breathalyser France

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 :)
Click to expand...

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)
 
Well, that is just plain silly. Now, if he had used a Navitron Autodrive, it would have been entirely believable. ;)
 
***** 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.
This might just be one little move! there again, it might not be?
Who knows?

Maybe the French residents could enlighten us?
Click to expand...

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! :D
 
I have heard that in Eireland (North or South, not sure)
Click to expand...

Lol...no such place....Northern Ireland (UK), or Eire (The Republic of Ireland)....or the island of
Ireland as a whole. :)
 
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?
 
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
 
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! :D
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
"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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

me too. no way do i want to end up like my granddad, bad Alz and no dignity.
 
Not really a breathylizer issue, but an interesting report on deaths on the road.
 
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.
 
North Wales is quite severe on motorists and I recall that Brunstrom (sp?) was not universally respected. Is he still there?
 
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?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top