Navigation
User login
Advertising
Blood Alcohol Testing Versus Breathalyzer
February 9, 2010 by Taran Rampersad
After finally getting some time to look over the amendment to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act (the amendment is attached below), I think that for the most part it is reasonable. One thing, though, bothers me.
Nowhere does it state that someone accused of being drunk can volunteer to take a blood alcohol test.
On the surface, this may seem like nitpicking. Even so, a breathalyzer only estimates the level of alcohol in the blood - and accuracy isn't guaranteed. There are ways in which a breathalyzer can deliver false positives (see this article for examples) - and these can be legitimate reasons for a person who is not legally drunk by their blood content to be tested as positive by a breathalyzer. Dental work, as an example, can cause false high estimates of blood alcohol - as can the use of mouthwash.
Then there is the question of the accuracy of the equipment.
The Amendment does note that the Constable can choose to use a blood alcohol test under certain circumstances - but those circumstances do not extend to someone volunteering to do a blood draw test for alcohol (ETOH). A blood draw is much more accurate since instead of estimating it actually measures the alcohol level.
And what also disturbs me is that in a hospital, the constable's first line according to the amendment is the breathalyzer when the person is in a setting that allows a proper measurement of blood alcohol by blood test.
In the United States, blood tests are regularly drawn in Emergency Departments - and their results are much more accurate.
The difference? When you fail a blood test for alcohol, you're nailed. There's no way out of it. But a breathalyzer? It's an estimate.
The idea behind the law should be to assure that no innocent people are prosecuted and that all guilty people are prosecuted. In my opinion, both aspects are handicapped by the Law not implicitly understanding that a blood test gives the blood alcohol content of a person - and a breathalyzer estimates it. A blood alcohol test, when available, should be given!
Maybe the Amendment needs an amendment.
And as Kid5Rivers pointed out to me in email, there's no alcohol rehabilitation mentioned in the Amendment - something which could be used to decrease the number of repeat offenders.
Delicious
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Motor Vehicles and Road Amendment (Breathalyzer).pdf | 69.39 KB |
Permalink
- Taran Rampersad's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Search
Who's new
Who's online
There is currently 1 user and 1 guest online.
Online users
Recent comments
- exchange money - Best
15 hours 26 min ago - Follow-up articles
1 day 6 hours ago - Thanks
3 days 4 hours ago - Missing recipients?
3 days 4 hours ago - Your Places advice isn't entirely correct
3 days 9 hours ago - click here
4 days 20 hours ago - cannot believe it, its amazing
4 days 20 hours ago - click here
4 days 20 hours ago - great
4 days 20 hours ago - Oh. And it ain't 'freeware'.
6 days 8 hours ago
All content is copyright their respective authors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Comments
Pingback
February 9, 2010 by Global Voices Online » Trinidad & Tobago: (not verified), 29 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 247
[...] KnowTnT.com takes issue with a point in the recent amendment to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act: “Nowhere does it state that someone accused of being drunk can volunteer to take a blood alcohol test. When you fail a blood test for alcohol, you're nailed. There's no way out of it. But a breathalyzer? It's an estimate.” Cancel this reply [...]
DUIs are ridicuous. It's just
July 29, 2010 by From Foreign, 5 weeks 22 hours ago
Comment id: 774
DUIs are ridicuous. It's just another way for the government to extort money from its citizens that actually work. And no, I haven't ever gotten a DUI. In fact, I only drink maybe once a month. I just think it's ridiculous that this country uses sin taxes so blatantly, and its ppl, (or subjects) are so accepting of it. The whole notion of the government trying to tax us for things that they find morally reprehensible is ridiculous, and nothing but another way for them to gain more control over our personal lives. We live in an age of gov induced hypersensitivity, and now any little annoyance that is able to be stigmatized w/ propaganda is indulged as a legitimate problem. Pretty soon they're going to start persecuting ppl for wearing white, since it reflects light the best and technically would put the ppl around them at a greater risk for skin cancer. Yea, it's ridiculous sounding, but the logic is exactly the same as ppl that can't stand being around smokers. The government is the one instilling a sense of corporeality and attachment to our bodies, which is just another exercise in using fear (the only thing that governments are good at) as well as an attempt at preserving our bodies to increase productivity to the state (what other governments were health nuts for this same reason? oh yea, the nationalist socialist party). The same goes for the way the gov targets certain items to hike up the taxes on, such as "sin taxes." Like almost all laws passed in this country, there's always some corporate bullshit behind it. I took a free smoking cessation class back when I was in college, and it seemed like they legitimately wanted to help me until they started throwing expensive teeth whitening products at us at the end. (I remember one of the brands was malibu bright, which is by no means a cheap complimentary toothbrush if that's what you were picturing). They should just call it "the government needs an excuse to take more of our money" tax.