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."
The Obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
And will the car come to a stop if a person only starts drinking (and got drunk) after the car's moving?
And will those drunken teenagers just steal some non-sensored cars which they're not familar to drive with?
I think this "invention" is as good as the censorship card on cable TV, or that running shoes that power the TV. However the on
Re:The Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
But the deal with teens is that their sense of not wanting to get in trouble far outweighs their sense of risk from driving drunk.
When I was a teen, all the local teens went to this guy's apartment (behind the 7-11 and right across from the liquor store) to get him to buy them beer. I was in this apartment on many occasions when this happened and a very common occu
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Rational Thought (Score:2, Insightful)
One shot of hard alcohol = one wineglass of wine = one bottle of beer = one FULL hour not driving.
Or if math is too hard:
I've been drinking alcohol tonight. It does not matter how much, I will not be the driver.
Or if an obsessive-compulsive "drinking and gadgets" disorder is present in the person:
There's fifty thousand different types of alcohol analyzers out there that you can buy already. Buy one.
Re:Rational Thought (Score:4, Informative)
It's a nice idea, and sounds good as a guide, *but*:
The way I pour/buy wine, one bottle gives you three glasses (250ml/glass). That means that three bottles of wine = nine full hours not driving.
Believe me, I've had three bottles of wine on an empty stomach; I was barely in a condition to stand the next morning, let alone drive.
In fact, it's perfectly possible to get drunk at night, feel fine in the morning and still be over the legal driving limit (at least in the UK, YMMV of course).
Re:Rational Thought (Score:2, Funny)
The way I pour/buy wine, one bottle gives you three glasses (250ml/glass).
May I come over for dinner?
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
Re:The Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record I don't think it's lazy parenting, I think it's giving more tools to help parents. As Ronald Regan said "trust but verify"
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
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 awa
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 r
NOT Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
And then the work around is that most kids will STEAL A CAR??? please, what part of town do you live in that this
Re:NOT Obvious (Score:2)
The real issue is that this is just another piece of crap that doesn't need to be installed in a car, and which can fail and cause it to not be startable. I hope and pray that manufacturers do not begin to offer something like this as st
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
The article is very low on information, but since it could be installed in both steering wheel and gloves, maybe the car won't start without skin contact in either? So, if you want to drive, you will have to put your hands or gloves on the wheel, and then this test is performed.
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
I suspect that the knowledge that any officer within visual range could instantly tell that you were intoxicated would prove an excellent deterrant.
What an horrible idea (Score:2)
I'm all for parents trying to educate their children correctly, but that's a recipe for disaster if I ever saw one: parents becoming hyper-protective by fear of prison, severely damaging the children' capacity to lead normal lives and probably leading to extreme behaviour in reactio
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
And I think you should have someone in your family killed by a drunk driver. I just want to make this entire post say F You to release some anger I've built up by reading your mindless post. This invention is great. If you're drunk, your car
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
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 tha
Re:The Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be true, but it might also be the problem.
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Even a small amount of alchohol can slow your reactions considerably, and there is a great difference between "driving sensibly" as you put it, and being able to react fast enough in an emergency to avoid an accident.
Driving after drinking has two aspects -- one is the weaving-all-over-the-road, crash into a lampost one, which I'll accept you might not do even when twice over the limit. But the other is being able to re
Re:The Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
It's unfair to you, it's more than fair for everybody else on the road.
Just remember, you own the car, you do NOT own the roads.
Re:The Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but only for a subtle difference. Those devices protect the passengers, not the people on the outside. (Partial credit for anti-lock breaks, though.. Funny thing is, most insurance companies give you a discount if you do have AL breaks. So you do have an incentive, anyway.) These devices protect everybody else from your driving. They're
This guy's a scumbag (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This guy's a scumbag (Score:3, Informative)
-5 for lack of common sense.
Just because that guy patents his device does not mean he will make shitloads of money with this (could still happen, but hasn't to. The world is full of poor inventors). OTOH he will likely not be able to manufacture it himself. Most manufacturers who look at this will want to have a more or less exclusive deal before they even will look closer at it. And this exclusivity can only be guaranteed by having a patent on it.
You can be aga
Best of Luck (Score:2, Offtopic)
I wonder (Score:2)
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
YES! (Score:4, Informative)
You don't have a right to drive, period. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YES! (Score:2)
Re:YES! (Score:2)
True, but that still doesn't make it right. I don't drive drunk, ever, but I am sure many legislators would still be happy enough to force this device on me, at my cost. This is just the government babysitting us again, and taking responsibility away from both the responsible and the irresponsible.
Besides... I very much doubt that this will have any significant impact on road safety. Just like car safety inspections have not made the roads much safer, but only m
Re:YES! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a real stretch, but let's say my e-brake is not set and my car rolls down a hill and pins someone to a building. It weighs 3500 lb, so if I have to push it up a hill, and I've been drinking so I can't start it and back it up, they're just fucked.
Perhaps instead of mandating equipment like this someday, we could just actually start punishing DUIs properly. Why are there people with like eight or nine DUIs driving out t
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 l
Re:YES! (Score:3, Insightful)
How much do you weigh? 4 beers in two hours would put most people over 0.05%, if not 0.08%. If you're planning a long night out, you'll metabolize most of those first three beers in a few hours and your subsequent "maintenance" beer/hour won't cause a problem. However, if you're going out for a 2 hour dinner you're not going to have time to metabolize those first three beers before it's tim
Re:YES! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or how about you just don't drink and drive?
Heard of taxis? Have friends? There are plenty of ways to go out for the night, have a drink, and avoid driving home.
There's also nothing stopping you staying in and having a drink.
Maybe the idiots that think they can drive when they've "only had a couple" should get a life and stop trying to ruin others.
A
There's no normal excuse for drinking and driving - it's a proven and easily avoidable cause of a lot of accidents and deaths.
To get back on topic, would I want one of these steering wheels? To be honest, no - I don't ever touch my steering wheel unless I'm sober and I can't be bothered with the thing breaking, or failing to realise that it's not alcohol in my bloodstream, it's windscreen washer antifreeze that spilled while I was filling the car.
~Cederic
NO!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice idea, but... (Score:2)
It seems to me short of a court order, nobody's going to ever get one of these in their car.
Re:Nice idea, but... (Score:2)
maybe the guy who got a dui (Score:3, Insightful)
It could also be available, like the portable keychain analyzers, to people who would like to know themselves. I know I dont trust my judgement all the time when I'm drunk, but its too late when I wake up with her!!!
Re:Nice idea, but... (Score:2)
Anyone convicted of a DUI or known to be a alcoholic could be ordered to install this in their car and be prohibited from driving any car without it. Those who don't drink and/or drive would not have to pay for such a system. If such a person drives a car without such a system, they would never drive again legally.
Common Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
This is -exactly- why we have government-mandated safety equipment. Think of it as a safety device mounted not just in your car, but outside it as well --- every one of these devices is another potential drunk driver kept off the road.
Re:Common Sense (Score:2)
People who drive fucked up will find ways to drive fucked up. Mandating devices like this is merely treating a symptom; it is not a cure.
Cost/benefit (Score:2)
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
Re:Cost/benefit (Score:2)
The generic argument to spend any money to preserve life is fatally flawed, as it assumes that there is only one way to preserve life.
What if we took that money and spent it on more cops? On hopsitals? On food for Africa? On tsunami monitoring equipment? On disease research? On stem cells? etc etc...
I seriously doubt spending $600 per car on alcohol sensors is an efficient us
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
As the number of gadgets that have to function correctly for cars to run increases, the probability of getting from point A to B decreases to zero.
you must be fun at parties! (Score:3, Insightful)
All that doom and gloom, OR they could be pretty standard, universal, very reliable, available in most places... do you feel that your air bags break down all the time and set off sensors, etc?
yes, i realize this is applicable to the ignition system, but so are alot of things that work jsut about every day just fine.
Re:you must be fun at parties! (Score:2, Funny)
Well, ok, maybe they will be. Just like your catalytic converter. Did you know that its illegal for you to personally change your catalytic convertor or any other part of your engine that deals with exhaust quality control? EPA says it has to be done by a trained and certified professional. Not that anyone enforces the regulations.
Anyway, that rule just keeps idiots who don't know what they're doing from spewing foul
Re:you must be fun at parties! (Score:2)
Forcing cars to have a sensor system like this doesn't stop people from drinking and it doesn't stop people from getting around th
Re:you must be fun at parties! (Score:2)
Also, these units will not be universal or, I s
woops! continued here. (Score:2)
Take it easy. (Score:2)
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to laugh if you have a car alarm, especially if you've never had trouble with it.
Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
It'd probably be much cheaper than $600 a car.
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.
winter? (Score:2)
Re:winter? (Score:2)
sigh. (Score:2, Insightful)
after his then-teenage son crashed into a utility pole while driving drunk and suffered minor brain damage
A technical solution to a behavioural problem... yeah, those always work.
Re:sigh. (Score:2)
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
Swab action. (Score:5, Funny)
No driving for you. ONE YEAR!
One word. (Score:2)
Re:One word. (Score:2, Funny)
You should have posted anonymously, now you are bound to be hunted down and jailed for 20+ years for violation of the DMCA and being un-american.
Re:One word. (Score:2)
The logical extreme of this technology is that legislators will want to mandate it in all newly manufactured cars, and make it illegal to disable.
So then you have gloves - circumvention. So what then, they make the things so the car won't operate at all without human skin contact (via capacitance check or something)? What about in the winter?
It seems to me what we can really expect from this is either "reduced" insurance rates if you have one (which rea
Oh, great. (Score:2, Informative)
The 1927 model 'T' Ford cost $3138.49 in 2005 dollars. Ponder that for a bit.
Re:Oh, great. (Score:2)
Re:Oh, great. (Score:2, Informative)
The Model T sold for $575 in 1912. According to Forbes magazine: "When it sold for $575 in 1912, the Model T for the first time cost less than the prevailing average annual wage in the United States." ( link [wiley.com])
Using the CPI:
$825 in 1908 would cost $16327.82 in 2005
$575 in 1912 would cost $11383.77 in 2005
(link [westegg.com])
The buying power of the average American family is much greater than it is today. There is no real good way to bring t
Re:Oh, great. (Score:2)
In particular, cars, computers, etc. can't be compared, because what passed for a car or computer in 1932 doesn't exactly relate to what passes for cars and computers now (didn't they have electric typewriters that could do basi
Re:Oh, great. (Score:2)
Re:Oh, great. (Score:2)
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 t
The patent text sheds some light... (Score:2, Interesting)
420 ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:420 ? (Score:2, Funny)
The gloves sense it and provide directions... (Score:3, Funny)
Brilliant.. (Score:2, Funny)
Steering wheel version: Wear some gloves
Glove version: Don't wear gloves
Technology easily fooled? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the sensor works by checking the pH of the skin, a lot of things could throw it off (false positives/false negatives). If it works by checking the galvanic properties of the skin, would sweat or lack of sweat not throw it off? If it is looking for a specific molecular signature, wouldn't a good scrubbing of the hands with soap and water just before starting the car not get rid of it?
If all these issues are foolproof, there is still the factor of the alcohol permeating the skin. I'd assume it would take a little while for the alcohol (which has a fairly low boiling point btw, so how much of it would remain on the skin at any given time) to work its way through the dermis and then through the epidermis.
I'm not certain all legally intoxicated drivers would have enough alcohol on their skin to trip the sensor, but perhaps those who could barely stand could be better served with a simple reflex test (get the driver to push and hold one button, wait random amount of time, turn on a light, calculate how much time it takes the person to let go of that button and push a separate button, repeat 10 or 20 times, compute an average and compare it with that driver's norm).
The 'blow in the tube' type checks the alcohol being expelled from your lungs. Since it checks the blood/alcohol level, it's a direct path from the blood to your breath through the lungs and is hard to fool. I don't know how well this through the skin version could realistically work.
Re:Technology easily fooled? (Score:2, Informative)
This is deeply flawed logic. (Score:2, Insightful)
The breathalyzer-style in car test is targeted at people convicted of a DUI. Thus, it has a very small target population. As soon as something similar occurs on all consumer vehicles, modifications to remove the wheel without consequence will pop up for those who want it. You can replace the emissions equippment on a car with commonly available kits. Your car PCU and the happy folks at the in
Will this work for beergoggling too? (Score:3, Insightful)
It'd be better as an indicator (Score:2)
The article seems to imply that this tool should be useful to prevent someone from driving, and maybe rental car companies and the like would go for something like that. On the whole, though, it seems unlikely that anyone intent on actually driving the car won't be able to fool it. Unless it's forced on them by an overbearing government, it seems the people who this might prevent from driving are unlikely to have it installed in the first place.
I think that this sort of tool would be much more usefu
Won't this just encourage... (Score:2)
Stupidest idea ever.
Fundamental problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Assume for the moment you could build a device that could accurately read the driver's impairment level from any source - alcohol, drugs, sleep deprivation, cell phone, nudie magazine, screaming kids in the back seat, whatever. Assume for the moment this device is failure proof, fool proof, and cannot be misled.
Now, there are two primary use cases for this device:
In this case, the person it will be checking has proven they are willing to accept responsibility for their actions, and so the need for the device is fairly minimal - such a person is likely already going to limit their driving if they have been chemically altered, and all this device is going to do is allow them to drive when the are a little altered, as they will not have to leave the "safety margin" they otherwise would have left.
In this case, you open up the whole barrel of worms of legal rights, but most importantly the person being checked will either be
Re:What if.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What if.... (Score:2)
This washing system is accessible to all users, with no drunk testing before hand, as it is slightly less dangerous than a 3000 lbs car piloted by a drunk retard.
Re:What if.... (Score:2)
Besides, washing your hands isn't that hard.
Re: Brilliant! (Score:2)
What if the passenger was a child? Or blind? (I am not blind but I can't see well enough to drive a car)
Or someone who lost their licence already (but is currently sober)
I am sure such devices could save lives, as long as it doesn't prevent the car from starting, but just locks the transmission and
Re: Brilliant! (Score:2)
Re: Brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
Depends: on a $300 Yugo, it might not be such a good idea...
Then again, with a Yugo, you're very safe in the first place, since the bus driver is never drunk.
Ensure? (Score:2)
This screws the regular driver, while hampering the drunk little or none
Have someone else start the car comes to mnd as the first workaround.
Wear gloves. What? No gloves? Oh that will go well in the northern climes. 10 below zero and my car won't start unless I take my gloves off? Yeah...that's a car I won't buy.
I'm no fan of big-brotherly ideas,
It appears you are.
Re: Brilliant! (Score:2)
Re:Gloves? Wheel cover? (Score:2)
Re:Apparently I'm not getting something here (Score:2)
Many of those deaths are caused by habitual drunk drivers.
On your first DUI, you are required by law to install this (or a similar) device to prevent subsequent DUI's.
Some states already use something like this.
It does NOT get installed on everyones car. Driving is a privilege, NOT a right.
Re:OT: this explains why there is no complaints/bl (Score:2)