Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Remote Breathalyzer

Posted by michael on from the what-you-gonna-do-when-they-come-for-you dept.

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."

14 of 518 comments (clear)

  1. Excuse me but... by analog-1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wouldn't it make just a little more *sense* for the sensor to disable the ignition or something?

    Or do we just want our prisons to be that much overpopulated?

  2. Why not... by maddogsparky · · Score: 3, Interesting
    just disable the car if the driver's breath doesn't pass? That would be cheaper for them and the rest of us since we wouldn't have to pay the cost of the police processing and legal procedings, and they wouldn't drive in the first place and get a fine or jailtime.

    --
    science is a religion
  3. oh this is just fanTAStic. by Emil+Muzz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So every time you hit the switch for the windshield washer and spray what, in many cases, is a fairly strong solution of ethanol onto your windshield - right by the ventilation system intakes in most cars by the way - this thingy signals to all police in range that you're having a 4-alarm kegger in your backseat?

    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...

    --
    ... not in here, pal, this is a mercedes...
  4. What if you are the designated driver? by jon323456 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So the police pull you over because your friend is pumping out enough ethanol vapors to send the sensor into the stratosphere. Thats great. Is the plan just to never transport anyone who has been drinking?

    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.

  5. Re:Designated Driver ? by Spotless+Tiger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...ANYONE who is breathing, consistantly, all over the steering wheel perhaps.

    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.

    --
    Racists should be sent back to where they came from
  6. here's a better idea by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just sell friggin breathalyzers to the general public so they can see for themselves if they're over the legal limit. Why do we need all the Big BrotherTM crap? How the hell is that supposed to help anything?

    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?

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:here's a better idea by isa-kuruption · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because the liberals/socialists want to be the "big brother" of society... they don't believe in people taking responsibility for themselves. In fact, they probably believe people are too stupid to take responsibility for themselves.

      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...

    2. Re:here's a better idea by AgTiger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Years ago, there was a bar in Ontario Canada that I used to frequent. They installed a brethalyzer unit that cost 25 cents to use. It dispensed a sterile paper straw. You inserted the straw in the inlet for the air, blew, and got a reading.

      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.

  7. Transmits "other information" as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's to stop them from transmitting your speed and license plate number as well? Automated speeding ticket robots anyone?

    Keep saying to yourself, "There is no such thing as Big Brother."

  8. We won't have to wait long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...for this to be compulsory in the UK. It seems that the entire Western world is in the middle of some kind of social engineering experiment.

    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?!

  9. Re:Due process... by firewort · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You have no right to drive.

    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.

    --

  10. Eliminate the need for "random stops" by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My favorite line...

    "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...

    --
    Who did what now?
  11. Not all that new.... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These are not all that new. They have installed in some chronic drunks a breathalyzer in the car and the car would not start if the driver was drunk. Granted, a drunk could find a sober person to breath in it, but if his buddies were all alcholoics they might have trouble! :) I think they need to do something to this effect and or start making the bars more responsible (although not entirely....). Once a person gets visibly drunk, he should not be served anymore. Period. That's only a life saving method.

    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!

    --

    Gorkman

  12. Problem with this in America is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Thought I was innocent until proven guilty and judged so by a panel of my peers? Oh enter this electronic device to judge me guilty and alert the authorities? I swear to all that is holy that I will be driving a beat up old Plymouth Fury or something, because this is bullshit.

    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.