What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
56 Comments
- clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16*When a suspect's arm is placed in the cradle, the infrared light penetrates to a depth of 5 millimetres and the reflected light is picked up by a bunch of IR sensors.*
If the light swerves on the way back to the IR sensors, the suspect is considered drunk! - ajcannon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17how about just don't drive while you are drunk. Instead of trying to get out of the problem you should just avoid it all together.
- SoccerBoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15"Actually doesn't the law state in the case of DUI testing that refusal to test is equivalent to an admission of guilt?"
I was under the impression that was the case.
But, more importantly, don't be a dumb-ass and drive drunk. Have a DD, take a cab, spend the night, walk, anything. - thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9refusing to take the test is not an admission of guilt, but it generally carries a lot of the same consequences. it varies from state to state though. in florida you lose your license for 6 months or something.
but REALISTICALLY, if you are driving drunk you will eventually (hopefully) just drive your car off the road and kill yourself. - tweakt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Unfortunately, they tend to kill other people in the process, so we cannot just let Darwin solve this problem.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Need one of these for bars to find drunk chicks
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Jesus Christ! When did drinking and driving become akin to molesting a child then cutting them into pieces? Yeah, it's bad and irresponsible, but frankly, I know plenty of people that don't deserve licenses even sober!
If you ask me, the driving tests are way too easy and cheap. It should be like Germany, where it costs like $500 to get your license, and it should be like the SATs or ACTs in terms of testing.
Also, invader, you forgot to mention that you should not take any sort of tests UNTIL you are under arrest. Once you are under arrest, you should do whatever the officer asks you, otherwise you'll be hit with resisting arrest, and it won't look good on your case. But you certainly don't have to talk. That is an explicit right. - clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actually doesn't the law state in the case of DUI testing that refusal to test is equivalent to an admission of guilt?
I know it seems to violate the 5th amendment (in the US) but that's the way those things are interpreted in real-world courts. - nortonbl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Defense Attorney: Can we examine the schematics and source code for this device? We want to be sure it is actually measuring what you claim.
Police: Our terms of service prohibit that.
Judge: Case Dismissed!
It's happened with Breathalyzers...
-Bri - nighthwk1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Drink Driving" is a common term in the UK and Australia.
- BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Welcome to the internet. Otherwise known in longhand as the International Network.
- dasc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Clevershark, it depends on the state. Some consider it admission of guilt some don't.
Also this headline is misleading. It doesn't single out drunk drivers. It confirms an officers suspicions after the driver has been detained. The headline makes it sound like it functions similar to a radar speed trap. The company that figures out that kind of technology, drunk testing from a distance through glass, will make a fortune. - Robart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This device along with the new crack down on public intoxication could spell doom for the digg podcast.
(Hmmm..."podcast" not in spell check dictionary) - yodaj007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Take a look here. http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2144253/florida-court-friday-hear
It's not that there's anything wrong with the breathalyzer. Well, reading that should explain it. - diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Refusing a test implies guilt, but is not an admission of guilt. They still need to prove you were drunk. All tests should be avoided, including field sobriety tests. I doubt they need BAL to convince a jury when you are unable to stand and count to ten.
That will not save your license, though. Most states do consider taking a test as part of the privilege of having a license. You refuse, you lose (your license).
Why not just drive sober? Take a cab? Use a DD? Get hammered at home? Driving drunk is stupid. - KidVicious, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"if you are driving drunk you will eventually (hopefully) just drive your car off the road and kill yourself."
Amen. Someone who drives drunk does not deserve a liscense. Or a life.
And to the guy who said the "cops suck ass," it's the cops who prevent us from spiraling into anarchy, and the time you are robbed at gunpoint or otherwise transgressed upon, I hope a cop isn't around so you can see how important they really are. - DougPenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The beam is constantly moved over the skin to avoid burning it." - oh great, when the motor goes out, the beam will start burning a hole into your arm, then when you try to pull arm out, cop will beat your ass with his nightstick thinking you're trying to get away.
- natedogg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree...very misleading headline.
Why would we need another BAC type test that just "calculates" the BAC level...not the actual BAC measurement? Is breathalyzer that in-accurate that we need a new method? - danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What they never tell you haters, however, is just how low the legal limit has become. At .08 you are entirely sober enough to drive a car, and this is the legal limit in I think every state now. MADD SADD and GLADD or whatever have been able to lobby to get the limit lowered. The courts even understand that this isn't really an offense because a first time DUI at .08-.1 is equivalent to a slap on the wrist in court. You get a 300 dollar fine, some classes, and don't lose your license at all. It's basically the way they take a little bit more of your money away from you. and pretend that it's for your own good. I'd like to know where all you people that say "don't drive after you have drank anything" live, because if it's in the suburbs, good luck trying to find a way around that. Bars are kind of entrapment because nobody you go to the bar with ever wants to be a designated driver and cabs are expensive as all hell. Given that in most places bars are the only social outlet that doesn't involve shopping, you have yourself an equation to be an unlicensed driver, an unsociable person, or both.
- n8han, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great! A new high tech gizmo to help the police guesstimate BAC, itself a measurement only roughly correlated to impairment. Lock 'em up!
- Bullsnot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm not drunk officer, I just spilled beer on that arm.
- BigBunion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In North Carolina, if you refuse the breathalyzer you lose your license for a year, but you do not get a DUI on your record. My lawyer suggested that if I ever am pulled over and I think I might possibly be over the limit, to refuse the test and ask for your lawyer. The lawyer can then take his sweet time getting down to the station house, allowing time for your BAC to fall. Once he gets there, you can then decide whether to submit to a test or not.
I'm definitely NOT condoning drunk driving. I do know, however, know that your blood-alcohol level is not necessarily indicative of your impairment. Two beers with dinner can put you over the legal BAC level. Taking cold medicine impairs me more than that.
The fact remains that the majority of traffic fatalities involve alcohol. Be safe out there, but be realistic. - hobophobe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So long as there are cars, there will be drunk driving. It's that simple. And if your only fears on the road are drunks, you need to wake up. Cars are inherently dangerous and inefficient.
If we had sane transportation systems in place, we would not have to worry about drunk, stoned, sleepy, talking-on-cellphone, wrestling-with-eight-kids, senile, neophyte, or other such drivers. We would not have to worry about people that want to do 220MPH during rush hour.
As long as there are cars, there will be drunk drivers, and a myriad of other pathetic problems that the car+road system creates. The choice is to keep using a stupid system, or switch to a sane system. - jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're thinking of Ultraviolet light, Infra-Red (opposite end of the spectrum) is for the most part harmless and is actually being used to help cure cancer.
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A second part of the bill would shield manufacturers of breath-test machines from having to hand over to DUI defense attorneys software and other technology about the devices.
- Netmindstorm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just be sure to apply liberally before drinking: http://int.clarins.com/main.cfm?prodID=29&ns_or=%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%77%77%77%2E%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%2E%63%6F%6D%2F%73%65%61%72%63%68%3F%68%6C%3D%65%6E%26%6C%72%3D%26%71%3D%49%52%2B%73%75%6E%2B%70%72%6F%74%65%63%74%69%6F%6E%26%62%74%6E%47%3D%53%65%61%72%63%68
Although how good the actual IR protection is remains to be seen as most lotions are targeted at the UVs - altidude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh yeah, 90 days in Drunk Driver school (more money) and they make you pay more $ for the privilege of work release.
- thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lol wow this is high-larious. it probably WILL be passed, and thrown out later.
- buckykatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, just read this yesterday: Blowing off DUI test may lead to jail
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14264926.htm - invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if you're not under arrest? no, you have the right to remain silent at ALL TIMES. i'm sure you've heard the miranda rights being read to someone as they're getting arrested. it starts like this: "you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can, and will, be used against you in the court of law."
if you're not under arrest, you can actually say more.. even with a mediocre laywer, you can get out of a DUI even if you had blurted out to the cop "i'm so mother F-in drunk right now" before you got arrested. before you are under arrest, the cop can take note of anything you say, but those notes cannot be used in court. it's when you're under arrest that you should STFU and plead the fifth - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Widmark equation estimates the blood ethanol concentration, C:
C=A/(WxR)
where A is the mass of ethanol ingested in g, W is the body weight in g, and R is the Widmark distribution ratio for ethanol (0.55 mL blood/g body weight for an adult female, 0.68 for an adult male). Other factors needed include the density of ethanol (0.8 g/mL), the concentration of ethanol in the drink.
Anything that does not include these factors can be thrown out in court.
The Breathalyzer uses Henry's Law, highly accurate, but still can be defeated for what someone said before: body weight and tolerance. - FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This will be great, until somebody makes a lotion that cheats the test.
- altidude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The courts even understand that this isn't really an offense because a first time DUI at .08-.1 is equivalent to a slap on the wrist in court"
In my county in California, 1st time .08 or higher is about $2800 in fines/fees, 30 day suspended license then an additional 4 month suspension or 5 month restricted license, probably 36 months probation and 2-5 days in jail or work release. Hardly a slap on the wrist. In Calif. if you refuse breath or blood test that's an automatic 1 year suspension. It's not the same in all counties or even all states, but they don't fool around in California. Don't ask me how I know. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Portuguese / Brazilian : http://www.htk.com.br/noticia.php?noticia=444
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.htk.com.br/ - sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Radar detectors too, "when was it last calibrated," case dismissed. "Can I see the readout?" Case dismissed.
My favourite though was the cop that put the wrong date onthe ticket so it suspended my license two days after i was pulled over, lol (said i was doing 50 in a 35 when i was doing 40). Was thrown out after 2 months of trying to get an appeal; probalby should've counter-sued for the inconvenience his mistake caused me. - tavisjohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too bad you do not post better....
- danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"hide behind your amendments" my ass
That's why we have amendments, they are freedoms. You shouldn't have to incriminate yourself regardless of circumstance.
And as far as cops go, you obviously haven't had enough experience to tell just how much they do suck. I had one pull me over just for driving at 3am and turning around in a hospital, I have a brother who got a "disorderly conduct" ticket for getting jumped and reporting it. Have you had any real world experience with police at all? - tavisjohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Take a look here. http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2144253/florida-court-friday-hear
It's not that there's anything wrong with the breathalyzer. Well, reading that should explain it."
That will go for any techonology based testing device. If the "Source Code" s not made available, then the same arguement can be made for ANY on the spot device! - Netmindstorm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1New way to detox? http://www.saunas-n-sauna-kits.com/infrared_saunas.htm
"Detoxify Your Body Using Safe, Beneficial Heat" - All4not, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's Drunk Driving in the US.
- xxmaverick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what's wrong with the breathalyzer?
looks like another way to blow more taxpayer's money to me - roguepirate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The problems with blood alcohol test is that the results of alcohol depend on different people. A "light-weight" could get plastered off 1 beer and bearly be able to walk but their blood-alcohol levers are way under the legal limit. A "heavy-weight" could start taking shots of hard liquor like nobody's buisness and not even feel a buzz but their blood-alcohol would be well above the legal limit.
- dynam0k2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sir, you're intoxicated.... your punishment is melanoma.
- Leebert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Why not just drive sober? Take a cab? Use a DD? Get hammered at home? Driving drunk is stupid.
What if I'm not drunk? I don't drink. Ever. But I've learned the hard way that the cops are out there to arrest people regardless of their guilt or innocence. So why on earth should I have to cooperate with them to help them achieve that goal? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Cool! Another test I can refuse so I can get off in court.
Never submit to any test! - forger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just wait until they find that infrared might cause cancer, just like what happened with x-rays!
for the love of humanity, stop drinking and they'll stop inventing these hi-tech junk (personal opinion). - vbrtrmn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Actually doesn't the law state in the case of DUI testing that refusal to test is equivalent to an admission of guilt?"
Which country are you living in? These laws are written at the state level, not at the Federal level. If you are not "under arrest" you have the RIGHT to remain silent, the conditions of this right may vary from state to state. If you get a DUI, get a lawyer. - schwit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No US court will uphold this.
What's next, refusing to give DNA is a criminal offense? Did the 5th amendment just disappear? - All4not, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Drink drivers could find themselves subjected to roadside blood tests in future."
Was the author testing this on himself by getting drunk? Drink Drivers?
Still an Interesting Article - smith, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Stop hiding behind your amendments. If you chose to drink and drive then cops should have be able to test you BAC, and if you refuse they should take you off camera and beat you sober.
And to the people saying that cops suck, I hope that a cop never helps you when you're in need. You ungrateful jerks. -
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is