|
Gene Simmons
Original Poster
1,309 posts
79 months
|
As I understand it, if you blow between forty and fifty you get the option to give blood or urine. What happens if you blow over ie; 44 and then you produce a sample that puts you under the limit? Surely you are both guilty and not guilty at the same time? Or does the outcome go on the more accurate blood/urine outcome? Thanks in advance  Gene
|
|
|
jhfozzy
864 posts
59 months
|
Whilst I was being given a lift a few years back a "mate" blew a red at the roadside (after 3 pints of stella) not sure what the reading was though. I didn't even knew he'd been drinking.
He was found to be under the limit at the station and was let off.
That's the limit of my experience though. I won't even have a drink the night before if I'm driving somewhere in the morning.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
Gene Simmons said: As I understand it, if you blow between forty and fifty you get the option to give blood or urine. What happens if you blow over ie; 44 and then you produce a sample that puts you under the limit? Surely you are both guilty and not guilty at the same time? Or does the outcome go on the more accurate blood/urine outcome? Thanks in advance Gene I was told it was only blood that was the alternative, and that it was if you blow positive. But another question that is related is, what is the chance of being under with blood? Or are you more likely to be higher?
|
|
|
Gene Simmons
Original Poster
1,309 posts
79 months
|
Lower I would have thought? Happy to be corrected though......
|
|
|
jwill
28 posts
15 months
|
If you blow between 40 and 50 you have the option to accept that reading or to opt for a lab test. If you opt for the lab test the police decide if that will be blood or urine. Once you have opted for the lab test that is the reading which will be used to decide if you are charged or not.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Landshark
1,506 posts
50 months
|
FYI - taken from the MGDD/B booklet used by all forces;
STATUTORY OPTION - READING 40-50 μg/100ml INCLUSIVE
“As the specimen with the lower proportion of alcohol is in excess of the prescribed limit, but contains no more than 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, you may claim that it should be replaced by a specimen for a laboratory test. If you elect to provide such a specimen it will be of blood or urine which, in the case of blood, will be taken by a doctor (or health care professional). It is for me to decide which it will be unless a doctor (or health care professional) is of the opinion that for medical reasons a specimen of blood cannot or should not be taken, in which case it will be of urine. You may inform the doctor (or health care professional) of medical reasons why a specimen of blood cannot be taken by them, but the matter will be for the doctor (or health care professional) to determine. You will be supplied with part of the specimen if you so require. The other part will be sent to a forensic laboratory for analysis. The result of the analysis of the laboratory specimen will replace the result of the breath test. Do you wish to provide a specimen for laboratory alcohol analysis?” *YES/NO
|
|
|
Gene Simmons
Original Poster
1,309 posts
79 months
|
That's helpful. Thanks for posting. Do the police offer this option as a lifeline for the offender that is borderline or to bury an offender whose breath specimen seems low in comparison to their visible intoxication?
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
Gene Simmons said: That's helpful. Thanks for posting. Do the police offer this option as a lifeline for the offender that is borderline or to bury an offender whose breath specimen seems low in comparison to their visible intoxication? Is it more likely that the lab test will give a lower reading then?
|
|
|
agtlaw
1,468 posts
75 months
|
daz3210 said: Is it more likely that the lab test will give a lower reading then? depends on when the suspect last had a drink. BAC plotted against time will follow a normal distribution curve. electing a blood sample may do the suspect no favours but I'd say in most cases given the lapse of time since cessation of alcohol consumption and blood test (I.e. arrest, conveyed to station, booked in) that it would more often advantageous to elect.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
agtlaw said: daz3210 said: Is it more likely that the lab test will give a lower reading then? depends on when the suspect last had a drink. BAC plotted against time will follow a normal distribution curve. electing a blood sample may do the suspect no favours but I'd say in most cases given the lapse of time since cessation of alcohol consumption and blood test (I.e. arrest, conveyed to station, booked in) that it would more often advantageous to elect. Basically what I was thinking was, if I am ever in the unfortunate position to have to decide (unlikely), should I elect for the alternative...
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,934 posts
114 months
|
agtlaw said: electing a blood sample... I must admit I always thought it was the alleged drink driver's choice, but two posters above, one quoting something, say it's the Police's choice.
|
|
|
Ki3r
1,613 posts
28 months
|
daz3210 said: Is it more likely that the lab test will give a lower reading then? Blood (not sure about urine) will give a more accurate reading. Deva Link said: I must admit I always thought it was the alleged drink driver's choice, but two posters above, one quoting something, say it's the Police's choice. Unless a Doctor says that they can't give a blood sample.
|
|
|
WeirdNeville
4,191 posts
84 months
|
I would always elect.
It about "standards of proof" that have evolved through drink drive being one of the most hotly contested offences of all in the Courts.
|
|
|
Steameh
3,047 posts
79 months
|
Another reason not to drink drive, I bloody hate needles.
|
|
|
agtlaw
1,468 posts
75 months
|
Deva Link said: I must admit I always thought it was the alleged drink driver's choice, but two posters above, one quoting something, say it's the Police's choice. You only have the statutory option if you've given a breath reading of 40-50.
|
|
|
zetec
3,186 posts
120 months
|
There was a Traffic Cops episode where a guy blew over at the roadside yet when got back to the station blew under, he was let off. However, this was in the evening and he had been drinking the previous day 
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
zetec said: There was a Traffic Cops episode where a guy blew over at the roadside yet when got back to the station blew under, he was let off. However, this was in the evening and he had been drinking the previous day Is the Station reading the only evidential one though, and the roadside only screening and therefore not considered accurate enough? And what happens if you are 36 - 40, do they not offer the blood/urine?
|
|
|
spikeyhead
7,504 posts
66 months
|
daz3210 said: Is the Station reading the only evidential one though, and the roadside only screening and therefore not considered accurate enough?
And what happens if you are 36 - 40, do they not offer the blood/urine? Between 36 and 40 is similar to doing 71 to 76mph on the motorway. Technically illegal but unlikely to result in being charged.
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,934 posts
114 months
|
agtlaw said: Deva Link said: I must admit I always thought it was the alleged drink driver's choice, but two posters above, one quoting something, say it's the Police's choice. You only have the statutory option if you've given a breath reading of 40-50. Yes, but the point is you can't elect which whether to give blood or urine - it's the choice of the custody officer. I didn't know that, I thought it was the driver's choice.
|
|
|
jith
1,747 posts
84 months
|
WeirdNeville said: I would always elect.
It about "standards of proof" that have evolved through drink drive being one of the most hotly contested offences of all in the Courts. Absolutely. And this is why. Very few people are fully aware of the equipment used to provide "proof" of your alcohol levels. What you get is a small printout from a Lyon Intoximeter, that looks just like the printout from a bank ATM. And that is it! Just so you fully understand this. This machine is American in design and manufacture. It is installed and "maintained" by the company who manufacture it or one of their agents who claim that it is self calibrating. At no time is it inspected by any independent source. At no point is any independent entity involved in the detection process, i.e. a nurse, doctor, or medic of any type, only the police. Most importantly, at no point is there any corroborative evidence involved in the prosecution, only the printout from the machine. Nor is there any requirement in law to prove impairment or even drunkeness, only a printout from a machine. The claims for this machine is that it accurately measures the alcohol level in your blood by using a calculation based on the alcohol level in your breath. This is a deeply flawed principle and is too easily affected by secodary factors, none of which are taken into account by the machine. This machine and this method is banned by the aviation authorities and all the military authorities due to its inherent inaccuracies. But for good old Joe Public it will do. After all, it's only your driving licence, probably your job, perhaps the loss of your home, marriage or even liberty that's at stake, but hell, a wee machine will do! In the good old days you would be arrested and the police doctor called who would take a blood sample, divide it in two and you would be given one of these in order that you could obtain an independent analysis. That is pertinent, corroborative evidence; anything short of this is unacceptable. When the old system was in place there were very few defence cases against drink driving, because the evidence was usually accurate and overwhelming, but not now. If you find yourself in this situation always, always insist on a blood test. It's the only way to be sure. J
|
|
