That Drink Driving thing on TV last night

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Did anyone see it? Geraint Jones's look at the perennial drunken driving Christmas mayhem.

He had a group of people,men and women, who admit regularly driving after drinking various amounts. The show was obviously supposed to be a sobering (sorry) look at the issue with lots of clips of various pissheads crashing into trees, policemen etc. but when he breathalysed the group he was with, in the pub, the results were shocking:

bloke 1: drinks six pints of lager: just over the limit
bloke 2: 4 large red wines: 1/2 the limit
bloke 3: 5 pints bitter: Just under the limit
girl 1: 4 white wines: just over
girl 2: 8 yes 8! Malibu and cokes; barely registered any alcohol at all!

At the end Geraint drinks 5 large Vodka and Cokes, off his nut and when breathalysed: half the limit!

two things occur to me: The breathalyser is obviously not a good way of determining intake because of differing physiology so surely is unreliable as a legal tool for prosecution and secondly should there be a zero limit given these mad results.

I have certainly driven after drinking in the past (not now I hasten to add!) but would never imagine I could canre the Vodka for an hour and still provide a negative sample

 

[strings]

That shocked me as well. Clearly the breathalyser is a really poor method of determining alcohol intake.

I am a well-built 23 year-old who is fairly fit, does that mean that I could take 6 lagers and still pass the test? On last nights evidence, I probably could - very scary stuff.

 

[Gazwag]

I am a well-built 23 year-old who is fairly fit, does that mean that I could take 6 lagers and still pass the test? On last nights evidence, I probably could - very scary stuff.

I didnt see it but on those results it probably the stupidest thing ever put on TV with regards to drink driving, anybody who risked it sometimes will not think they will be invincible

 

[Normal Rob]

I watched this and was just left thinking that it must surely be one of the biggest f***-ups to be broadcast on tele ever. Basically it said you can drink shit-loads and still be ok from a legal perspective.

 

[strings]

Perhaps the breathalyser should be kept as a roadside aid, but the evidence in court should be based upon blood samples?

Although that would probably raise certain ethical questions, given the recent ruling on Police retention of DNA records.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

The programme obviously started out to warn people how little alcohol puts you OTT but I too just thought that lots of viewers will think its worth the risk.

Geraints face when he blew under the limit whilst clearly pissed was something else.

 

[ali jenkins]

Perhaps the breathalyser should be kept as a roadside aid, but the evidence in court should be based upon blood samples?

Although that would probably raise certain ethical questions, given the recent ruling on Police retention of DNA records.

I thaught that was the case anyway

 

[clippedgull]

Showed that McCormick idiot being booked in and asking who he killed

Quite sad seeing the actual car that the two boys were killed in being used in a mock up of the accident aftermath.

And that one brain cell at the end saying while looking at the car, oh well accidents happen.

 

[strings]

I thaught that was the case anyway

Not neccessarily (according to last nights programme) - either blood or breath tests taken at the police station will suffice. Breath tests taken at the side of the road cannot be used in a court of law.

Maybe some of NSC's coppers' can elaborate?

 

[Napper]

I did like the test of a pram flying into a road from behind a car.

Can't say I've ever experienced that at 4am

















joke

 

[Da Man Clay]

Perhaps the breathalyser should be kept as a roadside aid, but the evidence in court should be based upon blood samples?

Although that would probably raise certain ethical questions, given the recent ruling on Police retention of DNA records.

The breathalyser taken in custody is different and far more accurate than the roadside one though. I'm not sure what etheic questions it would raise either?

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

The breathalyser taken in custody is different and far more accurate than the roadside one though. I'm not sure what etheic questions it would raise either?

I've never been sure how the law can convict someone who refuses (for whatever reason) to provide a blood or breath sample with Drunk Driving. Doesnt that actually make you guilty without being proven to be so? I am sure that there have been cases where celebrities have refused to supply a sample who have subsequently been cleared wheras they definitely wouldnt have been had a positive sample been obtained. The test is voluntary after all.

On last nights evidence it shoulnt worry anyone anyway seeing as you can drink loads before failing the test apparently.

 

[Da Man Clay]

I've never been sure how the law can convict someone who refuses (for whatever reason) to provide a blood or breath sample with Drunk Driving. Doesnt that actually make you guilty without being proven to be so? I am sure that there have been cases where celebrities have refused to supply a sample who have subsequently been cleared wheras they definitely wouldnt have been had a positive sample been obtained. The test is voluntary after all.

On last nights evidence it shoulnt worry anyone anyway seeing as you can drink loads before failing the test apparently.

You aren't convictied of driving with excess alcohol though, you're convicted of failing to provide a specimen of breath. I'm pretty sure it isn't voluntary either, if you are asked by a police officer then unless you have some sort of medical reason (or other reasonable excuse) you have to give a sample.

 

[ali jenkins]

I think most sensible people would know when there over the limit!

I wouldnt drive if i felt a little drunk or if i had had more than one pint within 2 hours of driving

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Hmmm, so many questions. I will try and answer some.

1) A person's physiology has an impact on where they are in relation to the legal limit for driving. An alcoholic who drinks 2 bottles of vodka a day may not register as highly as someone who goes to the pub once a week. On the other hand, they may appear relatively sober to look at, but actually register off the scale, as their body is used to coping with the physical symptoms of drunkenness.

Secondly, the people tested last night may have only just consumed the alcohol when the tests were done, in which case the total quantity of alcohol might not be fully absorbed into their bodies. In reality, you get nicked, you get driven to the police station, you get booked in, property logged etc, and by the time all the legal questions have been asked, it's a good while before the evidential test takes place. This may work in your favour if your levels are going down, or not, as the case may be....frankly having carried out countless tests on people, I honestly wouldn't fancy ANYONE's chances of being under the limit having had six pints. And if you told me roadside that you'd had six pints, but the breath test showed negative, I'd probably nick you anyway under S4 RTA, because I'd have serious reason to suspect the testing machine was faulty.

Thirdly, roadside breath tests are only indicative. Most forces set them up to show pass, fail or warn, not actual readings. THey're not admissible in court. It merely gives a reason to arrest someone (or not, as the case may be). Once you're arrested, you have to provide an evidential sample on a machine at the station, which tells exactly how much you've had, and provides the evidential readings for court if necessary.


If you have a medical reason why you can't provide an evidential specimen- lung problems or whatever, it doesn't get you out of it. They will simply require a blood or urine (typically blood) sample instead, and if you refuse to provide one, you get charged with failing to provide anyway, which carries the same penalty as drink driving.

And finally (deep breath) there has to be a provision to charge people with failing to provide, because otherwise everybody stopped after a beer or two would simply say no to a breath test, and be free to carry on driving like a total knobber because there'd be no power to take them off the road.

Any questions?

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Hmmm, so many questions. I will try and answer some.

1) A person's physiology has an impact on where they are in relation to the legal limit for driving. An alcoholic who drinks 2 bottles of vodka a day may not register as highly as someone who goes to the pub once a week. On the other hand, they may appear relatively sober to look at, but actually register off the scale, as their body is used to coping with the physical symptoms of drunkenness.

Secondly, the people tested last night may have only just consumed the alcohol when the tests were done, in which case the total quantity of alcohol might not be fully absorbed into their bodies. In reality, you get nicked, you get driven to the police station, you get booked in, property logged etc, and by the time all the legal questions have been asked, it's a good while before the evidential test takes place. This may work in your favour if your levels are going down, or not, as the case may be....frankly having carried out countless tests on people, I honestly wouldn't fancy ANYONE's chances of being under the limit having had six pints. And if you told me roadside that you'd had six pints, but the breath test showed negative, I'd probably nick you anyway under S4 RTA, because I'd have serious reason to suspect the testing machine was faulty.

Thirdly, roadside breath tests are only indicative. Most forces set them up to show pass, fail or warn, not actual readings. THey're not admissible in court. It merely gives a reason to arrest someone (or not, as the case may be). Once you're arrested, you have to provide an evidential sample on a machine at the station, which tells exactly how much you've had, and provides the evidential readings for court if necessary.


If you have a medical reason why you can't provide an evidential specimen- lung problems or whatever, it doesn't get you out of it. They will simply require a blood or urine (typically blood) sample instead, and if you refuse to provide one, you get charged with failing to provide anyway, which carries the same penalty as drink driving.

And finally (deep breath) there has to be a provision to charge people with failing to provide, because otherwise everybody stopped after a beer or two would simply say no to a breath test, and be free to carry on driving like a total knobber because there'd be no power to take them off the road.

Any questions?

Thanks for that Edna.

The point of the show was that the drinkers waited 20 minutes after their last drink before they blew so, according to the show, the alcohol they had consumed was well into their metabolism, that was why it was so shocking to see them pass the roadside test so easily.

How likely would you be to nick someone who passed and appeared sober? (obviously if someone passed but told you he'd had six pints you would think the machine faulty and pull him in...but who's that stupid!)

It was interesting to see the reaction of the busies who were doing the tests looking stunned when, after watching the presenter get pissed in front of them, still pass the Alcometer test.

How many of us know people who have been pulled over and breathalysed when they know they have had more than we all think we are allowed, +/-4units, and passed? I can think of at least 2, thankfully it taught them a lesson which they have learned well.

 

[Normal Rob]

oddly enough the only time i was breath tested i shat myself even though i hadn't had a drink for about 3 days beforehand.

 

[Napper]

Thanks for that Edna.

The point of the show was that the drinkers waited 20 minutes after their last drink before they blew so, according to the show, the alcohol they had consumed was well into their metabolism, that was why it was so shocking to see them pass the roadside test so easily.

How likely would you be to nick someone who passed and appeared sober? (obviously if someone passed but told you he'd had six pints you would think the machine faulty and pull him in...but who's that stupid!)

It was interesting to see the reaction of the busies who were doing the tests looking stunned when, after watching the presenter get pissed in front of them, still pass the Alcometer test.

How many of us know people who have been pulled over and breathalysed when they know they have had more than we all think we are allowed, +/-4units, and passed? I can think of at least 2, thankfully it taught them a lesson which they have learned well.

Good point actually , a mate of mine drinmk drives all the time , he won't be told !! He thinks invincible as actually got pulled after a heavey daytime session and passed the breathalyser

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Well I'm still a little dubious about the mechanics of whatever went on on that TV programme, but at the end of the day it's up to people as individuals, isn't it.

You COULD take that chance, and have those beers, to appear sociable and relax yourself a bit more in front of your mates, having faith that it wouldn't put yourself over the limit. But I guess that's probably what Luke McCormick, and countless others have done, and borne the consequences.

Personally, and I speak as a human being, rather than anything to do with my job, I dpn't think I could live with myself if I knew I was responsible for killing somebody, or their children, or otherwise ruining their life, because of something so entirely within my control.

Whatever your views on McCormick, you only have to look at him in that footage to see how the utterly shattering the realisation of what he's done is.

You can't turn the clock back on something like that, can you?

 

[Djmiles]

I love it how when they all saw the smashed up car, they said "Ohhh I'm never going to do it again".

Like f*ck they won't