Saturday, February 18, 2006

Speaking of which...




I'm amazed these aren't more popular. People really should have one of these in their cars. If nothing else, it would be a huge relief knowing that you're driving on a .04 BAC rather than, "Well, I think I'm probably OK." Especially if you happen to get lit up by law enforcement. You could make much more informed decisions about when it was and wasn't OK to drive.

I like how the manufacturer suggests buying them in bulk and selling them if you're a bar operator. Nice. Gotta love capitalism.

Edit: OK, so the electrical engineer claims these things don't work. Considering I've never been able to understand any type of math past Trig, I'll defer to his judgment.

7 comments:

Paul said...

Problem is they kinda suck...

I've got one that worked ok for about a day, now it reads all over the place (even after trying to re-cal the thing)

Brad Raple said...

That's not a good sign. I think if you could find a quality one, that would be a good investment, even for a couple hundred bones.

TheMemoWriter said...

Better yet, I think I'll invest in a limo and a driver. Seems like that would help me avoid all kinds of jams, and would probably get me into the sorts of jams I want to be in...

Now I just need to round up some cash. Party Poker?

Paul said...

Then again, you also have the problem with breathalyzers being inherently inaccurate. (Since they rely on the body to release a certain quantity of alcohol into the breath that varies from person to person)

But of course none of this really matters to MADD

Paul said...

I didn't say they don't work, I just said they hard to trust (they are very easy to damage and make wildly innaccurate)

It's just really noticable when you try to commoditize what is shaky science at best. (before i get a flamewar, i'm reffering to the fact the each person processes alcohol differently and the BAC to breathilyzer correlation varies between people)

Brad Raple said...

Yeah, but all the statute requires is that your BAC AS MEASURED BY BREATH be measured at or greater than .08. Even though there might be an imperfect correlation between the actual BAC and the breath measurement due to metabolic differences, identical breath concentrations from person to person should register the same, even if one actually has a higher amount in their blood.

That could be a problem with the fairness of breath measurement in general, as opposed to why two people with identical breath concentrations would register differently on a breath-based test.

Basically it boils down to the fact that doing bloodwork on everyone suspected of DUI would be unworkable, and they need something easier to use.

Paul said...

I totally agree about the practicality and statutes being what they are, my point was more towards the degree that approach taken in dui cases is one that doesn't follow science as closely as it should.

case in point: The use of 'alcohol related' for their statistics, regardless of the cause of a crash, if there is any alcohol involved (even within legal limits) it's alcohol related. You could be drunk on a sidewalk, have a sober driver hit you from behind, and have it chalked up to being caused by alcohol.

I personally have a problem with the system because it oversimplifies the problem and makes it harder to study and find out how to truly make things better.

Hell, up until the last year, you could be charged with a DUI with _any_ trace of alcohol, at the discretion of the police. And everyone knows how life can be with a cop and a bad attitude.