-NEWS- Segeyaro wants to seal the deal

Broncapz

QCup Player
658
1,041
Completely different to blasting over actual legal limit determined for safety. But hey, if they're the same offense to you then he should be sacked immedietaly.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,302
I tell you what: when was the last time any media organisation, the people who write these stories, sacked anyone for gettting bladdered at lunch or being coked up on the weekend? I can't even imagine what would happen if they started drug testing in the media. TV and radio would go into a state of emergency.
James Hooper is a perfect example. Only last year, got FOP, decided it would be an excellent idea to go and jump up and down on a bunch of people’s cars, causing varying degrees of damage.

Went to court, pleaded guilty to 6 (I think) Wilful Damage charges and not a peep of this was heard in any media outlet... Obviously no-one wants to ‘break the code’ lest all their nefarious behaviours becomes fair game...

Pity the NRL doesn’t employ it’s own journos to follow the media crowd around and reveal their antics to the world...
 

007

NRL Player
1,011
812
Mistake of fact is explicitly not a defence to drink driving at law, so unless he is going to argue an extraordinary emergency caused him to drive, that lawyer of yours is going to have to be some lawyer...

I’m a caffeine addict myself, but I struggle to see how that will fit the definition...
I can name 4 bathroom items right this second, available from the local supermarket that will tip you over the scales. All contain ethanol and or similar structure alcohols which will throw a machine. Some whitening toothpastes are critically bad for chemical reactions. Without knowing what machine he was pinned by at the station - its in the air to what defense!
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,302
Completely different to blasting over actual legal limit determined for safety. But hey, if they're the same offense to you then he should be sacked immedietaly.
Why? GI wasn’t.

It isn’t at all different. It’s an offence exactly the same as if you blow 0.05% because your ‘counting strategy’ or whatever didn’t quite pan out for you. You didn’t ‘intentionally’ drink drive. You just did. Just like Segeyaro did.

But there is no element of ‘intent’ in drink driving, specifically because it’s just as dangerous whether you mean to do it or not. Alcohol and drugs impair driving ability and driving a car is dangerous even when not impaired.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,302
I can name 4 bathroom items right this second, available from the local supermarket that will tip you over the scales. All contain ethanol and or similar structure alcohols which will throw a machine. Some whitening toothpastes are critically bad for chemical reactions. Without knowing what machine he was pinned by at the station - its in the air to what defense!
They won’t give you a reading the way drink driving is tested and as I already mentioned earlier, he has most likely gone well over 0.02% but not over 0.05%. There is an operational reason for that, which you obliquely referred to in your earlier comment about the body’s ability to process alcohol.

The difference is what is referred to as mouth alcohol, compared to what is actually measured which is breath alcohol concentration. To account for this, we test on the roadside and whether it’s an RBT line with a Booze bus on site or a trip back to the local BAS section, we are required to wait a minimum of 20 minutes between the time of the roadside test, to the time of the test on the instrument.

And they would have used the standard Lion Breathalysing Instrument, that is in virtually every police station in Queensland.

If you think all this has been done and your legal eagle can find a way out, I’ll turn up to court to watch myself. Will be hilarious, watching the confusion on your face when the guilty verdict is handed down.

For the record, there is no biological difference between ethyl or methyl based alcohols as far as drink driving legislation is concerned. You go and skoll a bottle of mouthwash, you’ll be in the same predicament as if you drink the same quantity of Vodka (or whichever spirit contains the same alcohol percentage).
 
Last edited:

007

NRL Player
1,011
812
They won’t give you a reading the way drink driving is tested and as I already mentioned earlier, he has most likely gone well over 0.02% but not over 0.05%. There is an operational reason for that, which you obliquely referred to in your earlier comment about the body’s ability to process alcohol.

The difference is what is referred to as mouth alcohol, compared to what is actually measured which is breath alcohol concentration. To account for this, we test on the roadside and whether it’s an RBT line with a Booze bus on site or a trip back to the local BAS section, we are required to wait a minimum of 20 minutes between the time of the roadside test, to the time of the test on the instrument.

And they would have used the standard Lion Breathalysing Instrument, that is in virtually every police station in Queensland.

If you think all this has been done and your legal eagle can find a way out, I’ll turn up to court to watch myself. Will be hilarious, watching the confusion on your face when the guilty verdict is handed down.

For the record, there is no biological difference between ethyl or methyl based alcohols as far as drink driving legislation is concerned. You go and skoll a bottle of mouthwash, you’ll be in the same predicament as if you drink the same quantity of Vodka (or whichever spirit contains the same alcohol percentage).
You are correct, all correct. And correct the law does not specify what is alcohol and not. I have zero clue what his reading is - nor do any of us.

However, there is a very biological difference between alcohols, they way they are metabolised and they way they evaporate, and at which temperature they evaporate. Should he have swallowed some of the specific mouthwash, has a leaky stomach valve and is nervous during the test....There the possibility that those vapours will affect the reading. Simply because the relative alcohol in the air mixed with volume expelled from lungs changes - send the reaction off and generates a higher reading as the reactive resultant conducts more current or IR spectrum.

Breath analyzers arent perfect - they are very accurate, but circumstances can lead to inefficient reading.
 
Last edited:

JAHHW

NRL Player
1,183
2,164
You are correct, all correct. And correct the law does not specify what is alcohol and not. I have zero clue what his reading is - nor do any of us.

However, there is a very biological difference between alcohols, they way they are metabolised and they way they evaporate, and at which temperature they evaporate. Should he have swallowed some of the specific mouthwash, has a leaky stomach valve and is nervous during the test....There the possibility that those vapours will affect the reading. Simply because the relative alcohol in the air mixed with volume expelled from lungs changes - send the reaction off and generates a higher reading as the reactive resultant conducts more current or IR spectrum.

Breath analyzers arent perfect - they are very accurate, but circumstances can lead to inefficient reading.
I’m not smart enough to know if this is true, but damn you’ve convinced my dumb ass!
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,302
You are correct, all correct. And correct the law does not specify what is alcohol and not. I have zero clue what his reading is - nor do any of us.

However, there is a very biological difference between alcohols, they way they are metabolised and they way they evaporate, and at which temperature they evaporate. Should he have swallowed some of the specific mouthwash, has a leaky stomach valve and is nervous during the test....There the possibility that those vapours will affect the reading. Simply because the relative alcohol in the air mixed with volume expelled from lungs changes - send the reaction off and generates a higher reading as the reactive resultant conducts more current or IR spectrum.

Breath analyzers arent perfect - they are very accurate, but circumstances can lead to inefficient reading.
Been tried in court a million times and has never succeeded once to the best of my knowledge. The reason is because deeming provisions under TORUMs means a properly issued certificate from an approved breath analysing instrument, operated by an authorised breath analyser is ‘deemed’ to be conclusive proof of breath alcohol concentration. Mistake of fact is also specifically excluded as a defence to drink or drug driving.

Your legal options then come down to 1. Proving the certificate wasn’t lawfully issued (improper requirement). 2. Proving there was some inaccuracy inherent in the instrument. 3. Some extraordinary emergency that meant you had to drive because of some life threatening emergency, or 4. A direction to drive by some lawful authority, ie: a police officer.

Your points may have some relevance in mitigating a sentence, but they will have zero effect on guilt or otherwise.
- Merged

I’m not smart enough to know if this is true, but damn you’ve convinced my dumb ass!
I would speak to a properly qualified legal advisor before you give it a run...
 
Last edited:

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,302
Mr Policeman,

You are forgetting and assuming Mr Haas is actually skilled, tested and verified to hold a license....Lack of license could also indicate irresponsible behavior or discipline on the road - both which can endanger others. I see no difference.
Indeed. But not necessarily on the occasion he was pinged for unlicenced. He was in fact unlicenced because of the accumulation of demerit points meant he was suspended from doing holding a licence. The difference as I stated is physical impairment of the driver not the regulatory status of his licence...
 
Last edited:

007

NRL Player
1,011
812
Indeed. But not necessarily on the occasion he was pinged for unlicenced. He was in fact unlicenced because of the accumulation of demerit points meant he was suspended from doing holding a licence. The difference as I stated is physical impairment of the driver not the regulatory status of his licence...
OK, demerits points possibly because of irresponsible driving, breaking rules which means ill disciplined...which means possibly putting people in danger, bad choices are as dangerous as physical impairment........?

It could be something as simple as unpaid fines though! :D
Anyway enough stirring you. Back to Segs setting the buzzer off.
- Merged

Been tried in court a million times and has never succeeded once to the best of my knowledge. The reason is because deeming provisions under TORUMs means a properly issued certificate from an approved breath analysing instrument, operated by an authorised breath analyser is ‘deemed’ to be conclusive proof of breath alcohol concentration. Mistake of fact is also specifically excluded as a defence to drink or drug driving.
NSW yes, successful with medical history and statements.

Mostly im just baiting you for argument here. I know the law is tight and tight for a fair reason, nor do i support influenced driving.
 
Last edited:

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,302
OK, demerits points possibly because of irresponsible driving, breaking rules which means ill disciplined...which means possibly putting people in danger, bad choices are as dangerous as physical impairment........?

It could be something as simple as unpaid fines though! :D
Anyway enough stirring you. Back to Segs setting the buzzer off.
- Merged



NSW yes, successful with medical history and statements.

Mostly im just baiting you for argument here. I know the law is tight and tight for a fair reason, nor do i support influenced driving.
I know mate all good, and to be fair, I don’t profess any expertise in NSW legislation, but in Qld for that argument to be made, you’d have to prove the instrument wasn’t working correctly because the law deems it does, no matter where the alcohol on the breath comes from...

Edit: Also anyone tries this with me, they’ll be getting a one way trip to the local hospital where they’ll be providing blood... 😂
 
Last edited:

theshed

NRL Player
2,857
3,445
What is blowing 0.05 equivalent to, one beer? I don’t drink
It’s the equivalent to barely noticing any real change in behaviour or motor functioning. If you had your drink spiked and got to 0.05 you wouldn’t even notice anything out of the ordinary.

I’m not a doctor so I’m not saying that this is physiologically correct. I’m sure at that amount their are some effects but nothing significant enough for you to notice.
 

soup

State of Origin Rep
7,596
5,411
T’ba
What is blowing 0.05 equivalent to, one beer? I don’t drink
It depends on a number of factors. Gender, metabolism, alcohol% of beer. But, for a bloke, you should be able to have two midstrengths (3.5%) in the first hour and one ever hour after to stay under 0.05 if you were to be tested immediately following the drinking. To have this % the next morning, he’s had quite a few the previous night or stayed up late drinking.
 

Matheos

BRL Player
89
142
Sydney
There used to be ads at pubs and on telly saying to stay under blokes could have 2 in the first hour and one every hour after that. Women 1 in the first hour and 1 every hour after that.
This was a general guide to stay under the legal limit of 0.05 for full licence holders. It is also highly variable and dependent on body weight, food consumption, water, etc. Don't forget that Segeyaro, as a provisional driver has a limit of 0.00
 

Caniffe

NRL Player
1,196
592
Love that everyone’s using the he’s an adult defence. The guy knows the rules, he’s on a license type that doesn’t allow it and intentionally broke the rules. He’s also a guy on a lifeline and playing for a contract. Being an adult doesn’t come into it when he clearly has indicated maybe he isn’t one.

Nobody is disputing he can have a beer or two but to drive afterwards after a clear bender is dumb and deserves a week off after the bye.

If you feel the P rules are harsh or nanny state, go run for parliament and change the law. If not, that’s the rules we have and he got busted for it.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now

Twitter

Top