A Night in the Thai Police Station

[MadAtMatrix]

25 minutes ago, treetops said:

 

So in your time on the job and with your experience of multiple cases, would you let a guy walk because he was only a little bit over the legal limit?

No. It was not my decision. It was the decision of the crown prosecutor that decided if an accused would be charged and prosecuted. I simply provided the evidence. It got much better when the province brought in administrative driving suspensions (not a criminal charge) where I could revoke a persons drivers licence at the roadside after providing two samples of breath into two devices of the same kind (for independent verification that both devices have the same reading). We were able to remove drivers from the road for 90 days immediately along with impounding their car for 30 days. That brought a substantial drop in people who would take the chance of drinking and driving. 
 

Furthermore, having seen too many drunk drivers (or distracted drivers) cause collisions that caused death or serious bodily harm, I didn’t tolerate “anything a little over the limit”. 

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, treetops said:

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

..those are your words and assumptions, not Mad's... .. you've used very a very poor 'Framing Effect' and a loaded question, which is a rather weak argumentative technique and highlights very simplified mental processing...  

 

Don't overthink things, I'm not trying to argue with anyone and simplifying things (without distorting them) is quite suitable to get insight into a particular aspect of an issue.

 

Much has been made about the guys level of drunkenness but I'm pretty sure in the UK it wouldn't matter a jot if he failed the  evidentiary test (2 chances are allowed)  he'd be in the cells until sober (ie he could pass) or overnight if he was going to be in court in the morning.  I'm trying to find out what the situation would be elsewhere and it seems more than fair to ask a guy who should know.

 

Yeah, apologies - my initial response read more aggressively than I intended..  I'd already edited and toned down my comment a bit, though the question did seem somewhat loaded...  If thats not the case, apologies again... 

 

Once processed and a reading is given, I don't think any police officer (in developed nations) have the discretion to 'let a guy walk' if they tested over...

 

As you correctly point out, the initial roadside tests are indicative and carried out using a handheld breathalyser device, which may be subject to calibration drift. Therefore, the official reading is the one taken later at the police station, using an evidential breathalyser. This device is regularly calibrated and maintained to meet legal standards, and its results are considered legally reliable and admissible in court. Additionally, the timing of the tests is taken into account, and the recorded result is used to estimate the driver’s blood alcohol level at the actual time of driving.

 

 

[MadAtMatrix]

2 hours ago, HighPriority said:

I guess the op wasn’t in Canada s o most of your post doesn’t really amount to much does it…? 🤷🏼‍♂️

I was answering the quoted text and correcting it. It is clear you can’t understand normal thinking. 

[MadAtMatrix]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Yeah, apologies - my initial response read more aggressively than I intended..  I'd already edited and toned down my comment a bit, though the question did seem somewhat loaded...  If thats not the case, apologies again... 

 

Once processed and a reading is given, I don't think any police officer (in developed nations) have the discretion to 'let a guy walk' if they tested over...

 

As you correctly point out, the initial roadside tests are indicative and carried out using a handheld breathalyser device, which may be subject to calibration drift. Therefore, the official reading is the one taken later at the police station, using an evidential breathalyser. This device is regularly calibrated and maintained to meet legal standards, and its results are considered legally reliable and admissible in court. Additionally, the timing of the tests is taken into account, and the recorded result is used to estimate the driver’s blood alcohol level at the actual time of driving.

 

 

You are correct. The roadside device is a “screening device” and then they are presented in front of the evidentiary breath testing instrument often called a “breathalyzer” that was invented by Dr Borkenstein in the 1950’s. The evidentiary instruments now are computerized and are pretty much fool proof. 

[HighPriority]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Of course it counts - he is a Policeman far more real world experience of dealing with drunk drivers than we have... even those cockroaches who regularly drive while well over the limit.

 

The perspective MadAtMatrix provides is with the 'readings' and the fact that the levels stated by the Op show minimal alcohol consumption in the first place.

 

No.

Its highly relevant to Canada, not so much to Thailand…

Shall we discuss in depth the Australian blood alcohol limits ?

[HighPriority]

23 minutes ago, MadAtMatrix said:

I was answering the quoted text and correcting it. It is clear you can’t understand normal thinking. 

The post I commented on was completely irrelevant to Thailand, we may as well have discussed Australian drink driving laws or Botswana for that matter…

 

Your post at the top of page 10 I wholeheartedly agree with.

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

No.

Its highly relevant to Canada, not so much to Thailand…

Shall we discuss in depth the Australian blood alcohol limits ?

 

You've completely ignored the context in his (Mad's post) regarding impairment - that does not vary in different countries and is thus, as relevant in Thailand as it is in Canada or anywhere else.

 

Thus: in the context of impairment - the Op was under the level of DUI for England and Wales which highlights how close he was to 'not being over the limit' - it also indicates he was 'hardly impaired'... 

 

As quoted by Mad... 

BAC	Effects Experienced
.02-.04%	Lightheaded – Relaxation, sensation of warmth, “high,” minor impairment in judgment

 

The Op was 0.027% which is on the low end of 'light headed'...

 

The perspective here is that others are suggesting he was driving while drunk - whereas there's an argument to suggest he was not impaired at all given his low readings that are within legal limits for many other nations. 

 

[MadAtMatrix]

8 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

No.

Its highly relevant to Canada, not so much to Thailand…

Shall we discuss in depth the Australian blood alcohol limits ?

What would you like to discuss about Thailand and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. As I mentioned I was designated as an expert in Drug Impaired Driving and was an evidentiary breath testing technician. 
 

Feel free to see what a DRE is by searching “Drug Recognition Expert” on Wikipedia and here is the training material that has to be learned to become one
https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/drug-recognition-expert-course-participant-manual-0

 

The information is available for the public to read, and the scientific validation of the methodology to determine impairment caused by specific categories of drugs. 

[HighPriority]

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You've completely ignored the context in his (Mad's post) regarding impairment - that does not vary in different countries and is thus, as relevant in Thailand as it is in Canada or anywhere else.

 

Thus: in the context of impairment - the Op was under the level of DUI for England and Wales which highlights how close he was to 'not being over the limit' - it also indicates he was 'hardly impaired'... 

 

As quoted by Mad... 

BAC	Effects Experienced
.02-.04%	Lightheaded – Relaxation, sensation of warmth, “high,” minor impairment in judgment

 

The Op was 0.027% which is on the low end of 'light headed'...

 

The perspective here is that others are suggesting he was driving while drunk - whereas there's an argument to suggest he was not impaired at all given his low readings that are within legal limits for many other nations. 

 

I don’t give a fat rats tossbag about the “others” however, I agree with your initial response that the op was over the limit for his licence status.

The level of impairment is irrelevant, that’s why the police don’t ask you to walk along the centre line of the road to judge your capacity to drive, it’s the BAC that is the limit.

[HighPriority]

7 minutes ago, MadAtMatrix said:

What would you like to discuss about Thailand and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. As I mentioned I was designated as an expert in Drug Impaired Driving and was an evidentiary breath testing technician. 
 

Feel free to see what a DRE is by searching “Drug Recognition Expert” on Wikipedia and here is the training material that has to be learned to become one
https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/drug-recognition-expert-course-participant-manual-0

 

The information is available for the public to read, and the scientific validation of the methodology to determine impairment caused by specific categories of drugs. 

I’m not questioning your credentials… this is an anonymous forum, if you say your a Canadian copper with expertise in drink driving detection then so be it.

Canadian laws have no relevance to Thailand and no amount of pollywaffling about Canadian guidelines, rules, regulations and laws will change that.

Beyond that, I generally agree with what you’re saying.

[off road pat]

On 4/21/2025 at 9:14 PM, Hellfire said:

As I sat there that night, I thought to myself—if they catch a serial killer, they would place him in exactly the same room I was in. Me, drinking 10-20 grams of alcohol in excess, and him—killing dozens of people. It seemed like, for the system, there’s no difference. It’s either a 1 (violated the law) or a 0 (did not violate the law).

Do you think such an approach should be accepted in the 21st century? With all our knowledge of history, our technological superiority, and other so-called "civilizational achievements"? Are we really civilized, or are we just pretending to be?

A serial killer would not be put in the same cell ! Dangerous people are put in solitary cells !!