Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Breathalyser
16 Answers
Just curious again - can you be breathalysed for drugs (ie being pulled over by the cops) - even prescription drugs. Thanks.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Connemmara. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There are two types of driving offences to do with drink and drugs.
The first (driving with alcohol above the prescribed limit, Section 5.1 (a) of the Road Traffic Act) relates purely to alcohol. This is where the “breathalyser” comes in. A version used at the roadside screens the driver and provides a “pass” or “fail” result. A second device used at the police station is more accurate and is used for evidential purposes. (Sometimes a blood or urine sample is used instead). If a driver provides a specimen which shows excess alcohol then an offence is committed. No test of “fitness” to drive is necessary.
The second offence is more subjective and is termed “driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs” (Section 4.1 of the RTA). For an offence under this section to be proved there must be evidence of “impairment“. All the relevant section of the law says is this:
“A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.”
There are no “prescribed levels” and no measurement of drugs or alcohol in the driver’s system is necessary. All that is needed is evidence of impairment and that this impairment is due to drink or drugs. (There is plenty of case law on what has been ruled to be impairment).
For this reason, at least for the time being, no measuring device (e.g. a breathalyser or similar) is used. Indeed it may be that a driver has consumed a quantity of drugs but that his driving is not impaired. But there is no equivalent to the “excess alcohol” law which relates to drugs so if his driving was not impaired he would have committed no offence.
The first (driving with alcohol above the prescribed limit, Section 5.1 (a) of the Road Traffic Act) relates purely to alcohol. This is where the “breathalyser” comes in. A version used at the roadside screens the driver and provides a “pass” or “fail” result. A second device used at the police station is more accurate and is used for evidential purposes. (Sometimes a blood or urine sample is used instead). If a driver provides a specimen which shows excess alcohol then an offence is committed. No test of “fitness” to drive is necessary.
The second offence is more subjective and is termed “driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs” (Section 4.1 of the RTA). For an offence under this section to be proved there must be evidence of “impairment“. All the relevant section of the law says is this:
“A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.”
There are no “prescribed levels” and no measurement of drugs or alcohol in the driver’s system is necessary. All that is needed is evidence of impairment and that this impairment is due to drink or drugs. (There is plenty of case law on what has been ruled to be impairment).
For this reason, at least for the time being, no measuring device (e.g. a breathalyser or similar) is used. Indeed it may be that a driver has consumed a quantity of drugs but that his driving is not impaired. But there is no equivalent to the “excess alcohol” law which relates to drugs so if his driving was not impaired he would have committed no offence.
A relevant link:
http://
http://
Not quite up and running yet, Chris:
http://
These things take time !!!
http://
These things take time !!!
I've been breathalysed twice. Once in Leeds when Mum and Dad were drinking champagne in the back seat after their anniversary party. I fully understood why I was stopped, and no I hadn't been drinking.
The second time was in London. Again I hadn't been drinking. When I asked why I was stopped he kicked my back lights in. Don't you just love the met.
The second time was in London. Again I hadn't been drinking. When I asked why I was stopped he kicked my back lights in. Don't you just love the met.
No, Eddie, the legislation i exactly as I quoted in may earlier post: "...unfit to drive through drink or drugs... "
Your point about being impaired as a result of taking legal or prescription drugs is interesting. But I believe the law is quite clear. If taking a quantity of cough medecine made you (say) drowsy and unable to react properly your driving would be impaired and it would be as a result of taking drugs (the cough jollop).
To secure a conviction under this section of the RTA the prosecution must prove:
To secure a conviction, the Crown must prove:
1.That a person was unfit to drive;
2.Through drugs; and
3.His driving was impaired.
Again, no mention of whether the drug is "legal" or not. Section 11 of the RTA provides interpretations for the earlier sections. It says:
"'drug' includes any intoxicant other than alcohol...
In the case of Armstrong v Clark it was held that "...a substance used as a medicine is a drug, something to cure, alleviate or assist an ailing body."
Therefore, Codeine, Asprin or Ibroprofen are classed as drugs and if their effects result in impaired driving an offence will be committed.
Your point about being impaired as a result of taking legal or prescription drugs is interesting. But I believe the law is quite clear. If taking a quantity of cough medecine made you (say) drowsy and unable to react properly your driving would be impaired and it would be as a result of taking drugs (the cough jollop).
To secure a conviction under this section of the RTA the prosecution must prove:
To secure a conviction, the Crown must prove:
1.That a person was unfit to drive;
2.Through drugs; and
3.His driving was impaired.
Again, no mention of whether the drug is "legal" or not. Section 11 of the RTA provides interpretations for the earlier sections. It says:
"'drug' includes any intoxicant other than alcohol...
In the case of Armstrong v Clark it was held that "...a substance used as a medicine is a drug, something to cure, alleviate or assist an ailing body."
Therefore, Codeine, Asprin or Ibroprofen are classed as drugs and if their effects result in impaired driving an offence will be committed.
1 to 16 of 16
