Tomatoes and drink driving
Discussion
A friend from South Africa recently came over, she explained that folk from the drink-drive brigade there drive around with tomatoes in their car. If pulled over, they immediately consume the tomatoes which increase their chances of blowing clear... 
Whats that all about then?!? I've never heard that one before, any truth whatsoever to the tale??
Whats that all about then?!? I've never heard that one before, any truth whatsoever to the tale??
Not heard that one before 
But ive heard if stopped for DD and the officer asks if you've had a drink the correct answer is yes, as the officer cant take a breath sample for 20 mins
and i was told if stopped suck on a 2p or 5p coin (can remember which) an this confuses the machine
Not sure how true either are though
But ive heard if stopped for DD and the officer asks if you've had a drink the correct answer is yes, as the officer cant take a breath sample for 20 mins
and i was told if stopped suck on a 2p or 5p coin (can remember which) an this confuses the machine
Not sure how true either are though
All bollocks i'm afraid...
The 2pence thought was that the copper somehow affects the machine...IT DOESN'T
The tomato doesn't work either..
Nor does eating 'Airwaves' chewing gum...
Nothing fools the machine i'm afraid...and any doubt means a blood test..
As for the waiting of 20 mins before a sample...Very true. However, if the BiB suspects that you are driving whilst under the influence of drink/drugs, he can arrest you anyway and transport you to the nick for testing on a machine there...and 20 mins will have elapsed then. In addition, the alcohol level in your body might be on the way UP...so if you blew straight away, you might have been under; but wait 20 mins and you might blow over..
The 2pence thought was that the copper somehow affects the machine...IT DOESN'T
The tomato doesn't work either..
Nor does eating 'Airwaves' chewing gum...
Nothing fools the machine i'm afraid...and any doubt means a blood test..
As for the waiting of 20 mins before a sample...Very true. However, if the BiB suspects that you are driving whilst under the influence of drink/drugs, he can arrest you anyway and transport you to the nick for testing on a machine there...and 20 mins will have elapsed then. In addition, the alcohol level in your body might be on the way UP...so if you blew straight away, you might have been under; but wait 20 mins and you might blow over..
sattan said:
Someone told me if you suck on an extra strong mint it fools the machine..
all pretty irresponsible if you ask me..
Erm excuse me how can fooling a machine be irresponsible? Before the filthy bastard bitch Castle MP and well known idiot, we used to rely on underpaid and responsible policepersons to judge with the white line walk and stand on one leg test.
Then scum came
and stalinist crap took over
and now no one has any respect for the law and quite right too its bollox
I would much rather take my chances with a right minded cop making a decision than a stupid machine relied on by scum. Bring back jusdgements made by mankind and sack a lot of civil sevice empire builders in the process
So let's reduce the alcohol limits because folk don't know how much is too much. Yeah, that's gonna work innit? (Not having a go SC but your seem rather promentant tonight )
Is it that laws (especially those relating to driving ) are set for the lowest common denominator?
(i.e. Because women are less able to metabolise alcohol than men (I believe))
But, it's not about that is it? It's all about stupidity. I will freely admit having driven a car after far more beers than I should have (but not recently). BUT, what did I do? Drive slowly, that's what, I even signaled to a police car on a single track road that he was safe to proceed having pulled into a gateway. I was NOT dangerous to anyone unless they were endangering themselves.
Ultimately, most car related legislation is about protecting the utter monkeys who should be on the bus from themselves and generating revenue.
>> Edited by TeamD on Monday 31st January 02:32
) Is it that laws (especially those relating to driving ) are set for the lowest common denominator?
(i.e. Because women are less able to metabolise alcohol than men (I believe))
But, it's not about that is it? It's all about stupidity. I will freely admit having driven a car after far more beers than I should have (but not recently). BUT, what did I do? Drive slowly, that's what, I even signaled to a police car on a single track road that he was safe to proceed having pulled into a gateway. I was NOT dangerous to anyone unless they were endangering themselves.
Ultimately, most car related legislation is about protecting the utter monkeys who should be on the bus from themselves and generating revenue.
>> Edited by TeamD on Monday 31st January 02:32
Possibly the anti-remarks are from those who see that driving while impaired is stupid and irresponsible in the extreme, but that this doesn't always equate to a number on a readout any more than safe driving equates to a number on a pole. Only motoring could spawn this kind of knee-jerk response from jerks in authority.
It does seem odd that you can be criminalised and demonised with no evidence that you were unable to control your car, just a number. We have very different responses to alcohol depending on gender, body mass and so on.
It does seem odd that you can be criminalised and demonised with no evidence that you were unable to control your car, just a number. We have very different responses to alcohol depending on gender, body mass and so on.
Fair point reg, sympathies...and to clarify my post, by jerks in authority I mean politicians not police officers. And while I'm here...take Street
's valid point about blood alcohol being possibly on the way up rather than down...if you were driving a short distance home, you may well be both safe and legal for the whole journey. But, get stopped and taken to the nick, you're a crim. No civilised justice system should have arbitrary outcomes like that.
's valid point about blood alcohol being possibly on the way up rather than down...if you were driving a short distance home, you may well be both safe and legal for the whole journey. But, get stopped and taken to the nick, you're a crim. No civilised justice system should have arbitrary outcomes like that.nonegreen said:
Someone told me if you suck on an extra strong mint it fools the machine..
all pretty irresponsible if you ask me..
Erm excuse me how can fooling a machine be irresponsible? Before the filthy bastard bitch Castle MP and well known idiot, we used to rely on underpaid and responsible policepersons to judge with the white line walk and stand on one leg test.
Then scum came
and stalinist crap took over
and now no one has any respect for the law and quite right too its bollox
I would much rather take my chances with a right minded cop making a decision than a stupid machine relied on by scum. Bring back jusdgements made by mankind and sack a lot of civil sevice empire builders in the process
You do have a way with words John
but I very much agree with your last paragraph. Best wishes all,
Dave.
The only thing that works - ist time. Your body needs time to rid itself of alcohol - und not bronze coins (which can do lot of damage if you swallow them).
Tomatoes, mints would not cover up the booze - und water will not necessarily flush it out any quicker - as this still depends on one's body mass und metabolism.
Alcohol mit fizzy drink permeates straight through stomach wall - as it does if you drink on empty stomach. Das heisst - you get effects of the alcohol more quickly.
Person used to drink - body may have tolerance und function perfectly despite the alcohol - but you'd need pretty good lawyer to prove this to a court.
Tomatoes, mints would not cover up the booze - und water will not necessarily flush it out any quicker - as this still depends on one's body mass und metabolism.
Alcohol mit fizzy drink permeates straight through stomach wall - as it does if you drink on empty stomach. Das heisst - you get effects of the alcohol more quickly.
Person used to drink - body may have tolerance und function perfectly despite the alcohol - but you'd need pretty good lawyer to prove this to a court.
regmolehusband said:
Ref. Turbobloke's comments - I'd rather by driven by me having consumed two pints of lager than by my sober father-in-law any day!
That is a point that has interested me for a while.
It is quite possible for some drivers to be safer even in a well tanked up state, than many drivers are when completely alcohol free.
Do you therefore seek to catch the drinking driver who has temporarily reduced his safety level and ignore the normal non-drinking driver who is relatively unsafe all the time?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
streetcop said:I think that this allegation that Policemen paly arounfd with the machine is a very serious allegation
The 2pence thought was that the copper somehow affects the machine
On a more serious note, the obvious and only sensible way to prevent the machine from reading over the limit is by not drinking to a level that puts you over the limit.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff