www.ditl.org

ChakatBlackstar wrote:No, I mean a seat-belt set up similar to this breathalyzer idea. Some manufacturers experimented with a system that force the driver and passengers to wear seat belts or the car wouldn't move.

I can't see that working for passengers, given that there might not be any, but it'd be a good idea for the driver.

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:No, I mean a seat-belt set up similar to this breathalyzer idea. Some manufacturers experimented with a system that force the driver and passengers to wear seat belts or the car wouldn't move.

I can't see that working for passengers, given that there might not be any, but it'd be a good idea for the driver.

New cars sold in the United States in 1974 and the first part of the 1975 model year were sold with a special "ignition interlock", whereby the driver could not start the car until the seat belt was fastened; however, this system was short-lived.

I was raised to belive that a car wouldn't start unless we were all wearing seatbelts. Then one day I noticed my dad not wearing his seatbelt and I said, "Dad the car's broken." But to this day, I will not move until all my passengers are secured, and I've never ridden in a car for more then 30 seconds without a seatbelt.

They might be able to use pressure sensors or something similar.
Still, knowing some people I know, they would just keep them all fastened all the time behind them rather than wear one.

Rochey wrote:I'm pretty sure that modern breathalyzers can be set to avoid that stuff, though I'm not sure.

Of course, as I suggested, there's always the possibility of simply deciding not to use those things when you want to drive.

Actually, cops admit that handheld breathalysers arent very reliable. They're actually supposed to be a "Probably/Probably not" system to decide if MAYBE the subject is over the limit. You have to take the suspect back down to the police station and get them to breath into an industrial breathalyser, which are much larger, in order to get definate results that can lead to a conviction.

Thing is, the big ones are BIG, so they probably wouldnt fit in most cars. Hrm.

Thorin wrote:They might be able to use pressure sensors or something similar.
Still, knowing some people I know, they would just keep them all fastened all the time behind them rather than wear one.

Anyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt is an idiot IMO. Wearing my seatbelt saved me from serious injury when I had a rollover. Came out with nothing worse then a sore shoulder, frayed nerves, and a bruised ego.

I think they are too, I've worn one my entire life - I do it out of habit and that's definitely the best way, it actually feels weird when I'm not wearing one, even if all I'm doing is reversing for a couple of yards to unblock someone ( ). Like that feeling you get if you normally wear a watch or carry a bag and you don't have one that particular time; you always feel you've forgotten something.

I've never crashed, though. A white van once scraped the side of me as it was travelling down a narrow road at about 20mph while I had mounted the pavement and was at a virtual standstill. Good job that the scratch wasn't a scratch - it came off with a bit of white spirit, so his van's actually missing a strip of white paint. Karma!

Actually, cops admit that handheld breathalysers arent very reliable. They're actually supposed to be a "Probably/Probably not" system to decide if MAYBE the subject is over the limit. You have to take the suspect back down to the police station and get them to breath into an industrial breathalyser, which are much larger, in order to get definate results that can lead to a conviction.

Really? Have you got a source for that? Everything I've seen indicates they can be calibrated to be quite accurate.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Anyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt is an idiot IMO. Wearing my seatbelt saved me from serious injury when I had a rollover. Came out with nothing worse then a sore shoulder, frayed nerves, and a bruised ego.

But of course there will always be idiots who complain that they stop them getting out if the car crashes and catches fire. Because of course, a five-second delay in getting out is far more dangerous than going through the windscreen at 70 mph.

Rochey wrote:

Actually, cops admit that handheld breathalysers arent very reliable. They're actually supposed to be a "Probably/Probably not" system to decide if MAYBE the subject is over the limit. You have to take the suspect back down to the police station and get them to breath into an industrial breathalyser, which are much larger, in order to get definate results that can lead to a conviction.

Really? Have you got a source for that? Everything I've seen indicates they can be calibrated to be quite accurate.

Well, yeah, i didnt word that very well. They're not widley inaccurate, and, as you say, they're pretty good. MOST of the time when a handheld one says that you're over the limit, the big ones will verify that. But, they can be wrong.

As for my source? Well, My sister's fiancee is with the Fire Service. This wasnt me grilling him, it just popped up in conversation, so its not like i know any statistics =p He just said that they're not completley infalliable. *shrugs*

I'm not particularly keen on the idea, though. I guess i just dont like little stuff like that in my life being monitored, especially since it could be used to gather data on breath alcahol levels, or even other stuff. I dont mind stuff like CCTV - I mean, when your out on the street, people can SEE you - but its not like you get everyone who passes you jamming a breathalyser in your gob.

besides, people are going to tamper with it anyway, they allways do ¬.¬

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Anyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt is an idiot IMO. Wearing my seatbelt saved me from serious injury when I had a rollover. Came out with nothing worse then a sore shoulder, frayed nerves, and a bruised ego.

But of course there will always be idiots who complain that they stop them getting out if the car crashes and catches fire. Because of course, a five-second delay in getting out is far more dangerous than going through the windscreen at 70 mph.

My grandmother only wears one because it's the law. She's afraid of crashing into the water and not being able to unbuckle in time. But she's a little old lady, if she crashes into the water, the car would probably be too low in the water for her to open the door anyway. And it's not like there are a lot of roads around here that are by the water in the first place.

Well, yeah, i didnt word that very well. They're not widley inaccurate, and, as you say, they're pretty good. MOST of the time when a handheld one says that you're over the limit, the big ones will verify that. But, they can be wrong.

As for my source? Well, My sister's fiancee is with the Fire Service. This wasnt me grilling him, it just popped up in conversation, so its not like i know any statistics =p He just said that they're not completley infalliable. *shrugs*

Okay. I'll see if I can find any statistics on how accurate these things are.

I'm not particularly keen on the idea, though. I guess i just dont like little stuff like that in my life being monitored, especially since it could be used to gather data on breath alcahol levels, or even other stuff. I dont mind stuff like CCTV - I mean, when your out on the street, people can SEE you - but its not like you get everyone who passes you jamming a breathalyser in your gob.

Not even if it saves a lot of lives?

besides, people are going to tamper with it anyway, they allways do ¬.¬

That's why you put very steep penalties out for doing so.

To convict someone in Canada you need to fail two breath tests spaced apart by a certain period of time, that way they can rule out listerine and other such wildcards. if they get a radically different result they will either go for a third or do a blood test. The Field units aren't perfect, as was said they are more of an indicator, you can't convict with them, at least in Canada.

If you refuse a test you are automatically charged with DUI.

It's a silly idea IMO. Extremely easy to cheat - you just get somebody else to blow in the thing for you.

I think it's the same here - failing a roadside test is grounds for arrest, but they also have to do a second test/blood sample at the police station. Failing to provide a sample is a specific offence, but that's largely a legal technicality, as the penalty is the same as being over the limit.

GrahamKennedy wrote:It's a silly idea IMO. Extremely easy to cheat - you just get somebody else to blow in the thing for you.

True but if it stops someone from driving drunk and killing someone else? There would still be cops patrolling with the same road side tests to catch the unlucky ones that did it, its just that it may save a few lives.