As some of you are aware, I had an accident a few weeks ago coming down monatacute road in the wet. While in hospital I had blood taken for no other purpose than drug and alcohol testing. I don't mind what sort of lifestyles people have out there, but be careful, even riding a bike you can be tested.
You make a fair point here David.
Is all very well for the State to insist on people having this test or that, which for most people is minor.
But for some people, these tests are unpleasant or painful t. For a few, the medicos botch the procedure, and leave people in pain. For occasional others, the medicos go by the book - but people have side effects (e.g fainting) that are not trivial (I myself tend to go a bit the latter).
So the test - though minor - can have real risks attached.
That's why, whenever the State compels people to undergo medical tests they would not normally undergo - compels by law - we need to watch the State very very carefully indeed.
Yep have been tested. No probs from me im all for it. The more morons that get busted the better. Hopefully more coin for the police coffers and less people driving drunk.
Yeah I also had blood taken when I came off over Easter. What pissed me off (besides being charged $60 for the pleasure) was that the crash involved no other vehicles, people, nor any 3rd party property, so apart from the interest of seeing the results I didn't see any point in the test.
The results weren't being sent to SAPOL because there was no one else involved (and it wasn't a motor vehicle accident) and they had no relevance to the my insurance claim as the bike replacement was claimed under my contents insurance, which has no issue with how you're riding unless you're motorpacing or racing.
I wonder whether the hospital staff (operating for Gribbles or any other pathology company) are happier to just say 'better safe than sorry' knowing that even if it's not necessary they'll get some extra coin out someone who's probably not in a state to argue.
I wonder how you would go if you returned the account saying you never asked for this test and so are not prepared to pay for it.
If it was a fishing expedition by the insurance company should they pay?
I would imagine if it came up that you were breaking the law when you damaged your bike the insurance company may not be very cooperative.
mine was a solo accident also, but the letter that came back looked pretty official.
Who did it come back from? The only organisation I received paperwork from was Gribbles giving me the analysis of my blood recordings, which I received on discharge from emergency.
The letterhead was Government of South Australia - Department of Justice
(forensic science SA)
and the analyst was approved by the minister of transport.
Drug and alcohol testing should also be applied to male riders who wear white lycra.
Hmmm I just bought some white Assos gear. Hopefully it's not see through!
(Surely not, Assos)
How interesting that everyone is being tested for alcohol and drugs after their accidents.
When I had my big, solo smash, back in February, nobody took my blood for any testing. I am assuming the authorities, who did this to you people, explained what they were doing and why. I received no official letters or accounts for blood tests. I would have felt angry to have received an account for a mandatory test that the government chose to do without my permission. That would be like receiving a bill for random breath testing.
If they had taken my blood, they would have found caffeine from the coffee I had consumed 20 minutes earlier. Maybe that's the reason, (besides the vehicle intimidation) that I was moving a little faster than normal...
Edward, thanks for the tip. Now found South Australia Road Traffic Act 1961 at http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/ROAD%20TRAFFIC%20ACT%201961...
The following might interest some cyclists but be aware could require legal interpretation.
pdf page 8
Division 5—Drink driving and drug driving
47—Driving under the influence
(b) if the vehicle concerned was not a motor vehicle—$500.
pdf page 25
47I—Compulsory blood tests
(1) Where a motor vehicle is involved in any accident and, within eight hours after the accident, a person apparently of or above the age of 10 years who suffered injury in the accident attends at, or is admitted into, a hospital for the purpose of receiving treatment for that injury, it is, subject to this section and Schedule 1, the duty of the legally qualified medical practitioner by whom that patient is attended to take, as soon as practicable, a sample of that patient's blood (notwithstanding that the patient may be unconscious) in accordance with this section.
pdf page 181
5—Cost of blood tests under certain sections
The taking of a sample of blood under section 47E(4a), 47EAA(2), 47EAA(11) or 47I must be at the expense of the Crown.