Possibly random breath tests would work, but only if it was done in the right places at the right time. There is no evidence from speed checks and drink drive/ tax and insurance checkpoints that there is the desire in the guards to actually do this.Originally Posted by finlma
How many check point’s do you see at night coming out of country towns and villages now? Or around cities? They could catch far more under the current system, if they only showed the will. Changing the law will make fook all difference is there is still no check points.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
While Macy spoke a lot of sense about education earlier on I'm all for random breath testing as it's been shown to be one of the tools available in countries where international best practice holds sway ... i.e. 19-20 deaths per month per 4 million population as opposed to our 33 per month per 4 million population.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
I agree with that completely. There are places that are notorious for drink driving and accidents. Most of these are rural locations. If check-points were set up on a random basis in these areas word would spread pretty quick and I think drink driving numbers would be greatly reduced.
Are the random tests also going to cover drugs? Could this be used as a system of random drug testing through the back door?
Ehhhh? It'd only cover drivers - which means only people over the age of 17 (?) who both can drive and happen to be actively doing so at the time they are stopped. So hardly a process for introducing anything upon the general population really...
Drivers make up a fair chunk of the population though Steve. Probably a majority of the adult population.
The situation I'm wondering about is if someone were stopped and traces of an illegal drug were found in their system, could they be prosecuted? I presume traces of most substances could be detected even a few days after they've been taken. There is a limit for alcohol (80mg/l or something like that) which ensures that only people drunk at the time are arrested, trace ammounts of alcohol in your body are ignored. Is there a similar limit for cocaine or cannibas? Could someone who smoked or snorted something a few days ago be done for drugged driving?
(Disclaimer: IANAL) I doubt they could. The state would be obliged to prove in court that their driving was impared by it. Whether you could be done for taking drugs or not is another matter.
But even taking it to court could be enough to loose someone their job. With the proposed law as it currently seems to stand there will be at the very least one test case.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks