breath test

**ivor43** · 24-11-2009, 12:30

i think that maybe the origanal question may have been missunderstood by some. as has been pointed out by clive the policy at the moment is to request a breath test from all drivers involved in a R.T.A then it is quit likely that even a non drinker will be asked to provide a specimen.
as i understand the law you [U]can not[U] refuse a road side test for any reason. to do so will lead to your arrest.once at the police station then further enquiries will be made in regard to your reasons for refusal. in my opinion this does raise some questions regarding this policy, as i do not see the justification for requesting a specimen if there are no obvious indications that the person has been drinking.
i sympathise with the questioner as i am quite sure that he has no wish to be arrested for something he has no control over.

sid burns · 24-11-2009, 13:54

Now to complicate things even more!!! What everyone has been referring to in past post is Section 5 of the road traffic act (alcohol) which only refers to Motor vehicles or MV’s (i.e. cars / motor bikes); now let’s look at Section 4 of the road traffic act unfit through drink (alcohol) or drugs. This covers mechanically propelled vehicles or MPV’s (which includes cars / motor bikes but also includes tractors, dumper trucks etc etc!!

All MV’s are MPV’s but not all MPV’s are MV’S confused? you should be, it's been confusing coppers all over the country for years.

I’m stopped in my Massey Fergusson tractor for not having my little yellow light flashing on the roof of the tractor, indeed a moving traffic offence and I also stink of alcohol!) Because I’m driving a MPV and not a MV, the officer cannot breathalyse me, however the officer can arrest me for being unfit through drink or drugs, in this case drink.

Now back at the station a qualified officer or a Doctor can give evidence (impairment test) that in their opinion I’m unfit to drive due to alcohol or indeed drugs, (job done!!!)

The law DOES NOT now require a breath, blood or urine sample to be given, however if you want the case to be successful officers nearly every time get a breath, blood or urine sample for alcohol or blood or urine sample for drugs, this obviously helps the prosecution case.

At a road traffic collision (RTC) if the officer does not suspect alcohol or the driver has not committed a moving traffic offence then there is no need to require a breath sample, however officer's do ask as for some unknown reason it seems to be the norm.

Cheers

Sid

**Gwyn Nicholas** · 24-11-2009, 14:03

I feel a Blog coming on..............Scouse!

sid burns · 24-11-2009, 14:10

Read it again Gwyn

lol

rich · 24-11-2009, 14:12

I would just like to say thank you to all who have answered on here ..yes it was a tail light that was out and the treatment i got from the police officers involved was not very nice, it was NOT WREXHAM POLICE but a force north from here , as it was late when i was stopped they didnt want to know what was wrong and why i could not give a breath sample ,it took 4 hours for a dr to get there ,by the time i got back to my own car it had been damaged ??.i did get a phone call saying they would not be taking the matter further nice one c,c .. once more thanks

**Thom15** · 24-11-2009, 14:13

Originally Posted by Gwyn Nicholas

I feel a Blog coming on..............Scouse!

I too was expecting Scouse to hit us hard with a lengthy knowledgable write up and was surprised Sid beat him to it.
Scouse,.....you are slipping. Come on lad, fine pair of shoulders, show em off, show em off!

**Gwyn Nicholas** · 24-11-2009, 14:24

I'm actually interested in how you got the broken foot Sid... the version according to St Scouse!

**ivor43** · 24-11-2009, 14:42

i think that what rich went through is totaly unacceptable.why, if there was no evidence of drink was he put through this ordeal. he does'nt say if he was alone, but if he had passengers with him this this would make it even worse.
whilst i do not condone d/d i think that what happened here is wrong, not only is it upsetting for the person concerned it is a total waste of police time and resources also there is absolutely no need for officers to behave in the way described.
it might be of advantage, as suggested in an earlier post, that people with serious conditions that leave them unable to provide breath tests,should be provided with some form of identification to highlight their condition.this may not stop them being arrested but would at least explain to the arresting officer that the reason was genuine. it might indicate to the officer that the preson should be treated with some degree of consideration.