Recent media attention has focused on the accuracy of personal breathalysers.  So just how accurate are they? 

Read More...

Breathalyser put to test by Drive.com.au 19/12/09

Read More...

A MAN caught driving more than six times over the legal limit in Sydney's west, police say.

The 28-year-old allegedly blew 0.326 after being stopped at Toongabbie about 4pm (AEDT) yesterday.

Police will allege it is the third time in five years the South Wentworthville man has been charged with drink driving.

Read More...

Andatech is very proud to have been acknowledged for it's service and commitment as an Outstanding Business Achiever and a  Nominee for the Whitehorse Business Award 2009/2010

 

Read More...

Australia's drinking culture is giving businesses a hangover, with the cost for lost productivity through hangovers and sickies, staff turnover and early retirement due to alcohol use estimated to be $5.6 billion a year. A new report compiled for the Federal Department of Health and Ageing has found that 6.6% of the country's workers who drink alcohol have turned up to work drunk in the last 12 months. In addition, one in six workers experienced physical abuse at work by a colleague under the influence of alcohol or drugs, while one in seven has experienced verbal abuse. And the drinking doesn't end at the pub, with 10% of employees saying they drink alcohol in the workplace, at least once a week, with nearly 9% drinking at "risky levels". The report by the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction at Flinders University was obtained by The Australian under freedom of information laws. It said workplaces should play a key role in alcohol harm-intervention setting, as "workplace interventions are likely to be cost-effective and efficacious". "Due to the impact of alcohol use on workplace safety and productivity, employers are likely to be motivated to support interventions," the report said. The reports' findings are not surprising, Australian Centre for Addiction Research Director Thiagarajan Sitharthan says. "Drinking is seen as a natural thing to do at work and a normal part of workplace culture. Whether it's car mechanics or lawyers, everyone starts drinking at the end of the work week... the cost of this culture of alcohol consumption is extremely high." "What [businesses] need to realise is that it is actually affecting productivity, because with alcohol use the concerns are not usually directly apparent. You don't see the problems immediately, they creep up on you." And those who are able to hold a job may have the most trouble recognising their alcohol use is a problem, Sitharthan says. But Sitharthan said that while the report shows how important alcohol education is at work, employers should not try to "single people out". "You don't want [education] to become punitive, so it's best to promote it as part of a healthy lifestyle package, together with healthy eating and the benefits of exercise. You make it part of a parcel and you include everyone... A lot of workplaces do this kind of thing already with gym memberships and the like, so it's not too difficult to include alcohol education in that." Businesses can also promote healthy attitudes to drinking by increasing the number of non-drinking workplace activities, such as playing sports. But a zero-tolerance approach is unnecessary, Sitharthan says. Australia's drinking culture is giving businesses a hangover, with the cost for lost productivity through hangovers and sickies, staff turnover and early retirement due to alcohol use estimated to be $5.6 billion a year. A new report compiled for the Federal Department of Health and Ageing has found that 6.6% of the country's workers who drink alcohol have turned up to work drunk in the last 12 months. In addition, one in six workers experienced physical abuse at work by a colleague under the influence of alcohol or drugs, while one in seven has experienced verbal abuse. And the drinking doesn't end at the pub, with 10% of employees saying they drink alcohol in the workplace, at least once a week, with nearly 9% drinking at "risky levels". The report by the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction at Flinders University was obtained by The Australian under freedom of information laws. It said workplaces should play a key role in alcohol harm-intervention setting, as "workplace interventions are likely to be cost-effective and efficacious". "Due to the impact of alcohol use on workplace safety and productivity, employers are likely to be motivated to support interventions," the report said. The reports' findings are not surprising, Australian Centre for Addiction Research Director Thiagarajan Sitharthan says. "Drinking is seen as a natural thing to do at work and a normal part of workplace culture. Whether it's car mechanics or lawyers, everyone starts drinking at the end of the work week... the cost of this culture of alcohol consumption is extremely high." "What [businesses] need to realise is that it is actually affecting productivity, because with alcohol use the concerns are not usually directly apparent. You don't see the problems immediately, they creep up on you." And those who are able to hold a job may have the most trouble recognising their alcohol use is a problem, Sitharthan says. But Sitharthan said that while the report shows how important alcohol education is at work, employers should not try to "single people out". "You don't want [education] to become punitive, so it's best to promote it as part of a healthy lifestyle package, together with healthy eating and the benefits of exercise. You make it part of a parcel and you include everyone... A lot of workplaces do this kind of thing already with gym memberships and the like, so it's not too difficult to include alcohol education in that." Businesses can also promote healthy attitudes to drinking by increasing the number of non-drinking workplace activities, such as playing sports. But a zero-tolerance approach is unnecessary, Sitharthan says. Source : Smartcompany.com.au Monday 14 September 2009 12:33 Amber Plum

A regularly-raised question is whether breath testers are accurate enough to be reliable. There are really two underlying questions to this debate—in what ways are breath testers reliable, and what could be relied upon in their stead?
The law already understands the limitation of the breath tester: it is, after all, not measuring actual blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in the bloodstream but rather, the implied BAC through the medium of air passing through lungs (see Mclachlan v Mackey, 1994). If something interferes with that reading, then that particular result becomes questionable. Such interference has been found to be creatable by for example; certain types of breads, vigorous exercise and even higher acetone levels in some people who suffer from diabetes (see “Breath Analyzer Accuracy” by David J Hanson, PhD). We need to remember that the breath tester is actually measuring levels of chemicals in the breath, and using that to give a reading of the levels of alcohol in the bloodstream. The devices use the breath to indicate what’s happening in the blood—they do not directly take or measure blood samples and therefore the current technology can only ever be claimed to be “indicative.”
Naturally, the higher the quality of the device that is used, the more likely it is to be able to take potential interference into account and thus provide a more accurate result. One of the very best machines on the market, and one designed for law enforcement use such as the Dräger Alcotest 7110 uses two different sensors to derive its readings from, and is the size of a small suitcase. However, it also costs over $10,000—hardly a reasonable purchase for the average family! Even these machines provide only indicators of intoxication, and so when people are stopped for suspected drunk driving, they will often be required to undertake at least one field breath test, plus another breath test in a booze bus, a blood test or both. Next time there’s a drunk driving ad on TV, pay attention to the words as the person blows over .05 and you’ll hear the police officer say “I suspect that you are above .05”—it’s for this very reason. Even the police can’t claim that a single breath test is accurate. And it doesn’t matter what type of test you are required to take, a failure to follow operating procedures can be problematic—even blood tests can be tainted from failure to follow correct procedures (see for example “40 ways to beat a DUI”).
As you can see, a single breath test shouldn’t be relied upon as conclusive as to whether you are safe to drive or not. Indeed, knowing your own physiology is important to understand what may be affecting your breath test readings at any one time. However, what could be relied upon if you do not use a breath tester? There are three possible choices: guesswork, calculation or waiting to be stopped by the police. Guesswork is the method of choice for many people, who use the rather ethereal answer to the question “How drunk do I feel?” as a way of deciding whether they are fit to drive home after a night at the local pub. A less subjective (yet no less problematic) method is the calculation method, where the person tries to consider the factors that would impact their sobriety to arrive at a decision about their possible intoxication. Some people drive home knowing they might be drunk, hoping they won’t get pulled over for a police test even though this would be their only means of knowing if they’re too drunk to drive or not.
How can most people have any indication of their level of intoxication? The assumption that people “can tell” is challenged every single day as hundreds of news reports from across the globe attest. One of the more interesting ones was from the “Ely Standard”, a UK newspaper that reported how someone assumed they were okay, but they weren’t. Why? Because they had a home remedy for a sore throat, and that remedy was shots of spirit. You can’t just assume people “know” how drunk they are without any way of testing it. Naturally, in an ideal world, people would not drink and drive at all. But people do have a drink and then drive, and relying on guesswork or attempts at calculation will not provide a reliable way of knowing if you really are going to be safe. You are better off having an independent assessment rather than a subjective (dare we say “Beer Goggled”) opinion of your level of intoxication.
So when you consider whether or not to purchase a breath tester for a new driver in the family, a loved one or yourself, remember that they’re a great way to help you determine whether you’re safe to drive or not, but they are only able to indicate your BAC and always err on the side of caution. If the breath tester indicates you’re okay but you’re not sure, trust yourself. If you think you’re okay but the breath tester says otherwise, trust your tester!

References
Ely Standard Newspaper, “Drunk driver had been using strong alcohol as an anaesthetic for mouth pain”, 3rd August 2009
Hanson, D. (2007), “Breath Analyzer Accuracy”, http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html downloaded 9th September 2009.
Peek, D. (1998), “Intoxication and the Criminal Lawyer” in The Law Society of South Australia Bulletin, April 1998.
Ramsell, D.J. (2009) “40 Ways to Beat a DUI” on Findlaw, http://dui.findlaw.com/articles/7510.html downloaded 9th September 2009.