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

[chooka]

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...

The U.K sounds pretty soft, where I am from you do not get to pick and choose just how you will be tested. Sure you can have blood test if you want that is your right and the police must facilitate it but first you must undergo a breathe test and if you refuse you will be charged. The blood test is also at the defendants expense unless it is the police who request it. Also the prosecution and the courts rely on the results of the breath test and not the blood test which may have been taken hours after the breath test when the driver is on the decline. I have also known many blood tests taken very shortly after the breath tests to be actually far higher. When a person has been drinking they build up to a peak so if you are breath tested you may not have reached your peak blood alcohol concentration. Once you reach that peak you will then remain there for a period of time before your body starts to break down the alcohol. It normally takes about an hour for a healthy fit body to break down 0.01 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. .05 is the limit in which a driver can be charge in Australia so that means it would take approx 5 hours for a person with a blood alcohol reading of .05 to get back down to .00

[hellodolly]

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!

Can't swear to it but I believe in British Columbia Canada it is mandatory to have the machines test on a regular schedule. If not tested on schedule the rating can become unadmitable in court.

[chooka]

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.

<deleted>, so this mail order breath testing devices (pirated copies from china) have been legislated in parliment have they? ummmm

[chooka]

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!

Can't swear to it but I believe in British Columbia Canada it is mandatory to have the machines test on a regular schedule. If not tested on schedule the rating can become unadmitable in court.

Ours are caliibrated and tested every 3 months by the forensic science lab and they are the only authorised and accredited people to do so in the state. They also do those of outside organisations such as hospitals, ambulance fire depts and other work places. They hold all the records in the one place and attend courts if required.

Edited July 11, 2012 by chooka

[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...

The U.K sounds pretty soft, where I am from you do not get to pick and choose just how you will be tested. Sure you can have blood test if you want that is your right and the police must facilitate it but first you must undergo a breathe test and if you refuse you will be charged. The blood test is also at the defendants expense unless it is the police who request it. Also the prosecution and the courts rely on the results of the breath test and not the blood test which may have been taken hours after the breath test when the driver is on the decline. I have also known many blood tests taken very shortly after the breath tests to be actually far higher. When a person has been drinking they build up to a peak so if you are breath tested you may not have reached your peak blood alcohol concentration. Once you reach that peak you will then remain there for a period of time before your body starts to break down the alcohol. It normally takes about an hour for a healthy fit body to break down 0.01 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. .05 is the limit in which a driver can be charge in Australia so that means it would take approx 5 hours for a person with a blood alcohol reading of .05 to get back down to .00

I think most systems are open to loop holes in this respect. It's usually quite easy to play the system if you know the rules inside and out. In Oz you could take the breath test, get the evidence dismissed on the grounds you've been using an alcohol based mouth wash/ breath freshener, then do whatever you can to stall the blood test. If you can stall long enough to pass the blood test, the breath test result could be argued as inaccurate.

The latest I have heard is that drink drivers are much more prone to simply run when in a situation likely to result in a breath test/ prosecution for drink driving, mainly accidents. The penalties for leaving the scene of an accident are generally far less severe than for drink driving and this has created a trend in simply running rather than facing up to the charge. Then of course you can argue at a later date that it wasn't you driving, your car was stolen etc and no one can prove if you were over the limit or not.

What you say about blood alcohol break down rings true, and I recall being told similar; that in the case of a real binge often waiting a few hours will actually worsen the result. That said if you are borderline an hour or two can make all the difference. While in your example it would take 5 hours for the alcohol to dissipate fully, only an hours delay would be necessary to test under the legal limit...

The sad fact is that those needing to play the system generally know how to do so, while those that don't end up getting charged & prosecuted. Personally I loathe drink driving and the irresponsible cretins that do it but simply slapping large penalties on offenders isn't addressing the route issue. In both Oz and the UK there is a culture of pub life and alcohol abuse, it's the accepted norm for people to drink large amounts regularly and it's changing this perception that will lead to results in reducing drink drivers.

While we live in societies where the majority will happily sit on barstools, necking pints whilst discussing the horrors of drug abuse, making absolutely no connection with the drug they are abusing and the illegal substances the youths are abusing (often ironically because they are too young to go to the pub/ buy alcohol and the illegal drugs are easier to get hold of), there will be little change in what is considered "socially acceptable" behaviour. Even those that on the face of it criticise those that do drink and drive, generally do so hypocritically, in full knowledge that they've done the same on many occasions.

[jerrysteve]

Drunk police giving- Breath-Tests to Drunk Drivers...Excuse the pun, but thats a real "crack-up."

[2unique]

This is terrible news.

Does this mean I won't be able to have a couple of beers whilst waiting for the kids ?

Will it be enforced ?

2ish beers in the first hour and a beer every hour after shouldn't put you over. But watch them Thai beers!

If driving my car kid i won't drink more than 2 cans of Heineken... Although in Phuket or Pattaya I'd prefer my drunk driving to the taxi equivalent!

Sent from Android, please excuse errors in type or judgement.

Edited July 11, 2012 by 2unique

[thequietman]

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.

In my 10 years in Thailand I have never seen a bib out at night, never mind directing traffic. thats when they are collecting their protection money or in the bar themselves.

Edited July 11, 2012 by thequietman

[Roachiebkk]

Friend of mine just got done, he was to be held overnight until the courtcase the next day. 20,000 baht bail and an eventual 6 months suspension and a 4,500 baht fine. He then had to go back to get his 20,000 baht bail back. But that was one particular crackdown late last month. Normal BiBs wouldn't bother.

[hellodolly]

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...

The U.K sounds pretty soft, where I am from you do not get to pick and choose just how you will be tested. Sure you can have blood test if you want that is your right and the police must facilitate it but first you must undergo a breathe test and if you refuse you will be charged. The blood test is also at the defendants expense unless it is the police who request it. Also the prosecution and the courts rely on the results of the breath test and not the blood test which may have been taken hours after the breath test when the driver is on the decline. I have also known many blood tests taken very shortly after the breath tests to be actually far higher. When a person has been drinking they build up to a peak so if you are breath tested you may not have reached your peak blood alcohol concentration. Once you reach that peak you will then remain there for a period of time before your body starts to break down the alcohol. It normally takes about an hour for a healthy fit body to break down 0.01 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. .05 is the limit in which a driver can be charge in Australia so that means it would take approx 5 hours for a person with a blood alcohol reading of .05 to get back down to .00

I think most systems are open to loop holes in this respect. It's usually quite easy to play the system if you know the rules inside and out. In Oz you could take the breath test, get the evidence dismissed on the grounds you've been using an alcohol based mouth wash/ breath freshener, then do whatever you can to stall the blood test. If you can stall long enough to pass the blood test, the breath test result could be argued as inaccurate.

The latest I have heard is that drink drivers are much more prone to simply run when in a situation likely to result in a breath test/ prosecution for drink driving, mainly accidents. The penalties for leaving the scene of an accident are generally far less severe than for drink driving and this has created a trend in simply running rather than facing up to the charge. Then of course you can argue at a later date that it wasn't you driving, your car was stolen etc and no one can prove if you were over the limit or not.

What you say about blood alcohol break down rings true, and I recall being told similar; that in the case of a real binge often waiting a few hours will actually worsen the result. That said if you are borderline an hour or two can make all the difference. While in your example it would take 5 hours for the alcohol to dissipate fully, only an hours delay would be necessary to test under the legal limit...

The sad fact is that those needing to play the system generally know how to do so, while those that don't end up getting charged & prosecuted. Personally I loathe drink driving and the irresponsible cretins that do it but simply slapping large penalties on offenders isn't addressing the route issue. In both Oz and the UK there is a culture of pub life and alcohol abuse, it's the accepted norm for people to drink large amounts regularly and it's changing this perception that will lead to results in reducing drink drivers.

While we live in societies where the majority will happily sit on barstools, necking pints whilst discussing the horrors of drug abuse, making absolutely no connection with the drug they are abusing and the illegal substances the youths are abusing (often ironically because they are too young to go to the pub/ buy alcohol and the illegal drugs are easier to get hold of), there will be little change in what is considered "socially acceptable" behaviour. Even those that on the face of it criticise those that do drink and drive, generally do so hypocritically, in full knowledge that they've done the same on many occasions.

The breathalyzer does not always give a true reading. I was stopped once after three hours of hard drinking and I had beer in the vehicle that I was drinking. My driving was so bad that it was the Army MPs that pulled me over and some Navy police arrived on the scene shortly after to box me in until the State Patrol could get there. I only blew .10.

I beat that charge because the MP who had pulled me over was transferred to San Fransisco and the State Patrol officer was giving hear say evidence as he had not actually seen me driving or for that matter even in the vehicle.

[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.

Same in the UK Animatic. Guilty until proven innocent.

Same in the states. Never [personally been in that position.

But unless there is some demonstrable reason to test someone, then it is invasive.

I can see the corrupt cops using it as a shake down tool,

test on one, palm it and produce one over the limit,

which means indefinite detention if they just don't like you.

[robia6]

I had a car crash recently with another farang who was on a motorbike at midnight. I was eventually breathalised at 3:45am after sitting in the old bill station for hours regularly getting told by the nightshift chief 'ha ha ha, alcohol, monkey house, big money, ha ha ha'. Anyway I passed the test but you could see the anticipation on the coppers face hoping that I would fail the test and he'd get a payday.

Whilst I agree that doing something about DD is a must, I can't help thinking that the police will misuse the units and their authority thus arming them with another weapon for extortion.

BTW, one of my pals got arrested here recently for being bladdered while driving his motorbike and was given a fine & community service! Once a week he has to go round painting fences and temples. I've never heard of this before in Thailand for a foreigner.

[blackthorn2005]

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 about the foreigners doing the same?

[Equalizer]

" 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.

Random breath testing is common place in the UK so i can not see what difference this would make to me. I think we as Farang should be used to this anyway.

[chooka]

" 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.

Same in the states. Never [personally been in that position.

But unless there is some demonstrable reason to test someone, then it is invasive.

I can see the corrupt cops using it as a shake down tool,

test on one, palm it and produce one over the limit,

which means indefinite detention if they just don't like you.

In Australia it is called Random Breath Testing (RBT) anyone can be stopped at anytime anywhere and required to undergo a Preliminary Breath Test. Same goes for those using water craft, jetskis, boats etc. Same goes for a person instructing a learner, he also must submit to a breath test and if he is over the limit will be charged and a loss of licence. The days of getting pissed and having your son/daughter who only holds a learner permit to drive are over.

Edited July 11, 2012 by chooka

[KhunRobert]

In France every car must have a breath analyzer to detect the use of alcohol. So this is a good step forwards in Thailand. But I understand most of you, drinking and driving with a bike with automatic pilot back home should be no problem.

In a country with almost no regulations its good to live but if the start the regulations from other countries which you all shout out lout on this forum and if one of them can really a disadvantage for you OOOOO problems. Police corrupt, no alternatives etc etc. I love to read this forum, the best jokes ever. If it don't hit me everything is bad bad bad. When the improvement in Thailand can have effect on my life style than its even worse.

But we all enjoy you're bashing on Thailand in the good or in the bad.

[draftvader]

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
  

Man, Thailand is just one big piss up isn't it?

[Reasonableman]

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
  

Man, Thailand is just one big piss up isn't it?

Not far wrong. Take a look at the motorcycle accident statistics if you want a real shock.

"Alcohol intoxication still continues to be a problem among motorcycle riders (10, 11, 12). The present study showed about 3 in 10 cases found alcohol in their blood and also over legal limit (Table 2). For this series, alcohol use is the problem of the age 15-25 years (1 in 2 of drinking motorcyclists). In Thailand, Kasantikul et al. suggested that riders simply have little reason to fear riding after drinking. They seem to be unaware that riding after drinking is a problem, nor do they seem to worry about encounters with the police. Clearly, public information and education programs as well as serious law enforcement efforts are needed to discourage drinking and riding motorcyclist."

http://www.forensic.sc.mahidol.ac.th/proceeding/49_nattapong.pdf

Edited July 11, 2012 by Reasonableman

[Konini]

My husband and I were regularly pulled over and checked at 5.30am on the way to work - they would catch amost as many as doing it late at night until people got wise to not drinking too heavily late at night if you had an early start because it takes a few hours to get it out of their system.

In Melbourne they invented the incredible 'booze bus' - a huge lorry converted into a lab about 15 years ago. Nobody believed they would do what they said they would when they unveiled it. Until they did. All 4 lanes of the Westgate Freeway out of the city blocked off, a line of police stretching about a kilometre and when the line cleared, the next 20 or so cars waved through. After the initial shock of it, they would still (and to this day still do) block off major freeways at all times of the day or night and test every 2nd, 3rd or 5th car - you never know if you're going to be picked or not. And as mobile phones became more popular, ever single car coming off the freeway at the exit before the booze bus was tested. They also have a separate test for drugs now. As with the blowpipe, it's not conclusive; you go into the booze bus and have a blood or urine sample taken, either there or back at the station. In recent years, they breath test everybody automatically if they pulled you over - the catch phrase was now that every police vehicle is a booze bus. I was once stopped for my number plates being not as readable as they should have been, automatic breath test. But they wear plastic gloves and break open the seal of the disposable mouthpiece in front of you so you know it hasn't been used by anyone else. A couple of strange cases, someone had just eaten a Cherry Ripe and showed positive, of course investigation into whether the machine was faulty, but it was concluded that for several minutes after eating a Cherry Ripe (chocolate bar filled with cherry flavoured mush and obviously some liquor) you will show a positive blood alcohol reading, but only in the mouth/saliva not the blood. Another was a man who had been a sloshing a mouth full of Listerine mouthwash for about 10 minutes to get rid of the previous evening's garlic sauce. The effect of the Listerine lasted a lot longer than the 5 minutes of the Cherry Ripe. Suppose they could have had him for littering when he'd spat it out of the window.

I'm all for these campaigns, anything to stop selfish people putting other peoples lives at risk - my mum always told us straight that if she suspected that we were drink driving she would phone the police herself and tell them to look out for us every time we left he house. I just can't see Thailand using sealed, hygienic mouth pieces every time they stop people, and having the meters tested for accuracy on a regular basis. And as it has been proven time and again in Australia, a further blood test to account for any false positives - many people caught who just a smidge over the limit are later exonerated by the blood test, either by what is now commonly to referred to in the suburbs as the 'Cherry Ripe Effect' or that they've had an extra half an hour or so to get the grog out of their system before the test takes place.

[55Jay]

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.

The only reason I kept reading was that photo. LOL.

[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.

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.

Wasn't easy but good luck getting a blood test on a positive result. From what I'm hearing its a night in the cells and then off to court the next day for a 8k fine and 6 month ban. The limit here is lower than the UK and the beers are stronger!

The equipment, I've been told, comes from Sweden same as the radar guns and fancy new traffic equipment. And yes its an alcohol detector first then pull over, at least in Bangkok. Testing everyone at a roadblock would cause an immense tailback waiting for resetting, new tube and results. Taxis seem to be waved through untested, luckily as my driver in one instance had definitely had a couple.

The police have new quotas so expect this to be here to stay and if quota isn't met you'll be lucky to bribe your way out as the poor fellow over song kran in Pattaya found. They did one outside the car park at Climax Bangkok and arrested over 200 people. Admittedly some for weapons and drugs.

Sent from Android, please excuse errors in type or judgement.

[Roachiebkk]

Take it from a multiple offender from the Sate of Victoria.... after the PBT you are escorted to the station and you need to wait at least an hour before they will test you it is then that result on which you are tried. Nothing should pass your lips for that time or the clock starts over again, at least one hour.

[Chalard]

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 got tested in Silom Rd midweek at 10pm earlier this year. Had had a few beers but ok. Mai me ben har.

[hhfarang]

I just discovered this topic and don't have time to read the full five pages but maybe this has been mentioned before. As for "why would anyone refuse to take the test", I've been told of several instances where they were not changing or covering the thing that you blow on between motorists, making it unsanitary. The other case that was shared by an acquaintance where I live was that he had not had a single drink but failed the test, immediately being forced to pay a 20k baht fine to the policeman (they took him to an ATM when he said he didn't have the money on him). Now, in this case I would have let them take me in and contested the result, but the guy was afraid of the policemen so paid up.

[sunseaker]

I found this website that shows legal levels in different countries

I was shocked that Thailand has such a strict level of just 0.5

http://www.rupissed.com/blood_alcohol_limits.html

[sunseaker]

I found this website that shows legal levels in different countries

I was shocked that Thailand has such a strict level of just 0.5

http://www.rupissed....hol_limits.html

Does anyone know how many Heinekens it takes to reach the thai legal level of alcohol in blood 0.5 ?????

[SIamYank]

The penalty for refusing a breath test in the part of the US where I am from is the same as a failed breath test. However I think you can refuse the breath test in favor of a blood test. Of course the blood test is more accurate and is less likely to give a false positive.

You may prefer a blood test if you just had mouth wash or if you just took a shot of booze but are not actually drunk.

Good Related Story: I was in a traffic accident in New York City. The other driver clearly caused the accident and was clearly drunk. I on the other hand was probably borderline drunk. I had had about 4beers with dinner. Of course I was concerned that the cop would test me also. So while he was giving the breath test to the other driver I asked if I could go use the rest room at the restaurant near bye. While in the restaurant I did two shots and guzzled a beer. When the cop asked me if I had been drinking, I said "no" but I did just have a couple drinks after using the bathroom to calm my nerves after the accident. He walked with me to the restaurant, asked the bartender if my story was true, the barman confirmed it and the cop sent me on my way. He knew, and I knew, that no court could prove I was drunk at the time of the accident, only 10 minutes after the accident.

[chooka]

I found this website that shows legal levels in different countries

I was shocked that Thailand has such a strict level of just 0.5

http://www.rupissed....hol_limits.html

Does anyone know how many Heinekens it takes to reach the thai legal level of alcohol in blood 0.5 ?????

The answer would not be the same for everyone as there are a number of things to take into consideration. Things such as body weight, health, sex, age, sleep etc. The general rule for a fit average guy is 3 standard glasses of full strength beer (4.9% 200 ml/ 7 oz) in the 1st hour and one standard glass every hour thereafter would have this person under the limit but close to. So 600 ml of 4.9% beer in the 1st hour with 200 ml every hour after that

[Arkady]

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...

The U.K sounds pretty soft, where I am from you do not get to pick and choose just how you will be tested. Sure you can have blood test if you want that is your right and the police must facilitate it but first you must undergo a breathe test and if you refuse you will be charged. The blood test is also at the defendants expense unless it is the police who request it. Also the prosecution and the courts rely on the results of the breath test and not the blood test which may have been taken hours after the breath test when the driver is on the decline. I have also known many blood tests taken very shortly after the breath tests to be actually far higher. When a person has been drinking they build up to a peak so if you are breath tested you may not have reached your peak blood alcohol concentration. Once you reach that peak you will then remain there for a period of time before your body starts to break down the alcohol. It normally takes about an hour for a healthy fit body to break down 0.01 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. .05 is the limit in which a driver can be charge in Australia so that means it would take approx 5 hours for a person with a blood alcohol reading of .05 to get back down to .00

I think this loophole is a thing of the past in the UK. Since the breathalyzers used to be inadmissible as evidence anyway it stood to reason that it was no big deal for someone who had been drinking to be taken back to the station for a urine or blood test because that was going to have to happen, if he failed the breath test anyway. Now that breathalyzer readings are admissible in court I believe you will be assumed to be drunk if you refuse to take one - what other reason for refusing it could there be? If you refuse a roadside test, you will almost certainly be forced to blow into the desktop machine at the station without the option to call out the police doctor to waste everyone's time by performing a drunken pantomime at the sight of the needle. The police generally prefer to haul obstreperous drunks back to the station anyway, rather than arguing with them at the roadside and risk being injured in a brawl. Many UK policemen are extremely reluctant to carry the large new roadside breathalyzers that are admissible as evidence without the need to go back to the station to avoid the need to confront a dangerous drunk with the finality of his fate at the roadside where he might be able to get out a weapon. At the cop shop they can be processed and searched properly and most of the road rage hard nuts are not so brave in the bright lights of the police station surrounded by half a dozen officers with their sleeves rolled up waiting for a thug to make their day!

Edited July 12, 2012 by Arkady

[Arkady]

The penalty for refusing a breath test in the part of the US where I am from is the same as a failed breath test. However I think you can refuse the breath test in favor of a blood test. Of course the blood test is more accurate and is less likely to give a false positive.

You may prefer a blood test if you just had mouth wash or if you just took a shot of booze but are not actually drunk.

Good Related Story: I was in a traffic accident in New York City. The other driver clearly caused the accident and was clearly drunk. I on the other hand was probably borderline drunk. I had had about 4beers with dinner. Of course I was concerned that the cop would test me also. So while he was giving the breath test to the other driver I asked if I could go use the rest room at the restaurant near bye. While in the restaurant I did two shots and guzzled a beer. When the cop asked me if I had been drinking, I said "no" but I did just have a couple drinks after using the bathroom to calm my nerves after the accident. He walked with me to the restaurant, asked the bartender if my story was true, the barman confirmed it and the cop sent me on my way. He knew, and I knew, that no court could prove I was drunk at the time of the accident, only 10 minutes after the accident.

I was with my friend in NYC and he was pulled over while obviously DWI for going thro a stop sign he didn't see. The NY cop made him wait the statutory 20 mins for observation and then surprised us all by saying, "OK go home" without pulling out the breathalyzer. The reason for this was probably that he had an out of state license and the NYC cops often can't be bothered to do the more burdensome paperwork for those. On another occasion he got off a speeding offence by contesting it in court and got off because the cop did a no show in court. His lawyers' fee was about the same as the fine would have been but he avoided the demerits on his license. It seems there are many loopholes in the US and the states' separate legal systems makes things quite dysfunctional vis a vis out of state offenders. I was happy on that night though, as I didn't have to find my own way home.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Arkady