Random Breath Testing: Did My Cop Stuff up?

RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 08:30

So I was at a wedding on Saturday and from 5pm to 10pm, I had six beers (Lashes, yum) and one shot.
Being an engineer, I entered it into an app to calculate my BAC, which said around 0.04 when I left, quite close to the limit, but not over.
Then after about 10 minutes, as luck would have it, I got stopped for a random breath test. The cop does the usual, asks for my licence, asks if I've had anything to drink, to which I respond "yes".
He then wants to do a breath test, but then decides to do the counting test first, even though we both assume it's a foregone conclusion.
I count, he looks at his machine and then says "You're free to go", I reply "Really?", he just says "Yes".

So did the cop stuff up, was his machine faulty or am I a strange human specimen?

Automotive

Comments

    • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 10:13
      +1

      ?

      • boomramada on 09/09/2019 - 10:30

        Cop let you drive under influence of alcohol?

        • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 10:32
          +3

          I'm pretty sure one of us is drunk now! Because your argument makes absolutely no sense to me.

          • boomramada on 09/09/2019 - 12:04

            @RubenM: Fact is, I'm not sure what you try to achieve here other than COP let you go for various reason which is nothing to do with your qualification or use of the app else you can indulge me more over a drink lol :)

  • HighAndDry on 09/09/2019 - 10:13
    +11

    He then wants to do a breath test, but then decides to do the counting test first, even though we both assume it's a foregone conclusion.
    I count, he looks at his machine and then says "You're free to go", I reply "Really?", he just says "Yes".

    The counting test is a breath test. You were probably under the limit by enough of a margin that there was no chance of you being over the limit.

    Like others - pretty stupid to drive to/from a wedding especially when you yourself think you're at 0.04, but the law says that that's safe 'enough' to drive for a fully licensed driver. Plus - 0.04, while not ideal and is stupid, isn't much more stupid than driving while sleepy, driving with raucous kids, driving while taking a call (even on handsfree), etc. Those things and distractions are just harder to quantify.

    • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 10:15

      I was under the impression that that counting test (which technically is a breath test), is a binary test that says "no alcohol" or "alcohol". But that might be an incorrect assumption. But I definitely thought that if there was any doubt, it would go to a full breath test.

      • HighAndDry on 09/09/2019 - 10:20
        +6

        I think it's just a quick and dirty version of the older breathalyzer but is still more than a YES/NO thing.

        https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/rbt-technology-now-so…

        Motorists pulled over for an RBT are first asked to count to five or 10 in what is called a presumptive, or screening, test.

        The breathalyser will ­detect any alcohol near the unit. After a positive test ­drivers are asked to blow into a tube ­connected to the same unit, known as a three decimal place test.

        Which is why I disagree with all the condemnation here. You may have had a non-zero reading, but if you passed the counting test it means you weren't even near the limit. Your estimation self-imposed additional tolerances for your app's BAC calculation seems to have worked as intended.

        • spaceflight on 10/09/2019 - 19:08

          I think it's just a quick and dirty version of the older breathalyzer but is still more than a YES/NO thing

          It is an induction.
          It only gives a positive or negative result.

          The article you quoted even says that.

          Motorists pulled over for an RBT are first asked to count to five or 10 in what is called a presumptive, or screening, test.

          This is screening for alcohol.
          It is positive or negative.

          The breathalyser will ­detect any alcohol near the unit.

          It detects any alcohol. More than 0 is a positive result.

          After a positive test ­drivers are asked to blow into a tube ­connected to the same unit, known as a three decimal place

          This is so they can get a BAC reading.

    • FareEvader on 09/09/2019 - 14:08

      What exactly is a counting test?

      • HighAndDry on 09/09/2019 - 14:10
        +1

        It's a different breathalyzer that they shove in your face, but instead of having you blow into a pipe/straw, you count to 10 into the unit.

        • FareEvader on 09/09/2019 - 14:12

          Ah I see, I've never encountered one before. Is it more accurate than the one where you blow into the straw?

          • HighAndDry on 09/09/2019 - 15:07
            +3

            @FareEvader: No - it's basically a preliminary screening to see if you might be over the limit. Then if yes, they break out the straw one. But it's faster, doesn't need a consumable (the one-time use straw) and good enough for 99% of people because most people aren't drink driving.

            • trongy on 11/09/2019 - 08:44
              +1

              @HighAndDry: Ah. You and OP are in NSW. I'm in Victoria and I've only ever been breath tested through a straw. I've never heard of these devices before either.

    • spaceflight on 10/09/2019 - 19:05

      The counting test is a breath test.

      It is an indication test.
      The result is either positive or negative.

      You were probably under the limit by enough of a margin that there was no chance of you being over the limit.

      There is no value given when counting into the unit.

  • TEER3X on 09/09/2019 - 10:26

    So obviously not drunk, and capable of driving.

    If you blew 0.051 then the cop would need to do paperwork, etc, etc. Not worth the hassle imo.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/09/2019 - 10:55
      +1

      You have no clue. Police don't experience, nor whinge about, massive piles of paperwork like US cop shows.

      An infringement takes 5 mins to write out sitting in their comfy driver's seat.

      • TheBigShort on 09/09/2019 - 14:59

        So cop did his job well and OP is in the clear you're saying?

      • Pantagonist on 10/09/2019 - 08:22

        I live rural and there's a cop in a town of <500 people nearby who regularly lets people off when they're over the limit.

        Reason being that people need to be driven 50km either direction to a larger town for secondary breath analysis if they blow over on the roadside. If they're .06 or .07 then the odds that they'll be under .05 by the time they get to the secondary screening location; ergo not worth the time and effort. Much easier to let them drive the kilometre or two home when there's no one out on the streets.

        Source for this information was the cop himself when he was drunk at the pub.

    • bigticket on 10/09/2019 - 15:23

      Paperwork required for 0.050 as well, since its also over the limit.

  • bobbified on 09/09/2019 - 10:35
    +8

    "You're free to go", I reply "Really?", he just says "Yes".

    Who asks this?? When you're told you're free to go, you're supposed to GTFO! haha

    You could've been just over the limit on the handheld but the cop thought that you will likely be just under by the time you get to and blow into the full analysis machine. So no point bringing you in.

    The handheld is an indicator only.

    • Eeples on 11/09/2019 - 23:19

      I agree the OP saying ‘Really?’ doesn’t ring true for a sober person to say….

  • tsunamisurfer on 09/09/2019 - 11:10
    +3

    The App telling me I am 0.4 is a sign I need to NOT drive.

    There is no room for error and the consequences are dire.

    • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 11:34
      +7

      I certainly wouldn't have driven if the app had said 0.4!

      • davidem on 10/09/2019 - 09:06

        I can’t seem to see where OP said he was 0.4?

        • HighAndDry on 10/09/2019 - 11:04

          Spludgey (OP) was quoting tsunami:

          The App telling me I am 0.4

          I'd be impressed with anyone still able to read at 0.4…

  • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2019 - 11:39
    +1

    Victoria Police have faked more than 250,000 roadside breath tests to meet quoatas.

  • JimmyF on 09/09/2019 - 12:14

    I count, he looks at his machine and then says "You're free to go", I reply "Really?", he just says "Yes".

    Cop didn't stuff up, if the results are UNDER .05 then you're free to drive. They don't tell you the results unless you're over.

    • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 12:23

      He didn't actually breath test me, so there's no way he could have gotten a halfway accurate result.

      • JimmyF on 09/09/2019 - 14:36
        +1

        Did you not 'count' into the machine? If so, you have been breath tested.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/09/2019 - 14:38
          +8

          OP can't recall the events of the breath test.

          Drunk confirmed.

        • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 14:49

          Not one that will give you a qualitative result though.

          • JimmyF on 09/09/2019 - 14:59
            -1

            @RubenM:

            Not one that will give you a qualitative result though.

            But you're not really the one to say that though.

            If the police are using the device, then its passed the 'tests' and been proven to be valid for doing breath tests.

            • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 15:04

              @JimmyF: Yes, fair enough, but the whole thing just confused me a bit, hence this thread.

          • factor on 09/09/2019 - 15:05
            +4

            @RubenM: Engineer confirmed - goes for the big word - uses wrong one :)

        • spaceflight on 10/09/2019 - 19:11

          That's wrong.
          Counting is only an indication for alcohol.

          It is not possible for the counting test calculate a BAC number.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2019 - 12:19
    +11

    6 beers and a shot, then you drove? You’re a d head. The whole point of having a shot is to get drunk quickly.

    • Nebargains on 09/09/2019 - 12:48
      +3

      They said it was half a shot up earlier.

      Anyway, I don't drink beer at all (mostly gin or spirits) but 6 beers and half a shot in 5 hours, presumably with food (it was a wedding after all). That doesn't seem like a whole lot to me? How strong are these beers?

      The general rule of thumb for a male is like 2 drinks in the first hour and then 1 every hour after that. Personally I wouldn't have driven but I don't think Op was blind drunk or anything and the cop didn't have an issue with it either so, doesn't sound like they did a whole lot wrong legally.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2019 - 16:53
        +7

        Everyone in this thread is hilarious, 7 std drinks in 5 hours for a 118kg dude, there's no way he was over and there's a good reason the cop let him go after the count test.

        • HighAndDry on 10/09/2019 - 11:06

          It was relatively light beer and half a shot, so closer to something like 5 std drinks in 7 hrs. Yeah OP would've been in no danger at all.

      • BewareOfThe Dog on 10/09/2019 - 21:07

        4.2%

    • smartazz104 on 12/09/2019 - 13:49
      -1

      Get drunk quickly from one shot? Weak. OP had half a shot anyway.

  • Herbse on 09/09/2019 - 12:33
    +5

    You obviously haven't been receiving the comments you've been looking for. Here it is:

    The cop obviously thought you were a legend and let you go because of mad respect.
    Also now you can drink more next time and drive sooner. Preferably around pedestrians and school zones because f those guys, gotta have your James Squires and shots!
    Let everyone here know what app you used. We'd all rather rely on arbitrary figures instead of using common sense and just not driving. SCIENCE FTW!

    High fives from everyone on the internet.

    • TheBigShort on 09/09/2019 - 14:28
      -1

      Yeah cool, lets be condescending to people who haven't broken any law.

  • cashless on 09/09/2019 - 13:00
    +3

    I had six beers (Lashes, yum) and one shot

    And then I decided it was a good idea to drive.
    Face palm….

  • Donaldhump on 09/09/2019 - 13:22
    +2

    take an uber next time please, you may think your not drunk, but you could be and kill someone….

    • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 13:46
      -7

      I'm not trying to downplay the risks of drinking and driving, but every time you drive a car, you could kill someone.
      I think you might have more of a problem with the law allowing me to drive, rather than me driving within the law.
      We did look at public transport, but it would have been an extra hour on the way in and difficult on the way home.

      • Donaldhump on 09/09/2019 - 14:02
        -1

        i have a problem with people who kill people from drink driving that think they are not drunk. yes u were under the limit but what if u were over, killed someone, would u forgive urself? would u expect to be forgiven.

        for the sake of $30 which an engineer would have to an uber.

        use your engineering brain

        • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 14:08

          If I killed someone, I wouldn't forgive myself regardless, but I really think that I left enough of a margin to be reasonably certain that I wasn't over the limit (still did get a bit nervous though).
          Is what I did great? No probably not, but I did so as a response to the law. If the allowable BAC was lower, I would have drunk less.

          It would have been over $150 for an Uber both ways.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/09/2019 - 14:27

            @RubenM:

            I wouldn't forgive myself regardless

            Don't care if you forgive yourself or not in that scenario.

            What about the family of the person you hypothetically killed?

          • Donaldhump on 10/09/2019 - 11:14

            @RubenM: ok let me say this straight, the cost of the uber has no absolutely no bearing on your decision to drink and drive… are you like seriously an engineer, because your logic is ridiculous.

            you have these options in life

            1.) stay in a hotel
            2.) don't drink
            3.) pay for an uber
            4.) don't go.
            5.) drink drive and kill someone

            if i was .51 and killed your mum and said that uber comment, would you be sweet with that? you would be cool for me to not goto jail

      • p1 ama on 10/09/2019 - 00:31

        I'm not trying to downplay the risks of drinking and driving, but every time you drive a car, you could kill someone.

        For an engineer, this is a seriously silly statement. You should know it's about probabilities.

        Like you know, I'm not trying to downplay the risks of building an unsafe bridge, but every time you build a bridge, it might fall down. So let's all drink drive and throw out safety regulations…

        Seriously though, I think you miss the point. It's not about the legality of you driving, it's more about your judgement and how flippant you are about the risks that you're taking.

        Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's a good idea. I could drive whilst sleepy, but would you recommend that I do? The point is that even being at the 0.05 limit already significantly reduces a driver's reaction time and decision making ability.

        If you want to drive under those conditions, then that's your choice, but you should do so being aware of the risks to yourself and those around you. Be aware that you are many times more likely to not come home or cause someone else to not come home.

        Don't try to obfuscate around the point that you were drink driving. For someone who cares about the science, you only seem to bring it up when it suits you.

        • bobolo on 10/09/2019 - 10:44

          So should we all avoid driving at night? Or when it rains? Foggy weather? what about late afternoon where its statiscally the most dangerous especially driving directly into a sunset? Sorry - the law is the law. If an accident were to happen and a driver did not break any road rules, then it is simply an accident - a risk all drivers accept as soon as they start a vehicle. There are more worrying things on the road than someone at 0.04 BAC. Cheap and/or bald tyres is one of them

          • p1 ama on 10/09/2019 - 20:40

            @bobolo:

            So should we all avoid driving at night? Or when it rains? Foggy weather? what about late afternoon where its statiscally the most dangerous especially driving directly into a sunset?

            No, but I think before you even think about driving in those conditions, you need to appreciate the drastically increased risks associated with driving. Like I said in my original comment, my issue isn't even with OP choosing to drive, it's that OP is flippant about the risks. You can't avoid all risks (e.g. bridges fall down), but you can mitigate the risks with your actions.

            Sorry - the law is the law.

            You should think for yourself rather than relying on some old books to tell you what to do. Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a good idea. As someone who studied law for a few semesters (not a lawyer though, did not graduate), the law is very grey, not black and white as you seem to think. Only people who don't understand the law will say statements like "the law is the law".

            If an accident were to happen and a driver did not break any road rules, then it is simply an accident - a risk all drivers accept as soon as they start a vehicle.

            Again, whether one "breaks any road rules" is very grey. Not black and white as you think it is.

            There are more worrying things on the road than someone at 0.04 BAC. Cheap and/or bald tyres is one of them

            I agree with you, but my point isn't even about 0.04 BAC, in fact, I never even brought up BAC, it's about being able to appreciate the risks associated with driving and whether one should be driving at all. This applies to all situations, not just after one has been drinking.

            Take it from me, I knew someone who would go and drive around every time he was angry as a way of letting off steam. I told him many times that he shouldn't be driving in that state because he makes dumb/rash/stupid decisions that he wouldn't normally make. Sadly he ended up taking a corner too quickly, spinning out of control and hitting a tree. I regret not making the point more forcefully when I had the chance.

            Semantics aside, I actually agree with you. My view is that we have too many road rules and we don't let drivers make their own decisions which makes them dumb and incapable. I still think we'd be much safer if we had less road rules, but taught drivers to appreciate the risks they take on.

  • cashless on 09/09/2019 - 13:40
    +7

    Just goes to show, not all engineers are smart

  • FareEvader on 09/09/2019 - 14:07

    Excuse my ignorance but can someone please explain what a 'counting test' is?

    • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 14:11

      They hold a device close to your mouth (say less than 10cm away) and ask to count from 1 to 10, to see if there's any alcohol (at least that's what I thought) in your breath, or in the air in the car, and do an initial controlled test if it comes back positive.

      • FareEvader on 09/09/2019 - 14:12

        Ah I see, I've never encountered one before. Is it more accurate than the one where you blow into the straw?

        • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 14:13

          No, way less accurate.

          • NigelTufnel on 09/09/2019 - 15:05
            +2

            @RubenM:

            No, way less accurate.

            Do you have any evidence of that? This random old whirlpool thread seems to say they are the same, as tech has advanced enough to not require the same amount of breath to analyse. And that thread is like 10 years old…

            • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 15:10
              +1

              @NigelTufnel: Because it doesn't isolate your breath. It can't control how much of the gas being tested is your breath and how much is surrounding "clean" air.

              I've worked with gas analysers a little bit, so while I'm no expert, I understand the basic concepts behind them.

              • NigelTufnel on 09/09/2019 - 15:20

                @RubenM: Fair enough, I'm certainly no expert, but I imagine there's lots of different types of gas analysers.
                I also presume that if it's been approved for the police to use it's probably got some decent baselines to figure that out with pretty decent accuracy. It might have a bit higher margin on the results, but can't see the police using something that would have a chance of letting someone that might be over the limit go without further confirmation.
                If anything it would be the opposite. If someone is potentially over given the margin of error on the device, further testing required. Either 1. to get a drunk off the streets, or 2. to get the revenue from a fine.

                • Jinxed50 on 09/09/2019 - 17:40
                  +2

                  @NigelTufnel: They are accurate enough in a good environment but things like wind and passing cars impact on the ability for it to work properly. It will also pick up ambient alcohol from passengers/open container which is fixed by direct test.

                  Normally the amount registered barring influence from wind/passengers is almost identical to direct test (there is a way to read passive result which may have happened in your case)

                  The biggest chance of error is from the device and misstorage before use. This normally happens if stored near a container of alcohol rub.

                  • spaceflight on 10/09/2019 - 19:18

                    @Jinxed50:

                    They are accurate enough in a good environment but things like wind and passing cars impact on the ability for it to work properly. It will also pick up ambient alcohol from passengers/open container which is fixed by direct test.

                    They will pick up any alcohol and give a positive or negative result.

                    There is no accuracy to a value because no value is given.

                    Normally the amount registered barring influence from wind/passengers is almost identical to direct test

                    No it is not.

                    A direct test tests only your breath. There is no outside influence on this.

                    An indirect test will pick up anything in the air near the machine.

                    • Jinxed50 on 10/09/2019 - 21:07

                      @spaceflight: Like I said in your quote barring the outside influences they will be similar.

                      Also you are incorrect there is more to it than simply positive/negative in passive mode. If you had any experience with the device like you claim you'd know this.

                      The only way to get a truly accurate reading is a blood test

                      • spaceflight on 10/09/2019 - 21:36

                        @Jinxed50:

                        Like I said in your quote barring the outside influences they will be similar.

                        No they won't be because counting into the machine only detects alcohol and gives a positive or negative result. It is not capable of giving a BAC reading because it does not know how much of your breath it has sampled.

                        Blowing into the machine through a straw will give a reading because it knows the volume of air you have exhaled.

                        Also you are incorrect there is more to it than simply positive/negative in passive mode.

                        No there isn't

                        If you had any experience with the device like you claim you'd know this.

                        How can I know the machine does something when what you think it does is impossible?

                        • Jinxed50 on 10/09/2019 - 22:55

                          @spaceflight: Not trying to get into a internet argument but I have seen it happen with my own eyes. You are correct in that passive does not give you the bac number but it gives an indication (if you know how to read it) of what the direct test will be.

                          This indication maybe enough for them not to waste your time using the tube. You were after a explanation I'm trying to give it to you.

                          If you don't want to take the information from someone that actually knows what they're talking about good luck finding what you want to hear.

                • spaceflight on 10/09/2019 - 19:14

                  @NigelTufnel:

                  I also presume that if it's been approved for the police to use it's probably got some decent baselines to figure that out with pretty decent accuracy.

                  It doesn't have an accuracy for a value.

                  It is a positive or negative test.

                  It will be positive for the presence of any alcohol.
                  They do not give a BAC reading until you blow into the straw.

              • BewareOfThe Dog on 10/09/2019 - 21:10

                @RubenM: I recall a p plater was making essential oils one day over a 5 hour period, and despite not drinking any alcohol, had a reading when tested roadside, then back at the station tested zero.

                • RubenM on 10/09/2019 - 21:59

                  @BewareOfThe Dog: As far as I understand it, it basically shows all hydrocarbons, but as I said, I'm not an expert.

  • Archi on 09/09/2019 - 14:12

    if the victim of a car accident was your wife and the other person did and thought exactly like the way you did.
    - would you be advocating to get the book thrown at him and the judge to come down on them with the full force of the law.
    - or will you be hugging it out and consoling them and telling them it wasn't their fault they were driving under the limit

    • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 14:15
      +1

      You should email your local MP, if you want to change behaviour of law abiding citizens, change the law.

      • Archi on 09/09/2019 - 14:22
        +3

        we can advocate to change the law to have a 0 tolerance to drinking and driving, drugs and driving eating whilst driving, doing make up while driving amongst many other things.

        whilst you didn't do anything illegal. I was just saying had the roles been reversed how would you feel.
        certain things are not within our control.

        but our behaviour certainly is.

        after being reminded by my wife that I have kids in the car and that I should be leading by example sometimes I forget too.

        the other day…by 6 year old said.."dad there is a stop sign, you didn't stop."
        we are not perfect

        • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 14:37
          +2

          So you broke the law, I didn't. Who's the monster now? (Just joking)

          One of these days I'll have to look up how to quote properly on here.

          • Archi on 09/09/2019 - 15:03
            +1

            @RubenM: I have often been told…
            "just because you can, doesn't mean you should"

  • dufflover on 09/09/2019 - 14:17

    I was told to do the count test once. I thought it was just a new fangled way those machines work vs the ol' straw types.
    I don't drink so it had nothing to do with the pre-question of if I've drunk either (always No).

    Maybe I just looked that dodgy :(

  • TheBigShort on 09/09/2019 - 14:24
    +5

    So OP wasn't over the limit according to the police but still many people are getting triggered.

    He legally did nothing wrong and is just questioning the potential accuracy of their tests vs estimations in an app.

    You should be directing your anger at law enforcement instead of OP if you think the BAC legal limit is too high.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/09/2019 - 14:31
      +1

      People are "triggered" because other people take risks like this that injures or kills other.

      OP was lucky this time. OP's responses seem to indicate they will continue these actions in future. Maybe one of those times they won't be so lucky.

      • HighAndDry on 10/09/2019 - 11:17
        +1

        OP was lucky this time.

        There wasn't much luck involved. Driving without incident while you're under the limit is what you expect to happen. How many people are otherwise distracted while driving? Fiddling with music? Handsfree? Drinks/Food/etc? Kids in the back? Tired and/or sleepy and/or have other things on their mind?

        OP didn't drink drive according to the legal (and only relevant) definition. What he did is no worse than anyone else who's distracted while driving to a degree that's allowed under the law.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 10/09/2019 - 20:19

          OP was lucky they didn't blow over. Even they themselves assumed they would be over. Next time trust an app and get breathalysed they might not be so lucky.

    • JimmyF on 09/09/2019 - 15:01
      +1

      So OP wasn't over the limit according to the police but still many people are getting triggered.

      I think the issue here is while the police didn't flag him as over the limit, the OP seems to think they had been!

      So the OP is getting the flak for driving while they thought they had been over the limit.

      • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 15:08

        No, that's not it. I thought I'd have enough alcohol in my breath to warrant giving me a standard "blow" breath test.
        I'm pretty sure I was under, but I'm even more sure that I wasn't 0.00 either.

        • JimmyF on 09/09/2019 - 15:57
          +1

          I thought I'd have enough alcohol in my breath to warrant giving me a standard "blow" breath test.

          The counting machine is a 'standard' breath test, and as I said above, the results are either PASS or FAIL. If you pass, ie under .05, they send you on your way. They don't say, oh sir you had 0.04, but I don't trust this machine, lets go back to the van and do it again there.

          The counting machine and the hand held straw machine results are the same.

          You seem to not understand this.

          • Pantagonist on 10/09/2019 - 09:18
            +1

            @JimmyF:

            The counting machine is a 'standard' breath test, and as I said above, the results are either PASS or FAIL.

            My understanding is that the counting test will only report whether any alcohol has been detected.

            This is why there are sometimes false positives when you're the skipper and driving someone else home who has been drinking as the machine can pick up tiny traces of alcohol. Same goes for people who use hand cleaner etc. in their cars.

            If alcohol is detected, you then blow into a tube on the same machine which actually analyses the grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath and spits out a figure to 3 decimal places.

            If you fail that test, you then have to go into the roadside van or back to a police station which has a more accurate breath analysis unit that can be legally used to record an offence.

            As the breath analysis which provides a figure requires measuring litres of breath exhaled, it seems impossible that such a figure could be produced by someone counting into a machine.

            It's quite hard to find any information about breath analysis machines used by police, but if your understanding is different to mine then please let me know / post links.

            I expect the above is why OP has asked the question about why a further breath test was not conducted, as having a few beers would most likely set off the alcohol alarm on the preliminary test unit.

          • rogerm22 on 10/09/2019 - 11:07

            @JimmyF: The counting test only detects alcohol, it does not give a reading. If alcohol is detected, you need to do a standard breath test to get a reading.

    • DingoBilly on 09/09/2019 - 16:16

      It's more an attitude thing than a "Is he right or wrong?" type discussion at this point.

      It's very much a "I agree with you in principle, but technically everything is legal so it's all good" type argument which generally leads to people being shitty. I probably should have told you about that faulty problem with the car you bought, but technically you didn't ask and I didn't say otherwise so it's all legal!

  • weezlebub on 09/09/2019 - 16:32
    +1

    six beers (Lashes, yum) and one shot.

    James Squire 150 lashes, 1.1 std drinks
    one shot (could have been baileys)

    1.1 std drinks x 6 = 6.6
    one shot, lets assume 1 std = 7.6 std drinks
    2 in the first hour, one every hour after that

    5 hours @ one drink / hour digestion should have had you at 1.6 standard drinks and over the limit …

    Although, it's based on your body, so if we assume:
    - standard person is 76kgs (as per most lifts)
    - if you're around 50% more than that at 114kgs
    - you'd go through 1.5 std drinks per hour, putting you well below the limit …

    So maybe you're not strange, just a big boy (or girl)

    Sure, drink driving is never a good idea, but it wasn't that long ago that the rule of thumb was "4 in the first hour, one every hour after that" when the limit was 0.08

    • RubenM on 09/09/2019 - 16:55

      Yes, I'm between 115kg and 118kg.
      The shot was vodka, but not a standard size, maybe half that.

      • IamEzza on 09/09/2019 - 17:25

        I think this is the key point to this whole scenario.
        For an average 76kg person this amount of drinking would have had them easily over the limit, so for most people reading this thread it sounds like a LOT of alcohol.
        Because of your size though you were most likely well under the limit, enough that the counting machine didn't even register as worthy of testing further.

    • smpantsonfire on 10/09/2019 - 00:22

      Just because you're bigger, doesn't mean you process it faster. It just means the bac is less because you've got more blood to space it out.

      • RubenM on 10/09/2019 - 07:36

        It might not exactly be linear, true, but I'll have a bigger liver than the average person.
        I'm not massively overweight (though I could afford to lose 10kg) and short, I'm 6'6" as well.

      • HighAndDry on 10/09/2019 - 11:19
        +2

        It just means the bac is less because you've got more blood to space it out.

        But this is exactly what affects cognitive function. So OP is less affected, which is the entire point.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join