The breathalyser and road dangers

The Times carried an article headed Man Cleared Of Drink-Driving After Refusing Breathalyser Test (September 24). I will not go into the individual case as I am in no way qualified to do so. However, if this holds true, surely the majority of drink-drivers would have the right to refuse it too. After all, one should not have to "have slurred speech or be unable to stand unaided" to be qualified as unfit to be driving.

As to "needing witnesses to testify the accused is drunk", let's face it, not many people would be prepared to do that whether it is true or not and, probably, the worse the character looks, the fewer the witnesses.

There have, even recently, been a number of bad car accidents and even fatalities on our roads due to drink-driving. Having random spot checks using breathalysers is probably one of the most effective ways of putting a stop to this.

One must also appreciate that it is a far from pleasant task for the police to stop someone and face the annoyance of a driver, whether having consumed alcohol in excess or not.

In other civilised countries spot checks with breathalysers are commonplace and either friends take it in turns to drive but not drink or else hire a taxi if they know they will be drinking.

Here, we seem so shocked when the inevitable accidents happen.

What is the point of the breathalyser if tests are not compulsory and its punishment not harsh? No one should have the right to refuse it. That should be tantamount to being found guilty.