The law and drink driving

[thulfi]

First of all I must say I really love watching police documentary programmes on tv. Could watch them all day long.

Each time I watch though I find myself getting ticked off how some drunk driver got off the hook because the initial test is not deemed accurate enough. So they get taken to the station, sober up and pass the more accurate test which is the only one they go on, and thereby get away with it.

It's all good and well to say it's just a cut off point, but in my opinion if you look drunk enough to need to get stopped and blow above limit on the spot you should get it. Eliminates external factors like how far away said person is from nearest station or any thing else.

[Specialone]

Problem is the roadside blow test isnt accurate enough, ive also got a problem with next day alcohol breath test failures, you just dont know when its ok, i know you could always not drink the night before but what about if you are a responsible drinker and have a few pints the night before?
There should be in addition to the breath test a sobriety test, a failure at night is different to the morning after imo.

Imo the limit alone is antiquated, every person absorbs alcohol differently, so one person would be affected by a small amount whereas another wont show any affects for the same amount.
Im not condoning DD, far from it, its just to grey.

[Bluepete]

ive also got a problem with next day alcohol breath test failures, you just dont know when its ok, i know you could always not drink the night before but what about if you are a responsible
There should be in addition to the breath test a sobriety test, a failure at night is different to the morning after imo..

Sorry mate, but you're so far off the mark with that, you're not even on the same page.

Alcohol is alcohol. The amount in you has a direct relationship to how you are able to function, sleep or no sleep. Why should getting your head down for a few hours make it ok to be over the limit?

Pete :(

[Bri w]

I'd like to see the UK follow some of the EU countries, i.e. a zero limit. Its unambiguous.

As to next day testing; same limit to apply. The body will process "last night's" session but its up to the drinker to drink sensibly. I think with enough notice to a change in the law and decent education of the public as to what levels of of alcohol drunk the night before would be safe the following morning it is the only sensible course to follow.

And just think of how many accidents, many involving innocent victims, would be avoided.

Its pretty clear the current, antiquated, system isn't working... time for a change.

[MisterTommyH]

I'd like to see the UK follow some of the EU countries, i.e. a zero limit. Its unambiguous.

I see where you're coming from, but is there not some kind of problem where some medical conditions would register a low amount of alcohol? I.e. below the current limit, but above zero? Might be complete bull shine, but I'm sure I've heard that used as an argument against zero limit before.

I've got to say, regardless of the actual system of testing, I'm quite impressed in the turn round of attitudes to drink driving in general over the last few years.... It used to be seen as almost acceptable, or something to try and get away with. Now it's completely taboo, and something that people would disown friends for if they got caught.

[Bri w]

I see where you're coming from, but is there not some kind of problem where some medical conditions would register a low amount of alcohol? I.e. below the current limit, but above zero? Might be complete bull shine, but I'm sure I've heard that used as an argument against zero limit before.

I've got to say, regardless of the actual system of testing, I'm quite impressed in the turn round of attitudes to drink driving in general over the last few years.... It used to be seen as almost acceptable, or something to try and get away with. Now it's completely taboo, and something that people would disown friends for if they got caught.

Okay, pick a suitably low limit that corresponds to something above what is found naturally in some people. That would also give an element of tolerance to those who'd had a couple the night before - sorted.

[Biker Biggles]

I think the current limit was set because medical opinion said that higher levels were more likely to cause significant impairment.Which seems sensible if correct.Given that we get very animated about alcohol these days we tend to ignore other reasons for bad driving,like being tired,angry,listening to the stereo,having a fag,or just bad attitude.You dont have to be drunk to tailgate,but you will cause serious crashes by doing it.

[punyXpress]

Morning after tests:
How many drove home the night before but weren't caught at the time?

[TamSV]

With the current cuts to traffic policing any change to the limit is pretty academic is it not? If there's no-one around to breathalyse you it doesn't really matter how much you've had.

[Specialone]

Sorry mate, but you're so far off the mark with that, you're not even on the same page.

Alcohol is alcohol. The amount in you has a direct relationship to how you are able to function, sleep or no sleep. Why should getting your head down for a few hours make it ok to be over the limit?

Pete :(

Nope youve missed my point.

6 pints on a night out which ends at 12 midnight means you'll probably pulling around 12-14 units, they reckon recovery is approx 1 unit per hour so...
12 units= 12 hours, means you cant drive to approx 12 mid day the following day.
But say i drive to work at 8am, means i still have 4 units of alcohol in my system, two is roughly the legal limit so you're twice the legal limit @8am.

Get pulled 20 mins after downing 2 pints on the night =twice the legal limit still ( based on 1 pint is approx 2 units).

My argument is you WILL behave / perform differently in any test with your reactions compared to being twice the limit on the actual night you consume the alcohol, ( which in effect is what the drink drive limit is to stop us getting beyond an acceptable level)

I 100% know i would get a different result if i performed a reaction test under the two conditions as above, im sure other people feel perfectly ok the following morning but hand on heart with the same level of alcohol the night before would feel slightly affected and perform differently in the same test.

Thats why imo, a sobriety test in unison with a breath test is fairer than just the level off a blow test.

Finally, a reaction test would also be suitably affected by a persons tiredness, something that can affect us just as much as a couple of pints.

[beabert]

Aren't they trying to abolish the second station test now anyway? As the modern handhand equiptment is now very accurate. I heard this on one of these police shows a few months back.

[Bri w]

Nope youve missed my point.

6 pints on a night out which ends at 12 midnight means you'll probably pulling around 12-14 units, they reckon recovery is approx 1 unit per hour so...
12 units= 12 hours, means you cant drive to approx 12 mid day the following day.
But say i drive to work at 8am, means i still have 4 units of alcohol in my system, two is roughly the legal limit so you're twice the legal limit @8am.

Get pulled 20 mins after downing 2 pints on the night =twice the legal limit still ( based on 1 pint is approx 2 units).

My argument is you WILL behave / perform differently in any test with your reactions compared to being twice the limit on the actual night you consume the alcohol, ( which in effect is what the drink drive limit is to stop us getting beyond an acceptable level)

I 100% know i would get a different result if i performed a reaction test under the two conditions as above, im sure other people feel perfectly ok the following morning but hand on heart with the same level of alcohol the night before would feel slightly affected and perform differently in the same test.

Thats why imo, a sobriety test in unison with a breath test is fairer than just the level off a blow test.

Finally, a reaction test would also be suitably affected by a persons tiredness, something that can affect us just as much as a couple of pints.

Not sure you're maths are right, i.e. you'llbe processing the units almost as soon as you start drinking them. If your first pint is at 8pm that will be through your system by 10pm, and your second pint 12pm. Different people have different metabolic rates... driving the following morning after a skin full is just plain naive.

The problem with a reaction test is it benefits those who have good reactions to start with, irrespective of their alcohol level.

The mg/litre of blood is a definitive limit. It may not be ideal but its the best of a bad job + there's no subjectivity about it. AND there's enough info in the public domain for people to know what they shouldn't drink.

[-Ralph-]

Zero limit, not for me thanks. My wife is French and cooks with red wine a LOT. Eating my dinner has absolutely zero effect on me.

Aren't they trying to abolish the second station test now anyway? As the modern handhand equiptment is now very accurate. I heard this on one of these police shows a few months back.

I think they are trying to abolish the blood test, because the breath machine at the station is now accurate enough. The hand held units are not good enough IMO, like anything else they can be faulty, need calibration, etc. I wouldn't trust them any more than I trust a hand held speed measurement device.

[LankyIanB]

Cooking with red wine doesn't give you much (if any) alcohol. recalling my chemistry lessons at school (a bloody long time ago).... Ethanol has a boiling point of 78 deg C, so if you pour a bottle of red into a pan that's warm enough to cook anything, the alcohol is gone, boils off in no time. It's the other aromatic chemicals in the wine that get left behind that give the lovely flavour to the dish.

Puddings that you soak in alcohol and then don't burn off are more of a risk...

Have to admit I'm with Bluepete with this (no, I'm not a cop), if you fail the test you're not in a fit state to be driving. The route you took to be in that state doesn't matter. You're in that state, end of.....

[Dave20046]

Not sure you're maths are right, i.e. you'llbe processing the units almost as soon as you start drinking them. If your first pint is at 8pm that will be through your system by 10pm, and your second pint 12pm. Different people have different metabolic rates... driving the following morning after a skin full is just plain naive.

The problem with a reaction test is it benefits those who have good reactions to start with, irrespective of their alcohol level.
.

I was always told to start the clock after your last drink,whether this is just a precaution or not I don't know but it's banned me from driving all the following day before.

[Quiff Wichard]

I get drunk on 3 pints


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Littlepeahead]

I get drunk on half a shandy - I'm a cheap date.

But how many people also drive after taking medication? I know if I have 2 of the 30/500 Cocodamol I get given for headaches then I feel woozier than if I've had half a bottle of champagne and my reactions are not sharp. But although there is a warning on the box, how many people actually take notice of it? It;s not like thay can breathalise me for codeine. I'm sensible and don't drive if I've taken it - but a lot aren't.

And more of a worry is the amount of weed I see people smoke and then they drive home. Probably additionally distracted by the billboards for jaffa cakes on the way.

[Bluepete]

I get drunk on half a shandy - I'm a cheap date.

But how many people also drive after taking medication? I know if I have 2 of the 30/500 Cocodamol I get given for headaches then I feel woozier than if I've had half a bottle of champagne and my reactions are not sharp. But although there is a warning on the box, how many people actually take notice of it? It;s not like thay can breathalise me for codeine. I'm sensible and don't drive if I've taken it - but a lot aren't.

And more of a worry is the amount of weed I see people smoke and then they drive home. Probably additionally distracted by the billboards for jaffa cakes on the way.

We can deal with that for you madam! Field Impairement Testing is common now. I do quite a few and lots of people fall foul of meds and illegal drugs. The outcome is the same. Banned from driving.

As far as I'm aware, no-one has been aquitted on the basis that they were OK to be over the limit 'cos they'd had a nap for a few hours.

Pete ;)

PS,

LPH, fancy a date? I'm cheap too, so "How you dooin'?"

[punyXpress]

And more of a worry is the amount of weed I see people smoke and then they drive home. Probably additionally distracted by the billboards for jaffa cakes on the way.

That'll be that nice Mr Seggons! He'll put billboards anywhere.;)

[Red Herring]

Nope youve missed my point.

6 pints on a night out which ends at 12 midnight means you'll probably pulling around 12-14 units, they reckon recovery is approx 1 unit per hour so...
12 units= 12 hours, means you cant drive to approx 12 mid day the following day.
But say i drive to work at 8am, means i still have 4 units of alcohol in my system, two is roughly the legal limit so you're twice the legal limit @8am.

Get pulled 20 mins after downing 2 pints on the night =twice the legal limit still ( based on 1 pint is approx 2 units).

My argument is you WILL behave / perform differently in any test with your reactions compared to being twice the limit on the actual night you consume the alcohol, ( which in effect is what the drink drive limit is to stop us getting beyond an acceptable level)

I 100% know i would get a different result if i performed a reaction test under the two conditions as above, im sure other people feel perfectly ok the following morning but hand on heart with the same level of alcohol the night before would feel slightly affected and perform differently in the same test.

Thats why imo, a sobriety test in unison with a breath test is fairer than just the level off a blow test.

Finally, a reaction test would also be suitably affected by a persons tiredness, something that can affect us just as much as a couple of pints.

In all my years of coppering, and the literally 100s of people I must have nicked for drink driving, I've yet to find one that thought they were unfit to drive, even the ones I've pulled out of their wreckage and tested several times over the limit.

In my view the current system works just fine. We have a reasonable limit and good technology in order to enforce it. Most importantly we have the support of the public and as has already been said public acceptance of drink driving is now virtually a thing of the past.

My only concern now is due to our force restructuring custody areas are getting further apart and queues for getting in are getting longer. This means you can nick someone who is marginally over the limit yet by the time you've booked them in they go under at the station. I know from speaking with colleagues from other forces that they have similar issues. There is talk of us having new devices that can provide an evidential reading on the street, however these will have little impact on the above scenario as under current legislation any breath reading close to the limit can be replaced by a blood/urine specimen so we'll be back to bringing them in to wait in the queue anyhow.

[AndyBrad]

http://www.ru****ed.com/

there you go.

Im plastered after 2 pints and theres no way i could drive. However i could bet 50p im still safer than half the people i pass on the way to work who couldnt drive a car full stop. however thats not the point is it. The fact is your breaking the law. dont like it dont do it. although i/you may have done it before doesnt make it right does it?

[Specialone]

I was always told to start the clock after your last drink,whether this is just a precaution or not I don't know but it's banned me from driving all the following day before.

That was my understanding as well.

[Specialone]

The point I'm trying to get across is, although illegal as you're still over the limit, a person will feel differently even with same readings on the breath test.

I'm not only about getting **** faced the night before but just a few pints where you think it's gotta have wore off by the morning but you end up being slightly over, this is where I feel the current law is too rigid.

Anyway im not a big drinker these days and only have 1 pint with a meal if I go out and I'm driving, so I shouldn't have anything to worry about.

[Shellywoozle]

Aren't they trying to abolish the second station test now anyway? As the modern handhand equiptment is now very accurate. I heard this on one of these police shows a few months back.

The second procedure is the accurate device, its all on video and will not be abolished unless the hand held device is changed to new technology.

Blood test is a necessity to fall back on for those who can't provide a specimen of breath. ie ill, medical reasons, too pished to blow or stand.

I don't drink do drink driving will never apply to me ;)

[thulfi]

The point I'm trying to get across is, although illegal as you're still over the limit, a person will feel differently even with same readings on the breath test.

Differently to what? How drunk they were the night before? You must compare their post sleep over the limit reactions and skills to what their sober reactions would be. Ultimately if it attracts police attention, and you're over limit, sleep plays no say.

If your reading is x and x is above the limit then tough, your reading is x, simples!

[Stuuk1]

Sorry mate, but you're so far off the mark with that, you're not even on the same page.

Alcohol is alcohol. The amount in you has a direct relationship to how you are able to function, sleep or no sleep. Why should getting your head down for a few hours make it ok to be over the limit?

Pete :(

I cant understand why people even have a drop to drink if they are driving. If you say you are a 'responsible drinker' then you should know that any amount of alcohol in your body can affect the way you behave. Therefore in my opinion, drinking responsibly means that if you are driving that evening, don't drink.

If im riding my bike the next day, I wont even drink a drop the night before!

It should be zero tolerance. The roadside test is the test that should count and that way it will save a huge amount of police time.

[widepants]

A group of us did a little test a few years ago with an xbox and some rather tasty cider.
Some of us drank the cider and others apple juice.
It was so obvious who had consumed alcohol

[yorkie_chris]

I'd like to see the UK follow some of the EU countries, i.e. a zero limit. Its unambiguous.

Meaning you'd get banned now for that glass of sherry you had on Sunday, or the mouthwash you used this morning? That's a little mental isn't it?

I'd say it is fairly clear the current system is actually working, unless you have some figures to suggest there's lots of people crashing into stuff with half the current legal limit of alcohol in them?

[HoL]

A group of us did a little test a few years ago with an xbox and some rather tasty cider.
Some of us drank the cider and others apple juice.
It was so obvious who had consumed alcohol

Were they the ones having fun & annoying the others?

[metalangel]

A group of us did a little test a few years ago with an xbox and some rather tasty cider.
Some of us drank the cider and others apple juice.
It was so obvious who had consumed alcohol

Pah, I say. I have to be legless before it affects me in Forza. Hell, being slightly tanked makes you faster (in games only!!)

[keith_d]

I don't see the point in reducing the limit to zero without good medical evidence that there is significant impairment at the present level. The current system of a reasonable limit combined with harsh penalties and social pressure seems to be working well. So, even if the current limit is a solid black line through a fuzzy grey area I'd stick with it.

I heard a while back that the police were trying to remove the right to a blood test because it was almost impossible to get a qualified person to collect the sample during the times they were most needed. (Probably all pi$$ed!) Given that blood alcohol level is the final proof I'm not sure this is a good thing.

[Gazza77]

Meaning you'd get banned now for that glass of sherry you had on Sunday, or the mouthwash you used this morning? That's a little mental isn't it?

I'd say it is fairly clear the current system is actually working, unless you have some figures to suggest there's lots of people crashing into stuff with half the current legal limit of alcohol in them?

I tend to agree, leave it as it is.

I think you might find however Chris that that the majority of accidents involve people that haven't any alcohol in them at all. ;)

[Bri w]

Meaning you'd get banned now for that glass of sherry you had on Sunday, or the mouthwash you used this morning? That's a little mental isn't it?

I'd say it is fairly clear the current system is actually working, unless you have some figures to suggest there's lots of people crashing into stuff with half the current legal limit of alcohol in them?

Okay, pick a suitably low limit that corresponds to something above what is found naturally in some people. That would also give an element of tolerance to those who'd had a couple the night before - sorted.


17% of deaths on the road are alcohol related.

Austrailia reduced its alcohol related traffic accidents by 41% by reducing the permitted limit from 80mg/ml to 50mg/ml.

Statstics are brilliant. 54% of all traffic accidents are speed related - maybe the max speed for vehicles should be 25mph;)

[thulfi]

I heard a while back that the police were trying to remove the right to a blood test because it was almost impossible to get a qualified person to collect the sample during the times they were most needed. (Probably all pi$$ed!) Given that blood alcohol level is the final proof I'm not sure this is a good thing.

I personally know of somebody who got stopped by an armed police unit in central London due to the way he was driving. He was over the limit, went for the blood test, Doc didn't turn up til about 6am, and told the person straight up that they were lucky he hadn't come earlier.

[Red Herring]

......

Statstics are brilliant. 54% of all traffic accidents are speed related - maybe the max speed for vehicles should be 25mph;)

I think that's daft, 100% are speed related.
Two stationery vehicles will never hit each other.

[mikerj]

I think that's daft, 100% are speed related.
Two stationery vehicles will never hit each other.

Obviously, but excessive speed may or may not be a contributory factor to the cause of an accident. If you fell unconscious at the wheel and ran someone over at 20mph, was that accident caused by speed?

[Red Herring]

Speed is just a component part of driving. If I run someone over at 120mph is it the high speed that killed them, or my failure to turn the steering wheel in order to drive around them? Inappropriate speed for the circumstance is an issue, it is an obvious sign of poor driving judgement. Driving judgement in seriously influenced by alcohol.

[yorkie_chris]

It's a bit odd about same night vs morning after. I've previously had one pint and then ridden, only a couple of times and it's not something I'll repeat. Reason being it seemed to make little gaps look bigger and rather easy to get into trouble despite probably being safely under the limit.
The morning after a heavy night, possibly way over the limit, seems to have no discernible effect on my personal perception of risk. YMMV.
Not a suggestion of a change to the law, just an observation...

(Riding with a hangover; I do not think it a good idea or condone it etc.)

[Specialone]

It's a bit odd about same night vs morning after. I've previously had one pint and then ridden, only a couple of times and it's not something I'll repeat. Reason being it seemed to make little gaps look bigger and rather easy to get into trouble despite probably being safely under the limit.
The morning after a heavy night, possibly way over the limit, seems to have no discernible effect on my personal perception of risk. YMMV.
Not a suggestion of a change to the law, just an observation...

(Riding with a hangover; I do not think it a good idea or condone it etc.)

At last someone got it :)
This is exactly what i tried to say at the start of this thread, not on about legally, but how we feel differently even though we may have the same levels of alcohol but at different times of the day.

If i had a heavy night and got breath tested at 8am at twice legal limit, i know for a fact twice the legal limit the night before after id just had that amount i would feel impaired a bit, there is a difference just not legally.

[beabert]

At last someone got it :)
This is exactly what i tried to say at the start of this thread, not on about legally, but how we feel differently even though we may have the same levels of alcohol but at different times of the day.

If i had a heavy night and got breath tested at 8am at twice legal limit, i know for a fact twice the legal limit the night before after id just had that amount i would feel impaired a bit, there is a difference just not legally.

Interesting, email mythbusters lol :D

[TamSV]

At last someone got it :)
This is exactly what i tried to say at the start of this thread, not on about legally, but how we feel differently even though we may have the same levels of alcohol but at different times of the day.

If i had a heavy night and got breath tested at 8am at twice legal limit, i know for a fact twice the legal limit the night before after id just had that amount i would feel impaired a bit, there is a difference just not legally.

You're bang on. There is a difference in how impaired you are for a given blood/alcohol level depending on whether you're on the way up or the way down.

You're less impaired the morning after than you were the night before at the same blood/alcohol level. Jokes are also less funny and people are much less attractive. :p

[thulfi]

You're less impaired the morning after than you were the night before at the same blood/alcohol level.

Really? Based on what? Surely the baseline measure is being totally sober, and not comparing to the night before you slept licked.

[Red Herring]

I'm not going to dispute the suggestion that you feel less impaired for a given alcohol level on the morning after, rather than the night before, it may well even be true. The bottom line is that you are still feeling the effects of the alcohol, just in a different way, and that effect is still sufficient to impact on your ability to drive safely.

[Specialone]

I'm not going to dispute the suggestion that you feel less impaired for a given alcohol level on the morning after, rather than the night before, it may well even be true. The bottom line is that you are still feeling the effects of the alcohol, just in a different way, and that effect is still sufficient to impact on your ability to drive safely.

RH I'm not disagreeing with you, you're probably 100% right, but I'm just trying to get across about reactions etc are different IMO, whether these are still below standard for driving is a possibility.

The original point I was trying to make was if they lowered the limit, morning after breath tests would be, IMO, unfair without a sobriety test as well, as I don't think the limit would impair our driving at as much or even at all.

[timwilky]

Many years ago, I failed a roadside breath test.

I was gobsmacked, no way. I knew I was under. but the man said "Oh dear sir your nicked" and off I went in the car.

Fortunately, for some reason the intoximeter was out of order and the police surgeon was summoned to extract some blood from my alcohol system. After about 5 months I got the letter though the door I had been dreading.

My blood alcohol was below that... and no further action would be taken. No apology for wasting my time, for locking me in a cell overnight, for putting me through 5 months of torment would I have a job etc.

A breath test is not a reliable method of establishing accurately how much somebody has drunk. It just indicates you have been in the vicinity of alcohol.

[HoL]

Many years ago, I failed a roadside breath test.

I was gobsmacked, no way. I knew I was under. but the man said "Oh dear sir your nicked" and off I went in the car.

Fortunately, for some reason the intoximeter was out of order and the police surgeon was summoned to extract some blood from my alcohol system. After about 5 months I got the letter though the door I had been dreading.

My blood alcohol was below that... and no further action would be taken. No apology for wasting my time, for locking me in a cell overnight, for putting me through 5 months of torment would I have a job etc.

A breath test is not a reliable method of establishing accurately how much somebody has drunk. It just indicates you have been in the vicinity of alcohol.


Out of interest how much had you drunk?

[timwilky]

I had drunk less than a pint of weak bitter shandy. I knew I was driving and had resolved to only have 2 pints of shandy, but I was not enjoying it and had decided to leave and go to a pub near home after dumping the car. trust me to overtake an unmarked police car in my hurry to make last orders.

[Milky Bar Kid]

A breath test is not a reliable method of establishing accurately how much somebody has drunk. It just indicates you have been in the vicinity of alcohol.

For the record, I don't think the current procedures should be changed and I definately don't think they should get rid of blood/urine samples however, that last sentence is utter tosh.

The intoximeters in the stations have been shown to be very accurate and they are designed (in laymans terms) to take the breath from bottom of your lungs. Being in the vicinity of alcohol or even a mouthful will not affect the machines unless you have had the mouthful within 20 minutes, at which time the machine will read the "mouth alcohol" as opposed to "breath alcohol". This is why you should be asked if you have had a drink within the past 20 mins. I have breathlysed someone who was stinking of drink and they blew a pass.

The limits are changed so that 35 microgrammes in 100ml of breath matches the same amount of alcohol in your blood at 80 and 107 in urine.

I have even had a case where the guy blew 42 so went to blood and as his body had longer to process the alcohol he had consumed, it ended up quite a high reading when the blood came back!

[timwilky]

It might be tosh, but my evidence is that I failed a roadside breath test after less than a pint of shandy. The breath test was not an accurate reflection of my blood alcohol level.

[HoL]

I've passed the breath test about an hour after a pint of cider, the policeman seemed really pi$$ed off that it came back negative.

[thulfi]

It might be tosh, but my evidence is that I failed a roadside breath test after less than a pint of shandy. The breath test was not an accurate reflection of my blood alcohol level.

In all fairness, just got this from wiki.

One study found that the BAC readings of subjects decreased 11–14% after running up one flight of stairs and 22–25% after doing so twice. Another study found a 15% decrease in BAC readings after vigorous exercise or hyperventilation. Hyperventilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperventilation) for 20 seconds has been shown to lower the reading by approximately 32%. On the other hand, holding one's breath for 30 seconds can increase the breath test result by about 28%.

We should just do what the aussies do in my opinion

Research indicates that breath tests can vary at least 15% from actual blood alcohol concentration. An estimated 23% of individuals tested will have a BAC reading higher than their true BAC.

Didn't realise the readings were that variable til I read this stuff. I suppose when money falls from trees and new more accurate portable breathalysers can be developed, looks like the current system might be the best way, even though some people do end up getting away with it.

No biggy if it comes back as above the level and you know you're not. You'll be inconvenienced perhaps, but what can ya do if the breathlyser can be that far off the true readings?

[Milky Bar Kid]

It might be tosh, but my evidence is that I failed a roadside breath test after less than a pint of shandy. The breath test was not an accurate reflection of my blood alcohol level.

How long ago was that? That sounds like a faulty machine to me.

[punyXpress]

No biggy if it comes back as above the level and you know you're not. You'll be inconvenienced perhaps, but what can ya do if the breathlyser can be that far off the true readings?

I dunno . .
" My blood alcohol was below that... and no further action would be taken. No apology for wasting my time, for locking me in a cell overnight, for putting me through 5 months of torment would I have a job etc. "
. . i reckon THAT would be a ' biggy ' to most of us!
Also Seriously wonder about the validity of Wacky-Paedo reports.

[thulfi]

I dunno . .
" My blood alcohol was below that... and no further action would be taken. No apology for wasting my time, for locking me in a cell overnight, for putting me through 5 months of torment would I have a job etc. "
. . i reckon THAT would be a ' biggy ' to most of us!

If a copper stopped someone in that situation and they blew over the limit, even though they protested about how little they had drank what would you want them to do?

What can you even have them do? The breathalyser makes errors. Til money falls from trees and they have super reliable equipment on the roadside, stuff like this is gonna happen. Nothing came of it, except wasted time for timwilky. And why worry about your job if you know that the breathalyser must have made an error and the blood would clear you?

Can't comment on the lack of apology for time wasting.

[The Idle Biker]

oh come on now, when you've been locked in a cell overnight for nothing and been through it then you comment, else don't say things like "why worry", cos you probably don't have a job to lose yet, a family to look after yet and enough fluff on your chin to know what it's all about yet.

that aside good thread. i think the the d&d standards have to stay i don't see any other option. i think the balance is right.

[yorkie_chris]

And why worry about your job if you know that the breathalyser must have made an error and the blood would clear you?

Ever had a few hours looking at a cell wall with thoughts like that running round your head?

[thulfi]

I don't understand. If you know you're under, what are you gonna be afraid of? The blood test coming back with excess alcohol levels? That's not gonna happen.

Unless you think you might be under, but not sure, that is a different matter. Timwilky said he knew he was under. And I'm sure sitting in a cell is not a pleasant experience, but would you be thinking scary thoughts about losing jobs etc unless you might be guilty? How he could know he was under is a different matter. I'd only be pretty sure if I had literally drank next to nothing.

cos you probably don't have a job to lose yet,

Actually I do, I work for the NHS, and have invested a lot of time in uni. We have a lot to lose with things like this.

Regardless, what are people having a go at. The fact the breathalyser isn't so accurate?! Yet to here what you guys would do if you were the officer on the other side doing his job. Miraculously sense when the breathalyser isn't working correctly?

[Biker Biggles]

Ah.The old if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear illusion:rolleyes:
Ever read up on why people who have been locked up in a police cell for a few hours end up admitting to all sorts they never did or accepting cautions even though they were not guilty?Its a well documented thing which is quite unintelligable to those of you who have never experienced it.Why on earth would anyone start to believe or accept they are guilty when they are not?
But theyb do.

[Bri w]

Tim, did you get the phone number of your cell buddy;) maybe it was the soap on the rope that frightened you.:D

[-Ralph-]

I waited about a year for my DWDC court date, only then to be found not guilty, which of course I always knew was the case. Thulfi - sorry mate, your talking balls on that one. Tim's not a doctor, he doesn't know what else could be causing the breathalyser test fail or what his blood is going to show and why. It's stressful as hell to be accused of something you haven't done, then face the prospect of being prosecuted for it because some volunteer magistrate in a courtroom happens not to believe your story, a 'witness' tells a pack of lies, or a blood test might show something which you don't understand. Never had a patient look at you in fear because you diagnosed something he didn't understand and his perception was it was serious?

[Red Herring]

.......

The limits are changed so that 35 microgrammes in 100ml of breath matches the same amount of alcohol in your blood at 80 and 108 in urine.


It's definitely better to get done in Scotland then, in England the urine limit is 107......:cool:

[Milky Bar Kid]

I apologise for a typing error! Whooopseee!

[Tim in Belgium]

Police employees in this thread believe in the equipment they're given. They can only believe the information they have been given. Whether that information has been scientifically challenged is another matter.

For a true debate shouldn't this be answered by physicians/biochemists on the human/physiological front and analyst engineers/chemists on the equipment front?

Interesting vaguely nonetheless.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Police employees in this thread believe in the equipment they're given. They can only believe the information they have been given. Whether that information has been scientifically challenged is another matter.

For a true debate shouldn't this be answered by physicians/biochemists on the human/physiological front and analyst engineers/chemists on the equipment front?

Interesting vaguely nonetheless.

I think they have been challenged in the past by defence agents and such like. There are very very few procedures that have not been challenged to the Nth degree.

[Tim in Belgium]

I am not challenging the fact that the procedures have been challenged. All I am saying is that as an employee you are reporting this to me, and are not an expert in this field.

I would not expect a police officer to challenge every law, but to implement them. I do not think it is a police officer's job to be an expert in every or any field of law, and I expect them to be an expert at nothing apart from enforcing the law ;) Which I am sure you're all good at doing sensibly.

[Milky Bar Kid]

The point I was trying to make is that the devices have been challenged and therefore the sciencey bit has already been done - hence why the intoximeter machines in the station are so accurate now.

[Red Herring]

Police employees in this thread believe in the equipment they're given. They can only believe the information they have been given. Whether that information has been scientifically challenged is another matter.

For a true debate shouldn't this be answered by physicians/biochemists on the human/physiological front and analyst engineers/chemists on the equipment front?

Interesting vaguely nonetheless.

We're not quite as easy as that you know.... I appreciate a new copper has to have some faith in what they are told at training school but that information is very rapidly reinforced (or disproved) by what they see with their own eyes. I know the breath test devices are fairly accurate because as MBK says the breath limit of 35 is supposed to marry up with the equivalent blood or urine specimen, and on countless occasions I've seen a breath reading or 40 to 50 replaced with a specimen (they have a right to this under the procedure) and the analysis subsequently show the breath reading to have been accurate.

Incidentally we don't prosecute for less than 40, where if the specimen comes back just one over you get done.