I was in the local supermarket this morning queing behind a man who spent nearly £40 buying mainly alcohol and tobacco .
I know the assistant quite well and she said to me after he left that he stank of alcohol and when I stood where he had been at the counter I could smell it myself ....
As I left the shop I noticed him climbing into an SUV and driving off .... I debated with myself for a while but I took his number and reported it to the police when I got to work five minutes later .
Police said they would pass it to traffic to look out for him.
Am I an interfering busybody or responsible citizen ?
What would you have done?
|
|
Good on you and I would have done the same.
|
I like to think I would have done the same.
Some 8 or so years ago, I was walking along a reasonably busy street in Farnham in Surrey, and saw a couple of oiks doing drugs, in their reclining seats, just parked at the side of the road, snorting something or other. I'd left my mobile in the office and couldn't find a copper at the time, but that was one occasion when I would have certainly reported them - the thought of them driving off filled me with horror. In the end, it would have been a waste of time because it was 20 minutes before I got back to the office and no doubt by the time I'd phoned and plod had arrived, they'd have been gone.
You did the right thing, you could have saved a life.
Last edited by: Mike H on Wed 15 Dec 10 at 15:25
|
|
Responsible citizen in my book ?
|
I probably wouldn't have done the same, but the OP wasn't necessarily wrong. However it's clear that helicopter didn't like the cut of the guy's jib. Had he been well-groomed, driving a suave limo and spending a small fortune on vintage champagne, would the feeling have been the same all other things being equal?
I might have looked for signs other than a mere 'stink of alcohol' that the guy was a risk to others. How did he walk? How did he seem to drive? He might easily have been pretty well sober.
Some people have very sensitive noses. I haven't, and I've got a cold at the moment.
I think it would take more evidence than a pong to send me to the fuzz. But then I have a soft spot for louche miscreants.
|
You may have saved a life. Well done.
John
|
|
I would report it every time, he might take out one of my loved ones one day. I would expect he would have a mark against his registration number for future reference too, or hope he would.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 15 Dec 10 at 15:49
|
>> he might take out one of my loved ones one day.
So might anyone ON.
I have made the point before that we are at far greater risk from really bad drivers, who are legion, than from drunk ones who are relatively rare and quite often perfectly safe too.
|
>> >> he might take out one of my loved ones one day.
>>
>> So might anyone ON.
>>
>> I have made the point before that we are at far greater risk from really
>> bad drivers, who are legion, than from drunk ones who are relatively rare and quite
>> often perfectly safe too.
>>
I agree there are vast legion of poor drivers, but do not agree that a drunk driver is perfectly safe.
|
>> do not agree that a drunk driver is perfectly safe.
Not always, no. But some are.
|
>> >> do not agree that a drunk driver is perfectly safe.
>>
>>But some are.
>>
>>
I'd love to see what evidence you have for that, AC!
If they are really drunk then they are not safe.
|
I am not sure that looking like a chav and smelling of booze is yet a criminal offence.
However, if i had an idea that a guy was clearly unfit to drive, then yes I would have grassed him up.
It take more than buying fags and smelling of booze to convince me he is unfit to drive tho.
|
|
I was thinking something similar Zero. If he was staggering, slurring or incoherent I might well have reported him but if he was otherwise clearly in charge of himself I wouldn't especially feel it was my place to report him. I'm not big on booze to be honest. in fact I hardly drink and can't bear drunks but I think I'd want a lot more evidence than a lay-persons opinion of his breath before doing anything official. For the record, I speak as someone who lost my closest childhood and lifelong friend to a drunk driver so I am more than aware of the implications. Of course I wasn't there and the OP was so I can't say for sure what my opinion would have been in reality.
|
>> I'd love to see what evidence you have for that,
Seen them. Been driven by them. And by the other sort of course.
I don't advocate or favour drunken driving. But I don't see this sort of thing in black and white either. I don't find rigid attitudes on these matters admirable or reassuring as some evidently do.
|
|
But regardless of how well they drove, you can only test things when in an accident situation when their reactions would be a lot slower than if they had no booze inside them... and thats when they need the fast reaction time... Or are you telling us that they defy all research that has been done on the subject of alcohol/slower reaction times?
Last edited by: hobby on Wed 15 Dec 10 at 16:38
|
Fully approve of your actions.
Today I was in traffic with a chav driving a very recent X5. Thickset, shaven head, heavy gold jewellery etc etc. Smoking, talking into his mobile phone - no hint of a hands free - and accompanied by the usual downtrodden peroxide blonde in the passenger seat.
I was most surprised I could see in. Usually the side windows are very heavily tinted.
Just wanted a plod to be nearby, but of course not.
|
If he's sober, then plod will let him go on his way, nothing lost. If not, as has been pointed out, you might have prevented something awful from happening. Either way the right thing to do- good call.
Alex.
|
I followed a small van up the M62. he was in lane 1 and weaving about.
When I managed to overtake, he was swigging from a bottle, looked like Scotch.
I rang it in but I was taking the M61 so i didn't see him again.
If he was heading for Yorkshire then he would have driven past GMP's North Traffic Unit at Birch services...I hope they got jim.
In mitigation, it was Christmas week !
If I saw someone trying to get in a vehicle and keeping on falling out, I would have no hesitation in taking his keys...drunks are generally fairly easy to deal with. If they take a swing at you it usually misses by a couple of feet !
Ted
|
Well done, retpocileh. Good stuff.
Hope they nick the pillock and throw the book at him.
My brother-in-law was a regular drink driver, until recently when he ploughed in to a lady's car, damn near killing her. He's got off with a 4 month ban. But he says that he feels so much remorse now that he can't imagine getting in a car again, even when the ban's up.
Seriously naffed up his own life and nearly ended another. It's a sad situation, but I'm glad it's put a stop to his cretinous behaviour.
|
|
4 months? wasnt in the UK was it?
|
Now to make my position 100% clear in advance. I never, ever drink drive. Not even one drink. As stated above, drinking isn't my favourite pastime anyway.
However, as a discussion point I've often wondered if a highly experienced and normally safe driver who is marginally over the legal limit is any more of a danger on the road than a highly inexperienced ( eg newly qualified perhaps ) driver who is marginally under the legal limit?
I bet I know the answer but I also bet it's not convenient.
|
|
The abilities of someone's driving / blood alcohol limit is one of lifes variables. The current limit is arbitrary, but there has to be a legal limit somewhere, so that's what we all have to work within.
|
|
Oh granted of course. Just one of those things that bothers me ever so slightly. Of course there has to be a control. Not overly convinced we have the correct/most useful method of measurement yet. I am though, not qualified to offer an alternative.
|
|
Zero's point is well made.
|
>> Zero's point is well made.
Of course, agreed. Doesn't change the fact that the current measurement of capability / safety is flawed though does it? Same with speed limits v weather v traffic density v vehicle condition v driver ability etc. But that's another thread eh .....
:-)
|
|
In this 'scientific age', couldn't a driver-impairment-o-meter be devised for evidential testing, rather than simply measuring the amount of alcohol in a breath or blood sample?
|
>> In this 'scientific age', couldn't a driver-impairment-o-meter be devised for evidential testing, rather than simply measuring the amount of alcohol in a breath or blood sample?
Thirty-odd years ago I did one of these reaction time tests. It involved a screen and two pedals, you had to hold down the throttle pedal, release it and hit the brake when you saw a hazard. I'd never seen it before. IIRC there was another pedal that had to be held with the left foot to prevent cheating.
I recorded some ridiculous time like 0.02 sec. Physically impossible, despite my youth.
|
|
Drinking is a pastime of mine at weekends but I never ever drive on Sunday becasue I may still be the over the limit.
|
You can speed up your body's metabolism through regular heavy exercise. So alcohol remains in your system for a shorter time.
An unfortunate side effect is to apparently increase the speed with which alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream and affects you...
|
A HGV test examiner told me that one of the criteria for a pass was for him to be absolutely sure I was not going to kill someone.
I would apply the same to a drunk driver.
|
Well I've chewed this one over and in all honesty no, I wouldn't have done the same.
I would have needed to see some concrete evidence of him driving erratically out of the car park before I would do that.
The smell of alcohol ( and the purchase of cigarretes!) is not an indicator that he was over the limit or incapable of driving.
After all, he could have dropped a bottle of spirits which splashed all over his clothes and was just buying a replacement.
For eight years I've been in the position where everything I've done has been portrayed in the worst possible light to suit another persons goals. I can assure you it isn't a pleasant place to be, and has culminated in legal proceedings.
In view of that I wouldn't presume upon anyone else's actions if I wasn't sure.
Pat
|
Yet again we have people trotting out the ridiculous logic that, because some people may be much safer drivers than others, that it is somehow OK for them to diminish their abilities by being drunk.
It is something along the lines of Mr. A has a 1 in 1,000 chance of crashing on any given day, because he is an inexperienced driver, and Mr. B had a 1 in 100,000 chance of crashing, because he is a much more experienced driver.
Therefore, because we permit people on the roads with a 1 in 1,000 chance, Mr. B should be allowed to make himself 100 times more dangerous through drink.
Only fair isn't it?
|
|
If that's an attempt to twist my words or meaning SS then you have wholly misunderstood my point. I simply want to discuss the system of measurement and its accuracy. Nothing more. No hidden agenda. Please don't assume.
|
>>that it is somehow OK for them to diminish their abilities by being drunk.<<
The point needs making that their diminished abilities can sometimes be far superior to others who are stressed and angry all the time at other road users.
It's a direct comparison with the driver who thinks that they can drive badly at 25mph because they are not speeding and therefore are safe to drive without concentrating.
Pat
|
>> The point needs making that their diminished abilities can sometimes be far superior to others who are stressed and angry all the time at other road users.
Excellent Pat. Another point I have made in the past is that a mature person who has recently learned to drive and is still tense and nervous will greatly improve their driving by taking one large drink. That way they don't leap sky-high and swerve wildly like the Double-Take Brothers at the first sight of a potential hazard, but deal with it very slightly more slowly and a whole lot more rationally like you or me.
I seem to remember that that post, too, got some people frothing at the mouth. They can't help it poor dears. It's their hormones.
|
It's these young 'uns AC, they've been brainwashed to stick to the speed limit, smoking is evil, and alcohol is the work of the devil.:)
All pleasant pastimes providing they are done in moderation, but then again, we knew how to enjoy ourselves:)
Pat
|
...Another point I have made in the past is that a mature person who has recently learned to drive and is still tense and nervous will greatly improve their driving by taking one large drink...
Garbage.
If that was posted by a new member we'd all be shouting 'troll'.
In fact, this poster tries so hard to be 'left field', I'm starting to wonder.
All his experiences tell us is he's driven with a few drunks who have avoided a crash on that particular journey.
Big deal.
Ian Huntley wasn't a child killer for 28 years or whatever it was, and he's killed no children since.
There was plenty of evidence before the OP to indicate drink driving, so no reason not to report it.
Worst way for this guy if he's done nothing wrong is he gets a pull and passes the roadside test.
No one has anything to fear from the police in our country in this situation.
|
>> If that was posted by a new member we'd all be shouting 'troll'.
No you wouldn't iffy. Just some of you would.
|
Mind you some of the other potential driving skills assessment systems are just as likely to be flawed. Some years ago, just for fun, I tried the "hazard perception test" thing which today's learner drivers have to pass. It's an on screen test where you have to click a mouse when you see a hazard. I failed miserably despite 30 odd years of high mileage, real life, accident free motoring.
Apparently, according to a driving instructor friend of my wife, many experienced drivers fail it ( including police traffic drivers ) because they click too often and too early. In other words, they are naturally looking ahead and beyond the obvious.
Maybe we should just go back to "The Leith police dismisseth us" said three times quickly....
:-)
Edit - but then that would discriminate against denture wearers I suppose...
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Wed 15 Dec 10 at 19:15
|
...Maybe we should just go back to "The Leith police dismisseth us" said three times quickly...
I get the impression our cousins across pond still use that method, or ask you to walk in a straight line, in some states.
|
Once upon a time we were staying at the in-laws and went out that night to uncle & aunt who were well known for liking a tipple. It was anticipated that drink would be offered so MiL became the "designated driver". Not a drop touched her lips that night. When we left she stopped (I think, honestly can't remember) at the end of the drive which opened onto a main road, an A road I think. Fortunately at that late time there was no-one about. She shot forward, straight across the road, made no attempt to turn the wheel, hit the kerb, mounted the footpath and turned the wheel just in time to avoid demolishing the neighbour's wall. She failed to straighten up so ended up heading back whence she had come. By now there was traffic about but they were sensible enough to observe an accident waiting to happen and halted well clear. She crossed the centre line, went clear into the opposite lane before recollecting that the wheel in front of her has a useful purpose and turning it once again. Finally, on this oscillation, she collected it and straightened out. I was terrified. I am absolutely positive that, even in my slightly inebriated condition, my driving would have been a whole lot better, though there was no way I was going to drive.
So, sober drivers eh. They're a menace.
John
(of course it could have been the fumes affecting her....)
|
...So, sober drivers eh. They're a menace...
You'd not upset her, had you John?
From all this twisting and turning, it sounds to me she was trying to get your side of the car T-boned. :)
|
"You'd not upset her, had you John?"
Me? I was as good as gold. Mind, I was breathing.
John
|
...Mind, I was breathing...
With increasing irregularity, I imagine.
|
This thread has taken off since I first posted.
It is interesting to note that some have assumed that the driver was a chav but if I was trying to classify him I would not say he was a chav, he was dressed in working clothes but walked with a stick .......
...and the other thing was that chavs do not normally drive a 58 reg SUV, I think it was a Dodge ....It is an unusual motor and I did not recognise it at first
Anyway ....I heard nothing back from the police today .
|
Cavaliers and Roundheads. Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Humanists and fanatics.
It's not a question of being right or wrong. Anyone can be and often is one or other of those.
It's a question of how people see the world, how their minds work, what sort of reason they use and how they grade the different forms of reason.
|
If you step into the bounds of "how impaired is your driving" then we are into
"How good should eyesight be"? Are you tired or not, what's your reactions like, do you feel ill, and even, How old are you?
All variables. Variables can only be mitigated in two ways, ignore and accept them or arbitrarily legislate for them using some perceived norm as a pass fail level.
|
|
It's when all those variables come together the problems begin, reduce or eliminate one of them and chances of a problem are reduced.
|
I've driven a motor vehicle while 'under the influence' of intoxicating liquor, LSD, or Cannabis at one time or another.
I've never injured anyone while doing so, I might add (and never been caught)
Re: the OP - I don't do Supermarkets & don't carry a mobile phone but - if saw any person anywhere at any time about to drive a vehicle while 'clearly' unfit to do so due to drink or drugs, I'd grass em.
|
>> Cavaliers and Roundheads. Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Humanists and fanatics.
>>
>>>>
You have hit on the very impairment test we need AC.
The cop pulls you over, and invites you to add to the list:
Medes & Persians, Marks & Spencer, Fortnum and Mason's, Torvil & Dean, Ross & Cromarty, cock & bull, .......
Score more than 10 and you are fit to drive. Score less and you are over & out.
|
I would have done the same as retpocileh.
If he's given a tug and he's not over the limit, he's on his way with only a minor inconvenience. If he's over the limit, he deserves everything he gets.
|
>> What would you have done?
>>
Nothing - do you really think the police would have passed on your information to 'traffic'?
It's hard enough to get them to do anything when a crime has taken place let alone on suspicion of one.
|
"Nothing - do you really think the police would have passed on your information to
'traffic'?"
I agree. And the police would have no grounds for stopping him anyway.
|
>> I agree. And the police would have no grounds for stopping him anyway.
Not so.
|
And the police would have no grounds for stopping him anyway
Agree - I was wrong. They don't need a reason.
|
>> And the police would have no grounds for stopping him anyway
>>
>> Agree - I was wrong. They don't need a reason.
Isn't somebody reporting that they suspect him to be intoxicated reason enough?
|
Isn't somebody reporting that they suspect him to be intoxicated reason enough?
No, but its irrelevant. The police don't need a reason to stop a car.
|
>> Isn't somebody reporting that they suspect him to be intoxicated reason enough?
>>
>> No
Can I ask why?
|
Can I ask why?
Because there is no evidence that a crime has been committed or even grounds for a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
|
>> there is no evidence that a crime has been committed or even grounds for a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
Just some citizen having a comforting, time-wasting, utterly despicable faff you mean?
Quite. It doesn't take much experience to teach you that that is about the best you can expect from old bill, where your opinions are concerned.
He isn't always right of course. But one look at a site like this (just for example, just for example, don't wet your pants) shows that he isn't always wrong either.
Hee hee.
|
>> Can I ask why?
>>
>> Because there is no evidence that a crime has been committed or even grounds for
>> a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
Of course there is. He has seen someone who appears to be intoxicated getting into a car and driving off.
Not evidence of a crime, but surely grounds for suspicion.
Any different if he thought he had seen the guy with a gun concealed in his coat, or saw him trying to slip a bottle of scotch in there, for a five fingered discount?
|
>> I agree. And the police would have no grounds for stopping him anyway.
>>
It would take them about five seconds to think of something.
|
They can act perfectly lawfully under the "reasonable grounds to suspect" - anyway Police don't need a reason to stop a car on UK roads, the suspicion that a driver has been drinking can be formed at any time including when they actually speak to him after the stop. Loads of caselaw around what is now bulletproof legislation.
Edit: If the OP passed the registration mark of the car - and the Force in question use an integrated IT system (e.g. Niche RMS) the car details will automatically be added to what is known/held about that car and used as intel led information.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Thu 16 Dec 10 at 14:46
|
|
I don't think that it's a question of "should I have done it?". If you suspect that a driver has been drinking, more particularly if it is morning time, then you have a duty to report the matter.
|
Would you have done the same? - Redfire
