Skip to content

User login

What is OpenID?
Connect with Facebook

Advertising

Home

Category: alcoholSyndicate content

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. {Read more}

How clubs/bars can be truly responsible

November 22, 2009 by Edmund Gall

The tips stated at the end of Camille Bethel's article, "Club owners: We will try our best" (Sunday Express, 22 Nov 2009), such as to suck on Powermints and chewing gum, don't help to reduce the incidences of drunk driving.  While sensible folks may realise that, there are some who may take your words as fact so there should've been clear text to indicate that those were not acceptable tips for remaining sober.
 
With regards to club owners who think they can't do more to encourage responsible drinking, I offer the following.
 
First, purchase a portable breathalyzer, preferably one of the models approved for use by the police.  Those cheap devices sold as car key chains are toys - they are not accurate at all and should never be relied upon for proper testing of breath alcohol content. Better yet, sub-contract with Arrive Alive to have measuring and regular calibrating done.
 
Next, for each group of five customers, have one of them registered as a Designated Driver before they're allowed to buy drinks.  Test that person before drinks are ordered for their group - only if they're below the limit and carry a valid driving licence, can they be accepted as Designated Drivers.  Designated Drivers must hand-over their car keys at registration (club staff can verify that the cars are parked in their car park).  For the rest of their stay in the club/bar, the Designated Driver is not allowed to have any alcoholic drinks.  Once they're ready to leave, the Designated Driver is tested and if still below the legal limit, their car keys are given to them.
 
{Read more}

Sure, Breathalyzer: But Will It Be Enforced?

November 16, 2009 by Taran Rampersad

Sure, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago finally got its act together about legislation regarding drunk driving. And yes, it is good - especially for the Christmas season.

But can it be reasonably enforced? If it isn't enough that the courts are clogged with other things, there's also the fact that breathalyzing strategies by the Trinidad and Tobago police force will pull resources away from other things. Just recently at Bacolet Point, police were unable to respond because they didn't have a vehicle - and this resulted in the death of Peter.

So yes - good idea, good law but - as most things - is it actually practical? Or is it another symptom of lawmakers who do not drive (and perhaps don't even live in the same figurative country as the rest of us) legislating for those that do drive?

Time will tell.

Opinion: Epic Fail.

AdaptiveThemes