As some of you are aware, I had an accident a few weeks ago coming down monatacute road in the wet. While in hospital I had blood taken for no other purpose than drug and alcohol testing. I don't mind what sort of lifestyles people have out there, but be careful, even riding a bike you can be tested.
Mike, I had no idea you were a conspiracy theorist :)
I'd be happy for them to clone me if that was an option, perhaps a small army of me, mwwuuuuhahaha.
Seriously though, I doubt they would want to build a DNA database. The police don't even do the testing, it's done in an independent lab.
I believe all the testing is done via police forensics lab in city - results usually take approx 2 weeks and you get a letter from them advising results against alcohol, THC and I believe either speed or meth.
Unlike a general blood workup for your GP which is done by your normal private pathology places.
Spot on Mike. The four things are:
No, not a conspiracy theorist. This actually happened in the UK.....
Mike, I did not see in the Road Traffic Act anything about when to dispose of a blood sample. It could be under another Act.
I noticed on pdf page 181
4—Police officer to be present when blood sample taken
The taking of a sample of blood under section 47E(4a), 47EAA(2) or 47EAA(11) must be in the presence of a police officer.
So if the cyclist is not distracted by injuries, could ask the officer to quote the legal requirement to take a BAC test of a cyclist not involved in a motor vehicle collision.
The RTA does not appear to cover the situation when a cyclist and pedestrian collide and no motor vehicle involved. This could be awkward for a cyclist who at times is supposed to give way to a pedestrian. A cyclist would want to mitigate his liability by proving a drunk and unpredictable pedestrian. The RTA does not specifically refer to drivers of boats, nor riders of horses or horse drawn vehicles. Yet I heard story of person found guilty of riding a horse while drunk. An authority told me that a cyclist cannot be stopped for a random breath test, but can be stopped for a test if the officer has reason to believe that the cyclist is intoxicated. Do not rely on this but ask the officer to check the legal requirement. Can a knowledgeable person clarify some of these points?
Begs the question of when do we have enough rules?
We need a set of rules to cover making rules :)
Donning my bush lawyer hat:-
A cyclist (or horse rider) can be charged with DUI. This is covered under section 47. There is no requirement for a Proscribed Breath/Blood Test. The evidence is based on the officer's observations, smell of alcohol on breath, swerving on the road, bloodshot eyes, etc. The charge is being unable to control a vehicle due to intoxication.
Much like a pedestrian, a cyclist does not need to submit to a PBT at an RBT station or if stopped. If you choose to submit then the evidence can be used against you in a DUI prosecution but there is no legal obligation to submit. This is akin to the police asking to search your house, if you agree and invite them in, then any evidence they find will be used against you, but unless they have a search warrant you are not legally compelled to allow them entry. I think everyone is aware that pedestrians don't need to submit a sample so the police don't try and breathalyse pedestrians, even though it could be used as supporting evidence in any sort of public drunkeness charge.
Of course, unlike a pedestrian, a cyclist (or horse rider) can be charged with DUI.
The offences relating to PBTs and BACs are all legislated for operators of motor vehicles.