I spent a day waiting around outside court with an expert on intoxication when I was defending someone who was running 'the hip flask defence' ("I was so shocked AFTER the accident that I took a swig from my hip flask). Experts can determine when you would have had the last drop.....
It all turns on how fat you are.....when you are tested it is the concentration of alcohol in the system that they look at.
fat doesn't absorb alcohol, meat does.....so just because two people weigh 15stone doesn't mean that they will dilute alcohol equally - the concentration will be higher in a fat person than a fit one - the alcohol only distributes into the meat of someone, not the fat....
This said, one person's brain may react differently to the same concentration of alcohol.....so of two people with the same concentration each may act differently - one sober as a Judge the other pi**ed as a newt....
No of course it will not stop the 'hardened drink drivers'. Very little will. I speak with experience - 15 yrs Policing NOT DIC'ing I hasten to add! I'd imagine that M. Le Gendarme is 'told' what to target like we were (still are) in UK. It is the usual old chestnut of a few 'fast-tracked' politicians sat, safely in their 'ivory tower' making un-thought out policies & 'telling' the 'plod' on the street how to do the job'. Same old issues, different country eh?
I watched a documentary some time back about the effects of alcohol on different people and it was utterly amazing. There was one woman who was clearly pissed yet showed up as clear when tested and the reaction times on the test track varied hugely from person to person.
I don't think for a minute this will deter the hardcore brigade. If people are drunk and think it's a good idea to drive, then I can't see them thinking "Oh hang on, I'll just breathalyse myself - dang, over the limit, best not drive then..."
Personally I don't drink anything when driving. I much prefer to know that I am ok. On the one occasion I was breathalysed, I got into such a panic (feeling guilty by association even though I hadn't touched a drop!) that I forgot to put the handbrake on and nearly squished the gendarmes foot - so just as well!!
There was a local country pub in the middle of nowhere where I grew up. Naturally quite a few people thought it safe to drive home from there after having had a few. The police opted for a simple tactic: they would turn up at closing time 3-4 times a week (including Friday and Saturday evenings) and pull just one driver and check him. It worked pretty well to curb the problem - who would risk DUI when there was a very good chance you were the one going to be stopped ? Effective policing of this issue really involves upping the odds of getting caught - so tactics like this work. Forcing everybody to carry a widget dorsn't work, nor to random checks on everybody....
I often wondered why the cops don't just stand guard outside the bars and make sure there are sufficient taxis to take everyone home instead of setting up road blocks to catch the random drive who is DUI? They would be making much more progress to eliminating the dangers of drunk drivers and doing the public a service for which they are paid their salaries. Perhaps they are more interested in the fines they collect than in really protecting the public.
This reminds me of the reaction in the UK when someone is arrested for driving after they have had 8 pints: "halve the drink drive limit" goes the cry......
One is probably just on the balance of being on or over the limit after 1 pint. If somebody is prepared to get in their car after 8 pints they know full well that they are (say) 8 times over the limit. Would they be any less prepared to get in the car if they were 16 times over the limit ? I doubt it......
Same goes with these little gadgets: people will be just as happy as before to get behind the wheel after they have had 5 glasses of wine at their local bar tabac as before. However it is the nice ordinary law abiding middle class motorist who will get a fine when they get stopped at a random checkpoint and can't produce a little testing widget from their glove box along with their spare bulbs, triangles and yellow jackets (which are meant to be 'in reach' of the driver's seat - not just in the car)
I seem to remember some years ago that we were advised not to rely on kits. Now it seems we will be able to, not. Yet another silly law as most of us know not to risk drinking and driving, being an MCP I drive there, the better half drives back, but she is a better driver.
It seems to me the point is, if you drink, don't drive. Maybe having a kit in your car will at least make you think twice before you get behind the wheel. It could potentially save a life.
Breathalysers are very unreliable. I worked in a substance abuse centre for many years and we were required to breathalyse people. Machines have to be calibrated regularly. If stopped and breathalysed I would always recommend demanding a blood test. Self testing kits! Well I can only imagine how bad these will be! The whole thing is ridiculous and dangerous. Why not just change the law................driving = NO Alcohol. That way it is simple and uncontestable.
How peoples body deals with alcohol can be widely different. On testing breathalysers in my past a friend and I spent one evening breathalysing ourselves. At no point in the evening, even after a bottle of wine, was I over the limited. My friend however was over after one glass. I certainly would not have driven a car!
The French economy seems to survive by laws forcing people to buy stuff they don't need, ranging from yellow waistcoats to stainless steel chimney piping, not forgetting all the lead testing and energy evaluations for house sellers, and lawyers fees for bidding at house auctions. Even boule players at tournaments need to show a certificate of third party insurance (in case someone gets hit by a boule). This latest move shows that they are seriously running out of ideas.
@Greg: they don't accept excuses anyway if you are over the limit.
@Brian: I guess they just want you to carry one, I don't think they actually expect you to prove you've used it. Just means no excuses if you're over the limit.
Except even that is a nonsense, as any court would have to accept that the 2€ breathalyser is an unreliable guide, so even if you had tested yourself there'd be a decent chance the test result was wrong - so it could even lead to people getting *off* because a faulty 2€ breathalyser said they were OK so they thought they could drive when the 500€ Gendarmes breathalyser (unsurprisingly) said otherwise!
What the Hell! So every time a person has a couple of bevvies over lunch they'll have to check themself. That means they take a chance or enrich a taxi driver plus the kit manufacturer gets the price of another. I know a local police municipal parent of one of my daughter's friends who can drain a bottle of anything then do the 20 minute drive home waving to his pals if they are about. I do not, nor have I for many many years driven with more than single small glass of wine or beer, usually no alcohol at all. But I have a hiatus hernia and have heard that a good burp can taint the breathalyser as well as too much booze, but then the blood test is fine. Where do people like me stand then? Perhaps I'll raid a piggy bank and invest in a kitmaker or somehow inveigle my way on to the board of one and get rich!
Have to agree with with OP's - no much chance of changing a habit of a lifetime! Good for the breathalyser industry & for the Gendamerie income & that's about it!
I don't think it will make any difference at all. After seeing the state of the 'old boys' in my local bar on friday evening, I don't think a lot of them would be capable of finding it in the car then co-ordinating hand to mouth to take the test !!