AND he was under the limit.....don't forget that bit.

Must get one of those intuitive devices that tell me I'm under the limit- and by how much!! :weird:

[N4CR]

If I was designated driver/rider (I don't even have a cage liscence) I wouldn't drink full stop...

I think 250learna was trying to gauge how much he would have had to drink before he was over the limit, in order to keep it safe - might have been an 'out of interest' type idea.
I don't think he intended to drive drunk at all but was curious to see what sort of reading the amount he had consumed would give.

And I agree with bikey cop... best policy. If you guys let someone go who was under the limit but still a decent reading who crashes and it got into the media 'all hell breaks loose' and it's cop bashing time again.

[Biff]

Thanks to the cops here for explaining why they don't like to test people that ask. I guess it all makes sense when you put a funny hat/helmet on. :drinkup:

[Wolf]

In our patch, we are now taking keys off anyone who "Fails Youth", even if they are an adult, precisely for the above reason... if we let them go, knowing they have alcohol in their system, then they crash and kill someone, someone will want to know why we let them go.

BC.HAVE TO AGREE
That's going in my diary!

[WINJA]

That's going in my diary!
I DONT THINK ITS LEGALLY RIGHT I JUST THINK ITS MORALLY RIGHT , BUT ITS EASY FOR ME TO SAY AS I DRINK NO ALCOHOL AT ALL

[Sniper]

That's a bit daft of him. Isn't accident/crime prevention better than cure/arrest?

I've apprached a cop with the same question before and he actually got on his radio to a colleague of his that had a kit. His colleague drove to where I was just to meet me and test me. I passed (2 glasses of wine). But he did warn about the fact that although I may be legally ok then 5-10 minutes later after my body absorbed more alchomohol I may not have been.

Surprised he didnt stop you there and then. A welsh accent is hard to discern from a drunk slur. Hehe (PT)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Wolf]

Surprised he didnt stop you there and then. A welsh accent is hard to discern from a drunk slur. Hehe (PT)
I'll be watching this thread closely from now on - I see an ideal opportunity to learn some Welsh obscenities...

[Wolf]

I DONT THINK ITS LEGALLY RIGHT I JUST THINK ITS MORALLY RIGHT , BUT ITS EASY FOR ME TO SAY AS I DRINK NO ALCOHOL AT ALL
Seriously, good on ya. I'm in agreement, too.

I do drink, but not if I'm the group's DD and if I think there's a chance I'll be driving I'll have a couple of drinks early in the evening of a good long night out and stick with non-alcoholic drinks thereafter to give my body time to metabolise what little I've drunk.

I don't need alcohol to have a great night out - at some of the best parties I've attended the only "psychotropic" drugs to be had were caffeine and nicotine. We all had a great time and it cost sod all without the expense of alcohol - and the witty comments actually were witty; they didn't just seem to be witty because you were drunk enough to try to belch the National Anthem.

[250learna]

Erm, how did he know that he was under the limit?


If the policeman had not been there, would you have just got in and driven anyway? Your statement seems to suggest that you would have done. You obviously not sure whether you were in a fit state to drive.

I am not getting on a moral high horse here, but I would not have got in the car with you.

well actually i ended up going for a kabab and walk spending extra hour in town to make sure i was ok, (looking after 3 drunk girls in the process two of whom didnt understand why i kept telling them not to spark conversations with strange men and tell them how drunk they were)
But its great to see lots of people jumping to the worst conclusions were all :devil2: in your eyes... so go fuk yourselfs

On another note nice to see that some of you have seen the reason this is such a sad story. The cops prove to us yet againg that some of them have no interest in public safety, only in giving tickets
hope next time he is out at night refusing to do anything but sit on the bike for 30min looking at people go past, that someone who is drunk gives him a nudge when he is heading home on the motorway so that he can learn the true value of prevention and the true value an extra ticket to your name has when you are laying in a hospital bed. If you are after money and promotions and not public safety pick a career more carefuly for everyones sake.

[Beemer]

I'm sorry, but considering how much each breath testing device costs, why should the police PAY for you to check whether you are over the limit or not? If you were so worried, you shouldn't have been drinking in the first place, or you should have outlaid some of your own cash and bought one of the devices from the chemist if you wanted some idea of how much you could drink and still drive!

Can you imagine how many people would just wander up to a cop after a night out and say "can you tell me if I'm over the limit?" before driving home? The cop can't charge them with anything if they aren't driving, and what a huge waste of time that would be for them if the idiot failed - should they follow them and make sure they don't drive? Or let them go and pull them up a short distance down the road and book them for failing a breath test?

How the hell can giving breath tests to PEDESTRIANS (even if you were swinging keys in your hand it doesn't mean you're going to drive) improve public safety? The cop should have done you for wasting police time! (And no, ask anyone, I can loathe them as much as the next person!) I hope someone gives you a nudge one night on the way home - preferably in the gob. Sober driver my ass!

[Ixion]

Obvious answer. Cop says "Yeah sure, state your name and address'. Then regardless of the actual reading says "Yep, you're not safe to drive *Mr XX* ,you're forbidden to drive tonight, can I have your keys please and we'll organise a taxi". (And he knows your name and address now, so you can't get out of that. Tis an offense to drive after that.) And if challenged he can always say "Well, the gentleman was concerned about his sobriety. The fact that he had reason to be concerned was to my mind reason to forbid him to drive". heh.

[DingDong]

Well that cops an arse-ho, but dude... your tempting fate, before you did that you were just another face in the crowd :drinkup:
:whocares: what he thinks

[marty]

On another note nice to see that some of you have seen the reason this is such a sad story. The cops prove to us yet againg that some of them have no interest in public safety, only in giving tickets
hope next time he is out at night refusing to do anything but sit on the bike for 30min looking at people go past, that someone who is drunk gives him a nudge when he is heading home on the motorway so that he can learn the true value of prevention and the true value an extra ticket to your name has when you are laying in a hospital bed. If you are after money and promotions and not public safety pick a career more carefuly for everyones sake.

actually, the cops have no interest in talking to try hard pretend 'sober' drivers who think they can get away with 'a couple' of drinks, then rely on someone else to take responsibility for their inability to control their alcohol intake.

if you felt that you had to walk around for an hour and get a kebab before driving, then you were kidding yourself that you were sober enough to drive.

and you think that 100% of cops on the street haven't seen what drunk drivers/pedestrians can do to themselves and others? wake the fuck up from your sheltered little life.

[jaybee180]

well actually i ended up going for a kabab and walk spending extra hour in town to make sure i was ok, (looking after 3 drunk girls in the process two of whom didnt understand why i kept telling them not to spark conversations with strange men and tell them how drunk they were)
But its great to see lots of people jumping to the worst conclusions were all :devil2: in your eyes... so go fuk yourselfs

On another note nice to see that some of you have seen the reason this is such a sad story. The cops prove to us yet againg that some of them have no interest in public safety, only in giving tickets
hope next time he is out at night refusing to do anything but sit on the bike for 30min looking at people go past, that someone who is drunk gives him a nudge when he is heading home on the motorway so that he can learn the true value of prevention and the true value an extra ticket to your name has when you are laying in a hospital bed. If you are after money and promotions and not public safety pick a career more carefuly for everyones sake.

You're a fucking idiot with a bad attitude. Anyone who wishes a hospital visit on someone else is nothing but a waste of space. I wonder how you would feel if it was your son/daughter/mother/brother etc that you wiped off the road after having had "just a couple"!!! Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to blame other people for your own stupidity!

Sober driver - yeah right. If you weren't such a smacker it could almost be funny enough to be a Tui ad. I hope you're never the sober driver for me!

[StoneChucker]

Stink, I don't have anyone to be the sober driver for :no: My rule is one drink = no drive ... simple. However, take for example Jazbug5's leaving do, I had 5 beers and a shot between 7pm and 9pm. I stopped drinking at 9pm, and drove home at almost 1am. I was more than confident that I was legal, as well as fine to drive after 4 hours with no drinking. I'm also not skinny.

Honestly, I think that I would have tested under the limit even if I had driven home at 10pm. You'd be suprised at what you can drink and be legal in SOME situations. But, it's safer and more responsible to drive completely alcohol free. :niceone:

[Skyryder]

Got mixed feelings on this one. On one hand I see the role of the police as one of prevention as well as prosecution. If some dude for whatever reason asks for a breath test prior to lighting up the ignition is he not acting in a responsible manner in respect to the drink driving laws. And could it not be argued that a police officer by his refusal to administer the test has failed to act in a manner of the public good.

It seems to me that the refusal has more to do with the officers perception of 'what if' than actual public safety.
Now I am open to some enlightnement on this aspect of the thread.

But on the other hand, and it is a reasonable position, that if you think you need a breath test then better not drive. Now I have no problem with that as it sound common sense. But with alcohol common sense seems to evaporate with every slash.

At present police policy in respect to the drink driving laws is to 'remove' drunk or suspect drivers 'off' the road. I believe that in addition to that policy measures should be implemented so that drivers if they wish to be tested can do so. This could be carried out with a visible police presence at drinking establishments say on a random basis. I personaly believe that some good PR could be the outcome of such a policy and it would also give police observation of potential trouble.

Skyryder

[marty]

self testing instruments are avaiable on trademe for anyone who wants them. if someone asked a fireman if he should light a fire - it'll only be a small one - what do you think the response would be?

[StoneChucker]

self testing instruments are avaiable on trademe for anyone who wants them. if someone asked a fireman if he should light a fire - it'll only be a small one - what do you think the response would be?
Depends how drunk the fireman was when you asked him :niceone:

EDIT - You can also get them from New World, for like $7 each - disposable ones that is. (EDIT #2, breathtesting kits that is, not fireman;))

[250learna]

ok it seems to me that everyone here is assuming i was shit faced, i wasnt i was not drunk but i was afraid that i might be just over the limit, how does it go... bout an hour to precoess a standard drink on average?
In my case an hour certainly could have made a difference if i went home right away I dont know if i would have been just over or just under. After an hour i was 100% sure that i was under the limit, i would not have indangered other people to save myself some cab money, and thats not even considering the licence :weird:

[ZorsT]

When I first read the thread i thought exactly as you did - that cop is a wanker, and he wasn't doing his job.
Then I read why, and it makes sence.
It is also my policy that if i am drinking, i am not driving, and if my driver has been drinking (more than one beer/wine) I will be walking or taking a cab, simple.

[Slingshot]

The internet affords us the oppurtunity to to be high and mighty...doesn't it?

The reality is that after 6 beers, sometimes I feel fine to drive, but sometimes I don't. Would I be over the limit??? YES.

The question here doesn't appear to be about was he too drunk to get in a car and make it home without having an accident, it's about is he too drunk to not get a DIC conviction if he's caught.

In my view (not necessarily endorsed by KiwiBiker or the NZ government), sometimes you can be over the legal limit and still be safe to drive.

Me personaly, two beers is my limit for driving the car, one beer for the bike and that's at least over an hour an a half.

And I can't believe more people didn't find my previous post humorous. You bastards! (ps. thanks TonyB)

Can someone pass me another beer please (or a long island ice tea).

[spudchucka]

If some dude for whatever reason asks for a breath test prior to lighting up the ignition is he not acting in a responsible manner in respect to the drink driving laws.No! He is seeking clarification of how irresponsible he has been up until that point and whether that previous irresponsibilty is going to get him in the shit. Responsibility would be that as a "sober driver" he ensured that he remained sober by not drinking in the first place.


And could it not be argued that a police officer by his refusal to administer the test has failed to act in a manner of the public good. No! By testing a driver that may be on the cusp of being over the limit but still returns a negative result and therby endorsing that person as being OK to drive, the cop is working against the public good by allowing a potentially impaired driver onto the roads.


It seems to me that the refusal has more to do with the officers perception of 'what if' than actual public safety.
Now I am open to some enlightnement on this aspect of the thread.It has more to do with the officers experience with drunken f*&k-wits.


But on the other hand, and it is a reasonable position, that if you think you need a breath test then better not drive. Now I have no problem with that as it sound common sense. But with alcohol common sense seems to evaporate with every slash. Alcohol for many people is simply an instant arsehole in a can. Its like a magic potion that turns otherwise well meaning and sensible people into complete lack-wits. If you have been drinking then don't drive and don't ask a cop to test you unless you want to be offended like the idiot that started this thread.


At present police policy in respect to the drink driving laws is to 'remove' drunk or suspect drivers 'off' the road. I believe that in addition to that policy measures should be implemented so that drivers if they wish to be tested can do so.For the reasons previously stated, the answer is "bad idea". there are plenty of alcohol testing devices people can purchase if they think they want to push their boundries by consuming booze and then driving. It isn't and should not be the cops job to pretest drunks for their present driving ability.


This could be carried out with a visible police presence at drinking establishments say on a random basis. I personaly believe that some good PR could be the outcome of such a policy and it would also give police observation of potential trouble. Resources are already stretched beyond reasonable limits and you want cops to set up testing stations outside pubs. The problem with pubs and alcohol is that at 3:00am when the publicans have finished filling arsholes full of piss they then tip them all out onto the street all at once. This has a profound effect on people and often causes them to start fighting each other, randomly go about damaging other peoples property, fall unconscious into the middle of busy carriage ways, get into cars and do burn outs to impress all the drunk girlies and generally behave in a manner that is disorderly and against the public peace.

On any typical Thurday, Friday & Saturday night the last thing the police need to be doing is wasting resources by nurse maiding people who can't control their own drinking. Driving a motor vehicle and drinking alcohol is about taking personal responsibility for your actions. Police officers are not a replacement common sense gland for drunks. Anyone who drinks and drives is a fool.

[Aitch]

In our patch, we are now taking keys off anyone who "Fails Youth", even if they are an adult, precisely for the above reason... if we let them go, knowing they have alcohol in their system, then they crash and kill someone, someone will want to know why we let them go.

BC.

But I wouldd respectfully sugesst that they are misguided. What you are doing is penalising the driver when he or she has committed no offence. What next? Taking someone's keys if they happen to mention that they might have a beer or two later???

[Aitch]

But I wouldd respectfully sugesst that they are misguided. What you are doing is penalising the driver when he or she has committed no offence. What next? Taking someone's keys if they happen to mention that they might have a beer or two later???

I really should proof read my posts......spelling is awful!

[Velox]

I'm with you 250. Any vaguely controvertial post seems to open you up for major assassination on this site eh!

Fair enough that maybe the cop had reasons why he didn't want to test you but why not just let the you them, if he can see that you're genuinely being a "responsible citizen". Hmmm - good PR skills mate! I don't think there's anything "irresponsible" about not knowing if you're over the limit, since it's often not hugely consistent with your ability to drive safely, but you can still get had up for it so good on ya for asking!


On another note - I read earlier today what SparkyBills had written and thought it was strange cause I hardly ever see bike cops in Wgtn, and then tonight I popped into town and was heading back up Kent Tce (wondering why the boy racers beside me were being so sedate and weren't trying to take me on) only to find a bike cop waiting on the end of a laser up the end. I just shook my head to say not this time mate, and headed off for a beautiful midnight blat up Aro Valley. So yeah - it seems they are out there!

[Clockwork]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're under he limit.... you're under the limit. Those of you who want to set yourselves a lower limit, be my guest but please don't try imposing it on me! The natural extention to your argument would for those that don't feel comfortable driving at 100kph to insist everyone else must slow down also.




In our patch, we are now taking keys off anyone who "Fails Youth", even if they are an adult, precisely for the above reason... if we let them go, knowing they have alcohol in their system, then they crash and kill someone, someone will want to know why we let them go.

To my mind the above quote reveals a gross abuse of authority.

[Dafe]

Just one of many assholes you were unfortunate enough to come across.
A good cop knows his job involves public relations. As far as I'm concerned, this cop is as good as half a cop!
I work in a public support role and although I'm a technician first and foremost, I put every effort into going the extra mile when dealing with the Joe Bloggs public, there is alot to be said for professionalism.
I would have told the copper that his attitude and mannerism is exactly why members of public no longer go out of there way to aid an officer in need of help.

[spudchucka]

I would have told the copper that his attitude and mannerism is exactly why members of public no longer go out of there way to aid an officer in need of help.
Gee, I wonder what he might have said back to you?

[scumdog]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're under he limit.... you're under the limit. Those of you who want to set yourselves a lower limit, be my guest but please don't try imposing it on me! The natural extention to your argument would for those that don't feel comfortable driving at 100kph to insist everyone else must slow down also.
To my mind the above quote reveals a gross abuse of authority.

Be aware, if you are insured and should you crash and be required to be taken away for an evidential breath test at the Police station your insurance is likely to be void - regardless whose is at fault in the crash.

As far as the insurance companies go there is no limit, if you have been drinking enough to fail the 'bag' or the 'sniffer' you've also failed when it comes to making a claim.

Above is not 100% but pretty much so.

[scumdog]

Just one of many assholes you were unfortunate enough to come across.
A good cop knows his job involves public relations. As far as I'm concerned, this cop is as good as half a cop!
I work in a public support role and although I'm a technician first and foremost, I put every effort into going the extra mile when dealing with the Joe Bloggs public, there is alot to be said for professionalism.
I would have told the copper that his attitude and mannerism is exactly why members of public no longer go out of there way to aid an officer in need of help.

I would probably have said the same thing to 250 - maybe couched in a nicer way but the message would have been much the same.

Oooh! - and not helping one officer 'cos another got a bit snarky fair spikes with maturity, must remember the same thing next time I get bad service at BP/Maccas/Warehouse/Postshop et al. - run around and tell everybody "they're all wankers"

[Ixion]

I would probably have said the same thing to 250 - maybe couched in a nicer way but the message would have been much the same.


But is not that the whole point ? Mr 250Learner sought the assistance of teh police. The policeman said , more or less, "piss off".

That's not a good response to a member of the public making what seemed to them a reasonable request. And it's not even good policing.

You would have said the same but politely. That would have been good.

Reading the comments from the police members, I can see why the policeman didn't want to oblige. But his attitude ended up doing the police/public image yet more damge. He came across as arrogant and unhelpful

If he had replied "Sorry Sir, I understand what you asking , but it's Police policy not to do this , because [explanation]. And if you have the slightest doubt about your safety to drive, then don't do it. Can I help you arrange a taxi ?"

Result then ? Good public image, Mr 250Learner not pissed off, good policing (getting the message across) and even, maybe, making the roads safer.

There was a time when the police were always polite even under provocation. Now most are still (personally I have only once been treated rudely by a police officer, and he was a senior one, not "coal face"). But there do seem to be some who have a bad attitude.

[spudchucka]

But his attitude ended up doing the police/public image yet more damge. He came across as arrogant and unhelpfulHere's the original post:


Was in wellington after the game on wednesday, being the sober driver I wasnt drinking much, but did have a few drinks
On the way to the car i saw a motorcycle cop pull up and just sit there doing nothing. I went up to him and asked if he could do a breath test so that i can be sure i am arite to drive home.
The claver idot said yes he has one but not for me to use

If you are on here and reading this I hope you feel special you brain dead moron
Up yours 250 doesn't explain with very much detail the actual words spoken. He asked to be breath tested and was declined. I don't see how you can conclude from this post what the cops attitude was or whether he was arrogant. I think that there is a great deal of stereotyping and assuming going on here.


But there do seem to be some who have a bad attitude.


hope next time he is out at night refusing to do anything but sit on the bike for 30min looking at people go past, that someone who is drunk gives him a nudge when he is heading home on the motorway so that he can learn the true value of prevention and the true value an extra ticket to your name has when you are laying in a hospital bed.

I'm sorry, who was it that has the bad attitude?

[Clockwork]

Be aware, if you are insured and should you crash and be required to be taken away for an evidential breath test at the Police station your insurance is likely to be void - regardless whose is at fault in the crash.

As far as the insurance companies go there is no limit, if you have been drinking enough to fail the 'bag' or the 'sniffer' you've also failed when it comes to making a claim.

Above is not 100% but pretty much so.

I don't doubt you for a minute SD. I woud fully expect an insurance company to do whatever it could to slime out of meeting a claim.

[WINJA]

As far as the insurance companies go there is no limit, if you have been drinking enough to fail the 'bag' or the 'sniffer' you've also failed when it comes to making a claim.

Above is not 100% but pretty much so.
THATS CAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANYS OWN TESTING FOUND THAT ANY ALCOHOL E.G. ONE GALSS OF BEER HAS SOME EFFECT ON DRIVING ABILITY

[idb]

Erm, how did he know that he was under the limit?

Quite right...I opened my keyboard without........something.

However there appears to be a bit of high horse climbing on here, and it's an easy position to take - because it requires no thought or explanation.

I don't want to get into the debate of whether you should have any alcohol at all before driving or not - what I'm saying is that both sides of the argument are populated by folks who have little to back up their positions.
The 'anti' side are just as guilty of taking an unthinking stance as the 'I know how much I can drink and still drive OK' side.
Possibly, taking an uninformed position on the moral high ground is worse because it is the safest.

Now, before you launch into me, I am not advocating drink-driving, I am arguing for positions to be reasoned.

Pheww...see how this goes...

[Da Bird]

<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #f9fafd; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: #f9fafd; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: #f9fafd; PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: #f9fafd; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[img] /><o:p></o:p>



<o:p></o:p></FONT>

</P>

<FONT face=Arial><o:p></o:p></FONT></P>

<FONT face=Arial><o:p></o:p></FONT></P>

</P>

</P>

</P></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #f9fafd; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: #f9fafd; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: #f9fafd; PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: #f9fafd; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Arial>(1)An </FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#804000><FONT face=Arial>enf</FONT><FONT face=Arial>orcement officer</FONT></FONT> (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=50708881&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1998-110%2fs.2-ss.1-df.enforcement.officer&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_a1998-110/s.2-ss.1-df.enforcement.officer)</FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Arial> may exercise all or any of the powers conferred by subsection </FONT><FONT color=#003399><FONT face=Arial>(2)</FONT></FONT> (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=50708881&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1998-110%2fs.121-ss.2&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_a1998-110/s.121-ss.2)<FONT face=Arial> if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that—</FONT></FONT> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>

</P>

(i)<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 22.5pt; HEIGHT: 0.75pt" type="#_x0000_t75" alt=""><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/sdimages/tab.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\MARTYB~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\cli p_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>A person who is for the time being in charge of a motor vehicle (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=50708881&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1998-110%2fs.2-ss.1-df.motor.vehicle&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_a1998-110/s.2-ss.1-df.motor.vehicle) is, because of his or her physical or mental condition (however arising), incapable of having proper control of the vehicle; and</P>

</P>

(b)<v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 22.5pt; HEIGHT: 0.75pt" type="#_x0000_t75" alt=""><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/sdimages/tab.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\MARTYB~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\cli p_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>In all the circumstances, the direction or prohibition or action is necessary in the interests of that person or of any other person or of the public.</P>

</P>

</P>

(2)<v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 22.5pt; HEIGHT: 0.75pt" type="#_x0000_t75" alt=""><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/sdimages/tab.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\MARTYB~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\cli p_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>The enforcement officer may—</P>

</P>

(a)<v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 22.5pt; HEIGHT: 0.75pt" type="#_x0000_t75" alt=""><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/sdimages/tab.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\MARTYB~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\cli p_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>Forbid that person to drive (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=50708881&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1998-110%2fs.2-ss.1-df.driver&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_a1998-110/s.2-ss.1-df.driver) a motor vehicle for such period as the enforcement officer specifies:</P>

</P>

(c)<v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 22.5pt; HEIGHT: 0.75pt" type="#_x0000_t75" alt=""><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/sdimages/tab.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\MARTYB~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\cli p_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>Take possession of all ignition or other keys of the vehicle, and for that purpose require that person to deliver up immediately all such keys:</P>

</P>

I have slightly edited the above to remove the irrelevant parts.</P>

</P>

BC. </P>

[scumdog]

Quite right...I opened my keyboard without........something.

However there appears to be a bit of high horse climbing on here, and it's an easy position to take - because it requires no thought or explanation.

I don't want to get into the debate of whether you should have any alcohol at all before driving or not - what I'm saying is that both sides of the argument are populated by folks who have little to back up their positions.
The 'anti' side are just as guilty of taking an unthinking stance as the 'I know how much I can drink and still drive OK' side.
Possibly, taking an uninformed position on the moral high ground is worse because it is the safest.

Now, before you launch into me, I am not advocating drink-driving, I am arguing for positions to be reasoned.

Pheww...see how this goes...

Phew alright! Waxing philosphical here idb! a bit heavy going for this lad on a Sunday night.

[Clockwork]

I believe this is where the abuse is applied

".... if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that....."

The Government has set the limit and I don't think it's reasonable for the local (or national) Police to to second guess it. Otherwise we might as well just not bother with a Parliament.

[idb]

Phew alright! Waxing philosphical here idb! a bit heavy going for this lad on a Sunday night.
I've never waxed.......

[marty]

I believe this is where the abuse is applied

".... if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that....."

The Government has set the limit and I don't think it's reasonable for the local (or national) Police to to second guess it. Otherwise we might as well just not bother with a Parliament.

so what are the set limits for driving with cannabis/meth/opiates? what are the set limits for driving while otherwise mentally impaired?

[scumdog]

I believe this is where the abuse is applied

".... if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that....."

The Government has set the limit and I don't think it's reasonable for the local (or national) Police to to second guess it. Otherwise we might as well just not bother with a Parliament.

Harden up! I've used that "reasonable grounds" to remove keys/disable car when somebody has been in a real rage, drugged and/or emotionally "out of it", how do you set a limit on that???

Done it with drunk drivers that technically are legally below the breath-alcohol too.

Never had a complaint.

[spudchucka]

I don't want to get into the debate of whether you should have any alcohol at all before driving or not - what I'm saying is that both sides of the argument are populated by folks who have little to back up their positions.
The 'anti' side are just as guilty of taking an unthinking stance as the 'I know how much I can drink and still drive OK' side.
Possibly, taking an uninformed position on the moral high ground is worse because it is the safest.
So my experience as a front line cop dealing with drunks week in and week out means stuff all and I have little to back up my position????

[chris]

so go fuk yourselfs
Thanks, nice comment.
As I see it, you were a designated driver, you had been drinking and were prepared to drive whether the policeman had been there or not. In my opinion you were being irresponsible.

[Lou Girardin]

And that would just be another scandal for Lou and Co to bleat about!

No Spud, if some cop tried that on me we'd be meeting again in civil court.
There's no authority to take keys purely because someone has alcohol in their system. They must be impaired. Otherwise you'll be forbidding people who've just used their inhalers. Unless, of course, you are able to judge someone's driving ability in the few metres that you see them as they drive into the checkpoint.
Cops bending the law is one of the reasons your public approval is in freefall.

[Ixion]

No Spud, if some cop tried that on me we'd be meeting again in civil court.
There's no authority to take keys purely because someone has alcohol in their system. They must be impaired. Otherwise you'll be forbidding people who've just used their inhalers. Unless, of course, you are able to judge someone's driving ability in the few metres that you see them as they drive into the checkpoint.
Cops bending the law is one of the reasons your public approval is in freefall.

Well, personally I rather agree with you. But, I think the original comment (from Mr BykeyCop I think) was that they took keys only if the test was a "youth fail". Now it could be argued that the test shows a level of blood alcohol that Parliament has deemed has some capability to impair driving. If it did not there would be no justification for it being an offense in youths.

So a cop could argue that the "youth fail" in itself is evidence of some degree of impairment. Not enough for it to be an offence but enough to raise concerns about capability. And thus justify the seizure.

But, got to say, that if I was left stranded in some small town 300km from home,having committed no offence, I'd be thinking lawyers also. I suggest it's pretty dangerous territory for the police to be straying into. Need to remember that it is Parliament and Parliament ONLY that makes law. Not judges, not police. No matter how justified they may think they are in "extending" the law.

[Wolf]

I've never waxed.......
I seldom even shave if I can avoid it.

[idb]

So my experience as a front line cop dealing with drunks week in and week out means stuff all and I have little to back up my position????
I wondered who would take it personally.
I can't recall mentioning you or your occupation.

In fact I'd suggest that a front line cop or emergency worker would have more backing-up material for their opinion than most.

[Ixion]

I seldom even shave if I can avoid it.

Be a bit of a wste of time wouldn't it, if the old stories are to be believed ?

[WINJA]

MUST BE HARD TO BE A COP WEEDING OUT THE SHIT DRIVERS , SOME BITCH CUT ME OFF THIS MORNING ON MY WAY TO WORK I HAD TO SWERVE AND I DROPPED MY ELECTRIC SHAVER INTO MY CORNFLAKES WHICH SPLASHED MILK ALL OVER MY HERALD, FUCKEN MILK ALL OVER MY SPEEDO AND WINDSCREEN

[Bonez]

MUST BE HARD TO BE A COP WEEDING OUT THE SHIT DRIVERS , SOME BITCH CUT ME OFF THIS MORNING ON MY WAY TO WORK I HAD TO SWERVE AND I DROPPED MY ELECTRIC SHAVER INTO MY CORNFLAKES WHICH SPLASHED MILK ALL OVER MY HERALD, FUCKEN MILK ALL OVER MY SPEEDO AND WINDSCREENSo it's true-you do drive a Suzuki Swift :whistle:

[Clockwork]

I don't have a problem with the act/regulation being used for the matters you have cited. My concern is with Bykey Cop's admission that it was being used to "forbid" adult drivers who breach the youth limits for blood/alcohol, just because some individual (presumably with rank in the Police Force) has taken it upon him/herself to deem any driver within this situation, impared and presumably unsafe.

[Clockwork]

......
Done it with drunk drivers that technically are legally below the breath-alcohol too.

Never had a complaint.
With all due respect SD..... If you did it to me..... you'd get a complaint!!

Just because some people wont/can't stand up for their rights does not mean they should be forfeited.

[Lou Girardin]

Well, personally I rather agree with you. But, I think the original comment (from Mr BykeyCop I think) was that they took keys only if the test was a "youth fail". Now it could be argued that the test shows a level of blood alcohol that Parliament has deemed has some capability to impair driving. If it did not there would be no justification for it being an offense in youths.

So a cop could argue that the "youth fail" in itself is evidence of some degree of impairment. Not enough for it to be an offence but enough to raise concerns about capability. And thus justify the seizure.

But, got to say, that if I was left stranded in some small town 300km from home,having committed no offence, I'd be thinking lawyers also. I suggest it's pretty dangerous territory for the police to be straying into. Need to remember that it is Parliament and Parliament ONLY that makes law. Not judges, not police. No matter how justified they may think they are in "extending" the law.

No. Fail youth is simply a statutory level for under 20 year olds. It has no legal standing in ascertaining the fitness or otherwise of an over 20 yr old to drive.
In fact, it can be argued that the adult limit is not an indication of impairment.
The limit is the same for men and women, yet it has been shown that women have a lower tolerance for alcohol than men.

[spudchucka]

I can't recall mentioning you or your occupation.
Neither can I. You seemed to make a blanket referal to all members who have posted in the thread so I guess you are including me in that group too.

As for my occupation, I only mention that as I belive the experiences I have gained in that job mean that I have more than just a little to back up my position on this issue.

[spudchucka]

MUST BE HARD TO BE A COP WEEDING OUT THE SHIT DRIVERS , SOME BITCH CUT ME OFF THIS MORNING ON MY WAY TO WORK I HAD TO SWERVE AND I DROPPED MY ELECTRIC SHAVER INTO MY CORNFLAKES WHICH SPLASHED MILK ALL OVER MY HERALD, FUCKEN MILK ALL OVER MY SPEEDO AND WINDSCREEN
You were wearing Speedo's, shaving (what exactly) and spilling your milk all over the windscreen. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ixion]

MUST BE HARD TO BE A COP WEEDING OUT THE SHIT DRIVERS , SOME BITCH CUT ME OFF THIS MORNING ON MY WAY TO WORK I HAD TO SWERVE AND I DROPPED MY ELECTRIC SHAVER INTO MY CORNFLAKES WHICH SPLASHED MILK ALL OVER MY HERALD, FUCKEN MILK ALL OVER MY SPEEDO AND WINDSCREEN

I didn't know your bike had a windscreen ?

[spudchucka]

A fail youth result indicates that the alcohol level is over the youth limit (150) but under the adult limit (400).

Once upon a time I felt sorry for drivers that got done for just over the limit (400). But after doing my own random tests I have figured out that it takes quite a lot of piss to get a reading at that level. I've been what I would consider fairly well pissed, (to a level that there is no way I would consider driving), and still blown under the adult limit. I don't feel sorry for those people anymore because it is actually a fair quantity of booze.

Lou is right though, every one is differen't and the amount of booze it takes me to reach that level would probably kill my wife as she is about half my size. The actual amount of booze required to push a person over the adult limit is totally relevant to the individual. However the limit, once reached, has pretty similar effects of impairment on most people.

400 micrograms of booze per litre of breath or 80 milligrams of booze per 100 mls of blood, it all equals pissed in common language, the only variant is how much booze it takes YOU to get there.

[Ixion]

On reflection, I think the "confiscate keys if over youth limit" thing is reasonable.

Parliament has said that if you drive with more than 400 squigllies per cubic wossatwiddley , then you are so dangerous on the road that you should be severely punished.

But what of the person who has 390 ? They will not be punished, but if 400 is so dangerous as to merit a serious penalty, can we regard 390 as safe? Surely not, and in that case taking keys, getting taxi is reasonable and sensible.

But then, where do we draw a lower line ?

Since the only other definitive limit that Parliament has set is the lower 150 figure, it seems a reasonable rule of thumb to use that as the "OK, safe to proceed but take care "figure. Otherwise how are you going to pick a number ?

It would be better if Parliament regularised matters by setting a "Ordered off the road" limit, but until they do they 150 figure is as reasonable as any.

[WINJA]

You were wearing Speedo's, shaving (what exactly) and spilling your milk all over the windscreen. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
MY MORNINGS ARE ALWAYS HECTIC

[WINJA]

I didn't know your bike had a windscreen ?
COMPANY CAR MATE , VERY COOL NEVER NEEDS WASHING ,NEVER NEEDS WARMING UP AND CAN VALVE BOUNCE IN EVERY GEAR

[scumdog]

COMPANY CAR MATE , VERY COOL NEVER NEEDS WASHING ,NEVER NEEDS WARMING UP AND CAN VALVE BOUNCE IN EVERY GEAR

Sounds like MY company car!- you're not a cop are you? :rofl: :motu:

[scumdog]

With all due respect SD..... If you did it to me..... you'd get a complaint!!

Just because some people wont/can't stand up for their rights does not mean they should be forfeited.

Go for it sunshine, you blow 390 and you get a lift home - and we keep the keys. :bleh:

[250learna]

Here's the original post:

250 doesn't explain with very much detail the actual words spoken. He asked to be breath tested and was declined. I don't see how you can conclude from this post what the cops attitude was or whether he was arrogant. I think that there is a great deal of stereotyping and assuming going on here.





I'm sorry, who was it that has the bad attitude?

Well it is also obvious that you dont know me, i am NEVER rude without reason, and it takes a bit to get me there. I asked him nicely he didnt say sorry m8, he said I have one, but not for you in a very arrogant/rude tone. I am by no means one of them cop haters, im polite when i get pulled over regardles of the reason etc this guy was being a prick for no reason

next time ill write a book for you detailing the words and how they are spoken (inc body language) AND explaining all the emotions that go through my head as events take place, i mite even take some photos and video footage for you too buddy

[Clockwork]

Go for it sunshine, you blow 390 and you get a lift home - and we keep the keys. :bleh:

Ahhhh..... well if you're offering a lift home I might be more forgiving.

Seriously, I have no idea what it takes to breach the limit and the propaganda over the years hasn't helped. There was a time when the word was that 2 beers or wines in an hour would put you close. Funnily enough, when they were trying to lower the limit a couple of years ago the song getting sung was very different (more along Spud's observations). Now it seems to be going back the other way again.

I'm inclined to accept Spud's statement about how much it takes to be over the and on that basis would support a lowering of the limit but not if it carried the current limit's penalties.

[Lou Girardin]

On reflection, I think the "confiscate keys if over youth limit" thing is reasonable.

Since the only other definitive limit that Parliament has set is the lower 150 figure, it seems a reasonable rule of thumb to use that as the "OK, safe to proceed but take care "figure. Otherwise how are you going to pick a number ?

It would be better if Parliament regularised matters by setting a "Ordered off the road" limit, but until they do they 150 figure is as reasonable as any.

You contradict yourself.
Then advocate punishing people when they haven't committed an offence!
What next? Forbidding people to drive if they fail to give way? That's dangerous too and if they're allowed to drive on they may do it again.
Better still, how about 1 traffic offence and you may never drive again.

[spudchucka]

I am by no means one of them cop haters, im polite when i get pulled over regardles of the reason etc this guy was being a prick for no reason
Unless of course the outcome isn't as you wish it to be and then you hope that he gets knocked of his bike by a drunk and ends up in a hospital bed.

You're a dickhead mate if thats how you really think.

[spudchucka]

What next? Forbidding people to drive if they fail to give way?
Good thinking Lou, I'll e-mail your idea to Robby & George on your behalf.

[Ixion]

You contradict yourself.
Then advocate punishing people when they haven't committed an offence!
What next? Forbidding people to drive if they fail to give way? That's dangerous too and if they're allowed to drive on they may do it again.
Better still, how about 1 traffic offence and you may never drive again.

No, on reflection I changed my mind. And I do not advocate anything. I just say that I agree that the police position is reasonable. If 400 is dangerous enough to be charged, then 399 can't be completely safe. And Parliament has given police the right to forbid a driver to drive if they have reasonable grounds for thinking them impaired. 399 on the blowy machiney thing seems reasonable grounds. And as you go down the numbers, where do you draw the line and say its not reasonable grounds? I guess you could pick any number , but until Parliament sets a figure , the 150 number is as arguable as any.

If the forbidding to drive thing is punishing people (I am not sure that it is) then the complaint must lie to Parliament, who have given the police that power, not to the police for using it.

I guess if a cop detected that a driver was going through giveway signs because of some impairment (left his glasses at home? ) he might forbid him to drive in that case also. But going through a give way sign would not normally indicate impairment. Just stupidity or carelessness.

Won't say I'd be very happy if it happened to me, especially if it left me stuck in BumFuck, Nowhere. But I guess the answer is to do what I do if I'm going to be riding. Don't drink (I'm not a teetotaller, I just don't drink if I'm going to be on the bike)

[Lias]

Forbidding people to drive if they fail to give way?

Sounds good to me.. how many bikers are killed or injured because of ignorant cagers not giving way?

[Lou Girardin]

Good thinking Lou, I'll e-mail your idea to Robby & George on your behalf.

Put big kissy lip prints on it. Although Robbie will get jealous. :Police: :love:

[Wolf]

I've been what I would consider fairly well pissed, (to a level that there is no way I would consider driving), and still blown under the adult limit.
I agree on that. I find I can drink enough spirits to totally fail an Adult breath test and still feel lucid and capable of performing most functions - head and vision clear, capable of walking in a straight line etc (wouldn't drive/ride, tho' - the ability to navigate and react at approx 6-7kph does not mean I'm fit to navigate and react at 50-100kph) - and a glass of wine that would not put me over the limit can leave me giddy, light-headed and generally feeling "pissed". I don't feel up to walking, let alone driving, but I'd pass a breath test because my total intake of alcohol is below the "guidelines". No way I'd drive/ride even tho' I'd be "legally" allowed to according to the machine - at that point I'm having demonstrable difficulties at 6-7kph.

[Lou Girardin]

No, on reflection I changed my mind. And I do not advocate anything. I just say that I agree that the police position is reasonable. If 400 is dangerous enough to be charged, then 399 can't be completely safe. And Parliament has given police the right to forbid a driver to drive if they have reasonable grounds for thinking them impaired. 399 on the blowy machiney thing seems reasonable grounds. And as you go down the numbers, where do you draw the line and say its not reasonable grounds? I guess you could pick any number , but until Parliament sets a figure , the 150 number is as arguable as any.

If the forbidding to drive thing is punishing people (I am not sure that it is) then the complaint must lie to Parliament, who have given the police that power, not to the police for using it.

I guess if a cop detected that a driver was going through giveway signs because of some impairment (left his glasses at home? ) he might forbid him to drive in that case also. But going through a give way sign would not normally indicate impairment. Just stupidity or carelessness.

Won't say I'd be very happy if it happened to me, especially if it left me stuck in BumFuck, Nowhere. But I guess the answer is to do what I do if I'm going to be riding. Don't drink (I'm not a teetotaller, I just don't drink if I'm going to be on the bike)


I know what you're getting at, but the test is that the cop must believe on reasonable grounds that someone is impaired. Merely reading a breath test device won't cut it. There must be other elements, such as erratic driving or demeanour when stopped. I've forbidden drivers who were in an uncontrolled rage. But it was far more than being pissed off at getting a ticket.
And the law IS the law. You can't say something is illegal, but this is so close to illegal that we'll punish that too. Say, doing 99 in a 100 zone.

[Ixion]

I know what you're getting at, but the test is that the cop must believe on reasonable grounds that someone is impaired. Merely reading a breath test device won't cut it. There must be other elements, such as erratic driving or demeanour when stopped. I've forbidden drivers who were in an uncontrolled rage. But it was far more than being pissed off at getting a ticket.
And the law IS the law. You can't say something is illegal, but this is so close to illegal that we'll punish that too. Say, doing 99 in a 100 zone.

Ah, it's that dreaded D word again. Discretion. They're not alowed that any more.

[spudchucka]

Ah, it's that dreaded D word again. Discretion. They're not alowed that any more.
Bullshit I'm afraid!

[Lou Girardin]

Bullshit I'm afraid!

You could use your discretion and have an anger-free day.
Bikey cops post clearly inferred that they do not excercise discretion. Fail youth and you walk.

[WINJA]

Sounds like MY company car!- you're not a cop are you? :rofl: :motu:
OINK OINK , I DONT WANT TO SAY TO MUCH BUT ......

[Phurrball]

Once upon a time I felt sorry for drivers that got done for just over the limit (400). But after doing my own random tests I have figured out that it takes quite a lot of piss to get a reading at that level. I've been what I would consider fairly well pissed, (to a level that there is no way I would consider driving), and still blown under the adult limit. I don't feel sorry for those people anymore because it is actually a fair quantity of booze.

Interesting that you have conducted some tests Spud - I'm curious as to whether others in your line of work have done this also, or maybe an organised test on the job?

I'm not surprised that you reached the conclusion you have. I've had friends who took the Advanced Crim. paper at Otago and came to much the same conclusion - trot off to the cop shop, drink various alcoholic beverages whilst being tested from time to time and comparing the objective test result against the subjective perception of the drinker. Apparently most people feel quite inebriated by the time they reach the limit. Now that's what I call a field trip! [Although I once got paid to go with undergrad Micro students to Speight's brewery and drink beer...]

Scumdog's approach in offering a ride home to people blowing near the limit is sensible and pragmatic - if well executed [which I'm sure it is].

Taking the keys off any motorist who blows over 'youth fail' in an undiscriminating manner as alluded to by Bykeycop is asking for legal trouble as already suggested by others.

That said - having lived some distance from where I work and play for a year or so, my drinking has shrunk to almost nil, as I always drive home - a token beer with food at most. If you're a designated driver you shouldn't be in the position of feeling you need to be breath tested, although the results of that request beget interesting discussion here if nothing else...

[spudchucka]

You could use your discretion and have an anger-free day.
Bikey cops post clearly inferred that they do not excercise discretion. Fail youth and you walk.
Discretion doesn't come into it, thats just good old fashioned common sense at work.

[spudchucka]

OINK OINK , I DONT WANT TO SAY TO MUCH BUT ......
Hey, that explains the avatar!

[spudchucka]

Interesting that you have conducted some tests Spud - I'm curious as to whether others in your line of work have done this also, or maybe an organised test on the job? Well, strangely enough the police bar is never too far away from the intoxyliser machine so there is usually some form of "scientific" testing going on in the name of understanding where the drunks are coming from. Its professional development, honestly, it is, why else would I want to drink large volumes of beer and then blow into a machine?


Scumdog's approach in offering a ride home to people blowing near the limit is sensible and pragmatic - if well executed [which I'm sure it is].Every drunk I process gets a ride home. Often if you just boot them out the front door you end up locking them up for disorderly behaviour not too long afterwards. By the way, every person I process that fails the road side test but passes the evidential has been forbidden for 12 hours, had their keys taken and given a ride home. I've never had a complaint about this practice and in fact most people have thanked me.


If you're a designated driver you shouldn't be in the position of feeling you need to be breath testedA point lost on the originator of this thread, hopefully it is begining to sink in.


, although the results of that request beget interesting discussion here if nothing else...Opinions...... like arseholes.............

[250learna]

Unless of course the outcome isn't as you wish it to be and then you hope that he gets knocked of his bike by a drunk and ends up in a hospital bed.

You're a dickhead mate if thats how you really think.

yes, after he said "no", i gave him the finger and ran of like a little girl...idiot!!! :weird: Read what i said again i am polite regardless, its something more primitive individuals have a hard time doing!

and do you realy think i want someone to get hit by a drunk idiot because they are a fuckhead who had no friends so become a cop to get back at society? let me answer that one for you just so its clear and easy to understand! NO!!!

Note: i know you will probably say something about becoming a cop to get back at society being incorect?? right....lets get that post count up and argue over that one :yes: In reality you know what is ment by the statement so dont waste time (wimps who want power)

[spudchucka]

they are a fuckhead who had no friends so become a cop to get back at society?
You were able to figure all that out soley on the single, brief interaction you had with this man. I guess that makes you a special kind of idiot because you can know all about a person after they have spoken a whole five words to you.

[Lou Girardin]

You were able to figure all that out soley on the single, brief interaction you had with this man. I guess that makes you a special kind of idiot because you can know all about a person after they have spoken a whole five words to you.

Maybe his actions spoke louder than 5 words.

[250learna]

You were able to figure all that out soley on the single, brief interaction you had with this man. I guess that makes you a special kind of idiot because you can know all about a person after they have spoken a whole five words to you.

its a stereotype buddy (if someone has to tell you that than YOU my friend are the IDIOT), next time i will ask him for his details and find out how he got into the force, hopefuly he will be more intesested in giving me his details than giving me a breath test.

Im sick of people asking stupid questions that they already know the answer too just so you can prove to themselves that they are clever... but just in case you are a thick as you appear to be I will keep replying to your messages as i dont descriminate towards :weird:

[spudchucka]

Im sick of people asking stupid questions
Like, "Can you breath test me to see if I'm alright to drive"?

[250learna]

Like, "Can you breath test me to see if I'm alright to drive"?

yes exactly like that thank you

[scumdog]

yes exactly like that thank you

Yep, you're o.k. to drive AT THAT POINT IN TIME!! - two minutes later and 500+ metres down the road it might be a different story.