-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Railstaff and alcohol
- Thread starter DeeGee
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
scott118
Member
have you ever applied to join the railway or is it just an interest of yours? I can't help notice your post count, in such a short period of time...
It will presumably also apply to drivers from say, Holland, visiting the UK.
I'm waiting for the inevitable sadface in the wail when some 80 year old spinster who has a poppy seed roll for breakfast before driving to Matins on Sunday Morning is hauled up before the beak.....
After decades of having these tests, I do find it difficult to suppress feeling a little bit schadenfreudish at the rest of the public being subjected to them too though.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I doubt there will be random tests on drivers, as there aren't for alcohol now - there generally needs to be reasonable suspicion. That said, I can see them sitting at the exit of airport car parks when a flight from Amsterdam has just arrived...
Neil
plastictaffy
Member
You, my friend, are talking out of your 'arris.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No, I'm not. The Police are not allowed to randomly breath-test drivers - don't you think they would be sitting outside pubs testing everyone leaving the car park at 11:20pm if they were? This would certainly be an effective means of enforcement, as many drunk drivers start their drive from a pub, particularly one poorly served by public transport. I could give a number of suggestions of rural pubs where I would expect them to catch more than one person if they tried that - most likely not much over the limit, but likely over it.
They have to have reasonable suspicion to carry out a breath test (though they can stop you for any other reason, e.g. to ensure you are correctly licenced, during which they may gain reasonable suspicion). Though the test for reasonable suspicion is relatively weak.
There is a very strong argument that they should be able to do random tests or tests on everyone leaving a pub, however.
From the horse's mouth, as it were:
https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q723.htm
Neil
Last edited:
Jamesb1974
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 596
No, Neil Williams is correct on this point. There have to be grounds before a breath test can be requested. The police can't stop every car without cause, just to request a breath test. However if they're are grounds, then a breath test can be requested even if the original cause for stopping you wasn't linked to alcohol in the first place.
If the reason for stopping you meets one of those criteria, then a breath test can be requested. You can't be stopped for no reason and have a breath test demanded of you. If you're weaving over the centre line at 2am with no lights on and the front bumper hanging off, having just been seen leaving the carpark of the local boozer, then you'll tick all the boxes.
Mrs Smith the Vicars wife driving back from Tesco at 25mph and complying with the rules of the road, wouldn't. So, in essence there is no such thing as a 'random breath test' in this country. There have to be grounds to request the preliminary specimen in the first place, otherwise the whole thing becomes illegal.
Last edited:
Ah so the time I have been stopped on my way home from work with the-
"Nothing to worry about sir, just a routine vehicle check, have you been drinking".
Didn't happen! :roll:
Neil is talking out of his arse because the coppers can pull any vehicle they like 'for a routine vehicle check' and then ask the driver straight away if they have been drinking!
Oh on the above occasion he didn't check the vehicle either, although on a different occasion I made her carry out the vehicle check before I would answer any questions, if the cops want to waste my time I will waste theirs!
"Nothing to worry about sir, just a routine vehicle check, have you been drinking".
Didn't happen! :roll:
Neil is talking out of his arse because the coppers can pull any vehicle they like 'for a routine vehicle check' and then ask the driver straight away if they have been drinking!
Oh on the above occasion he didn't check the vehicle either, although on a different occasion I made her carry out the vehicle check before I would answer any questions, if the cops want to waste my time I will waste theirs!
Having been stopped once because apparently I broke late for a junction I was approaching and then having the conversation very quickly turn into a "have you had anything to drink today " kind of conversation im inclined to say that if the police want to pull you over and breath test you they could come up with something .This occurred at about midnight in December on my drive home from work so I wasnt at all surprised .
Personally I didn't care , I blew into the tube it came back clear and I was on my way within 5 minutes they didnt even mention the late braking again . I dont really see that there would be a problem if the police could just randomly stop people I certainly wouldnt care as I would never drive whilst under the influence of alcohol .
In your example of the old lady driving at 25mph as well I have heard of the police stopping people who are driving unusually slow and cautiously so she would probably get a pull as well
Jamesb1974
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 596
Well without knowing the outcome, its difficult to comment. Did he just ask you if you'd been drinking and when you said 'No', he left it at that? Or did he insist you took a breath test and provide you with a reason as to why?
I think Neil and I were both referring to the same thing when we said that they have to have grounds to ask you for a breath test. I'm sure that if you had asked why they wanted a breath test (if they took one instead of just asking the question?) and they couldn't give you a valid reason ("Er, well its like this Sir. I'm bored and fancied the look of you as a potential drink driver") then you'd have been quite within your rights to refuse. However, had they said "Well Sir, you were doing 34mph in a 30" or ________ (insert reason here), would have given them the grounds to ask for one. It doesn't mean it is a random test. It means they've found the grounds to ask you for a breath test in the first place. The wording of the legislation doesn't exactly help either, as it is weighted towards the person asking the question and is, shall we say open to interpretation.
"What moving traffice offence officer?"
"That one back there, doing 34 in a 30 Sir".
Had they waved you to the side of the road and said "Morning, lot of accidents on this road recently. We are asking everyone to blow into this", now that would constitute a random (and illegal breath test).
If she was in the outside lane of the M6, then yes!
Last edited:
I was breath tested . I wasn't bothered about getting into an argument with them and just wanted to get on my way home and I knew I had nothing to worry about with the result so just blew into the tube
Its happened to a few people I know as well . Doesn't really bother me Id rather they breath test as many people as possible personally .
Asking people to randomly blow into a tube wouldn't in itself be illegal as its a mere request . Just like they can ask to have a look round your house without a warrant or any suspicion , You are of course well within your rights to refuse and their action after that would decide any illegality
Jamesb1974
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 596
Quite (the voluntary bit).
It still remains a fact that they cannot do random breath tests. There has to be a reasonable suspicion that you have consumed alcohol and you are within your rights to refuse if you have a reasonable excuse that you haven't consumed any.
Personally, I don't have any time for drink drivers. But I also don't have time for people who don't know their job and what they can or can't ask an innocent motorist to do. Which brings me back to my original point. The cops can't do random (ie no suspicion or grounds) breath tests. Had I been to the pub as the designated driver and had a couple of pints of shandy and been stopped AND the cops had said "Well Sir, we have reasonable suspicion that you've been drinking as we've seen you leave that pub" then of course I'd blow. Had I been stopped when I knew that I hadn't had a drop for days AND the cops couldn't give me the grounds for why they wanted the test, It would be reasonable excuse time.
https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights/breath-tests
Last edited:
Interesting where this topic has gone to.
So, out of my curiosity, what happens to the big crackdown on drink driving that happens around christmas time or at random times of the year where just about everyone gets a pull if going down the road? They cant have grounds to suspect everyone can they?
Thats a Police state right there and I dont trust them nor what you find on an ask the policeman website. Bunch of liars and hypocrites
Alcohol has no place in the workplace on the railway if certain posters dont like that then tough, dont join the railway.
So, out of my curiosity, what happens to the big crackdown on drink driving that happens around christmas time or at random times of the year where just about everyone gets a pull if going down the road? They cant have grounds to suspect everyone can they?
Thats a Police state right there and I dont trust them nor what you find on an ask the policeman website. Bunch of liars and hypocrites
Alcohol has no place in the workplace on the railway if certain posters dont like that then tough, dont join the railway.
They are not supposed to pull you over without a reason either, doesn't stop them though, normally its the 'routine vehicle check' line, never have I been stopped for doing anything wrong*!
* this isn't to say I don't do things wrong, just that on every occasion I have been stopped (all 4 of them) it has always been the 'routine vehicle check' given as the reason for stopping me.
* this isn't to say I don't do things wrong, just that on every occasion I have been stopped (all 4 of them) it has always been the 'routine vehicle check' given as the reason for stopping me.
Exactly. They just do it because they can and thats wrong.
Ive been stopped once driving a car and 2 times riding a motorbike .
Of those the one in the car was the earlier mentioned incident . On one occasion I was stopped riding the bike because my L plate was half hanging off and not very clear which was a fair point and I re secured it with a cable tie . And the other occasion was a "routine check" by an officer on a bike himself apparently an initiative into safer biking to try and reduce fatalities where they checked my license and gave the bike a once over . Also did a PNC to check insurance , tax and MOT and that the bike was indeed mine .
Personally I wouldn't even bother getting into the reasonable excuse conversation with them . If they have decided they want to breath test you then they will breath test you or arrest you for refusing . Id do whatever they want and complain later on if I was bothered which I personally wouldn't be unless it happened everytime I went out in the car .
Last edited:
Smudge.Smith
Member
- Joined
- 18 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 14
And there is your reason ! "A routine vehicle check".
The police can stop you at any time when you are driving your car, and they can ask to see you driving licence, insurance details and/or MOT certificate. If you don't have them with you, you will be issued with a 'producer'.
They can also check your car for roadworthiness.
There are four 'reasons for a start.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
If there are no grounds to do a 'random' breath test, why is it legal to conduct these mysterious 'routine vehicle checks'?!
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
Under the oft-invoked "Ways And Means" act, 1899
I think the truth is that unless a policeman is very naive he can come up with a suitable reason for pulling over any particular car.
What the law against random testing does stop is fishing expeditions stopping every car coming out of a pub car park or a policeman hiding in your alleyway and breathalising you as soon as you get in the car because he has a grudge.
AIUI the Christmas purges where they occasionally set up checkpoints and breathtest everyone need some sort of special permission.
I think the most controvesy over drug driving will come over cannabis testing. Because the limit is zero tolerance and it can stay in your system for weeks (apparently long beyond when it will affect driving), and is taken by a lot of reasonably wealthy people who are likely to make a fuss, there is a lot of potential for dispute - especially if the driver had consumed it legally in another part of the EU. Sort of thing that might end up before the ECHR in a few years.
What the law against random testing does stop is fishing expeditions stopping every car coming out of a pub car park or a policeman hiding in your alleyway and breathalising you as soon as you get in the car because he has a grudge.
AIUI the Christmas purges where they occasionally set up checkpoints and breathtest everyone need some sort of special permission.
I think the most controvesy over drug driving will come over cannabis testing. Because the limit is zero tolerance and it can stay in your system for weeks (apparently long beyond when it will affect driving), and is taken by a lot of reasonably wealthy people who are likely to make a fuss, there is a lot of potential for dispute - especially if the driver had consumed it legally in another part of the EU. Sort of thing that might end up before the ECHR in a few years.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I half-wonder if this was deliberately thought through, and was seen as a means of discouraging consumption rather than a means of improving road safety alone.
Neil
Smudge.Smith
Member
- Joined
- 18 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 14
There us nothing mysterious about it. The Police have a responsibility (and a power in law) to protect the travelling public. That means they can pull your vehicle for a "routine check" to make sure that it is in a roadworthy condition without 'needing any suspicion' that it is not. Quite often there is something about the vehicle or the manner in which the vehicle is being driven that causes the 'pull' in the first place. For example : Driving too slowly for the speed limit and / or road conditions is usually indicative of a person being under the influence of alcohol whilst driving. Also 'routine stops' often lead to the detection of other offences...tools for miscreants "going equipped", drugs and paraphernalia for PWITS.
This method of Policing has been around since Robert Peel invented the 'modern' Police Force and it is known as Policing by consent which basically means the majority of the public are quite happy to put up with a small inconvenience whilst the Police go about their business of protecting life and property, preservation of the peace, and prevention and detection of criminal offences. For those who see it as a Nazi Police state, you are in a minority, but I'm sure that you will still continue to be harassed by the Police who pull you "for no reason at all" when they should be out catching "real criminals".
Whilst I would expect as a passenger on a train that the driver has ensured that he has performed pre-requisite inspection of the train to ensure that it is 'safe' to drive prior to taking it into service, unfortunately the same cannot be said of the motoring public who quite happily jump in their cars each and every day without any sort of vehicle safety check (it was OK yesterday so it must be OK today, right?) some of whom are pretty clueless as to whether their vehicle should even be on the road and not in a scrap yard.
Quite right , the number of cars you see with illegal and dangerously bald tyres or bulbs out tells me the only time some people get these things checked and changed is when they have an MOT and the "nasty man" at the test centre refuses to issue a certificate unless such things are put right .
Jamesb1974
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 596
The problem with your argument arises when the vehicle registered to 'Clip' at 'Clips' house gets seen doing handbrake turns on a side street at 3am and 'Clip' is in bed unaware that his back door and car are missing!
scott118
Member
Clip's had his back door smashed in? crikey...
Not to tempt you but many TOCs that have the blanket rule for all staff usually opt to DnA someone who works in a safety critical position.
Someone who works in the Marketing department, for example, is highly unlikely to be tested. Still possible, but highly unlikely.
Someone who works in the Marketing department, for example, is highly unlikely to be tested. Still possible, but highly unlikely.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
I've known a member of office staff (different TOC) get breathalyser the morning after the Xmas Party - bye bye...
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I assume staff are instructed not to consume alcohol at this party if working the next day? (It does seem common sense, but also would seem to make sense to point it out).
Certainly in most non-rail offices there will be plenty of people "worse for wear" the day after a Christmas party.
Neil
- Status