Drink more than three beers and if you are pulled over by the police, you could face a $5,000 fine or six months in prison and a 12-month driving ban under a new bill.A second offence could lead to a $10,000 fine or twelve months in prison and a lifetime ban from driving.These are the penalties under the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, better known as the Breathalyser bill, that was laid before the Parliament yesterday.Almost a year after Opposition MPs had called for the bill as part of discussions with the government on Police Service Reform bills, Works and Transport Minister Colm Imbert piloted the proposed legislation in the House of Representatives during its sitting yesterday at the Red House, Port of Spain.The bill did not pass in the Lower House yesterday and was instead referred to a Joint Select Committee of Parliament.In April, Imbert said the bill would have been law by June.The bill governs the use of breathalysers and blood tests by the police and medical professionals, respectively, to determine if a motorist is driving under the influence of alcohol.The bill does not contain a clause that poses any penalty for the tampering, interference or swapping of specimens taken to prove someone was driving drunk.In reading the bill clause by clause, Imbert said the prescribed alcohol limit for drivers would be a breath concentration of 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath or such other proportion as may be prescribed.The bill also prescribes a blood alcohol concentration of 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.Imbert said the government was seeking to establish a ".08 alcohol limit" similar to that in other countries.Opposition Caroni East MP Ganga Singh asked how many alcohol drinks this translated to."That is between two and three beers, about three beers. When I return I will give you in terms of puncheon rum, in terms of whisky, so people will know," Imbert said. "After three beers you will be over the limit that we have prescribed in this legislation."One Opposition MP responded: "I now start to drink after three beers."Opposition Chaguanas MP Manohar Ramsaran said he been doing some research and said different people had different thresholds with alcohol."So one beer couldn't effect somebody as three beers affects another person," Ramsaran said.Imbert said the bill does not seek to ban the consumption of alcohol but doing so while driving."It will be a bit of a culture change for Trinidad and Tobago but we have to do this. I mean if you go through the statistics, you know we have over 100 road deaths every year and at least half of them are associated with, I said at least half of them, are associated with persons who have been drinking and young people," Imbert said."When you look at road deaths, if you do an age profile on the people who, the road fatalities, there is a high percentage of teenagers. Persons who have just got their driver's permit and gone to some fete somewhere and not old enough or mature enough to understand the implications of drinking and driving."Imbert said an analysis of the statistics of road traffic deaths shows it is probably the number one cause of death of persons aged 18-25."Driving under the influence is the number one cause of death of persons in that age group."
QuoteOne Opposition MP responded: "I now start to drink after three beers."http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161046410if this helps to curb the carnage on the road, so be it..
One Opposition MP responded: "I now start to drink after three beers."
3 beers limit?should be 0 beer limit, drinking after you had a few reguardless of your ability to walk or talk or whatever is still a stupid thing to do.
read the lable on the panadol - it mark should not operate any heavy machinery
I'm aware of what it says. I just wanted to know how particularly absurd you wanted to get. Thanks.So basically what you're saying is that if two panadol multi-symptom don't affect me in any significant manner I shouldn't drive anyway. Regardless of my ability to function coherently. Nice.I guess that means no black cake as I drive house to house this Christmas. Yeah.
dred you working?well let me tell you a story of a man who did just that, had a comtrex and he didn't tell nobody, so he was normal.later on in the day it wear off, and he had headache again, he was a crane operator in here (the plant i on), he drop a motor on a man, the man lost his right arm.it don't matter how you "feel", you can't endanger people cause you "feel" you okay.
Quote from: Synchronomyst on November 06, 2006, 01:08:38 PMI'm aware of what it says. I just wanted to know how particularly absurd you wanted to get. Thanks.So basically what you're saying is that if two panadol multi-symptom don't affect me in any significant manner I shouldn't drive anyway. Regardless of my ability to function coherently. Nice.I guess that means no black cake as I drive house to house this Christmas. Yeah.And that ladies and gentlement is the same trini mentalitly that have we here today.
Because, of course, this is directly and undeniably linked to the Comtrex and not to his own independent error. Of course, also not taking into account the reverse possibility that he was very much affected by the drug, doubly concious of that fact and decided to work anyway. No. These are not more likely scenarios than him exhibiting entirely different side effects to a drug in the same relative time span. No. Not in the least.
