Alcohol Detectors in Cars?

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

His family sues everyone, including the state. etc etc etc

Thus proving that every cloud has silver lining.


Almost spilled my coffee.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Skyrad 0]

Not a good idea. If someone has been drinking they may be under the limit when they get in the car but a few minutes later they might be over the limit by a long way depending on several factors. This could give people who are drunk the impression that they're safe to drive.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Not a good idea. If someone has been drinking they may be under the limit when they get in the car but a few minutes later they might be over the limit by a long way depending on several factors. This could give people who are drunk the impression that they're safe to drive.

Obviously then, we'll have to require that driver's re-test every 10 minutes or so, while actually driving, to ensure that the car engine should not be disabled. That'll catch those rascals that drink while driving.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Not a good idea. If someone has been drinking they may be under the limit when they get in the car but a few minutes later they might be over the limit by a long way depending on several factors. This could give people who are drunk the impression that they're safe to drive.

You know, that's a valid point: that from the time a person drinks, it does take a finite X amount of time before his BAC reaches a certain level.

In the US, each of the 50 states (plus Washington DC and I think Puerto Rico) has its own separate drunk driving law. In some states, defense attorneys can still take advantage of that metabolic loophole, by using expert testimony to establish that although your client's BAC may have been over the limit when he was tested, it had not yet reached that point when he was arrested; and thus he was not guilty of driving while drunk. I even used that defense successfully a few times myself.

Alas, state legislatures have gotten wise to this, and many of them have amended their respective state's law to close the loophole: if you drink enough to eventually exceed the BAC, and then drive immediately after (or while) having that drink, you've automatically violated the drunk-driving law; and you are expressly prohibited from using "extrapolation-backwards" evidence as a defense at trial.

[doughboyshred 0]

To an extent I agree with you, however one of the first effects of alcohol use is lack of judgement. This is why the law states that it is illegal to serve someone that is intoxicated. Way too many establishments over serve regularly.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Am I the only one who sees a problem with how easy these things would be to defeat? I mean if you REALLY wanted to beat a device like this all you would have to do is tie a balloon to a piece of pvc, put a rubber hose (approx the size of the thing you blow into) on the other end of the pvc, fill the baloon with like normal while sober, then clamp off the rubber hose with some hemostats. Come time to go home, put the end of the rubber hose on the blow nossle and release hemostats. Seriously, the idea of putting these things in every car is as assine as a left handed baseball bat.

This is why you have to humm in to the sensor. Balloons don't work.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Am I the only one who sees a problem with how easy these things would be to defeat?

Am I the only one who notes that you've named yourself after the ad slogan for a beer?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Am I the only one who sees a problem with how easy these things would be to defeat? I mean if you REALLY wanted to beat a device like this all you would have to do is tie a balloon to a piece of pvc, put a rubber hose (approx the size of the thing you blow into) on the other end of the pvc, fill the baloon with like normal while sober, then clamp off the rubber hose with some hemostats. Come time to go home, put the end of the rubber hose on the blow nossle and release hemostats. Seriously, the idea of putting these things in every car is as assine as a left handed baseball bat.

This is why you have to humm in to the sensor. Balloons don't work.

How about if you put your mouth on the outside of the balloon and hummed against it, to duplicate the vibration pattern in the air from inside the balloon entering the sensor?

[VincePetaccio 0]

Personally, I believe that the majority of the problems we have with alcohol stem from overregulation.

Lower the drinking age, nationally privatize liquor sales, and I'm sure we won't need to be "breathalyzing" every person who gets in a car.

Honestly, I worry that this would simply worsen the issues that it's designed to alleviate.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[billvon 2,400]

>Lower the drinking age, nationally privatize liquor sales . . .

Liquor sales out here are private. Hasn't had much effect on the drunk driving problem.

[VincePetaccio 0]

Have you seen liquor sales privatized while seeing no change in drunk driving accidents?

In PA, only states stores can sell liquor. Clearly there is a lot of variation from state to state on liquor laws. I'd like to see this standardized across the nation, and then privatized.

Also, this is the lesser of the issues. The drinking age and the vigor with which we enforce it is the larger issue. Some may recall what happened when NJ tried to lower the drinking age to 18 not long ago- the state was threatened with funding loss unless it raised the drinking age back to 21. So, in effect, we do have national laws on alcohol, but not in a way that has Americans' best interests in mind.

The American alcohol culture needs to change to overcome these problems. Putting the whip down here and there is a good start.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[billvon 2,400]

>Have you seen liquor sales privatized while seeing no change in drunk
>driving accidents?

Nope. Nor have I seen any correlation at all between the two:

===========
According to a recent study published by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, privatizing alcohol in Virginia simply will not increase the number of drunk driving fatalities.

The study compared statistics in the 32 states that have private liquor sales against those of the 18 states that have government-run stores. According to economics Professor Donald J. Boudreaux, principal author of the report, there is no significant difference in drunk driving accidents or binge drinking based on control of alcohol sales.
===========
The study examined alcohol-related fatalities, binge drinking and drunk driving fatalities. He found in the control states, for the years 2001-2005, an average of 33.79 persons, per 100,000 persons, died each year from alcohol-related causes. In license states, this figure is 34.64. The figure for the U.S. as a whole is 34.34. He concluded, "Clearly, there is not much difference here between the two kinds of states."
=========

[VincePetaccio 0]

In my last post, I considered posing the question of alcohol-related deaths in states with and without privatized liquor sales. However, I'm not convinced that a simple percentage is adequate for providing any kind of meaningful information; there are simply way too many variables at play.

In order to see what the effects would be, I feel we'd have to see the same state switch from one paradigm to the other (kind of a matched-pairs statistical test).

I'm not quite buying the study's results, but maybe that's just my skeptical ego.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The American alcohol culture needs to change to overcome these problems. Putting the whip down here and there is a good start.

I doubt this. Looking at American tobacco culture, it seems that use has gone down as regulation has increased. I suspect the same would be true with alcohol.

[VincePetaccio 0]

You've left out the factor of price- have you seen the price of a pack of cigarettes lately?! I'm sure this is a huge motivator for smokers to quit, and non-smokers to not start.

Compared to Europe, the USA drinks considerably less. In fact, the US consumes less alcohol than almost any other nation. However, we have the second-highest rate of alcohol-related death in the world, behind the biggest drinkers (Europe).

WHO report: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357892/U-S-drinks-lowest-alcohol-developed-world-figures-reveal.html

So, we drink the least, but have one of the highest alcohol-related death rates? Meanwhile, we have some of the strictest restrictions of the "wet" nations. Something's not right there.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

You've left out the factor of price- have you seen the price of a pack of cigarettes lately?! I'm sure this is a huge motivator for smokers to quit, and non-smokers to not start.

And why are cigarettes so expensive lately?

[billvon 2,400]

>have you seen the price of a pack of cigarettes lately?! I'm sure this is a huge
>motivator for smokers to quit, and non-smokers to not start.

I'm a little confused, then. Your suggestion seemed to be that if you make alcohol more available (i.e. sold it in private stores instead of restricting it to state run stores) alcohol deaths would go down, presumably because people would drink less in certain situations. Above you seem to suggest that if you make cigarettes LESS available (i.e. more expensive) people will use them less.

[VincePetaccio 0]

No, I'm suggesting that making alcohol more available will allow acclimation to alcohol, reducing novelty and, hopefully, binge-drinking and other irresponsible drinking activities.

Regardless, these are nitpicks. You're both ignoring the parts of what I'm saying that are most important.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[VincePetaccio 0]

Keely, I know what you're getting at- that the increased prices themselves represent the regulation. But we're not talking about pricing with alcohol- we're talking about availability.

You raise an interesting point, though. I'm not sure how I feel about regulation through price gouging. Seems like the regulations would affect the poor considerably more than the rich.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[DanG 1]

How would privatization of liquor sales affect availability? I'm not getting how one is related to the other.

I agree that reducing or eliminating the drinking age would probably result in less binge drinking and drunk driving behavior. We also need to enforce much stricter penalties for drunk driving.

- Dan G

[wmw999 2,121]

My memory from when the drinking age was 18 was that drunk driving deaths were worse than they are now. Of course there were other contributors to that as well.

Binge drinking wasn't nearly the problem it is now, but it wasn't before the drinking age went to 18 (from 21) either. Of course, underage drinking was far more winked at in the early 70's in semi-protected environments (like college).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[VincePetaccio 0]

Quote

How would privatization of liquor sales affect availability? I'm not getting how one is related to the other.

In PA (I'm using PA as an example because I know the laws :o), liquor sales are entirely state-run; only state liquor stores sell liquor.

For a long time, these stores were closed on Sundays. Now, they have limited hours on most days of the week. It is a hassle much of the time to buy alcohol at convenient times. Additionally, there is no competition for pricing.

We frequently drive to NJ to buy liquor, where liquor sales are less regulated. The hours are convenient and the competition makes the pricing a bit more palatable.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[billvon 2,400]

>You're both ignoring the parts of what I'm saying that are most important.

OK, what's the thing that you're saying that's most important?

[VincePetaccio 0]

Everything after the first paragraph of post 65.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[Shotgun 1]

I think that one of the areas that hit Big Tobacco the hardest was the regulations on advertising, combined with the negative ad campaign against smoking and the tobacco industry. I think this put a big dent in the public perception of smoking being "cool," and that's what needed to happen for use to drop.

I just browsed through WHO's Global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol, and I don't see them recommending making alcohol more available. Their main suggestions seem to be reducing availability (but not to the point of increasing illicit production), increasing drunk-driving prevention measures (more random check points, etc.), increasing public awareness of the dangers of heavy drinking, and more regulations on alcohol marketing.