One arrested during seasonal blitz on drivers

Worcester News: CRACKING DOWN: Police stop drivers during their bid to keep the roads safe. 5112208009 CRACKING DOWN: Police stop drivers during their bid to keep the roads safe. 5112208009

UPDATE Friday 12.51pm: Of the 50 vehicles stopped yesterday, 27 were subjected to extra checks by the police, Worcestershire Trading Standards and HM Revenue and Customs.

While no drivers provided a positive breath test, a number of other offences and violations were detected including:

  • A white panel van was dealt with by HMRC for using red diesel and was subsequently fined more than £530 for the offence.
  • A trailer was seized, which is thought to have been stolen in Leominster in August 2011.
  • A driver was arrested on suspicion of driving while disqualified.
  • Two vehicles were dealt with for having no MOT and another for driving without insurance, which was seized.
  • Four intelligence-led drug searches took place, but nothing was found.

The operation, which ran from 10am to 4pm, was focused on the Worcester Ring Road A4440, where mobile ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) cameras were deployed to detect any vehicles linked to travelling criminality, while officers used their own observations to spot any other suspicious vehicles.

 

POLICE continued their Christmas crackdown on drink driving when officers stopped and tested nearly 60 drivers in Worcester.

As part of a police operation targeting driving offences, particularly drink driving, officers pulled over between 50 and 60 vehicles with all drivers being subjected to a breath test.

Fortunately, none of the drivers yesterday tested positive but since the drink-drive campaign was launched on December 1, 138 people across West Mercia and Warwickshire have been arrested for driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

According to figures from the Safer Roads Partnership, over the past three years 18 people lost their lives in West Mercia and Warwickshire and 171 were seriously injured after collisions where drink or drugs were recorded as a contributory factor.

Speaking during yesterday’s operation, Inspector Stuart Murphy said: “People drink the night before at office parties or at home but don’t realise if they are stopped in a car the next morning they will be over the legal limit.

“Even with the campaigns on the TV, people don’t realise or choose to ignore that they are over the limit and if caught will lose their licence and in extreme cases, go to prison.”

The Safer Roads Partnership, together with West Mercia and Warwickshire Police and other agencies, have been raising awareness of the consequences of drink driving and carrying out roadside checks throughout December.

The force-wide campaign supports the national month-long winter drink drive campaign that was launched on December 1 by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

Police forces throughout the UK are working this month to make sure the roads are safe for everyone this Christmas.

Yesterday, officers in Worcester were joined by representatives from partner agencies including Trading Standards and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to target other driving offences including rogue traders and people using red diesel.

At least one van was seized by HMRC for using red diesel and its trailer was seized by police, who suspected it to be stolen.

More details were expected to be released by police today.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:41am Fri 21 Dec 12

More Tea Vicar says...

Good for them.

This isn't harassing innocent drivers or a waste of police time. This is absolutely what the police should be doing.

The UK has an enviable road safety record in many respects, and this is a good way of keeping it that way.

And I'm neither surprised nor disappointed that the action is also picking up rogue traders.

I'd also like it if they targeted vehicles with insecurely attached loads. Followed a (non-council) rubbish truck yesterday, which happily strewed loads of paper and plastic waste onto the road as it went along.
Good for them. This isn't harassing innocent drivers or a waste of police time. This is absolutely what the police should be doing. The UK has an enviable road safety record in many respects, and this is a good way of keeping it that way. And I'm neither surprised nor disappointed that the action is also picking up rogue traders. I'd also like it if they targeted vehicles with insecurely attached loads. Followed a (non-council) rubbish truck yesterday, which happily strewed loads of paper and plastic waste onto the road as it went along. More Tea Vicar

9:58am Fri 21 Dec 12

Respectable says...

Fantastic. The more people caught / deterred the better. Well done West Mercia.
Fantastic. The more people caught / deterred the better. Well done West Mercia. Respectable

10:53am Fri 21 Dec 12

MrWXYZ says...

if only peoples morals and the police covered the countless other motoring laws that are dangerously ignored
if only peoples morals and the police covered the countless other motoring laws that are dangerously ignored MrWXYZ

11:02am Fri 21 Dec 12

More Tea Vicar says...

MrWXYZ wrote:
if only peoples morals and the police covered the countless other motoring laws that are dangerously ignored
Good point, but that doesn't detract from the good work the police are doing in this respect.

The police take a lot of flak, much of it justified. But they are right on this one.

I'd like to see them focussing more on obviously poorly attached loads, and apparently faulty vehicles.

How about you?
[quote][p][bold]MrWXYZ[/bold] wrote: if only peoples morals and the police covered the countless other motoring laws that are dangerously ignored[/p][/quote]Good point, but that doesn't detract from the good work the police are doing in this respect. The police take a lot of flak, much of it justified. But they are right on this one. I'd like to see them focussing more on obviously poorly attached loads, and apparently faulty vehicles. How about you? More Tea Vicar

11:46am Fri 21 Dec 12

MrWXYZ says...

thats fair enough.
Like you not too long ago i followed an overloaded rubbish truck throwing rubbish out everywhere (think this one was council). It was speeding so much though it left me behind so i had plenty of time to avoid the rubbish by the time i got there.

i just think at times theres a disproportionate focus on drink driving. Thats not to say you should do it, but there were loads of people on here defending someone banned for speeding recently as despite racking up 12 points they were only slightly speeding. Still breaking the law (and probably caught for 4th time) so don't get why they are above the 61st person randomly stopped in december who is slightly over the limit but driving safely and only stopped due to a random test.
thats fair enough. Like you not too long ago i followed an overloaded rubbish truck throwing rubbish out everywhere (think this one was council). It was speeding so much though it left me behind so i had plenty of time to avoid the rubbish by the time i got there. i just think at times theres a disproportionate focus on drink driving. Thats not to say you should do it, but there were loads of people on here defending someone banned for speeding recently as despite racking up 12 points they were only slightly speeding. Still breaking the law (and probably caught for 4th time) so don't get why they are above the 61st person randomly stopped in december who is slightly over the limit but driving safely and only stopped due to a random test. MrWXYZ

11:57am Fri 21 Dec 12

More Tea Vicar says...

Actually the rubbish trucks and other vehicles that drop litter are a very serious issue. In fairness to the Council, I've never actually seen their vehicles do it.

It tends to be commercial rubbish trucks. Also, you see a lot a vans with loads spewing shrink wrap onto the roadway.

It isn't just unsightly, it's actually dangerous.

As for the speeding, there is always a bit of a grey area, but you do see a lot of people up for being massively over, and as repeat offenders.

It's not trivial, it's potentially, and often actually, lethal.
Actually the rubbish trucks and other vehicles that drop litter are a very serious issue. In fairness to the Council, I've never actually seen their vehicles do it. It tends to be commercial rubbish trucks. Also, you see a lot a vans with loads spewing shrink wrap onto the roadway. It isn't just unsightly, it's actually dangerous. As for the speeding, there is always a bit of a grey area, but you do see a lot of people up for being massively over, and as repeat offenders. It's not trivial, it's potentially, and often actually, lethal. More Tea Vicar

12:37pm Fri 21 Dec 12

Brummagem Bertie says...

Rubbish trucks and waste vehicles with dangerous or inadequately secured loads should be reported. All you need to do is take a note of the registration number, place, date and time, and make a report to the police, Environment Agency and Traffic Commissioners/VOSA. The last two can both be done quickly and easily online.

In my experience the EA and VOSA are willing to investigate and take enforcement action against offenders, if they have the evidence.
Rubbish trucks and waste vehicles with dangerous or inadequately secured loads should be reported. All you need to do is take a note of the registration number, place, date and time, and make a report to the police, Environment Agency and Traffic Commissioners/VOSA. The last two can both be done quickly and easily online. In my experience the EA and VOSA are willing to investigate and take enforcement action against offenders, if they have the evidence. Brummagem Bertie

1:05pm Fri 21 Dec 12

ushmush83 says...

This is good. It should be done more often, if only to catch the many people flouting the law in regards to the MOT etc.

And perhaps if you see this random enforcement on the roads more often, people may be less inclined to take the risk of driving 'the morning after'.
This is good. It should be done more often, if only to catch the many people flouting the law in regards to the MOT etc. And perhaps if you see this random enforcement on the roads more often, people may be less inclined to take the risk of driving 'the morning after'. ushmush83

1:53pm Fri 21 Dec 12

Vox populi says...

Hurrah!

proper policing rather than the usual war on speed rubbish.

Guessing all these prosecutions cost money rather than made it though...
Hurrah! proper policing rather than the usual war on speed rubbish. Guessing all these prosecutions cost money rather than made it though... Vox populi

2:18pm Fri 21 Dec 12

More Tea Vicar says...

Vox populi wrote:
Hurrah!

proper policing rather than the usual war on speed rubbish.

Guessing all these prosecutions cost money rather than made it though...
They're not mutually exclusive. Both are aimed at making the roads safer.

My only issue with speed is that limits are sometimes inappropriate, and that the police only enforce because it's easy and profitable.

I reckon someone ducking and weaving without signalling, whilst texting and lighting a fag, might be in the speed limit but be more dangerous than someone else driving sensibly, but over the speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Hurrah! proper policing rather than the usual war on speed rubbish. Guessing all these prosecutions cost money rather than made it though...[/p][/quote]They're not mutually exclusive. Both are aimed at making the roads safer. My only issue with speed is that limits are sometimes inappropriate, and that the police only enforce because it's easy and profitable. I reckon someone ducking and weaving without signalling, whilst texting and lighting a fag, might be in the speed limit but be more dangerous than someone else driving sensibly, but over the speed limit. More Tea Vicar

3:46pm Fri 21 Dec 12

OnAHype says...

get over it all
get over it all OnAHype

8:32pm Fri 21 Dec 12

grumpy woman says...

I personally think Council trucks are very safe. But what will happen if they are enforced to outsource to a commercial set up.
I personally think Council trucks are very safe. But what will happen if they are enforced to outsource to a commercial set up. grumpy woman

10:09am Sat 22 Dec 12

vigorniensis says...

All of this wouldn't be necessary if the courts had exacted the proper punishments years ago. Driving with no insurance used to be a very serious offence and carried a maximum 7 year prison sentence. A few of those in the 60's would have stopped this problem.

The drink drive laws are illogical and only there because they're easy to inflict. There can be many reasons someone is "incapable" of driving but drink is easy to prosecute. Problem is though that for a relatively miniscule number of deaths, dubiously all placed at the door of alcohol, the whole country's social culture (of 60M people) has been destroyed. No balance to be seen there.
Magna Carta actually forbids punishment for a potential crime. Drink driving punishments where no accident has happened flies in the face of our Rights and is gross violation on the strength that we might cause an accident. The jury should throw this law out (which they can do, except nobody ever tells them of this power we the people have).
All of this wouldn't be necessary if the courts had exacted the proper punishments years ago. Driving with no insurance used to be a very serious offence and carried a maximum 7 year prison sentence. A few of those in the 60's would have stopped this problem. The drink drive laws are illogical and only there because they're easy to inflict. There can be many reasons someone is "incapable" of driving but drink is easy to prosecute. Problem is though that for a relatively miniscule number of deaths, dubiously all placed at the door of alcohol, the whole country's social culture (of 60M people) has been destroyed. No balance to be seen there. Magna Carta actually forbids punishment for a potential crime. Drink driving punishments where no accident has happened flies in the face of our Rights and is gross violation on the strength that we might cause an accident. The jury should throw this law out (which they can do, except nobody ever tells them of this power we the people have). vigorniensis

10:11am Sat 22 Dec 12

vigorniensis says...

grumpy woman wrote:
I personally think Council trucks are very safe. But what will happen if they are enforced to outsource to a commercial set up.
"enforced" ???? by whom?
[quote][p][bold]grumpy woman[/bold] wrote: I personally think Council trucks are very safe. But what will happen if they are enforced to outsource to a commercial set up.[/p][/quote]"enforced" ???? by whom? vigorniensis

12:58pm Sat 22 Dec 12

pronstar says...

vigorniensis wrote:
All of this wouldn't be necessary if the courts had exacted the proper punishments years ago. Driving with no insurance used to be a very serious offence and carried a maximum 7 year prison sentence. A few of those in the 60's would have stopped this problem.

The drink drive laws are illogical and only there because they're easy to inflict. There can be many reasons someone is "incapable" of driving but drink is easy to prosecute. Problem is though that for a relatively miniscule number of deaths, dubiously all placed at the door of alcohol, the whole country's social culture (of 60M people) has been destroyed. No balance to be seen there.
Magna Carta actually forbids punishment for a potential crime. Drink driving punishments where no accident has happened flies in the face of our Rights and is gross violation on the strength that we might cause an accident. The jury should throw this law out (which they can do, except nobody ever tells them of this power we the people have).
Magna Carta aside, you actually think its acceptable to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol, provided you don't cause an accident?
[quote][p][bold]vigorniensis[/bold] wrote: All of this wouldn't be necessary if the courts had exacted the proper punishments years ago. Driving with no insurance used to be a very serious offence and carried a maximum 7 year prison sentence. A few of those in the 60's would have stopped this problem. The drink drive laws are illogical and only there because they're easy to inflict. There can be many reasons someone is "incapable" of driving but drink is easy to prosecute. Problem is though that for a relatively miniscule number of deaths, dubiously all placed at the door of alcohol, the whole country's social culture (of 60M people) has been destroyed. No balance to be seen there. Magna Carta actually forbids punishment for a potential crime. Drink driving punishments where no accident has happened flies in the face of our Rights and is gross violation on the strength that we might cause an accident. The jury should throw this law out (which they can do, except nobody ever tells them of this power we the people have).[/p][/quote]Magna Carta aside, you actually think its acceptable to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol, provided you don't cause an accident? pronstar

3:35pm Sat 22 Dec 12

nantgarw says...

Well done to West Mercia police for their hard graft on behalf of all the decent, law abiding motorists in the County.I would like to see far more actions like this on more regular occasions in different areas. ( Mr Longmore, are you reading this? )Those without insurance, road tax, driving dodgy vehicles, or over the drink drive limit are on the roads because they know they have a very good chance of avoiding being caught. It would be great for the Police to let us know how many drivers have had their vehicles seized and cubed at the scrap yards, together with their names. I'm sure the WN would print the information.
Well done to West Mercia police for their hard graft on behalf of all the decent, law abiding motorists in the County.I would like to see far more actions like this on more regular occasions in different areas. ( Mr Longmore, are you reading this? )Those without insurance, road tax, driving dodgy vehicles, or over the drink drive limit are on the roads because they know they have a very good chance of avoiding being caught. It would be great for the Police to let us know how many drivers have had their vehicles seized and cubed at the scrap yards, together with their names. I'm sure the WN would print the information. nantgarw

7:41pm Sat 22 Dec 12

DarrenM says...

"Magna Carta aside, you actually think its acceptable to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol, provided you don't cause an accident?"

Well Magna Carta aside as well actually - yes I do, as did the house of commons and the house of lords, and all the people who voted for that government at the time the drink drive law was passed.

That's why we have a drink drive 'limit' that isn't zero.
"Magna Carta aside, you actually think its acceptable to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol, provided you don't cause an accident?" Well Magna Carta aside as well actually - yes I do, as did the house of commons and the house of lords, and all the people who voted for that government at the time the drink drive law was passed. That's why we have a drink drive 'limit' that isn't zero. DarrenM

8:54am Sun 23 Dec 12

Keith B says...

grumpy woman wrote:
I personally think Council trucks are very safe. But what will happen if they are enforced to outsource to a commercial set up.
Most council dustbin collections are privatised. Council dustcarts are not council run, they are run by private companies and have been for some years.
[quote][p][bold]grumpy woman[/bold] wrote: I personally think Council trucks are very safe. But what will happen if they are enforced to outsource to a commercial set up.[/p][/quote]Most council dustbin collections are privatised. Council dustcarts are not council run, they are run by private companies and have been for some years. Keith B

8:15pm Sun 23 Dec 12

DarrenM says...

Also what power did the Farce use to pull over these 60 motorists? I seem to recall they only have the power to breath test motorists at the scene of an RTA, if a traffic offence has been committed or if they have suspicion that the driver has been drinking.
As they have no power to stop drivers for the purpose random breath testing, they are abusing their authority and a complaint to the IPCC needs to be made
Also what power did the Farce use to pull over these 60 motorists? I seem to recall they only have the power to breath test motorists at the scene of an RTA, if a traffic offence has been committed or if they have suspicion that the driver has been drinking. As they have no power to stop drivers for the purpose random breath testing, they are abusing their authority and a complaint to the IPCC needs to be made DarrenM

10:04am Mon 24 Dec 12

More Tea Vicar says...

vigorniensis wrote:
All of this wouldn't be necessary if the courts had exacted the proper punishments years ago. Driving with no insurance used to be a very serious offence and carried a maximum 7 year prison sentence. A few of those in the 60's would have stopped this problem.

The drink drive laws are illogical and only there because they're easy to inflict. There can be many reasons someone is "incapable" of driving but drink is easy to prosecute. Problem is though that for a relatively miniscule number of deaths, dubiously all placed at the door of alcohol, the whole country's social culture (of 60M people) has been destroyed. No balance to be seen there.
Magna Carta actually forbids punishment for a potential crime. Drink driving punishments where no accident has happened flies in the face of our Rights and is gross violation on the strength that we might cause an accident. The jury should throw this law out (which they can do, except nobody ever tells them of this power we the people have).
So presumably you would be ok with people being able to carry knives and assault rifles or RPGs?

I wouldn't.

There is a commonsense, proven causal link between drinking and driving. Obviously there are going to be grey areas, in terms of the effects of a given quantity of alcohol on a given individual at a given point in time.

But the general rule, that drinking-driving is potentially lethal, seems sound, and should be enforced,.

Doesn't mean the police should overlook other issues, such as driving without insurance etc, but enforcing the drink-driving laws seems to be entirely right.
[quote][p][bold]vigorniensis[/bold] wrote: All of this wouldn't be necessary if the courts had exacted the proper punishments years ago. Driving with no insurance used to be a very serious offence and carried a maximum 7 year prison sentence. A few of those in the 60's would have stopped this problem. The drink drive laws are illogical and only there because they're easy to inflict. There can be many reasons someone is "incapable" of driving but drink is easy to prosecute. Problem is though that for a relatively miniscule number of deaths, dubiously all placed at the door of alcohol, the whole country's social culture (of 60M people) has been destroyed. No balance to be seen there. Magna Carta actually forbids punishment for a potential crime. Drink driving punishments where no accident has happened flies in the face of our Rights and is gross violation on the strength that we might cause an accident. The jury should throw this law out (which they can do, except nobody ever tells them of this power we the people have).[/p][/quote]So presumably you would be ok with people being able to carry knives and assault rifles or RPGs? I wouldn't. There is a commonsense, proven causal link between drinking and driving. Obviously there are going to be grey areas, in terms of the effects of a given quantity of alcohol on a given individual at a given point in time. But the general rule, that drinking-driving is potentially lethal, seems sound, and should be enforced,. Doesn't mean the police should overlook other issues, such as driving without insurance etc, but enforcing the drink-driving laws seems to be entirely right. More Tea Vicar

11:22am Mon 24 Dec 12

The Doosra says...

vigorniensis wrote:
All of this wouldn't be necessary if the courts had exacted the proper punishments years ago. Driving with no insurance used to be a very serious offence and carried a maximum 7 year prison sentence. A few of those in the 60's would have stopped this problem.

The drink drive laws are illogical and only there because they're easy to inflict. There can be many reasons someone is "incapable" of driving but drink is easy to prosecute. Problem is though that for a relatively miniscule number of deaths, dubiously all placed at the door of alcohol, the whole country's social culture (of 60M people) has been destroyed. No balance to be seen there.
Magna Carta actually forbids punishment for a potential crime. Drink driving punishments where no accident has happened flies in the face of our Rights and is gross violation on the strength that we might cause an accident. The jury should throw this law out (which they can do, except nobody ever tells them of this power we the people have).
Gosh, such a lot of rubbish written in so few words.

So, it would be ok for a driver to be prosecuted for causing death or injury due to being under the influence of alcohol, but it would be wrong to administer a breath test beforehand and get him or her off the road thus preventing the injury?

Moronic doesn't come close!
[quote][p][bold]vigorniensis[/bold] wrote: All of this wouldn't be necessary if the courts had exacted the proper punishments years ago. Driving with no insurance used to be a very serious offence and carried a maximum 7 year prison sentence. A few of those in the 60's would have stopped this problem. The drink drive laws are illogical and only there because they're easy to inflict. There can be many reasons someone is "incapable" of driving but drink is easy to prosecute. Problem is though that for a relatively miniscule number of deaths, dubiously all placed at the door of alcohol, the whole country's social culture (of 60M people) has been destroyed. No balance to be seen there. Magna Carta actually forbids punishment for a potential crime. Drink driving punishments where no accident has happened flies in the face of our Rights and is gross violation on the strength that we might cause an accident. The jury should throw this law out (which they can do, except nobody ever tells them of this power we the people have).[/p][/quote]Gosh, such a lot of rubbish written in so few words. So, it would be ok for a driver to be prosecuted for causing death or injury due to being under the influence of alcohol, but it would be wrong to administer a breath test beforehand and get him or her off the road thus preventing the injury? Moronic doesn't come close! The Doosra

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree