Red Herring wrote:Why is it standard procedure to give out a producer. All of the information they require should be available on the computer.
Red Herring wrote:I agree there may be occasion when it is necessary to issue a producer but my point is that it shouldn't be standard procedure. I would suggest that it is the exception when it is necessary, rather than the rule.
Red Herring wrote:Why does the driver have to produce both parts of their driving licence? All of the information on the counterpart is held on the PNC so the officer can check it them-self, without having to risk alienating and inconveniencing the member of the public. I appreciate there is a power to require a driver to produce their licence, however the automatic use of this power when it is unnecessary suggests either laziness on the part of the officer or ignorance on the part of the organization. Here is a driver who through no fault of their own has become a victim and a witness to anothers' lawbreaking and yet the police make him feel if as if he is now somehow under scrutiny himself. I accept there is a need to record all details, however there are ways of doing things....
vonhosen wrote: just as all should also be breathalysed.
Octy_Ross wrote:Under what justification?
If I were in the situation of witnessing and accident, and thought that doing the "right" thing of staying to provide evidence would lead to this much hassle, being breathalysed and treated like a criminal then if I wasn't such an upstanding and honest citizen I'd be tempted to clear off.
Octy_Ross wrote:vonhosen wrote: just as all should also be breathalysed.
Under what justification?
If I were in the situation of witnessing and accident, and thought that doing the "right" thing of staying to provide evidence would lead to this much hassle, being breathalysed and treated like a criminal then if I wasn't such an upstanding and honest citizen I'd be tempted to clear off.
Perhaps this is why so few people hung around after animalkits near miss...
Octy_Ross wrote:Hey Von-Hosen,
I see your point, if someone were to be involved, despite not being the "wrong doer" they should be breathalysed, just in case. But for what purpose, I'm not sure I see the value in it. Is it just a convenient "we've got the kit out so lets do 'em all" type approach or is there something more to it?
Does this mean, then, if someone who isn't drunk (A) causes an accident, by crashing into a not doing anything wrong* drunk driver (B). Could A then be 'let off' as they hit B or would they still be up for some kind of trouble?
In the case of animal - his vehicle was hit by flying debris, surely in this situation there would be no need to breathalyse him?
* I was going to put 'safe' in stead of 'not doing anything wrong' but decided I'd probably be reminded that there's no such thing as a safe drunk driver....
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests