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

[RigPig]

" 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.

WRONG years ago that was the case but now you just get put on the machine at the station. WITH A CERTIFIED OPERATOR. The machine is calibrated and then the test is done and both results and the operators certification is produced in court.

I believe here in Thailand you do get a blood test if you fail the road side breath test. It's actually pretty fair.

[chrisinth]

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?

For directing cars and motorbikes into an area either on one side of the road or beside the road for the purpose of adminstering the breath test.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect App

Good to hear! I had visions of some BiB shining a powerful beam into oncoming drunken driver's eyes to judge their reactions. Scary!

[Phil Conners]

As far as I know in most countries, if you refuse to do the breathalyzer test they just arrest you and take you to a hospital for a blood sample. I also think you have that option if you claim the outcome of the breathalyzer test isn't correct.

[dantilley]

As far as I'm aware you can refuse to take a breath test and do a urine test instead which is done anyway if you fail the breath test. If you refuse both then it's an offence as otherwise drivers who think they may be over the limit will just refuse to be tested which would defeat the object.

In the UK, at least a few years ago, if you failed a breath test you were guilty but given the option to take a blood test which, if came out negative, you were then absolved of all guilt. But if the blood test was also positive you had to pay for the test, which was about 80 pounds back then. Thus unless you were very much a borderline case it would be better to cut your losses and admit your guilt. Think the urine test option was also possible in between the breath and blood test, can't recall exactly how that worked.

[gamini]

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

what has class and Thais to do with this. What is class ridden? Expats drink and drive too.

[Udox]

Spot on with that one - A Certified Operator and the machine is calibrated. I wonder what reaction you would get if you asked to see either that the operator is trained and qualified and the machine calibration sticker is in date. DUI is a serious offence with serious consequences - If they (BiB) have the 'right' to demand a random breath test - surely we have the right to ensure the test is done fairly and accurately.

You can just imagine Sgt Somchai who carried the machine in the front basket of his Honda Wave to the test point, and was shown how to turn the unit on by his mate yesterday morning, accusing you of being drunk and then follows "Can you help me out" - or do you want to go to the police station?

[whybother]

WRONG years ago that was the case but now you just get put on the machine at the station. WITH A CERTIFIED OPERATOR. The machine is calibrated and then the test is done and both results and the operators certification is produced in court.

<snip>

OK. Same result.

[softgeorge]

As far as I know in most countries, if you refuse to do the breathalyzer test they just arrest you and take you to a hospital for a blood sample. I also think you have that option if you claim the outcome of the breathalyzer test isn't correct.

No arrest power in Australia, you will simply be charged on summons for either refuse, fail to accompany or fail to remain. As for the blood tests if police cannot get a breathe sample for some reason they can demand that you provide a blood sample but again you can refuse but will be charged as in refusing a breath sample. If police require a blood sample then they pay the costs, if the defendant requests a blood sample then he pays the costs.

[Arkady]

The loophole in the law has existed for years, i.e. the police had no right to insist on a breath test, although not many people were aware of that and for some one without connections there was anyway a strong possibility that police might falsely accuse a breath test refuser with a worse crime like assaulting a policeman. particularly when no other witnesses were around.

Obviously the new law makes sense. What remains a grey area is what controls are maintained over calibration of police breathalyzers and what evidence is admissible in court. I believe that Thai courts accept print outs from machines used by police on the street, although those machines would not be acceptable to courts in developed countries due to low accuracy and susceptibility to tampering by police. Another problem is that police are allowed to arrest based on an immediate testing, whereas police in developed countries normally have to observe for at all 20 minutes before testing to eliminate the possibility that mouth alcohol will distort the test result. Most US PDs also have a sophisticated breathalyzer that can distinguish between mouth alcohol and fumes from the lungs by measuring the decay rate which is much faster for mouth alcohol. In the UK evidence is only acceptable from the large desktop machine in the cop shop or from expensive roadside units that some police now have, costing GBP 1,000 each.

Finally it there is the problem of police corruption, intimidation and extortion. My own experience with police breath test roadblocks indicates that in most cases they are out mainly to make money. They always quote an exaggerated level of fine before you blow which is clearly an invitation to give them that much to avoid blowing at all and I know Thais who bargained it down from Bt 10,000 to 2,000 to avoid blowing. I was once stopped and pronounced over the limit two hours after finishing two small beers, having previously registered zero several times after exactly the same intake and interval before driving. The cop refused to say exactly how much over the limit and pulled his breathalyzer away quickly, so I couldn't see the reading. The same cop in the same place had shown anger a couple of nights earlier that I registered zero and sent me to his boss for retesting twice with the same results. So I was pretty sure it was shake down but my word as a farang against an armed thug is not worth much is a system with no meaningful rules of evidence or even rule of law at all. So I was marched off to the ATM to satisfy the bent cop's greed and desire to get even.

Some of my wife's Thai friends have confessed to being extremely plastered and paying bribes to avoid blowing. The police are happy with the folding stuff and send them on their way with a smile, knowing that they are too drunk to control a vehicle safely and might cause a serious accident on their way home. Oh well. That's Thailand.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Arkady

[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.

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.

GK - the point I was making is that they don't really need a reason to stop you. It's not like you're walking down the road at 4am with a stripy suit, dark glasses and a bag marked "SWAG"

[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?

A cigarette will not give a reading,

The notion of water given is total rubbish.

If you have been cigarette smoking, it could be wise to pass on the breath test. Scientific research shows that nicotine can certainly increase the test outcome substantially — enough to get you charged and convicted of drunk driving. This occurs due to the fact a chemical substance known as acetaldehyde (which gets into the body via smoking) is often misunderstood as aclchohol by the machine.

One of the most common causes of falsely high breath analyzer readings is the existence of mouth alcohol. In analyzing a subject's breath sample, the breath analyzer's internal computer is making the assumption that the alcohol in the breath sample came from alveolar air—that is, air exhaled from deep within the lungs. However, alcohol may have come from the mouth, throat or stomach for a number of reasons.To help guard against mouth-alcohol contamination, certified breath-test operators are trained to observe a test subject carefully for at least 15–20 minutes before administering the test.

Other than recent drinking, the most common source of mouth alcohol is from belching or burping. For this reason most test equipment manufacturers recomends drinking water before the subject is tested.

There are several other causes for a false positive reading such as being a diabetic, or being on a special diet.

Anyway, I'm all for this testing as long as it is only a tool to separate drivers for additional testing using a fail proof method such as a blood test.

[Thai at Heart]

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

what has class and Thais to do with this. What is class ridden? Expats drink and drive too.

Expats don't fit anywhere in the class system in Thailand, unless they get their picture in Tatler regularly.

[NomadJoe]

Driver: "Whoa, a giant bird just shat all over you and my car."

Cop: "You must be drunk. Blow on this please."

[dude007]

" 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.

Don't forget that about the same law exists in European countries. Refusing a breath test is admitting that you're drunk.

[WyattEarp]

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

what has class and Thais to do with this. What is class ridden? Expats drink and drive too.

Expats don't fit anywhere in the class system in Thailand, unless they get their picture in Tatler regularly.

I think what KKvampire means is that given enough "face" (money) you will not be charged with anything.

This includes Farangs, but most of us don't have any "face" and thus rank down in one of the lowest classes.

[Arkady]

As far as I'm aware you can refuse to take a breath test and do a urine test instead which is done anyway if you fail the breath test. If you refuse both then it's an offence as otherwise drivers who think they may be over the limit will just refuse to be tested which would defeat the object.

In the UK, at least a few years ago, if you failed a breath test you were guilty but given the option to take a blood test which, if came out negative, you were then absolved of all guilt. But if the blood test was also positive you had to pay for the test, which was about 80 pounds back then. Thus unless you were very much a borderline case it would be better to cut your losses and admit your guilt. Think the urine test option was also possible in between the breath and blood test, can't recall exactly how that worked.

Originally in the UK the breathalyzer test was not accepted at all by the courts. If you either failed the breahtalyzer test or refused to take it the police had to take you to the station for a urine or blood test. You had the right to insist on a blood test, as it was regarded as more accurate than urine testing, which meant the police had to call in a police doctor at the police's own cost, as they were not authorized to draw blood. Many people probably got off as a result of the delay in testing caused by the wait for the police doctor. You were also allowed to have the sample retested by an independent pathologist at your own expense which was worth in borderline cases - my brother got off this way once in the 70s.

I remember a case where a high court judge was arrested for speeding in his Jag up the wrong side of the motorway while plastered. He was then caught in the police station with the fridge door open switching the label on his blood sample with some one else's in the hope that the other guy was less pissed than him. I don't think he ever sat on the bench again but he must have had a night to remember!

[Arkady]

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?

A cigarette will not give a reading,

The notion of water given is total rubbish.

If you have been cigarette smoking, it could be wise to pass on the breath test. Scientific research shows that nicotine can certainly increase the test outcome substantially — enough to get you charged and convicted of drunk driving. This occurs due to the fact a chemical substance known as acetaldehyde (which gets into the body via smoking) is often misunderstood as aclchohol by the machine.

One of the most common causes of falsely high breath analyzer readings is the existence of mouth alcohol. In analyzing a subject's breath sample, the breath analyzer's internal computer is making the assumption that the alcohol in the breath sample came from alveolar air—that is, air exhaled from deep within the lungs. However, alcohol may have come from the mouth, throat or stomach for a number of reasons.To help guard against mouth-alcohol contamination, certified breath-test operators are trained to observe a test subject carefully for at least 15–20 minutes before administering the test.

Other than recent drinking, the most common source of mouth alcohol is from belching or burping. For this reason most test equipment manufacturers recomends drinking water before the subject is tested.

There are several other causes for a false positive reading such as being a diabetic, or being on a special diet.

Anyway, I'm all for this testing as long as it is only a tool to separate drivers for additional testing using a fail proof method such as a blood test.

Listerine or similar alcohol based mouth washes have the same effect. I tested myself with my own breathalyzer which is not Western police grade but reasonably accurate. Without having had a drink at all I registered zero before the mouth wash and after several generous rinses with Listerine and no water after it to my horror I registered 4 times the Thai limit. It took about 20 minutes before I got back below the limit again and over 30 minutes to get back to zero. I think a lot of people don't realise that Listerine is actually alcohol and have a rinse with it on leaving the pub in the hope of disguising the smell of alcohol on their breath!

Edited July 11, 2012 by Arkady

[mozzieslapper]

"motorists who refuse to take an alcohol breath test without sound reason as drunk drivers."

How much baht = a sound reason to avoid a test?

[Arkady]

" 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.

GK - the point I was making is that they don't really need a reason to stop you. It's not like you're walking down the road at 4am with a stripy suit, dark glasses and a bag marked "SWAG"

But they are walking down the road with a tight fitting brown suit, dark glasses, face mask, name tag removed, a gun and a big bubble marked marked "SWAG" sticking out of their heads.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Arkady

[softgeorge]

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?

A cigarette will not give a reading,

The notion of water given is total rubbish.

If you have been cigarette smoking, it could be wise to pass on the breath test. Scientific research shows that nicotine can certainly increase the test outcome substantially — enough to get you charged and convicted of drunk driving. This occurs due to the fact a chemical substance known as acetaldehyde (which gets into the body via smoking) is often misunderstood as aclchohol by the machine.

One of the most common causes of falsely high breath analyzer readings is the existence of mouth alcohol. In analyzing a subject's breath sample, the breath analyzer's internal computer is making the assumption that the alcohol in the breath sample came from alveolar air—that is, air exhaled from deep within the lungs. However, alcohol may have come from the mouth, throat or stomach for a number of reasons.To help guard against mouth-alcohol contamination, certified breath-test operators are trained to observe a test subject carefully for at least 15–20 minutes before administering the test.

Other than recent drinking, the most common source of mouth alcohol is from belching or burping. For this reason most test equipment manufacturers recomends drinking water before the subject is tested.

There are several other causes for a false positive reading such as being a diabetic, or being on a special diet.

Anyway, I'm all for this testing as long as it is only a tool to separate drivers for additional testing using a fail proof method such as a blood test.

I don't know where you come from but if you decide to not have a breath test for being a smoker in Australia you will be charged, no if no butts. I have done 1,000's of breathe tests and I have never heard of what you speak. Yes an operator must wait 15 minutes from the time of interception before conducting a breath test (different to a prelim test or PBT) The instruments we use are the Drager Alcotest 7110 and if someone should burb whilst providing a sample of breath for analysis then the instrument automatically self aborts the test and a further 15 minutes is required. If this occures again the process is repeated and on a third time it is then to blood testing.

As you say the breath analysing operators are trained and duely qualified and I can assure you that they will never provide a subject with food or drink prior to testing. Police are told never to give the subject anything which includes water and if they must use the toilet prior then they are supervised to ensure that they do not consume anything that could place doubt on legal proceedings.

[Moruya]

GK - the point I was making is that they don't really need a reason to stop you. It's not like you're walking down the road at 4am with a stripy suit, dark glasses and a bag marked "SWAG"

But they are walking down the road with a tight fitting brown suit, dark glasses, face mask, name tag removed, a gun and a big bubble marked marked "SWAG" sticking out of their heads.

Ha ha! I shall keep an eye open for them.

[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?

A cigarette will not give a reading,

The notion of water given is total rubbish.

If you have been cigarette smoking, it could be wise to pass on the breath test. Scientific research shows that nicotine can certainly increase the test outcome substantially — enough to get you charged and convicted of drunk driving. This occurs due to the fact a chemical substance known as acetaldehyde (which gets into the body via smoking) is often misunderstood as aclchohol by the machine.

One of the most common causes of falsely high breath analyzer readings is the existence of mouth alcohol. In analyzing a subject's breath sample, the breath analyzer's internal computer is making the assumption that the alcohol in the breath sample came from alveolar air—that is, air exhaled from deep within the lungs. However, alcohol may have come from the mouth, throat or stomach for a number of reasons.To help guard against mouth-alcohol contamination, certified breath-test operators are trained to observe a test subject carefully for at least 15–20 minutes before administering the test.

Other than recent drinking, the most common source of mouth alcohol is from belching or burping. For this reason most test equipment manufacturers recomends drinking water before the subject is tested.

There are several other causes for a false positive reading such as being a diabetic, or being on a special diet.

Anyway, I'm all for this testing as long as it is only a tool to separate drivers for additional testing using a fail proof method such as a blood test.

I don't know where you come from but if you decide to not have a breath test for being a smoker in Australia you will be charged, no if no butts. I have done 1,000's of breathe tests and I have never heard of what you speak. Yes an operator must wait 15 minutes from the time of interception before conducting a breath test (different to a prelim test or PBT) The instruments we use are the Drager Alcotest 7110 and if someone should burb whilst providing a sample of breath for analysis then the instrument automatically self aborts the test and a further 15 minutes is required. If this occures again the process is repeated and on a third time it is then to blood testing.

As you say the breath analysing operators are trained and duely qualified and I can assure you that they will never provide a subject with food or drink prior to testing. Police are told never to give the subject anything which includes water and if they must use the toilet prior then they are supervised to ensure that they do not consume anything that could place doubt on legal proceedings.

Well, this is not Australia. I don't know if they use a Drager Alcotest 7110 here in Thailand or if this unit is safe regarding acetaldehyde. All I'm saying is that many units wil show a false positive after smoking. Can you garantee that is not the case with the units used in Thailand?

I just said that most manufacturers of analyzers recomend that you rinse your mouth before testing, if the test is performed without following the manufacturers instructions they should be invalid.

Anyway, refusing or not is no big deal if the next step would be a reliable blood test.

[Ferangled]

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

No, as they have been proved to be not 100% accurate. You can request a blood test instead I understand.

I have been advised, by a UK police officer, that if caught drink driving when you know you are likely to fail a breath test, to refuse it and demand to be taken back to the station for a blood test. They then have to call in a doctor to perform the test and the time this takes is often enough for you to sober up and pass the blood test, especially if late at night as is usually the case.

He then suggested to me that you could always pretend to faint at the sight of the needle when the doctor does eventually arrive, at which point they have to wait for you to be conscious before continuing with the test... apparently all the regular drink drivers know this...?! Unfortunately those likely to commit crime are usually the ones that know the loop holes to get away with it...

[atyclb]

" 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.

From my experience the police generally do whatever they want to do anyway be it legal, justified, or otherwise. Having laws on the books seems more of a theoretical academic exercise. Take the "no smoking laws" for instance. Selectively enforced.

Taxis I have been in stopped for no reason other then to search me and hopefully find something illegal so I can be extorted.

If police use the breath meters to get drunk drivers off the road and get a bribe I'd say it a lot better than just taking money and letting them drive on.

[candyman123]

" 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.

Agree with this post and may I add that for the police to use this kind of test they need to have the calibration of the test units certificate up to date and with the test unit that goes with it, so that if a person asked the officer is this unit up to date with the calibration they must produce that certificate at the roadside.....and if they don't have this then you have every right to refuse the test

[jomtienbob]

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?

Not as common as found in Western countries but certainly out there on occasion. I have had 3 in the past 3 years which of course I passed, but heard a nasty story about a guy caught this year just before songkran and he spent the whole holiday in jail awaiting the courts to convene. mmmm definitely not worth that!

[peterdk]

The Drunk Driver

If you don't drink and drive, you must still look out for those who do. A person who is DWI will not be able to adequately control their vehicle, so you must drive defensively.

Be alert for the driver who:

• Makes wide turns
  
• Straddles the center line
  
• Passes extremely close to objects or vehicles
  
• Drives unreasonably slow or fast
  
• Hugs the shoulder, curb, or edge of the road
  
• Weaves, creating a zigzag course
  
• Fails to use headlights at night
  
• Drives with the windows open in cold weather
  
• Stops or starts in a jerky manner
  
• Follows another vehicle too closely
  

• Thai people driving any vehicle
  

[Moruya]

Well, this is not Australia. I don't know if they use a Drager Alcotest 7110 here in Thailand or if this unit is safe regarding acetaldehyde. All I'm saying is that many units wil show a false positive after smoking. Can you garantee that is not the case with the units used in Thailand?

I just said that most manufacturers of analyzers recomend that you rinse your mouth before testing, if the test is performed without following the manufacturers instructions they should be invalid.

Anyway, refusing or not is no big deal if the next step would be a reliable blood test.

I'd be surprised if they were equipped with much more than a Mark I Hooter here

[hellodolly]

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.

The flashlight (torch to us Brits) wand is only to detect, you shouldn't be blowing in it.

the procedure is to stop you, wind down the window, they shine the torch in, reverse it and if alcohol is detected pull you over to the side, take your license and escort you to the table to blow.

During the Euros I put myself on a 3 bottles of beer a 90 minute match knowing there would be late night stoppages.

10am is a bit harsh but i know expats that were pulled on their way to work still technically drunk from the night before when they had taken a taxi.

It would take me more than a drink every 30 minutes to sit through a soccer game.

Do they use those testers that you just stick through the window to detect the presence in the car here in Thailand.

[Honkytowner]

If you don't trust the police not to frame you in an all-too-familiar attempt at extortion, buy a breathalyser kit of your own. http://alcohol-breathalyzers.com/.

Refuse the police-administered test and then have the test independently administered in the presence of witnesses.