Steering Wheel Checks Alcohol Consumption 436
karvind writes "According to washingtonpost, Inventor Dennis Bellehumeur has made a $600 sensor that can be installed in a steering wheel or in gloves and will test a driver's skin to determine alcohol consumption. Bellehumeur, a real estate agent and deli owner in Wilton Manors, spent 12 years developing his sensor after his then-teenage son crashed into a utility pole while driving drunk and suffered minor brain damage. He received a patent this month and the sensor should complete testing this year."
Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
It'd probably be much cheaper than $600 a car.
Questions (Score:2, Interesting)
Now for my opinion, I am in high school, probably the age group this is intended to protect. First of all what is the point in installing a 600 dollar sensor in a 300 dollar car. Also there are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions high schoolers who can drive. Most of them are safe drivers, who don't drink and driver but it is that small number who give the rest a bad name. I will admit there is drinking in high school, probably more than most studies suggest, but it is not necessarily the parents fault.
I have seen some of the smartest people, most atheletic, and having the greatest potential get messed up. Partially it is the culture but it also is the life, having a tough life never seeing the affects of alcohol, like some have.
Re:The Obvious (Score:1, Interesting)
So why shouldn't we be able to drive then? It's causing unfair restrainment in a product we own.
If this becomes mandatory in cars I'm ripping it out of mine right away.
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
we had a big new years party 4 or 5 years ago and we bought a breathalizer so people could see what they would blow.
we used it for fun and gags, but ultimately, at the end, it saved people's lives (perhaps) and possibly even a few DUIs. towards the end of the party as the ones standing started to leave, they would blow and everyone that was over the legal limit called a taxi or worked out a ride with someone well under the legal limit.
but this device is not the savior to teen drunk driving (which sounds like the reasoning behind the invention) - although it may cut down some incidents by 20% or so.
bottom line, you just can't prevent people from being stupid - and it's not funny because most of the time it means the loss of life of another instead of the stupid one that caused it.
An even better idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about it: how many adults are going to pay $600 for something that restricts the use of their car, good idea or not? But I'd personally pay that much for something that TELLS ME if I'm about to break the law.
Such a device would be a powerful educational tool for people--they'd actually learn what .08 means in terms of their subjective experience! A lot of people have several drinks and think "oh, I feel good to drive," but if they had an easy way to check this against "reality" (their BAC) they might develop a much healthier attitude about it.
Trying to restrict the use of somebody's car is kind of a silly idea for a lot of reasons (say they're waiting for their friend to pick them up and want to use the heater while they listen to music, for example) but I feel like increased awareness and some kind of concrete reality-check couldn't hurt and would probably save lives.
The patent text sheds some light... (Score:2, Interesting)
420 ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
People make mistakes all the time, and bad things sometimes result. You don't want to ruin someone's ability to live for that period of time. There are a few ideas about what the purpose of a court sentencing is. I would like to think that they serve as a deterrent, and barring that, as a penalty that goes along with rehabilitation. Truth is that you can't just throw people in jail, forget about them for a few years, and expect anything good to come of it.
As far as the DUI goes, think of where we live. I'm guessing that you had something to do with college in an Ohio city. How difficult would it be for the person that you just stripped the license from for the next few years if, say, they were living in northwest Pennsylvania? You do not leave that person with many options, and they will very likely drive anyway, out of necessity. You have to take a wider view of what the problem is. Is the problem too much drinking, or is the problem irresponsibility?
As tragic is it may be, you can't punish people for a crime they haven't committed yet. Driving under the influence is a crime, but it should not be punished as if they killed someone. Our country isn't supposed to work that way for good reason. Arrest the person, scare the hell out of them, make them see what *can* happen through their actions. Restrict their driving for a few months, and they'll still be able to make due. Do it for a few hundred days, and they probably can't keep finding a way to get to work.
Basically, what seems to be the easy and obvious answer is rarely the right answer.
it is possible... (Score:3, Interesting)
this change in brain chemistry explains why many severe alchoholics can drink all day and still function normally, it also validates the grandparents assertion to some degree--its quite possible that his brain chemistry has a greater resistence to alchohol (not that this excuses one from driving over the limit but who knows, it might be admissible evidence in a trial given an objective test).
Re:Cost/benefit (Score:3, Interesting)
There are always perverse situations created by this sort of thing, even if they may be rare. It isn't hard to think of one here... me and my buddies have a few to many off hunting. Someone hurts themselves badly, and I can't drive them to the hospital, because my intent and responsibilitie for my own actions and to those around me have been thwarted by a machine. This sort of thing removes human agency from precisely the sort of hard to choose situations in which we should be encouraging it.
Re: Brilliant! (Score:1, Interesting)
Slashdot: What's the deal with this CHEAP software you guys are using to scramble images. Dole out some money for something that produces images we can actually read, so it doesn't take 2 or 3 tries!!
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
If it was just blowing into the tube, it wouldn't be so bad, but these things also require you to make a very specific humming tone when you blow (to prevent using balloons, air tanks, etc...). Even sitting still in the driveway it takes some concentration to use these things properly, in busy traffic I wouldn't be surprised if they've caused some accidents.
Re:YES! (Score:3, Interesting)
0.05% legal limit, which equates to roughly 3 beers an hour for the first hour, then 1 beer an hour after that.
Just about every DUI results in a loss of licence for at least a couple of months. Caught driving while suspended? Whoops, 12 months no licence for you, dumbass. Driving again? Kiss your licence goodbye, permanently. Sure, you can apply to have it back in a few years, but you'll need a damn good case.
Random roadside breath tests, pretty much every couple of days where I live (town of about 25K people). So I get pulled over maybe once every couple of months. Got pulled over at 730 am one morning after coming home from night shift. Blow in the machine... 0.00 (we hope!!), off you go again.
Gory ads on the TV showing dead young mums covered in blood after getting hit by a car, all from the drivers POV (after 8.30pm, when the kids have gone to bed, of course.) They advertise on long weekends that they'll be out in force doing a blitz on drink-driving/seatbelts/speeding , for crying out loud.
And there's *still* people out drink driving. Maybe we should start tattooing repeat offenders on the forehead "Unable to control urge to drink"
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Do I want to take discression totally out of the hands of judges? No. But when you see 10-12 time offenders killing people (and the bums never doing a day in jail), then you have to think there is a problem with the system.
The problem with judicial "discretion"? Leniency is disproportionally given to those with better resources. Take a look at a few state senators who have literally gotten away with murder. Look at lawyers who specialize in DUI cases. Then please explain why we shouldn't have a "One DUI, lose the privledge for a year, three DUIs and you can't drive again" law on the books (or similar).
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Having your driver's licence revoked is not having your ability to live ruined. The inability to drive a car is just a minor inconvenience.
I've been twice to the US, and I was shocked by the fact that someone not in a car is considered to be not a citizen. If you ask someone the way to something one street segment away, you get shown a long way around to the next parking lot, and then told the way from there -- people don't even realize you may actually be walking. Also, it seems that a driver's license is considered the only means of identification in those parts.
What US cities need is a public transit system and actual sidewalks. I am 27 and don't feel the need to own a car -- why would a programmer need one? I don't do tech support at distant customers, my workplace is 5min walk away, the train station is 8mins walk, and if I feel like having a trip to the woods, this is something that can be done with a bicycle. In Europe, we shop once-twice per day at corner shops instead of going to a supermarket once per two weeks -- this has the side effect of allowing us to eat good bread that won't survive a day instead of the sponges you buy in US shops.
And, for some reason, WUI is not a crime
If you're a professional driver or a travelling salesman, then sure, being unable to drive would force you to learn a new occupation. But for everyone else, you simply need to realize that you rely on cars too much.