Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Legal question.
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Jason
May 21, 2013, 7:49:51 PM5/21/13
to
I go to dinner parties where it is common for some
people to have their own breathalyzers. These
are about the size of a cigarette packet. At
leaving time some women (they're all women) test
themselves to see if driving is possible. If the
gadget reads 0.045 (say) then they drive home. If
above 0.05 they stay a while longer.
If, for the 0.045 case they're stopped by police,
and there is a discrepancy in the readings, how is
this resolved?
people to have their own breathalyzers. These
are about the size of a cigarette packet. At
leaving time some women (they're all women) test
themselves to see if driving is possible. If the
gadget reads 0.045 (say) then they drive home. If
above 0.05 they stay a while longer.
If, for the 0.045 case they're stopped by police,
and there is a discrepancy in the readings, how is
this resolved?
Sylvia Else
May 21, 2013, 8:12:37 PM5/21/13
to
courts, absence actual evidence that they are wrong.
An earlier reading obtained by use of a personal breathalyser is not
necessarily inconsistent with the a later higher reading obtained by the
police. It takes time for alcohol to be absorbed.
Sylvia.
Peter Jason
May 21, 2013, 8:16:56 PM5/21/13
to
drinking has stopped. Could dinner party guests
be called as witnesses to the personal reading?
Sylvia Else
May 21, 2013, 8:28:48 PM5/21/13
to
drink the blood alcohol level can continue to rise, being the time it
takes for the last drink to be absorbed.
> Could dinner party guests
> be called as witnesses to the personal reading?
unless the reading was taken sufficiently long after the last drink was
taken, and there's credible evidence of both that fact, and that no
further alcohol was drunk between the time of the reading and the time
when the police did their test.
Is this a theoretical question, or do you have a specific instance in mind?
Sylvia.
Peter Jason
May 21, 2013, 8:58:57 PM5/21/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:28:48 +1000, Sylvia Else
The people I know are heavy drinkers and consume
wine in the volume matched by beer drinkers. The
breathalyser levels can read as much as 0.1 during
the average dinner, this always preceded by
cocktails & champagne and thereafter wines red &
white with port & liqueurs to follow. I guess I'm
preparing for the inevitable coming request to be
a witness. They all drink and they all drive.
You will be pleased to know that my reading never
exceed 0.03.
wine in the volume matched by beer drinkers. The
breathalyser levels can read as much as 0.1 during
the average dinner, this always preceded by
cocktails & champagne and thereafter wines red &
white with port & liqueurs to follow. I guess I'm
preparing for the inevitable coming request to be
a witness. They all drink and they all drive.
You will be pleased to know that my reading never
exceed 0.03.
DavidW
May 21, 2013, 9:33:35 PM5/21/13
to
Peter Jason wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:28:48 +1000, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>
>> If necessary and useful, but I don't think it would serve much
>> purpose, unless the reading was taken sufficiently long after the
>> last drink was taken, and there's credible evidence of both that
>> fact, and that no further alcohol was drunk between the time of the
>> reading and the time when the police did their test.
>>
>> Is this a theoretical question, or do you have a specific instance
>> in mind?
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:28:48 +1000, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>
>> If necessary and useful, but I don't think it would serve much
>> purpose, unless the reading was taken sufficiently long after the
>> last drink was taken, and there's credible evidence of both that
>> fact, and that no further alcohol was drunk between the time of the
>> reading and the time when the police did their test.
>>
>> Is this a theoretical question, or do you have a specific instance
>> in mind?
>
> The people I know are heavy drinkers and consume
> wine in the volume matched by beer drinkers. The
> breathalyser levels can read as much as 0.1 during
> the average dinner, this always preceded by
> cocktails & champagne and thereafter wines red &
> white with port & liqueurs to follow. I guess I'm
> preparing for the inevitable coming request to be
> a witness. They all drink and they all drive.
> You will be pleased to know that my reading never
> exceed 0.03.
I can't see why a court would take the slightest bit of notice of a personal
> wine in the volume matched by beer drinkers. The
> breathalyser levels can read as much as 0.1 during
> the average dinner, this always preceded by
> cocktails & champagne and thereafter wines red &
> white with port & liqueurs to follow. I guess I'm
> preparing for the inevitable coming request to be
> a witness. They all drink and they all drive.
> You will be pleased to know that my reading never
> exceed 0.03.
breathalyser reading or witnesses to it, any more than it would take notice of a
speedometer reading claimed by a driver caught speeding. It's only the police's
measurement that counts.
Message has been deleted
Sylvia Else
May 22, 2013, 5:31:13 AM5/22/13
to
On 22/05/2013 7:09 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:
> over .05) the fact that the driver attempted social responsibility by
> carrying their own breathtest device might knock a week or $100 of the
> inevitable suspension and fine.
>
Though a different perspective is that people who use personal
breathalysers are trying to titrate their way up to the limit so as to
maximise their ability to consume alcohol despite their intention to drive.
Sylvia.
> DavidW wrote:
>
>>
>> I can't see why a court would take the slightest bit of notice of a
>> personal breathalyser reading or witnesses to it, any more than it
>> would take notice of a speedometer reading claimed by a driver caught
>> speeding. It's only the police's measurement that counts.
>
> Absolutely correct. However for a marginal low range offence (eg just
>
>>
>> I can't see why a court would take the slightest bit of notice of a
>> personal breathalyser reading or witnesses to it, any more than it
>> would take notice of a speedometer reading claimed by a driver caught
>> speeding. It's only the police's measurement that counts.
>
> over .05) the fact that the driver attempted social responsibility by
> carrying their own breathtest device might knock a week or $100 of the
> inevitable suspension and fine.
>
Though a different perspective is that people who use personal
breathalysers are trying to titrate their way up to the limit so as to
maximise their ability to consume alcohol despite their intention to drive.
Sylvia.
Message has been deleted
DavidW
May 22, 2013, 6:58:03 PM5/22/13
to
to the defined limit is perfectly okay by the law, and those people are doing
their best to comply with it. I'd call that responsible behaviour regardless of
their motives.
Sylvia Else
May 22, 2013, 8:08:13 PM5/22/13
to
driving is zero, though clearly the higher the level, the more dangerous
it is. At best the legal limit is a balance of risk versus
enforceability. Responsible driving behaviour involves minimising one's
blood alcohol concentration.
Sylvia.
DavidW
May 22, 2013, 8:37:25 PM5/22/13
to
system? Most of the examples you post, such as the signs prior to that airport
turnoff, involve a literal interpretation of the law. Well, people with personal
breathalysers are merely complying with the law in the same way.
Sylvia Else
May 22, 2013, 9:30:32 PM5/22/13
to
process. After that, those charged with enforcing the law often take a
strictly literal approach. In part, this is not their fault, since
although commonsense may have been involved in drafting the legislation,
there is rarely a commonsense provision contained within it.
Sylvia.
DavidW
May 22, 2013, 9:54:24 PM5/22/13
to
Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23/05/2013 10:37 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> They're complying with the law, but the only safe level of alcohol
>>> when driving is zero, though clearly the higher the level, the more
>>> dangerous it is. At best the legal limit is a balance of risk versus
>>> enforceability. Responsible driving behaviour involves minimising
>>> one's blood alcohol concentration.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the real world and common sense intrude on
>> the justice system? Most of the examples you post, such as the signs
>> prior to that airport turnoff, involve a literal interpretation of
>> the law. Well, people with personal breathalysers are merely
>> complying with the law in the same way.
>
> The real world and commonsense can find their way into the legislative
> process. After that, those charged with enforcing the law often take a
> strictly literal approach.
Such as judges? Then judges ought to be delighted with those who go to the
> On 23/05/2013 10:37 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> They're complying with the law, but the only safe level of alcohol
>>> when driving is zero, though clearly the higher the level, the more
>>> dangerous it is. At best the legal limit is a balance of risk versus
>>> enforceability. Responsible driving behaviour involves minimising
>>> one's blood alcohol concentration.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the real world and common sense intrude on
>> the justice system? Most of the examples you post, such as the signs
>> prior to that airport turnoff, involve a literal interpretation of
>> the law. Well, people with personal breathalysers are merely
>> complying with the law in the same way.
>
> The real world and commonsense can find their way into the legislative
> process. After that, those charged with enforcing the law often take a
> strictly literal approach.
length of carrying personal breathalysers to comply with the letter of the law.
Sylvia Else
May 22, 2013, 10:18:56 PM5/22/13
to
a judge. The judge would only see those who purportedly attempted a
literal compliance, but failed. Such incompetence would not be deserving
of any delight.
Sylvia.
DavidW
May 23, 2013, 12:08:27 AM5/23/13
to
are in error, and in the wrong direction. Worth some brownie points with some
judges perhaps.
0 new messages