Breathalyser or sobriety test?

[AdamW]

I was watching one of those "Crazy fools being chased by the police" programmes on TV the other night. They showed a video where a policeman stopped a guy for speeding, but ended up suspecting the guy had been drinking. In America they give "sobriety tests" where they get you to do things like walk along the white line on the side of the road, or say the alphabet, to make sure you're not drunk.

I thought "What tosh, a breathalyser is far more reliable!" but then I got to thinking: A breathalyser only tells the policeman if you have alcohol in your breath, they are notorious for registering red if you drink a half and then get straight in the car. Also they don't have any kind of gauging over whether or not you are in a fit state to drive: it may say you are OK but you might still be wobbling about! However, a sobriety test shows how quickly someone is reacting to situations (balance is a key indicator to this) and helps indicate the capability of the individual rather than a fixed value of alcohol concentration.

I think they should still be given a blood or urine test when they get to the station (possibly a second one a fixed time later so they can extrapolate to the time of driving).

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether they would prefer a roadside breathalyser or roadside "sobriety testing" to reduce drink driving?

 

[waran]

All for sobriety testing. After all it's not just alcohol that impairs your ability to drive. It needs to be backed up with objective measures to determine levels above a threshold especially in the cases of drugs misuse.
The trouble is that some of these tests are quite difficult and very subjective.
But then again breathalysers can be fooled too.

 

[2scoops0406]

You do have a second test when you get to the police station, the roadside test is inadmissable.

 

[AdamW]

You do have a second test when you get to the police station, the roadside test is inadmissable.

I knew about the station test, but didn't know the roadside one was inadmissable... I thought they could still do you if you passed the second test?

I know a right to**er who crashed his car when drunk, failed the breathalyser. They took him to the station and gave him the option of blood or urine (unusual choice of beverages ). He chose blood because it was the middle of the night and it was his fortune that the doctor didn't come until the morning. So he got away with it.

 

[waran]

I believe you're supposed to have two breath tests when you are at the station. If they are both very high then you will automatically get charged. If they are above the legal limit but below a threshold then they can ask for a blood or urine test( I think you used to get the choice but not anymore). Even if this test is delayed they can still calculate back from when they do take it to determine the level when you were driving. I think it's up to the forensic services as to whether they were able to convincingly argue these normagrams for excretion of alcohol in court. That bloke you describe Adam was very fortunate and it was probably a while ago. The law is much tighter now.

 

[AdamW]

That bloke you describe Adam was very fortunate and it was probably a while ago. The law is much tighter now.

It was 7 or 8 years ago, so it no doubt has changed. Good to see the laws are tighter. Despite being socially unacceptable to most, I bet there are still plenty of people who think it is an infringement on their liberties...

 

[ohmygodwhathaveyoudone]

it does'nt bother me as i NEVER drink & drive,i'm no saint but people who do should be shot.(a bit strong i know but thats what i think,all drink drivers are pond life)
why do people drive to the pub if they have no intention of driving home?
why have they stopped advertising fags on telly & we end up with the distressing ones were victims say smoking killed me,i sympathise with them but no one made them go in a shop & buy them!
why are there no drink drive warnings on all the beer ads on telly?

 

[ohmygodwhathaveyoudone]

just read in my local paper tonight a young lad got fined for drink driving + no insurence + no m.o.t.
he got a £150 fine + £60 court costs
imagine if the accused ran over the judges kid?
it would be a whole different ball game then.

 

[2scoops0406]

You do have a second test when you get to the police station, the roadside test is inadmissable.

I knew about the station test, but didn't know the roadside one was inadmissable... I thought they could still do you if you passed the second test?

I know a right to**er who crashed his car when drunk, failed the breathalyser. They took him to the station and gave him the option of blood or urine (unusual choice of beverages ). He chose blood because it was the middle of the night and it was his fortune that the doctor didn't come until the morning. So he got away with it.

BTW, this is just knowledge, not experience.

 

[AdamW]

just read in my local paper tonight a young lad got fined for drink driving + no insurence + no m.o.t.
he got a £150 fine + £60 court costs
imagine if the accused ran over the judges kid?
it would be a whole different ball game then.

Yet if he had gone 47mph in a 40mph limit then parked in a London residents' bay without a permit he would have got a £100 parking fine and a £60 speeding ticket... Because parking in residents' bay is so much of a crime compared to drink driving...

 

[billythekid]

just read in my local paper tonight a young lad got fined for drink driving + no insurence + no m.o.t.
he got a £150 fine + £60 court costs
imagine if the accused ran over the judges kid?
it would be a whole different ball game then.

Yet if he had gone 47mph in a 40mph limit then parked in a London residents' bay without a permit he would have got a £100 parking fine and a £60 speeding ticket... Because parking in residents' bay is so much of a crime compared to drink driving...

and a £5 congestion charge!

 

[2scoops0406]

I think the answer is to make the limit effectively zero, then we all know where we stand.

 

[AdamW]

Isn't that the case in Sweden? I seem to remember that the limit there is effectively zero (is actually slightly above, as you have natural alcohol).

Still, they have lots of buxom blonde women, high-quality p0rn, saunas, proper snowy winters and very safe cars to make up for it

I read a study about European drinking habits, it turns out that the British drinking style is very much Scandinavian. Makes sense seeing as we are up towards the north of Europe and much of the country has been under Viking rule. I always like to think of myself as more Viking than Norman

Anyway, the point of this report was saying about how the British tradition is to drink lots relatively infrequently (Scandinavians used to love their spirit-fuelled benders) whereas the continental way is to drink little and often.

I totally agree with making the drink-drive limit zero, especially when you hear some of the excuses that people have tried. That woman off Eastenders, I believe her name is Cat (with the big flabby bingo wings) was done for drink driving TWICE. The first time she was let off in court because she claimed that she thought she was drinking orange juice, not screwdrivers (yeh right). The second time she claimed she had "only" drunk 3 glasses of white whine. 3 standard glasses of 10% white wine (I think this is what they used to base the recommendations on) usually wouldn't put you over the limit. But I couldn't help but wonder if these were 3 large glasses of strong Chardonnay? i.e. a whole bottle of something 13%-14%. BAAAAAD IDEA!!!! Needless to say, the judge used some choice words (I believe he called her stupid) and banned her.

 

[2scoops0406]

Yeah, I was basing the idea on the Swedish system. It has to be an "effective" zero 'cos as has rightly been pointed out, we all have background traces of alcohol in us. I just think that it would take out the guesswork that some people employ, should I have another glass of wine / beer or not, 2 pints may well not be over the limit for a 20-30 year old (depends on the beer / lager), but what about an inexerienced drinker / driver of 18, how big is said driver, how fast is their metabolism / how good is their liver, the answer of course is you can't tell, zero tells us all where the line is, and is fair.

 

[AdamW]

A fact that people don't pay attention to: the old recommendations were based on 3.4% bitter. I know people who will sit in the pub, have 2 pints of premium lager (5.1%) and drive. Last time I saw that happen, it was a mate who was giving me a lift home. He had already had one pint, so when I went to get another drink I asked if he was sure he should have another. "Yes, you are allowed two pints!" was the response. It is a difficult situation, so I bought him the second pint.

Anyway, he very nearly ran into the back of someone waiting for a roundabout on the way back. One of those ABS moments when you can hear the tyres struggling and you end up stopping a foot from the car in front! Lucky for him he didn't hit them, it was right next to a police station so he would have been breathalysed within 5 minutes. I only hope he has learned from that!

To be honest, I always thought that the last recommendations (before they phased them out) were equivalent to 1 and a half pints, reason being you could have one pint of pretty much any beer and run practically zero risk of being over the limit.