1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
Q A driver has received a summon under the 1967 Steely
Page 86
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Act allegini that he had 104 milligrammes of akoho in 100 millilitres of blood. He had bee followed by a police officer in a patro car for more than three miles and ther is no allegation of careless or dangerou driving. Is it not the case that the office must have some reason for stopping th driver other than the suspicion that he ha been drinking, and is it not true to say tho the effective alcohol level changes depena lag on circsunstances?
A The 1967 Safety Act states that if driver has more than 80 milligramme of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood c more than 107 milligrammes of alcoht in 100 millilitres of urine then an offenc has been committed. The driver's abilit to drive is not a matter for conjectur and this does not enter into the chargl If the ratio has been exceeded then a offence has been committed.
In terms of Section 8 (1) (a) of the Roa Traffic Act 1972, if the constable hE reasonable cause to suspect that a drivt has alcohol in his body he may requii him to take a breath test.
It therefore follows that arguments aboi weight, food consumption, time of day an physical condition have no bearing on ti matter. An offence can also be committe without the driver moving the vehict If he is "in charge" of the vehicle, for exan pie, has the keys or is sitting beside learner-driver and has consumed viol than the permitted amount of alcohol he still liable to prosecution. However, he w not be convicted of being "in charge" of tl vehicle if he can prove that there was r possibility of him driving the vehicle un the alcohol level had dropped below tl limit. It will be no defence to claim that I would not be driving again after he hi been injured or his vehicle damaged in accident.