TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Sunday 26 May, 2013

No breathalysers for over half of drivers in fatal accidents – despite mandatory tests

Department of Justice figures show that less than only 35 drivers – of 107 involved in fatal accidents – have been tested.

Image: John Giles / PA

LESS THAN HALF of drivers involved in a fatal car accident in the second half of last year underwent a breath test for alcohol – despite laws which make such tests mandatory.

Figures compiled by the Department of Justice show there were 107 drivers involved in fatal road accidents in the second half of last year – but only 45 of those drivers underwent the test.

The 62 cases where drivers were not tested included two where Gardai believed alcohol had not been a contributory factor to the accident. In the other 60 cases, reasons for breathalysers not being administered included that the driver had been already been hospitalised or fatally injured.

Laws which came into effect in June 2011 – and which were subsequently augmented in October – required Gardaí to administer compulsory breath tests to anyone involved in a serious accident, unless they were already to be arrested anyway.

Figures also show that of the 213 drivers involved in a serious collision, 113 drivers could not be tested, for reasons including their hospitalisation, the arrest of the driver, or there being insufficient time to carry it out.

24 drivers were not subjected to tests as Gardaí believed alcohol intake had not been a factor.

The figures were compiled in response to a parliamentary question from the independent former Labour TD, Tommy Broughan.

Transport minister Leo Varadkar told RTÉ News that the figures were something he would discuss with the Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, and the Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan.

He added that it was important that laws passed by the Oireachtas were enforced.

Read next:

Comments (24 Comments)

  • So half of them weren’t breathalysed for completely understandable reasons.

    Yet the headline implies some sort of fault on the part of the Plod.

    Reply
  • This is rubbish like, they aren’t going to breathalyse a fatally injured/ dead/ unconscious person and jeopardise any chance of their survival, the figures are substantially higher than before the rule came in. Blame the bankers here again I suppose……

    Reply
  • This pointless article has wasted 2 mins of my life. So the gardaí never breathalysed the person(s) who were fatally injured or already rushed to hospital??!!? Same on them :-D
    Reads like an April 1st story.

    Reply
  • Shneak 03/08/12 #

    Terrible article Gavin. You come with a sensationalist headline to draw in the readers and hint that the Gardai are at fault. Then go on to explain that there’s a damn good reason why they weren’t breathalysed. So what is the point of the article? Did you even read it once you wrote it? The journal standards are seriously slipping and I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s thinking this.

    Reply
    • Shneak (and others): I’ll simply point out that at no point in this article does it say, ‘the people who were not breathalysed exclusively, and totally, for the following reasons’. It lists some of the reasons why they mightn’t have been, but doesn’t say they account for 100% of the non-tested drivers.

      Reply
  • I support a more relaxed system. This country is full of conservative hardliners who are always getting their way with stricter laws. Eventually, you realize how life is more much better abroad than in this country.

    Reply
  • This is crazy, last august bank holiday weekend I was working in a pub. Four nights in a row, when I was driving home, I went through checkpoints. Even though I was in a pub uniform and told the guards I had been breathalysed each previous night, they asked me again anyway. Of course I did, I had nothing to hide. I was happy that something was being done about drink driving and extra vigilance been taken on bank holiday weekends when unfortunately our road accidents increase. But what is the point in pouring extra money into road safety and drink driving campaigns, having guards setting up random check points if they are not going to enforce the laws when there has been accidents. I’m not saying every accident is caused by drink, of course not, but it should be one of the first things done in eliminating the cause of the accident. It’s shocking in the times we’re in that people still drink and drive.

    Reply
    • I think Sarah if you read the article again it’s not a case of not enforcing the legislation. They should say how many of the drivers were deceased? How many hospitalised? These figures are important and I agree it’s a joke that people are still at it

      Reply
    • Yeah I agree the article is badly written and the figures are all over the places, but still works out that after under 30 people from accidents some fatal and some serious collisions people who weren’t deceased or hospitalised were not breathalysed because the guards didn’t think it was necessary. There’s a reason why the law was past for mandatory testing. Unfortunately I know people who have been in accident, where they have been drinking and were never tested because they could ‘act’ like they were fine. There is no reason for any amount of people not to be tested after an accident. There needs to be no wriggle room when it comes to drink driving, we have lost too many people on our roads.

      Reply
  • “Garda Keys was taken to Tallaght Hospital complaining of injuries to his shoulder and ribs. But when he got to the hospital, he said he was not going in and felt alright.
    Sergeant Pat Slattery gave evidence that he managed to find Garda Keys at his house at about 4am the following morning.
    Sergeant Slattery took a statement from him, but he said he did not breathalyse him because there is a three-hour time limit on breathalysing someone after an incident has taken place.”

    Which section does this non-testing fit? looking after one of our own?

    Reply
    • The sergeant would have breached the legislation had he tested him outside the 3 hour period.

      Reply
    • Why was he not tested beforehand? Do you think that a civilian who crashed into a garda car would have evaded testing?
      They should both have been tested on the spot as is the norm in England & Wales.
      This was the Gardai circling the wagons – again!

      Reply
    • @barry, the same as you or me, he was taken to hospital by ambulance and as with hundreds of drivers every year the Gardai went to the hospital but he was gone. I’ve never heard of them going from the scene to the hospital and then on to his house so they obviously did their best to get him.

      I suppose if someone belonging to you was in an accident and the ambulance personnel wanted to take them to hospital you would have no problem with a Garda holding them up looking for a breath sample

      Reply
    • Read the legislation

      Reply
  • Unenforceable law is stupid law! However, this is easily enforceable, it is just incompetence that has failed to follow procedures. Have these officers been repimanded for their incompetence, if not why not? The only way curing their incompetence is to hit them in the pocket, if they fail to follow such procedures dock them a days pay. They will soon learn how to complete procedures to the full.

    Reply
  • There are still 24 people who were not breathalysed because the Garda knew better. The whole point of this is to eliminate human error!
    I hope that they were reprimanded in some way.

    Reply
    • Shocking to think that the Gardai who were present at a crash site and could see with their own eyes the mechanics of the crash would dare to make a judgement on whether drink was involved… not!

      Reply
    • Good man Dennis, the Garda’s opinion was good enough since 1961 and was sometimes the only evidence required in court so it should be still good enough depending on the situation.

      Reply

Add New Comment