Breathalyzed on bike

John B said:

What surprised me was that I was asked to blow into the machine and informed that it was now policy
always to carry this out on cyclists as well as drivers in all collisions.

Interesting: there is no legal limit for alcohol when riding a bike, so quite what they would do
with the information is beyond me.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

Just zis Guy said:

Interesting: there is no legal limit for alcohol when riding a bike, so quite what they would do
with the information is beyond me.

They can use it to back up their judgement about whether the cyclist was drunk, which could (in
theory, if not in this well-witnessed case) be useful in weighing up conflicting stories and
assigning blame.

Since John B is likely to be relying (at least in part) on the goodwill of the police, it doesn't
seem worth getting too upset over.

James

Quoted message said:

Interesting: there is no legal limit for alcohol when riding a bike, so quite what they would do
with the information is beyond me.

There may be no legal limit as there is for driving a motor vehicle, but you can still be "drunk in
charge" if I remember correctly??

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email Mail sent to it is dumped My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$**o$l.c$$*o$*m*$ by getting rid of the
overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

In message <[email hidden]>, James Annan <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

Interesting: there is no legal limit for alcohol when riding a bike, so quite what they would do
with the information is beyond me.

They can use it to back up their judgement about whether the cyclist was drunk, which could (in
theory, if not in this well-witnessed case) be useful in weighing up conflicting stories and
assigning blame.

Since John B is likely to be relying (at least in part) on the goodwill of the police, it doesn't
seem worth getting too upset over.

Indeed not, but I don't think they have any right to demand that you do give a breath sample -
unlike car drivers etc.
--
Chris French, Leeds

James Annan said:

Just zis Guy said:

Interesting: there is no legal limit for alcohol when riding a bike, so quite what they would do
with the information is beyond me.

They can use it to back up their judgement about whether the cyclist was drunk, which could (in
theory, if not in this well-witnessed case) be useful in weighing up conflicting stories and
assigning blame.

Since John B is likely to be relying (at least in part) on the goodwill of the police, it doesn't
seem worth getting too upset over.

In itself its not something I am particularly upset over, in fact I tend to support it being used. I
may even send a letter of support to Mr Plod.

But it would be useful to know whether this is to become the norm. Then where will it lead to? What
will any 'limit' be, will it be the same as for motorists, and will it apply to *all* road users?

Has anyone come across this happenning to a cyclist before?

John B (whose knee is growing)

chris French said:

Indeed not, but I don't think they have any right to demand that you do give a breath sample -
unlike car drivers etc.

Certainly, but in the event of a crash where I was not to blame, I'd be happy to cooperate with the
police and demonstrate my innocence as clearly as possible. If some jumped-up pig tried to stop and
breathalyse me at random then I'd not have quite the same attitude!

James

"John B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In itself its not something I am particularly upset over, in fact I tend to

Quoted message said:

support it being used. I may even send a letter of support to Mr Plod.

Please don't ... there's a lot of cyclists who enjoy a few beers after a great ride.

Quoted message said:

But it would be useful to know whether this is to become the norm. Then where will it lead to?
What will any 'limit' be, will it be the same as for motorists, and will

it

Quoted message said:

apply to *all* road users?

The police asked you to blow into it, you accepted the offer. If you'd refused through principle, I
wouldn't expect much sympathy from a judge when you sue the van driver who ran you off the road.

Quoted message said:

Has anyone come across this happenning to a cyclist before?

Come across lots of things, but always look forward to tomorrow! There's always something new ... !

Quoted message said:

John B (whose knee is growing)

Get well soon.... 🙂

John B said:

Has anyone else come across such a "policy"? Is it now normal practice?

Does it extend to all road users, including pedestrians?

I was breathalised in 1995. I don't believe it is normal practice, the two times I've been charged
and prosecuted (and found not guilty) with drunk in charge I was not breathalised.

If asked to take a breath test today I'd refuse.
--
remove remove to reply

wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX said:

Quoted message said:

Interesting: there is no legal limit for alcohol when riding a bike, so quite what they would do
with the information is beyond me.

There may be no legal limit as there is for driving a motor vehicle, but you can still be "drunk in
charge" if I remember correctly??

You are correct. But a positive breath test would only confuse the issue. If I had been drinking and
was asked to take a breath test after a cycling incident, I'd refuse.
--
remove remove to reply

John B said:

What surprised me was that I was asked to blow into the machine and informed that it was now
policy always to carry this out on cyclists as well as drivers in all collisions.

Has anyone else come across such a "policy"? Is it now normal practice?

IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that you can simply refuse and there's nothing they can do about it.
However, it is an offence to ride while drunk (although there's no specific blood alcohol limit). If
you know that you've not got any alcohol in your system it might be a good idea to take the test
since it's good evidence in case there's any latter legal action in relation to the incident.

"Paul Rudin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John B said:

What surprised me was that I was asked to blow into the machine and informed that it was now
policy always to carry this out on cyclists as well as drivers in all collisions.

Has anyone else come across such a "policy"? Is it now normal practice?

IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that you can simply refuse and there's nothing they can do about it.
However, it is an offence to ride while drunk (although there's no specific blood alcohol limit).
If you know that you've not got any alcohol in your system it might be a good idea to take the
test since it's good evidence in case there's any latter legal action in relation to the incident.

I'd refuse a breath test. It's up to them to prove you are drunk by other means, i.e. unable to
walk a line, slurring of words etc. They have no legal right to test any of your fluids or breath.
If you *are* drunk then you deserve to be fined though.

However, I went out last week and had 3 pints and rode home with no problem whatsoever, as 3 pints
in no way makes me drunk - in fact I hate being drunk at all. I would have been over the driver's
limit but I was perfectly safe cycling home.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

Simon Mason said:

"Paul Rudin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John B said:

What surprised me was that I was asked to blow into the machine and informed that it was now
policy always to carry this out on cyclists as well as drivers in all collisions.

Has anyone else come across such a "policy"? Is it now normal practice?

IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that you can simply refuse and there's nothing they can do about it.
However, it is an offence to ride while drunk (although there's no specific blood alcohol
limit). If you know that you've not got any alcohol in your system it might be a good idea to
take the test since it's good evidence in case there's any latter legal action in relation to
the incident.

I'd refuse a breath test. It's up to them to prove you are drunk by other means, i.e. unable to
walk a line, slurring of words etc. They have no legal right to test any of your fluids or
breath.

I felt that by refusing I would have been on very dodgy ground. The PC was insistent that I took the
test. I did question the validity but he just brushed that aside. Refusal was not really an option.
He pointed out the driver involved was tested so I should be too.

Quoted message said:

If you *are* drunk then you deserve to be fined though.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

However, I went out last week and had 3 pints and rode home with no problem whatsoever, as 3 pints
in no way makes me drunk

That's what a lot of hard core drink drivers might also say.

Quoted message said:

- in fact I hate being drunk at all. I would have been over the driver's limit but I was perfectly
safe cycling home.

Hmmm.

John B

Paul Rudin said:

John B said:

What surprised me was that I was asked to blow into the machine and informed that it was now
policy always to carry this out on cyclists as well as drivers in all collisions.

Has anyone else come across such a "policy"? Is it now normal practice?

IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that you can simply refuse and there's nothing they can do about it.

I certainly gained the impression that there *was* something they could do about it. I felt that if
I refused I would have been carted off to the local cop shop under some spurious pretext.

Quoted message said:

However, it is an offence to ride while drunk (although there's no specific blood alcohol limit).

Rightly so - drunks on bikes deserve prosecution, but I wonder what a limit might be set at.

Quoted message said:

If you know that you've not got any alcohol in your system it might be a good idea to take the
test since it's good evidence in case there's any latter legal action in relation to the incident.

That's what I did. I had no problem taking the test, but it was the PC's comment that "it is now
policy" that intrigued me.

John B

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, I went out last week and had 3 pints and rode home with no problem whatsoever, as 3
pints in no way makes me drunk

That's what a lot of hard core drink drivers might also say.

I lot of them do, I *used* to be one of them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- in fact I hate being drunk at all. I would have been over the driver's limit but I was
perfectly safe cycling home.

Hmmm.

Hands up, I do this too, and never feel guilty about doing so, in fact I almost feel virtuous that
I'm NOT drinking and driving...and I'm safe, and I'm only a danger to myself not others, but most
importantly of all......I'm not drinking and driving. But basically, it's all complete nonsense. If
cyclists want 'road respect' from across the board then 'all' the rules of the game apply....there
can be no excuses, and no exceptions.

Don't people realize this *is/was* the golden age of cycling...gradually disappearing to the rule
book....helmets, alcohol...make the most of it!

Glad you're OK anyway.

Garry

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:13:35 +0100 someone who may be John B <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I felt that by refusing I would have been on very dodgy ground. The PC was insistent that I
took the test. I did question the validity but he just brushed that aside. Refusal was not
really an option.

You might like to ask the Chief Constable's opinion on the matter. This can then be used to stir up
trouble either way.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:08:43 +0100 someone who may be John B <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I had no problem taking the test, but it was the PC's comment that "it is now policy" that
intrigued me.

Either the policy of the individual bod, or the police force. When you find out the stirring
can start.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Simon Mason said:

However, I went out last week and had 3 pints and rode home with no problem whatsoever, as 3 pints
in no way makes me drunk - in fact I hate being drunk at all. I would have been over the driver's
limit but I was perfectly safe cycling home.

However, Simon, as James A and elyoB implied, the passing or failing of a breath test could well
influence the result of any future court action.

On a personal note, my speech is non too clear these days and deteriorates even more after only a
pint or two. I often sound quite drunk even when I'm not.

James H

--
homepage.ntlworld.comDscf0632.jpgOpen ↗

John B said:

I certainly gained the impression that there *was* something they could do about it. I felt that if
I refused I would have been carted off to the local cop shop under some spurious pretext.

Let them cart you off then sue for wrongful arrest.

Quoted message said:

That's what I did. I had no problem taking the test, but it was the PC's comment that "it is now
policy" that intrigued me.

The Royal Parks Constabulary once refused to allow me to lock my bike within the confines of
Greenwich Park after an accident which made it impossible to even push my bike. Their stated reason
was that the frame might be packed with explosives!

[censored]!!!!
--
remove remove to reply

John B <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, I went out last week and had 3 pints and rode home with no problem whatsoever, as 3
pints in no way makes me drunk

That's what a lot of hard core drink drivers might also say.

Indeed. Except there's one major difference. They're breaking the law and face a year's ban and a
heavy fine. I'm not breaking any law at all, since I'm not "drunk".

PS,I would never drive my car after a pint. Simon