Grumpy Dad:
I agree with random breath testing as long as there’s a cause of concern, but how do you police employees when they are down the road, being onsite is easy no test no keys scenario
How can you have random testing if you only do it when there is “cause for concern”? Either it is random or it is “for cause” - it can’t be both.
Grumpy Dad:
I’m going out on a limb here, but these alcolocks are they fail safe? Airline dusters are common in trucks couldn’t a driver release air slowly from one of these to fool the system ?
According to Alcolock, “The unit contains specific electronic counter measures to prevent circumvention by mechanical means and only accept human breath samples.”
Doesn’t stop the driver getting someone else to blow into the device though…
Roymondo:
Grumpy Dad:
I’m going out on a limb here, but these alcolocks are they fail safe? Airline dusters are common in trucks couldn’t a driver release air slowly from one of these to fool the system ?According to Alcolock, “The unit contains specific electronic counter measures to prevent circumvention by mechanical means and only accept human breath samples.”
Doesn’t stop the driver getting someone else to blow into the device though…
That was my original train of thought, but asking a passerby " could you just blow in this" could get you a good kicking or arrested 
Roymondo:
Grumpy Dad:
I agree with random breath testing as long as there’s a cause of concern, but how do you police employees when they are down the road, being onsite is easy no test no keys scenarioHow can you have random testing if you only do it when there is “cause for concern”? Either it is random or it is “for cause” - it can’t be both.
the railways methods of testing were as follows
random .a van would turn up at my signalbox along with my manager and another signalman caple of working the box i would be relieved of duty and sent accroos to the van wherer i would produse a urine sample for the medical practitioner present this would then be packeged and for sepatch in my presance with me counter signing all labelsss and pakaging results usualy took two to three days apparently names were picked by a computer algorythem that morning
promotion . would get three days notice to attend a medical facility and go through similar procedures to the above
saftey incident . eaither a van would be called to test everyone involved or we would be relieved of duty and taken to a medical facility for similar to the above
under the infuance whilst on duty . the manager concerned would call for a transport police officer to attend with an intoximeter and i would be required to take a breth test dependant on the reading from that action would be taken or not
in 28 years i had two random tests and three saftey tests plus several promotion tests all part of the job
i got pulled over in donegal last week by the garda and asked to blow into the bag…they didnt think i was drunk,it was just that his chips were scalding hot,and he was starving.
dieseldog999:
i got pulled over in donegal last week by the garda and asked to blow into the bag…they didnt think i was drunk,it was just that his chips were scalding hot,and he was starving.
The old ones are the best, but that one’s got ■■■■ cobwebs on it.
robroy:
dieseldog999:
i got pulled over in donegal last week by the garda and asked to blow into the bag…they didnt think i was drunk,it was just that his chips were scalding hot,and he was starving.
The old ones are the best, but that one’s got [zb] cobwebs on it.
[/quote
try these then…its tough in scotland,but at least the riskies do it in style.
[youtube.com/watch?v=b26Ll9q77Pw]
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b26Ll9q77Pw)
Latique:
Roymondo:
Grumpy Dad:
I agree with random breath testing as long as there’s a cause of concern, but how do you police employees when they are down the road, being onsite is easy no test no keys scenarioHow can you have random testing if you only do it when there is “cause for concern”? Either it is random or it is “for cause” - it can’t be both.
the railways methods of testing were as follows
random .a van would turn up at my signalbox along with my manager and another signalman caple of working the box i would be relieved of duty and sent accroos to the van wherer i would produse a urine sample for the medical practitioner present this would then be packeged and for sepatch in my presance with me counter signing all labelsss and pakaging results usualy took two to three days apparently names were picked by a computer algorythem that morning
promotion . would get three days notice to attend a medical facility and go through similar procedures to the abovesaftey incident . eaither a van would be called to test everyone involved or we would be relieved of duty and taken to a medical facility for similar to the above
under the infuance whilst on duty . the manager concerned would call for a transport police officer to attend with an intoximeter and i would be required to take a breth test dependant on the reading from that action would be taken or not
in 28 years i had two random tests and three saftey tests plus several promotion tests all part of the job
A cause of concern is management having been made aware of an incident involving a member of staff being under the influence.
This gives a company just cause to carry out random checks without prior notice to employees.
Grumpy Dad:
A cause of concern is management having been made aware of an incident involving a member of staff being under the influence.
This gives a company just cause to carry out random checks without prior notice to employees.
That is not random testing, unless you are going to invent your own meanings for established English words (which really wouldn’t surprise me at all on this particular forum). Random doesn’t mean “unannounced”.
bald bloke:
Look at Kirsty Gallagher she got done blowing 106 which is 3 times the limit the next day so she must have had a skinful the previous night.
There are worse things in life than a blow from Kirsty Gallagher.
robroy:
bald bloke:
Look at Kirsty Gallagher she got done blowing 106 .Will I be able to find that on xhamster by any chance??
[emoji38]
Beat you to it Dipper.
Noooooooo… massive missed opportunity for ■■■■■■■ whimsy.
On a topic related note, this evening I have 11 off and my little treat is one yes only one bottle of beer (San Miguel).
Usually I’ll just sip this chilled beverage openly but tonight I shut me curtains and just left a peekaboo portion open to look through.
Throw the keys away feed him bread an water numpty
I reckon it should also be an offence to carry any alcohol in the cab of any vehicle much like places in the USA.
Reef:
Socketset:
C + D licence holders caught over the limit should have jail time - no ifs or buts. Straight off the bat.And their licence revoked until they pass the test again.
I’d have gone more for…
20 to 35mg = Compulsory one day re-education course
35 to 70mg = Compulsory full week re-education course + 12 months ban + resit of tests (that’s all tests if you wish to regain commercial!)
70mg and above = Jail time, lifetime licence restricted (no retest option)of course I’ve listed breath limits but in reality they’d need to be tested and translated into the relevant blood test amounts for court purposes
So you are suggesting, a reduction to the limit.
Dipper_Dave:
robroy:
bald bloke:
Look at Kirsty Gallagher she got done blowing 106 .Will I be able to find that on xhamster by any chance??
[emoji38]
Beat you to it Dipper.Noooooooo… massive missed opportunity for ■■■■■■■ whimsy.
On a topic related note, this evening I have 11 off and my little treat is one yes only one bottle of beer (San Miguel).
Usually I’ll just sip this chilled beverage openly but tonight I shut me curtains and just left a peekaboo portion open to look through.
personally i think 1 can is more than ample for a quiet night alone… 
nick2008:
Throw the keys away feed him bread an water numpty
I reckon it should also be an offence to carry any alcohol in the cab of any vehicle much like places in the USA.
Why ? nothing wrong with having a couple of tinnies when you get parked up for the night
Bluey Circles:
nick2008:
Throw the keys away feed him bread an water numpty
I reckon it should also be an offence to carry any alcohol in the cab of any vehicle much like places in the USA.Why ? nothing wrong with having a couple of tinnies when you get parked up for the night
drunk in charge my man…just cos you dont get a dig when parked dont mean it would be legal in court…your in charge…keys in truck…if your sleeping in bed for your 11 and the diddycoys started robbing you or there was a fire next to you,then you have the means to drive away…just good luck plod dont take easy pickings.same as kipping in your campervan…grey area where the judge will decide after you get charged by some over zealous woodentop
Roymondo:
Grumpy Dad:
A cause of concern is management having been made aware of an incident involving a member of staff being under the influence.
This gives a company just cause to carry out random checks without prior notice to employees.That is not random testing, unless you are going to invent your own meanings for established English words (which really wouldn’t surprise me at all on this particular forum). Random doesn’t mean “unannounced”.
Some security huts clearly display that Random Searches are carried out it doesn’t state when or how often or to who, it states Random.
No random doesn’t mean unannounced it means random as in an employer has the right to carry out random checks without prior notice random meaning a pre agreed percentage of the workforce (10% 20% 50% ) without prior notice.
Telling the workforce before end of play that there will be an alcohol breath test the following day at 10 am defeats the objective, refusal to undertake a test can lead to disciplinary action .
If an employer had no cause for concern then he wouldn’t have to carry out checks to ensure his workforce were fully compliant with HSE.
discoman:
Reef:
Socketset:
C + D licence holders caught over the limit should have jail time - no ifs or buts. Straight off the bat.And their licence revoked until they pass the test again.
I’d have gone more for…
20 to 35mg = Compulsory one day re-education course
35 to 70mg = Compulsory full week re-education course + 12 months ban + resit of tests (that’s all tests if you wish to regain commercial!)
70mg and above = Jail time, lifetime licence restricted (no retest option)of course I’ve listed breath limits but in reality they’d need to be tested and translated into the relevant blood test amounts for court purposes
So you are suggesting, a reduction to the limit.
No, just for the Police to have the ability to send people on a free course perhaps deterring them from exceeding the limit at another time, I was just thinking re-educating before the horse has bolted so to speak. Maybe “compulsory” is a little harsh then, perhaps at a Police Officers discretion instead then, let the Officer evaluate whether it would be beneficial for the teenager who just got lucky by blowing just below 35 could do with a days reminder of the consequences, or he could just hope that next time the Officer meets the kid and his mates they are not wrapped around an Oak tree somewhere.
Grumpy Dad:
Roymondo:
Grumpy Dad:
A cause of concern is management having been made aware of an incident involving a member of staff being under the influence.
This gives a company just cause to carry out random checks without prior notice to employees.That is not random testing, unless you are going to invent your own meanings for established English words (which really wouldn’t surprise me at all on this particular forum). Random doesn’t mean “unannounced”.
Some security huts clearly display that Random Searches are carried out it doesn’t state when or how often or to who, it states Random.
No random doesn’t mean unannounced it means random as in an employer has the right to carry out random checks without prior notice random meaning a pre agreed percentage of the workforce (10% 20% 50% ) without prior notice.
Telling the workforce before end of play that there will be an alcohol breath test the following day at 10 am defeats the objective, refusal to undertake a test can lead to disciplinary action .
If an employer had no cause for concern then he wouldn’t have to carry out checks to ensure his workforce were fully compliant with HSE.
Wouldn’t a free course be seen as a get out of jail free card, if a system were to be put in place it should include a fine and be accompanied by a 3 strike rule otherwise there’s no deterrent.
But as professional drivers we are given more stringent punishments, fatalities caused by undue care and attention can be labelled manslaughter, so shouldn’t knowingly getting behind a wheel whilst under the influence regardless of level be given a firmer punishment.
Grumpy Dad:
Wouldn’t a free course be seen as a get out of jail free card, if a system were to be put in place it should include a fine and be accompanied by a 3 strike rule otherwise there’s no deterrent.
But as professional drivers we are given more stringent punishments, fatalities caused by undue care and attention can be labelled manslaughter, so shouldn’t knowingly getting behind a wheel whilst under the influence regardless of level be given a firmer punishment.
Even though you quoted something else I assume you were actually responding to me?
The fact that they blew below the limit is the ‘get out of jail free’ card, in other words blowing below 35 they’ve not actually broken the law (as it stands at the moment) so they can’t really be penalised.
Being made to do a re-education course though should and no doubt would be considered enough of an inconvenience and pain in the arse to at least make them think twice about drinking if driving again, and hopefully they’d learn something in the process too, and add to that a nod to the insurance company then it becomes a whole lot more of a ball ache.
Unless they actually change the law regarding the limit (or even zero tolerance it) I’m not sure what else they can do if you’re below a prosecutable limit, In my given examples I’ve not set out to re-write the legal limits I’ve only offered what I feel are fitting punishments/deterrents to those that are already laid out.
I suppose I could go further into it, for example (based on the assumption that this is a traffic stop and that there’s no accident or 3rd party involvement or injuries)…
NP = Non professional, P = Professional (anyone that has passed a higher category than an A or B or is employed (at the time of the stop) in a paid professional capacity, i.e. a full or part time employed van driver, taxi driver, motorcycle courier or travelling sales rep)
NP - 20 to 35mg = Discretionary re-education, Insurance company informed and marked for 12 months.
P - 10 to 35mg = Compulsory re-education, employer and/or DVSA + personal car insurance company informed and marked for 12 months.
NP - 35 to 70mg = Comp week re-education 12 month ban, resit cat B (and A if on licence), permanent mark on insurance record.
P - 35 to 70mg = Comp week re-education 12 month ban, resit cat B, C, (C1) D, + E (and A if on licence), permanent mark on insurance record.
NP & P - 70mg and above = Jail time (scaleable depending on severity of excess), lifetime licence revoked (no retest option for any category)
Once 3rd party damage or injury enters into the equation then obviously punishments should become much more severe i.e. fines and jail terms.
Just my ideas on it anyway, still plenty of scope there for fine tuning, feel free to add to it if you wish 
