Booze Cruise – Drink Driving – DO NOT!
This is not a story about why one shouldn’t drink and drive. Clifford Roberts simply wanted to find out what happens when one does.
three 25ml tots of whisky
60 minutes
2 people
Drinking and driving ad campaigns are a hard sell in South Africa. As a nation of independent and rugged individualists we have almost become inured to the message of the consequences of one’s actions. Over the festive season year after year there is an item included in nearly every news bulletin: the road death toll and its provincial breakdown. There’s a lot of truth in the statement that we have grown weary of the road safety and drink driving message. How strange then, that when a campaign is taken up a notch – like an ad showing the kinds of folk you may well end up sharing a cell with if you are caught for breaking the law – some of us get prickly and object to its graphic nature.
We’ve all heard the stories – possibly at the last braai or dinner party you attended. Someone starts with how they were stopped at a roadblock and ordered to blow. Soon enough everyone trots out their own war story: about someone they know or another tale they heard. Tips based on rumour and fuzzy recollections about how to ‘beat the breathalyser’ are exchanged.
Perhaps, we at Whisky Magazine thought, many of us actually don’t have a clue. So we decided we’d look into this; run a little test for ourselves. I was sent off to chat to the legal eagles and the street-hardened traffic cops. I did some drinking too, and had a look to see how well those over-the-counter breathalysers actually work.
I set out to find The Truth. I came back with a little more than I had bargained for…
How much is too much?
Our physiological differences mean that our rates of alcohol absorption and impairment can differ widely. Women, for example, metabolise alcohol faster and will reach their limit faster; but as individuals we remain unique and are affected by alcohol differently.
In spite of this recognised fact, some rules of thumb are used to give a generalised indication of where the limit in terms of South African laws, lies.You are likely to be over the limit if you consume three 75ml glasses of wine; three 25ml tots of spirits; or two beers. Remember that only time can help eliminate alcohol from your system, so space your drinks with water intake, eat when drinking and be aware of how much you’ve had.
If you suspect you’re over the limit, call a taxi. A number of insurance companies offer their clients free taxi services – find out if yours does too.
The test
Upfront let me say that seekers of serious science will not find it here. I must acknowledge that the rigours on journalism are not what they are with science, and neither are the budgets or time. As a research endeavour, what follows is crude with holes in methodology you could drive a truck through. But it’s informative nonetheless; at least, I think so.
I began with the breathalysers. The intention was to see if there was variation between test devices, but also to see how they worked and whether we could make any deductions about the user-friendliness and reliability of commercially available units.
A variety can be purchased over the counter at pharmacies and other shops, or ordered online. I bought a Redline Disposable Breath Tester from Dischem for just under R30. A Johannesburg-based company called Alcohol Breathalyser donated a digital one – the AL2500 – which sells for R799 on their website. The third one utilised in the test was the official unit, a digital hand-held device used by the City of Cape Town traffic police.
We reserved the pub at NH The Lord Charles hotel for our experiment. There were six people in attendance: a hotel bartender, two senior traffic officers, a note taker-cum- photographer (my wife) and two subjects – myself (male, 41 years of age, 1.82m and weighing 110kg) and a friend (female, 28 years old, 1.62m and weighing 56.5kg).
The tricky thing about any breathalyser test is that there are numerous factors which affect the results – like individual physiology – hence the difference in subjects chosen to participate.
For the exercise, we each consumed one standard 25ml tot-measure of blended scotch with a splash of water, three times at 20-minute intervals. At the end of each interval, we tested our breath. The results were intriguing, though not unexpected.
In brief, readings on the digital devices differed, but reflected the same trend. On the official unit, my younger and lighter friend shot over the limit after three shots, while I remained fairly constant and remained under. On the AL2500, her read- ings increased ahead of mine too, but by the final tot, she was still under the legal breath alcohol limit. The disposable breath tester, which only provides an indication through the discolouration of crystals rather than the more specific numerical reading, bore out the official measurement too.
Again, the test was run crudely, so the conclusions are mostly inaccurate when it comes to the commercial devices, where we didn’t have professional instruction. Readings on the AL2500 are more likely to have resulted from our misunderstanding the operating instructions, which would under normal circumstances be smoothed out if we had more time to figure it out.
Our experiences led us to a few conclusions:
1. Devices vary in ease of use and accuracy, and you should be well familiar with your chosen tester before putting your trust in its results. Trying to make sense of instructions and getting it to work as it should, is likely to be tricky late at night, when you’ve had a few drinks.
2. On digital testers, you’ll have to remember to keep the batteries fresh.
3. Over-the-counter breathalysers are only indicators and the potential for error is substantial. In general digital devices used for measurement must be calibrated regularly to ensure consistent accuracy.
On getting stopped
In researching a story like this, one is immediately struck by the broad margins between the law and its application. If you’re bust at a roadblock for being over the limit and lock yourself in your car, for example, you might think the police need a warrant to get you out, but don’t be surprised if your windows are smashed and you are forcibly removed. Right and wrong will ultimately be decided in court.
If arrested, you have the right to a phone call, but in the experience of attorneys Fanie le Roux and William Fullard of Leon Frank & Associates in Somerset West, people charged for being over the limit are rarely given that opportunity.
There are cases of young, stupid teenagers waiting to be charged in connection with drinking and driving, having to share cells with hardened criminals. “Women have been thrown into cells with men – it happens,” says Le Roux.
In his opinion, if you’re stopped for being over the legal limit, you have one choice: co-operate fully or, after giving your name and address, insist on your right to silence and have your attorney present. The latter option however, you take at your peril, he says. By law, you can be held for 48 hours while officials prepare to charge you. That’s 48 business hours – so if you’re locked up on a Friday afternoon, you can be held until Wednesday the following week if the authorities are so moved… Bail applications over weekends are only available to minors, while urgent appeals to the High Court can only be made with good reason related, for example, to medical conditions.
The bottom line is that behaviour seen as obstructive is likely to drag out procedures to the absolute limit.
Le Roux and Fullard’s advice to anyone who has been stopped, tested with a breathalyser and found to be over the limit is to immediately make a phone call to someone. This establishes the time of the incident. By law, a blood test must take place within two hours of your being suspected of drunk driving and acquittals are granted because officials fail to make that deadline.
“Take notes; get the names of the person who stopped and tested you, as well as any other officials involved in the process; note times and what is required of you. If you have to sign a document – normally an acknowledgement of your rights – make sure you read the documents first,” recom- mends Le Roux. It would help to establish a fair defence.
“Never, ever deny having consumed alcohol, if in fact you did,” he says. If the official tests you and you’re found to have been lying, you only draw attention to yourself and will be considered obstructive.
In cases involving teenagers, Le Roux says, many immediately admit guilt in the hope of speeding up the process and hiding the incident from their parents. The prob- lem is that sometimes a flawed prosecution, established through consultation with an attorney, may otherwise have seen the youngster acquitted rather than saddled with a criminal record for life.
Number crunching
The Road Traffic Act states that no-one on a public road may drive a vehicle or occupy the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle the engine of which is running, while the concentration of alcohol in any specimen of breath exhaled by such person is not less than 0,24 milligrams per 1 000 millilitres, or in the case of professional drivers, not less than 0,1 milligrams per 1 000 millilitres.According to the Medical Research Council, 53% of road users who die on SA roads had an alcohol level over the legal limit while excessive alcohol consumption plays a major role in 60% of hospital trauma cases.
The maximum punishment for drinking and driving is R120 000 and/or six years imprisonment, including the suspension of your driver’s license.
The Dräger issue
A blow was dealt to traffic policing authorities in September when a Western Cape High Court judge acquitted a driver of charges related to drunk driving. In the case, test results of the Drager MK 111 alcohol breath analyser had been offered as the main evidence to attain a conviction.
The judgement in The State vs Clifford Joseph Hendricks makes fascinating reading, and is available free of charge on the website of the Southern African Legal Information website, www.saflii.org.
The Dräger MK111 breathalyser was adopted for use primarily because it was seen by traffic authorities as a reliable alter- native to the traditional blood test, which forensic laboratories struggled to conduct timeously in order to get convictions. The judge in the case disagreed, finding a variety of reasons for the device’s use to be prob- lematic. The decision essentially makes blood sampling still the most accurate method for providing physiological evi- dence in these cases.
Short URL: http://whiskymag.co.za/digital/?p=1018
Posted by 
We encourage all our readers to never drink and drive. Live safe! Drink responsibly and have a great festive season.