Thursday July 29th, 2010
- Last update:2 hours 16 min ago
Football
Cricket
Welcome, breathalyser, but should T&T hold its breath?
Published: 15 Nov 2009
It’s understandable that the announce- ment of the implementation of the breathalyser, to control driving under the influence of alcohol, came during the post-Cabinet news conference. Works and Transport Minister Colm Imbert who reported on Thursday Cabinet’s approval of two breath-testing devices, has long on behalf of the government assumed ownership of the breathalyser project. It was during his 1991-1995 first term in that portfolio that the policy was adopted to reduce road accidents by removing drivers, presumed impaired through liquor consumption, from behind steering wheels.
Random breath-testing to support enforcement of laws against liquor-impaired driving has been standard practice in many countries. That it has taken Trinidad and Tobago this long to move from policy adoption, a decade-and-a-half ago, to proclamation of the Breathalyser Act tomorrow, should give prudent citizens pause in crediting declarations of final readiness for implementation. The enabling legislation had been passed under the UNC. It was revisited under the PNM, provisions restudied, finer-tuned and plans remade. New legislation was passed in mid-2007. Nearly two-and-a-half years later, the clearest achievement of progress is to be reckoned in tomorrow’s proclamation.
On Thursday, Mr Imbert recounted the “careful” checks by his ministry of the available equipment, before choice of brands and methods. “We have identified suitable devices to use here,” he said triumphantly. Extensive product evaluation “was one of the reasons we took so much time.” He is now satisfied that the equipment Cabinet approved last week will survive future challenges by “clever attorneys trying to find loopholes” in the law. The courts will decide, when those matters arise, the fate of legal challenges of the breathalyser devices. Until then, Mr Imbert’s assurances amount to loud marketing of the fruit to date of his many years of labour toward delivery of a workable breathalyser scheme.
Such a scheme has tirelessly been clamoured for by pressure groups such as Arrive Alive, and long awaited by citizens made fearful of the perils of under-regulated and, worse, under-policed road traffic.
It’s in the respect of regulation and enforcement that the credibility of the post-Cabinet claims stands wide open to question.
Regulations, their drafting, their sufficiency and their interpretation are within the competence of Cabinet and other officials nowhere represented near the platform where Mr Imbert held forth on Thursday. Enforcement, including interpretation in real-world practice of the regulations, are obviously matters for the police.
“By the end of the month for the Christmas season, the police will be out in full force, doing breathalyser testing,” Mr Imbert said, noting that such force will be felt in liming areas and bars. In the festive season such as Christmas—and Carnival soon after—so-called liming areas multiply by a large factor, as office parties and special events provide opportunities for lapses into liquor-impaired driving. Assurances that police will be “out in full force” obviously carry far more weight when they come from service commanders, or even the National Security Minister.
Officers were being trained in applying breathalyser technology, Mr Imbert also said. Again, it’s for other authorities to confirm the extent of the availability and uptake of such training. The Works and Transport Minister is entitled to claim credit for finally untying all the red tape that had for so long rendered policy and legislation unworkable. In making confident declarations, however, that from tomorrow, or month-end, the breathalyser will materially improve T&T’s road-safety experience, he is clearly speaking out of turn.
Ever heard of "Dram shop
Ever heard of "Dram shop liability"?
Think of how many bars, rum shops, restaurants, fetes, bazaars, all in ones etc where the proprietors or staff knowingly serve alcohol to obviously intoxicated patrons.
All in the name of the almighty dollar.
How many accidents could have been prevented, how many lives could have been saved, how many injuries could have been prevented if servers of alcohol were more responsible in their commercial dealings?
"One for the road = one more death on the road".
Dram shop liability or liquor liability as some call it involves giving or serving alcohol to a person who then injures a third party as a direct result of the impairment from the alcohol.
Groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) have advocated for the enforcement and enactment of dram shop laws across the United States.
Its time for victims and their families to advocate for clear laws relating to third party liability of bars etc and then to file lawsuits against these establishments.
Its not a solution in itself but it could be PART of a comprehensive solution to get the morons off our roads.
This is a great idea but who
This is a great idea but who will police the police. These breathalysers need these set up out front of the Police Stations in view of the public for everyone to see what Police pass the test before and after their shifts. This should not be limited to the Police but to everyone in the public sector; if they do not pass they do not get paid.
The Joker
...listen girls and
...listen girls and boys...this breathalyser thing will not solve the drinking and driving problem...the processes involved are quite complicated and usually involve several officers and time restraints....all this will do is enrich the pockets of lawyers and further tie up the court system....
The only thing that is
The only thing that is guaranteed to happen with the breathalyser testing is that the police will catch on immediately and realize that they have hit the JACKPOT, this is the best thing that has happened to the Trinidadian police force in years, instant salary increases, they will be raking in the cash, no more letting bad drivers go for 20 - 100 TTD, no way since the fine is supposed to be 8000 TTD then the cops will be asking for thousands of dollars straight up, and they will get it, they will target the expats who drink in bars like TROTTERS, they will probably drive you straight to the ATM to collect their jackpot winnings then let you drive off home. Sad to say Trinidad would be better off without the breathalyser, it will certainly lead to more police corruption, 100% guaranteed and every driver in T&T knows this.
LIKE IN ALL COUNTERIES
LIKE IN ALL COUNTERIES -
There are interest groups that lobby government for favours. There is a powerful business lobby in T&T. These lobbyists normally make hefty contribution to political parties and in return they are granted favours. There is among other things a rum lobby in T&T.
I'm all for implementing the
I'm all for implementing the breathalyser, any step to make our roads safer is a good step in the right direction. HOWEVER my worries lie in the maintenance of the equipment, these units need to be maintained and calibrated on a regular basis or else they will give incorrect results. If we are expected to pay $8000 or go to jail for 3 years for the first offence, $15000 or 5 years in jail for a 2nd offence and then have our drivers permit taken away on our 3rd offence, I think it's fair we have some sort of insurance that the equipment is accurate as well as proof that it has been calibrated and maintained as per the manufacturer's requirements.
I'm waiting to see what new
I'm waiting to see what new ad the Diana Power Mints folks create... Hope they don't leave folks thinking that sucking a Power Mint is protection from the breathalyzer...
Man, the way people in
Man, the way people in Trinidad does suffer with jungle breath, I give them breathalyzer thing a good two months of survival. The Government better buy the disposable ones.
Without knowing the exact
Without knowing the exact wording of the DUI law in T&T I do not really see how the application of the DUI law in the US is necessarily relevant. While the wording of the law in the US probably varies from state to state is there not really TWO statues that operate in most states? One that essentially states that if you are impaired you can be charged for driving under the influence and the other statute that uses the results of the breathalyser test to confirm the original charge? The blood-alcohol measure is evidence, but not proof, of intoxication. Is that not why a cop practically anyplace in the US can stop a suspected drunk driver, administer a roadside sobriety test and arrest you for suspicion of being under the influence without even having you blow into a breathalyser.
Just to clarify, the 'Supreme Court' referred to in that article is the California Supreme Court. The defendant whose arrest and conviction was the impetus for the ruling would not have benefited by the ruling because he was convicted under the first statute - driving under the influence, so the ruling in the article does not impact all drunk driving cases only those where the breathalyser result is used.
At the end of the day, T&T needs a drunk driving law that is enforced. While I will believe the law is being enforced when it starts being enforced, I again say what happening in the US is what's happening in the US. Given how long the T&T government claims to have been 'studying' which breathalysers to use and how defendants in the US have been challenging their convictions, one can only assume that they are also aware that there are two American states whose Supreme Court have made similar ruling to the one in the article.
Let's get on with it!!!
Thank you Sir. I found a
Thank you Sir. I found a copy of the Act on the paliament website here, it is Act 19, 2007, it was passed on July 1st 2007 in the house and 4th July 2007 in the senate: -
http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/a2007-19.pdf
Metal a sugar fermentation
Metal a sugar fermentation process with standard yeast does not produce methyl alcohol, THe liver and its enzymes break alcohol down to aldehydes. The breathalyser takes the breath including alcohol and aldehydes and a catalyst converts it to aldehydes (acetaldehyde) which gives a Schiff's base reaction to a colour, If you have methyl alcohol in your breath or blood you may be in a coma soon as it produces formaldehyde which is toxic,
Wood alcohols are poisonous so no need to check these as you may not make it to the driving seat. here in the UK a breathalyser positive test is backed up by lab tests by a gas chromatograph for ethyl acohol, You are empowered to get a sample of blood for your own referee test to judge if the police tests can be challenged then there is a 3rd sample which is witnessed. No one has beaten the breathalyser chemistry here that I know of, and it really stops people drinking driving.
so attaboy TT Govt, go for it.
Rum Drinking...... a waste
Rum Drinking...... a waste of time
Yuh know man does get drink and drive on the roads from drinking in the 4 million rum shops there are in T&T.
Why men love to drink so ... Because they are ....(donkey holes)
Rum till I die ent .....fools
and the ones who drink
and the ones who drink alcohol excessively and arrive home alive boast that they actually drive better when they are intoxicated. The others, well, they crash into lamp posts, bridges and innocent citizens and die. By the way, women are also guilty of drinking and driving. And what exactly are donkey holes?
INTERESTING
INTERESTING -
The enabling legislation had been passed under the UNC. It was revisited under the PNM, provisions restudied, finer-tuned and plans remade. New legislation was passed in mid-2007. Nearly two-and-a-half years later, the clearest achievement of progress is to be reckoned in tomorrow’s proclamation.
And is UNC who was accused of Civil Disobedience and of not wanting to co-operate with the government.
Fairplay, I'm sending you
Fairplay,
I'm sending you this extract from http://www.prlog.org/10389226-challenging-the-validity-of-the-breathalyz... -
"It is a crime to operate a vehicle with a BAC level of 0.08 percent of higher, and a breathalyzer reading of 0.08 or higher is considered presumptive evidence of DUI. To disprove the accuracy of the breathalyzer test is possible, as these tests are often based on assumptions, such as weight, metabolism, height, and current food consumption, that do not not apply the same to everyone and could lead to negative externalities in the test results. Breathalyzer testing machines may also run into other problems when they identify not only ethyl alcohol, but also any other methyl group compound. In other words, a breathalyzer machine may misinterpret other substances in human breath as alcohol content".
Just a thought. Is this going to work you think?