If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WSBTV)   Former State Trooper who served on the DUI Task Force is adverti$ing a powder designed to defeat the breathalyzer. "All it doe$ is eliminate error$. What we are doing i$ protecting live$ and career$"   (wsbtv.com) divider line 133
    More: Obvious, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, billboards, Channel 2 Action News, pay per clicks  
•       •       •

8903 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jul 2012 at 3:12 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-09 11:54:43 PM  
And if you believe that, I have a well in the Sahara I'd be willing to sell you.
 
2012-07-10 12:56:32 AM  
That whole using dollar signs in place of the letter s thing was funny 10 years ago. Now it makes me stabby.

Also "It's dusty in here"

Must...not...kill...
 
2012-07-10 02:34:52 AM  
A Breathalyzer Equalizer advisor said the company is trying to assist people who are acting in a socially responsible manner, but might fail a field sobriety test and face thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs.

Paul Broft told Stouffer on the phone, " All it does is eliminate errors. What we are doing is protecting lives and careers."


Sounds good. People with bad balance should be shunned, but they shouldn't be arrested on false charges.
 
2012-07-10 03:14:21 AM  
Does it work?
 
2012-07-10 03:14:58 AM  
there is nothing to see here .. please move along now
 
2012-07-10 03:15:13 AM  
I'm all in favor of farking with the system in any way possible regardless of the eventual result. I just want to see my corrupt county burn.
 
2012-07-10 03:16:24 AM  
So many people instinctively use mouthwash when a good looking cop is pulling them over. They don't realize that this can lead to breathalyzer errors. This product is sorely needed.
 
2012-07-10 03:18:23 AM  
Why not fight the machines on the basis of their inherent unreliability and the difficulty in quantifying the actual amount of alcohol needed to impair different people? Nah, just make money off people who are trying to beat them.
 
2012-07-10 03:24:41 AM  

revrendjim: That whole using dollar signs in place of the letter s thing was funny 10 years ago. Now it makes me stabby.

Also "It's dusty in here"

Must...not...kill...


Im not saying it was aliens...
 
2012-07-10 03:24:57 AM  
Eating a powder while you're pulled over?
That ought to turn out well.
 
2012-07-10 03:28:02 AM  
Years before I was born, a drunk driver killed my mother and father in a car accident while they were on their honeymoon in Southern France. Drunk drivers should be charged with attempted manslaughter and locked away, not given the opportunity to drive again.

Whether or not this product works as it promises, it's a terrible idea and the person who developed it should be charged with accessory to murder. Drunk driving kills. Let's try to end it.
 
2012-07-10 03:32:40 AM  

untaken_name: Why not fight the machines on the basis of their inherent unreliability and the difficulty in quantifying the actual amount of alcohol needed to impair different people? Nah, just make money off people who are trying to beat them.


John Connor?
 
2012-07-10 03:33:08 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Years before I was born, a drunk driver killed my mother and father in a car accident while they were on their honeymoon in Southern France. Drunk drivers should be charged with attempted manslaughter and locked away, not given the opportunity to drive again.

Whether or not this product works as it promises, it's a terrible idea and the person who developed it should be charged with accessory to murder. Drunk driving kills. Let's try to end it.

 
2012-07-10 03:33:12 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Years before I was born, a drunk driver killed my mother and father in a car accident while they were on their honeymoon in Southern France. Drunk drivers should be charged with attempted manslaughter and locked away, not given the opportunity to drive again.


What?
 
2012-07-10 03:34:04 AM  
Is it minty fresh??
 
2012-07-10 03:38:09 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Years before I was born, a drunk driver killed my mother and father in a car accident


How many years?
 
2012-07-10 03:42:58 AM  
BUT THAT'S NOT HOW A BREATHALYSER WORKS. IT WORKS BY THE ALCOHOL VAPOURS FROM YOUR LUNGS AS YOU EXHALE. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO BLOW SO HARD.

Wow, what a scam artist. Not only does not work, it gives false hope to people who will drink and drive thus encouraging people who might not drive to gamble and do so anyway.

What a douchebag.
 
2012-07-10 03:44:07 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Years before I was born, a drunk driver killed my mother and father in a car accident while they were on their honeymoon in Southern France. Drunk drivers should be charged with attempted manslaughter and locked away, not given the opportunity to drive again.

Whether or not this product works as it promises, it's a terrible idea and the person who developed it should be charged with accessory to murder. Drunk driving kills. Let's try to end it.


3/10, because you got some bites.
 
2012-07-10 03:46:22 AM  

MagSeven: untaken_name: Why not fight the machines on the basis of their inherent unreliability and the difficulty in quantifying the actual amount of alcohol needed to impair different people? Nah, just make money off people who are trying to beat them.

John Connor?


Not exactly...closer to:

www.heyreverb.com
 
2012-07-10 03:54:33 AM  

untaken_name: Why not fight the machines on the basis of their inherent unreliability and the difficulty in quantifying the actual amount of alcohol needed to impair different people? Nah, just make money off people who are trying to beat them.


DUI attorneys have that market cornered.
 
2012-07-10 03:54:36 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Years before I was born, a drunk driver killed my mother and father in a car accident while they were on their honeymoon in Southern France. Drunk drivers should be charged with attempted manslaughter and locked away, not given the opportunity to drive again.

Whether or not this product works as it promises, it's a terrible idea and the person who developed it should be charged with accessory to murder. Drunk driving kills. Let's try to end it.


Good one.
 
2012-07-10 03:55:55 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Years before I was born, a drunk driver killed my mother and father in a car accident while they were on their honeymoon in Southern France. Drunk drivers should be charged with attempted manslaughter and locked away, not given the opportunity to drive again.

Whether or not this product works as it promises, it's a terrible idea and the person who developed it should be charged with accessory to murder. Drunk driving kills. Let's try to end it.


Thread over.

Last one out, turn off the lights.
 
2012-07-10 04:03:58 AM  
Hmm. Or, we could punish people for being BAD drivers, regardless of why that is. Distracted, drunk, stoned, sleepy, music too loud, eating, drinking. yelling at the kids, masturbating at the wheel, or what have you. If your actions cause harm, they should be seriously punished. If your actions have the CAPACITY TO cause harm, the punishment should exist, but be far less serious (but should have a steep learning curve). And here's the kicker -- all the penalties should be normalized. Equal risk should have equal penalty. If your reaction time is within two standard deviations of normal drivers for your demographic, you shouldn't be penalized at all. But if your reaction time and judgement are poor due to you drinking, or being a borderline 'tard, or being on coke, or being too tired, all those are risks to others, and should be punished EQUALLY. None of this DUI checkpoint cash-register ringing. There should also be state laws prohibiting ANY funds collected from DUI arrests from being given to the arresting agency. If they're really working for safety, then DUI arrests will stay the same. If it's purely easy money from an easily-demonized group, screw that. It's unethical and police shouldn't be allowed to do it.
 
2012-07-10 04:15:46 AM  
Based on what I know about how breathalyzers work and backed up by Mythbusters, I think this product could not put drunk drivers on the road. You can't beat the breathalyzer if there is alcohol in your lungs (bloodstream). You can get a false positive from small amounts of alcohol in your mouth, and in theory this product could mitigate that (I'm skeptical it works as advertised). But there's no way that this product could let someone with a BAC over the legal limit pass a breathalyzer test.
 
2012-07-10 04:37:19 AM  

dahmers love zombie: Hmm. Or, we could punish people for being BAD drivers, regardless of why that is. Distracted, drunk, stoned, sleepy, music too loud, eating, drinking. yelling at the kids, masturbating at the wheel, or what have you. If your actions cause harm, they should be seriously punished. If your actions have the CAPACITY TO cause harm, the punishment should exist, but be far less serious (but should have a steep learning curve). And here's the kicker -- all the penalties should be normalized. Equal risk should have equal penalty. If your reaction time is within two standard deviations of normal drivers for your demographic, you shouldn't be penalized at all. But if your reaction time and judgement are poor due to you drinking, or being a borderline 'tard, or being on coke, or being too tired, all those are risks to others, and should be punished EQUALLY. None of this DUI checkpoint cash-register ringing. There should also be state laws prohibiting ANY funds collected from DUI arrests from being given to the arresting agency. If they're really working for safety, then DUI arrests will stay the same. If it's purely easy money from an easily-demonized group, screw that. It's unethical and police shouldn't be allowed to do it.


Valid points, but consider:

DUI is Driving Under the Influence which encompasses "stoned" so those penalties are already normalized.

DUI isn't just about reaction time it's about judgment too, as you noted. At some point, drinking more convinces you you are okay to drive. A sleepy driver is more likely to call it quits as the night wears on. A distracted driver can hang up the phone. The risks aren't equal.

Statistic show that DUI drivers do more damage than other types of impairment and are more likely to re-offend. Texting may cause more fender benders but destroys less property and lives. You just don't see repeat sleepy drivers driving on a suspended license very often. While DUI checkpoints are a bad idea because they are constitutionally questionable, funds from a probable-cause DUI stop shouldn't be withheld. The costs to society aren't equal.

In other news, ignore MADD. Even the founder has distanced herself from the organization because it has been co-opted by abolitionists whose goal isn't public safety but to ban all drinking.
 
2012-07-10 04:41:29 AM  

LindenFark: Statistic show that DUI drivers do more damage than other types of impairment and are more likely to re-offend.


Is it possible that the statistics show this because it's much easier to factually establish the presence of alcohol than the presence of sleepiness, anger, or other types of distraction?
 
2012-07-10 04:49:40 AM  

untaken_name: LindenFark: Statistic show that DUI drivers do more damage than other types of impairment and are more likely to re-offend.

Is it possible that the statistics show this because it's much easier to factually establish the presence of alcohol than the presence of sleepiness, anger, or other types of distraction?


Unlikely. This is data from insurance companies who make a point of getting decent data. Most incidents have a cause and a party at fault. Even if you assume all the undetermined/inconclusive incidents were due to, say, texting, the margin is large enough that DUI might not account for more incidents, but would still account for more lives and more dollars.
 
2012-07-10 04:51:51 AM  
To put it another way, get a ticket for texting and a ticket for DUI and see which affects your insurance rates more.
 
2012-07-10 04:58:55 AM  

LindenFark: To put it another way, get a ticket for texting and a ticket for DUI and see which affects your insurance rates more.


People distracted by their phones are dangerous and negligent drivers.
 
2012-07-10 04:58:57 AM  

LindenFark: untaken_name: LindenFark: Statistic show that DUI drivers do more damage than other types of impairment and are more likely to re-offend.

Is it possible that the statistics show this because it's much easier to factually establish the presence of alcohol than the presence of sleepiness, anger, or other types of distraction?

Unlikely. This is data from insurance companies who make a point of getting decent data. Most incidents have a cause and a party at fault. Even if you assume all the undetermined/inconclusive incidents were due to, say, texting, the margin is large enough that DUI might not account for more incidents, but would still account for more lives and more dollars.


Yes, but how do you quantify the amount of anger or sleepiness a person was driving with? How many accidents are directly attributed to anger, for example? I mean, 18% of all accidents, comprising over 3000 deaths and 491,000 injuries, are attributed to distracted driving - but there's no reliable test for the cause or intensity of the distraction suffered. There is a physical test for the presence of alcohol. This is why I believe that alcohol is used as a scapegoat even in cases where it was not the cause of the accident - such as when a sober driver crosses the median and strikes a drunk driver - that is officially listed as an alcohol-related accident, even though it wasn't the drunk person who was at fault. Of course, I could be wrong, as my logic is based entirely upon theory and observations of my own. In my personal life, I have been in 7 collisions (none of which were my fault), and only one time was the driver intoxicated. The others just weren't paying attention to the road. This personal experience may bias my analysis, as well.
 
2012-07-10 05:43:37 AM  
Two questions.

1. some people use those handheld personal breathalysers as a way to be sure they aren't over the limit before getting behind the wheel. Most of those don't require the deep breaths that the cop models use. Wouldn't this just make these completely useless, putting people who think they are okay at risk of an auto DUI for .08 or above?

2. If this actually works doesn't it mean that the system we are using to determine blood alcohol might be VERY VERY inaccurate and way more subjective for something that changes lives the way a DUI does.
 
2012-07-10 05:47:40 AM  

Mr. Potatoass: Eating a powder while you're pulled over?
That ought to turn out well.


I usually just eat everything in the ash tray.
 
2012-07-10 05:49:36 AM  

LindenFark: Based on what I know about how breathalyzers work and backed up by Mythbusters, I think this product could not put drunk drivers on the road. You can't beat the breathalyzer if there is alcohol in your lungs (bloodstream). You can get a false positive from small amounts of alcohol in your mouth, and in theory this product could mitigate that (I'm skeptical it works as advertised). But there's no way that this product could let someone with a BAC over the legal limit pass a breathalyzer test.


It'd be difficult to neutralize alcohol coming from the lungs. Activated charcoal can absorb that, but it's generally impractical to build a filter you could keep in your mouth. Simply having charcoal in your mouth would not make a filter.

Hard to say without the product in-hand. They don't describe contents, other than "all natural ingredients". Which is kinda scary, who knows what people might be allergic to? If I start to feel funny after I use it, should I call 911? If I saw it's just activated charcoal, I'd dismiss it as me being neurotic and move on. But otherwise, what is it? Plenty of toxic "all natural" stuff in the world.

Note carefully that the site never DOES claim it will make a drunk person pass the breathalyzer. They don't MAKE that claim! They only claim it negates "mouth alcohol". Maybe it does, I don't know. It sounds like a plausible concept, you'd need to wash the mouth, coat it to prevent evaporation, or just absorb alcohol into a less volatile form. I'd expect drinking water or eating something soft would do as much. I doubt you'd need this product to do that.
 
2012-07-10 06:10:49 AM  

Oznog: LindenFark: Based on what I know about how breathalyzers work and backed up by Mythbusters, I think this product could not put drunk drivers on the road. You can't beat the breathalyzer if there is alcohol in your lungs (bloodstream). You can get a false positive from small amounts of alcohol in your mouth, and in theory this product could mitigate that (I'm skeptical it works as advertised). But there's no way that this product could let someone with a BAC over the legal limit pass a breathalyzer test.

It'd be difficult to neutralize alcohol coming from the lungs. Activated charcoal can absorb that, but it's generally impractical to build a filter you could keep in your mouth. Simply having charcoal in your mouth would not make a filter.

Hard to say without the product in-hand. They don't describe contents, other than "all natural ingredients". Which is kinda scary, who knows what people might be allergic to? If I start to feel funny after I use it, should I call 911? If I saw it's just activated charcoal, I'd dismiss it as me being neurotic and move on. But otherwise, what is it? Plenty of toxic "all natural" stuff in the world.

Note carefully that the site never DOES claim it will make a drunk person pass the breathalyzer. They don't MAKE that claim! They only claim it negates "mouth alcohol". Maybe it does, I don't know. It sounds like a plausible concept, you'd need to wash the mouth, coat it to prevent evaporation, or just absorb alcohol into a less volatile form. I'd expect drinking water or eating something soft would do as much. I doubt you'd need this product to do that.


Bath Salts!
 
2012-07-10 06:13:14 AM  

pedobearapproved: the system we are using to determine blood alcohol might be VERY VERY inaccurate and way more subjective for something that changes lives the way a DUI does.


This. .08 in a 5'0", 110lb woman and .08 in a 6'5", 240lb man are NOT the same. The numbers are the same, I mean, but not the effects.
 
2012-07-10 06:13:50 AM  

Mr. Potatoass: Eating a powder while you're pulled over?
That ought to turn out well.


Well, better than your skivvies...
img96.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-10 06:25:13 AM  

elffster: revrendjim: That whole using dollar signs in place of the letter s thing was funny 10 years ago. Now it makes me stabby.

Also "It's dusty in here"

Must...not...kill...

Im not saying it was aliens...


I'm not saying it'$ getting du$ty in here, but it'$ getting du$ty in here.
 
2012-07-10 07:04:25 AM  

bubo_sibiricus: BUT THAT'S NOT HOW A BREATHALYSER WORKS. IT WORKS BY THE ALCOHOL VAPOURS FROM YOUR LUNGS AS YOU EXHALE. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO BLOW SO HARD.

Wow, what a scam artist. Not only does not work, it gives false hope to people who will drink and drive thus encouraging people who might not drive to gamble and do so anyway.

What a douchebag.


Actually a breathalyser can pick up traces of alcohol from your mouth and give a reading saying you are over the limit. That what he is marketing, or claiming that he is marketing, his product for, people who have just used mouth wash and want to get rid of any residual traces of alcohol in their mouths to keep from triggering a false positive on a breathalyser.

Of course if you have been out drinking using this product won't help you beat a breathalyser because it won't do anything to get rid of the alcohol vapors in your breath, unless the powder can form a film in your mouth and absorb the alcohol vapor from your breath, but people who don't understand this will buy it any way thinking they can beat a DUI.
 
2012-07-10 07:07:26 AM  
AbbeySomeone: People distracted by their phones are dangerous and negligent drivers.

No one's disagreeing with you on that, Abby. What I can't figure out is why you apparantly think it excuses or lessens the impact of DUI.

LindenFark: In other news, ignore MADD. Even the founder has distanced herself from the organization because it has been co-opted by abolitionists whose goal isn't public safety but to ban all drinking.

This. There's plenty of evidence out there that has nothing to do with MADD that drinking and driving is bad, and hurts a lot of people.
 
2012-07-10 07:10:11 AM  
Iwish there was some sanity in out DD laws and we could ignore breathalyzer results in court. As a tool to decide to draw blood, ok, as evidence of impairment, no farking way.
 
2012-07-10 07:13:00 AM  
liam76: Iwish there was some sanity in out DD laws and we could ignore breathalyzer results in court. As a tool to decide to draw blood, ok, as evidence of impairment, no farking way.

Which is blatently unconstitutional without obtaining a court warrant, except in certain legislated circumstances - such as fatality incidents. Even in those cases, there has to be documented objective evidence for a compelled blood draw.
 
2012-07-10 07:16:26 AM  

jaylectricity: A Breathalyzer Equalizer advisor said the company is trying to assist people who are acting in a socially responsible manner, but might fail a field sobriety test and face thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs.

Paul Broft told Stouffer on the phone, " All it does is eliminate errors. What we are doing is protecting lives and careers."

Sounds good. People with bad balance should be shunned, but they shouldn't be arrested on false charges.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-10 07:25:51 AM  

BronyMedic: liam76: Iwish there was some sanity in out DD laws and we could ignore breathalyzer results in court. As a tool to decide to draw blood, ok, as evidence of impairment, no farking way.

Which is blatently unconstitutional without obtaining a court warrant, except in certain legislated circumstances - such as fatality incidents. Even in those cases, there has to be documented objective evidence for a compelled blood draw.


If failing a breathalyzer isn't enough to get a warrant, then why should it be admissable in court?
 
2012-07-10 07:27:14 AM  

liam76: BronyMedic: liam76: Iwish there was some sanity in out DD laws and we could ignore breathalyzer results in court. As a tool to decide to draw blood, ok, as evidence of impairment, no farking way.

Which is blatently unconstitutional without obtaining a court warrant, except in certain legislated circumstances - such as fatality incidents. Even in those cases, there has to be documented objective evidence for a compelled blood draw.

If failing a breathalyzer isn't enough to get a warrant, then why should it be admissable in court?


Also I know in Pennsylvania agreeing to submit to a blood test is a requirement of the license.
 
2012-07-10 07:30:11 AM  

pedobearapproved: Two questions.

1. some people use those handheld personal breathalysers as a way to be sure they aren't over the limit before getting behind the wheel. Most of those don't require the deep breaths that the cop models use. Wouldn't this just make these completely useless, putting people who think they are okay at risk of an auto DUI for .08 or above?

2. If this actually works doesn't it mean that the system we are using to determine blood alcohol might be VERY VERY inaccurate and way more subjective for something that changes lives the way a DUI does.


2. No. The blood tests that many offenders request are typically higher than the breath test (not the handheld one, but the big machine). If anything, the breath test gives too low of a reading.
 
2012-07-10 07:30:55 AM  

dahmers love zombie: Hmm. Or, we could punish people for being BAD drivers, regardless of why that is. Distracted, drunk, stoned, sleepy, music too loud, eating, drinking. yelling at the kids, masturbating at the wheel, or what have you. If your actions cause harm, they should be seriously punished. If your actions have the CAPACITY TO cause harm, the punishment should exist, but be far less serious (but should have a steep learning curve). And here's the kicker -- all the penalties should be normalized. Equal risk should have equal penalty. If your reaction time is within two standard deviations of normal drivers for your demographic, you shouldn't be penalized at all. But if your reaction time and judgement are poor due to you drinking, or being a borderline 'tard, or being on coke, or being too tired, all those are risks to others, and should be punished EQUALLY. None of this DUI checkpoint cash-register ringing. There should also be state laws prohibiting ANY funds collected from DUI arrests from being given to the arresting agency. If they're really working for safety, then DUI arrests will stay the same. If it's purely easy money from an easily-demonized group, screw that. It's unethical and police shouldn't be allowed to do it.


Any citation for DUI's being a cash cow?
 
2012-07-10 07:35:15 AM  
Whatever happened to just sucking on a penny?
 
2012-07-10 07:37:33 AM  
The silliest part of this is that the actual machine back at the station is able to detect mouth alcohol and rule it out. The handheld used on the road is merely there to determine the presence of alcohol, not the quantity...at least as far as what is admissible in court.
 
2012-07-10 07:37:58 AM  
liam76: BronyMedic: liam76: Iwish there was some sanity in out DD laws and we could ignore breathalyzer results in court. As a tool to decide to draw blood, ok, as evidence of impairment, no farking way.

Which is blatently unconstitutional without obtaining a court warrant, except in certain legislated circumstances - such as fatality incidents. Even in those cases, there has to be documented objective evidence for a compelled blood draw.

If failing a breathalyzer isn't enough to get a warrant, then why should it be admissable in court?


A breathalyzer isn't an invasive medical procedure, and it's accurate to within 0.01mg/dl BAC. In addition, for the cops to justify a breathylizer reading in court, they have to demonstrate reasonable cause for obtaining it. If you notice, almost every cop that pulls you over for any traffic violation follows the same script - "License and Registration, Where are you coming from, where are you going, have you had anything to drink...", they're watching your reaction, and your behavior, to get justification to go into a sobriety test.

liam76: Also I know in Pennsylvania agreeing to submit to a blood test is a requirement of the license.

Can you cite the law that says that? It sounds blatently unconstitutional to arbitrarily force a blood draw with no evidence justifying it. Even in Tennessee, which mandates scene blood draws at fatality incidents, the officers have to show reasonable justification before they can demand the sample draws.
 
2012-07-10 07:40:01 AM  

revrendjim: That whole using dollar signs in place of the letter s thing was funny 10 years ago. Now it makes me stabby.

Also "It's dusty in here"

Must...not...kill...


What's really funny is they have extorted more ca$h from people in the name of public $afety with dui$.

One of my closest friends got a dui and he did not even appear drunk to even those of us who were sober, yet he was pulled over by a runt local cop who has always been an asshole. All he did was smell alcohol and then determined he was drunk after saying he couldn't do the field tests on his surgically repaired knee.

Dui$ are bullshiat, the limit should be what doctors set the limit to decades ago, 1.2 but dear "think of the kids" MADD was not making a big enough splash and catching people at that rate so they had it lowered to a level where even two drinks could come close to getting anyone a dui.

F*ck MADD, statistic rigging assholes.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report