Dear Robbie,
That was an excellent review of the topic of breath testing.
Considering the consequences of "low level social drinking" and arrest,
a responsible person who could easily walk a straight line or orate
Shakespeare should buy a tester at a price level that works. Consumer's
Report should test them. Certainly they do work in uneven and exposed
conditions since the offenders must have an interlock to start cars.
But you confirm that the police establishment is against this precaution
and we would expect the taverns would be also. There should be a brisk
business on State Street with a bit of advertising. The question still
remains about an organization like MAD. Where do they weigh in on this?
Eric
Robbie Webber wrote:
Many years ago, I asked a state patrol officers why they didn't offer
breathalyzer tests free at public outreach sessions, maybe at bars, etc.
I don't think most people even know what .08 or .1 blood alcohol content
"feels" like to them, so they have no idea when they are legally impaired.
The trooper said that they didn't want people to know how much they
could have and still be legal, so they would (theoretically) be more
cautious in their alcohol consumption.
I thought that was sort of a silly answer, but I've thought about it
quite a bit since then. I still think that police should offer the
opportunity to get tested in controlled circumstances - such as an event
where everyone is being transported by bus, or a hotel where they just
need to go upstairs. However, here are some arguements against
widespread access to breathalazers:
1. In Wisconsin, and virtually everywhere else in the US, you are
presumed to be legally impaired with a BAC of .08, but you can be
arrested for OWI with a lower OWI if the police observe you driving
impaired. ILikewise, BAC does not measure the level of intoxication, as
that varies from person to person, even with the same level of BAC.
Havening a set BAC as "legally impaired" just easier to make the ticket
stick at .08. If people had access to breathalazers, they could argue,
"I know I'm under the limit!"
2. My guess is that most inexpensive breathalazers are not very
accurate, so access to them, or widespread use in bars would give people
a false sense that they are OK to drive, and more arguements such as the
one above. Maybe even lawsuits. Breathalazers need to be caliberated
frequently and used under controlled circumstances.
3. Bars may feel that they would be more vulnerable to being sued for
overserving, or letting someone drive impaired if they offered this
service to customers. If it was found that someone had just left a bar
that had a sign saying "test your BAC before you drive!" and their BAC
was 1.6 (twice the legal limit), it could be argued that the bartender
should have known the person was drunk, or should have offered to test
him before serving.
4. Breathalazers - decent ones - are not really that cheap.
Wikipedia on breathalazers - including some disputed info. It talks
about how they work and drawbacks to incorrect use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathalyzer
A page for "personal breath testers." Cheapest one is $15, and I'm
willing to bet isn't very accurate:
http://www.breath-tester.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
