Drink driving + no insurance

[fedup74]

Hi I'm asking for advice for my friend's brother. He was stopped and provided a positive breath test (reading was 50) He had had 2 pints after playing football. The police were actually very nice and told him if he requested a blood sample, then it would probably be under the limit. He waived his right to this as he said he had done wrong. He is in court next week. The police are prosecuting for no insurance as well. He has his own fully comp insurance. His fiancee's car is in his name and it was this car he was driving. As his fiancee is only covered TPFT the police have said he is not covered to drive it, even though he has a fully comp policy on his own car. Just looking for advice. He is deeply ashamed and willing to take any punishment. I just wondered if this was right about the insurance, that he isn't covered as they are obviously coming down heavily on people that drive with no insurance. What is the judge likely to give as punishment? Thank you:)

[patdavies]

From the facts as stated, he was not insured for the vehicle. The only slight area of wriggle is if she owns the vehicle (and can prove that) regardless of the name of the RK and his fully comp. insurance has a DOC clause (by no means a given these days).

 

If found guilty, he is looking at a fine of £200 - 500 and 6 points.

 

On the drink driving, it is normal practice to offer a blood test where the breath test is marginal (which it was in this case). He was stupid not to take the offer - especially as advised to do so by the Police.

 

For a first DD conviction, at that level of alcohol, he is looking at a fine + costs + 12 months disqualification.

[hightail]

In the dim and distant good old days if you were insured fully comp you were automatically insured third party on any other car you drove with the owners permission and that car was properly insured. Now you have to check to see if this applies, some insurers offer it as an extra. He should check his policy in case he happens to be covered. It's unlikely but worth checking.

[fedup74]

Thankyou Pat and hightail. I wrongly assumed that if you had fully comp insurance you could drive any other car with the owner's permission. My OH has fully comp and it states on his that he is insured to drive any other vehicle. So he is looking at a big fine, 6 points and 12 months disqualification:eek: Oh dear. Still it goes to show that even 2 pints can put you over the limit. Thank you both for your advice. (Scales duly tickled!!)

[lamma]

what were the two readings at the station ? there is a 15 percent rule (mentioned in a press article about Nick freeman the other day - daily mail I think. worth looking up).

[patdavies]

DOC has only ever applied to cars not owned by or hired under HP by the insured.

 

Thus, in this case, the important point is not who the RK is for the fiancée's car, but who is the owner?

[Guest symbio-dek]

Im wondering what he had two pints of . . ? (Aftershave?)

According to my calculations, he shouldn't have been anywhere near more than 3/4 of the limit - on standard beer that is . . . 4.1 -5 % pv

Unless the limits changed without my knowing .......

 

And who doesn't take the blood-test get-out opportunity! - slap his wrist...

[lamma]

it may be that the police should have done the blood test thing - that 15 percent rule. I don't condone drink driving I should point out.

[Mossycat]

Im wondering what he had two pints of . . ? (Aftershave?)

According to my calculations, he shouldn't have been anywhere near more than 3/4 of the limit - on standard beer that is . . . 4.1 -5 % pv

Unless the limits changed without my knowing .......

 

And who doesn't take the blood-test get-out opportunity! - slap his wrist...

 

I've always understood that 1.5 pints of beer or lager was a rough guide to the legal limit, I say rough guide because alcohol affects people differently depending on a myriad of factors.

 

So at 2 pints I would expect someone to be just over the legal limit

 

Mossy

[Guest symbio-dek]

Drink-driving at Christmas – Or any other time!

As usual chrimbo approaches, and the discussions about drinking and driving are rife again. I’ve read much about this topic already, and I am not at all surprised to see the same old misunderstandings, misconceptions and ‘old wives tales’ floating around . . .

examples:

‘I only had two pints, and failed breath test’

‘I can drink ten pints and my driving is fine’

‘Consuming/spraying this and that substance can fool breath tests’

‘Blood testing gives different results than breath tests’

‘I only had two pints, and failed breath test’

 

This person had just been playing football.

The fluid loss (sweating) associated with exercise temporarily, proportionally decreases the fluid content of the blood, as does the alcohol itself!

Drinking after exercise puts alcohol into dehydrated, more concentrated blood, leading to a higher alcohol to blood ratio, than in the absence of the dehydrated state – and a much greater probability of failing a breath or blood test.

The lower the blood ‘volume’, the higher the Alcohol percentage . . (units-per-volume)

(alcohol to blood ratio is what the breath tester tests for – not alcohol amount)

This is the reason for the failure of the breath test in this example, given the relatively low amount of alcohol consumption.

‘I can drink ten pints and my driving is fine’

 

The person saying this is the one going to jail in the near future, hopefully. Probably having the fact that someone is dead (because of them) on their conscience.

Enough said!

‘Consuming/spraying this and that substance can fool breath tests’

 

There exists no substance that can fool breath testers or blood tests.

‘Blood testing gives different results than breath tests’

 

Correct . . . But not because the two tests give differing levels of accuracy!

(In the absence of faulty testing equipment) The only reason this is the case, is that alcohol is not a substance that naturally occurs in the body. This being the case, the bodies immune system breaks down over time the foreign (alcohol) molecules (this is why you sober-up over time).

So let’s say for example: Joe Bloggs fails a breath test by a slight margin, and requests a blood test confirmation. If he is blood tested one hour later at the police station (for example), the body will have broken down some of the alcohol in his system over the last hour, and his blood test ‘might’ show a lesser amount. (Only a slight reduction, if any)

** This is not to say a person should rely on this fact to get them out of a marginal fail – so to say.

There are far too many factors concerned with the rate of breakdown of the alcohol in each individual – far too many!

- Amount of time between breath-test failure and blood test.

- Metabolic rate of the person in question.

- Body mass – slim people = less blood = higher blood/alcohol ratio, large people = more blood = lower ratio.

- Any associated relevant medical conditions (know or unknown).

- Rates of absorption of alcohol into the blood of the person in question.

(You may end up with ‘higher’ blood alcohol one-hour later if your stomach contained recently consumed alcohol when you were breath tested – did you neck that last one prior to getting in your vehicle – most d-drivers do this!!! – this alcohol will now also be in your blood after the hour! – and you’ll probably fail test even more than initially!)

The point being made here is that there are far too many factors that determine an individuals capability to drive after x-amount of alcohol, and that each of us respond differently after the same amount, and that the (drink-drive limit) is an oxymoronic joke, that cannot be universally accurate unless it is zero.

All reasons for drink-driving, whether honest misunderstanding or not, are not acceptable.

If this thread can help to stop people taking this daft risk with not only their own lives, but other peoples also, then it’s served a good purpose.

We cannot stop people from doing it, but we can at least deal with the myths.

[fedup74]

Thank you everybody for your views and advice. He seen a solicitor today and his fully comp insurance didn't cover him- it does now! Waste of time now isn't it:rolleyes: Normally I would say throw the book at drink drivers cos to me there is no excuse and it has really surprised me that he has done this- he is so quiet and respected (not by his fiancee now!!!) He last ate something 12.30, played football at 8pm and had 2 pints. As I said he was so ashamed, he held his hands up and declined the blood test (silly) cos he said he should be punished for driving over the limit. I would in no way at all condone drink driving but a lot of people are under the impression that 2 pints is ok. There is a lot of factors that determine what effect alcohol has with different people. This is why I posted this question asking for advice and what punishment he would be given as I know there is no way he would have driven if he thought he was over the limit. Thank you everybody:)

[crem]

(In the absence of faulty testing equipment) The only reason this is the case, is that alcohol is not a substance that naturally occurs in the body. This being the case, the bodies immune system breaks down over time the foreign (alcohol) molecules (this is why you sober-up over time)

 

I was under the impression that achohol does occur naturally in the body which is the main reason always given for not being able to even consider bringing in a zero tolerance on drink driving. i.e. nearly everybody would fail the test because it would detect the alcohol produced in the body itself!

[neil24103]

Thankyou Pat and hightail. I wrongly assumed that if you had fully comp insurance you could drive any other car with the owner's permission. My OH has fully comp and it states on his that he is insured to drive any other vehicle. So he is looking at a big fine, 6 points and 12 months disqualification:eek: Oh dear. Still it goes to show that even 2 pints can put you over the limit. Thank you both for your advice. (Scales duly tickled!!)

fully com only covers you for any car you dont own,third party only,not all fully com policies cover this you should tell them that you have access to other cars your name on the logbook would be classed as you owning it to insurers.plus the other car must be insured by somebody else on a diff policy and a diff name on the log book

[Gilbert_O'Sullivan]

Surely every driver insurance becomes invalid the moment a drink driver gets in the car?

[patdavies]

your name on the logbook would be classed as you owning it to insurers

 

Sorry, that just isn't true. The test is ownership, not keepership. They are, and remain, different legal entities.

 

plus the other car must be insured by somebody else on a diff policy

Total urban myth. There is no requirement whatsoever for there to be any other insurance in force.

 

Besides which, under English law, there is absolutely no requirement to insure a car. The RTA S.143 requirement is for the driver to be insured.

 

 

and a diff name on the log book

That's just a repeat of your first myth.

[patdavies]

Surely every driver insurance becomes invalid the moment a drink driver gets in the car?

 

No.

 

Insurance is not voided by commission of any other offence. What will be affected is the pay out to the insured in the event of a claim and possibly the right of the insurer to pursue the policyholder for their losses.

 

But the insurance remains valid for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act, by law.

[neil24103]

Surely every driver insurance becomes invalid the moment a drink driver gets in the car?

no you are still covered untill proven in a court/and convicted/but then you are banned so it doesnt matter

[Guest symbio-dek]

I stand corrected! What i meant to say was:

The body ' itself ' does not produce alcohol.

Alcohol does not occur as part of the complex chemistry going on inside the cells of the human body, but a little alcohol is produced naturally within our intestines by bacteria and yeasts which have enzymes that can turn carbohydrate into alcohol, and this alcohol gets into our bloodstream. Our liver has an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) which gets rid of this unwanted chemical and converts the alcohol to acetaldehyde. This molecule is then turned into acetic acid by another enzyme, and the acetic acid is used in the so-called Krebs cycle of chemical reactions, by which its energy is extracted and it emerges as carbon dioxide.

 

That the amounts involved in this production, would be more than sufficient to perhaps intoxicate a small insect for more than a couple of minutes per day, in no way alters the fact that i was wholly and completely incorrect.

I shall now fall on my sword of shame.

[Gilbert_O'Sullivan]

No.

 

Insurance is not voided by commission of any other offence. What will be affected is the pay out to the insured in the event of a claim and possibly the right of the insurer to pursue the policyholder for their losses.

 

But the insurance remains valid for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act, by law.

 

Thanks pat

[Rob S]

it may be that the police should have done the blood test thing - that 15 percent rule. I don't condone drink driving I should point out.

 

 

I've not heard of a 15 percent rule. What I do know is that the legal limit for alcohol in the breath is 35. Some forces will charge if above that level, others will charge if the reading is 40 or over. If a person provides a sample that is between 40 and 50 then they can opt to provide a blood sample, but it is thier decision and not for the police to decide. If the sample provided is over 50 then there is no option to provide a blood sample.

[john1996]

Drink-driving at Christmas – Or any other time!

As usual chrimbo approaches, and the discussions about drinking and driving Texas dui classes are rife again. I’ve read much about this topic already, and I am not at all surprised to see the same old misunderstandings, misconceptions and ‘old wives tales’ floating around . . .

examples:

‘I only had two pints, and failed breath test’

‘I can drink ten pints and my driving is fine’

‘Consuming/spraying this and that substance can fool breath tests’

‘Blood testing gives different results than breath tests’

‘I only had two pints, and failed breath test’

 

This person had just been playing football.

The fluid loss (sweating) associated with exercise temporarily, proportionally decreases the fluid content of the blood, as does the alcohol itself!

Drinking after exercise puts alcohol into dehydrated, more concentrated blood, leading to a higher alcohol to blood ratio, than in the absence of the dehydrated state – and a much greater probability of failing a breath or blood test.

The lower the blood ‘volume’, the higher the Alcohol percentage . . (units-per-volume)

(alcohol to blood ratio is what the breath tester tests for – not alcohol amount)

This is the reason for the failure of the breath test in this example, given the relatively low amount of alcohol consumption.

‘I can drink ten pints and my driving is fine’

 

The person saying this is the one going to jail in the near future, hopefully. Probably having the fact that someone is dead (because of them) on their conscience.

Enough said!

‘Consuming/spraying this and that substance can fool breath tests’

 

There exists no substance that can fool breath testers or blood tests.

‘Blood testing gives different results than breath tests’

 

Correct . . . But not because the two tests give differing levels of accuracy!

(In the absence of faulty testing equipment) The only reason this is the case, is that alcohol is not a substance that naturally occurs in the body. This being the case, the bodies immune system breaks down over time the foreign (alcohol) molecules (this is why you sober-up over time).

So let’s say for example: Joe Bloggs fails a breath test by a slight margin, and requests a blood test confirmation. If he is blood tested one hour later at the police station (for example), the body will have broken down some of the alcohol in his system over the last hour, and his blood test ‘might’ show a lesser amount. (Only a slight reduction, if any)

** This is not to say a person should rely on this fact to get them out of a marginal fail – so to say.

There are far too many factors concerned with the rate of breakdown of the alcohol in each individual – far too many!

- Amount of time between breath-test failure and blood test.

- Metabolic rate of the person in question.

- Body mass – slim people = less blood = higher blood/alcohol ratio, large people = more blood = lower ratio.

- Any associated relevant medical conditions (know or unknown).

- Rates of absorption of alcohol into the blood of the person in question.

(You may end up with ‘higher’ blood alcohol one-hour later if your stomach contained recently consumed alcohol when you were breath tested – did you neck that last one prior to getting in your vehicle – most d-drivers do this!!! – this alcohol will now also be in your blood after the hour! – and you’ll probably fail test even more than initially!)

The point being made here is that there are far too many factors that determine an individuals capability to drive after x-amount of alcohol, and that each of us respond differently after the same amount, and that the (drink-drive limit) is an oxymoronic joke, that cannot be universally accurate unless it is zero.

All reasons for drink-driving, whether honest misunderstanding or not, are not acceptable.

If this thread can help to stop people taking this daft risk with not only their own lives, but other peoples also, then it’s served a good purpose.

We cannot stop people from doing it, but we can at least deal with the myths.

 

 

 

Hello symbio,

 

 

Thanks for this post.

It really helpful for me.

I want to ask about the drink and drive laws.Can you give some information about the dui law??

[honeybee13]

Hello symbio,

 

 

Thanks for this post.

It really helpful for me.

I want to ask about the drink and drive laws.Can you give some information about the dui law??

 

Hello there.

 

This thread dates back to 2008. You need to start a new thread of your own please, to ask any questions you have. Tell us what the problem is and people will help.

 

HB