View Single Post
Old 11-03-2008, 16:22   #23
Derek
Inactive
 
Derek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Glasgow
Services: SkyHD and Broadband
Posts: 9,158
Derek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny stars
Derek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny starsDerek has a pair of shiny stars
Re: Defending the indefensible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNorm View Post
Are you suggesting the procedures for dealing with drunk drivers need to be changed? So let's do it! Tell us what needs to be done.
It's fairly simple. The legal limit is 35. If someone fails the roadside test they should be taken back to the Police Station, put on the intoximeter and then if they provide two samples and the lowest is over 35 they get charged.

Forget about whether the officers had hats on, if they used the exact wording when informing the driver he is under arrest etc. All that should be needed is a warning that a sample is needed, explain refusal is an offence and thats it.

If the driver was in the car and blew over 35 he should be getting used to taxis for 12 months, end of story.
Derek is offline   Reply With Quote