Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 July 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].


Road Safety Bill [HL]

My name is attached to Amendment No. 46 because it appears that the presence of an alcohol lock in a car—we have not actually seen such a device yet—does not prevent just anybody blowing in to it. If they did so, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has said, a drunk person could continue to drive. We seek assurance first that there is such a device; secondly, that it is proofed against being used by somebody else—really proofed, not in a way that can be got over by using a tube or something so that your mouth does not touch it; and lastly, that, if anybody uses one to permit somebody who is drunk to drive, the offence will be regarded as a serious one. The person who does it will be treated as if they had been the drunk driver.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c425 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Alcoholic drinks Breathalysers Cars Cameras Bicycles Licensing Fixed penalties Exemptions Driving under influence Large goods vehicles Police Protective clothing Lighting Motorways Safety Safety measures Roads Road signs and markings Speed limits Road traffic offences
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk