Garda traffic on Twitter 3

Witcher · 27-04-2021 1:48pm

Only one set of points apply.

flazio · 27-04-2021 3:30pm

Being detected in Dundalk makes me wonder what juristic ton they are from.

GNWoodd · 27-04-2021 5:11pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What a hugely ignorant statement.

If there's sufficient alcohol STILL in your system that you fail the exam then there's still enough to impair your driving. That's how it works. It's a test that's tailored to each individual and their ability to absorb alcohol.

The marijuana test works the same way. It's not a drug test like workplaces. It's the amount still in your system at the time of testing. If it's detectable, it's effecting you.

I love this one !
If an exam ( sic ) result returns a reading of one microgramme of alcohol per one hundred millilitres of breath , the alcohol is detectable but would hardly affect your driving now would it .

Damien360 · 27-04-2021 5:33pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

I love this one !
If an exam ( sic ) result returns a reading of one microgramme of alcohol per one hundred millilitres of breath , the alcohol is detectable but would hardly affect your driving now would it .

You are not getting convicted or even arrested for 1mg alcohol next morning. If you are over next morning, you are over the legal limit. You can argue the level at which that is set as everyone is different on how it effects them but it’s still the limit.

ohnonotgmail · 27-04-2021 5:35pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

I love this one !
If an exam ( sic ) result returns a reading of one microgramme of alcohol per one hundred millilitres of breath , the alcohol is detectable but would hardly affect your driving now would it .

1 microgram per 100 millilitres of breath would not cause you to fail. the post you replied to very specifically said

f there's sufficient alcohol STILL in your system that you fail the exam then there's still enough to impair your driving.

27-04-2021 5:38pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

I love this one !
If an exam ( sic ) result returns a reading of one microgramme of alcohol per one hundred millilitres of breath , the alcohol is detectable but would hardly affect your driving now would it .

Continue to dig.

h3000 · 27-04-2021 5:41pm

Witcher wrote: »

Only one set of points apply.

Wow. That's a ridiculous setup.

frozenfrozen · 27-04-2021 6:10pm

h3000 wrote: »

Wow. That's a ridiculous setup.

wait until you hear that you can serve concurrent driving bans as punishment for being caught driving while banned...

General Toilet · 27-04-2021 6:13pm

And the same with prison sentences.

liamog · 27-04-2021 6:30pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The marijuana test works the same way. It's not a drug test like workplaces. It's the amount still in your system at the time of testing. If it's detectable, it's effecting you.

The test for THC is a bit more debateable, apparently it's detectable for much longer. One large study by the the US Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that once you controlled for age, gender, race and alcohol there was no significant difference between detectable levels of THC and crash risk. The science is still murky on correct levels for detection of impairment.

GNWoodd · 27-04-2021 6:40pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

1 microgram per 100 millilitres of breath would not cause you to fail. the post you replied to very specifically said

I was responding to the last line of the post - “ if it is detectable it is effecting you “
As in my example , a BRac of 1 ug / 100 ml disproves that - it is detectable but not effecting you .
And yes I know it won’t cause you to fail although it wouldn’t surprise me given how the law is currently being implemented .

ohnonotgmail · 27-04-2021 7:16pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

I was responding to the last line of the post - “ if it is detectable it is effecting you “
As in my example , a BRac of 1 ug / 100 ml disproves that - it is detectable but not effecting you .
And yes I know it won’t cause you to fail although it wouldn’t surprise me given how the law is currently being implemented .

well then perhaps you need to consider a sentence in the context of the whole post. you are arguing against something nobody has said.

27-04-2021 8:06pm

liamog wrote: »

The test for THC is a bit more debateable, apparently it's detectable for much longer. One large study by the the US Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that once you controlled for age, gender, race and alcohol there was no significant difference between detectable levels of THC and crash risk. The science is still murky on correct levels for detection of impairment.

I'm always open to honest studies but again, being detectable isn't the issue. The tests allow for limits and situations. They aren't set to fail you for just having a detectable amount.

This the actual test that will convict you isn't a simple 'found' however I'm not a qualifed operator so I can't talk in detail about it.

GNWoodd · 27-04-2021 8:30pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'm always open to honest studies but again, being detectable isn't the issue. The tests allow for limits and situations. They aren't set to fail you for just having a detectable amount.

This the actual test that will convict you isn't a simple 'found' however I'm not a qualifed operator so I can't talk in detail about it.

Do you know if the THC tests can contradict one another ?
In the area of alcohol exceedence the result of the urine sample analysis has been known to differ substantially from the evidenzer result .

Witcher · 27-04-2021 8:56pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

Do you know if the THC tests can contradict one another ?
In the area of alcohol exceedence the result of the urine sample analysis has been known to differ substantially from the evidenzer result .

Maybe it's because one is measuring micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath and the other miligrams of alcohol per 100ml of urine.

There's no way out of it for you GNWoodd, just gotta serve that ban.

GNWoodd · 27-04-2021 9:15pm

Witcher wrote: »

Maybe it's because one is measuring micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath and the other miligrams of alcohol per 100ml of urine.

There's no way out of it for you GNWoodd, just gotta serve that ban.[/

What if one measurement was below the limit and one was above ?

Is it a case of what comes first in time is best in law ?

Witcher · 27-04-2021 9:18pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

What if one measurement was below the limit and one was above ?

Is it a case of what comes first in time is best in law ?

Only one sample can be taken so we'll never know I suppose.

Keep your snout out of the bag and the pint out of the lámh and you won't have any issues.

ohnonotgmail · 27-04-2021 9:33pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

Witcher wrote: »

Maybe it's because one is measuring micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath and the other miligrams of alcohol per 100ml of urine.

There's no way out of it for you GNWoodd, just gotta serve that ban.

What if one measurement was below the limit and one was above ?

Is it a case of what comes first in time is best in law ?

the sample taken at the station is the only one used in evidence. the breath sample is only indicative, not evidential.

GNWoodd · 27-04-2021 9:40pm

Witcher wrote: »

Only one sample can be taken so we'll never know I suppose.

Keep your snout out of the bag and the pint out of the lámh and you won't have any issues.

You are incorrect in the first paragraph but provide good advice in the second

Witcher · 27-04-2021 9:42pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

You are incorrect in the first paragraph but provide good advice in the second

Explain how I'm wrong so lol

ohnonotgmail · 27-04-2021 9:49pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

You are incorrect in the first paragraph but provide good advice in the second

Witcher wrote: »

Explain how I'm wrong so lol

for the breathalyser two readings are taken and an average is the value used for prosecution purposes. for blood and urine samples only one sample is taken. that sample is split in two and the person chooses which one they take for themselves and which one is submitted for testing.

Witcher · 27-04-2021 9:53pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

for the breathalyser two readings are taken and an average is the value used for prosecution purposes. for blood and urine samples only one sample is taken. that sample is split in two and the person chooses which one they take for themselves and which one is submitted for testing.

I'm fully aware of all that but for the purposes of the act only one requirement can be made of you to provide blood, urine or breath.

GNWoodd seems to think more than one evidential sample can be taken.

GNWoodd · 27-04-2021 9:56pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the sample taken at the station is the only one used in evidence. the breath sample is only indicative, not evidential.

Samples ( plural )
Up to four samples can be taken from the motorist ;
One at the roadside which is indicative only .
At stations with the evidenzer two samples of breath are taken and if they aren’t happy with these they can take a urine OR blood

Witcher · 27-04-2021 9:56pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

Samples ( plural )
Up to four samples can be taken from the motorist ;
One at the roadside which is indicative only .
At stations with the evidenzer two samples of breath are taken and if they aren’t happy with these they can take a urine OR blood

No they can't, blatant lie.

ohnonotgmail · 27-04-2021 10:00pm

GNWoodd wrote: »

Samples ( plural )
Up to four samples can be taken from the motorist ;
One at the roadside which is indicative only .
At stations with the evidenzer two samples of breath are taken and if they aren’t happy with these they can take a urine OR blood

a urine OR blood sample is only taken if there is an issue using the breathalyser or the breath sample is borderline.

General Toilet · 27-04-2021 10:07pm

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1386998507517751297
https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1387053025664004098
https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1387132134490521609

GNWoodd · 27-04-2021 10:08pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

for the breathalyser two readings are taken and an average is the value used for prosecution purposes. for blood and urine samples only one sample is taken. that sample is split in two and the person chooses which one they take for themselves and which one is submitted for testing.

That is incorrect . It is not an average of the two specimens . It is the lower of the two which is then adjusted downwards by 17.5 per cent as per the manufacturer s instructions to give what is then taken as evidence . In reality this is all automated with the result being the s 13 printout .