New Drink Driving Legislation Effective 1st June 2013

rspice

New member
Hi everyone im new here, finding this amusing and frustrated at the same time.

Can any one help with my problem?
I had some strokes 14y ago had to do a disable driving test which I past and got my license back. After ten years I had to re do my license and tell about my health again.
So dvla send me a eye test as that's whats dogdy about me. Re do the eye test and also go do the disable driving test again. Which again I passed. Thought that was it but now ive recieved a letter telling me ive gotta go do a naked piss test???

What the hell ive never been done for drink driving or under the influence of drugs. I have got a conviction for a small bit of cannabis but was years ago.

My big question.. is this for real?
Can thay do this?
Cheers in advance for any help

Convicted Driver Insurance

Compare quotes from leading covicted driver insurance specialists in the UK

Get Quotes
 

price1367

TTC Group
Hi everyone im new here, finding this amusing and frustrated at the same time.

Can any one help with my problem?
I had some strokes 14y ago had to do a disable driving test which I past and got my license back. After ten years I had to re do my license and tell about my health again.
So dvla send me a eye test as that's whats dogdy about me. Re do the eye test and also go do the disable driving test again. Which again I passed. Thought that was it but now ive recieved a letter telling me ive gotta go do a naked piss test???

What the hell ive never been done for drink driving or under the influence of drugs. I have got a conviction for a small bit of cannabis but was years ago.

My big question.. is this for real?
Can thay do this?
Cheers in advance for any help
There are 2 possibilities here.......

1. you have submitted your application to DVLA and they have checked with your doctor, who has mentioned about cannabis use, hence the requirement for you to provide a urine sample. Cannabis residue shows up better in a urine sample than blood. Yes they can do this.

2. Have a close look at the letter to see if it is genuine. I say this because of the word naked...... That is not a requirement. Do your friends know of your conviction and is it not DVLA who are taking the p*** ?
 

rspice

New member
There are 2 possibilities here.......

1. you have submitted your application to DVLA and they have checked with your doctor, who has mentioned about cannabis use, hence the requirement for you to provide a urine sample. Cannabis residue shows up better in a urine sample than blood. Yes they can do this.

2. Have a close look at the letter to see if it is genuine. I say this because of the word naked...... That is not a requirement. Do your friends know of your conviction and is it not DVLA who are taking the p*** ?
The letter is from dvla and yes ive got cannabis on my health record but what has that got to do with it?

This logic means if ive ever had a drink then I shouldn't drive?

So once ive taken this test will I be re checked yearly?
This countrys a joke!

Oh and by the way I take hemp milk and oil which I buy from supermarkets and thats legal? Cannabis=hemp
Hemp=cannabis
 

price1367

TTC Group
The letter is from dvla and yes ive got cannabis on my health record but what has that got to do with it?

This logic means if ive ever had a drink then I shouldn't drive?

So once ive taken this test will I be re checked yearly?
This countrys a joke!

Oh and by the way I take hemp milk and oil which I buy from supermarkets and thats legal? Cannabis=hemp
Hemp=cannabis

I don't know if you will be tested annually, you will have to ask DVLA about that. If it is a matter from years ago (the same time as your conviction) then they may not bother after the first one.

They want to test you because they have received information that you have taken an illegal substance in the past, and that could have an effect on your driving if you are still taking it today. Alcohol happens to be legal. I agree with your logic but that is the way of the western world, alcohol is tolerated, encouraged and taxed, cannabis use is frowned on.

Hemp oil and milk is indeed legal, but your statement cannabis = hemp..... Hemp = cannabis is not necessarily correct.
Hemp oil is normally made from cannabis plant fibre, which does not contain THC, and you would therefore not test positive for that or it's metabilites in a urine sample. that is what is looked for to indicate the DRUG cannabis use in the past few weeks, the time being according to your tolerance to the drug. There can be some hemp oil that is made from the seeds of the cannabis plant, and this could indicate THC, but modern methods or manufacture has been successful in eliminating most of it. Perhaps you should check with the manufacturer.
You would not fail the urine test unless the metabilites found were above the threshold. I am not sure what their threshold is, probably not a good idea to ask them for obvious reasons....! Some drug screening agencies report at 15nm / ml, and consider a positive at 50nl /ml. You can buy home screening kits that would give you an indication of what the result MIGHT be.
 

gutted

Well-known member
Up until today people got there licences back because they had completed there disqualification, finished the sentence which the courts gave them. Now the government has decided that they have to prove they are not dependant on alcohol before they are allowed to drive again and you are not allowed to start proving this to DVLA untill 3 months before the ban ends
This seems a pretty common misinterpretation.

They still get their license back when they finish the sentence which the court gave them. That sentence demands that the convicted a) is disqualified from driving for a specified duration, and that b) regardless of (a) the convicted driver must pass a medical to prove that they are not dependent on alcohol before they are allowed to drive again.

I'll repeat again, this only applies to new convictions.

If you think that drink driving is not worth the risk of (a) and (b), then don't do it. If you think that the perceived benefits of drink driving are worth (a) and (b), then knock yourself out, but don't complain when you get caught and have to prove that you are not dependent on alcohol before they let you drive again. You put yourself in that position, not the courts and not the DVLA.
 

bristol.red

No Longer a Member
Gutted, the more I read your posts, the more I think you should stand as a conservative MP & put in for Ian Duncan Smiths job when he resigns or gets sacked later in the year or sometime next year.

Now its your time too chose, You can either take it as a compliment or an insult the choice is yours and only you can make that choice, let me know what it is when you have chosen please.
 

gutted

Well-known member
Gutted, the more I read your posts, the more I think you should stand as a conservative MP & put in for Ian Duncan Smiths job when he resigns or gets sacked later in the year or sometime next year.

Now its your time too chose, You can either take it as a compliment or an insult the choice is yours and only you can make that choice, let me know what it is when you have chosen please.
Because I think we should take responsibility for our actions? God forbid! No you are right, it's always someone else's fault. Well done.
 

riotgrrl

New member
I have quick question on this new legislation:

A friend was banned for 18 months for refusing to provide a blood sample (after successfully providing two clean breath samples) in early 2009, and that ban expired in mid-2010. The police wanted a blood test because they believed he might have been under the influence of drugs (other than alcohol). He refused due to an intense fear of needles (his offer of a urine test was dismissed without consideration). This fear of needles was not deemed to be "reasonable excuse", and he gave a guilty plea at court after being advised by his lawyer that if he pled not guilty he'd be looking at a longer ban and a high fine.

He was told at the time that upon his ban ending he would not need to retake his test, and would just need to reapply and pay the requisite fee in order to regain his licence. The possibility of undergoing a medical prior to having his licence reinstated was not mentioned at all.

My friend has not applied for a renewed licence to date (due to not needing to drive during this period); however, he is now concerned that due to this new legislation he will need to undergo a medical prior to being able to get his licence back.

It seems like the new legislation relating to a refusal to provide a blood sample only applies to convictions made after June 2013, and that said conviction (made in 2009) COULD therefore not be classified as High Risk, as follows:

"The Motor Vehicle (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 provides legislation on the criteria drivers must meet in order to be classified as a high risk offender.

This criteria will be extended to include any person disqualified by order of a court for failing, without reasonable excuse, to give permission for a laboratory test of a specimen of blood taken from any person while that person was incapable of consenting to the specimen being taken.

NOTE: The new legislation DOES NOT APPLY where the conviction in respect to which the disqualification was ordered was imposed before the date on which the new legislation commences. The new legislation commences on 1st June 2013. The new legislation will apply to any relevant convictions on or after this date."

However the part referring to being "incapable of consenting to the specimen being taken" is somewhat vague.

Is it the case that his conviction is not High Risk, and therefore no medical is needed? Or must he undergo a full medical before he is able to get his licence reinstated?

Thank you in advance for your reply!
 
Last edited:

bristol.red

No Longer a Member
The possibility of undergoing a medical prior to having his licence reinstated was not mentioned at all.
The courts at that time did not tell the the defendant about the HRO medical after the disqualification has ended, they still don't to my knowledge. BUT you raise some very interesting points. I am not familiar with the law on this point, I am starting to wonder if you maybe right. Hopefully Price1367 will be able to clarify this situation.

It seems like the new legislation relating to a refusal to provide a blood sample only applies to convictions made after June 2013, and that said conviction (made in 2009) COULD therefore not be classified as High Risk,
The new legislation, will not have any affect on your friend regarding driving under section 88 once he has a valid application. I am also starting to think that your friend may not need the medical either. I look forward to reading Price1367's comments on your post.

Hope my reply helps a bit.
 

price1367

TTC Group
Riotgrll,
the answer to your first question is that your friend Is a high risk offender and WILL have to have a medical before he gets his licence back.
section 7 of the road traffic act (read with section 4) clearly says that anone failing to provide a sample lawful requested dring an investigation into drink driving or driving under the influence of a drug IS classed as a HRO.
because the offence was prior to 1st June 2013 he may still avail himself of the 'get out' of getting a temporary licence if his medical results are not completed by the time he is entitled to drive after his ban finishes.
the second question relates to the wording of "incapable of consenting to to sample being provided"
this is not about the procedure in the police station, but to when there are samples provided at hospital.
years ago, if someone was unconscious, ( or appeared to be) then they could not provide a sample because they had to give consent for the sample, but were not able to, obviously.
the law was then changed to say that it was lawful for a blood sample to be taken from an unconscious person, but they then had to be seen subsequently and consent sought for the sample to be used for analysis. If the person refused consent, they were charged with failing to provide a sample. So the position was that the police HAD a sample, but it had only been 'provided' aft consent was given. No consent = faiL to provide.
the HRO legislation, however, up until the 1st June did not cover this fail to provide offence. From 1st June this offence as described DOES qualify as an HRO offence and a medical IS required for those circumstances.
it is a bit complicated, like lots of Legal wording...... I hope I have explained it simply enough?

bristol.red, you were putting your bit on as I was composing this
 

Forum Moderator

Staff member
I have quick question on this new legislation:

A friend was banned for 18 months for refusing to provide a blood sample (after successfully providing two clean breath samples) in early 2009, and that ban expired in mid-2010. The police wanted a blood test because they believed he might have been under the influence of drugs (other than alcohol). He refused due to an intense fear of needles (his offer of a urine test was dismissed without consideration). This fear of needles was not deemed to be "reasonable excuse", and he gave a guilty plea at court after being advised by his lawyer that if he pled not guilty he'd be looking at a longer ban and a high fine.

He was told at the time that upon his ban ending he would not need to retake his test, and would just need to reapply and pay the requisite fee in order to regain his licence. The possibility of undergoing a medical prior to having his licence reinstated was not mentioned at all.

My friend has not applied for a renewed licence to date (due to not needing to drive during this period); however, he is now concerned that due to this new legislation he will need to undergo a medical prior to being able to get his licence back.

It seems like the new legislation relating to a refusal to provide a blood sample only applies to convictions made after June 2013, and that said conviction (made in 2009) COULD therefore not be classified as High Risk, as follows:

"The Motor Vehicle (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 provides legislation on the criteria drivers must meet in order to be classified as a high risk offender.

This criteria will be extended to include any person disqualified by order of a court for failing, without reasonable excuse, to give permission for a laboratory test of a specimen of blood taken from any person while that person was incapable of consenting to the specimen being taken.

NOTE: The new legislation DOES NOT APPLY where the conviction in respect to which the disqualification was ordered was imposed before the date on which the new legislation commences. The new legislation commences on 1st June 2013. The new legislation will apply to any relevant convictions on or after this date."

However the part referring to being "incapable of consenting to the specimen being taken" is somewhat vague.

Is it the case that his conviction is not High Risk, and therefore no medical is needed? Or must he undergo a full medical before he is able to get his licence reinstated?

Thank you in advance for your reply!
As previously stated your friend will be classed as a high risk offender due to the fact that they were convicted of and disqualified for refusing to provide a specimen for analysis without reasonable excuse and therefor will need to satisfy the DVLA or their fitness to drive by taking and passing a DVLA medical before a driving licence will be issued to them.

The new legislation which came into effect on June 1st 2013 simply expanded the high risk offender scheme to include any person disqualified by order of court for failing, without reasonable excuse, to give permission for a laboratory test to be carried out on a specimen of blood taken whilst that person was incapable of consenting to the specimen being taken (e.g unconscious people incapable of consenting). As while a blood specimen can be taken from people incapable of consenting, it cannot actually be sent off to be analysed for use as evidence without that persons consent.
 

riotgrrl

New member
Thank you for your swift replies.

So it seems that he must undergo a medical, including a blood test - which no doubt will lead to the same issue as that which caused the whole fiasco in the first place, i.e. fear of needles!

Is there any information available regarding what the blood test is actually for? And whether there is any alternative, such as urine/ saliva testing? If it's just to determine drug use, then urine and/or saliva testing would theoretically suffice...but sadly, I somehow doubt there is provision under current legislation for this.

Thanks again!
 

price1367

TTC Group
I think that your friend would have to get some supporting evidence of his fear of needles.
In fact, fear of needles is not an excuse for not providing a blood sample. What has to be shown is a phobia of needles, such as to potentially cause disturbance to your life. I used to see people who said "I can't give a blood sample, I'm S***t scared of needles, and then I would point out that they had tattoos or an earring.....! No chance!
A phobia of needles would be supported by no such cosmetic needle use, an absence of a history of childhood immunisations or inocculations for Tetanus etc.
He could get confirmation of this from his GP, confirming the absence of the above from his medical notes.

I agree with your thoughts about a urine sample being more relevant as from how you describe the situation, the Police ruled OUT drink, with clear breath samples at the Police station, and most drugs will show up better, and for longer, in a urine sample.
The problem is that this is common sense, and the law often does not follow that route! Your friend could phone the DVLA helpline (
charge made, but capped at £1.53p total) and ask if he would be allowed a urine sample alone, rather than urine and blood if he supplies the doctors proof I have suggested. He will then know if it is worthwhile approaching his GP.
 

bristol.red

No Longer a Member
I certainly do not agree with this new legislation. I applied for my licence back last October and still have not even been sent for the DVLA medical yet. That is 7 months ago. Even when I do get sent to the medical, I'm sure I will be waiting for another 3 months before a supervisor eventually grants my licence. Three months is the current waiting list, if a supervisor has to look at your application. I know this because DVLA have passed my application onto a supervisor twice on my current application and each time I have been at the bottom of a 3 month que, hence why I have been waiting 7 months so far and expect to be waiting another 3 or 4 months yet. It is pathetic and I am glad the new legislation does not apply to me. Even when they eventually do give me the licence it will probably only be for 12 months and I will have to go through it all again next year.
My latest update can be found here: http://www.forum.drinkdriving.org/general-discussion/53919-2.htm#post63192 :(
 
I cant believe how many old men I notice that hard drink in pubs and smoke like troopers driving large lorries about. I cant believe youngsters get picked on so much like in my local jubille oak pub for being light weight drunk and disordery when they are aloud to casually drive about. Its ridiculous!!!!!! YOU SHOULDNT DRINK DRIVE CZ ITS AGAINST THE LAW LIKE STEALING A TELEVISION IN A SHOP.
 
I also think some of these doctors are giving out mental illnesses like sweeties this should not be a form of punishment. A punishment should be a punishment they should not be able to create mental illnesses as excuses and they should have evidence to say somebody has a mental illness. Drink driving can kill like stepping out in the road it is silly and life threatening. It is not fair to to crash youngsters parties either and give them drunk disorderly records that could affect future careers when there are old men hard alchys that smoke like troopers driving lorries about. How abouts embarrassing they older drunks in pubs aswell.:mad:
 

habanero

Active member
I cant believe how many old men I notice that hard drink in pubs and smoke like troopers driving large lorries about. I cant believe youngsters get picked on so much like in my local jubille oak pub for being light weight drunk and disordery when they are aloud to casually drive about. Its ridiculous!!!!!! YOU SHOULDNT DRINK DRIVE CZ ITS AGAINST THE LAW LIKE STEALING A TELEVISION IN A SHOP.
I also think some of these doctors are giving out mental illnesses like sweeties this should not be a form of punishment. A punishment should be a punishment they should not be able to create mental illnesses as excuses and they should have evidence to say somebody has a mental illness. Drink driving can kill like stepping out in the road it is silly and life threatening. It is not fair to to crash youngsters parties either and give them drunk disorderly records that could affect future careers when there are old men hard alchys that smoke like troopers driving lorries about. How abouts embarrassing they older drunks in pubs aswell.:mad:
You seem to be pretty wound up about something, I'm guessing something has happened and you feel there is some injustice going on?
 

bristol.red

No Longer a Member
You seem to be pretty wound up about something, I'm guessing something has happened and you feel there is some injustice going on?
In my honest opinion it sounds like a poster that had the username "gutted" has been on the piss and is having a go back. However I might be completely wrong and if I am I offer "gutted" my sincere apologies.:):D
 

Sandra Harrison

New member
I think it's good that a ban has been introduced for high risk offenders whilst they are awaiting their medical stuff, the roads are becoming more congested everyday and this means more risks and accidents. Nothing would hurt more than knowing a loved one has been in a serious accident with someone who is not fit to be driving! :( I was actually debating this with a handful of colleague and I couldn't believe some of them thought it was OK to drive after committing such serious offences, I urged them straight away to do their homework and even call the DVLA if they really believed this!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

habanero

Active member
I think it's good that a ban has been introduced for high risk offenders whilst they are awaiting their medical stuff, the roads are becoming more congested everyday and this means more risks and accidents. Nothing would hurt more than knowing a loved one has been in a serious accident with someone who is not fit to be driving! :( I was actually debating this with a handful of colleague and I couldn't believe some of them thought it was OK to drive after committing such serious offences, I urged them straight away to do their homework and even call the DVLA if they really believed this!
The one thing I did think was how stupid it is that anyone can get on the road to start with, without a medical and go through their entire driving life potentially without ever having one. Just based on the numbers of drivers on the road, there is a far bigger risk to my mind from the people who have never been medically assessed.
That's not to say that those of use who have drank and drove shouldn't have a medical, of course we should as a duty of care, but to put the focus solely on that group of drivers carries a risk of missing far more.

Convicted Driver Insurance

Compare quotes from leading covicted driver insurance specialists in the UK

Get Quotes
 
Top