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.

(The Newspaper)   Judge throws out breathalyzer reading because driver was too drunk for machine to measure accurately   (thenewspaper.com) divider line 63
    More: Interesting, dynamic range, Dauphin County, expert witnesses, machines, bus drivers  
•       •       •

6516 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 12:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 03:05:02 PM
Expert in organic chemistry? No one has yet to prove that organic chemistry has any nutritional or health advantages over normal chemistry. Why is that quack testifying in court? Bunch of damn hippies...
 
2013-01-09 03:07:29 PM
In a fair world, the test would be a driving simulation. The test would check reaction time and driving ability and whatever skills are deemed to be lost by intoxication. If that means that alcoholics that can "hold their liquor" pass the test at a higher BAC than .08 that is fine.
If that means that a lightweight cheap drunk fails at .05 well that is fine too.
If you suck at driving and can't pass while sober then fark you, you lose your license!
I don't care so much about the number, I care if you are a bad driver.
 
2013-01-09 03:09:50 PM

TheWhoppah: Felgraf: TheWhoppah: Breathalyzer does not measure alcohol, it measures the brightness of light of various colors (wavelengths.) The computer then uses a secret formula to convert the color measurements into a blood alcohol number. The formula is a trade secret and so you can't really fight the validity of the machine.

Um, what you just described is called a 'spectrometer', which is generally used to measure *the components of a substance*.

What you just said amounts to "Meter stick does not measure distance. It measure the number of notches along a stick of wood."

The semantics are important. Scientific tests describe what they measure, not the inferences drawn from the test. When diabetics prick their finger, they are performing a "Blood-Sugar Test" not a "Diabetes Test." The Intoxilyzer has a misleading name that infers a test of intoxication... which is false. The machine measures the brightness of light, from which it uses a secret formula to estimate a blood-alcohol level, from which the law infers intoxication and therefore an impaired ability to operate a motor vehicle. This process would not pass scientific muster as an intoxication test or as a test for operating a motor vehicle and yet the words used to describe the test make it seem much more valid than is reasonably justified by a test that measures the brightness of light.


You're not posting that. You're arranging ones and zeros to form character-like images with photons.
 
2013-01-09 03:15:40 PM

TheWhoppah: In a fair world, the test would be a driving simulation. The test would check reaction time and driving ability and whatever skills are deemed to be lost by intoxication. If that means that alcoholics that can "hold their liquor" pass the test at a higher BAC than .08 that is fine.
If that means that a lightweight cheap drunk fails at .05 well that is fine too.
If you suck at driving and can't pass while sober then fark you, you lose your license!
I don't care so much about the number, I care if you are a bad driver.


Make police do work, and possibly risk losing profit at the expense of the general public? Unpossible!
 
2013-01-09 03:26:17 PM

another cultural observer: Thank god for administrative penalties.

DMV: "Oh, I see you didn't get convicted on this DUI. Nice! Hey, we'll be taking your license for a year. Want it back after that? It'll be $1000. Have fun with insurance."


It's almost as if licenses aren't rights or something.
 
2013-01-09 03:50:53 PM

LoneWolf343: another cultural observer: Thank god for administrative penalties.

DMV: "Oh, I see you didn't get convicted on this DUI. Nice! Hey, we'll be taking your license for a year. Want it back after that? It'll be $1000. Have fun with insurance."

It's almost as if licenses aren't rights or something.


And they HATE it when they find out about that little piece of legal trivia.
 
2013-01-09 04:24:46 PM
Guess I just have to step up my game a bit . . .
 
Mef
2013-01-09 05:20:49 PM

TheWhoppah: The Intoxilyzer has a misleading name that infers a test of intoxication... which is false. The machine measures the brightness of light, from which it uses a secret formula to estimate a blood-alcohol level, from which the law infers intoxication and therefore an impaired ability to operate a motor vehicle. This process would not pass scientific muster as an intoxication test or as a test for operating a motor vehicle and yet the words used to describe the test make it seem much more valid than is reasonably justified by a test that measures the brightness of light.


It would however, easily pass muster as a test for measuring the amount of alcohol present in someone's breath, which can be then used to infer alcohol in the bloodstream...which is what the law covers. You can try and pretend that UV-Vis Spectrometry is a secret government plot, but anyone who's had a course in analytical chemistry will think you're a nut.
 
2013-01-09 07:03:00 PM
Read the opinion. The prosecution was either incompetent, or knew they had no case. If the defendant had challenged the validity of all tests, he would have still won. The machines were improperly calibrated, both in the field and during manufacture.
 
2013-01-09 08:03:59 PM
Did they ever show that they used (or did not use) a NIST traceable standard either in final QC or in the field? Sounds like a crony deal gone all public. The methodology for calibration on this unit seems like a "lower cost" decision.
 
2013-01-09 11:28:40 PM
Every time I read something about the Intoxilyzer it makes me shudder and glad I work in a state that doesn't use them. Even if our Datamaster BACs are so old they look like they were made out of TRS-80s.

www.shapirolozano.com
 
2013-01-10 12:41:37 AM
Without reading the article ....

Scotland?
 
2013-01-10 02:10:01 AM

Felgraf: TheWhoppah: Breathalyzer does not measure alcohol, it measures the brightness of light of various colors (wavelengths.) The computer then uses a secret formula to convert the color measurements into a blood alcohol number. The formula is a trade secret and so you can't really fight the validity of the machine.

Um, what you just described is called a 'spectrometer', which is generally used to measure *the components of a substance*.

What you just said amounts to "Meter stick does not measure distance. It measure the number of notches along a stick of wood."

/Now, Breathlyzers should not get a pass and sure as fark should not be treated as magic black boxes, and should absolutely always be A) Followed with a blood test, and B) proven to have been F*CKING calibrated recently.


I see you are not, cooperating.
 
Displayed 13 of 63 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report