Remote Breathalyzer 519
Foredecker writes: "I couldn't believe my eyes when I read an EE
Times article about
about remote breathalyzer technology
developed by TCU. This device is apparently intended for installation in new cars. In essence, it is a sensor in your car which would signal any nearby police if you had been drinking."
Excuse me but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Or do we just want our prisons to be that much overpopulated?
Why not... (Score:3, Interesting)
oh this is just fanTAStic. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not the only "innocent" source of ethanol vapours, either - there are plenty of things used in a car that could create them, and not to mention the fact that this better be one hell of a specific fuel cell to only detect ETHANOL vapours. From my chemistry days I seem to remember that fuel cells are quite versatile in their ability to catalyze not just the target reaction, but other similar reactions. Such as perhaps butyl alcohol or methyl alcohol, neither of which will get you drunk, but both of which are present in a lot of cleaning products...
Just what we need, really! Another "excuse" for cops (cough, cough, particularly southern cops) to pull us over because they don't like the little darwin-fishy on our car's backside...
What if you are the designated driver? (Score:2, Interesting)
I am however relieved I'll be able to drive around hyped up on crack in the future without having my car narc on me.
Re:Designated Driver ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Modern vehicles have fairly complex air circulation systems within their cabs, hence the ease with which driver and passenger can have different climate controls, and stuff.
I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, the suggestions that the device disable the engine seem more reasonable to some extent, although I can see problems with that approach in emergencies, etc. But I doubt your suggestion of how it might fail is valid, and therefore a real reason to oppose it.
here's a better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
If you let people take responsibility for themselves you'd be surprised what you find. Most people I know who have ever been cited for DUI didn't realize they were over the legal limit.
Is there some type of breathalyzer available to the general public?
Transmits "other information" as well... (Score:2, Interesting)
Keep saying to yourself, "There is no such thing as Big Brother."
Re:here's a better idea (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a story here in NJ where a drunk fell over himself at a bar and sued the bar. Of course, the bar had insurance, and despite the fact it was the drunk's own fault, the bar was "guilty of serving alcohol to a guy who was already drunk." (or so the prosecution claimed). The case was settled out of court by the bar's insurance company, but it just goes to show that people just don't think other people are responsible enough for themselves.
But just notifying police as a drunk guy drives by seems kind of "too late" to me. If the user has to drive a mile before getting to a point where a cop is, then that's 1 mile the drunk driver could kill someone. A few years ago they were talking about putting these systems in cars of people convicted of prior DUI's. The premise was before they could turn the key, they'd have to blow into the breathalyzer and if you werent at or above the limit, it would allow you to start the car. This is probably a better solution.
This problem would also be solved if we had a better public transportation system in the U.S. If people relied more on public transportation than their own automobile to get around, we wouldn't have so many of these problems... but this is another subject altogether...
We won't have to wait long... (Score:1, Interesting)
Drinking and Driving is a stupid and dangerous thing to do, but relying on a system like this which is prone to error is almost as bad. You only look as far as the new UK Police obsession with speed cameras to see what will happen - I believe they tried to book a tractor the other week for doing 85mph on a motorway. They only dropped the fine and penalty points for the poor farmer in question when a tabloid newspaper intervened. What is the world coming to?!
Re:Due process... (Score:3, Interesting)
Driving is a privelige not a right. We gave it up as a right when we allowed ourselves to be licensed to drive.
My grandfather learned to drive, and was driving for several years before licenses were around. Then, it was equivalent to owning a horse. If you owned a car, it was your right to drive it anywhere you pleased, and it was in your best interest to not drive like a lunatic, so that you wouldn't kill yourself, others, and damage a really expensive car.
Life was better then in a lot of ways from the perspective of rights that we have since signed away.
Eliminate the need for "random stops" (Score:2, Interesting)
"This would eliminate the need for law enforcement to do random stops as a means of catching drunk drivers."
This implies that if these devices are mandated, we can trade the tiny bit of privacy we have left for an end to intrusive, unconstitutional roadblocks...
...But there's no way in hell they'll ever stop the roadblocks without a Supreme Court rulinng. My neighbor is a cop and she said a good percentage of arrests at roadblocks (sometimes more than half) are for crimes besides DUI, usually because there's a warrant out for the person and they drive through the roadblock. They also target the vehicles of people they know of to be "Druggies" for dog-sniffs while they're at the roadblock.
The Police want their job to be "easier" at the expense of my individual liberties.
Whoever posted that Ben Franklin comment should get 1million karma points...
Re:here's a better idea (Score:2, Interesting)
It even flashed red rather brightly when you were over the legal limit (.08 for that corner of the world).
At first the patrons didn't like it, but in later weeks it got pretty frequent use, and for some became the badge of honor in a game called "Let's see if we can cause the machine to overload on fumes". The guys would laugh when they set the machine off, but they _would_ go sit back down and wait it out a while longer.
Mission accomplished, and without the need for the police to become involved at all, or without them becoming notified either.
Admittedly, this doesn't address the issues of people who won't voluntarily use such a machine, or those that drink in an establishment (or their home) that doesn't have one of these testers, but it was a good non-intrusive, non-offensive start, and it _did_ accomplish some good.
Not all that new.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in Columbus, OH you may have heard of the riots on OSU campus last year and the not so great mayor came up with an idea that with in the city limits (actually this might possibly be a state law too) people were only allowed to buy 4 kegs before they had to sing an affidavit basically telling the cops you were having a party and when and where it was. The smart OSU students got around this though (politicians are SO dumb...duh!). They just divvied up the money and say you get 4 you get 4 and you get 4 and now they have 12 kegs! That's a small OSU party. At one raid (where all residents were underage I might add) they confiscated over 50 kegs of beer from ONE house! There's something wrong with that! The students that the law was supposedly designed to protect or defeat got around the law and the guy who's having a huge retirement party can't go buy 8 kegs with out giving out all of the info!
Problem with this in America is... (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't even drink, I smoke pot on a daily basis, but you'll never see me driving. I disagree with this because it is a lame invasion of privacy, in most states a car is an extension of your home. What next... have to breathe into the remote control to turn on the TV? "Sir please exhale slowly into your mouse unti it emits a beep, once you are verified to be within safe limits of (insert whatever moron politicians wants controlled here) tolerance you will be connected to the internet.
F*uck that.