Being aware of something which is happening up ahead… is not the same as being distracted… surely it is something which should be part of safe driving??
Seems that you’ve had a bad experience at the road side… which is a shame but doesn’t (in my view) mean that police checks per se aren’t a good idea and/or necessary.
Goodness me, doesn’t anybody read the words I actually say?
@Lizzie1
Surely saying there’s a lot of drink drivers about is supporting the argument for more stop checking
I totally agree with that, what I do not agree with is it being used publicly in a distracting manner (otherwise what would be the point of it?) by hauling people out into the open to make people stare and be deterred, which @Robert_Hodge espoised.
Being aware of something which is happening up ahead… is not the same as being distracted… surely it is something which should be part of safe driving??
I was talking particularly about the distraction caused to drivers on the opposite carriageway, hence my reference to ‘rubbernecking’. That is distracting and, as it was put forward as intending to be disracting as a deterrence, is totally irresponsible.
Seems that you’ve had a bad experience at the road side… which is a shame but doesn’t (in my view) mean that police checks per se aren’t a good idea and/or necessary.
How on earth do you deduce that from what I said? My own experience, as I described it, was the exact opposite of irresponsibility and bad practice. Please read again where I said ‘it was done in a friendly manner in the police car’. Not outside at a distance from the cars as a warning to other drivers. The fact that I was completely innocent made me appreciate the way it was conducted. Hardly a ‘bad experience’ as you put it.
Sorry if you feel I’ve misunderstood/misquoted… not my intention… this thread has rather wandered and I might well have got things muddled.
So, let’s get back to square one.
Police do roadside checks in order to catch folk who are in an illegal situation… whatever that might be…
The fact that Police are visibly active in this way… should make other drivers consider their own situation and encourage said drivers to act responsibly etc etc.
The Police are NOT encouraging “rubber neckers”… and anyone who slows unexpectedly to take a long-look could be charged/cautioned.
Hopefully, any driver behind… will have left sufficient space to allow for this… and possibly already taken such a happening into account as they themselves notice the Police up ahead. The blue flashing lights are a great help… but not always on display.
Some folk do take it badly, if stopped by Police… which is unfortunate… but some anxiety is surely natural, for any of us.
We’ve been stopped before now and I’m immediately fretting, wondering what on earth we’ve done…
But… all’s well… sometimes it’s a quick puff into the tester… sometimes it’s simply a document check… and a few words… phew.
Nothing humiliating… except possibly for the ones who end up in handcuffs…
So are you suggesting we just let the drunk drive then
@Stella I was specifically answering @Robert_Hodge’s view that the alcohol test be taken away from the vehicles at the roadside in full view as a deterrence. My view is that it should be done but within the police vehicle so as to create as little fuss to others, that’s all.
@Lizzie1 I give up, whatever I say you will misread, misunderstand or simply just ignore.
OK, I will try just once more. I APPROVE OF ROADSIDE DRINK TESTS.
Is that clear enough?
Yes but how do you suggest that they are carried out then?
In France, random roadside testing is common (or it was pre-covid).
The Gendarmes would set up an impromptu stop somewhere - a road junction for example - and there would be a number of officers in attendance stopping cars, one with the test machine with another looking at the vignettes in the window and observing the conduct of the occupants. At least one motorcyclist would be ready in case of “flight” - and then after a short time, would up-sticks and move to another location to fox the “informers”.
The driver is not asked to get out of the vehicle, the device is poked through the window with an obvious gesture to blow… This maximises the number of drivers checked and reduces the inevitable bouchon building and delays… honk your horn at your peril!
The element of surprise is key to a successful operation 
and the look on the chap’s face when he realized I was not the driver , had me grinning and pointing at the rhd steering wheel and OH 
I like the sound of that
I did too… the whole operation on our (one and only) stop took possibly just over a minute (but would have been longer if tested positive )
I’ve been tested for breath alcohol twice in France. Each time was a random test at the roadside in public view. I really did not have a problem with that .
The gendarmes, however, were dismayed that at midnight on a Saturday, and 3pm on a Sunday there was no alcohol at all in my breath. In fact for the Saturday they insisted on testing again using a different tester as ‘Samedi soir - pas d’alcool. C’est impossible!’
perhaps their profiling software got it wrong - or they forgot to press the button on the top of the tester first time
What’s the word for “teetotal” in France? Is there one?
A bit like the gendarme who stopped me one Sunday afternoon and aksed me if I’d had a drink at lunchtime. There was a silence while I processed his question and then translated my answer into French. By which time, he came back with “you had to think about it!” I explained: I had to think about the question and the answer, not whether I’d had a drink.
He was leaning on my wound down window breathing alcohol all over me. 
antialcoolique (par Goggle) or qui ne boit jamais d’alcool
Perhaps @vero can answer that better…
I just get called a “boring old fart” when I refuse a drink
Je ne bois pas d’alcool ou Abstème : Définition simple et facile du dictionnaire.
So do I, discreet and efficient, which was the point I was trying so hard to make, rather than be taken out of the car and tested some metres away from it to attract attention as @Robert_Hodge was appearing to recommend. 
Let me elucidate a little.
Firstly, it is impossible to carry out a breath test in the police car when the officer is riding a motorcycle.
Secondly, moving the person to be tested away from the stationary vehicle to a place where both the officer and the driver are in a safer environment is preferable, and in fact part of the duty of the officer to safeguard the life of the suspect.
Thirdly, the intent is not to embarrass or demean anyone, but rather to be visible in what one is doing as a cautionary note to others.
Finally, the only people we stopped were those who were committing some sort of moving traffic offence such as speeding, changing lanes carelessly, or having something obviously wrong with their vehicle or using it in an inappropriate manner such as an insecure load or excessive number of occupants.
So basically, if they did find themselves a little embarrassed, well perhaps that is an additional incentive to drive in a safer and more lawful manner.
I acknowledge that some folks don’t always approve of the way in which the police go about doing their duty, but do please remember that they are doing that duty precisely because it is what the public pay them to do.
By the way; In the UK, Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 gives an officer in uniform the unqualified and unrestricted right to cause a vehicle being driven on a road to stop. Anyone who chooses to drive should be aware of that, and prepared to comply with it.
I understand your point @Robert_Hodge but wouldn’t it be more clear if the law applied in the UK as it does in France - there is no requirement placed on law enforcement officers to determine if a traffic offence has been or is being committed - just stop the vehicle and conduct whatever contrôle is required according to their powers.
In the UK, officers know all about “ways and means” and that might provide opportunities for a slick lawyer to skew any evidence in their favour and for the accused to escape justice on a technicality. Just be up front from the start with the full backing of the law.
Would you not agree?
Isn’t that pretty well the same as in UK - presumably the Police Office only has to have suspicion an offence has been committed or of a vehicle defect?