# breathalyser France



## Neckender (Dec 2, 2011)

I just saw this on another motorhome forum............ 


..."From next Spring, in France it will be obligatory to carry a Breath Test Kit in all cars, apparently 31% of fatal accidents in France are caused by drivers being over the limit, so this is a measure being taken to try to reduce this. 
So anyone driving through France from next Spring should carry a kit... 

Could Spain be next to introduce the obligatory kit ? 
I dread to think how many accidents in Spain are caused by over the limit drink drivers, so perhaps a good idea ? 

They are also experimenting with a device that you have to blow into, attached to your car, if you are over the limit the car won't start...now there's a good idea..." 

If true will of course apply to Motohomes [I think]. How will it work and will just carrying a kit have any effect? 

John.


----------



## cooljules (Dec 2, 2011)

but how accurate are they? i heard not very...............


----------



## runnach (Dec 2, 2011)

will it make a difference ? probably not , the French enjoy a wine or two at lunchtime.

i suspect if you are over prescribed limit , test kit or not that pithed cant be bothered or I will get away with it this once is the attitude that will prevail.

When you visit the local tabac and witness Douanes drinking on duty albeit on a break ..I think there is a lot of work to do.

In Britain now I do believe there is a stigma acceptance it is antisocial to drive OPL .....But I am a mile away of believing that is true of the French

Although I have to say their attitude is far more balanced than Britain particularly in respect of young people 

Channa


----------



## donkey too (Dec 2, 2011)

Whatever next? Carrying Condoms? Sick bags? not allowed to smoke while driving? Not allowed to sleep at the wheel???


----------



## fairytooth (Dec 2, 2011)

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out and if it will make a difference.  I try to stop driving in France by lunchtime and never carry on after a 'good lunch'

Just not worth it.

Anyway, what's the rush?


----------



## runnach (Dec 2, 2011)

donkey too said:


> Whatever next?not allowed to smoke while driving?



We already have it, Failure to have proper control of a motor vehicle or along those lines...........a couple of years back outrage when a woman was charged with said offence for eating an apple whilst driving.

Whether there were tennis racquets involved or indeed if they would have added to the fun cant possibly say 

Channa


----------



## fairytooth (Dec 2, 2011)

Or is it just another trick to artificially boost the Euro?


----------



## Northerner (Dec 2, 2011)

fairytooth said:


> Or is it just another trick to artificially boost the Euro?



How would it do that?


----------



## Northerner (Dec 2, 2011)

Is it actually true, or a rumour that's been picked up by some tiny little expatriates' newsletter and then gained credence by forums such as this? I only ask because I would have thought that something as radical as this would have made the real headlines and I've heard nothing on radio or TV nor read about it in my quality broadsheet newspaper.

Time will tell I suppose, but it is odd that there's been little or nothing about it anywhere else. Or have I somehow missed it? If I have it's odd, as I'm a bit of a news hound.


----------



## Deleted member 13543 (Dec 2, 2011)

There is reference to it on the net in several places, but a lot of them seem to be sites abroad, rather than UK ones, which seems odd. After all, we are part of Europe, and you'd think they'd want to spread the word.

(This is one of the sites: France mandates a breathalyser in every car from spring 2012 - World Highways - News Article, but there are others.)


----------



## NicknClair (Dec 2, 2011)

I do carry a breath kit in the van, purely as I travel long distance in my job as well as in the van. 
There has been many a time that we have taken the van to go to someone's party, or gone away to meet up with friends at rallies or a "Wildy Spot". This normally involves a glass or 10, so I will check  after 12 hours from the last drink (If I can remember when that was  ) before I set off just to give me a bit of re-assurance that it is safe. If I can't remember when the last drink was or if the test is negative, I simply call in sick and stay put. As far as I am concerned A) not worth the risk of it still effecting my ability in driving, B) Cannot afford to be banned and C) Perfect excuse for staying away longer.


----------



## Kontiki (Dec 2, 2011)

Can't see the point of carrying a breath test kit :rolleyes2: are you supposed to use it each time you drive or when are you required to use it. Surely if you got stopped by the police they would test you or would they accept the kit you had?


----------



## NicknClair (Dec 2, 2011)

Kontiki said:


> Can't see the point of carrying a breath test kit :rolleyes2: are you supposed to use it each time you drive or when are you required to use it. Surely if you got stopped by the police they would test you or would they accept the kit you had?



They would never accept the test kit I carry (it clearly says on the packet that it is a guide). It's just my personal way of just "Double checking". After all, the old ale effects us in different ways, I just would like to just reassure myself that I have a fair crack at being Ok before setting off, personal preference really I guess. However giving the government their chance, I will stop altogether drinking the night before any drive being short or long, if they lower to zero % as suggested the other day.


----------



## Pollik (Dec 2, 2011)

Hi vis jackets and triangles at least make sense, even if France has gone a bit further than other countries, but carrying a one use breathaliser is pointless.  I can't see how it could be of any conceivable benefit.  Even Scandinavian countries, not noted for their tolerance of alcohol and driving, don't insist on it.

(Differences in people's tolerance to alcohol means that it is not the fairest of tests anyway.  Mr Smith may be absolutely fine on 3 units and Mr Jones might be an accident waiting to happen with no units of alcohol inside him, but that it is a whole different discussion. Apart from the very occasional glass of wine, I don't drink if I am driving.  I save it till the evening!)


----------



## David & Ann (Dec 2, 2011)

I have heard that in Eireland (North or South, not sure) if you work in a brewery, it is compulsory to carry a kit. Infact you must have two (like the visual jackets we have) You have to blow into both of them at the same time. The reason being is, one tells you if you are over the limit and the other if you are an alcholic.
How far this is true I am unsure.☺☺☺


----------



## Basil (Dec 3, 2011)

I can't see the point....
The driver who wants to drink and drive still will....:idea-007:


----------



## donkey too (Dec 3, 2011)

David & Ann said:


> I have heard that in Eireland (North or South, not sure) if you work in a brewery, it is compulsory to carry a kit. Infact you must have two (like the visual jackets we have) You have to blow into both of them at the same time. The reason being is, one tells you if you are over the limit and the other if you are an alcholic.
> How far this is true I am unsure.☺☺☺



Anything is possible in Ireland. After all did they not put the emergency telephones down the central reservation of their M1 when they first biult it?


----------



## David & Ann (Dec 3, 2011)

donkey too said:


> Anything is possible in Ireland. After all did they not put the emergency telephones down the central reservation of their M1 when they first biult it?



That is precisely why we have traffic jams on the M1 because some fool is making a phone call to his Mrs, telling her, he will be home late due to a traffic jam.


----------



## John H (Dec 3, 2011)

Having searched around I can find only one source for this story - an English language newspaper published in France. I am always suspicious when there is only one source and the more I think about it the less I can see the point. What weight could a self-conducted test have in court? How do you ensure that the kit hasn't been tampered with by the purchaser? It doesn't make a great deal of sense - unless Sarkozy is now the proud owner of a company selling breath test kits


----------



## Northerner (Dec 3, 2011)

donkey too said:


> Anything is possible in Ireland. After all did they not put the emergency telephones down the central reservation of their M1 when they first biult it?



I think you'll find that this story is in the same league as the old one about the person in the Winnebago who put it on cruise control and went into the back to make a cup of tea! Repeat a tale enough and people will believe it!  And I'm beginning to believe that this story about compulsory breathalysers is also in the same vein! Perhaps the reporter who thought he heard it was p*ssed?


----------



## David & Ann (Dec 3, 2011)

John H said:


> Having searched around I can find only one source for this story - an English language newspaper published in France. I am always suspicious when there is only one source and the more I think about it the less I can see the point. What weight could a self-conducted test have in court? How do you ensure that the kit hasn't been tampered with by the purchaser? It doesn't make a great deal of sense - unless Sarkozy is now the proud owner of a company selling breath test kits



Funny, I was thinking along those lines while reading these posts. JH, geniuses, think alike☺☺ Sarkozy is on the make. Another thought is, that the Authorities are passing the costs onto the motorists, whereby, when stopped, are made to produce their own kit, hence, saving the authorities the costs. At the same time, they knock you for the VAT. Stealth tax comes to mind☺☺☺ (only kidding)


----------



## Pollik (Dec 3, 2011)

Well, that is just plain silly.  Now, if he had used a Navitron Autodrive, it would have been entirely believable.


----------



## John H (Dec 3, 2011)

***** said:


> Hi John.
> I put a goggle search page with a few links in my post 13 in this thread.
> I did note no large papers, but French been French, who knows:sad:
> Sarkozy has a lot to do to gain support before the French elections next spring.
> ...



Hi *****

I have looked up your link and it comes down to the same single source. All other references are to people who have posted that information on another site (such as this!). So until it is widely reported I think it is safe to assume it is another urban myth. You could be right about him being willing to do anything to boost his poll ratings though!


----------



## Viktor (Dec 3, 2011)

> I have heard that in Eireland (North or South, not sure)



Lol...no such place....Northern Ireland (UK), or Eire (The Republic of Ireland)....or the island of
Ireland as a whole.


----------



## Deleted member 11999 (Dec 4, 2011)

This link is from a very reliable source on a forum I used when I lived in France

Breathalyser manadatory in cars 2012! - View topic :: Total France


----------



## David & Ann (Dec 4, 2011)

Viktor said:


> Lol...no such place....Northern Ireland (UK), or Eire (The Republic of Ireland)....or the island of
> Ireland as a whole.



Thank you for the information. I am never to old to learn.☺


----------



## Pollik (Dec 4, 2011)

From the other forum, someone is suggesting it is budgetary thing...the police will no longer have to carry them.

If someone wants to correct my guessed figures (just to get some kind of perpsective), but say 20 million drivers or cars, equals 20 million breathylisers sold (nice for some company...hopefully not belonging to a French politician).  Or one trillion pounds in sales for some luck company, if people buy electronic versions.

How many kits do the police get through in a year, at roadside stop?  100,000, or 270 every day?

20 million or 100,000...hmm.

Do not the French employ reusable breathylisers, such as are used in the UK, I understand, with disposable tips?  How is there a significant saving here?  Mouthpieces at 100 for £34, annual bill to the police £34,000.  Or one policeman.  It is trivial, surely?


----------



## Pollik (Dec 4, 2011)

So any saving is trivial and unlikely to be the real reason for the new legislation.

It will be interesting to following this...need more information


----------



## Northerner (Dec 4, 2011)

I can't believe the cynicism whenever any government tries to do something to save lives or improve our well-being. First of all I don't believe that this will ever become law, but for someone to suggest for example that it's all a plot to save French policemen from carrying breathalysers is just verging on the incredible! And I do understand that no one on this forum has suggested this but apparently it's being mooted on another!

But let's assume that it does become law and we all have to carry one in our glove box. Any politicians, from local councillors to MPs, have to declare an interest and abstain in any decision such as this, but why would we assume that they'll come from a French factory, where a French MP's wife's third cousin might have an interest? Like most things they'll probably come from half a dozen different firms in China/Taiwan/Malaysia and, by doing so, actually make the French economy slightly worse. No country is allowed to have a monopoly on any product and it would have to be available on the open market.

Did governments insist on seat belts, or air bags, or catalytic converters because an MP has a stake in a factory that makes these things? Most times, things are exactly as they are presented. Some MP comes up with an idea and tries to get it through parliament, which is how many of the great advances that we've made in safety and health have come about.

Anyway, why do I think that this idea is nuts? So, you've had a couple of drinks and you blow into your personal breathalyser and it comes up right on the line. So off you drive to be stopped five minutes later by the police, who ask you to use their breathalyser, which is more accurate and shows you to be a fraction over. So you lose your licence and sue the manufacturer of yours? Or if you're really clever you blow into yours whilst you're still sober and you keep that one in your glove box in case you're stopped. You then present that to the cops to prove that you've not had a drink - and they'll believe you? Yea! Of course they will!

When a government wishes to really do something serious about drink driving it will insist that all cars have a built-in breathalyser, which you have to use before you can start the ignition and, if you fail it won't start. You could say that all you have to do is get a sober passenger to do the test for you, and you could, but that would be a very serious offence and most people wouldn't be prepared to take the risk. No system is perfect except the one where the police stop a suspected driver and use their own professional breathalyser, followed if necessary by a blood test. Oh yes, we have that one already!


----------



## Pollik (Dec 4, 2011)

I don't know how it is in France, but in the UK, road deaths in the UK amounted to under 3,000 in 2007.  In 2007/8, the National Patient Safety Agency estimated that avoidable deaths in hospitals at over 70,000.

I am not sure I believe that prevention of deaths is a government's main target, but that being seen to be preventing deaths is.  The motorist has always been the soft target for governments.  I am not decrying the benefits of safety on the roads, but questioning why the bigger target of hospital deaths is not dealt with, while so much energy is directed at road deaths.


----------



## Northerner (Dec 4, 2011)

Pollik said:


> I don't know how it is in France, but in the UK, road deaths in the UK amounted to under 3,000 in 2007.  In 2007/8, the National Patient Safety Agency estimated that avoidable deaths in hospitals at over 70,000.
> 
> I am not sure I believe that prevention of deaths is a government's main target, but that being seen to be preventing deaths is.  The motorist has always been the soft target for governments.  I am not decrying the benefits of safety on the roads, but questioning why the bigger target of hospital deaths is not dealt with, while so much energy is directed at road deaths.



I really don't understand this. Because the government targets road safety you seem to be suggesting that it is ignoring hospital deaths. Nothing could be further from the truth as anyone who has had an operation recently will tell you. The amount of money being spend on the control of MRSA for example is quite staggering. My local hospital recently closed an entire ward for several days after just one suspected case. It was only reopened after it had been thoroughly sanitised.

Hospital deaths have, like road deaths, decreased dramatically over the last few years but another point worth remembering is that 3000 road deaths also represents tens of thousands of injuries, some very serious. The government is interested in preventing deaths in many walks of life and legislates according, from deep-sea diving to flying planes. None of this has anything to do with hospital deaths and none of these measures reflect on any others.

I would also question what you seem to be suggesting, which is that ministers aren't actually interested in reducing deaths and that all of the legislation over the last few decades, clean air, clean rivers, food hygiene laws, health and safety in the workplace, improved road safety  etc. etc. etc. is all some kind of gigantic public relations exercise. Many of the measures introduced were very unpopular and no one could suggest that they did it to gain popularity. For example I remember when the breathalyser and seat belts were introduced. There was huge opposition by those who saw it as an attack on our civil liberties by the nanny state. The same uproar greeted the smoking ban recently with people moaning along a similar line, but who now really believes that it wasn't the right thing to do?


----------



## Pollik (Dec 4, 2011)

"but who now really believes that it wasn't the right thing to do?"

Quite a few, judging from conversations I have had with a fair few people.  On those conversations, I think most people would agree with you, but the percentage that doesn't agree is significant, say 30 to 40 per cent.  Lots of reason are given, from human rights, to increased litter, to more greenhouse gases from patio heater, loss of decent conversation in the pub because they all go out for a smoke, reduced taking in pubs (even some closures).

I am not arguing that they are necessarily right, but this ex smoker who has spent time singing in pubs tends to agree with them.

But, I guess lives are saved, and some/many people have been helped to give up.

On the government, of whatever flavour, yes, I am hugely cynical.  There have been very few MPs that I have either met or had correspondence with that have impressed me, and the media doesn't help me like trust the ones I haven't had dealings with...admittedly only a dozen or so. I acknowledge that much good has come out of the work they do and that doesn't really get reported.  There is a saying about getting the government we deserve, but I don't that is really true in a two and a half party system, especially when they agree on a policy, eg Europe, and won't listen to the electorate or give them voice.

Nothing is ever black and white.

On MRSA et al, I have read quite a lot that suggests this started when they wanted to make the NHS more businesslike...scrap matrons, allow nurses to wear uniforms outside of hospital, transferring laundry from hospital to nurse, employing cleaners rather than having nurses take the responsibility, degree level entry so that cleaning became beneath them and lack of on the job training, which included genuine nursing care, rather than the quasi wannabe doctors.  In other words, I am suggesting that it might have been 'improvements' that contributed to the issue in the first place.  Oh, another is the over prescribing of antibiotics...so we become resistant to them.  (Edit: Also the shift from nursing as vocation to nursing as career...I think a lot a goodwill was lost in that.  Same with teaching, for that matter.)

I offer this as food for thought, rather than proof.  And I suspect that a sizeable chunk of the blame lies with general changes in society.

My confidence in the process of government is really rather low and ditto for the judicial system.  On the plus side, I know lots of wonderful people who are trying to make a difference in society, one way or another.


----------



## fairytooth (Dec 4, 2011)

I think Sarkozy is a great one for sabre rattling.

If you remember earlier this year he announced that he intended imposing a tax on unoccupied property which was effectively a tax on Brits (& others) with holiday homes.  As predicted by some of us, nothing ever materialised.

To me, this sounds like just another ploy to improve his ratings and distract voters from a much much bigger challenge being faced in Europe at the moment.


----------



## Pollik (Dec 4, 2011)

"We all have to die and it does not really matter when."

Don't get me started on the right to die debate!  I am with Terry Pratchett.


----------



## cooljules (Dec 5, 2011)

Pollik said:


> "We all have to die and it does not really matter when."
> 
> Don't get me started on the right to die debate!  I am with Terry Pratchett.



me too. no way do i want to end up like my granddad, bad Alz and no dignity.


----------



## Pollik (Dec 5, 2011)

Not really a breathylizer issue, but an interesting report on deaths on the road.


----------



## Bigpeetee (Dec 5, 2011)

Talking of breathalizers, I got stopped in the MH last Thursday, 1st Dec. North Wales police are doing spot checks. It was 1.30am (actually thinking it was the 2nd) 

I've no problems, I drive to one of the girls gigs and it's softies for me.

I tried a few shandies at one time, but a. it wrecks the bitter and b, it still makes me feel more tired driving home.


----------



## Pollik (Dec 5, 2011)

North Wales is quite severe on motorists and I recall that Brunstrom (sp?) was not universally respected.  Is he still there?


----------



## Pollik (Dec 7, 2011)

I don't know where they get the figure of €150 from for buying electronic breathylizers...there is wide selection available for less than £50.

I couldn't see that the article explained when drivers would be expected to use the breathylizers...or did I miss that bit?


----------



## Sparks (Dec 8, 2011)

I think the real reason for a personal alcohol tester being compulsory is that there can be no excuse when receiving a positive test carried out by the police.
"_I had no idea I was over the limit_" or " _I didn't realise two pints would put me over_" won't cut it when you HAVE the ability to test yourself.


----------



## Deleted member 2636 (Dec 8, 2011)

There's plenty of posts on UKCS on this subject


----------



## Donk (Dec 8, 2011)

Is it to self test before driving off or for the police to use on you if they suspect you are over the limit?

How long a life would one of these Kits have.

I can see them being stowed away and past their "use by date" when needed !


----------



## lebesset (Dec 8, 2011)

no rule to say you ever have to use one

it will probably be like when we had to have the security vests , my insurance company gave me a couple ...as they are expected to be about £1 or so in the shops , won't hurt too much either way


----------



## kon tiki (Mar 9, 2012)

*breath test kit*

The article was in the Daily mail a week last Wednesday both on line and in print and comes into effect in November as from July the police are giving advice and ferries will have them for sale the advice I believe is to carry 2 units that are disposable just something else to add to the ever growing list that they want you to carry happy camping .


----------



## jamesmarshall (Mar 10, 2012)

I wonder how long it will be before someone starts selling dodgy breathalyser kits that always read under the limit. The technology can't be that hard surely?


----------



## Northerner (Mar 10, 2012)

jamesmarshall said:


> I wonder how long it will be before someone starts selling dodgy breathalyser kits that always read under the limit. The technology can't be that hard surely?



And the point of that would be.....?


----------



## jamesmarshall (Mar 10, 2012)

Northerner said:


> And the point of that would be.....?



I may be misunderstanding this thread. Either you have a breathalyser in your car to test yourself which. I'm assuming would then be useless or, you have it in the car for the police to test you. If the latter is the reason then a dodgy breathalyser would offer a person over the legal limit a lower reading. Does that make sense?


----------



## jamesmarshall (Mar 10, 2012)

The answer to that lies in the first sentence of my previous post


----------



## Northerner (Mar 10, 2012)

jamesmarshall said:


> I may be misunderstanding this thread. Either you have a breathalyser in your car to test yourself which. I'm assuming would then be useless or, you have it in the car for the police to test you. If the latter is the reason then a dodgy breathalyser would offer a person over the legal limit a lower reading. Does that make sense?



You are misunderstanding the thread. Apart from which, can you imagine the law suits if a breathalyser was manufactured to deliberately under-read? You test yourself and drive off. You're then stopped by the police who test you with theirs and you are over the limit and lose your licence and your job. How can anyone conceive that a company could consider making a deliberately under-reading breathalyser? The mind boggles!


----------



## jamesmarshall (Mar 10, 2012)

Northerner said:


> You are misunderstanding the thread. Apart from which, can you imagine the law suits if a breathalyser was manufactured to deliberately under-read? You test yourself and drive off. You're then stopped by the police who test you with theirs and you are over the limit and lose your licence and your job. How can anyone conceive that a company could consider making a deliberately under-reading breathalyser? The mind boggles!



In my experience, as fast as a law is enacted there is someone somewhere looking to avoid, ignore or circumvent it regardless of any possible cost to the life and limb of self or others. The point I was trying and failing to make was that someone somewhere will be looking to do just that. I don't believe for a minute that any reputable company would engage in such behaviour. With regard to your comment about losing license and job for driving whilst over the limit, that is happening somewhere right now. 
Is your mind still boggling?


----------



## Northerner (Mar 10, 2012)

jamesmarshall said:


> In my experience, as fast as a law is enacted there is someone somewhere looking to avoid, ignore or circumvent it regardless of any possible cost to the life and limb of self or others. The point I was trying and failing to make was that someone somewhere will be looking to do just that. I don't believe for a minute that any reputable company would engage in such behaviour. With regard to your comment about losing license and job for driving whilst over the limit, that is happening somewhere right now.
> Is your mind still boggling?



I really do not understand what the fact that someone may, at this moment, be losing their licence and job through drink driving, has got to do with this debate? No matter what the law some idiot will always ignore it but that doesn't make it a bad law!

And where is this circumvention of laws designed to protect life? When seat belts were introduced did someone make fake ones at half the price to make it look as though people were obeying the law? So perhaps you can explain how some clever person is trying to circumvent this law, perhaps by your original method of making breathalysers that deliberately under-read? Brilliant idea that! 

Sorry, but my mind is boggling even more now!

Just to explain it again as you appear to have missed the whole point. You will be required to carry a breathalyser and, if you think that you may be over the limit, you should use it on yourself. If it's clear, you are safe to drive knowing that you are not breaking the law. It's purpose is to make people think before driving after drinking. If you are over the limit and you choose to ignore the reading and still drive you will face the consequences if stopped. If the police should then check and see that your personal breathalyser shows that you are over the limit, I suspect that the penalty will be much more severe, as you have driven in the full knowledge that you are over the limit.


----------



## jamesmarshall (Mar 10, 2012)

Northerner said:


> I really do not understand what the fact that someone may, at this moment, be losing their licence and job through drink driving, has got to do with this debate? No matter what the law some idiot will always ignore it but that doesn't make it a bad law!
> 
> And where is this circumvention of laws designed to protect life? When seat belts were introduced did someone make fake ones at half the price to make it look as though people were obeying the law? So perhaps you can explain how some clever person is trying to circumvent this law, perhaps by your original method of making breathalysers that deliberately under-read? Brilliant idea that!
> 
> ...



Thankyou for the clarification, I hope the mind boggling isn't permanent.


----------



## Donk (Mar 10, 2012)

This is why you will need to carry Two ! ! ! 

As once you have self tested and driven away if the police stop you you will need to have one to show them "unused" and ready for the next time.

Remembering to replace it afterwards. !

People will *always* try to take thinks right up to the line......We all do.... With Drinking, up to the legal limit, by Driving up to the legal limit. HGV drivers up to the allocated hours, Parking in restricted areas, up to the deadline..... even some people with Sex.....Yes officers of course she's 16, "just"  :scared:

If the limit was zero alcohol in the blood, nobody would have an excuse !


----------



## Neckender (Mar 10, 2012)

I've a brilliant option when I've had a skin full :cheers:, wife drives :drive: as she only drinks soft drinks when we go out, same as tonight :beer:.


John.


----------

