backtop


Print 110 comment(s) - last by grooves21.. on Jun 17 at 2:41 PM

System has a number of potential pitfalls, but shows promising results

A new journal article by researchers from Poland's Wojskowa Akademia Techniczna (WAT; translates to "Military University of Technology") showcases an interesting roadside sensor that could revolutionize law enforcement if it can be made more accurate and more consistent.

We've seen system-on-a-chip (SoC) microfluidic laboratories that "sniff" for the presence of alcohol and other drugs.  Such sensors are already becoming commercially available, and have been deployed in traffic studies and at key security points across the U.S.

The new paper describes using a 2 mW red laser to detect the presence of intoxicated drivers.  The setup involves shooting the laser beam through the cabin, reflecting it off a mirror (positioned presumably in the road's median) and finally detecting it on a receiver setup attached to the pilot laser.

Alcohol laser monitoring
[Image Source: WAT/J. Appl. Remote Sens.]

Because the light passes through the cabin twice, it is sufficient to detect BAC levels of as little as 0.1, which manifest themself as vaporized ethanol, which modifies the laser beam's path.

The paper's results are promising and pretty impressive.  Also, the entire system is relatively affordable, made from off-the-shelf electronics parts.

Alcohol laser detection
[Image Source: WAT/J. Appl. Remote Sens.]
 
However, we likely won't see this technology implemented on the road for some time, given a number of inherent difficulties.  

First, the setup would likely be plagued by false positives in the case of a designated driver transporting intoxicating passengers.  While that shortcoming would be nullified in the case of a solo driver, the system could also be foiled by window tints or coatings.  Last, but not least, if the system is able to detect such a low concentration of cabin ethanol, it might trigger with false positives for vehicles with certain kinds of air fresheners, some of which are alcohol-based, chemically speaking.

The paper comes at interesting timing, given the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) campaign to lower the national U.S. drunk driving threshold from 0.08 BAC to 0.05 BAC.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has an equally controversial proposal to install interlocks on all first-time drunk drivers' cars, with taxpayers footing the bill for free interlocks for impoverished drunk drivers.

Eventually this kind of device might see deployment as a sort of backup piece of evidence, to be used in conjunction with other forms of sobriety testing.  In that regard it could be viewed as a somewhat more finnicky peer of the roadway digital traffic cameras, which have been deployed across much of the U.S.

The paper was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Applied Remote Sensing.

Sources: Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, via PopSci



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Another easy way to beat this system.
By Monkey's Uncle on 6/11/2014 12:59:00 PM , Rating: 5
Roll down the windows.

Since this system is depending on alcohol concentrations within the car's cabin air, simply blowing through fresh air via the windows will foil this system really quick. No need to worry about window tints protecting you. With fresh air in the cabin, there is nothing to register.

All in all this system is so weak it can never be implemented. And if it were, and data taken from it could never be used in a court due to all the variables involved.

Frankly the whole research stream was a huge waste of somebody's money.




RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By FITCamaro on 6/11/14, Rating: -1
RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By NellyFromMA on 6/11/2014 3:08:51 PM , Rating: 4
Strange comment... no research is a waste if something is learned from it.

The nature of research and development implies educated trial and error in hopes of achieving a goal.

To say it is a waste is to say there is a better alternative. When R&D results in a "win", it is typically preceded by many "fails", because, you know, people don't just KNOW the next breakthrough, they have to actually work at it and uncover it.

If we knew everything about everything, well, then it would be a waste.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By ssobol on 6/11/2014 3:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
We learned that someone will give us a lot of money to shoot lasers at cars.


By NellyFromMA on 6/11/2014 3:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Your eye might be a better target.


By Farfignewton on 6/12/2014 3:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To say it is a waste is to say there is a better alternative.


Well, just for kicks, they could try treating drunk driving like an actually serious offense. I can understand leniency depending on circumstance for a first time offender, but if you've managed a third DUI, you need a state sponsored time-out to reconsider your screwed up priorities.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By rdhood on 6/11/2014 2:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All in all this system is so weak it can never be implemented. And if it were, and data taken from it could never be used in a court due to all the variables involved.


This system could still be used to establish "probable cause" to allow police to stop your vehicle.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Monkey's Uncle on 6/11/2014 6:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
Not if it is easily beaten simply by rolling down the window and letting some fresh air in.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By marvdmartian on 6/12/2014 7:06:55 AM , Rating: 3
I also wonder how many designated drivers, being totally sober, would have to go through the hassle of being pulled over, just because they have inebriated friends in their vehicle, exhaling alcohol fumes?? How could you possibly program this device to differentiate between that scenario, and a vehicle full of drunks (with one driving)??

Oh, and they think they're going to shoot laser beams at vehicle cabins, and people won't freak out? Good luck with that! LOL


By BRB29 on 6/12/2014 8:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
the fact that it's only good to .1 means it's worthless. It needs to have much higher sensitivity than that. There's just way too many possible errors in this system. It won't hold up in any court of law.

If someone was that drunk to show up on this machine, then you probably don't need it to know they were drunk driving.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 2:40:09 PM , Rating: 1
Will a drunk person remember to do that? And what if the technology can be modified to include an aiming system that measures just in front of one's mouth? We are talking about frickin lasers, after all ;)

This system isn't meant to replace breathalyzers for court evidence. It's a way to make it easier to identify which cars a policeman should stop. Random checks probably have a ratio of 100+ clean drivers for every drunk one, and waste the time of both the police and the innocent.

Even if the system has a 90% false positive rate, that's still a hell of an improvement over random checks.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 3:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why am I not surprised you would be all for breath lasers being put in everyone's car?

The OP is right. This idea might have merit, but there's just no way it's going to work as intended.

quote:
Even if the system has a 90% false positive rate, that's still a hell of an improvement over random checks.


So lets falsely pull over 90 people to catch 10 drunk drivers? Just...omg, seriously shut up.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 3:59:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So lets falsely pull over 90 people to catch 10 drunk drivers? Just...omg, seriously shut up.
Seriously? Wasting 1 minute of 9 people's time is worth more to you than taking a drunk driver off the road? I have a hard time believing even 1% of people would agree that moronic statement, and dare a single other DT member support that.

Sobriety checkpoints have been found to reduce drunk driving and accidents by 20%:
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/mvoi-AJPM-ev...

Are you against preventing all those deaths? Guess what: Arrest rate is less than 1% for checkpoints.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 4:06:27 PM , Rating: 1
The only thing moronic is you thinking a 90% false-positive rate is cool.

Maybe you should listen to some people who HAVE been falsely accused by police of doing something, and see how they were treated. You sure as hell wouldn't want it happening to you, trust me.

quote:
Are you against preventing all those deaths?


AH yes, whenever you challenge a Liberal, he'll just accuse you of being for death or whatever.

Good luck with your breath-laser, you dumb shit. I can't believe you're stupid enough to think it could make a difference. We have a massive cultural problem here, and you're backing some silly gimmick...


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By retrospooty on 6/11/2014 4:14:45 PM , Rating: 3
In cases like this I see what you mean by using "liberals" as a bad word. Ick.

To me, I will just not use that word, because it has too many different meanings. In this case, any weenie willing to give up freedoms and be laser detected as you drive around should be... Only have it be a personal detector on thier own damn car and have it online with the police at all times so they can know where you are what you ate and drank and if you have gas.

We give up too many freedoms. Some terrorists every so often damage something and kill some people and now all our online and phone activity is potentially monitored. Some clown brings a gun to an event and shoots someone and now we all get our bags checked at disneyland, and even in some schools.

Giving up freedom in the name of security isn't what this country is about... In fact it is the opposite of what this country is about. The world is dangerous, less so now then it was throughout history but it is still dangerous. If you are afraid, stay home. Leave your cowardice and BS laws to yourself.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 4:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In this case, any weenie willing to give up freedoms and be laser detected as you drive around should be... Only have it be a personal detector on thier own damn car and have it online with the police at all times so they can know where you are what you ate and drank and if you have gas. - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=35040...


Exactly, 100% correct.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/14, Rating: 0
RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Monkey's Uncle on 6/11/2014 7:28:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A laser making such checkpoints more efficient by stopping 90% fewer people to catch the same number of drunk drivers is unequivocally a good thing.


It won't. With all the false positives and the brain-dead simple ways of beating it, police won't trust it. They will be pulling over everybody anyway and still catching no more than they did before. So how is this actually helping?

1. If you wear too much aftershave -- it goes off.
2. If you have someone drunk & passed out in the back seat & you dead sober it goes off.
3. If you have tinted windows, even a mild tint, it DOESN'T go off.
4. If you simply drive with your windows open it goes off.
5. Even imperfections in your car glass will set if off.

You don't know if the guy driving through the spot check is sober and when you are forcing the dead sober guy to take sobriety tests -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2URAgHmshKg


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 8:14:37 PM , Rating: 1
Right now, checkpoints stop:
1. The 99%+ of people that don't drench themselves in aftershave (FYI you're wrong in thinking that puts anywhere near as much alcohol into the air as a drunk)
2. The 99%+ of people without a drunk in the back seat
3. 99%+ without a problematic tint (Jason wrongly speculated about this being an issue, as a second wavelength that alcohol doesn't absorb will let you tell the difference)

How is that better?

(points 4 and 5 are wrong).


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Monkey's Uncle on 6/11/2014 8:47:21 PM , Rating: 3
yeah 4 & 5 need reverse logic applied

1,2 & 3 is just fine. They are random impersonal checks with no accusations or assumptions of guilt at the time of the stop.

You add this thing into the mix you are now being targeted and presumed guilty by an easily fallible machine when you are stopped.

That is the difference. The first is socially acceptable. The second is invasion your rights.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 9:36:54 PM , Rating: 1
Where is this presumption of guilt coming from? Why are you imposing your baseless paranoia on this technology?

You're pulled over, and your guilt is determined by the breathalyzer. If the breathalyzer test passes or if the machine doesn't work, you're presumed innocent.

It does nothing but weed out needless stops. That's it.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By M'n'M on 6/12/2014 12:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're pulled over, and your guilt is determined by the breathalyzer. If the breathalyzer test passes or if the machine doesn't work, you're presumed innocent. It does nothing but weed out needless stops. That's it.

So you're OK w/ random searches of your house, no suspicion needed ? Because your guilt will be determined by a court of law.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Manch on 6/12/2014 8:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
Because if the laser system which is easily fallible is used to determine wether or not you should be stopped and subjected to a breathalyzer, that is an issue.

Can it detect alcohol? yes
It is easy to trick? yes
At its current state would it create false positives and therefore needless stops? yes

So this easily tricked laser goes off and you are now pulled over and subjected to a breathalyzer on the presumption that you have been drinking. The cop despite the fact that they may not think you are drunk is going to trust the machine that was given to him.

So how is that better than a random checkpoint that cathces 1 in 88?

When laser detectors first came out they have high false positives and if used improperly can have high false positives as well, yet COPS trust these devices implicitly.


By Mint on 6/12/2014 2:21:55 PM , Rating: 1
Do you know what else is easily fallible? A car swerving for a moment, drifting over lane markers, failing to use a turn signal, or whatever else police use as reasonable suspicion to pull you over and administer a test.

Are you against all those?

I can't find hard stats on breathalyzer tests per year, but I found a company that analyzes 145 million tests per year, and the small population of South Dakota administered 3M tests in 5 years:
springfin.com/solutions.aspx
www.wpr.org/dane-county-may-begin-twice-daily-bac -tests-alcohol-offenders
And here's the DUI arrests for the country
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/20 12/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/29tabledatadecpdf< br />
So we're looking at hundreds of millions of breathalyzer tests per year, but only 1.3 million DUI arrests per year.

Do you think officers should give up on their current methods? You had a problem with my scenario of 9 innocent breathalyzer tests per conviction, but currently it's 100+ tests per conviction.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Monkey's Uncle on 6/11/2014 7:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Spare is the privilege vs right argument. This is not about driving. It is about using faulty technology to invade the privacy of your vehicle.

There is a huge difference between pulling someone over in a random spotcheck and using a laser device to snoop inside their car.

The former is like going door-to-door in a manhunt - not efficient and there is a chance you will not catch the bad guy. The latter is like walking up to the windows of each house, without even knocking on the door and snooping in. One is acceptable while the other is an invasion of privacy. Regardless of the of the fact that the latter will give you a better chance of catching a murderer it is not acceptable in any court to do.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 8:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
There's no invasion of privacy. Is a cop allowed to look at your car as it drives by? Is the light reflecting of his car no allowed to pass through your space? Am I invading your privacy when making eye contact with you to make sure you see me as I cross the street? The infrared laser and measurement is doing nothing different.

Nobody is walking up to your car as it drives by, so that's a red herring. Looking through the unblocked windows of a house from the sidewalk is not an invasion of privacy for a cop or a citizen.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By V-Money on 6/11/2014 11:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
I normally don't argue against the likes of you no matter how much I disagree with you, but your lack of constitutional law in this post is so bad that it sickens me and I really don't want misinformation being passed to the general public. I am talking mostly about your comments regarding invasion of privacy and specifically you trying to infer that looking me in the eye is anywhere close to the same as using these devices.

To explain, it can be permissible to use evidence obtained while looking in a window from the sidewalk as anyone can see it, it is considered public domain...However...if you look at a case like Kyllo vs. the United States you will find an important rule to this use of information. In this case federal agents used thermal imaging to detect heat signatures from a house to determine if they were growing marijuana. They used this evidence to gain entry and bust them for drugs. The defense argued that the heat signatures were not public domain and that it is not reasonable for authorities to scan his house without a warrant.

The specific wording used by the court was "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."

I would like you to tell me how this is different. I am pretty sure that using laser air analyzers for BAC constitutes something that is not in use by the general public. You can't tell someones BAC by simply looking at them. In other words, there is an invasion of privacy.

My last comment involves why I hate people like you. Drunk driving is the 3rd leading cause of automobile fatalities. The 2nd and 1st are speeding and distracted driving, yet if you get a DUI you basically have your life ruined and have the stigma attached with it. If you speed or distract yourself you simply get a slap on the wrist if anything at all. What I've found is that I know plenty of good people who have had DUIs, some deserved to be locked away for it but most weren't putting anyone at risk and were simple mistakes (I don't condone it, I just think the system is severely flawed). I know many more people who speed and/or drive while texting or talking on their cellphones, most of them are people like yourself who sit on their high horse and try to attack the easy prey while acting like you don't do any wrong yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if some of your responses were made while driving you self righteous prick.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By shuninxuo on 6/12/2014 5:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
Don't bother talking any sense to people like these... The more rational you are and the more facts you have backing your statement, the more they'll hate you and dismiss what you say because you are obviously happy about people being killed.

If you don't like excessive police intrusion into the lives of regular people, you must obviously be happy about the deaths of innocent folks! How dare you!


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 2:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
This is what drives me crazy about arguing with Liberals.

Standard Liberal "discussion" tactic:

"Crisis (usually manufactured) X is upon us, we need to implement solution Y (usually a big Government rights-trampling proposal involving increased spending). If you don't agree, you want people Z (killed, homeless, starving in streets etc etc) and you're a horrible person!!"


By Piiman on 6/14/2014 10:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
"This is what drives me crazy about arguing with Liberals.

And this is the standard Nut job response to those that don't agree with you.

You must be a Liberal!
Weak! Very Weak!


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/12/2014 9:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
There is a very big difference.

The context of that ruling was that people expect privacy in their home, specifically a room is surrounded by walls that visible light can not pass though. Even then, it was a close 5-4 ruling, with the dissent arguing heat emissions are public domain.

There is no expectation of privacy for light passing through transparent windows of your car, and for the intimate details of the car's interior visible in plain sight. If someone took a picture of you picking your nose while driving, too bad. If someone did the same with an infrared camera while you were at home, then the precedent you refer to comes into play.

Furthermore, do you know what's reasonable suspicion to administer a breathalyzer or sobriety test in almost every state? An odor of alcohol. That exactly what this technology detects. And before you argue that an odor of alcohol can't be detected without a justified traffic stop, a random stop is only illegal because it interferes with freedom of movement, which a laser doesn't do.

FYI, the NHTSA disagrees with your assertion. 3.3k distracted driving deaths, 10k drunk-driving deaths. While speeding is similar to alcohol, alcohol is suspected to be underreported as only 65% of the deceased get their BAC tested.
quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if some of your responses were made while driving you self righteous prick.
Oh go f*** yourself you presumptive POS.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Manch on 6/12/2014 10:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
For christ sakes it's not the light that's the issue! The laser is just the tool. The issue is it would allow them to search your car without reasonable suspicion or probable cause!

Reasonable suspicion/probable cause requires that the cop observe in plain sight or plain smell. That does not mean he can search you w/o cause to find one.

You are epically retarded.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 12:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
Mint want's drones over our heads, police in our beds, and highway patrol men firing spy-beams into our vehicles.

God bless America....


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/12/2014 2:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
If an officer is allowed to look into your car through the window and pull you over if he sees something possibly illegal, then why can't he do the same with this tool? If a pot smoker's car has a hazy interior, the cop can pull you over.

How is the officer's search with his eyes different from a this tool's search with a light sensor? Eyes are light sensors.

This isn't some x-ray vision device. The air is in plain view through the windows.


By Piiman on 6/14/2014 11:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
"If a pot smoker's car has a hazy interior, the cop can pull you over."

Ahhh no he can't because

1. How does he know its pot smoke?
2. How does he know the driver is a pot smoker?
3. Having a smoked filled car is most likely from cigarettes so I presume you car ok with cops pulling over ever car that appears to have some "haze" ?

You stupid.


By Manch on 6/12/2014 8:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
Sure there is. They are using the laser to search your vehicle without probable cause. It's not the light passing through your car thats the issue, it's searching your car w/o cause thats the issue. Using technology that isnt reliable that would have a high rate of false positives thats an issue.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By eek2121 on 6/12/2014 12:14:53 AM , Rating: 1
You have no privacy in your vehicle. You are driving on roads owned by the city, county, and state (therefore the people.) If you drove onto my property i have every right to examine you and the contents of your vehicle. Stop imagining that you have any right on property that does not solely belong to you.


By Manch on 6/12/2014 8:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
Not true

While police generally need a warrant to search you or your property — during a traffic stop, police only need probable cause to legally search your vehicle. Probable cause means police must have some facts or evidence to believe you’re involved in criminal activity.

In other words, an officer’s hunch without evidence of illegal activity is not enough to legally search your car. Before searching, he must observe something real. Common examples of probable cause include the sight or smell of contraband in plain view or plain smell, or an admission of guilt for a specific crime. The presentation of any of these facts would allow an officer to perform a search and make an arrest.

Be aware that minor traffic violations (e.g. speeding, broken tail-light, or expired registration) are not considered probable cause.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/when-can-police...


By sorry dog on 6/12/2014 12:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh spare me this freedom nonsense. Driving is a privilege, not a right.


You must believe everything the government tells you.

It most certainly is a right, and a very necessary one to function in society in most locations of this country. If it was a privilege then some people could be denied that "privilege" for reasons that are not statutory. The only reason it's called a " privilege" is make it legal to charge license fees and traffic fines.


By retrospooty on 6/12/2014 7:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
I just felt a bit of the US die. IT happens every time someone treats everyone like a criminal to try and catch a small minority.

WWBFS (what would Ben Franklin say)? Something very eloquent and witty that explained how you are misguided.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By M'n'M on 6/11/2014 5:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
Where did this 1 minute come from ? I've been stopped 2x at the same checkpoint that runs every year in the same rural NH town (paid for by Fed $$s). It was 15 mins the 1'st time and 12 mins the last time. Traffic was backed onto the Rt293 offramp.

From my experience it's more like stopping 99 innocent people to catch the 1 bad guy, adding 10+ mins to my trip.

If "we" are really serious about DUI, why not advocate for the same ignition interlocks that courts put into some repeat DUI driver's cars ? Isn't that where this technology is trying to go ?

As for DUI checkpoints as a jumping off point for an increasing police state ... it's already been tried ... and defeated by the SCOTUS in what is (IMO) a monument to circular reasoning. Indianapolis setup drug checkpoints and used dogs to sniff cars in '98. In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond the SCOTUS ruled that such checkpoints, even though they were less invasive than DUI checkpoints, were in violation of the 4'th Amendment, as they were for the "general purpose" of law enforcement and w/o any suspicion of wrongdoing. Justice O'Connor wrote "If we were to rest the case at this high level of generality, there would be little check on the ability of the authorities to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose. Without drawing the line at roadblocks designed primarily to serve the general interest in crime control, the Fourth Amendment would do little to prevent such intrusions from becoming a routine part of American life." IOW the SCOTUS didn't like the end result of their prior reasoning in Sitz and sought to draw a line.

As to why DUI checkpoints were/are somehow granted special status ... got me. It's not like there weren't/aren't other, less invasive, legislative alternatives.

As for daring a DT member to be against DUI checkpoints (not exactly your dare but) ... OK, I dare. Even if it causes more deaths.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 6:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
I got it from data, e.g:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/496/4... - 25 seconds on average
http://safetrec.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/F... - limited to 30-60 seconds
http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/ingersoll-v-pal... - 28 seconds on average
http://currentincarmel.com/sobriety-checkpoint-net... - 72 seconds on average

So if checkpoints were 10 times as effective (one in 10 as opposed to 1 in 100 due to this laser tech), and took 1/10th the time as your experience, you'd still be against them?

If so, then I hope you or someone you love gets hurt by a drunk driver that never went through a checkpoint.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By M'n'M on 6/11/2014 7:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If so, then I hope you or someone you love gets hurt by a drunk driver that never went through a checkpoint.

What an ass. How many other rights and freedoms are you willing to give up to save a life ? Are you willing to state, here and now, that a return to Prohibition is both desirable and a good thing, that you'd favor it ? Because that, while not perfect, would certainly lower DUI deaths by a whole lot more than DUI checkpoints. Or will you cling to your freedom to have a beer or 2 (responsibly) even though that allows the deaths of thousands each year ? How about installing, as standard equipment, a breathalyzer in every car, w/ignition interlock ? You, I and everyone pay for our own car(s).

I won't bother to ask where you stand on the 2'nd Amendment or what you think about searching people and/or their houses at random and w/o a warrant.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 8:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I can't believe he said that. Just because you don't agree with him, someone in your family should freaking die?

You said it, what a colossal ass.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 10:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
If he's cool with my friends and family dying from uncaught drunk drivers, then why should I care about his?


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 12:05:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah cause I'm sure he's cool with that. He said as much, am I right?

/S


By Mint on 6/12/2014 2:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
He explicitly said that he chooses more deaths over checkpoints.

And not just any checkpoints, but my hypothetical improved ones that intrude 10x less than current ones.

What, are you going to pretend that he meant deaths of people not related to me? How does that matter?

I talk the same way about "lefties" who say overpopulation is a major environmental problem, or that we can't let the third world live like we do. Those people can go kill themselves first if that's the solution they want.


By shuninxuo on 6/12/2014 4:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
So, disagreeing with creating a larger police state where we have no freedom and the police have absolute unchecked power to search us and our vehicles without probable cause means he is cool with people being killed by drunk drivers?

Talk about jumping to conclusions.

So it's ok with you if police have the power to pull every car on the road over just in case someone might be drunk... Everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise... Think of all the lives it would save!

Is it ok for police to go door to door and invade every person's home just in case they might be a criminal or drinking? Imagine all the lives it would save!

A radar or laser bouncing off the exterior of your car to measure speed is one thing, a laser to enter your car to test the air inside, when you've done nothing wrong to warrant a search ..... that's illegal search to me. You've done nothing to warrant suspicion, yet they search inside your car.. Right.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 10:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
THERE ARE NO FREEDOMS OR RIGHTS BEING INFRINGED HERE.

Get that through your thick head. Roadways are public property, and driving is a privilege. I have the freedom to look into your car from the side of the road, and I can shine a non-damaging infrared light onto it. It's even less intrusive than me walking on a public sidewalk with a flash camera and photographing your lawn or open garage, which is perfectly legal.

There are no rights being protected with your stance, and you're cool with people dying for it? Yeah, I'm the ass.

Are you seriously asking if I'm okay with breathalyzers being standard equipment in each car? Or is this another facetious question?


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By M'n'M on 6/12/2014 12:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
You've completely managed to miss the important points. Driving is a "quasi-right", deemed so by the states themselves only (IMO) because they don't care to find out a SCOTUS challenge re: our 4'th Amendment right to free association and thus travel. We don't ride on horses on back-paths anymore ... in fact, that's illegal in most parts of the country. So driving is a much a right as free travel ever was ... which isn't to say w/o restriction. Let's not confuse the 2 issues.

When you are stopped at a DUI checkpoint, you are "seized" in the legal sense. The only question (these days) is how much suspicion warrants how much intrusion. Now please try to think ahead ... technology marches and makes things previously thought undo-able to be both do-able and "cheap". The UK has already put cameras in lot's of public places. In 10 or 20 years, given camera and storage tech, how far will that go ?

And here in the US ... I suspect the same as I've heard exactly the same argument you've made ... it's public space. I might not disagree ... too much. But when that same cam also overlooks your back and front yards ? What will be your argument be then ? I can only hope you've seen the disputed rulings re: infra-red and laser-mic surveillance of your house, that "freely emanating those wavelengths" (as has been put in the Govt cases) is semi-OK. Just how far will you have to go to protect your privacy in the future, if you grant the police the power they seek w/o warrant ? No doubt this won't affect "you" or "me" ... "we" don't matter. But what if a JFK or a RFK had their dalliances recorded and blackmailed to be publicly disclosed before/during their elections ? This is the surveillance society that you are arguing for, even if you don't realize it. Giving the police powers to stop and search people, but it's OK because it's just a little intrusion.

Unless you can come up with some reasonable definition as to how I am protected by the 4'th Amendment waking down the street and not while driving my car, I fail to see how they differ. Your predictions of lives flushed away remain the same in either case ... and in the later the SCOTUS has ruled that it's insufficient to ignore the 4th Amendment.

You want to catch the drunks ... so don't I ... but not when it redefines our Constitutional rights, in a time when they are going to face challenges never before conceived.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By M'n'M on 6/12/2014 12:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and yes ... I do have 2 questions.

1) Do you advocate bringing back Prohibition because it will save some, probably a lot, of DUI deaths ?

2) Advocate to implement, perhaps even retroactively (you can opt to make this a separate question), a Breathalyzer (w/interlock) in every car ?

Simple enough ... your opinions ?


By Mint on 6/12/2014 3:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
1) No. I don't drink, but I have nothing against those who do, and don't advocate against it. The difference is that drinking alone is not harmful to others (and probably a positive for society's overall happiness), but driving under the influence is.

One can make the argument that driving drunk is not harmful until a drunk actually causes harm, but I assume you aren't, so I'm not going to waste my time going down that road.

Lives saved isn't a standalone argument. I'm using it in the context of how limited police resources should enforce the law.

2)Depends on if the cost is low enough and it was reliable enough (doubtful).

We always make tradeoffs between cost and public safety. I need to know what the cost would be, how easy it would be to circumvent, how often it needlessly disables the car (this is far more debilitating to freedom and the economy than being pulled over for a minute), and how much fatalities are reduced.


By andyflystrikes on 6/12/2014 1:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, if there a privacy infringement, then what about laser speed guns, which shoot a laser at your car, might even go through the cabin if badly aimed..... wouldn't these be illegal by virtue of also invading your privacy, especially when they aim at glass and not at metal.

If they aren't illegal (and they're not in Australia) then a BAC testing laser that also happens to test vehicle speed would seem to me to just the thing, obviously the right for law enforcement to shine a laser on the car has already been tested extensively in the courts.

So we have, breath analysis machines that are Ok for police and laser speed devices that are Ok with police so why wouldn't a laser breath analysis machine be Ok...... Too many words mixed with testosterone and not enough logic being applied here.....sometimes privacy as a principle can be taken too far.....people seem to want it to be a very black and white, shame life is merely a series of shades of grey, hey!

Andy


By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 8:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
THERE ARE NO FREEDOMS OR RIGHTS BEING INFRINGED HERE. -


I think when you have to resort to all caps tantrums, accusing others of wanting people "killed" because they don't agree with you, and re-writing the Constitution on the fly - you've lost.

You simply have no clue what you're saying and have bitten off more than you can chew this time. People here see through your crap and aren't having any of it.

Don't go away mad buddy, just go.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Schrag4 on 6/12/2014 1:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a hard time believing even 1% of people would agree that moronic statement, and dare a single other DT member support that.


Love it. "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a moron!" Mint, you're definitely the smartest guy in the room. Everyone is a moron except for you, obviously.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 1:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like way more than "1%" are agreeing with the 'moronic statement' after all lol.


By Mint on 6/12/2014 1:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
94% of people want DUI checkpoints:
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/26000/26000/26009/DOT-HS-80...
That's with them in their current form, where maybe 1/100 drivers checked are found to be drunk.

I brought up a hypothetical situation where this technology would make that 10x better. You're against that?

You also agree that 9 people losing a minute of time is too much of a sacrifice to get a drunk driver off the road?


By Piiman on 6/14/2014 10:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
" Wasting 1 minute "

LOL Really? You think you can be pulled over and do a DUI check on you in 1 minute? LOL


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Flunk on 6/11/2014 4:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's better than pulling over every single car to check for Drunk drivers like they do during blitzes in Canada. No joke, every single car.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 4:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well no offense but if I wanted to live somewhere that did BS stuff like that, I would probably BE in Canada...


By Monkey's Uncle on 6/11/2014 7:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
Nice exaggeration.

I live in the burbs of Canada's largest city and have not been pulled over in a spot check in 30 years. Neither has my wife in her car. I've also commuted by car between my home and the heart of that city for 20 of those years. I'm not saying I haven't seen them I have on several occasions. I drove right through each and every one.

If they pull over everyone, why wasn't I? Luck? With a 100% pull-over rate? I don't think so.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 4:27:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So lets falsely pull over 90 people to catch 10 drunk drivers? Just...omg, seriously shut up.
Seriously? Wasting 1 minute of 9 people's time is worth more to you than taking a drunk driver off the road? I have a hard time believing even a single other DT member supports that.

Sobriety checkpoints have been found to reduce drunk driving and accidents by 20%:
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/mvoi-AJPM-ev...

Are you against preventing all those deaths? Guess what: Arrest rate is less than 1% for checkpoints.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Monkey's Uncle on 6/11/2014 7:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't you paying enough tax?

You realize these things are going to he obscenely expensive, right? Are you going to personally pay the tens of thousands of dollars per unit to put something on the road that can be beaten just by driving with your car windows open? I wouldn't - not unless it was shown to reduce drunk driving even more than the current police spot check blitz programs. Heaven help you the first false positive that comes from the guy wearing a little too much aftershave - this junk would be tossed to the curb like a bag of trash. Along with the millions of wasted taxpayer dollars used to develop it.


By Mint on 6/11/2014 9:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
So are you against breathalyzers because they're "obscenely expensive"? Are you against traffic stops for suspected DUI because cops' time is obscenely expensive?

You clearly don't know jack about this technology or its cost, so STFU.

quote:
I wouldn't - not unless it was shown to reduce drunk driving even more than the current police spot check blitz programs.
All of a sudden you're putting a qualifier in your opposition? So tell me, are we going to figure out if it's capable of reducing drunk driving by cutting off research funding for further development, and not doing any pilot runs when appropriate? Of course not.

So should we give it a chance? Or should we use your ignorant assumptions to can it right now?

Nobody is saying that it's ready for a billion dollar production run today. It's research.


By Manch on 6/12/2014 8:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
Random checkpoints according to MADD have a 1 out of 88 stopped.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http://www.madd.or...


By Jeffk464 on 6/11/2014 3:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't it make more sense for a system like this to be hooked up to the ignition. Instead of "getting the bust" you prevent drunk driving.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/11/2014 3:40:22 PM , Rating: 3
I think the idea is to use this at a checkpoint. You don't legally have to roll down your window at a checkpoint. If you don't, they use this device, if you do, they just smell the alcohol on your breath. Either way they get their probable cause to give you a breathalyzer / sobriety test.

I'm for it, try something new. Since the advent of DUI laws, nothing has changed the % of auto deaths involving DUI. Not harsher punishment, not lower blood alcohol levels, not MADD advertising, nothing has moved the meter from about 50% IIRC.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 4:00:27 PM , Rating: 1
LOL so you see a checkpoint ahead and crank up your AC fan. Wow what an effective deterrent...

Especially considering how most States are required to warn drivers of upcoming checkpoints.

Deterrents don't work all that well because our entire legal system is based on supposed innocence. There will always be resistance to any system or technique in place that assumes guilt for all or is viewed as too inconvenient.

People are going to drink and drive no matter what, I accept that. There's nothing we can do about it. However we CAN adopt a strict one strike zero tolerance policy across the board.

Strike one you lose your licence and a lien is placed on your automobile.

Strike two, hope you like orange, cause your ass is in the clink.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 4:25:18 PM , Rating: 1
Classic myopic Reclaimer.

First of all, AC circulates air too slowly to render the system useless. You'll have to open several windows to make a difference.

But more importantly, how is a drunk driver going to take action if the laser is flagging cars before a checkpoint is even visible? It doesn't have to go on your record. It's just to make the checkpoint flow easier.

If you're so supportive of zero tolerance, then why are you so against technology to catch people in the first place?

Right now our ability to catch people driving drunk is pathetic. You have less than a 1% chance of being caught driving drunk.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By retrospooty on 6/11/2014 4:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
"If you're so supportive of zero tolerance, then why are you so against technology to catch people in the first place?"

That is kind of what you are missing here... Our legal system is set up on the old "innocent until proven guilty", which is a great thing. The problem is our law enforcement arm treat everyone like a criminal until proven innocent. How about you get your own personal monitor online with the police if you want it and leave everyone else out of it?


By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 4:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why he doesn't get that. But then again, when has Mint EVER passed on an opportunity to give the Government more power, funding, or technology?

You know what, I take it back. I apologize to all the Liberals I offended by putting Mint in your camp.

He's a fascist.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 4:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First of all, AC circulates air too slowly to render the system useless.


I love how you have intimate knowledge of the detection parameters of this device and it's inner most workings.

There's is no possible way you can state that blasting air on your face from a maxed out AC car fan won't effect the readings of this. You are pulling that out of your ass!

And yes, you can roll down the windows too! Duh!! What do you think we've been saying? It's easily defeated!!!

quote:
You have less than a 1% chance of being caught driving drunk.


And this laser *might* raise that to 2% or even 4%.

*golfclap*


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 7:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's is no possible way you can state that blasting air on your face from a maxed out AC car fan won't effect the readings of this. You are pulling that out of your ass!
It's not out of my ass. There are studies on air circulation in a car under various conditions (window open, AC on, etc):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0...
It still takes 20+ minutes to exchange air in a cabin with AC on. I'd be surprised if even 10% of people drive with their windows down.

This tech isn't bulletproof, but it doesn't have to be. It's purpose is to make traditional enforcement less wasteful.
quote:
And this laser *might* raise that to 2% or even 4%.

*golfclap*
WTF? You admit this and are still against it? Quadrupling the effectiveness of catching people that kill 10,000 Americans per year is not a technology worthwhile to you?


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 7:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
Dude wtf? This laser doesn't measure the total air volume in your cabin! Why do you assume you need to exchange ALL the air in your car to defeat this thing?

Again, you have ZERO idea how this laser works in the wild. You're just making sh*t up.

I don't need a link showing how car HVAC systems work you idiot. I need a link from you PROVING that rapid air disturbance around the subjects face doesn't effect the accuracy of this device.

Until you can produce that, go piss up a rope.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Monkey's Uncle on 6/11/2014 8:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
Some other big, glaring deficiencies of this system.

1. speed: can this system measure BAC on a car that is moving or does it have to be to be at a dead stop? I would be that it doesn't register on a car driving thru at the speed limit.

2. Do you see what is providing the readout? An oscilloscope! OMG WTF, Holy 1970 Batman! There is no way on earth an oscilloscope is going to identify a particular car as having a drunk driver.

3. Lasers. Yeah. I am not a fan of police using them for reading speed - even those are class 1 lasers. i did a little searching and even toy & laser pointers are seen to cause semi and permanent eye damage.

http://www.laserpointersafety.com/news/news/nonavi...

While that is not a toy, a laser with enough power to do this on-the-fly sobriety test would have to be somewhere near that power to provide accurate results. A power level that is far too high for public use.


By Monkey's Uncle on 6/11/2014 8:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
edit -- looked at the article it says a 2mw laser is used.

While not a particularly dangerous level, not sure it is a particularly accurate level either.


By Mint on 6/12/2014 12:06:26 AM , Rating: 2
LOL big glaring deficiencies? You mean big dumbass assumptions.

1. Yes, it can. There's 2m+ of window to peer through on most cars, so the laser has 60ms+ to get a reading. It uses a 3.6kHz chopper (whose frequency can be increased), so that's 200+ cycles to get a reading.

2. Oscilloscopes are a very fundamental measurement tool in any research with a time-varying electronic signal. This is what a modern one looks like:
http://www.home.agilent.com/en/pc-2094872/infiniiu...
You're looking at a diagram of their apparatus to test the technology, not a schematic of a final product.

3. What's your scientific basis for assuming a high power laser is needed? Oh, that's right, you have none. So STFU.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Mint on 6/11/2014 10:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do you assume you need to exchange ALL the air in your car to defeat this thing?
Where did I assume that? I gave you a fact, but obviously I was mistaken that you could put two and two together.

Suppose you have eagle eyes while drunk and see this detector 1000 ft away while traveling 60mph, and turn on the AC. In 12 seconds, you replace 1/100th of the air in your cabin. How can you possibly think that'll stop you from getting flagged?

Let me put it in terms you can understand. Ever had someone let out a massive fart inside your car? Does cranking the AC flush it all out in even 30 seconds?


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 12:12:18 AM , Rating: 2
You. Are. Retarded.

You don't have to REMOVE all the air. You only need to continuously circulate the air around the cabin, which will lower the concentration of alcohol-tainted breath around your person and distribute it more evenly within the cabin as to avoid detection.

I don't know how much more simpler this can be explained. You don't have to replace the air you simplistic baboon, just keep it moving!!

Haven't you ever maxed the fan in your car? It creates massive torrents of air. Think it about it, goddamn man.

I don't know what's dumber, this laser idea or you.


By Mint on 6/13/2014 1:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
HAHAHA talk about pot calling the kettle black. You just proved that you don't have the slightest understanding of how this works.

This research already assumes your breath is circulated in the cabin. It doesn't matter if that alcohol is concentrated in one part of the laser beam or spread out across it. It still absorbs the same amount of light.

Go back to high school before you comment on any science articles again. You are completely clueless.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By tng on 6/11/2014 5:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know about where RC lives, but everywhere I have lived they advertise DUI Checkpoints ahead of time and they are easy to avoid because of that.

This was also an open invitation to criminals that there were going to be fewer cops on patrol and break ins when up every time there was a checkpoint. Go figure.

In my experience checkpoints are not really effective, trained patrol officers that are out on the road are far more useful.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 7:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't know about where RC lives, but everywhere I have lived they advertise DUI Checkpoints ahead of time and they are easy to avoid because of that.


Where I live there are GIANT LED signs over the interstate blasting DUI Checkpoint in X Miles!!!!!!

Rendering this laser pretty much useless unless you're a freaking idiot.


RE: Another easy way to beat this system.
By Monkey's Uncle on 6/11/2014 7:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you, but when I've had a few i want as much fresh air I can get. In short I drive, err, RIDE , with my windows open to get the airflow happening. I hate stale air when I've had a snootful.


By BZDTemp on 6/12/2014 3:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Frankly the whole research stream was a huge waste of somebody's money.


Frankly - you're not seeing the big picture.

As for rolling down the windows that would be one way to mess with the system, just as one can imagine putting the AC on max or having a bunch of passengers may mess with the results. However all of these tricks and more will all require the drunken driver to do something extra, besides in many situations someone driving with the windows down is gonna look suspicious on it's own :-)

The system isn't without flaws, but as a tool to pick out possible drunk drivers it can be a huge help. Of course it won't work as a evidence in court, but if the system can help pinpoint some of those which needs to be check by the traditional tools then it will help catch drunk drivers.


Drunk Driving Laws are stupid.
By grooves21 on 6/17/2014 2:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
There is ZERO need for drunk driving laws. There should be poor driving laws PERIOD.

It is completely retarded to me that a person that has a beer with Dinner faces jail time, huge fines, loss of driving privelege, etc. But someone who has a history of causing accidents, speeding, running red lights, etc. Just keeps getting a series of minor fines.

You should be judged based on your driving actions and nothing else. If you had a beer and maintain your lane, follow the speed limits, and all other rules of the road you should be left alone. If you are texting and driving and can't maintain your lane and driving too slow or cause an accident, you should face jail time, huge fines, and a loss of driving privelege.

The system doesn't care about safety. It cares about making money giving someone an easy test with hard evidence that is tough to refute is a lot easier than monitoring driving and punishing the real poor drivers on the road.




Protect And Serve
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/14, Rating: -1
RE: Protect And Serve
By Schrag4 on 6/11/2014 12:37:10 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with your sentiment, but I'm not sure what your police-involved killings stat has to do with the proposal to use this technology to identify drunk drivers. Are police shooting drunk drivers as they pull them over?

Don't get me wrong, I have serious concerns about this and other related systems, specifically how they rely on the restraint of those using them to prevent abuse.


RE: Protect And Serve
By bigboxes on 6/11/2014 12:49:51 PM , Rating: 5
We just don't need a police state. Period. We're getting dangerously close to getting a chip implant and then they'll know everything you are doing. There will be no "opt-out". At some point you have to say enough is enough. You can't just cry, "but you're not for drunk driving, are you?"


RE: Protect And Serve
By Jeffk464 on 6/11/2014 3:06:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We're getting dangerously close to getting a chip implant and then they'll know everything you are doing


The problem is there could be a lot of good uses for an implanted RFID chip. Think about your phone, house, car, firearm, atm can all be programmed to your RFID code. Its just to bad that like cell phones and internet usage the government would end up abusing it.


RE: Protect And Serve
By Adonlude on 6/11/2014 4:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
Cue all the "why should you care if you have nothing to hide" crazies.


RE: Protect And Serve
By tayb on 6/11/2014 3:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand this sentiment. How is this different from a police officer shooting a laser at your car to detect your speed? I have an objection to unmanned systems such as red light cameras but this is not an unmanned system. It would require a police officer to actually use the system.

This type of response is basically the continuum fallacy trotted out quite often here on this site.


RE: Protect And Serve
By NellyFromMA on 6/11/2014 3:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, I'm a huge privacy advocate. That said, I'm also very adamant about the misuse of our police force.

I don't believe their time should be spent pulling people over for minor traffic violations when they could be busting hard drug dealers or violent criminals instead.

So, I'd be a lot happier if say there was an unmanned speed trap. I think it should be coupled with a realistic re-assessment of our highways speed limits (and by that, I mean we should allow for greater speed at least in the fast lane and perhaps with a special registration/license to supplement lost revenue).

Just curious, why are you against unmanned red light cameras? False positives?


RE: Protect And Serve
By tng on 6/11/2014 5:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just curious, why are you against unmanned red light cameras? False positives?
Normally there are not allot of false positives, but it has been proven that municipalities game the system to garner more revenue. Shortening the Yellow time is the most popular of these tricks.

Phoenix had to refund thousands of red light tickets when it was proven that yellow light times at lights with cameras were shorter than yellows at lights without cameras.


RE: Protect And Serve
By tayb on 6/11/2014 6:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
A drunk driver behind the wheel of a 2 ton SUV is not a minor traffic incident. Thousands of innocent people are killed annually by drunk drivers. Drug dealers are docile in comparison to the dangers posed by drunk drivers.

My opposition to unmanned policing is because I lose my constitutional right to face my accuser.


RE: Protect And Serve
By NellyFromMA on 6/11/2014 3:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
As it turns out, you already carry that chip around with you all day. It's called a smart phone and is equipped with quite a plethora of sensors to track your location, mood, speed, physical orientation, voice, contacts. the list goes on...

If you're outraged about the thought about being embedded with monitoring chip, you may want to start being more alarmed about your privacy regarding today's conditions first... they aren't very different.


RE: Protect And Serve
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 3:32:27 PM , Rating: 1
Hyperbole much?


RE: Protect And Serve
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 12:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Just illustrating how we live in a country where we're "policed" by paramilitary troops. And if they want to shoot lasers into your car for whatever reason, we should be against it. We should not trust it. And we should not accept it.

Detecting drunk drivers isn't our problem anyway. Our problem is inadequate PROSECUTION of drunk drivers.


RE: Protect And Serve
By tayb on 6/11/2014 1:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
Just about every credible study on crime deterrence has indicated that increased punishment does not deter crime in any statistically meaningful way. It unequivocally does not work.

We aren't talking about unmanned laser systems on the side of the road flagging your car. How is this any different from the lasers used to detect your speed?

This is all hypothetical anyway because the system has serious fundamental flaws that cannot be overcome.


RE: Protect And Serve
By Schrag4 on 6/11/2014 1:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is all hypothetical anyway because the system has serious fundamental flaws that cannot be overcome.


This is what I actually came here to post in the first place before I got distracted...


RE: Protect And Serve
By FITCamaro on 6/11/2014 1:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'd hardly call the majority of our police "paramilitary troops".


RE: Protect And Serve
By retrospooty on 6/11/2014 2:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Agrred "Fascist bully boys" is a better fit. ;)


RE: Protect And Serve
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 2:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd hardly call the majority of our police "paramilitary troops".


http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21599359-no-...

You would honestly be surprised at how much military-grade firepower is available at your local 'friendly' police station...


RE: Protect And Serve
By Mint on 6/11/2014 2:28:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Detecting drunk drivers isn't our problem anyway. Our problem is inadequate PROSECUTION of drunk drivers.
You have any proof of that? Only about one quarter of drunk driving incidents are from those with a past DWI:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811991-DW...
Fatalities are even less.

Sure, tougher prosecution would definitely be useful to keep them off the road, but 3/4 of the problem or more is from first-time offenders.

If we can't deter them, then detecting drunk drivers very much is the problem.


RE: Protect And Serve
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/14, Rating: 0
RE: Protect And Serve
By NellyFromMA on 6/11/2014 3:30:05 PM , Rating: 3
Just imagine if the world had zero-tolerance with you. You're a million strikes in already I think...

Zero-tolerance is a fckn stupid policy in almost all situations. It allows for no exception, and in life, virtually all generalizations are false.

People DO make mistakes. Sometimes heinous ones. I don't think drunk driving one time is heinous when you consider just how low a level your BAC needs to be to qualify. Surely its an awful thing to do, but mete out a PROPORTIONATE punishment for the offense.

Let's reserve zero-tolerance for only the WORST situations, perhaps?


RE: Protect And Serve
By Mint on 6/11/2014 4:03:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's like saying nobody speeds anymore because police employ lasers and radars and cameras and etc etc on the highways...
Did I say that nobody is going to drink and drive with this technology? Where did I say that? Oh, I didn't? Then what's the purpose of this statement?

Why is everything so black and white with you? If we reduced drunk driving deaths from 10,000 per year to 5,000 per year, is that useless to you because I can't say "nobody drinks and drives anymore"?

Of course radar enforcement helps catch speeders, and laser enforcement will help catch drunk drivers.
quote:
All I know is every time I hear about some drunk driver killing someone, it's later revealed he/she had a history with previous instances of drunk driving violations.
Nobody cares about your worthless selective memory.

The stats have been proven time and time again: Only 1/4 of deaths involving drunk driving is from repeat DUIs.

Zero tolerance is great, but it only works if you catch people driving drunk before they get in a fatal accident. According to at least one study, that only happens 12% of the time, and the rest have no DUI on their record.


RE: Protect And Serve
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 4:11:37 PM , Rating: 1
lol @ "only" a quarter....

I want to get proven drunks off the road. You're hoping for some unproven and highly flawed laser to save the day.

We need to stop treating drunk driving as this "well you know, people make mistakes, he thought he was fine to drive. Give him a chance bla bla", and treat it for what it is!

Just...wow.

quote:
and laser enforcement will help catch drunk drivers.


How much do you want to bet? You're talking about a THEORY as if it's fact....


RE: Protect And Serve
By Mint on 6/12/2014 1:02:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We need to stop treating drunk driving as this "well you know, people make mistakes, he thought he was fine to drive. Give him a chance bla bla", and treat it for what it is!
I have no problem with that. I don't know why you think I do, or why you keep changing talking about this, because that's about punishment after someone is caught.

It's a completely orthogonal issue to catching perpetrators in the first place.

If we follow all these fallacies about freedoms being infringed, then police become powerless to catch anyone driving drunk until after there's an accident or violation of a traffic law. Even then you'll hear freedom & privacy advocates say that a breathalyzer is an invasion of personal space and fault should be determined without it.

Is that what you want? Or do you agree that we should give police some power to catch drunk drivers?
quote:
How much do you want to bet? You're talking about a THEORY as if it's fact....
Okay, I'll give you that.

But it's promising enough to advance it to the point of field trials (e.g. get data at a current random checkpoint, and afterwards see if how well it matches what the breathalyzers found).


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki