I was recently involved in a situation where a driver clearly under the influence of Cannabis (he smoked a joint right in front of me and was all over the place) wanted to get in his car. I had no legal authority to stop him, I advised him not to and he ignored it. I felt obligated to report it to the Police.

He was stopped, failed a roadside drug test and was taken to the station for evidentiary sampling.

Two days later he crashed his car.

If he was subject to a roadside disqualification; even if that was only "pending results of a test" then he would/should not have been on the road and subsequently not have crashed.

Luckily it was a single vehicle collision with a tree and only he was hurt but should we have to rely on "luck" in 2019?

I am well aware of the juxtaposition "innocent until proven guilty" places the Police, CPS and courts in but it's pass or fail. The only mitigation is by how much and if that is considered enough to impair their ability to drive (prescribed limit guidelines).

Should there be Instant Roadside disqualification for driving under the influence offenses in the UK?

In New Zealand and other parts of the world the Police can issue roadside disqualifications for drivers who receive too many penalty points or fail a roadside drug or alcohol test.

With driving under the influence of drugs becoming as or more problematic in the UK than drink driving...

https://www.norfolk.police.uk/news/latest-news/25-01-2019/christmas-drink-drive-campaign-results

...and the amount of time it takes for evidentiary test results to come back or get a court date there have been several cases of drivers who fail a drug test being caught again and failing again days later.

This drunk driver...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-47019387

...could well be back on the road now waiting for a court date. :bang:

Instant disqualification could be taken into account by the Magistrates and time deducted from the subsequent ban if convicted or if the amount of drugs found in the accused system was below a prescribed limit that time would be lieu of a caution or fine.

An instant roadside disqualification could be as little as a couple of days it takes for test results or as long as it takes to get to court.

Either way with a suspected drunk or drugged driver off our roads instead of going straight back on them wouldn't this be the safer option for everyone else?

Fourteen years ago a drunk driver crashed into my front garden on Christmas day. I reported it to the Police and in May I was called as a witness for the prosecution. That drunk driver was on the road for five months before being banned for eighteen.

Feel free to add to the discussion I appreciate and value all of your opinions and experiences but the poll question is a simple...

Is an Instant Roadside Disqualification for driving while under the influence of drink or drugs a good idea? Yes or No

We must be talking at least 35 years ago, as this happened shortly after we moved into our present house. It was a rotten, dark, windy, rainy evening. Mrs J and I were in the kitchen washing up dishes and tidying after the meal. Our children - only two of them at that time, the youngest wasn't with us yet - were playing in the living room. Suddenly there was an almighty crash and I immediately thought my daughter, always the adventurous one, must have climbed up our very large tall and heavy bookcase unit and pulled it over on top of herself (and maybe my son too).

I raced across the hall and into the living room without my feet touching the ground. Thinking, strange what goes through your mind at the time, that I must turn off the hall light. My daughter was sitting with her back to the radiator under the front window and my boy was on the sofa watching the TV - Bookcase nice and upright! So what's going on? As I turned round I thought "Strange, that hall light's very bright" and at the same moment Mrs J let out an incoherent shriek from the hall - We've been "going out" since she was a school girl and I'd never heard her shriek before, or since come to think of it! The bright light was the one unbroken headlight on the front of the ancient Vauxhall Chevette automatic belonging to the equally ancient woman who lived across the street from us which was now sitting half in and half out of our hall! Our estate was brand newly built in those days and we were still all getting to know each other. The rumor was that she enjoyed a jolly good drink. After dragging the remains of our front door and porch off the car we were able to get the old "dear" out. Luckily she was unhurt but so sozzled and shaken up she couldn't stand. Luckily another neighbour from across the street, with whom we have subsequently become good friends, turned out to be a nurse. She came over and gave her a good check over. Mrs J made hot sweet tea and we suggested taking her to A&E but she wouldn't go. It turned out that, no doubt aided by the consumption of alcohol, she had thought she was pressing the brake whilst doing a 3 point turn in the road but was in fact pressing the throttle! She had traveled about one and a half cars length, up our front path, at full throttle until she collided with the front door.

Our front door and porch - all made of wood - were completely demolished. The slab which had been the front door step was found under the hall floor and the wall beside the door, which is our downstairs loo was so badly cracked it had to be demolished and rebuilt - you should have seen the car! My neighbours and I manhandled the car back out to the kerbside and an emergency joiner boarded up the "hole". Luckily the insurance didn't even blink and the builders were still on site building other houses so they had the whole thing ship shape again in less than a fortnight! For several weeks after, and occasionally even after that, I found myself waking up at odd times in the night thinking "What would have happened to my wee girl if she had been just a couple of feet to the right and gone through the front window instead"? Actually can't think about it!

I gave serious thought to taking action against the driver but she was so frail, upset at what she'd done and apologetic I just couldn't do it. The insurance companies didn't cause any problems and it didn't affect my premiums either. The old Dear never drove again thank goodness and actually passed away not long after.

So, I think probably if you exceed the guideline readings - in other words are demonstrably drunk or "woosy" with drugs - you should not be able to get back behind the wheel again until a judge or suitable person has pronounced. What we really need though is an ignition sequence which incorporates a sensor or whatever which will not allow the vehicle to be used by an affected driver. I read we are probably able to do this already but it could be defeated if a sober person were complicit in defeating it.

Volvo have had a breathalyser immobiliser for a while but that kind of technology would only make drunkards and dope heads buy from other manufacturers. The government did suggest they be compulsory in Taxi/Minicabs and buses but it didn't get much further than the suggestion stage.

The trouble with having a license withheld until a Judge deems them to be fit to drive again is it would become "Guilty until proven Innocent" we're not America yet.

Liquid Knight II said:

Volvo have had a breathalyser immobiliser for a while but that kind of technology would only make drunkards and dope heads buy from other manufacturers. The government did suggest they be compulsory in Taxi/Minicabs and buses but it didn't get much further than the suggestion stage.

Click to expand...

In some parts of the world anyone with a DUI on the lisence has to get one of those devices fitted to there to have a lisence

Tricky of course.

If they have too many tags on their licence.. they then cannot afford insurance.

Far from a situation we want.

The relatively high levels of fatal incidents where the car and driver has nothing legal other than a V5c.

Nothing 'legal'at the kerbside is going to stop that unfortunately.

I have this as a discussion on Pistonheads as well. That came up and of course the New Zealand method of impounding vehicles during the disqualification period.
I own five cars and two bikes at the moment so unless all vehicles registered to me are impounded at the same time I'll have access to more.

Even if I didn't I'm a mouse click away from Gumtree or eBay.

That's the first issue. The second would be if the vehicle is impounded and the test results come back below the prescribed limit then the recovery and storage fees would have to come from the public purse.

The main issue is one of stupidity.

If someone is doltish enough to get behind the while under the influence of anything then they would most likely show the same contempt for driving while disqualified.

I think one has to tread very carefully with restrictive actions whilst the dust is settling.

We have had people on serious criminal / death imprisonment that after years of battling have be freed due to all sorts of finally proven incorrect etc. evidence or other dubious input to their prosecution.

A letter arrived in the post the offer day that got me really angry. It was from Sussex Police rambling on that on the yy Feb 2016 I was caught speeding, suggesting that in 2019 I don't speed and help them keep Sussex safe. Also stating death stats do to excess speed.

Everyone tarred with the same brush and wrong records / information.

In 44 years of driving I had never ever had any speeding offence or points on my license. Hands up I was caught by a camera van on a dual carriage way, keeping up with traffic flow at 80mph. Yes I broke the law.

I chose the "official" course as opposed to points and it became blatantly clear that the subject of "will the government raise 70MPH to 80MPH?" was no "because everybody already does around 80mph". I was the only one who was done for 80 on a DCW/motorway. Everyone else was clocked for speeding in 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s limits (most in 30s).

Now (if you are still with me) the killer fact (or lack there of) that really got me upset (yes I did wrong ) was that the date this letter claimed I was exceeding the speed limit was totally incorrect.

So 44 years clean, picked on by an indiscriminate mobile unit where traffic cars normally leave the status quo unless it is dangerous, and then a 3 year follow-up with incorrect data.

Much of the above, not quite 100% relevant to this post, also shows how things can become a potential issue.

All I would add is that the authorities already have very powerful permissible actions to "contain" any given possible public hazard.

Terrorism Act (if the vehicle had offensive weapons or other suspicious items)
Metal Health/Sanctioning
Likelihood the offender will disappear or re-offend (not sure on this last point)
Other threatening behaviour

Bottom line it is up to the police/others to get a magistrate ruling to grant a retention order or bypass on grounds of terrorism or a doctors sanctioning.

Very interesting question by the original poster, totally understand where it is coming from, but as mentioned by others (reads posts re PROVEN innocent vs guilty, etc, etc.)
then I think there is a very delicate balance to be had on both sides of the equation.

Okay a couple of points raised on the other discussion.

A roadside disqualification could be a simple mobile application connecting the testing equipment to the DVLA database via a mobile phone or tablet. That would bypass all legal authority as a failed test is established irrefutable guilt.

Remaining innocent until proven guilty. Proven guilty as soon as they fail the test.

In theory.

But a roadside test is only an indication. It would have to wait until evidentiary samples are taken at the Police station.

So they get to the station and fail. What next?

Instead of a surrender your licence to the DVLA disqualification, a temporary ban from operating a vehicle on a public road as a condition of release once charged.

If they were to drive it would be a breach of bail conditions rather than driving while disqualified.

Beach of bail conditions they can be kept in Police custody until trail. If I recall the "The Bail Act 1976" correctly.

The Police camera programmes that infest TV these days are full of examples where drivers have no licence/tax/insurance/MoT/etc. One who had never ever taken a driving test had 12 points applied to his licence. As if that's going to stop him.