A little justice...

Interesting that in this story the implication is purely because the one party had been drinking that automatically puts him in a position whereby he was liable for/at fault in the accident. Utter coblers.

In fact in law the fact one party had been drinking makes no difference to liability - it's the actual details of the manouvre(s) of each vehicle that will determine liability.

Therefore if you are drunk and get hit in the arse - even if you are proven to be completely rat-arsed then you can still get full compensation from the other parties insurers.

In this story/event even if this guy had been prosecuted he'd still have got his money back as she hit him in the side. What's the fact he'd been drinking got to do with that?
 
Indeed, Police will only make statements if required by the insurance firms too. Also it is mandatory in some force areas for Police attending an RTC to take road side breath test(s).
 
Could it be that they saw the drinking was not relevant to the accident, decided that the chap had learnt his lesson from his reaction to testing positive?
They knew he had to take a full test and was borderline, did what they could, and then put him through the full test?

Sounds like they might have utilised some judgement, and hopefully taught the chap a lesson without totally nailing him to the cross...
 
skippi90 said:
Yes, it did [happen]. I'm not the type to make things up.
Click to expand...
(he so confidently says)...
skippi90 said:
I'm not sure on the details guys, but that is practically word-for-word the story I was told. :)
Click to expand...


skippi90 said:
You are allowed to be retested an hour after your arrest.
Click to expand...
Not 'allowed', but required. You cannot be prosecuted for drink-driving on the basis of mobile traffic-light breath tests. If you get a red on the traffic-light test, you are arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. You then are required to give two samples at the station - results from which can be used to prosecute you.


skippi90 said:
So, they arrest John and take him back to the station. Feed him and an hour later, retake the test as they can do.
Click to expand...
This is the bs part -they would not feed him and an hour later retest; they'd do the test almost immediately.

Malt_Vinegar said:
Could it be that they saw the drinking was not relevant to the accident, decided that the chap had learnt his lesson from his reaction to testing positive?
Click to expand...
No, the police have no discretion.
 
Last edited:
Why would a custody sergeant and two constables risk being put through professional standards for a drink driver? They wouldnt.

:/

My bet is - He registered under 40 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath on the evidential test. Therefore, CPS will not prosecute. Kick him out of custody with a slapped wrist. Gets home, tells friend how he convinced police he is cool yo and gets a free meal out of the state.
 
Malt_Vinegar said:
Could it be that they saw the drinking was not relevant to the accident, decided that the chap had learnt his lesson from his reaction to testing positive?
They knew he had to take a full test and was borderline, did what they could, and then put him through the full test?

Sounds like they might have utilised some judgement, and hopefully taught the chap a lesson without totally nailing him to the cross...
Click to expand...

No.
 
GingerNinja1989 said:
Righto, we're celebrating the fact that someone was drink-driving and got away with it? :confused:
Click to expand...

The fact that he had had a drink the night before and failed the test in the morning has got nothing to do with why the accident occured.

The point is that the woman chanced her arm thinking she would stiff the guys insurances for all manner of claim and use the drink driving as an excuse and she failed.

No he shouldn't have been driving but the attitude of the woman stinks.

I don't believe they fed him but I know for a fact that in some circumstances, the police will be lenient if you are borderline so will give you some time before they sit you down in front of the machine.
 
Last edited:
Hatter The Mad said:
Not 'allowed', but required. You cannot be prosecuted for drink-driving on the basis of mobile traffic-light breath tests. If you get a red on the traffic-light test, you are arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. You then are required to give two samples at the station - results from which can be used to prosecute you.
Click to expand...

FYI the law on this is changing in the near future, we now have mobile breath testing machines which are accurate enough to be used in court.
 
I smell BS. Her insurance company will go nuts if he actually failed the roadside test.

To be tested again an hour later is irrelevant. He was over the limit whilst in control of his car, therefore, he was drink driving.
 
Lucero said:
I smell BS. Her insurance company will go nuts if he actually failed the roadside test.

To be tested again an hour later is irrelevant. He was over the limit whilst in control of his car, therefore, he was drink driving.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure this is wrong ...
The first test is not evidencial.

They have to take you back to the station for an evidencial test on the big accurate machine.

People are "Arrested on suspicion of driving whilst incapacitated through drink or drugs" for the purposes of getting them to take an evidential test.


*edit* Looks like already covered above!
 
Last edited:
That's an interesting pub story, that is probably about 90% true. Your friend failed to tell you he probably got a telling off by the coppers when he passed the test down the station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom