I agree calmstorm.  As I have stated above everyone is different and what is OK for one person is not for another.  I used the term 'one drink' loosely and maybe should have been more specific.

We seem to have gone right off my original question and I am NOT defending drinking and driving.  I think Isabel is determined to show that my friend is some selfish, ignorant monster who having deliberately had one drink must have meant to have an accident and so deserves all he gets.  There have been lots of discussions on this board about the NANNY STATE and I think if Isabel had her way then we would only be allowed to drive when she thought it was okay.  Unfortunately accidents do happen and cannot be controlled for.  He has yet to find out what happened to the cars steering - the fact he had one drink may be the last reason for the accident.

I have said several times that it is my personal opinion.  Nor have I said anything to suggest that the drink had anything to do with the accident.  I suggest you keep your comments equally impersonal.

I agree Isabel maybe I should have, but to be honest right from your very first post the words 'witch hunt' sprang to mind.  You offered no advice re what I was asking.

I don't think people should drink at all when driving because as soon as they do they start on that graph of deminishing responses leading to a level of responsiveness that is regarded as inadequate by law.

It does not necessarily follow that after having one drink (or whatever keeps you under the legal limit) that you would automatically go on to have enough that would make your responses 'regarded as inadequate by law'.

Maybe as we are going round in circles and both agree that we want people to be as safe when driving as possible, that we should leave it here. :)

>You offered no advice re what I was asking.

It's been a long thread but I have a vague memory of you thanking me for information given somewhere up above :)
You seem to have misunderstood my comments in the above quote I did not mean that one drink leads to another merely that one drink leaves you at less than optimum even if still good enough to meet legal requirements.  True there may be tired, ill, aged drivers around that are not as good either but if we each do what we can to be at our best it seems like a good thing to me.  That is my opinion, I am perfectly content if you wish to disagree with that :)

vague memory of you thanking me for information

Yes for information that showed the police would be able to detect when alcohol had been consumed, not for the question I originally asked.

Comments such as Why would it matter?  and  Your friend is beginning to sound a teensy bit dodgy were not really helpful in anyway and I consider suggesting my friend it dodgy without even knowing him to be a personal comment so you are guilty of what you accuse me of anyway.

As for me misunderstanding your comment, I feel you have misunderstood (deliberately, in my opinion) my comments throughout and then (in my opinion) tried to paint a picture of some very dodgy goings on, when in fact I asked a very simple question. 

True there may be tired, ill, aged drivers around that are not as good either but if we each do what we can to be at our best it seems like a good thing to me.  That is my opinion, I am perfectly content if you wish to disagree with that  - there you go again.  You make a statement (that is TOTALLY your own) and then add a comment again totally your own and try to make it seem that I agree with unsafe driving.

You have done that many times throughout this thread Isabel.  I WANT PEOPLE TO DRIVE SAFELY.  I do not want someone trying to impose their personal opinions on others and stating if they do not do as they are being told then they are in the wrong.  You are not automatically right and everyone else wrong.

Finding out why it mattered enabled people to give you the information you were looking for.  Yes it did sound dodgy when you were so vague.  At that point we could have been helping someone who was drunk or who was attempting to use forged documents something that we may not have wished to collude with. 
I have no wish to impose my personal beliefs on you and had never striven to do so.  I have always made it clear they were my beliefs.  If you wish to prevent people giving their personal opinions on a message board you may as well close it down.

If you wish to prevent people giving their personal opinions on a message board you may as well close it down.

There you go again.  I have no problem with peoples opinions, only with people insisting if they are not agreed with then the other person is wrong.  If you think everyone who does not agree with you is wrong then you should take a long hard look yourself.

>only with people insisting if they are not agreed with then the other person is wrong.

I have never done that.  I keep pointing that out again and again, that it is only my opinion, but you seem incapable of reading my posts without adding your own intrepretation of an extra dimension to it.  Perhaps you can explain how you think someone can give their opinion then?

I agree Isabel maybe I should have, but to be honest right from your very first post the words 'witch hunt' sprang to mind. You implied that I was suggesting totally ridiculous things with comments such as:  I certainly think it is stretching it a bit to suggest fully alert people ought to take stimulants to try to improve their reactions. - where did that come from? certainly not from me.  You offered no advice re what I was asking.

I don't think people should drink at all when driving because as soon as they do they start on that graph of deminishing responses leading to a level of responsiveness that is regarded as inadequate by law.

It does not necessarily follow that after having one drink (or whatever keeps you under the legal limit) that you would automatically go on to have enough that would make your responses 'regarded as inadequate by law'. Many people do have self control and do not need others to impose restrictions.

Maybe as we are going round in circles and both agree that we want people to be as safe when driving as possible, that we should leave it here. :)

i never ever touch a drop if im out & driving. strangely even if ive been in a pub & not touched a drop i STILL feel abit funny on the way home

Many things influence reaction times, but you couldn't possible restrict them all!!  (for instance a late night, etc)

This should have been below JGs post.

I always understood the law was set at that because of the difficulties is excluding a low alcohol reading from other sources.  As you say one drink may not necessarily reduce your capabilities but somewhere along the scale of that happening to the point when you are considered unfit to drive there has to be  some lesser reduction that I, personally, would not be happy driving a car at.  We may all unintentially drive at a less than optimum best by not realising we are tired or more stressed than we realised or sickening with a virus etc. but to intentionally take something that may reduce our capabilities when there is absolutely no need to seems totally unnecessary to me.  I don't think we should just be concerned about staying on the right side of the law.
Why does he think the accident happened by the way?

You could then take that one step further Isabel and say that to have a late night (or even an accidentally disturbed night of sleep) and then to drive the next day is irresponsible.  Or people suffering hayfever who may sneeze are irresponsible to drive.  Where would it all end.  I want to emphasise that I am all for safe driving and anything that can improve that, but there are so many factors that are involved in car accidents (in ANY accident) that you could never possibly exclude all of them.

Yes driving when you know you are tired is irresponsible too.

RoSPA do indeed say that it's dangerous to drive if you've had a poor night's sleep. The danger resulting from lack of adequate rest is why tachographs were made compulsory for HGV drivers.

Well if that was the case he would have picked up his Number Plate wouldn't he?? Sorry but I would not advocate anyone taking ANY amount of alcohol before getting behind the wheel. Maybe there's more to it than he told you?? All the best, Dawn

Maybe there is Dawn, but I don't think so.  He had just left my Mother's funeral and was I suppose a bit upset.  He said the steering on the car was odd as he turned the corner.  The car is a powerful car and I think he hasn't been driving very often lately.

Maybe it's a combination of factors and he was in shock as well?? Anyway, I hope things turn out ok for him, all the best, Dawn

Thanks Dawn.

Even if the police send a report to the proc fiscal this doesn't mean he will be prosecuted. They would have to be 99% plus sure he was over the limit in the car and without scientific testing this is hard to do. If it as you say he will probably be OK. I do think it is strange though why the police bothered. Could the witness have suggest strange driving behaviour.  I wonder how long between the accident and the police arriving passed unless he sat with a straw and a vodka bottle if you get my drift. :-)

Exactly Blue, although for us its the CPS. :) They will decide if there is a case to answer, and either go to court or not, and his defence will go through all the procedures to see if the Police were within their powers to enter his house, and all the other procedures and witness statements surrounding the case. Which is why I strongly suggest getting a solicitor now, to ensure all the i's were dotted and t's crossed! And then advise his best form of action, because if it is decided to go ahead, it will be a long drawn out case with all sorts of scientific evidence needed to prove he was actually over at the time of the accident.

With all this about the drink/driving, I missed the fact that the accident occured following the OPs mums funeral, and I send my deepest condolences to you. it must be a very hard time for you, and you must be quite close to your friend thinking of him at this very sad time for you. So, my thoughts are with you.

Thank you Blue and Calmstorm for your helpful comments and Calmstorm for you kind words.

Hi,
Insurance, M.O.T. Reg. owner is ALL now computerised,
When they stop you they know if your Ins. M.O.T'd and
who the car is reg. to, My son did have a problem with
them once, as the Ins. details had not been put on the computer.
As it had only been running 24hours.
But! on the polices second check it was there.

Thanks for your help everyone.  I will pass all the info on to him.

When a vehicle is involved in an accident, damage to property other than that vehicle, or injury makes it reportable. Why did he leave the scene of the accident? Why did he start drinking when he got home? The Police would have legal rights to enter his home following this RTA following a set of circumstances which they would have followed given their information and knowledge at the time. The witness may have given evidence to his manner of driving before he had the accident, or his state when he left the vehicle, or maybe he just smelt of alcohol. Whatever the circumstances, they followed the proceedure as set out by law. They had every right to do a breth test when they found him. The fact he said he had been drinking after the rta does not stop the right to breath test.

What he needs now is a good defence solicitor to do the scientific bit for him, to disprove that he was over limit at the time of the RTA.

As to insurance, that is down to the insurance company. he needs to read the terms of the policy, as he may well find after being breathalised over limit,even though not convicted, he may not be insured. That is down to the insurance company, not the law, but if they with hold insurance until a court case is finalised he could find himself driving without insurance. Which is a Police matter. So, my advice is, tell him to contact his insurance company, he's going to have to anyway if he gets convicted, but he, and other road users, dont want an uninsured driver on the road, so if their policy is to stop the insurance until after the court case, then he shouldnt be driving, and owning up will make no difference.

Thinking on, if he makes an insurance clame, he will have to outline the circumstances of the accident, and Im fairly certain the form asks if the Police attended, and if he was breath tested as the driver. he will have to say they did, and that he was tested, to not do this would give a fraudulant clame. he will have to give the accident ref number as well, I think.

The best advice you can give him is to come clean, its happened and that cant be changed. if the insurance companies policy states that he cannot drive until an outcome, then that is as it is, and driving under these circumstances is far from responsible and could render him for more charges. he also needs to make an appointment with a good defence solicitor as soon as possible.

Should he lose his licence he will not be able to drive anyway, and when he re-insures he will have to declare the disqualification and reason for it, otherwise this will be fraudulant and make the insurance invalid.

Any accident, involving an insured vehicle must be reported by the person insured to their insurer. I had a motorcycle run into the back of my car whilst I was stationary and police who attended confirmed that I still had to notify my insurance company even though my vehicle was not damaged and I was not to blame. It is irrelevant where the fault lies. Read the terms and conditions of the policy:rolleyes:

Calmstorm, as far as I am aware the police do not come out for an accident unless someone is hurt. This was the case anyway when I was in a car that was written off by another car - the police didn't want to know.  Also, in order to report the accident he would need a phone. He has been told by someone that you have 24 hours to report an accident (I don't know if this is correct or not).

He told me earlier that he had the drinks when he got in because he was upset (about my Mum) and also because of the shock of the accident.  He intended to report it but the police turned up before he had a chance.  He tells me he did not get out of his car where the accident was, so what you say about the witness smelling alcohol, etc would not apply.

A damage only accident, exchange details with other party, name address insurance policy details, at the time, or as soon as practicable, or to a police station within 24 hrs.

It sounds like he had a fair bump if he left his number plate behind. maybe, if the car spun or turned over, the witness thought he was injured, or could have been, or maybe his manner of driving made the witness suspect something else. Who knows. At the end of the day, a police investigation has been commenced, you wanted to know about insurance, and I certainly think he should come clean with them for his own sake. If he clames he will have to. When he took the insurance out, he will have signed to agree with the terms and conditions. So he needs to check this carefully to see if he is still entitled to drive on this insurance. You have to update the insurers regarding any accidents, or speeding fines etc, as part of the policy. I cant see that he should have a problem with this, unles he has been convicted for drink driving before, and not declared this to the insurers. I also think he needs legal advice.

No he wasn't injured. Luckily.  I agree he needs legal advice though because if the police say he was over the limit his insurance will be void, when in fact he was not at the time of the accident. 

The evidence as supplied at the time gives indication that when he was tested he was over the limit, but if he was not charged at the time, i imagine he was bailed following a blood test, to reappear at the police station at a later date?  So enqs are ongoing. Unless his insurance policy details state that he is not allowed to drive until a court case, then regardless of this overlimit test, he should be able to continue driving. It could be that, as a provision of the policy, he is required to report the accident, and the subsequent police involvement, which I think is usual in these matters. To not do so would make his insurance invalid. This is why he must find out, because not to do so would not only mean he is driving without insurance, but could also open himself to fraudulant use. Also remember, he may not be entitled to drive on someone elses insurance either. It all depends on the wording of the policy.

Please remember, its not the Police who say he is over, but the evidence surrounding it, which is far from finalised until it comes to a court case. I imagine he will be pleading not guilty should it come to this? He is not guilty until a court finds him guilty, or he admits the offence, and the court deals with it this way.

he should know, one way or the other, if he has been bailed to appear at the Police station, court, or reported for summons. I strongly recommend he gets a solicitor now, yes Im repeating myself, but if it all comes back that the CPS are going to go to court with this, then he needs to start preparing now. And a solicitor can look at the current details, and make sure all is as it should be, as in the entry to the house etc. To fight this, he is going to need strong scientific evidence regarding the alcohol consumed after the accident, and this case should it come to court will drag out.

I can well understand not wanting to speak to the insurers about this, as any drink drive conviction makes it diffcult to insure when the ban is spent, and it costs and arm and two legs. But he has not been convicted yet. If not, then this should not affect the premiums, claiming for the damage may affect his no clames though.

Thanks for that Calmstorm, I will pass the info on.

Just read this thread all the way through.

Give Alexanders a break - they were only asking for some advice!

Thanks Poohbear.  I wouldn't mind but its not even me who had the accident.