Cops breath testing in Chch Square last night

[FlyingDutchMan]

Was in town last night after having a few drinks, and was on my way through the square and noticed that the cops were breath testing people. So I diligently joined the back of the traffic queue to get tested, doing the usual paranoid biker head checks. Pretty sure I was going to fail (a few too many rum and cokes by my own reconing).

I got to the front, "Good evening officer".
"Good evening" and waves me on.
"What, aren't you going to breath test me?".
"Nope." the officer refused to breath test me! Aparently something about being on foot precludes the nessecity of getting breath tested.

Anyway top points to the cops for removing the DICs off the road! It was quite scary to see how many cars they had pulled over and parked up - must of been more than 15, mainly boyracers juding by the cars. I'd always thought that the random breath testing was a show of 'force' to prevent people from going drink driving, but it seems they do actually get quite a few off the roads as well.

[Filterer]

So im a little confused, you tried to walk through the check point?

To see if you were sober enough to bike home?

I'd say if that was the case then you probably weren't :sick:

[Jantar]

So im a little confused, you tried to walk through the check point?

To see if you were sober enough to bike home?

I'd say if that was the case then you probably weren't :sick:

It makes sense to me. As bikes aren't fitted with built in breathalysers why shouldn't we ask for a breath test BEFORE hopping on our bikes, rather than wait until we've been stopped.

[Filterer]

It makes sense to me. As bikes aren't fitted with built in breathalysers why shouldn't we ask for a breath test BEFORE hopping on our bikes, rather than wait until we've been stopped.

From the above it seems your view on whether someone is sober enough to bike home depends on if they are legally allowed to or not.

I tend to take a no alcohol stand when driving, especailly when on the bike

[onearmedbandit]

I don't think FDM was on his bike at all last night. At least that was my take on his post.

[dangerous]

I don't think FDM was on his bike at all last night. At least that was my take on his post.

LMFAO... yeah same, how come them Dorklanders just dont get our weird sence of humour.
I can see FDM doing just that after seeing his antics at rallys. Good shit man :Punk:

[Lias]

Years ago in welly my mate was trying to get breath test before driving home (He'd had a couple but thought he was legal, figured better safe than sorry thou) They point blank refused to test him unless he got in his car and started it up.

Wankers..

[Steam]

Years ago in welly my mate was trying to get breath test before driving home (He'd had a couple but thought he was legal, figured better safe than sorry thou) They point blank refused to test him unless he got in his car and started it up.


Yeah, what's with that? I was in town on foot and just curious, saw the officer had a breathalyser, but he refused to test me. Can someone explain why the police have that policy?

[The Pastor]

I walked up and got tested from a check point once, I think that more cops should do that, or that in town there should be breath tester machines around so that you know. I'd set them to be more conservitve that police ones, just to be sure.

[Oakie]

Yeah, what's with that? I was in town on foot and just curious, saw the officer had a breathalyser, but he refused to test me. Can someone explain why the police have that policy?

Probably because if you 'pass' according to them and subsequently drive and injure someone you might say that the police said it was OK and get them in a heap of shit ... especially if you're tested at the accident scene and found to be over the limit. Safer for them to not even consider it.

[scumdog]

Probably because if you 'pass' according to them and subsequently drive and injure someone you might say that the police said it was OK and get them in a heap of shit ... especially if you're tested at the accident scene and found to be over the limit. Safer for them to not even consider it.
Oakie has summed it up exactly!!:yes: :niceone:

[spudchucka]

Yeah, what's with that? I was in town on foot and just curious, saw the officer had a breathalyser, but he refused to test me. Can someone explain why the police have that policy?

Because the batteries in the Alcotech only last for 125 tests and we have a quota of at least 13 drunk drivers to catch before they will give us another battery. So every pedestrian that gets tested is increasing your quota / drunks per test ratio and I'm not gonna miss out on my new battery just because some low life pedestrian can't gauge how much booze they have had.

Or alternatively it could be what Oakie said.

[dnos]

why don't you just drive home another way? :innocent:

[ManDownUnder]

so hang about for a second. This is one of those logic puzzles...

...if...
The law says we're not allowed to drive if we're over the limit...
...and...
The Police won't allow us to know if we are over the limit...

Therefore

The Police are obstructing the publics ability to comply with the law?

Or did I miss something?

[ManDownUnder]

Probably because if you 'pass' according to them and subsequently drive and injure someone you might say that the police said it was OK and get them in a heap of shit ... especially if you're tested at the accident scene and found to be over the limit. Safer for them to not even consider it.

Oh ok - I get it now.

The cops don't want to say it's ok to drive because it might not be, and that would clearly raise some questions about the accuracy of the standards set in law.

but....

Doesn't that raise questions too? Either that standard is acceptable and absolute, or it's not. And if it's not, why is it rigidly (absolutly) enforced?

The public needs access to accurate testing facilities that can enable them to know if they're legally ok to drive or not.

[Ixion]

I think that the police position would be "If you have had anything to drink, do not drive. Full stop. If you ignore this advice and get caught over a certain limit you will be charged".

They're not going to test you, say "Oh, you've had a bit, but you're OK", because their position (and I'm not knocking it) is that you shouldn't drive with ANY level. Just that below a certain level they can't charge you.

At any rate that would be my answer if I was a copa nd asked that question. "If you need to wonder, Sir, then you ought not to drive". One does, of course, but I don't think we can expect the police to condone it.

[spudchucka]

Oh ok - I get it now.

The cops don't want to say it's ok to drive because it might not be, and that would clearly raise some questions about the accuracy of the standards set in law.

but....

Doesn't that raise questions too? Either that standard is acceptable and absolute, or it's not. And if it's not, why is it rigidly (absolutly) enforced?

The public needs access to accurate testing facilities that can enable them to know if they're legally ok to drive or not.

The problem is that the road side breath screening devices aren't conclusive or evidential, they are just an indicator of your likely breath alcohol concentration.

Once you give a positive result at the road side you are then required to return to a police station where an evidential breath test or blood test will be conducted. Testing every person that wants to drive home but isn't sure about how much they have had to drink is just promoting an unhealthy attitude towards drinking & driving. And as previously mentioned, a person that was told they were ok to drive after a sniffer test could crash and subsequently have their blood alcohol concentration found to be over the limit.

The public, or more importantly, those who are wanting to drive motor vehicles on the road after consuming alcohol, are 100% the masters of their own destiny. The state is under absolutely no obligation to provide a breath screening service to drunks who want to drive themselves home from the pub.

There are plenty of personal breath testing devices available to purchase, perhaps people should consider that option. Or, simply don't drive if you have been drinking any alcohol, if you can afford to go out and get pissed you should also be able to afford the taxi fare home.

[idb]

...... if you can afford to go out and get pissed you should also be able to afford the taxi fare home.
It costs up to $80 for me to get a taxi from Queenstown.....and I get pissed on two pints.
The taxi companies should only charge in proportion to what you've spent on booze I reckon, maybe subsidised by Land Transport Safety.

[spudchucka]

It costs up to $80 for me to get a taxi from Queenstown.....and I get pissed on two pints.
The taxi companies should only charge in proportion to what you've spent on booze I reckon, maybe subsidised by Land Transport Safety.

You could always try the designated driver approach, that seems to work quite well for lots of people. Don't get caught in the trap that a few do though and just select the person who they think is the least pissed.