Safe Speed Forums

The two are very different.

The type of spirometer in normal use has a wide mouthpiece to prevent the use of the mouth and cheeks to produce a falsely high pressure but has little resistance to air flow.

Intoximeters have a relatively narrow mouth piece but a fairly high resistance to air flow.

Even a bad asthmatic can blow more than the 1.2 litres that a breath test needs through a spirometer, but would find a breath test impossible.



Using a below normal spirometer test as a defence is a fairly easy way to introduce the necessary reasonable doubt.

In my professional (day job ) opinion most of those defences would be easy to defeat if the CPS employed a medical expert. I have never known a case where that has happened.

...or not, depending on whether you actually have ANY respect for the law.

We regularly see reports in our local press ofdrivers caught driving while banned - hence not insured either.

I feel certain a lot more get away with it for longer when police numbers get cut - 70 officers likely to go in Cumbria - a small force to start with.
Maybe we should not have wasted all that time and money trying to amalgamate Cumbria with Lancashire!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

No I do not know of any, but I knew there was a dead zone for the reasons you mention. I thought (wrongly from your comment) that it extended further up, say 50.

Perhaps I should have said that offenders will be expected to walk for a year.



Thank heaven for ANPR and responsible neighbours.

Perhaps this is one instance where it would be a good idea to follow the US model and offer a cash reward for turning in a disqualified driver.

ANPR won't catch illegal drivers if the car itself is taxed, MOT'd, and insured.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Thats good news. I am not a "hang em and flog em" sentencer but it would make my blood boil if drink drivers were being cautioned.


The reasons for not prosecuting in the 35 to 40 microgram range can be found in Home Office Circular 46/1983 if you are interested.


Between 41 and 50 the police will offer the driver the chance of taking a blood or urine test. The decison as to which is down to the police.

If the driver agrees the result of that test will stand regardless of the intoximeter reading. If the driver refuses the alternative test then the intoximeter reading will stand.

The police have no say whatsoever in whether blood or urine is provided, that decision is made by the GP conducting the test.

The police favour blood, but if there is a genuine reason why blood cannot be taken then they will have to make do with urine.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

The VRM of a vehicle reported as being driven by a possibly drunk driver can be entered into the ANPR so that the officer will be alerted.

The CPS guide for prosecutors contains the following sentence :-

"he should tell the driver that in those circumstances he will be required to give a sample of blood or urine, but that the officer will decide which."

This statement appears twice.

original can be found at
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_c.html#08



There is provision for the doctor to refuse to take blood if there is sufficient medical reason not to do so. in which case urine may be taken. In the absence of a medical reason why blood should not be taken the doctor must abide by the decision of the officer.

While it is still accepted that there are still a small minority of the criminal element that are severely lacking in grey matter, your average illegal driver knows full well not to keep a car that he has already been pulled in.

Having said that, the average criminal also knows that the chances of actually encountering a police officer on his travels are remote to say the least as they have all been replaced by cameras.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Man gets drunk in pub.
Man leaves pub, gets in car, drives out of car park.
Customer in pub phones police reports VRM.
VRM is passed by radio to police car(s) in the area.
They enter VRM into ANPR to assist eyeball search for vehicle.


Questions - How does driver find out he has been reported?
How does driver change car at few minutes notice?

If you are going to try & pick holes in what I say, at least read what is written beforehand.

The FINAL decision as to whether the police get blood or urine is down to the GP.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Our local scroats usually drive cars registered, taxed and insured by the wife/girl friend, or other family member.
However the disgruntled next door neighbour is a valuable source of information by all accounts!

My wife used to work in a hotel where the Chef was driving illegally without having gained a license. The car WAS taxed and insured (20 years ago).
He got his ticket pulled presumably because he behaved like an absolute a*se to the other kitchen staff Gordon Ramsay style!

In the past, many rural areas had a relaxed attitude to drink driving - it was tolerated if nobody made waves. Now the "locals" are not that local, and there is no love lost between real locals and abrasive offcomers. I'm sure this must be a real source of good information over various wrongdoings!
Off comers who fit right in have no worries, while those who expect everyone to dance to their tune should watch their step more than anyone else.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Gixxer,

You posted this statement.



The first part of which is wrong.

The law is very clear that the officer conducting the breath test MUST make the decision whether to ask for blood or urine. If the driver refuses to give the specimen demanded he is guilty of refusal to supply even if he offers to provide the other type.

I see a few drivers each year who end up convicted of refusal to supply because they share your view. On a site like this one that prides itself on the accuracy of the information given, I felt it was important to put an end to that particular myth.



The second part of your statement has some truth.

The doctor can refuse to take blood if, and only if, in his or her professional opinion to do so is impossible or would cause serious harm.






I did read what you posted which is how I noticed the error.

I don't consider correcting a blatant error to be "picking holes".

My meaning was nothing whatsoever to do with medical ability.

If someone were of a less than honest bent, and was stopped when they considered themselves to possibly be over the limit, they might well be minded to put less effort than required into the breath tests, and cite genuine inability to blow any harder as the reason, in order to prevent an evidential breath test being obtained whilst they were under the influence.

If this person was then to be charged with failure to provide, they might be inclined to seek a doctor's help in getting them off the hook. They would be unlikely, in this situation, to put any more effort into blowing for the doctor's tests than they did for the police's, since getting cleared by the doc would harm their defence rather than make it.

I believe that, if you were to talk to the police, you would find plenty of cases where someone has tried to bugger them about, whinging that they just cannot find the puff to satisfy the machine, in an effort to get off. I would warrant that the proportion who try this is far higher than the proportion of the population genuinely unable to undertake the test due to medical reasons.

I do feel that, while the intoximeter is quicker and cheaper than other forms of measurement, all cases where someone professes to be unable to blow satisfactorily should be backed up with a prompt blood/urine test in the interests of justice.

The spirometry test you cite, fisherman, is the peak flow test, which does exactly what it says on the tin. A low peak flow does not necessarily preclude one from successfully completing an evidential breath test.

Out of interest, are you a stipe or lay mag?

Sorry, I misunderstood your meaning.


I agree with all that.

A bench would not accept a defendants word for it in court but would require the doctor to state that the level was below normal AND that the condition probably existed at the time of the breath test. That gives the doctor a way out if he feels that the OP did not perform to the best of his ability.

Such things are sorted out in court at trial and you are right, the proportion of cheats is way above the genuine. In spite of the driver only needing to introduce a reasonable doubt.


I have already posted that view myself.


Most doctors measure Forced Expiratory Volume (FEV) when they are asked to assess ability to provide a specimen of breath. But I have seen vital capacity, PEV, FEV1 and all sorts of figures quoted in these cases.

Technically I am neither because the terms you use are no longer in current use.

"Stipe" has been replaced with District Judge (Magistrates Courts).

The word "lay" has been dropped by order of the Lord Chancellor as he considers the regular training and repeated appraisals we all have to undergo are producing a professional level of performance.

I am a Magistrate.

I never disputed in my original post that the custody officer will make a decision as to whether he wants blood or urine.
I also stated that the police will always go for blood if they are going down that route.

What I said was "The GP has the FINAL decision as to what type of sample the custody officer gets and there is NOTHING the police can do about it".


It isn't myth at all, here is how the process works.....

John Doe fails the roadside test and is conveyed to the police station

John Doe is then asked a series of questions including whether he has eaten or drunk ANYTHING in the last 20 minutes.

If John Doe should happen to throw up at this point, he cannot be legally breathalysed for a further 20 minutes. If he should throw up again in (say) 15 minutes time, then the 20 minute countdown has to be restarted again.

Once John Doe finally gets in to the intoximeter, if the lower of his 2 blows is between 40 & 49, then he MUST be offered the chance of a providing a blood or urine sample.

The custody officer will decide what type of sample he wants, and this is invariably blood and John Doe has no say in the matter.

When the GP arrives, he will ask John Doe a series of medical questions.

If John Doe provides answers that lead the GP to believe that blood cannot be provided, then the GP will inform the custody officer that he (or she) will have to make do with a urine sample.

The custody officer has no power whatsoever to override the GP's decision


ERGO, the GP is the only person who has the final say.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

The law is clear that the officer conducting the test MUST decide whether to demand blood or urine. He cannot delegate that decision to another person.

Case law confirms that to the extent that a driver who refuses to provide the sample requested by the officer is guilty of fail to supply even if he is willing to provide the other type of sample.

If the officer demands a urine specimen, which happened here last week when the doctor was delayed by snow, that is what must be supplied. There is no argument allowed.

If the officer demands blood that is what must be supplied except in very restricted circumstances which are beyond the control of both the police and the medical profession.

I NEVER said that the officer would delegate the decision to another person, I said "The GP makes the FINAL decision as to what type of sample the officer gets, regardless of what the officer requests"


We are NOT arguing that point.


What do you think I have been saying above???????

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

This is what you have been saying above.



The facts are

if the officer demands a urine sample no one can change that.

if the officer demands a blood sample, the driver can't change that, senior officers can't change that, courts can't change that.


That is not what is generally understood by the phrase "no say whatsoever".

On the contrary the police clearly have a very major say.



If taken at face value your statement is open to misinterpretation.

The courts see too many drivers who believe that "The police have no say whatsoever in whether blood or urine is provided". As a direct consequence of that erroneous belief drivers have refused to provide the specimen demanded and been convicted even though they have offered the alternative.