AnOther Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I didn't say they might not be open to dispute but in your first two examples if there were genuine elements of doubt raised they would be investigated and resolved before finding the individual guilty of the offence or not. It would still not get to court as at the end of the day there are still only the same two possibilities, you did it or you didn't.Your third would not wash as nicked or not it is always the drivers responsibility to ensure his or her vehicle is in a roadworthy before setting out on every journey, but also how could you possibly prove your claim. You might produce an invoice from the tyre depot from the day before and get the manager to swear a statement that he fitted new tyres to your car, even get the thief to confess, and whilst that might just persuade the police to let you off it still wouldn't alter the fact that you DID commit the offence of driving with a bald tyre.Another example: as unfair as it might seem if a bulb blew 5 minutes after setting out technically you could still be found guilty of driving with defective lights because you did it and you cannot possibly say you didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 How do you all feel about the French system where (please correct me if I am wrong) you only lose 6 points for the first offence (under a certain taux d'alcool) and carry on driving.Twelve points and a ban for a subsequent offence or higher alcohol reading.The possibility to drive to and from work whilst banned under certain circumstances.Some banned drivers having to take a series of blood tests to prove that they are of the sauce before getting their permis back.And not forgetting of course the voitures sans permis for all who do not have a license.It seems a pretty well thought out system to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote user="Chancer"]And not forgetting of course the voitures sans permis for all who do not have a license. It seems a pretty well thought out system to me[/quote]Mrs 'Q' had one of these, nothing to do with booze, drugs or illegal activity I might add. Anyway she sold it on Ebay, the chap she sold it too came all the way from Paris, 10 hours drive from us on the autoroutes in a normal car, must have taken a month to get back in her old car. Apparently he had spent one year in prison and lost his licence for two years for killing a cyclist in Paris with his car having been drunk.I personally know a chap in our village, he is a special needs teacher over in Narbonne. He has been 'done' three times since I have known him (that's nearly 10 years), I have physically removed his key's on one occasion as he could barely stand and would have driven had I not done so. Last time he was done after driving 4km to town on the wrong side of the road, the only reason he stopped was because he fell asleep at the wheel while the gendarmes were following him. His trick is to have his case heard in Narbonne in front of a particular 'judge' because both played for Narbonne Rugby team back in the late 80's. Last time he got his licence taken away for 6 months when in reality he should have had his licence taken away for life and imprisoned. It's got so bad that people he has known in the village for years will no longer talk to him. He is an alcoholic plain and simple, can do a litre bottle of Pastis at lunch and he is going to kill somebody one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 [quote user="AnOther"]I didn't say they might not be open to dispute but in your first two examples if there were genuine elements of doubt raised they would be investigated and resolved before finding the individual guilty of the offence or not. It would still not get to court as at the end of the day there are still only the same two possibilities, you did it or you didn't.[/quote]Would they ?, by the same people who are going to apply the summary justice of removing your driving licence. I would prefer to be found guilty / innocent in a proper court of law by a judge / jury rather than the automatic " you are guilty because we (the police ) say so" system which is being discussed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Seconded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 What I was implying is that you would still go to court to be found guilty or innocent but that in some cases such as with a breathalyzer you know straight away if the person in guilty or not at that time. But your right in one respect that its not really for the police to decide this, the removal of the licence would be a temporary thing and if the person is found innocent, highly unlikely in my opinion with the technology involved, his/her licence is returned. Taking that in to account and just to make people feel a bit better you could have a statute compensation amount of say £30k if found innocent. You could afford to do this because 99.9% of the time people would be found guilty. On the other hand if the police spotted somebody but were not in a position to stop them but went to their house, knocked on the door and the guy answered hold a glass of spirits in his hand the the prof is a bit ambiguos and he keeps his licence untill he goes to court. The difference is that in the first instance a calibrated and sealed machine is used and in the second its down to police observation and they could have got it wrong or worse attempt to lie.Here is an example of why I believe this should be done. Joe (or Jane) Bloggs goes out every Friday for a drink with their mates after which they drive home. One Friday they get stopped and tested and they are found to be drunk. It could be six weeks before going to court. They know they are guilty so the Friday before they go to court they go out again for a drink as normal but this time they drink even more because they think its the last time they will be able to 'party' on a Friday night with their mates. On the way home they loose control of their car and run over and kill a woman and two kids walking home from a friends house. Can you imagine the uproar this would cause, people would ask why were they allowed to carry on driving. Taking their licence when they were caught was not the police finding them guilty but a preventative measure prior to them going to court and had they done so the deaths of the mother and children could have been avoided. I have read stories over the years where something similar has happened, fortunately not a regular occurrence and with the current system there is nothing to stop something similar happening again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Driver Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 [quote user="powerdesal"][quote user="AnOther"] I didn't say they might not be open to dispute but in your first two examples if there were genuine elements of doubt raised they would be investigated and resolved before finding the individual guilty of the offence or not. It would still not get to court as at the end of the day there are still only the same two possibilities, you did it or you didn't.[/quote]Would they ?, by the same people who are going to apply the summary justice of removing your driving licence. I would prefer to be found guilty / innocent in a proper court of law by a judge / jury rather than the automatic " you are guilty because we (the police ) say so" system which is being discussed here.[/quote]SteveYou are not guilty because the police say so. All the police do is establish sufficient evidence (ie, through blood test results) in order to charge you with the offence and put you up for trial. It is the court who determines whether you are guilty or not based on that evidence - which, of course, you have the right to challenge.As regards removing your driving licence, the police can only issue a notice of retention of your licence valid for 72 hours whilst they notify the préfet or a judge. It is the préfet or judge who then temporarily suspends your licence pending trial.Temporary suspension of your licence is not 'summary justice', merely a preventative measure in case you are tempted to carry on driving whilst drunk. No different to being charged with murder and remanded in custody in case you are tempted to carry on killing people..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossy67 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Removing their licence doesn't remove their ability to drive though. These are people who either don't care about the illegality of their actions or are unable through the influence of drink to make the right decision.Zero tolerance would be impossible to enforce. I have a glass of wine with my dinner, how long until I am 100% clear, next day, two days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Well there are countries with zero tolerance, one many Brits will know and perhaps some have even holidayed there is Malta (Source AnOthers link). I take crossv67's point but then the simple answer is don't drink the day before if you know you need to drive or don't drive the day after you have had a drink and if you don't like that then tough. Another alternative is to set a level of 0.2% which deals with 'the morning after' in most cases as is practiced by Norway, Sweden and Poland and is a form of zero tolerance because it equates to half a glass of wine. Indeed some countries, including at least one of the aforementioned has a known practice of road blocks and testing every driver especially on a Monday which acts a deterrent. They also invest heavily in education on such matters, catch them young type attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossy67 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Personally I would like to see a combination of chemical testing and sobriety testing. Julie can drink a very small glass of wine or half a small bottle of beer and hardly stand straight (bless her lol) yet that wouldn't barely show on a breath test, I on the other hand can drink 1/2 a bottle of wine with little noticeable effect. We are within a stone and a half of each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 [quote user="crossy67"]Personally I would like to see a combination of chemical testing and sobriety testing.[/quote]We have some Americans staying and we were talking about this (as a result of this thread funny enough) and the chap said he passed the sobriety test quite easily when younger but that they have now all but disappeared over the last couple of years in the States, they now rely on just the breath test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 For me, the issue with saying zero alcohol is... how do I know when the alcohol has left my system? I can guess that if I have one pint of ordinary strength beer, it will have left my system by a week on Thursday, but what about 2 days time? what about tomorrow morning? what about 3 hours time...? until there is some way of me knowing when I am totally alcohol free there needs to be some tolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyh4 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 There is, but I would have to find out my alcohol dependency file out to find it. The numbers are perhaps surprising long and from memory it is something like 6 x 1/2 l German beer (think 5.5%) drunk at half hourly intervals over an evening will be competely excreted by 16:00hrs the following day - but don't quote me - as I say I would want to check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I've heard something similar, but it's not "officially" general knowledge.... because it's only a general rule and they don't really want to you relying on it. Ask a ploiceman to give the rule and they wont. (Or the wouldn't when I asked) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patf Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The rate of absorption of alcohol depends on several things - eg body weight, food in stomach? medication etc.I believe statins interfere with the the liver's metabolism of alcohol and many of us take those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now