Alcohol and Flying: The New Law
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5by5,
The scenario you suggest is plausible.
As the body metabolises alcohol quickly, it is possible to be clear
(or just below the breathe test limit) but for a urine test to be positive.
Whilst it is unlikely that a policeman would require a further sample down the station - it might happen if, say, you were particularly bolshy or he didn't like your handlebars or the cut of your jib (or maybe because he did............).
A test at the station could also be more comprehensive and could be extended to include "drugs"....... (say by sending the sample to a laboratory for further testing).
The scenario you suggest is plausible.
As the body metabolises alcohol quickly, it is possible to be clear
(or just below the breathe test limit) but for a urine test to be positive.
Whilst it is unlikely that a policeman would require a further sample down the station - it might happen if, say, you were particularly bolshy or he didn't like your handlebars or the cut of your jib (or maybe because he did............).
A test at the station could also be more comprehensive and could be extended to include "drugs"....... (say by sending the sample to a laboratory for further testing).
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlackSword
You're still misunderstanding.
The law only identifies impairment of function for the offence of Being Unfit for Duty (Section 92).
You're guilty of the other offence of Exceeding the Prescribed Limit (Section 93) if the alcohol in your breath, blood or urine is over the prescribed limit.
Impairment of function doesn't come into it for the second offence.
You're still misunderstanding.
The law only identifies impairment of function for the offence of Being Unfit for Duty (Section 92).
You're guilty of the other offence of Exceeding the Prescribed Limit (Section 93) if the alcohol in your breath, blood or urine is over the prescribed limit.
Impairment of function doesn't come into it for the second offence.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bronx
No, I'm not misunderstanding, I'm simply saying "what has alcohol in urine got to do with anything"?
Alcohol in urine does not indicate any wrong doing.
Its equivalent to making wearing anything red a criminal offence.
What legal purpose is served? What crime is committed, other than failing to empty one's bladder (apart from taking the pee)?
There is added significance in this (as already noted) in the mention of "drugs" - these are completely undefined and could allow all kinds of intepretation.
When any law is made, it is important to first ask:
What is the purpose?
Let me ask you a question: "if breathe and blood tests are negative, do you think a positive urine test should lead to prosecution, loss of license, livelihood and prison"?
No, I'm not misunderstanding, I'm simply saying "what has alcohol in urine got to do with anything"?
Alcohol in urine does not indicate any wrong doing.
Its equivalent to making wearing anything red a criminal offence.
What legal purpose is served? What crime is committed, other than failing to empty one's bladder (apart from taking the pee)?
There is added significance in this (as already noted) in the mention of "drugs" - these are completely undefined and could allow all kinds of intepretation.
When any law is made, it is important to first ask:
What is the purpose?
Let me ask you a question: "if breathe and blood tests are negative, do you think a positive urine test should lead to prosecution, loss of license, livelihood and prison"?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black sword.
The amount of alcohol in your blood is the point at issue. There are 3 ways of mesuring that. Breath, the amount of alcohol in your blood is proprtional to that in your breath. This is how breath tests are useable in Road Traffic Cases.
Blood, obvious really about that one
Urine, again contains alcohol in proportion to your blood alcohol content.
None of the above show impairment. They mearly show you have a blood alcohol content above or below a prescribed limit. In my experience and that of other Police officers the blood and urine tests often give a slightly higher reading than breath.
As has been pointed out there are 2 seperate offences. If you are rolling drunk then you clearly unfit to fly, although you don't have to be 'rolling drunk, just obviously incapable of doing the job. Thats the first offence, section 92. It also applies to all forms of drugs, I am sure you have seen the warning 'may cause drowseness if affected do not drive' on some drugs, Night Nurse used to be one that affected lots of people, thats whats meant by the lower end of the drugs side of this section. ie the side effect means you are not fully capable of doing your job. Of course it also applies to hard drugs you wont get at the chemists.
The second offence is doing whatever function with a blood alcohol concenration above a prescribed limit. Does not matter what effect it has on you, in exactly the same way as driving with a BAC above a prescribed limit. No one is saying you are drunk or that you are impaired, just you have had more to drink than you are allowed. Blood Breath and Urine can all mesure the levels and be used as evidence.
As for what a Police Officer will do if you blow a level close to the limit, well speaking from the Road Traffic side I would warn them it was not in thier interests to continue to drive, given that thier BAC COULD still be going up, and that if they are stopped and tested again they could find they were over the limit. If they chose to drive there is nothing I could do to stop them. The same applies here, no power to stop you doing anything. However if there is reason to test you again you have been warned about the possible consequences.
As regards to the machines ability to mesure low levels of alcohol, yes they can, the Sweeds and the Australians manage with comercialy available equiptment. They Swedish level for driving is the same as under this law, and the australians as I recall is ZERO.
The amount of alcohol in your blood is the point at issue. There are 3 ways of mesuring that. Breath, the amount of alcohol in your blood is proprtional to that in your breath. This is how breath tests are useable in Road Traffic Cases.
Blood, obvious really about that one
Urine, again contains alcohol in proportion to your blood alcohol content.
None of the above show impairment. They mearly show you have a blood alcohol content above or below a prescribed limit. In my experience and that of other Police officers the blood and urine tests often give a slightly higher reading than breath.
As has been pointed out there are 2 seperate offences. If you are rolling drunk then you clearly unfit to fly, although you don't have to be 'rolling drunk, just obviously incapable of doing the job. Thats the first offence, section 92. It also applies to all forms of drugs, I am sure you have seen the warning 'may cause drowseness if affected do not drive' on some drugs, Night Nurse used to be one that affected lots of people, thats whats meant by the lower end of the drugs side of this section. ie the side effect means you are not fully capable of doing your job. Of course it also applies to hard drugs you wont get at the chemists.
The second offence is doing whatever function with a blood alcohol concenration above a prescribed limit. Does not matter what effect it has on you, in exactly the same way as driving with a BAC above a prescribed limit. No one is saying you are drunk or that you are impaired, just you have had more to drink than you are allowed. Blood Breath and Urine can all mesure the levels and be used as evidence.
As for what a Police Officer will do if you blow a level close to the limit, well speaking from the Road Traffic side I would warn them it was not in thier interests to continue to drive, given that thier BAC COULD still be going up, and that if they are stopped and tested again they could find they were over the limit. If they chose to drive there is nothing I could do to stop them. The same applies here, no power to stop you doing anything. However if there is reason to test you again you have been warned about the possible consequences.
As regards to the machines ability to mesure low levels of alcohol, yes they can, the Sweeds and the Australians manage with comercialy available equiptment. They Swedish level for driving is the same as under this law, and the australians as I recall is ZERO.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC
Urine gives absolutely no indication of blood alcohol (or blood drug) levels.
None at all. Ask any Doctor.
Urine contains what was in your blood after it has been filtered and metabolised by your body. Urine is stored in the bladder until you can find a convenient opportunity to have a pee.
To all intents and purposes, anything in the bladder has all ready been excreted from the body.
Hence any prosecution based only on a urine test, would mean that you were being charged for failing to take a pee!
(and that is taking the pee!)
Urine testing can only ever demonstrate (historically) that a substance has been taken sometime (perhaps a very long time ago). It should never be used in the context of this legislation.
Whoever framed the legislation made a very, very bad mistake.
Perhaps deliberately so (consider the undefined nature of "drugs").
Urine gives absolutely no indication of blood alcohol (or blood drug) levels.
None at all. Ask any Doctor.
Urine contains what was in your blood after it has been filtered and metabolised by your body. Urine is stored in the bladder until you can find a convenient opportunity to have a pee.
To all intents and purposes, anything in the bladder has all ready been excreted from the body.
Hence any prosecution based only on a urine test, would mean that you were being charged for failing to take a pee!
(and that is taking the pee!)
Urine testing can only ever demonstrate (historically) that a substance has been taken sometime (perhaps a very long time ago). It should never be used in the context of this legislation.
Whoever framed the legislation made a very, very bad mistake.
Perhaps deliberately so (consider the undefined nature of "drugs").
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black sword,
I have no need to ask a doctor, I have seen the readings from Lab anaylsis, I have been in court when people have been convicted on Urine test evidence, and while our polititions may not be the sharpest tools in the box, they don't get that sort of thing wrong. Besides I am sure that every medical expert in creation has been wheeled in to try to disporve it, and so far with 100% failier rate.
The fact remains that urine, like breath refelcts the content of alcohol in your blood. If you don't want to take my word for it, please feel fee to test your theory. But I would suggest you get some medical advice first.
As for the drugs side of it, I'll reiterate what I said. Many drugs cause side effects, like Night Nurse caused some people to feel sleepy or drousey. Hence the warning about if the drug affects you don't drive, you see it on many drugs. Its also why the CAA don't let ATCO's or Pilots operate when taking anti depressents and other prescription drugs. Those are the lower end of the effects, obviously if you are taking LSD the effects are somewhat worse....
I hope that answers your point, if not please clarrify and I'll try again.
I have no need to ask a doctor, I have seen the readings from Lab anaylsis, I have been in court when people have been convicted on Urine test evidence, and while our polititions may not be the sharpest tools in the box, they don't get that sort of thing wrong. Besides I am sure that every medical expert in creation has been wheeled in to try to disporve it, and so far with 100% failier rate.
The fact remains that urine, like breath refelcts the content of alcohol in your blood. If you don't want to take my word for it, please feel fee to test your theory. But I would suggest you get some medical advice first.
As for the drugs side of it, I'll reiterate what I said. Many drugs cause side effects, like Night Nurse caused some people to feel sleepy or drousey. Hence the warning about if the drug affects you don't drive, you see it on many drugs. Its also why the CAA don't let ATCO's or Pilots operate when taking anti depressents and other prescription drugs. Those are the lower end of the effects, obviously if you are taking LSD the effects are somewhat worse....
I hope that answers your point, if not please clarrify and I'll try again.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC
You do need to talk to a Doctor.
He will say:
Alcohol when consumed, empties from the stomach into the gut, to the blood, is then broken down by the Liver and excreted in urine into the bladder. Urine contains what is excreted from the body, and does not reflect what is currently in the blood.
The Liver breaks down alcohol at a steady rate of about one standard unit per hour.
Hence, if you take one standard drink, wait one hour, take a pee then you will have no alcohol in your body.
If you choose not to take a pee, but wait a couple of hours and are then tested, then your breathe and blood will test negative but your urine positive and you are guilty of an offence.
Your crime?
Failing to take a pee!
I rest my case.
You do need to talk to a Doctor.
He will say:
Alcohol when consumed, empties from the stomach into the gut, to the blood, is then broken down by the Liver and excreted in urine into the bladder. Urine contains what is excreted from the body, and does not reflect what is currently in the blood.
The Liver breaks down alcohol at a steady rate of about one standard unit per hour.
Hence, if you take one standard drink, wait one hour, take a pee then you will have no alcohol in your body.
If you choose not to take a pee, but wait a couple of hours and are then tested, then your breathe and blood will test negative but your urine positive and you are guilty of an offence.
Your crime?
Failing to take a pee!
I rest my case.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black Sword,
I bow to your superiour knowladge on the subject, and wait for the storm of press reports as 1000's of people convicted on the evidence of those know nothing lab people who test urine samples every day are pardoned due to your revelations.
Perhaps you would care to explain how 1000's of people have been convicted by the courts for providing samples of urine showing they have a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit?
Is this some massive conspiricy by the Police, courts and Goverment, not to mention the medical proffession?
Well I am happy in the knowladge that you have exposed this....
Of course you could be wrong........
In the meantime, I would suggest that you don't offer advice on the subject, you may be seriously misleading people
I bow to your superiour knowladge on the subject, and wait for the storm of press reports as 1000's of people convicted on the evidence of those know nothing lab people who test urine samples every day are pardoned due to your revelations.
Perhaps you would care to explain how 1000's of people have been convicted by the courts for providing samples of urine showing they have a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit?
Is this some massive conspiricy by the Police, courts and Goverment, not to mention the medical proffession?
Well I am happy in the knowladge that you have exposed this....
Of course you could be wrong........
In the meantime, I would suggest that you don't offer advice on the subject, you may be seriously misleading people
Last edited by bjcc; 11th Jan 2004 at 05:22.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC
Whatever they have been prosecuted for, it could not (scientifically) have been blood alcohol levels based on a urine test. No laboratory would make the claim that a urine test reflects blood alcohol. Labs just carry out tests on demand.
Making a urine test the basis of a prosecution is very problematic.
There are lots of papers in the literature (since this is a well understood subject). For example:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/other/dic1992/14.pdf
(just to turn your world upside down again)
Whatever they have been prosecuted for, it could not (scientifically) have been blood alcohol levels based on a urine test. No laboratory would make the claim that a urine test reflects blood alcohol. Labs just carry out tests on demand.
Making a urine test the basis of a prosecution is very problematic.
There are lots of papers in the literature (since this is a well understood subject). For example:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/other/dic1992/14.pdf
(just to turn your world upside down again)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlackSword
I started this thread to make fellow Ppruners aware that a new law is about to come into force which applies specifically to aviation and, in the case of specified professionals and cabin crew, may have dire consequences.
Your misunderstanding of the different nature of the two offences may (possibly?) have been resolved, but you've made several other assertions in various posts which may mislead people who don't realise they are inaccurate. eg Procedure at a police station if the preliminary test is positive, obtaining and using breath, blood or urine specimens, court process etc.
Also, although the Act is new, the procedure for preliminary tests and (where applicable) subsequest provision of a specimen isn't untested. It's copied from road traffic legislation which has been in force for decades and has been tested many times. In the early days of the breath-test, there were many successful appeals based on technical breaches of procedure but, over the decades, the loopholes have been closed.
Someone reading this thread may well be subjected to the new law in a few months time. It's important that they should know what procedures will be followed at various stages so that they know what to expect. Telling the police or the courts they think Parliament made a bad law is unlikely to help much.
I started this thread to make fellow Ppruners aware that a new law is about to come into force which applies specifically to aviation and, in the case of specified professionals and cabin crew, may have dire consequences.
Your misunderstanding of the different nature of the two offences may (possibly?) have been resolved, but you've made several other assertions in various posts which may mislead people who don't realise they are inaccurate. eg Procedure at a police station if the preliminary test is positive, obtaining and using breath, blood or urine specimens, court process etc.
Also, although the Act is new, the procedure for preliminary tests and (where applicable) subsequest provision of a specimen isn't untested. It's copied from road traffic legislation which has been in force for decades and has been tested many times. In the early days of the breath-test, there were many successful appeals based on technical breaches of procedure but, over the decades, the loopholes have been closed.
Someone reading this thread may well be subjected to the new law in a few months time. It's important that they should know what procedures will be followed at various stages so that they know what to expect. Telling the police or the courts they think Parliament made a bad law is unlikely to help much.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I am sorry Black Sword, but yes people are convicted scientificly of having a BAC above the prescribed limit as shown by them providing a Urine sample. Been there seen it happen and that includes the defence evidnce of amount of alcohol in a urine sample.
So no, does not turn my world upside down, far from it.
I have read the document on your link, and your point is? I can't find any reference to Urine tests in it.
Yes granted it gives the figures for breakdown of alcohol in the body, but thats not the same as the relationship between BAC concentration and levels of alcohol in urine. It also righly points out that there are many factors which can verry the time to breakdown alcohol.
Rest assured that there is a relationship between alcohol in a urine sample and BAC and people are convicted.
By the way as I mentioned beofre you really should not give the advice you have, its misleading. Your own documentry 'evidence' does say that there is no reliable way of dtermining exactly how fast alcohol is brokendown. Whats avarage? do you know normal strength beer? Do you drink 'pub' mesures at home, which is what a standard unit of alcohol is based on? or do you just fillt he glass?
Flying Lawyer
You have a much better way of putting things than me!
So no, does not turn my world upside down, far from it.
I have read the document on your link, and your point is? I can't find any reference to Urine tests in it.
Yes granted it gives the figures for breakdown of alcohol in the body, but thats not the same as the relationship between BAC concentration and levels of alcohol in urine. It also righly points out that there are many factors which can verry the time to breakdown alcohol.
Rest assured that there is a relationship between alcohol in a urine sample and BAC and people are convicted.
By the way as I mentioned beofre you really should not give the advice you have, its misleading. Your own documentry 'evidence' does say that there is no reliable way of dtermining exactly how fast alcohol is brokendown. Whats avarage? do you know normal strength beer? Do you drink 'pub' mesures at home, which is what a standard unit of alcohol is based on? or do you just fillt he glass?
Flying Lawyer
You have a much better way of putting things than me!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC, Flying Lawyer
BJCC - the article was a quick "heads up" on how alcohol passes through the body. Perhaps you could show me an article that links current blood alcohol to urine levels? I think not.
Despite repeated attempts to indite me for something I haven't misunderstood, you both still seem unable to take onboard the core point. I understand the two offences perfectly well.
I make no attempt to mislead anyone. Just inform.
I just see no reason to bow down and accept bad laws.
They can be changed and often are. This (still to be implemented) law is malformed and unsound. Thats bad.
Parts of it (e.g. drugs) completely undefined. Thats very bad.
Testing for alcohol and drugs is subject to scientific change.
And testing can be problematic. Oh yes.
Why do you think there is no mention of what "drugs" and what levels?
My concern is that use of urine testing is unsound and is a blunt "catchall".
I repeat my example:
1) Drink one standard unit, wait about one hour, take a pee then test yourself - you will have no alcohol in your body.
2) Drink one standard unit, wait a couple of hours and then test, your breathe and blood will test negative but your urine positive.
Now answer me this: "Why is it a crime not to pee?"
The law is an ass!
BJCC - the article was a quick "heads up" on how alcohol passes through the body. Perhaps you could show me an article that links current blood alcohol to urine levels? I think not.
Despite repeated attempts to indite me for something I haven't misunderstood, you both still seem unable to take onboard the core point. I understand the two offences perfectly well.
I make no attempt to mislead anyone. Just inform.
I just see no reason to bow down and accept bad laws.
They can be changed and often are. This (still to be implemented) law is malformed and unsound. Thats bad.
Parts of it (e.g. drugs) completely undefined. Thats very bad.
Testing for alcohol and drugs is subject to scientific change.
And testing can be problematic. Oh yes.
Why do you think there is no mention of what "drugs" and what levels?
My concern is that use of urine testing is unsound and is a blunt "catchall".
I repeat my example:
1) Drink one standard unit, wait about one hour, take a pee then test yourself - you will have no alcohol in your body.
2) Drink one standard unit, wait a couple of hours and then test, your breathe and blood will test negative but your urine positive.
Now answer me this: "Why is it a crime not to pee?"
The law is an ass!
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it some people are unable to make their point and then let it stand instead of repeating, ad infinitum, their hypothesis without introducing something new to the argument? 
Black Sword, your point is made but you haven't backed it up with any reference except your own, very basic interpretation. FL and bjcc have both mentioned that the (English) law, as it stands at the moment, does use urine testing to determine BAC. I don't know the reasoning or methodology that is used to make this determination but I'm sure that someone from the medical profession would be able to. In the meantime, please stop sounding your own trumpet as it is getting repetitive and not getting this debate anywhere.
Perhaps you would like to take your theory and prove it. Why not partake of as many units of alcohol that you can stomach, apply your assumed time limit for your liver to metabolise the alcohol, clench your bladder muscle as tightly as may be needed and then get your sample and blood tested at the same time? If you are so sure about your position, I'm sure you could persuade some organisation to sponsor you to cover the costs of doing this, especially if it will make the news.
In the meantime, please stop repeating your assertion that alcohol in urine testing does not not reflect BAC. Whether it does or doesn't makes not one iota of difference in the eyes of the law as it stands. Until you are prepared to prove otherwise, the matter rests.
Black Sword, your point is made but you haven't backed it up with any reference except your own, very basic interpretation. FL and bjcc have both mentioned that the (English) law, as it stands at the moment, does use urine testing to determine BAC. I don't know the reasoning or methodology that is used to make this determination but I'm sure that someone from the medical profession would be able to. In the meantime, please stop sounding your own trumpet as it is getting repetitive and not getting this debate anywhere.
Perhaps you would like to take your theory and prove it. Why not partake of as many units of alcohol that you can stomach, apply your assumed time limit for your liver to metabolise the alcohol, clench your bladder muscle as tightly as may be needed and then get your sample and blood tested at the same time? If you are so sure about your position, I'm sure you could persuade some organisation to sponsor you to cover the costs of doing this, especially if it will make the news.
In the meantime, please stop repeating your assertion that alcohol in urine testing does not not reflect BAC. Whether it does or doesn't makes not one iota of difference in the eyes of the law as it stands. Until you are prepared to prove otherwise, the matter rests.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
Is this JetBlast?
The paper (and many others) at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/other/dic1992/14.pdf
does back up my point, by stating the rates at which alcohol is metabolised by the liver from the blood into urine.
The law is not in place yet and the test procedures will be subject to change. For example, procedures and limits will have to be set for blood. They are not set yet.
I would have thought you would have an interest in getting a bad law changed?
Oooppss!
I meant "procedures and limits will have to be put in place to test for drugs"
Is this JetBlast?
The paper (and many others) at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/other/dic1992/14.pdf
does back up my point, by stating the rates at which alcohol is metabolised by the liver from the blood into urine.
The law is not in place yet and the test procedures will be subject to change. For example, procedures and limits will have to be set for blood. They are not set yet.
I would have thought you would have an interest in getting a bad law changed?
Oooppss!
I meant "procedures and limits will have to be put in place to test for drugs"
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blacksword,
As has been pointed out ad nausum, the procdures are copied from the Road Traffic Acts. The drugs side of it is perfectly well defined, if you impaired by drugs you commit an offence, end of story. Whats undefined about that?
The artical you refer to says lots of things, it does not however say in any way shape or form that there is no link between BAC and alcohol in Urine.
Please have a read of this, it may help you, it refers to the RTA, and as you have been told, that's what this law is based on.
http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/TRL495.pdf
You will note under the heading methodology it says that URINE samples were used to test BAC and for drugs. While this involved fatal accidents the princible is the same, there is a link between BAC and urine alcohol levels.
The BAC and the breath and urine equivilents have been set and whether you, me or anyone agrees is irrelevent, the law exists. As to if its bad, well I can see no reason why its bad per say, except people may not agree with the levels set.
Whats becoming a worry in all of this is that you are putting a very amateur spin on what you have read, and applying your opions. The result of which could get someone into trouble if they are daft enough to give your theory a try. I have heard lots of theories on how to avoid being convicted for drink drive all except one were B*******s. (and that had to do with people who use funny handshakes). So please desist until you have some knowladge and experience in the subject.
As has been pointed out ad nausum, the procdures are copied from the Road Traffic Acts. The drugs side of it is perfectly well defined, if you impaired by drugs you commit an offence, end of story. Whats undefined about that?
The artical you refer to says lots of things, it does not however say in any way shape or form that there is no link between BAC and alcohol in Urine.
Please have a read of this, it may help you, it refers to the RTA, and as you have been told, that's what this law is based on.
http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/TRL495.pdf
You will note under the heading methodology it says that URINE samples were used to test BAC and for drugs. While this involved fatal accidents the princible is the same, there is a link between BAC and urine alcohol levels.
The BAC and the breath and urine equivilents have been set and whether you, me or anyone agrees is irrelevent, the law exists. As to if its bad, well I can see no reason why its bad per say, except people may not agree with the levels set.
Whats becoming a worry in all of this is that you are putting a very amateur spin on what you have read, and applying your opions. The result of which could get someone into trouble if they are daft enough to give your theory a try. I have heard lots of theories on how to avoid being convicted for drink drive all except one were B*******s. (and that had to do with people who use funny handshakes). So please desist until you have some knowladge and experience in the subject.
Last edited by bjcc; 11th Jan 2004 at 09:03.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this is Jetblast.........
BJCC, I'm not an amateur.
You should read the report more carefully.
http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/TRL495.pdf
If you did, you would note that urine is not used to determine blood alcohol (BAC).
Blood is, and only blood.
Urine is only used to confirm the presence of drugs.
BJCC
Technically, I have to retract:
Blood and urine samples were taken, and the urine samples sent for laboratory analysis - but this is just a convenient and rapid method of testing.
The blood samples were retained for confirmation.
The report assumes that a urine sample of 107mg per 100ml is equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 80mg per 100 ml.
However, the coroners form only allows for blood to be tested.
BJCC, I'm not an amateur.
You should read the report more carefully.
http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/TRL495.pdf
If you did, you would note that urine is not used to determine blood alcohol (BAC).
Blood is, and only blood.
Urine is only used to confirm the presence of drugs.
BJCC
Technically, I have to retract:
Blood and urine samples were taken, and the urine samples sent for laboratory analysis - but this is just a convenient and rapid method of testing.
The blood samples were retained for confirmation.
The report assumes that a urine sample of 107mg per 100ml is equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 80mg per 100 ml.
However, the coroners form only allows for blood to be tested.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read it again then I will accept your apology.
Coranors have nothing to do with it, the princple is what I was trying to show you, which is urine samples give an admissable reading of BAC. Thats in a criminal court, end of your argument that urine samples are irrelevent and your theory regarding the 'offence of not being able to pee'.
Coranors have nothing to do with it, the princple is what I was trying to show you, which is urine samples give an admissable reading of BAC. Thats in a criminal court, end of your argument that urine samples are irrelevent and your theory regarding the 'offence of not being able to pee'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
Valiant effort, but I suspect you're wasting your time. There's no realistic prospect he's going to accept he misunderstands the law or is wrong about the procedures however many times we explain.
Warning:
I haven't got the time or inclination to enter into a p***ing contest about urine with BlackSword. Be warned that his posts are riddled with inaccuracies which, if you accepted them, might make your position worse.
A few examples taken at random:
The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body
Wrong. It does not.
If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence.
Wrong. You may have a defence, It depends upon the facts. It would take too long to go through all the variables.
any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy.
Wrong. eg Sending you home without calling the police would not amount to conspiracy or any other offence.
‘Drugs’ are not effectively defined in the legislation.
A matter of opinion. The Act states that the terms ‘drugs’ includes any intoxicant except alcohol which is dealt with separately. (As bjcc has pointed out, the legislation isn't confined to illegal drugs.)
No "cutoff" levels (for drugs) are set.
Correct. The fact that BS considers they should be is another illustration of his misunderstanding of the different nature of the two offences.
The breath test on its own is not currently sufficient evidence to convict - so corrobating evidence in the form of a blood test is necessary.
Wrong. The result of the evidential breath-test machine at the police station is sufficient. No corroborating evidence is required.
In relation to traffic offences, blood/alcohol is generally relied upon.
Wrong. The evidential breath-test is generally relied on.
although there are certified breath test machines too.
Indeed there are, and the results are the sole evidence relied upon in the vast majority of cases.
Urine is not (these days) used - a blood sample is required.
Wrong. (See 'Procedure' below.)
Individuals are entitled to have recourse to testing for Defence purposes.
If (big 'If' - see below) the police ask for and obtain a specimen of blood or urine, you will be given part of the specimen for independent analysis.
In most cases the result of the evidential breath-testing device will bring the procedure to an end. You will be released or charged depending upon the result. (See below for the procedure if the result is 'over' but only just.)
There is no procedure (for obvious reasons) for providing you with part of the specimen of breath for independent analysis.
The evidential breath-test machines are Home Office approved, regularly tested for reliability/accuracy and there is a presumption that the machine has produced accurate results. It is very difficult, but not impossible, to rebut that presumption.
Procedure
I dealt with this earlier, but will repeat it (with additions) because of the recent inaccurate and potentially confusing contributions.
If the (preliminary) roadside test is positive, or you refuse, or can't give the necessary sample?
You will be arrested and taken to a police station.
At the police station you will usually be asked to provide two specimens of breath for analysis on another machine (commonly a Lion Intoximeter).
If the two readings differ then the police must rely on the lower reading.
If the lower reading is over the prescribed limit you will be charged. (See 'just over' below)
You do not have a right to insist on supplying a sample of blood or urine instead of breath.
If you fail to supply a breath specimen at the station you will committ an offence, unless you have a reasonable excuse. Being too drunk or unfit to supply the necessary breath specimen is not a reasonable excuse.
A medical condition which prevents you from supplying enough breath for the machine to sample may be a sufficient excuse. If you have such a condition you must advise the police at the time.
The police are entitled to request that you provide a specimen of blood or urine as an alternative to a breath test, if:
no automatic measuring device is available at the time of your arrest;
it's not working properly;
a doctor advises the police that your condition may be due to drugs; or
the police have reasonable cause to believe that breath samples should not be requested for health reasons.
What if the reading provided by the evidential breath-testing machine is over the prescribed limit but only just?
Being 'just over' is sufficient for the offence. However, if the breath reading is 50 micrograms or less, then you mustbe offered the option of providing a specimen of blood or urine.
If the police don't offer you this option you'll have a defence to the charge.
You should be asked which you would prefer (blood or urine), but it is up to the police which one they offer you, unless you have a medical condition which would preclude you from providing the necessary sample.
The police cannot take a blood sample without your consent but, if this is the option offered and you refuse to consent, the police can rely on the breath sample they have taken.
If the police ask you to provide urine, you are required to provide two samples within an hour. You have a right to have the second sample taken and you should do so.
If you are asked to provide blood, this must be taken by a police surgeon who will have to be called to the station.
Tudor Owen
Valiant effort, but I suspect you're wasting your time. There's no realistic prospect he's going to accept he misunderstands the law or is wrong about the procedures however many times we explain.
Warning:
I haven't got the time or inclination to enter into a p***ing contest about urine with BlackSword. Be warned that his posts are riddled with inaccuracies which, if you accepted them, might make your position worse.
A few examples taken at random:
The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body
Wrong. It does not.
If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence.
Wrong. You may have a defence, It depends upon the facts. It would take too long to go through all the variables.
any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy.
Wrong. eg Sending you home without calling the police would not amount to conspiracy or any other offence.
‘Drugs’ are not effectively defined in the legislation.
A matter of opinion. The Act states that the terms ‘drugs’ includes any intoxicant except alcohol which is dealt with separately. (As bjcc has pointed out, the legislation isn't confined to illegal drugs.)
No "cutoff" levels (for drugs) are set.
Correct. The fact that BS considers they should be is another illustration of his misunderstanding of the different nature of the two offences.
The breath test on its own is not currently sufficient evidence to convict - so corrobating evidence in the form of a blood test is necessary.
Wrong. The result of the evidential breath-test machine at the police station is sufficient. No corroborating evidence is required.
In relation to traffic offences, blood/alcohol is generally relied upon.
Wrong. The evidential breath-test is generally relied on.
although there are certified breath test machines too.
Indeed there are, and the results are the sole evidence relied upon in the vast majority of cases.
Urine is not (these days) used - a blood sample is required.
Wrong. (See 'Procedure' below.)
Individuals are entitled to have recourse to testing for Defence purposes.
If (big 'If' - see below) the police ask for and obtain a specimen of blood or urine, you will be given part of the specimen for independent analysis.
In most cases the result of the evidential breath-testing device will bring the procedure to an end. You will be released or charged depending upon the result. (See below for the procedure if the result is 'over' but only just.)
There is no procedure (for obvious reasons) for providing you with part of the specimen of breath for independent analysis.
The evidential breath-test machines are Home Office approved, regularly tested for reliability/accuracy and there is a presumption that the machine has produced accurate results. It is very difficult, but not impossible, to rebut that presumption.
Procedure
I dealt with this earlier, but will repeat it (with additions) because of the recent inaccurate and potentially confusing contributions.
If the (preliminary) roadside test is positive, or you refuse, or can't give the necessary sample?
You will be arrested and taken to a police station.
At the police station you will usually be asked to provide two specimens of breath for analysis on another machine (commonly a Lion Intoximeter).
If the two readings differ then the police must rely on the lower reading.
If the lower reading is over the prescribed limit you will be charged. (See 'just over' below)
You do not have a right to insist on supplying a sample of blood or urine instead of breath.
If you fail to supply a breath specimen at the station you will committ an offence, unless you have a reasonable excuse. Being too drunk or unfit to supply the necessary breath specimen is not a reasonable excuse.
A medical condition which prevents you from supplying enough breath for the machine to sample may be a sufficient excuse. If you have such a condition you must advise the police at the time.
The police are entitled to request that you provide a specimen of blood or urine as an alternative to a breath test, if:
no automatic measuring device is available at the time of your arrest;
it's not working properly;
a doctor advises the police that your condition may be due to drugs; or
the police have reasonable cause to believe that breath samples should not be requested for health reasons.
What if the reading provided by the evidential breath-testing machine is over the prescribed limit but only just?
Being 'just over' is sufficient for the offence. However, if the breath reading is 50 micrograms or less, then you mustbe offered the option of providing a specimen of blood or urine.
If the police don't offer you this option you'll have a defence to the charge.
You should be asked which you would prefer (blood or urine), but it is up to the police which one they offer you, unless you have a medical condition which would preclude you from providing the necessary sample.
The police cannot take a blood sample without your consent but, if this is the option offered and you refuse to consent, the police can rely on the breath sample they have taken.
If the police ask you to provide urine, you are required to provide two samples within an hour. You have a right to have the second sample taken and you should do so.
If you are asked to provide blood, this must be taken by a police surgeon who will have to be called to the station.
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 11th Jan 2004 at 19:37.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC
Don't try to make the report something its not.
The report is a study about drug and alcohol use in 1184 road deaths, most occurring in 2000.
Nothing to do with the courts or any prosecution. There were no prosecutions because the samples were taken from fatalities.
Blood and urine samples were collected, and the urine samples were analysed to identify whether alcohol or drugs were involved. Assumptions were made about amount of alcohol in blood from a measure of the amount in urine, for purposes of showing whether alcohol was involved.
What it shows is that drug use has risen to 24% of fatal injury accidents (rising from 7%) with alcohol at around 31% i.e. drug use has grown dramatically and is responsible for almost as many road deaths as alcohol.
It makes no difference to my point - urine should not be used, especially where the sample is small.
Don't try to make the report something its not.
The report is a study about drug and alcohol use in 1184 road deaths, most occurring in 2000.
Nothing to do with the courts or any prosecution. There were no prosecutions because the samples were taken from fatalities.
Blood and urine samples were collected, and the urine samples were analysed to identify whether alcohol or drugs were involved. Assumptions were made about amount of alcohol in blood from a measure of the amount in urine, for purposes of showing whether alcohol was involved.
What it shows is that drug use has risen to 24% of fatal injury accidents (rising from 7%) with alcohol at around 31% i.e. drug use has grown dramatically and is responsible for almost as many road deaths as alcohol.
It makes no difference to my point - urine should not be used, especially where the sample is small.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone's interested in learning more about alcohol and its effect on the body, there's useful and very readable information on the website of the manufacturer of the most commonly used Home Office approved breath-testing equipment.
Click here.
FL
Click here.
FL