Breath-Test Refusers 'Drunk' Under Thai Traffic Law Change

[webfact]

LEGISLATION

Breath-test refusers 'drunk' under law change

JEERAPONG PRASERTPOLKRANG

THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- Cabinet yesterday approved a change to the Land Traffic Act that gives police the right to treat motorists who refuse to take an alcohol breath test without sound reason as drunk drivers.

Government spokeswoman Sansanee Nakpong said the Justice Ministry proposal aims to boost road safety and prevent accidents, and had passed the Council of State Office's consideration. It was approved by Cabinet and would be put to Parliament for consideration soon.

The draft would allow police to use flashlights or light-reflector devices to give traffic signals; to test if a motorists' ability to drive is impaired by alcohol or drug consumption; and to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason. She said the draft allowed police to presume some motorists were drunk drivers.

-- The Nation 2012-07-11

[KKvampire]

Get tough with these thais who drive and drink alcohol with no regard to others.but it was ever thus in a class ridden country

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

[animatic]

" to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason."

So basically someone stone cold sober can be told to take a breath test,

with no other valid reason given, and if they think that is just nuts, they can be detained.

How long? Where? What mechanism gets them un-detained?

I'm not against stopping drunk drivers at all,

but there seems to be some stuff not written in to this, that leaves it too open ended.

Edited July 11, 2012 by animatic

[phl]

What is a sound reason?

Sorry officer but you drunk yourself ? Or sorry officer the tube is not new?

[whybother]

" to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason."

So basically someone stone cold sober can be told to take a breath test,

with no other valid reason given, and if they think that is just nuts, they can be detained.

How long? Where? What mechanism gets them un-detained?

I'm not against stopping drunk drivers at all,

but there seems to be some stuff not written in to this, that leaves it too open ended.

Why would someone that is not drunk want to refuse a breath test?

They have had random breath tests in Australia for years. It is an excellent way to reduce drunk drivers. If drunk drivers can refuse breath tests, how do you stop them?

Edited July 11, 2012 by Maestro
Deleted nonsensical part of post.

[BWPattaya]

Am I right in thiinking that this is the same as in the UK? Refusing to perform a breath test is an offencce?

[Moruya]

" to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason."

So basically someone stone cold sober can be told to take a breath test,

with no other valid reason given, and if they think that is just nuts, they can be detained.

How long? Where? What mechanism gets them un-detained?

I'm not against stopping drunk drivers at all,

but there seems to be some stuff not written in to this, that leaves it too open ended.

Same in the UK Animatic. Guilty until proven innocent.

[madmitch]

I don't understand what flashlights and light reflectors have to do with this.

Anything to reduce the practice of drunk driving is good, but has anyone here actually seen a breathalizer used in Thailand? I haven't. And what are the penalties for drunk DUI?

[hellodolly]

" to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason."

So basically someone stone cold sober can be told to take a breath test,

with no other valid reason given, and if they think that is just nuts, they can be detained.

How long? Where? What mechanism gets them un-detained?

I'm not against stopping drunk drivers at all,

but there seems to be some stuff not written in to this, that leaves it too open ended.

Beg to disagree with you on this one. I think you are reading to much into it.

If they think it is nuts has nothing to do with it. All they have to do is blow in to it.

[TexasRanger]

Similar with my company drug / alcohol test, if you refuse it is classed the same as a fail, instant dismissal.

Fair enough, if not and you are drunk you shouldn't be able to refuse a test, there should be a penalty.

Having said all that I do have the obvious reservations about the application of the law in TH.

[Payboy]

The draft would allow police to use flashlights or light-reflector devices to give traffic signals.

Only outside primetime TV hours. Difficult to use those devices from the AC boxes.

[Yunla]

Government spokeswoman Sansanee Nakpong said the Justice Ministry proposal aims to boost road safety and prevent accidents

In that case she can start by making driving-standards tests more difficult, enforcing regulations surrounding driving-licences and driving offences, and tackling police corruption.

Drink driving is a problem obviously but alongside driver incompetence and non-regulation it becomes just 'part' of the problem.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Yunla

[hellodolly]

I don't understand what flashlights and light reflectors have to do with this.

Anything to reduce the practice of drunk driving is good, but has anyone here actually seen a breathalizer used in Thailand? I haven't. And what are the penalties for drunk DUI?

I have never seen them used here in Thailand. But then again I have never seen them used in Canada or the United States either. Of course I only lived there 64 years.

But I have seen road checks in the holiday seasons where they stop every one and if they suspect them they can legally give them a breathalyzer test and if they refuse be taken in. That is providing they are showing signs of intoxication. Generally in the morning or evening paper they will have a little article so many people stopped and failed breathalyzer test. A lot of times they are just given a 24 hour suspension.

My concern is going the other way will they even bother with them.

[hellodolly]

Government spokeswoman Sansanee Nakpong said the Justice Ministry proposal aims to boost road safety and prevent accidents

In that case she can start by making driving standards tests more difficult, enforcing regulations surrounding driving licences and driving offences, and tackling police corruption.

Drink driving is a problem obviously but alongside driver incompetence it becomes just 'part' of the problem.

That is what she said boost it not eradicate it. It is a start and if carried out a good one.

The operative word here being IF.

[thaicbr]

My concern would be the quality and calibration of the test units. In the UK I can trust the police. Here!!

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[tuky]

Why would someone that is not drunk want to refuse a breath test?

They have had random breath tests in Australia for years. It is an excellent way to reduce drunk drivers. If drunk drivers can refuse breath tests, how do you stop them?

Sent from my shoe phone

My old man has the equivalent of asbestosis (mesothelioma or however you say it), he needs a wheelchair to get around as he cannot walk.

BUT, with his oxy supply he can drive anywhere, sitting and driving does not take that much out of him.

There is no way he could blow in the bag, he would have to refuse.

Just pointing out that there are real reasons why one would refuse a breath test. (usually this would be backed up with a doctors note or similar).

Although I am sure the most common reason for refusing would be because you are drunk...

[Reasonableman]

Perhaps the reluctance of the driver to comply in this case is being pulled over under a flock of diarrheic seagulls...

Edited July 11, 2012 by Reasonableman

[2unique]

They do have alcohol detectors that when thrust through your window can detect the presence of alcohol but not how much. If alcohol is detected you are then asked to blow to see how much.

[draftvader]

Perhaps the reluctance of the driver to comply in this case is being pulled over under a flock of diarrheic seagulls...

We all know it's Songkran, but anybody catching this internationally is going to wonder. Seagulls was my 2nd (and more amusing) thought. My 1st was that there was a REALLY useless painting and decorating team working nearby.

[geriatrickid]

" to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason."

So basically someone stone cold sober can be told to take a breath test,

with no other valid reason given, and if they think that is just nuts, they can be detained.

How long? Where? What mechanism gets them un-detained?

I'm not against stopping drunk drivers at all,

but there seems to be some stuff not written in to this, that leaves it too open ended.

Same in the UK Animatic. Guilty until proven innocent.

No, not guilty of being drunk. Guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample. Same laws in most of the EU, Canada and USA. The intent is to have penalties sufficiently harsh so as to encourage compliance. The penalties can be the same as DUI in some jurisdictions. Driving is a privilege, not a right. As such, most countries laws for this approach.

Now if only they set up some traffic stops on Rat U and Beach Rd in Patong I'll be thrilled.

[gregb]

" to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason."

So basically someone stone cold sober can be told to take a breath test,

with no other valid reason given, and if they think that is just nuts, they can be detained.

How long? Where? What mechanism gets them un-detained?

I'm not against stopping drunk drivers at all,

but there seems to be some stuff not written in to this, that leaves it too open ended.

Why would someone that is not drunk want to refuse a breath test?

They have had random breath tests in Australia for years. It is an excellent way to reduce drunk drivers. If drunk drivers can refuse breath tests, how do you stop them?

Sent from my shoe phone

Because I may not necessarily trust the police breathalyzer unit. I would happily submit to a blood test at a nearby hospital, but how can I trust a breath test? Given the meagre budgets of police departments, how can we know the unit is properly maintained and accurate?

It comes down to trust, and there are many who legitimately don't trust the police enough to take a test on the side of the road. Even in most states in the US, people are allowed to refuse a breath test if they agree to a blood or urine test, and the police there are trusted. Of course, they do have to wait in a cell at the police station until those results come back, but since some don't trust the equipment, they opt for a blood test so there can be no doubt.

Given the history of corruption within the police department in Thailand, giving them any kind of power like this is worrying. As much as I detest drunk drivers, the police are not honest enough to get this kind of authority without adequate safeguards. There should be a provision in the law for people stopped to demand an independent blood test at a nearby hospital, and for the police to be responsible for restitution if their equipment is found to be faulty.

[whybother]

" to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason."

So basically someone stone cold sober can be told to take a breath test,

with no other valid reason given, and if they think that is just nuts, they can be detained.

How long? Where? What mechanism gets them un-detained?

I'm not against stopping drunk drivers at all,

but there seems to be some stuff not written in to this, that leaves it too open ended.

Why would someone that is not drunk want to refuse a breath test?

They have had random breath tests in Australia for years. It is an excellent way to reduce drunk drivers. If drunk drivers can refuse breath tests, how do you stop them?

Sent from my shoe phone

Because I may not necessarily trust the police breathalyzer unit. I would happily submit to a blood test at a nearby hospital, but how can I trust a breath test? Given the meagre budgets of police departments, how can we know the unit is properly maintained and accurate?

It comes down to trust, and there are many who legitimately don't trust the police enough to take a test on the side of the road. Even in most states in the US, people are allowed to refuse a breath test if they agree to a blood or urine test, and the police there are trusted. Of course, they do have to wait in a cell at the police station until those results come back, but since some don't trust the equipment, they opt for a blood test so there can be no doubt.

Given the history of corruption within the police department in Thailand, giving them any kind of power like this is worrying. As much as I detest drunk drivers, the police are not honest enough to get this kind of authority without adequate safeguards. There should be a provision in the law for people stopped to demand an independent blood test at a nearby hospital, and for the police to be responsible for restitution if their equipment is found to be faulty.

In Australia, you have a blood test after you fail the breathalyzer, which you should also demand here.

[Thai at Heart]

They do have alcohol detectors that when thrust through your window can detect the presence of alcohol but not how much. If alcohol is detected you are then asked to blow to see how much.

I have been accosted by one of those gizmos before, at 10am in the morning, at a checkpoint, it is a flashlight wand with a basic breathalyser on the end. I didn't dare put my lips to it, considering where the 1000 previous blowers had probably been the night before.

[Reasonableman]

" to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason."

So basically someone stone cold sober can be told to take a breath test,

with no other valid reason given, and if they think that is just nuts, they can be detained.

How long? Where? What mechanism gets them un-detained?

I'm not against stopping drunk drivers at all,

but there seems to be some stuff not written in to this, that leaves it too open ended.

Same in the UK Animatic. Guilty until proven innocent.

No, not guilty of being drunk. Guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample. Same laws in most of the EU, Canada and USA. The intent is to have penalties sufficiently harsh so as to encourage compliance. The penalties can be the same as DUI in some jurisdictions. Driving is a privilege, not a right. As such, most countries laws for this approach.

Now if only they set up some traffic stops on Rat U and Beach Rd in Patong I'll be thrilled.

Same in Oz

[Reasonableman]

" to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason."

So basically someone stone cold sober can be told to take a breath test,

with no other valid reason given, and if they think that is just nuts, they can be detained.

How long? Where? What mechanism gets them un-detained?

I'm not against stopping drunk drivers at all,

but there seems to be some stuff not written in to this, that leaves it too open ended.

Why would someone that is not drunk want to refuse a breath test?

They have had random breath tests in Australia for years. It is an excellent way to reduce drunk drivers. If drunk drivers can refuse breath tests, how do you stop them?

Sent from my shoe phone

Because I may not necessarily trust the police breathalyzer unit. I would happily submit to a blood test at a nearby hospital, but how can I trust a breath test? Given the meagre budgets of police departments, how can we know the unit is properly maintained and accurate?

It comes down to trust, and there are many who legitimately don't trust the police enough to take a test on the side of the road. Even in most states in the US, people are allowed to refuse a breath test if they agree to a blood or urine test, and the police there are trusted. Of course, they do have to wait in a cell at the police station until those results come back, but since some don't trust the equipment, they opt for a blood test so there can be no doubt.

Given the history of corruption within the police department in Thailand, giving them any kind of power like this is worrying. As much as I detest drunk drivers, the police are not honest enough to get this kind of authority without adequate safeguards. There should be a provision in the law for people stopped to demand an independent blood test at a nearby hospital, and for the police to be responsible for restitution if their equipment is found to be faulty.

In Australia, you have a blood test after you fail the breathalyzer, which you should also demand here.

Correct, but outright refusal to be tested is not an option.

[whybother]

They do have alcohol detectors that when thrust through your window can detect the presence of alcohol but not how much. If alcohol is detected you are then asked to blow to see how much.

I have been accosted by one of those gizmos before, at 10am in the morning, at a checkpoint, it is a flashlight wand with a basic breathalyser on the end. I didn't dare put my lips to it, considering where the 1000 previous blowers had probably been the night before.

In Aus, they use a new mouth piece for each person. I'm sure they'll allocate funds to do the same here.

[ZZZ]

If you have had one beer, one drink or a cigarette within 15 minutes of being tested you could test over the limit. That would be one reason for refusing a breath analyzer test.

Also, most test units require you to drink water before the test to avoid false positive, is this ever done here?

Do you have the option of a blood test if you test positive on the breath analyzer?

[OzMick]

They do have alcohol detectors that when thrust through your window can detect the presence of alcohol but not how much. If alcohol is detected you are then asked to blow to see how much.

I have an alcohol detecting device attached to the middle of my face. When a police officer asks have you had anything to drink recently, the question is purely rhetorical.

[whybother]

If you have had one beer, one drink or a cigarette within 15 minutes of being tested you could test over the limit. That would be one reason for refusing a breath analyzer test.

Also, most test units require you to drink water before the test to avoid false positive, is this ever done here?

Do you have the option of a blood test if you test positive on the breath analyzer?

In Aus, the blood test is what gets you charged. The breath test is just an indicator, since as you say, you may have just had a single drink.

[Thai at Heart]

They do have alcohol detectors that when thrust through your window can detect the presence of alcohol but not how much. If alcohol is detected you are then asked to blow to see how much.

I have been accosted by one of those gizmos before, at 10am in the morning, at a checkpoint, it is a flashlight wand with a basic breathalyser on the end. I didn't dare put my lips to it, considering where the 1000 previous blowers had probably been the night before.

In Aus, they use a new mouth piece for each person. I'm sure they'll allocate funds to do the same here.

Well, if they do it as they do now testing largely everyone that goes through a single checkpoint instead of checking those who show signs of being drunk, I think I will invest in a breathalyser replacement pipe firm.