Why Nepal’s MaPaSe Drink-Driving Tests Called Unscientific

Why Nepal’s MaPaSe Drink-Driving Tests Called Unscientific

For over a decade, Nepal’s MaPaSe campaign has been hailed as a success story in the fight against drunk driving.

The initiative, launched in 2011 by Kathmandu Valley Traffic Police, has reportedly cut drink-driving cases by up to 50%. But beneath this apparent success lies a growing controversy that threatens to undermine public trust in the system.

Critics are now questioning the scientific validity of MaPaSe checks, raising serious concerns about the accuracy, fairness, and reliability of the testing methods used across Nepal’s roads.

What Is MaPaSe?

MaPaSe, short for “Madak Padartha Sewan” (meaning alcohol consumption), was introduced in December 2011 as Nepal’s answer to rising alcohol-related road fatalities. The campaign operates on a zero-tolerance policy, with traffic police conducting roadside checks primarily in urban areas like Kathmandu Valley.

The process appears straightforward: officers stop vehicles, observe driver behavior, and use handheld breathalyzers to measure blood alcohol content. Drivers who test positive face immediate fines of NPR 1,000, mandatory road safety classes, and a punch mark on their driving license. Five punches result in license suspension.

The Growing Backlash

Despite its reported success, MaPaSe is facing unprecedented criticism from road safety activists and legal experts who argue that the current testing methods are fundamentally flawed and unscientific.

The primary concern centers on the accuracy and calibration of breathalyzer devices used by Nepal Police.

Reports suggest that some drivers are testing positive despite consuming minimal amounts of alcohol, while others question whether the equipment is properly maintained or regularly calibrated.

Subjective Start, Questionable End

One of the most significant criticisms of Nepal’s approach is its heavy reliance on subjective assessment. Unlike international best practices that employ random or universal testing, Nepal’s system begins with police officers making behavioral observations to identify “suspicious” drivers.

This initial screening process is entirely subjective, depending on an officer’s personal judgment rather than standardized criteria. Only after suspicions are raised are drivers subjected to breathalyzer tests, creating potential for bias and inconsistency in who gets tested.

Outdated Technology, Missing Standards

The breathalyzer devices used in Nepal lack the sophistication found in countries with more advanced drunk-driving enforcement programs. International standards typically require regularly calibrated, high-precision equipment with clear documentation of maintenance records.

In Nepal, however, there are no clear guidelines on equipment maintenance, calibration standards, or testing protocols. The Motor Vehicle and Transport Management Act of 1993 mandates breathalyzer use but fails to specify technical requirements, leaving enforcement agencies to operate without proper scientific oversight.

This gap in regulation has created a system where testing procedures vary from officer to officer and location to location, undermining the consistency that scientific testing requires.

How Other Countries Do It Better

The contrast with international practices is stark. Countries like Australia and the UK use regularly calibrated, high-precision breathalyzers with blood alcohol content limits typically set at 0.05% or lower.

Their testing protocols involve extensively trained officers, documented procedures, and the option for secondary blood tests to verify results.

Most importantly, these systems emphasize transparency. Drivers can request calibration records, and there are clear appeals processes for disputed results.

Officers receive standardized training on proper testing procedures, ensuring consistency across the board.

Beyond Alcohol: The Drug Testing Challenge

Nepal recently expanded its campaign to include drug detection through “GaPaSe” (cannabis consumption) checks. However, this expansion has only highlighted more scientific shortcomings. The urine tests used with THC kits can confirm the presence of certain substances but cannot determine the level of impairment or intoxication.

This limitation can lead to false positives regarding actual driving impairment, as these tests may detect substances consumed days earlier that no longer affect driving ability.

The Path Forward

While police have mentioned plans to acquire more advanced testing devices like Sotoxa oral fluid swabs for drug detection, these improvements are not yet in widespread use.

The fundamental issues of subjective screening, inadequate calibration, and lack of standardized procedures remain unaddressed.

Road safety experts argue that Nepal needs comprehensive reform of its drink-driving enforcement system. This includes updating legal frameworks to specify technical standards, implementing regular equipment calibration programs, providing standardized officer training, and ensuring transparency in testing procedures.

The irony is clear: while MaPaSe has been successful in reducing drunk driving incidents, its unscientific approach may ultimately undermine the very public trust needed to maintain that success. Without reform, Nepal risks losing the gains it has made in road safety over the past decade.

Share This Post: