drinking while driving

[bikaholic]

Was it really ... ????

Did you read post #1 and the link to the Stuff article.

[layton]

who's thirsty? Feeling abit parched myself.

[russd7]

; automagics are already an impairment on anyone who drives them regardless of limb count (& so sayeth studies to back that up)
?

post the studies or its BS.

In my opinion driving takes 4 working limbs & a working head/neck to do at full capacity so anything less than that is no better than a few drinks & probably even worse

Really gonna call BS on that statement as well, I know and have known amputees who drive way better than a lot of "able bodied" people,

[skippa1]

who's thirsty? Feeling abit parched myself.

Slowly quenching it

[layton]

Yeah I call BS on the driving with all limbs, I watched a one armed guy at burt munro challenge who was mid field and doing bloody well IMO

[russd7]

Yeah I call BS on the driving with all limbs, I watched a one armed guy at burt munro challenge who was mid field and doing bloody well IMO

he only had one leg as well, 1/2 was his number, did the hill climb and beach race as well, unfortunately he died earlier this year, nice fella to talk to. An Aussie he was.

[bikaholic]

Was it really ... ????

FJ, is there an appenticeship in Kiwibiker, 12794 posts, say 3mins each, not including hours of reading and not understanding, equals almost 640 hours of posting, 640 hours, i mean that is, 640 hours of your life.

[Scuba_Steve]

post the studies or its BS.

ok I'll concede that one, I looked it up again & while manual does show some greater attention on scans due to the enhanced involvement, there's no evidence to suggest they increase driver ability in the real world (other than 1 [to be replicated] study into ADHD drivers where they did much better with a manual). However it is suggested that the not so good drivers will naturally migrate towards automagics.

Really gonna call BS on that statement as well, I know and have known amputees who drive way better than a lot of "able bodied" people,

I did say at full capacity & most drivers are pretty fucking useless so wouldn't surprise me if the amputees put in more effort.
If you're missing some ability you're automatically at a disadvantage, you might get by in a normal day-to-day (but so to does someone with a couple drinks, which was my point. A couple drinks ain't the problem) but when the shit hits the fan you don't have the full ability to take control (course too all this is moot when you just panic & freeze, which TBH is prob most peoples reaction).

[Viking01]

Hey FJ, as your so over the top, please tell me what part of the law the driver in question, turkey according to you, did not comply with, if not, why was he not charged.
Also, why are all drivers with a positive reading but not over the limit not detained for one hour for retesting.
Also why did the queenstoned cops not accept the reliability of the eba equipment that are used for evidential purposes, and because not, why should the general public not also question their reliability.

Could I try and answer your questions on FJ's part ?

We don't have access to the full facts of the incident, but from what was
presented in the news article, my "guess" is:

- that he did fail the first (evidential) breath test ;
- that he then claimed he had "only just taken" a mouthful of beverage,
which pushed his then-current breath alcohol reading over the limit ;
- that the nice officer told him to wait an hour for his breath alcohol
level to "equilibrate", then do a repeat breath test [ which he passed ]

[ If he took only a mouthful, the alcohol content of that swig would have
been much less than that of one standard drink. There would have caused a
rapid but short term peak in his breath alcohol.

The beverage would have then passed through his stomach and into his small
intestine, where the alcohol would have been absorbed into his blood stream.
And in a short time, that blood would be passing through his lung capillaries,
and breath and blood alcohol levels would soon be in synch. ]

If he had already been "well over the limit" before having taken a mouthful,
it's most likely his breath alcohol - after the one hour delay - would have
still been high enough to cause another failed breath test.

[ His short term breath alcohol peak would have passed, but his now-current
breath alcohol level - coming from his lungs - would be representative of
that in his blood stream. So a failed breath re-test would likely mean a
failed blood test as well ]

If anything, a long delay between breath re-tests was to his advantage, as
alcohol was being metabolised by the body - and his blood (and equivalent
breath) alcohol levels would have both been falling over that time.

But in this chaps case, he didn't fail the retest, and the officer obviously
accepted his explanation. And so he was not charged.


I'm not quite sure why you think that it was an equipment failure. The Drager
equipment commonly used on roadside stops has been in use for many years.

And the "customer" always has the option of requesting a blood sample to be
taken, if they're not happy with the evidential breath result.

But just remember that the associated costs charged will also be higher if found
guilty.

[bikaholic]

You sick bastard.

he can tell me himself if i have upset him, but in the long run, anyone that treats him as any less becomes the problem.

[bikaholic]

Could I try and answer your questions on FJ's part ?

We don't have access to the full facts of the incident, but from what was
presented in the news article, my "guess" is:

- that he did fail the first (evidential) breath test ;
- that he then claimed he had "only just taken" a mouthful of beverage,
which pushed his then-current breath alcohol reading over the limit ;
- that the nice officer told him to wait an hour for his breath alcohol
level to "equilibrate", then do a repeat breath test [ which he passed ]

[ If he took only a mouthful, the alcohol content of that swig would have
been much less than that of one standard drink. There would have caused a
rapid but short term peak in his breath alcohol.

The beverage would have then passed through his stomach and into his small
intestine, where the alcohol would have been absorbed into his blood stream.
And in a short time, that blood would be passing through his lung capillaries,
and breath and blood alcohol levels would soon be in synch. ]

If he had already been "well over the limit" before having taken a mouthful,
it's most likely his breath alcohol - after the one hour delay - would have
still been high enough to cause another failed breath test.

[ His short term breath alcohol peak would have passed, but his now-current
breath alcohol level - coming from his lungs - would be representative of
that in his blood stream. So a failed breath re-test would likely mean a
failed blood test as well ]

If anything, a long delay between breath re-tests was to his advantage, as
alcohol was being metabolised by the body - and his blood (and equivalent
breath) alcohol levels would have both been falling over that time.

But in this chaps case, he didn't fail the retest, and the officer obviously
accepted his explanation. And so he was not charged.


I'm not quite sure why you think that it was an equipment failure. The Drager
equipment commonly used on roadside stops has been in use for many years.

And the "customer" always has the option of requesting a blood sample to be
taken, if they're not happy with the evidential breath result.

But just remember that the associated costs charged will also be higher if found
guilty.

pure specualtion, but it is, FJ that is debating with ME, why his opinion matters more than mine, without facts. If he wants to continue his beef with me, I am sure he is able, if he needs you to act on his behalf, he has withdrawn from the debate. Just like FJ you have invented a story around a story, if he was over the limit, he would have been charged.
Just like Rastas said, an ex cop, a storm in a teacup, i'd add, without tea leaves. Kiwibiker is hell bent on creating law that does not exist.

[pritch]

Kiwibiker is hell bent on creating law that does not exist.

If you got this far and that is what you took from the thread, you just may have a problem?

[bikaholic]

If you got this far and that is what you took from the thread, you just may have a problem?

That may well be why KB has so few regular contributors nowdays, compared to active rider forums.

[bikaholic]

Did you read post #1 and the link to the Stuff article.

The stuff article stated from the police, he was not over the drink-drive limit, so was not charged, hence Kiwibiker overdrive.

[Viking01]

The stuff article stated from the police, he was not over the drink-drive limit, so was not charged, hence Kiwibiker overdrive.

Extract from the Stuff article :

"The man was made to wait at the checkpoint for an hour and was then retested.
He was not over the drink-driving limit, so was not charged."

You asked a reasonable question, and I gave you a reasonable answer (which I
thought explained the likely circumstances). I'll make no further comment. Cheers.