Random breath testing

[ubiquitous]

If you read my post you will see that it obviously refers to the commonly-accepted fact that there has been no appreciable fall in the volume of road deaths SINCE PENALTY POINTS WERE INTRODUCED.

Your point that road deaths have been falling anyway since 1995 & 1999 would support the contention that any falls since October 2002 should not necessarily be attributed to the introduction of penalty points from that date.

If you wish to continue to quote selectively and misleadingly from my earlier posts, then you can debate the issue with someone else.

 

[z107]

Even if your assertion that the long term trend in the vol. of road deaths/accidents has not fallen the fact that there is much more traffic on the roads today indicates an improvement in road safety . That aside the chart on page 10 in here [broken link removed]
shows a decrease in road deaths in absolute terms and , more importantly in my view, in relative terms.

There are a few things wrong with that report.
1. It is not an independant study, and therefore most likely biased.

2. There are many compounding factors not taken into consideration on the chart in page 10: Better roads, safer cars, price of drink etc...

3. They mention a trend. Well where is the analysis that supports this 'trend'? - how significant is it?

4. Check the scale on the left of the chart - it's cut off! A classic way to 'lie with statistics'.

AFAIK when random breath testing was introduced in Australia there was a large reduction in drink related accidents.

No doubt banning cars would have a similar effect. Again, no mention of any other possible factors that may have attributed to this reduction.

If so, how should we (the citzens) do our best to ensure that people do not drink and drive, or of they do, that there is a reasonable chance that they will be caught?

I don't know.

So, do you assume that publicans actually support drink driving? Isthere any evidence that publicans have stood in the way of anti drink driving measures before?

I try not to assume anything, but I'm human. I do find it strange though that a pub car park can be full and most people in the pub appear to be drinking. At closing time, very few cars are left in the car park. I draw my own conclusions from this crude analysis.

And with regard to alternative means of transport-who would provide this, what form would it take and how would it be financed? Is there any guarantee that if alternative means of transport available, people would use them as opposed to their own car?

I don't claim to know all the answers. Soon it appears, I risk been stopped and breath tested, even if I've never touched a drop of booze in my life.

 

[soy]

a pub car park can be full and most people in the pub appear to be drinking. At closing time, very few cars are left in the car park.

Under the existing laws the guards would surely be able to 'form the opinion' that the drivers of these cars may have been drinking. This allows them to pull over these drivers and investigate further / breathalise them.

We should be asking why is this not being done today under the current laws?

 

[SteelBlue05]

Under the existing laws the guards would surely be able to 'form the opinion' that the drivers of these cars may have been drinking. This allows them to pull over these drivers and investigate further / breathalise them.

We should be asking why is this not being done today under the current laws?

The only reason I can think of is if there is a checkpoint and the Garda cant see the car driving as its in a queue of cars. But sounds like a stupid reason, I am sure if they spoke to the driver that they would smell alcohol if they were drinking. It does seem like the law is already adequate.

I have yet to hear a proper reason as to why we need to allow random breath testing and how it would work versus what the Gardai can already do. (Although I think it is a good idea!)

 

[demoivre]

If you read my post you will see that it obviously refers to the commonly-accepted fact that there has been no appreciable fall in the volume of road deaths SINCE PENALTY POINTS WERE INTRODUCED.

Your point that road deaths have been falling anyway since 1995 & 1999 would support the contention that any falls since October 2002 should not necessarily be attributed to the introduction of penalty points from that date.

If you wish to continue to quote selectively and misleadingly from my earlier posts, then you can debate the issue with someone else.

Er, I took the reference to long term trend to mean just that and not from Oct 2002 to date. I simply illustrated that the long term trend was down ( and it's something I went to the bother of checking because I genuinely didn't know ) lest there be any doubt. I didn't quote misleadingly from your earlier post and I take exception to that assertion - I am not a nit picker . What's the point in posting publicly if you can't handle reasonable debate?

 

[CCOVICH]

Soon it appears, I risk been stopped and breath tested, even if I've never touched a drop of booze in my life.

What/where is the risk?

 

[ubiquitous]

In my first contribution to this thread, I outlined some of the risks/drawbacks, as I see them

If I am driving on a long journey cross-country late at night and stone-cold sober, I don't see why or how a Garda should be allowed to detain me along the roadside in order to take a breath sample.

Neither do I want to be delayed on my way to work in the morning in order to be breathalysed where it is blatantly obvious that I, and the drivers in front of me, are stone cold sober.

There are serious civil liberties implications for citizens in this proposal. Imagine how the rogue Gardai in Donegal would have used such powers. There are also obvious personal safety implications, especially for women, given that paramilitiaries and other gangsters have sometimes passed themselves off as Gardai at otherwise genuine-looking checkpoints in the past.

 

[z107]

What/where is the risk?

Isn't the Irish Government considering introducing random breath testing? - If this is the case, then I (along with other motorists) risk being breath tested. An invasion of my privacy by the state.

Anyone know if they are also going to record these breath tests? - who they tested and when?

 

[CCOVICH]

So the risk is an invasion of privacy? Well fair enough, if you feel that way about it, (for what it's worth I don't feel that it is such a big deal).

 

[CCOVICH]

In my first contribution to this thread, I outlined some of the risks/drawbacks, as I see them

Late night driving across country-what's the problem? A break might keep you awake. Heavy traffic is just as likely to slow you down as a checkpoint. How long does a breath test take?

Going to work in the morning-I can understand that it might throw your schedule out or make you late for a important meeting etc., but that is a risk everyone runs anyway, whether it's bad weather, bad traffic, an accident, cows on the road, broken down buses and DARTS etc.

On the issue of rogue Gardai in Donegal or elsewhere, or paramilataries or gangsters posing dangers to women, if they want to make life difficult for you, I think they will do it anyway. Can you explain how introducing random breath testing will make such incidents any more prevalent?

 

[ubiquitous]

Quite simple really. As the law currently stands, when I am driving, and I am stopped at a formal Garda checkpoint, there is rarely any need for the Garda to (1) ask me to get out of my car; or (2) detain me for a period longer than a minute or two. A 10-second conversation will give a Garda a very good indication as to whether or not I have drink taken.

Random breath testing exercises will (presumably) require drivers to (1) wait to be tested if there are other drivers being tested in front of them; (2) get out of their car to be tested; (3) wait while the Garda reads them the standard statutory warnings etc in advance of the test; (4) undergo the test itself; (5) wait for the results, and presumably some sort of written confirmation that they have passed (which I presume will be necessary to protect both the interests and rights of the driver and of the Gardai involved in the testing procedure).

All of this will take some time and it is reasonable to expect that the process in each individual case could take maybe 5 minutes, maybe longer. This would mean in practice that each individual Garda could only test 10 or 15 drivers an hour. Even at the most optimistic estimate, a Garda will not be able to test much more than 30 drivers an hour, or one every two minutes.

Now consider that most stretches of national road carry over 20,000 vehicles per day, some a large multiple of this figure. This equates to roughly 1,000 vehicles per hour on average. To test 30 drivers out of an average of 1,000 per hour means that 97% of drivers would be flagged through without being checked at all (which defeats the purpose of the exercise in the first instance as a drunk has only a 3% chance of being caught. Even at a checkpoint.) Otherwise, large traffic jams would ensue as drivers would be forced to wait interminably to be tested.

Even at night when road use would be only 10% of the daily rate, a drunk driver would still stand a 70% chance of being waved through.


I honestly can't see any merit in this proposal.

 

[Vanilla]

I don't know about anyone else but I personally would take an invasion of my privacy very seriously. I take an infringement of my civil liberties very seriously. I believe the gardai should have a reason to conduct a breath test. Judging from the above arguments, it is not as if random breath testing can even be argued definitively to be for the greater good. I would reiterate that the powers the Gardai already have are sufficient if implemented properly.

In relation to the point of potential abuse, I agree that if the Gardai want to, it is already within their power to make life difficult, however this is not a good reason for them to have another method to do so.

 

[Humpback]

Quite simple really. As the law currently stands, when I am driving, and I am stopped at a formal Garda checkpoint, there is rarely any need for the Garda to (1) ask me to get out of my car; or (2) detain me for a period longer than a minute or two. A 10-second conversation will give a Garda a very good indication as to whether or not I have drink taken.

Random breath testing exercises will (presumably) require drivers to (1) wait to be tested if there are other drivers being tested in front of them; (2) get out of their car to be tested; (3) wait while the Garda reads them the standard statutory warnings etc in advance of the test; (4) undergo the test itself; (5) wait for the results, and presumably some sort of written confirmation that they have passed (which I presume will be necessary to protect both the interests and rights of the driver and of the Gardai involved in the testing procedure).

All of this will take some time and it is reasonable to expect that the process in each individual case could take maybe 5 minutes, maybe longer. This would mean in practice that each individual Garda could only test 10 or 15 drivers an hour. Even at the most optimistic estimate, a Garda will not be able to test much more than 30 drivers an hour, or one every two minutes.

Now consider that most stretches of national road carry over 20,000 vehicles per day, some a large multiple of this figure. This equates to roughly 1,000 vehicles per hour on average. To test 30 drivers out of an average of 1,000 per hour means that 97% of drivers would be flagged through without being checked at all (which defeats the purpose of the exercise in the first instance as a drunk has only a 3% chance of being caught. Even at a checkpoint.) Otherwise, large traffic jams would ensue as drivers would be forced to wait interminably to be tested.

Even at night when road use would be only 10% of the daily rate, a drunk driver would still stand a 70% chance of being waved through.


I honestly can't see any merit in this proposal.

In all of this post, you seem to be forgetting the term "random" in all this. Testing 10/15 drivers an hour in the same sport of road is hardly random.

 

[ubiquitous]

In all of this post, you seem to be forgetting the term "random" in all this. Testing 10/15 drivers an hour in the same sport of road is hardly random.

Sorry I don't get you. The law as it stands allows for selective breath testing, ie where there are reasons to suspect drunk driving. The proposed change to the law is intended to allow for breath testing even where there are no reasons to suspect drunk driving.

Whether the term "random breath testing" is a technically correct description of this practice is a matter for scholars of English....

 

[michaelm]

The Gardai already have enough (probably to many) powers in general, it's more resources and restructuring that they need. Some people are too quick to surrender liberties to the state. What's next? Maybe random cavity searches for operation 'drug mule'?