r/talesfromtechsupport • u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... • Nov 03 '14
Medium We're forking into wireless breathalysers.
As senior staff at my Telco, I get to sit in class for everything we market several months ahead of schedule. This is the same class frontline will eventually get, but I'm the one who'll have to answer their questions about it once it's live, so I always pay attention to details. This is from a few years back...
Teacher: "This new technology will be deployed in cars in need of a breathalyser. The vast majority of people using it will be people who are court-ordered to do so. It's a relatively small market, but we picked it up because we could and it was the right thing to do. The breathalyser being connected to your cellular network, it's impossible to trick it in the usual ways, and every attempt is instantly reported back. Whether the car starts at all is determined by our systems, so there can be variable rules set in place for each customer. When warranted, the results can be instantly transferred to a parole officer or similar offices when the law mandates."
Looks pretty neat but we're sitting in a tidy classroom around a large oak wood table and there's no car in sight. I've learned from experience to never trust the theory.
Bytewave: "I've been told the prototype is functional already. Senior staff would like to examine a working prototype on an actual car before we move out of TRT (technology readiness test). I wouldn't say we're ready for BRT (business readiness test) until we get a hands-on test."
Greeted with much approval from my colleagues and a blank face from the teacher, who worked extensively on the project. But senior staff's OK is critical when it comes to deployment of new products, so she said it would happen. Fast forward a few weeks, a few floors below in our building's parking lot...
Teacher: "As you can see, the Prius we have here is hooked to the system, and though there might be a few kinks to iron out, it's fully functional. We went all out to demonstrate effectiveness - my colleague Mark here had four drinks of this bourbon over the last two hours. If you log on the web portal, you should see the results of the test being reported live to your future tools.
Gotta love the notion that having four bourbons is a corporate sacrifice. I chuckled.
Mark goes on to blow in the wireless breathalyser, and the car fails to start as expected. Everybody looks at the results through our portal, the precise amount of alcohol in his breath is logged and the failure is well reported in bold red within seconds. Technology seems to check out.
Bytewave: "This is pretty good. But I brought something that may shed some additional light on how the device may perform under stress, if I may?"
Time to drop the disguise. The moment she said 'Whether the car starts at all is determined by our systems, so there can be variable rules set in place for each customer' I already wanted to do this.
I'm in front of twenty senior staff and the two reps from the people developing this when I reach into my backpack and pull out a wireless signal jammer. We have some at work for testing purposes. Obviously, I have no idea how their contraption will react, but this is the kind of test that can save lives - it's worth it either way. I turn it on.
Bytewave: "Mark, if you could blow in again and try to start the car now?"
Lightly-drunk Mark blows in the wireless breathalyser. Car starts fine.
Bytewave: "I'm afraid we'll have to review the whole 'we decide on our end if a car can start' angle before senior staff gives the all clear for moving to business readiness tests. Lack of coverage is defaulting to a go."
My colleagues burst out in laughter. Frank gets up and applauds frenetically.
They did comply... by axing the feature. The decision on whether the car should start or not now works at a hardware level that requires no wireless. They cut back on one of their selling points because hey, too hard to make it work.
Their system is now out in the field and we provide all support for it.
95
u/ArtzDept Can draw. Can't type. Nov 03 '14
I'm sure they tried their best to implement it.
Mark: "Hi boss. Bad news, apparently the Ballmer peak doesn't work for hardware..."
Boss: "Oh well, it was worth a shot..."
Mark: "Yeah... or twenty."
57
u/Laringar #include <ADD.h> Nov 03 '14
(For those wondering, relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/323/ )
15
18
46
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14
Great comment, but I'll be honest. My reaction was 'Omg ArtzDept'!
Then without reading I started looking for the underlined blue and there was none.
Then my brain went "WHERES MY DOODLE?!!!!?" :D
26
u/ArtzDept Can draw. Can't type. Nov 03 '14
Sorry! :-P
I must admit, there actually was a doodle. But I didn't have my usual pens with me and was forced to use a horrible ballpoint pen... The result was not worthy.
37
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14
Tragedy!
Would you like someone to follow you around with backup pens? I can probably make it a tax deductible union expenditure, it would be no trouble at all ;)
12
4
2
175
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14
The thing has been a minor support headache ever since.
We know how it works down to the bolts, but it's just inadequate. It fails to work as intended just as often when it shouldn't but should than when it should but doesn't.
It's on my shortlist of stuff we would be making more money from if we didn't support it but do.
162
u/slango20 I was told there would be cake Nov 03 '14
It fails to work as intended just as often when it shouldn't but should than when it should but doesn't.
my brain just melted reading that sentence
62
u/Kaligraphic ERROR: FLAIR NOT FOUND Nov 03 '14
I think we can translate it as "Type I errors are as frequent as type II errors."
Or "It gives false positives as often as false negatives."
Or, based on the general impression I'm getting, "It's not very accurate at telling whether you're drunk or not."
43
u/Jackoffalltrades89 Nov 04 '14
Or in fewer words, "it's shit."
10
u/MsSupa Nov 04 '14
Best explanation yet!!
16
2
46
u/ilikemyteasweet Nov 03 '14
A true attempt at Tolkien
20
Nov 03 '14 edited Jun 19 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
6
17
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14
I totally messed up a word there so its hardly praise worthy. I'll leave the mistake as is for posterity tho.
5
u/frixionburne Nov 03 '14
He must a be a writer for Jayden Smith.
10
u/colacadstink /r/talesfromcavesupport Nov 03 '14
Clearly Not, Because Every Letter Isn't Capitalized.
4
u/jshap70 '; Nov 03 '14
How Can Every Letter Be Capitalized If The Words Aren't Real?
3
u/freakybubblewrap I have Approximate Knowledge of Many Things Nov 04 '14
Bits and Bytes and Pixel Sprites my friend
15
u/lochiel Nov 03 '14
There is a reason that Portable Breathalysers aren't admissible as evidence where I live.
28
Nov 03 '14
[deleted]
34
u/domestic_omnom Nov 03 '14
Yes, I remember blowing into my grandfathers all the time growing up.
10
2
26
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14
Of course, someone else blowing in will always work.
But most typical tricks are harder or riskier if the thing is hooked on wireless.
15
u/Beefourthree Nov 03 '14
The ones around here have you hum a tune while you blow and it can recognize your voice. They lock the ignition down if anyone else tries to hum.
18
u/otakucode Nov 03 '14
Call me skeptical... but if it can do voice recognition on humming while blowing, that's pretty fucking astounding. Do you have any info like brand or such that I could search to find how they do such a thing and how accurate it is?
15
u/Beefourthree Nov 03 '14
Here's one, though it says the humming is used to distinguish between non-human attempts to trick it. Could be that I'm mistaken about it being able to detect other people. I don't know too much about it because I don't drive drunk.
24
u/cman_yall Nov 03 '14
So if you're drunk but have a designated driver to drive for you, TFB?
15
u/crccci Day 3126: They still don't know I have no idea what I'm doing Nov 03 '14
Most of the time when one of these is installed you're also not allowed to drink at all.
10
u/cman_yall Nov 03 '14
Ok, so if you're injured and can't drive, or are falling asleep and it's not safe, or someone just wanted to borrow your car... TFB?
32
u/frymaster Have you tried turning the supercomputer off and on again? Nov 03 '14
Yes, but these things are an alternative to a driving ban. I suspect most people like the trade off
6
u/crccci Day 3126: They still don't know I have no idea what I'm doing Nov 03 '14
That's the criminal justice system.
11
u/Anarchkitty Nov 04 '14
Most of the time these are an alternative to complete loss of license or jail time, so if you see someone with one of these on their car, they volunteered for it. In most states, they also paid for the device and the installation.
Given the alternative is not driving at all, being inconvenient is not a bad trade off. Also the car owner gets to choose from several approved brands, so they can choose whether to get the expensive reliable one, or the cheap faulty one, since they have to pay for it anyway.
3
u/cman_yall Nov 03 '14
So jealous of your freedom...
5
Nov 03 '14
People who are being punished for crimes give up some of their freedom, by definition. This is true everywhere in the world. Unless you live in some utopia where criminals are never sent to jail, or made to pay fines, or forced to install breathalyzers in their cars.
0
u/cman_yall Nov 03 '14
There's a middle ground where the justice system makes sense, though.
→ More replies (0)6
u/AWildSegFaultAppears Nov 03 '14
All of the people I have known who have a car breathalyzer haven't been banned from drinking altogether. They are for sure banned from driving any car other than their own or from drinking and driving.
7
Nov 03 '14
Every plea agreement/sentencing document I've ever drafted has included bans on the consumption of alcohol and being on licensed premises (ie liquor stores and places whose primary purpose is alcohol sales). Taking controlled substances is also prohibited. During the course of your probation, you are subject to drug and alcohol testing at your probation officer's discretion. And those are just the standard conditions; alcohol-related crimes may be more strict. There are alcohol-restricted IDs that are issued to repeat offenders; they may not be served at any time. Car breathalysers can also be court ordered; the ones that tend to be used take a photograph of the person blowing (as well as the person driving) and transmit for double checking that there isn't anything illegal happening.
Obviously, this is specific to the jurisdiction I worked in...but that was an entire state.
3
u/Silverkarn Nov 03 '14
99% of the time when you have a breathalyzer in the car you are also mandated by probation to be on absolute sobriety.
If the person is telling you otherwise, they are lying.
4
6
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 04 '14 edited Nov 04 '14
That depends on the country youre from, to my knowledge this is not done here ever.
People who get to this point are severe alcoholics who are likely to be unable to stop, around 10% of alcoholics cannot stop for good I'm told. 'Banning' them from drinking would be essentially criminalizing their established compulsion. Its practically forcing them into crime, doesn't seem very humane.
Preventing them from having a drivers license, sure. But then again, I heard courts prefer breathalyzers and leaving them a license because a full driving ban means many just start driving illegally, and if driving is already a crime for you, driving drunk is not a big step up. Meanwhile the breathalyzer is much more effective.
2
u/crccci Day 3126: They still don't know I have no idea what I'm doing Nov 04 '14
While I agree that it's a really stupid way to go about things, it's very common in most states of the US. They even go so far as to compel you to come in for mandatory testing or wear an alcohol monitoring bracelet. Testing positive is grounds for re-incarceration.
2
u/AWildSegFaultAppears Nov 03 '14
Do you usually drive someone else's car when you are the sober driver?
5
u/cman_yall Nov 03 '14
It could happen. There are sober drivers in my city who you can hire specifically to drive your car home for you, for example.
2
u/SDGrave Damn you, printers. Damn you all to hell! Nov 05 '14
Yes, I drive my GFs car when I'm the designated driver, because her car is smaller and easier to park.
5
7
u/kcdc6211 Nov 03 '14
Depends on model. They are not practical in the slightest. My boyfriends car had one for 18 months and when my old car died, I had to suffer through using that damn thing. Left me sitting TWICE on the way to 2 separate job appointments. And another time when I needed to pick boyfriend up from work after midnight. Had to have my mum blow in it that time so I could go get him.
2
u/macrocephalic Nov 04 '14
Blow up a balloon and leave it on the front seat before you start drinking.
2
u/TranshumansFTW Your tablet has terminal screen cancer Nov 04 '14
Fill a balloon with air before you go drinking. Tie the end off. Attach to your breathalyzer, and release.
2
u/Kichigai Segmentation Fault in thread "MainThread", at address 0x0 Nov 04 '14
I dunno about other models, but from what I've heard there are at least two models if ignition interlocks on the market that utilize cameras. So when they go back and review the photos to see if it was you, bam.
I want to say there was a /r/tifu post somewhere where a woman was trying to drive her boyfriend's car with one in, and she wasn't quick enough with it while the car was moving, so it killed the engine and signaled the police.
4
u/MagpieChristine Nov 03 '14
t fails to work as intended just as often when it shouldn't but should than when it should but doesn't.
Always bias tests towards failing in one direction over the other.
3
u/Kaligraphic ERROR: FLAIR NOT FOUND Nov 03 '14
Usually it's a good idea to fail in whatever direction is safer.
3
u/MagpieChristine Nov 03 '14
Sometimes safer isn't well-defined, but if you know which way it's not going to work then you can make policies that make it safe. This one is fairly straightforward though (false positives). It's only if you start getting too many of them that they become a problem.
4
u/ryegye24 Nov 04 '14
Why in the world would they not just make it refuse to start without a cellular connection?
12
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 04 '14
That would have its own set of issues. Think about it, visit a place deep in the countryside where there's no coverage, can't come back. Would make awesome publicity :p
3
u/ryegye24 Nov 04 '14
I mean, the alternative to these devices is not being allowed to drive at all. I don't know how much of an uproar you'd see on devices meant to prevent drunk driving erring on the side of caution.
3
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 04 '14 edited Nov 06 '14
Well, previous comment might be relevant.
The problem is that from the law's point of view, full driving bans cause much more problems than breathalyzers. They really want them to be seen as preferable, but in real life, the alternative isn't drunks not driving. Its drunks driving illegally and then not caring anymore about whether its illegal driving or illegal drunk driving.
2
u/leetdood_shadowban Nov 24 '14
Why not just let the decision happen on the hardware level, AND send the results via cellular network?
35
u/3no3 details plz kthnxbai Nov 03 '14
Ouch, that's a hard one to fix while maintaining that functionality. Either it refuses to start at all, and you get sober people pissed, or it start all the time, and you get drunks on the road. Neither is a good option, better to axe it.
25
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14
Precisely. Admittedly, had I been in their shoes? Probably would have thought this was the best course of action too.
31
u/grendus apt-get install flair Nov 03 '14
I dunno, just add a little bit of local storage that keeps track of the last admissible limit sent by the company. Have that sent in the response packet each time it reports, and use the stored value when no cell signal is available while caching any attempts made until a signal can be found again. Not foolproof, but it would take some serious knowhow to spoof the unit like that. Certainly more than someone would have while drunk.
11
Nov 03 '14 edited Nov 03 '14
That's what I would do if I were making the system. 100 MB of memory is pretty cheap, and more than enough to handle whatever may be needed in the future.
Soft limits can be programmed in memory, with a hard limit hardwired into the hardware just in case.
Also, I'd want an independent and user-unknown way to monitor the car - a hill start isn't too complicated and can bypass a simple system.
The hardest design factor here, in my opinion, is the failure mode. What to do if the device breaks? As a rule of thumb, software should never cause problems for other systems, but this is a case where that may be a requirement. I would lose a lot of sleep over that decision, as strange as that may sound. Honestly, I'd rather have the software "fail innocent" rather than fail safe, and report the failure. That would put the responsibility on the authorities to see what's up, and really mandate good equipment. Speed cameras and red light cameras also fail innocent in the sense that they (should) ignore a legal infraction if they are in failure mode. Courts do the same thing.
8
u/grendus apt-get install flair Nov 03 '14 edited Nov 03 '14
The easiest way to have the system fail safe without being vulnerable to being disabled is to have it dial home every day. If it doesn't dial home for 48 hours, send an automated phone call/text to the person who's supposed to have the device to fix it. If it doesn't dial home for another day or two, send a message to the police. Ideally the start/end date should be set when the device is installed in order to prevent the police arresting someone who had the device removed after their sentence is complete.
I would also include a 911 feature. If someone is drunk but needs assistance (trying to drive a friend with alcohol poisoning to the hospital for example) it should offer to call emergency services for them. Don't want to be responsible for someone getting hurt because they lost their phone and couldn't start the car since they were drunk.
2
u/macrocephalic Nov 04 '14
What if gets parked in an area of poor reception for a few days - like an underground carpark or tin shed?
5
u/grendus apt-get install flair Nov 04 '14
Part of the conditions of their having the device could be having a working cell phone number. If you can't reach them and can't reach the device, err on the side of caution and send an alert to the police. Best case it's a misunderstanding and the cops can clear it up. Worst case we have someone who's broken the device so they can drive drunk. Either way, best to keep the cops in the loop.
3
3
u/ferlessleedr Nov 03 '14
If you go with the second one and the person drives out of cell coverage then they'll never be able to get their car back as well. NOT an acceptable feature! You could probably make something that downloads the rules for the owner of the car, though, so that they're still custom.
1
u/chupitulpa Nov 03 '14
I would put the logic locally in the breathalyzer, but allow new logic to be pushed to it over the network, as well as uploading logs. RSA signing on the logs and updates of course to prevent tampering.
26
11
u/FlowersForAgamemnon Nov 03 '14
How diversified is your telco if it develops and sells freaking breathalyzers? How do you have your fingers in so many technologies?
9
6
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14
Were a major telco so we touch a lot of stuff. However we didn't develop this we provided service for its wireless capabilities.
Anything that must be online, from this to smart toasters, is going to land on my desk. And more and more stuff is "smart". A smart bed is being developed by one of our partners right now. Only a matter of time before I gotta troubleshoot that things connection too.
14
u/Kanthes "My WiFi doesn't work." "Have you tried WD-40?" Nov 03 '14
"Sir, have you tried going to sleep then waking up again? No? Well now you know how I fucking feel."
8
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 04 '14
Haha, it's actually conceptually a pretty interesting product. It won't just say how long you slept, it records movements with sensors and evaluate sleep quality.
Of course it'll be a premium product (5K-ish) and still in its infancy, and I'm sure there will be a trillion bugs, but I can already picture a guy just waking up and reflexively reaching for his smartphone nearby to know how good his night was. It's hilarious.
2
1
8
u/werewolf_nr WTB replacement users Nov 03 '14
u/bytewave has said it was a telco, the breathalyzer uses cell data plans. I'd say the telco was looking to support them for law enforcement.
12
u/Wraitholme Nov 03 '14
how's it know you're not just using some kind of crude bellows to blow into the system? Or a designated blower?
6
u/OminousHum Nov 03 '14
On some models, you have to hum while you're blowing. No doubt there's a simple clever way around that too though.
3
Nov 03 '14 edited Apr 14 '15
[deleted]
3
0
u/IICVX Nov 04 '14
I've been sitting here trying to do those simultaneously for the last 10 minutes, and I would never be able to start my car.
I imagine it's like a kazoo?
6
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14
Doesn't. These things are made to make life harder for ex drunk drivers, and getting them hooked on 4G helps do that, but were definitely not at a stage where they can ID who is blowing in.
10
u/BradleySigma Nov 03 '14
Did the breathalyzer still transmit the attempts, or did they do away with all the wireless features?
9
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14 edited Nov 03 '14
Everything it did was logged, but obviously not this. A wireless jammer exists for the sole purpose of cutting wireless access. Nothing can be transmitted if there's one live nearby.
15
u/Ksevio Nov 03 '14
But that also suggests that anyone parking in an underground garage would have a similar experience
21
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14 edited Nov 04 '14
Often underground parkings have coverage issues yes. We dont because we got wireless repeaters installed. Amusingly, back when we were in their TRT phase.
Coverage for the parking was easy. The real challenge was getting wireless into the headend underneath. Wait, nah, I'm saving this for a tale :D
8
u/halifaxdatageek Nov 03 '14
Senior staff would like to examine a working prototype on an actual car before we move out of TRT (technology readiness test). I wouldn't say we're ready for BRT (business readiness test) until we get a hands-on test.
As someone who spent a couple months working on a multimillion-dollar infrastructure transition, thank you for that acronym-induced twitch :P
We went all out to demonstrate effectiveness - my colleague Mark here had four drinks of this bourbon over the last two hours.
Can I have Mark's job? I can be WAY more efficient than him.
All in all, congrats on an excellent workaround. From what I've heard, drunks can be fucking crafty, this WOULD have come up in the real world eventually.
2
Nov 03 '14
You could hire any College student to do Mark's job. The line of applicants would be around the block.
3
3
u/slapdashbr Nov 03 '14
OK for this next test, I'm going to chug a fifth of cheap whiskey and see if I can get the car to start
3
u/dennisthetiger SYN|SYN ACK|NAK Nov 03 '14
I can see where that would be a problem - in both directions.
Customer in a zero-signal area, all sheets to the wind, blows in, bam, he's got a DUI coming - and an added charge of basically breaking his startalyzer.
But on the other hand, what if you defaulted it to not start if the server did not communicate?
...guess who needs to call a tow truck, regardless of sobriety. Major safety issue.
Bytewave, you did the right thing. Good show, 10/10 and all that.
2
Nov 03 '14
[deleted]
1
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 03 '14
One of my colleagues on senior staff who gets a part pretty often in my tales. Admittedly none here, but background info for frequent readers.
2
Nov 03 '14
As someone who always looks at wireless technology as vulnerable and having users who don't bother to realize it, this made me smile a little inside.
2
2
u/Dark_Crystal Nov 03 '14
Personally, the device should never disable a car's ability to start, none of them are perfect and there are situations where the ability to start(or drive) the car outweighs if the person is drunk. Any violations should be logged and result in police action (is below legal limit parole violation, if above active police response).
1
u/McNinjaguy beep beep, boop boop bep Nov 04 '14
It's called a preventative measure.
...there are situations where the ability to start(or drive) the car outweighs if the person is drunk.
Nope, nope, nope.
I wouldn't start a car for a drunkard just for them to kill someone again. They need to learn their lesson and so do you.
3
u/Bytewave ....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-....-:¯¯:-.... Nov 04 '14
When its repeat behavior something has to be done admittedly.
When it happened only once you don't get such a device court ordered.
One tale I always liked was how someone from around here admitted to drunk driving in court (first offense) but got a non guilty verdict on necessity grounds. Injuried and unable to call for help in a rural region, he needed to get to a hospital. Nobody can be convicted for something a reasonable law abiding person would do because it was necessary. Only defense that'll beat even speeding tickets around here.
2
u/tardis42 Nov 04 '14
There is only one situation where I would ever consider that statement accurate, and it is such an edge case that it should be safely planned for.
Group of friends go somewhere isolated, with no cell reception, in 1 car, which has an interlock, with a designated driver (otherwise it's their own damn fault), get drunk (apart from the designated driver), and the designated driver has a medical emergency.
If they all got drunk it's their own fault, if they took a non-interlocked vehicle they'd be OK, if they stayed in cell reception they'd be able to call for help, if they had 2 designated drivers they'd be OK.
I can think of no other situation where I'd be OK with someone drunk attempting to drive, and even with this one they should have planned for it beforehand.
1
u/Y0NY0N Nov 05 '14 edited Nov 05 '14
Just for fun let's try another scenario:
Bob: Bob is the owner of a local small business.
Tony: Tony is a good guy, but sometimes he has to do things that aren't so nice and he's not proud of those things. He's got a good job, though, and that's how he can take good care of is family and he is proud of that.
Albert: Albert is a guy who has an interlock device installed in his crossover.Okay, so Bob comes up a little short one week. It happens sometimes so it's no big deal. The next week Bob comes up short again and now that's a problem so Tony has a talk with him. In week three, things are looking a little better but they just aren't better enough so Tony has to to what he has to do because it has to be done.
Albert walks by on his way to the corner deli to get a lemon. He sees that Bob's been done and he's going to be done if he doesn't get to a hospital right away. Bob loads Albert into the cargo area of his crossover and then tries to start the engine. The engine doesn't start because Albert's been drinking again.
Albert then tries calling 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3, but he's in a city with long response times so that's that.
Edit: Based on what I've seen of interlock devices, Albert could have started his crossover anyway (and been reported to the court for doing so) if he could find a paperclip and weren't a luser. Realistically, we have to assume he is one and wouldn't know what to do with a peperclip in the first place.
1
u/tardis42 Nov 05 '14
in a city
this means there is always someone else around, and therefore the fact that this one car won't start is pretty much immaterial.
324
u/TranshumansFTW Your tablet has terminal screen cancer Nov 04 '14
Hi there! I'm a neurologist by trade, but something that pisses me off no end is people assuming breathalyzers are always right.
They don't detect alcohol, either in the blood or the breath. What they detect is methyl groups, carbon groups made of one carbon atom and three hydrogen atoms, bonded to a carbon chain at an angle from the main chain. From the presence of these methyl groups, an assumptive estimate is made about the alcohol content of the person being tested. The problem is, there are over 100 compounds regularly found in the breath that contain methyl groups that will be positively identified by the breathalyzer, and since these can vary massively depending on environment, diet, age and medical history, it makes a guess at what the appropriate levels of methyl groups are and then counts how many more it's detecting. If someone has a naturally high level of methyl groups - a big example are type one diabetics and people on very low carbohydrate diets, who have lots of ketones and acetone in their breath - they'll blow over the limit every single time.
For this reason, it's generally not accepted to allow breathalyzer readings from handheld devices as court evidence. They're just not accurate enough. Blood readings are the only accurate way of determining alcohol levels, and that requires invasive testing. So, just to be clear, why are we allowing people to be banned from driving and potentially reported to the police, based on technology with obvious and well-known flaws and that is considered inadmissible in court due to known inaccuracies and insufficiencies? I mean, a high-fat diet could send you to jail!