On my way into Chichester this morning I was lucky enought to be stopped at a police 'checkpoint'; they were looking for morning-after drink drivers. That was the only reason given for the stop - no pretence of any other reason, which surprised me as I didn't realise that random stops were allowed, not that it bothers me.
Now, they weren't stopping everyone, so I wonder what the trigger was? The car is taxed and insured as you'd expect. It's new enough (just) not to need an MOT, and I was obeying the speed limit (despite the tailgating VW behind ;-)). My headlights were on (and working) because of the gloom, though the car is, how can I put it, somewhat less than clean.
The officer was perfectly polite, just asking if I'd had anything to drink the night before. As it happend I had; a couple of glasses of wine at home, which I freely admitted. He didn't actually breathalyse (sp?) me, just said he couldn't smell any alcohol and waved me on my way. In all, probably less than 2 minutes of my time.
Was it a genuine 'random' stop, or did something trigger it I wonder. No skin off my nose, since I had nothing to hide, and I'm pleased that they were making the effort, but I wonder anyway - it's the first time it's happened to me!!
Peter
|
|
You're looking too deeply. In the absence of something that's blindingly obviously worthy of a check then stop loads of cars and you'll find something. What types of cars do criminals and boozers drive? Everything.
|
|
I have been stopped at a blatant booze check roadblock at 1am. I was ferrying a car full of drunks home from a party, The plod looked dissapointed when he realised that I was stone cold sober. :-)
|
Maybe you just look like a drink driver :).
I understood they are allowed to do random stoppages for any reason at all.
|
You were driving at the speed limit was the reason I suggest.
Most drunks appear to be aware their judgement is impaired and drive slowly..
(I was stopped at 11pm after driving 200 miles . Doing 25mph in a 30 limit. 1 pint lager 6 hours before and breathaliser read zero)
|
Hadn't thought of that!! As I say, I'm not bothered by it, but as it hasn't happened before I was intrigued more than anything.
Peter
|
May be they stop every 12th car?
May be they have a quota for every ethnic origin?
May be it was truly random?
|
|
And there was me chosing a grey car so they couldn't play snooker with me ;-)
|
|
Or even more mundane - Car Snooker, red, colour, red colour until they pot a black coloured one - another plus for beige !
|
quartz grey if you don't mind; beige indeed!!
Though in the right (or is that wrong...) light...
|
>>..which surprised me as I didn't realise that random stops were allowed, not that it bothers me...>>
You can be stopped at random at any time by a police patrol crew or police officer and it has always been the case to the best of my knowledge.
Last edited by: Stuartli on Thu 30 Dec 10 at 14:58
|
|
They do many random stops here in Sweden. Everyone gets pulled, and when it was my turn the copper said they had to do 3000 tests each month in the area (20,000 inhabitants). They will also turn up at a supermarket carpark and check everyone getting into or out of cars. Only yesterday I pulled in at a petrol station and there was a copper stood inside the door with his machine.
|
|
Police can indeed stop randomly, they can also set up "road safety" checkpoints without need for any scrambled egg authority......
|
|
I think I'm missing the "alcohol smell receptor", because I can't tell if someone's been drinking from their breath. I can, if very drunk, just about pick up the scent of Laphroaig on my own breath but it's not exactly a subtle smell in the first place.
|
They cant do random stops for the purpose of breathalysing drivers, and to admit that is all they are doing is stupidity.
There are numerous other things they could make up and can stop you for however.
|
|
The OP wasn't breathalysed as the Officer had no reasonable grounds to suspect - they can still top anything and if they form the suspicion thereafter (smelling drink etc) they can breath. People get confused between random breath testing and random stop/checks.
|
That was what I'd always thought, which was why I was surprised when he was upfront about it. As I've said, I'm not bothered by it, just interested in the approach. Hopefully they'll catch enough, and deter a few more, people to make it worthwhile.
Certainly plenty of W Sussex Polices' finest BMWs and Audis in attendance. Useful for confirming the current unmarked fleet if nothing else ;-)
Peter
|
where were they stopping drivers as ive never been stopped in chichester before.
in fact i must lead a quiet life because in 23yrs of driving ive never been pulled over before.
|
Well, I'd made it to 22 years until today! I was on my way to Chichester - the actual location was the A29 at Eastergate. They were in bus stops either side of the road near the Esso petrol station (which, incidentally is now charging 127p per lire for unleaded!!)
Peter
|
they can get a bit sneeky on the a29 as lots of curves for mobile cameras to hide from view.
ive never seen a random test before
i filled with deisel in that forecourt the other day at paid 132.. ouch
|
>>ive never seen a random test before>>
Most likely depends on individual forces, although I would have thought it a nationwide practice especially as the "success" rate must be high.
|
Merseyside and Lancashire police, whose boundaries are close to my home, have both carried out random stop checks in convenient lay-bys for many years at this time of year, both morning and evening. Long traffic queues regularly build up.
Any driver who tries to slip away by going back the way they came is pulled up very shortly afterwards.
|
Any uniformed police officer can stop any driver/rider of a m/v to see whether or not they have insurance or a driving licence.
When stopped, if they suspect alcohol they can then demand a breath test.
There's nothing to stop you doing the former with the sole intent of checking for the latter...and by being honest about it the public appreciate the honesty.
|
Having had my best friend killed many years ago by a drunk driver I suppose I emotionally come down slightly in favour of random checks. However, there is a small part of me which says that if a vehicle is being driven safely it is a bit of an imposition to stop it randomly.
I don't drink much myself these days, hardly ever in fact and even then only a couple at most in any one day. I still go out with, or indeed stay in with, people who do like drinking though. It is quite amazing sometimes to observe the transformation in them after a relatively small intake of alcohol although they would say they were fine. I can see why there has to be a law forbidding drink driving but as discussed elsewhere previously, I do feel the system of measuring that competence is still a bit crude. Not sure how else it could be done though.
Funny isn't it though how many people who would never think of stealing or violence or whatever still see drink driving as a bit of a lark and being caught as bad luck.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Thu 30 Dec 10 at 17:39
|
|
I certainly didn't have a problem with his approach - seemed fair enough to me. Would have been nice if he'd stopped the tailgating VW as well though!!
|
Quite right BUT going straight into the breathtest routine I think is stretching it.
I feel its a matter of mindset. If you perform random drink drive checkpoints then there is no statute which allows you to do so. However if you stop a vehicle under the pretext of checking documents, con and use etc then you should do so. If drink drive falls out of it all well and good.
Just my interpretation of the legislation.
|
They are not breathalysing randomly.
They are stopping randomly (acceptable).
They then test if suspicious (also acceptable).
If not suspicious they don't test.
Has been done for many years, sometimes they'd be checking tyres/tax/insurance etc. but always they'd have a breathalyser handy just in case...
Anyways the ANPR does the documents before you even get flagged down....
|
>>They are not breathalysing randomly.
>>They are stopping randomly (acceptable).
>>They then test if suspicious (also acceptable).
Taken together though, it's all rather slimy. The police really would like greater powers and to test randomly. The law prevents them. So, they invent another pretext for stopping you. It doesn't exactly build trust in the police from the community does it?
While I'm sure these random checks do go on at other times of the year, stepping them up at this time is surely targetting drink drivers, and effectively circumventing the restriction against random testing - mind set or no, they are targetting drink drivers.
Turning this question on its head, if you are pulled in, what's the legal minimum you need to do to comply? Do you even need to unlock your door? Open the window beyond that necessary to post out your ID? Do you even need to show ID? Do you even need to talk to them at all?
Incidentally, I don't drink drive, I don't condone it or support it in any way. While not being massively pro-police, I don't have any past grievance or axe to grind, BUT, I am worried about the way that we give powers to anyone as abuses follow powers as surely as night follows day - ask the naughty expense form filling MPs about that!
|
|
Sec 163 of the road traffic act - no reason or pretext required to stop a car whatsoever. It's a common misconception that any reason is needed.
|
>>It's a common misconception that any reason is needed. >>
Precisely. As I've already pointed out along with others.
|
>> BUT, I am worried about the way that we give powers to anyone as abuses
>> follow powers as surely as night follows day - ask the naughty expense form filling
>> MPs about that!
Somewhat sweeping statement that NC. Some do, most don't.
|
>>
>> Somewhat sweeping statement that NC. Some do, most don't.
>>
Not really Westpig.
What I wasn't saying was - give a power to a number of people and they will ALL abuse it.
What I was saying was - give a power to a number of people, and before long at least one of them WILL abuse it.
|
>>The police really would like greater powers and to test randomly.
No they don't, they don't need it.
>>The law prevents them. So, they invent another pretext for stopping you. It doesn't >>exactly build trust in the police from the community does it?
I don't see it the same way. There's a power to stop motor vehicles for documents. That power is a sweeping one and could cover every vehicle on the road. You use it sparingly (through necessity if nothing else) and on occasions use it at a time when other offences might be apparent e.g. drink driving, theft or whatever.
You stop for the more minor document stuff..then use your 'copper's snout' to see if anything else becomes apparent. If not..politely send them on their way as soon as possible.
I can't see why most folk wouldn't think that was taxpayer's money well spent..and would help to dyspel the myth that they're all in the nick swigging tea or queing in 'dunkin donuts'.
I'd agree there's a difference between one power and another and moving from one to the other without the pre-required angle covered e.g. searching a car for stolen items without any 'reasonable suspicion'....but the original 'stopping' allows you to move off first base, then if there's nothing more, move on..be polite etc...look for the next one and hopefully the one that is up to no good.
|
I'm playing devil's advocate here. My argument is that 163 gives PC in uniform (and others) power to stop and that's all. That's the physical act whether it be to regulate the flow of traffic or to undertake some other duty enacted by Statute. A driver does not even have to communicate with the stopping Officer at this point.
Other Statutes give powers to examine request documents etc etc. Communication is integral to this process.
Drink Drive legislation gives the power to request breathtest after collision, moving traffic offence or on suspicion of alcohol etc etc.
My argument is that there are no powers to conduct random breathtests.
So for a Supervisor to issue an order to conduct random drink drive checks is as I see it an abuse of authority, likewise the staff that conduct the check.
However if the check was categorised as a road safety con and use/lighting check and drink drive fell out of it - fine. BUT the primary rationale would have to be con and use/lights etc. with evidence to suggest that was its primary purpose - FPTs, VDRs, Verbal Warnings and so on.
Nothing else but a series of breathtests indicates 'random breathtests' or a very dry day, so to speak.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 31 Dec 10 at 23:24
|
Five times breathalysed that I can remember, since the sixties or early seventies though, and never quite done. Only because I was fundamentally sound though.
One New Year's Eve about thirty years ago I was stopped near midnight somewhere south of the river and well downstream, in what would later become Docklands. I can't remember why I was there or why I was stopped.
Two coppers younger than me drove up in a Minor 1000 noddy car and asked something. I said something in return. They left, aamiably. They were quite clearly drunker or more stoned than I was. I still treasure that memory.
Happy New Year to the old bill too!
|
>> Happy New Year to the old bill too!
>>
Seconded, and thanks for doing a job that most of us couldn't or wouldn't.
|
>> thanks for doing a job that most of us couldn't or wouldn't.
Yes. And quite often putting a decent civil face on it even under provocation.
|
|
well nobody likes penning AC ;-)
|
No they don't. Two of my good well-behaved granddaughters were kettled in Whitehall the other week. I wasn't talking about Met or other police policy decided from on high though, things like remote control command of fast-moving street situations, load of rubbish, often causes trouble. That's strategic stuff, decided on political or semi-political level, and I have a lot of criticisms of it.
No, what I meant was ordinary front-line or 'beat' coppers, about three times out of five in my experience, when you meet them in the course of their duties. The other two times you meet an inferior sort of chap or one who's having a bad day. Same with all human categories though.
|
>> No they don't. Two of my good well-behaved granddaughters were kettled in Whitehall the other
>> week. I wasn't talking about Met or other police policy decided from on high though,
>> things like remote control command of fast-moving street situations, load of rubbish, often causes trouble.
>> That's strategic stuff, decided on political or semi-political level, and I have a lot of
>> criticisms of it.
Nothing political about it. Kettling is a remarkably effective method of crowd control, even more so with limited enforcement resources. The crowd can be dispersed slowly and under control. It also has the benefit of being able to photograph those involved as they are allowed out of the "spout"
|
|
What's "kettling" please? Sorry, just a country boy now ! Never heard of it.
|
|
when you have a large, sometime unruly crowd, you confine them in a tight area (use the geography around you - like a square or river banks). You then allow one thin exit point so the crowd can only leave in a small stream. If you have the exit point right you can also direct them away from places you don't want them.
|
Oh OK thanks. It just sounded potentially violent. Like bottling but with boiling water as well ! I think I was kettled in Rome airport last month now I come to think of it.
:-)
|
I wouldn't contradict Zero's description of kettling, but he leaves out the flexibility of the system: the time sequence, direction of exit and other variables. He probably knows, and our serving officers certainly will, that like other crowd control tactics kettling can be used lightly or heavily, civilly or nastily.
When a tactic of that sort is approved for use, the approval comes formally from a political or semi-political level: the very top of the police and some Home Office or county representation.
So far kettling hasn't done much real harm, although it has made some relative innocents suffer a bit. But things like giving orders to street police squads at, say, Notting Hill Carnival or a big football match, from a command room miles away with a few CC screens for information, is moronic rubbish and often leads to trouble, seldom admitted as the cause though. Those sort of decisions should only be made on the spot by experienced officers who know the area and the type of event. The person in the control room should just relay information from other sources to any front-line officer who needs it.
I know this because I have several times witnessed the bad, ill-informed decisions and also the resulting trouble.
|
"Those sort of decisions should only be made on the spot by experienced officers who know the area and the type of event"
Just like they did at Hillsborough?
|
Of course.
Why should police 'crowd control' methods always succeed anyway? Nothing else works every time. Why should that?
I've seen the police wind up a peaceable multitude with fussy uncalled-for riot tactics, I've seen them overwhelmed by urban guerillas chucking bottles and bricks, I've seen them making all sorts of wrong and right decisions and applying them brilliantly and moronically.
I think what I think, on the basis of what I've seen and analysed. One thing any fule kno is that no system or method always works.
|
water cannon illegal in this country apparently
its one of the first things i would modify if i was running the country
get those anarchists covered in cold custard
that would mark them out next time they infiltrate peaceful demon strations
|
>> water cannon illegal in this country apparently
>>
Illegal maybe, but very effective against a bunch of drunks trying to harrass a navy fire crew on a winters night. Our traffic police escort didn't see a thing. :-)
Before the days of criminal's rights though.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 1 Jan 11 at 20:38
|
>> effective against a bunch of drunks trying to harrass a navy fire crew on a winters night
Put him in the scuppers and wet him all over
Put him in the scuppers and wet him all over
Put him in the scuppers and wet him all over
Earlie in the morning...
From the sailor's ditty 'What shall we do with a drunken sailor?'
|
The reason 'kettling' works and why water cannon isn't used is because it keeps all the oiks in one place. If you disperse them they'll go who knows where and cause damage and mayhem in other places and you lose control of them.
Most/many demos have the same old faces turn up. Rent-a-mob. Some are anti establishment types and the like and/or just like a good scrum...then the genuine demonstrators often get wrapped up in what the rent-a-mob demonstrators have started, because human beings are like sheep.
|
...Most/many demos have the same old faces turn up...
Same thing happens to a lesser extent at court cases, particularly ones where there's an anti-establishment or conspiracy theory theme.
Some groups are more specific.
There's a little squad who often appear when a copper is charged with filling in a suspect.
|
>> genuine demonstrators often get wrapped up in what the rent-a-mob demonstrators have started, because human beings are like sheep.
I don't take an encouraging line with any youngster of mine about demos, even demos I think have some real justification, for that very reason.
It isn't because they are like sheep though, even if a police officer might irritably think so. It's because they could be hurt by missiles or shoving - crowds have terrifying, dangerous power - and because they might be arrested and charged even if they are well behaved and peaceful (a collar is a collar and truth is the first casualty).
Peaceful demonstration only works if the demo is restricted to peaceful demonstrators. Otherwise it's just a distasteful, rubbishy clamour. But the young and earnest take ages to realise that.
|
>> a distasteful, rubbishy clamour.
It is anyway if there are a lot of men present, especially if they are the sort that don't mind repeating ghastly, dreary, workerist slogans at top volume over and over again.
I have just remembered something though from the early days of modern feminism. An early WLF demo that I went to watch, because people I knew were taking part, didn't sound thuggish and moronic. It sounded like playtime at a primary school: shouting women sound very like shouting nippers.
I mentioned this to the lady now my wife, who was I think among the demonstrators. She laughed guiltily. I hope she doesn't spot this.
|
On the original topic,
>> on suspicion of alcohol
I would say that on New Year's Day morning the police are perfectly justified in stopping everybody, as it seemed that getting blitzed last night was de riguer.
I drove to work at 4am this morning (not a drop last night, making up for it this evening though) and apart from taxis the only two cars I saw in 13 miles were a police car and the car it had pulled over. I'm glad the police are being active in making the roads a safer place for me to drive to work, and I'm sure my children are glad too.
Last edited by: Dave_TD {P} on Sat 1 Jan 11 at 20:53
|
Maybe social work wish to know your children are out at 4am on 1st january?
Unless they're 18+yrs old in which case, move along... nothing to see here ;-)
|
>> your children are out at 4am ?
No, they were at their mum's. Read it again:
>> I'm glad the police are being active in making the roads a safer place for me to drive to work, and I'm sure my children are glad too.
As in, my children are quite pleased the police are helping to ensure I get home to see them again.
|
>> Maybe you just look like a drink driver :).
>>
LOL, was it the open can of lager on the dash perhaps, or the bottle of whiskey in his hand.
|
Police checks for drink drivers - Woodster
