breathalyser test

makeorbrake

Just wonderin'...

Does the breath test gizmo the cops use just indicate a pass or fail - or does it state exactly the reading?

Neilw

Pass or fail afaik, then the one at the station gives the exact reading for evidence.

ILA

It simply gives an accurate "Pass" or "Fail" indication. They are required by law to obtain an exact measurement as soon as is practicable through use of an intoxilyzer machine, urine or blood test at the nearest Garda Station.

tom traubert

It will indicate one of four results.
Zero
Pass
Alert
Fail

The first is self explanatory, as is the last.

http://www.draeger.com/US/en_US/products/alcohol_drug_detection/screening/cdi_alcotest_6810.jsp

Run_to_da_hills

The ones the cops use (Hand held) are extremly accurate and use fuel cell sensors and can cost in excess of e600. Most of the cheaper DIY market breathalizers under e100 would use silicon oxide sensors and wouldn't be as accurate.

Echospace

tom traubert wrote: »

It will indicate one of four results.
Zero
Pass
Alert
Fail

The first is self explanatory, as is the last.

http://www.draeger.com/US/en_US/products/alcohol_drug_detection/screening/cdi_alcotest_6810.jsp

Is that breathalyzer (Dräger Alcotest® 6810) the exact make/model the gardai use? I've only caught a glimpse of them when being breathalyzed but it does look very similar to that.

CiniO

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The ones the cops use (Hand held) are extremly accurate and use fuel cell sensors and can cost in excess of e600. Most of the cheaper DIY market breathalizers under e100 would use silicon oxide sensors and wouldn't be as accurate.

They are extremally accurate, but still will falsify the reading, when done too soon after drinking.
Example.
You are in the bar, dring half pint, after which you go out, and drive.
They stop you and brethylise you. Let's say it's something like less then 5 minutes between you were drinking and being brethylized.
It's almost 100% certain, that machine will show: fail.
Then they will take you to the garda station, and do the proper test, which will show you are grand, because you are way under the limit.

Hooch

tom traubert wrote: »

It will indicate one of four results.
Zero
Pass
Alert
Fail

The first is self explanatory, as is the last.

http://www.draeger.com/US/en_US/products/alcohol_drug_detection/screening/cdi_alcotest_6810.jsp

All four have different limits showing us where the driver is on the scale. Limits are not shown on screen but known by most members.

The Alcotest is to assist us to form our opinion only. So you can pass and still be arrested for intoxicated driving a vehicle.

Echospace wrote: »

Is that breathalyzer (Dräger Alcotest® 6810) the exact make/model the gardai use? I've only caught a glimpse of them when being breathalyzed but it does look very similar to that.

Yes thats the one. They is a medical and law enforcement version.

CiniO wrote: »

They are extremally accurate, but still will falsify the reading, when done too soon after drinking.
Example.
You are in the bar, dring half pint, after which you go out, and drive.
They stop you and brethylise you. Let's say it's something like less then 5 minutes between you were drinking and being brethylized.
It's almost 100% certain, that machine will show: fail.
Then they will take you to the garda station, and do the proper test, which will show you are grand, because you are way under the limit.

Mouth alcohol is present for about 10 mins after your last drink, to be safe 20 mins is taken as the positive for no mouth alcohol.

Road Side Breath tests are only used to indicate the presence of alcohol. The arrest takes the driver to a procedure where blood/urine is taken by a Doctor or Breath is given into an intoxilyzer.

ottostreet

nice guy always wrote: »

All four have different limits showing us where the driver is on the scale. Limits are not shown on screen but known by most members.

The Alcotest is to assist us to form our opinion only. So you can pass and still be arrested for intoxicated driving a vehicle.



Yes thats the one. They is a medical and law enforcement version.



Mouth alcohol is present for about 10 mins after your last drink, to be safe 20 mins is taken as the positive for no mouth alcohol.

Road Side Breath tests are only used to indicate the presence of alcohol. The arrest takes the driver to a procedure where blood/urine is taken by a Doctor or Breath is given into an intoxilyzer.

really? how does that work, if their alcohol levels are below the limit?

Bonito

ottostreet wrote: »

really? how does that work, if their alcohol levels are below the limit?

Suppose some people can hold their drink better than others? If they deem you unfit to drive and you're under the limit, they can still take you to the station, I think.

Also remember some people may have mixed drugs with their drink so could be under the limit but in an awful mess.

makeorbrake

Thanks folks. That answers that question. Was just curious as to whether it gave a more accurate reading other than zero/pass/alert/fail - but from what ye're saying, it doesn't.

Hooch

ottostreet wrote: »

really? how does that work, if their alcohol levels are below the limit?

The alcotest is only there to help us form an opinion, the legal opinion is one of the many "proofs" required for the successful prosecution of an offender. There for it is not relied upon as a sole reason for arrest. (this is the less complicated explanation)

Also, as the above poster stated they could have a combination of drink and drugs in their system, which is being seen more and more. Road Side Breath test does not show drugs.

absolutegroove

Got stopped and breathalysed last Sunday on the way back to Dublin from a Stag Do in Kilkenny (I was stopped just outside Kilkenny on the N10).

Got a "ZERO" reading and got given the mouth piece from the Dräger Alcotest® 6810 as a memento.

Saw one or two lads been taken to the station for further tests - must be a hot spot for the Garda down there in Kilkenny at the weekends.

Hooch

absolutegroove wrote: »

Got stopped and breathalysed last Sunday on the way back to Dublin from a Stag Do in Kilkenny (I was stopped just outside Kilkenny on the N10).

Got a "ZERO" reading and got given the mouth piece from the Dräger Alcotest® 6810 as a memento.

Saw one or two lads been taken to the station for further tests - must be a hot spot for the Garda down there in Kilkenny at the weekends.

You say it's a hot spot.....and then tell the world???......that'll help catch em!

absolutegroove

I've no problems in editing my previous post if the Mods want me too.

Hooch

absolutegroove wrote: »

I've no problems in editing my previous post if the Mods want me too.

Im not a mod in this forum.....just a concerned poster;)

Tigger

he's a mod in the world

also lol at "mouth alcohol"

Bonito

Tigger wrote: »

he's a mod in the world

also lol at "mouth alcohol"

With don't all have our alcohol hooked up by IV.

mb1725

absolutegroove wrote: »

Got a "ZERO" reading and got given the mouth piece from the Dräger Alcotest® 6810 as a memento

Often wondered if they "recycled" those mouthpieces. Good to hear they don't!

ILA

nice guy always wrote: »

The alcotest is only there to help us form an opinion, the legal opinion is one of the many "proofs" required for the successful prosecution of an offender. There for it is not relied upon as a sole reason for arrest. (this is the less complicated explanation).

But if you take me in and I'm not over the limit on the proper intoxiliyser, you'll let me go, right? Right?

Bonito

ILA wrote: »

But if you take me in and I'm not over the limit on the proper intoxiliyser, you'll let me go, right? Right?

Yes unless you had drugs in your system. Just guessing here but if they think you've taken drugs and had been driving under the influence you'll be requested to provide a blood sample for testing.

If you refuse to supply then they charge you with failing to supply. In some cases, depending on how bad a state the person was in, with the statement from a member of AGS at a trial you could well be hit with the full penalty as if you had supplied a sample for testing and drugs were found in your system.

vinylrules

Always amazed the amount of people who are arrested and found to be under the limit -well under the limit in many cases. I don't know what the problem is but many people, including Gardai, seem to think that one or two pints will put you over the limit. I know for a fact that three glasses of wine over say, two and a half hours, will leave me with a zero reading, or as close as makes no difference. (The body processes and eliminates alcohol from the first sip.)

Here's the official Australian Government advice on how to stay below their .05 limit (ours is .08) As you can see, 2 standard drinks in an hour and one every hour after that will keep you within the limits. Why don't our government give us advice on how to stay within the law?


http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/factsheets/drugAndAlcohol/alcohol.html


If your legal limit is .05 a good guide is:

• 2 standard drinks in the first hour and then 1 per hour after that.

Seth Brundle

nice guy always wrote: »

You say it's a hot spot.....and then tell the world???......that'll help catch em!

...as opposed to people finding out the "hard way"?
Surely it makes more sense to instil a culture of "I better not do it" by making them aware of the likleihood of being caught.

Anyhow, I haven't seen a a breathalyser checkpoint in absolutely ages.

Hooch

kbannon wrote: »

...as opposed to people finding out the "hard way"?
Surely it makes more sense to instil a culture of "I better not do it" by making them aware of the likleihood of being caught.

Anyhow, I haven't seen a a breathalyser checkpoint in absolutely ages.

Of course it makes since to tell people I was tested on such a date......you just dont have to spread the word of exactly where the checkpoint is. Especially if its a successful location

Mandatory Alcohol Testing checkpoints are done by each and every Traffic Unit in the country everyday of the week. Three per tour, three tours a day. Just because you havint come across one doesnt mean they are not done. Of course you could have driven through a checkpoint and not been tested.....

Seth Brundle

nice guy always wrote: »

Of course it makes since to tell people I was tested on such a date......you just dont have to spread the word of exactly where the checkpoint is. Especially if its a successful location

But if its successful, then people are prepared to D&D. I suppose I was thinking that its better to stop them D&D-ing before they drive rather than be caught whilst pissed. Anyhow, as long as they are off the road before they do any damage!

nice guy always wrote: »

Mandatory Alcohol Testing checkpoints are done by each and every Traffic Unit in the country everyday of the week. Three per tour, three tours a day. Just because you havint come across one doesnt mean they are not done. Of course you could have driven through a checkpoint and not been tested.....

I understand that there are checkpoints all the time. I just haven't seen one (nor have I passed one and not been tested) but that may just be the roads I travel. I just think that there should be a lot more of them that there currently is. But I do understand that there are other things that need doing also.

Hooch

kbannon wrote: »

But if its successful, then people are prepared to D&D. I suppose I was thinking that its better to stop them D&D-ing before they drive rather than be caught whilst pissed. Anyhow, as long as they are off the road before they do any damage!

I am a huge supporter of hi visibility policing and deterrent policies.....however we still need enforcement.....and good checkpoint locations are hard to come across. Especially those that are routes drunk drivers use........anyone who drinks and drives in this day and age deserves to be caught. There is NO excuse, and no amount of policies and procedures for education and hi visibility will stop them (I know you not making excuses by the by!)

kbannon wrote: »

understand that there are checkpoints all the time. I just haven't seen one (nor have I passed one and not been tested) but that may just be the roads I travel. I just think that there should be a lot more of them that there currently is. But I do understand that there are other things that need doing also.

A friendly letter to your local Traffic Unit wouldn't go a miss. Were always looking for local input into locations etc......keeping in mind safety and the fact were not always just looking for the car three days out of tax.....there are bigger fish:D

daveharnett

vinylrules wrote: »

Why don't our government give us advice on how to stay within the law?

Because 'staying within the law' is not the goal. Getting people not to drive after drinking is the goal.

vinylrules

daveharnett wrote: »

Because 'staying within the law' is not the goal. Getting people not to drive after drinking is the goal.

Oh I see...well in that case, I hope the Gardai will soon be arresting people for using hands-free phones - which are legal of course but which are just as dangerous as hand-held phones and, according to all the studies are more dangerous than being over the drink-drive limits. If it's all about road safety, rather than the law, then let's at least be consistant.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html

And by the way, take a look around you the next time you're out on the road. Notice a hell of a lot of people are talking to themselves? Like I said. hands-free = more dangerous than those at the current legal alcohol limit. And thers's a lot more of them out there than drink-drivers - perhaps we need to re-adjust our notion of who we really should be afraid of, on the roads...

Bonito

vinylrules wrote: »

Oh I see...well in that case, I hope the Gardai will soon be arresting people for using hands-free phones - which are legal of course but which are just as dangerous as hand-held phones and, according to all the studies are more dangerous than being over the drink-drive limits. If it's all about road safety, rather than the law, then let's at least be consistant.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html

And by the way, take a look around you the next time you're out on the road. Notice a hell of a lot of people are talking to themselves? Like I said. hands-free = more dangerous than those at the current legal alcohol limit. And thers's a lot more of them out there than drink-drivers - perhaps we need to re-adjust our notion of who we really should be afraid of, on the roads...

You're probably taking the piss but I'd support that. I hate distractions while driving. I never touch my phone when I'm driving. Sometimes the radio doesn't even go on. I get extremely vexed if people start switching the radio up in my car too loud. It distracts and pisses me off and some of them as drivers themselves should know better but they do it anyway. They're also the kinda person who picks up their phone while driving.

I've no problems with someone using the handsfree or whatever in slow moving or standstill traffic but not on main roads and motorways where you need to pay attention.

daveharnett

vinylrules wrote: »

I hope the Gardai will soon be arresting people for using hands-free phones...

Lets not pretend that we can legislate for a perfect world.

What we want
- Nobody drinks and drives
- Nobody on the phone while driving

What we can enforce
- 80mg
- No handheld phones

To their credit, the RSA are running radio ads about phones - "It's hard to concentrate on two things at once".

loobylou

Quick question, say I'm taken to the station and test below the limit, do I have to be driven back to my car or am I simply released?

mathepac

vinylrules wrote: »

Always amazed the amount of people who are arrested and found to be under the limit -well under the limit in many cases. I don't know what the problem is but many people, including Gardai, seem to think that one or two pints will put you over the limit. I know for a fact that three glasses of wine over say, two and a half hours, will leave me with a zero reading, or as close as makes no difference. (The body processes and eliminates alcohol from the first sip.) ...

I'm always amazed at the number of idiots who don't understand the simple message in the slogan, "If you drink, don't drive".

A level of alcohol consumption that appears to leave you personally under our currently very generous drink-drive limit will not necessarily mean your driving is any safer than when you have zero alcohol consumed; it also doesn't mean that your level of alcohol consumption will necessarily leave someone else under the drink-drive limit or be be safe for them.

vinylrules wrote: »

... Here's the official Australian Government advice on how to stay below their .05 ...

You need to read what you link to; your link contains a paragraph described as a "guide" which is not, as you describe it, "... the official Australian Government advice ... ".

The difference between a "guide" and "... the official Australian Government advice ..." is not so subtle as to escape most readers, however you seem to have missed it.

The other difficulty about this "... official Australian Government advice ..." is that it doesn't come from the Australian Government at all; it's from the Government of New South Wales, which while being part of Australia, is not all of Australia. The web-site is clearly labelled, but you seem to have missed that as well.

vinylrules wrote: »

... Why don't our government give us advice on how to stay within the law?

The "If you drink, don't drive" slogan is fairly clear, to me at any rate.

The other reason of course is that BAC has a number of complex interacting determinants, apart from the amount of alcohol consumed and the period over which consumption took place, which means that giving any such advice would be both pointless and highly irresponsible.

vinylrules wrote: »

...
If your legal limit is .05 a good guide is:

• 2 standard drinks in the first hour and then 1 per hour after that.

You should also note that the NSW drinks measures as given in the link are slightly different to ours and the alcohol content by volume in their drinks is also slightly different which means that their "standard drink" will vary from our "standard drink", therefore why you would supply this information at all escapes me.

Finally the web-site itself contains erroneous and very mis-leading information about matters of fact. It states "There are laws to limit the amount a person can drink before driving." There are of course no such laws in any part of Australia. The laws in Australia (like ours) place an upper limit on the measured BAC a driver can have before being prosecuted for drink-driving, irrespective of how much alcohol they have consumed.

daveharnett wrote: »

Because 'staying within the law' is not the goal. Getting people not to drive after drinking is the goal.

Agreed, simple as.

Tigger

relax dude; have a drink put your feet up mabey listen to some music.