Eating Ice Cream Causes False Breathalyzer Positive Test Result
from the oops dept
Paul Brinker writes in to let us know of an odd case in Australia, where a man who had a breath-testing device installed in his car (presumably due to previous DUI convictions) asked a court to remove it after he was unable to start his car one day after eating some ice cream. Curious as to whether or not ice cream could actually set off a breathlyzer-type device, the court ordered a test, whereby the man breathed a 0.00 blood-alcohol level, then took a few bites of the same exact ice cream (Bubble O'Bill, for those wondering) and was then tested again, showing a 0.018 blood-alcohol level. The guy won the case, and was allowed to remove the device. While I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the road, it is at least somewhat troubling that just a few bites of a non-alcoholic food could lead to false positives on such testing devices.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, breathalyzer, false positive, ice cream
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I've been told...
EtG
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apparently, this ice cream and mints have such ketones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blood Alcohol
The guy should have a blood test device in his car, similar to a diabetic blood sugar testing device.
(Hey, I think I just came up with a new invention. Can anyone here bring it to market?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Blood Alcohol
The car-installed breathalizer is not a convenience in the first place. I worked with a guy who had one, and he refused to eat anything within an hour of having to drive for fear of setting it off. Except Diet Coke. I guess that was safe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Blood Alcohol
I say improve the current device.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This is a textbook case of where automated systems fail. The parameters are not sufficiently bound to generate the correct result. Hence, a human had to intervene. This is why police enforcement activities should be ultimately dependent on human decisions. Humans can account for the "out of bounds" parameters easily and make better decisions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ketones, eh?
a whole new reason to have an Atkins bar lying on your passenger seat whenever pulled over, to set up your defense. Come to think of it, that may be the only reason to have an Atkins bar, nasty things that they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
Erm, be that as it may, driving is a necessity for many people in today's world.
Should such a "privilege" be arbitrarily removed from innocent people causing them lose their jobs and livelihood?
These devices aren't a problem when they work, but how many companies would accept "my car thought my breakfast was alcohol" as a reasonable excuse for not turning up for important meetings or being late regularly?
"The ice cream/mints/etc problem is inconvenience that drivers may have to deal with as a result of the fact that they drove drunk in the first place."
Really? What about if they become mandatory as proposed a number of times? Maybe fitted as standard in new cars or when you're "encouraged" to have them fit else you pay double one your insurance?
Is that still OK? Or are you just one of those people who ignore problems until they personally affect you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Make them better, but deal with it for now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
Should such a "privilege" be arbitrarily removed from innocent people causing them lose their jobs and livelihood?"
Not to be a smart ass or anything but I would say that "living" is a requirement of many people today, given that drunk driver's frequently to deprive others of that right to live, I would rather deny 100% of people who drink the right to drive then a small percentage of people the right to live!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
First of all, being convicted of drunk driving doesn't actually mean that you were of any danger to anyone. There have been numerous cases where people have been convicted after sleeping in the back seat in a car park (technically drink driving in some states). The level of alcohol required for such a conviction in some states is actually below the level required to affect a person's ability to drive - meaning that any crash would not have been the result of alcohol.
Then, what about all the cases where people who were not drunk have been involved in fatal crashes? Whatever MADD tells you, these still outnumber the cases where alcohol was involved (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/alcohol_general.html). The majority of accidents don't involve alcohol.
They and other organisations are trying to get this woefully inadequate technology made mandatory for every driver. Meaning that this kind of technology is potentially going to affect every driver. Doesn't this strike you as problematic, or are you yet another of those "it doesn't affect me so I'll sleep till it does" people?
People like you are the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
Maybe it's just where I live, but public transit is available as an alternative to driving and easily provides the argument that driving is not a "necessity" -- transportation is. "Arbitrarily removed" sounds like a judgment call. I would argue that a drunk driver having his privilege to drive removed is hardly arbitrary. We're not talking innocent people; we're talking people who put the lives of others in danger.
Just because people don't have the mental capacity to consider the future consequences of their actions should not make them exempt from such consequences. If people decide to drink and drive, and the established law indicates that doing so will result in the revocation driving privileges, they should have to live with that result, even if it means they lose their jobs.
The degree of backlash against having mandatory breathalyzers in cars would be incredible. Such a policy would be a major problem because it WOULD affect "innocent people" -- reference the over-used sledgehammer versus scalpel metaphor. The case in question, however, is a court mandate for an individual, presumably because he broke the law, not a blanket-approach solution for an entire population.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
Also, stupid, old, unskilled, and unsafe drivers put lives in danger every time they get on the road. Overreaction to alcohol is missing the forest for a tree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
As for the "mandatory" thing? Well, it would be passed through like so many things. First the guilty (convicted drink-drivers) are given them. Then it's expanded through back door measures (reductions on new cars with them installed, cheaper car insurance, etc.). A law immediately making it literally mandatory would be rejected, but people would probably jump at it like lemmings if it promised major savings, without considering how well it worked.
By the way, I don't know how these things currently work for shared cars. Presumably if a wife needs to borrow her convicted husband's car, she'll have to go through the same tests. If so, it looks like innocents are already affected...
"If people decide to drink and drive, and the established law indicates that doing so will result in the revocation driving privileges, they should have to live with that result, even if it means they lose their jobs."
So ban them when they're convicted. Don't give them a supposed reprieve and allow them to try and prove their responsibility, only have their driving abilities removed because of some ice cream.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
Drunk driving laws need to target hard-core repeat drunks who are the REAL dangers. Instead, we get bs from MADD and others hassling people and causing problems for those who casually drink; their goal, prohibition.
I'm not concerned about someone having a drink and then driving, I'm concerned about someone getting DRUNK and driving and a its a huge distinction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blood alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
If they were sentenced by a court to have one installed, they were found decidedly guilty, not innocent.
"What about if they become mandatory as proposed a number of times?"
Proposed, perhaps. Seriously considered? No.
And no, I absolutely would NOT be OK with it to be installed everywhere. I do not drink often, and I NEVER drive after drinking even one drink unless hours since my last drink/number of drinks > 1. In other words, if I had three drinks (my limit in one night), I wait at least three hours after my last drink to drive, or I have my wife, who doesn't drink at all, do the driving.
I have never demonstrated a willingness to drive drunk (or even miniscually under the influence), nor (obviously) have I been prosecuted for it. Someone who has an in-car breathalizer installed as part of their sentencing for a DUI has done both, and the court has every right to take measures to curb such behavior in the future. They have no right to impose upon me a check against a crime I have never committed.
"Or are you just one of those people who ignore problems until they personally affect you?"
Absolutely not. I have no problem with improving the accuracy of breathalizers. However, these rare errors are not a reason to take them out of use for those who have committed a DUI. They knew when they committed the crime that the punishment was a possibility. If you want to get rid of them, I guess I don't have a problem with going back to a straight-up license suspension with an automatic prison sentence if they are found in violation of said suspension.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Calmer Car Karma vs. BlogRage
that people disagree
what their responsibilities may be
make your next drive drug free
BTW: Thanks for the informative details on keytones
I guess I should turn that radio down too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Proof that this test dosent work
I honestly thing this test could be reduced to a, "if you fail this test your geting your blood taken" situation because a blood test can be 99.9% while this test has many proven in court flaws (and lets not even talk about source code)
While the idea of doing a blood test all the time to drive a car is laughable, if some company could come up with a test that uses the same prick methoid thats used to test blood sugar I think we would be in a much better situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It measures Ketones??
That could pretty much invalidate a whole slew of tickets based on that technology, since it's not really a true measure of what it purports to test.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
...and yet not guilty enough to have their licence suspended or removed. In other words, a malfunctioning machine is increasing the sentence past the court's decision (removal of ability to drive *only if* they tried to drive drunk). I know this varies from state to state, but are there really states fitting these machines where they'd previously just remove the licence? I hope not...
"I have never demonstrated a willingness to drive drunk "
Nor have some people who have been convicted of DUI. There are regular cases where people decide to sleep it off in their cars instead of driving home, often never leaving the car park, yet they get charged with DUI anyway. Not to mention the people like yourself who are careful not to drink while impaired, but get charged anyway because of a faulty breathalyser (thousands of cases in Houston were affected last year because a contractor faked maintenance records, for instance).
You have to remember that DUIs don't just apply to people who were drunk. The required BAC in some states is low enough for a person's ability to not actually be impaired, but rather before the threshold where some intoxication might take place. This means that perfectly sober people might blow a positive despite not having drunk anywhere near the amount needed to be impaired or even having imbibed a totally innocent substance (as per the article or the proverbial mouthwash).
"However, these rare errors are not a reason to take them out of use for those who have committed a DUI."
How do you know that they're rare? Results successfully challenged in court might be rare, but you can be sure that most don't make it that far. I do certainly have a problem with a poorly-programmed machine being able to take away a person's rights at a whim, regardless of whether or not they were found guilty of a previous infraction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
Yes, losing a loved one to a drunk driver is horrible and nobody should ever have to go through it. But, there are literally hundreds of other factors that go into deaths on the road. Why is this one the only one that these people care about? Losing a family member to a driver whose car had bald tires or who was texting a friend at the time is equally horrible, but MADD don't seem to look at those issues...
Besides, if you have to bend statistics to meet your agenda, obviously it's not the big agenda you think it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It measures Ketones??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keytone cops
Think I'll go have another drink
[ link to this | view in thread ]
false positives
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reflex Tester.
Of course, there are other causes of impairment than alcohol. I understand that in military aviation, pilots are strongly warned not to skip breakfast before flying, because it will have a small, but perceptible effect on their efficiency. Flying near the edge as military pilots do, the difference might well be fatal. Likewise, a head cold can mess up the reflexes. And all kinds of patent medicines carry warning labels.
I am a nondriver, myself. I was too excited about mathematics at the age of sixteen to have time for learning to drive, and if you don't do it then, it won't take. I don't want to get judgmental, and all, even if some people on this blog seem to be talking as if they had the DT's. Taxicabs aren't that expensive, compared to the cost of owning an automobile. In places where there are well-developed commuter railroads, train stations will usually have cab ranks. Naturally, for commuting, it might be desirable to have a standing arrangement with a particular driver, rather than taking the luck of the draw. This also has the advantage for workplace snobbery that when other people begin boasting about their expensive cars, you can start talking about your driver, and which part of the Khyber Pass he comes from. "Now in Injia's sunny clime/ Where I used to spend my time..."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gunga_Din
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
Yes, that's the self-serving government position on the issue. Very convenient for them, too. All government has to do is define a freedom as a "privilege" and suddenly they can revoke or restrict it at their whim.
In reality, the mere fact that we are compelled through force of law to pay for the roads and other driving-related infrastructure, gives rise to a right to use that for which we have paid. Whether the government recognizes that right or not, it does indeed exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
> transit is available as an alternative to
> driving and easily provides the argument
> that driving is not a "necessity" --
> transportation is.
Try catching a commuter bus to work on a rural Wyoming farm road and then tell me how available public transit is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FALSE
That said there are plenty of radicals that appear that the machine will include in it's counts of alcohol particles because they have similar signature.
The problem here is that the device doesn't measure blood alcohol content, never has measured blood alcohol content, only measures BREATH alcohol content, and I'd be fine with that in the law, but that's not the case. There's a thirty percent variation between the correlation of breath alcohol content and blood alcohol content from person to person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
A drunk in a car, driving or not, is only a small distance away from being a big problem.
The cops will be quite a bit more understanding if you are lying down in the back seat with the car running. or if it's warm enough, put the keys in the trunk, etc. You can't drive from the backseat or with the keys in the trunk. It gives the cops a good indication of your intentions and they likely just let you slide.
And I know from experience, did this in college, sleeping in the car drunk with it running and the cop just took my keys and said 'walk home'. Picked up the keys the next day, no harm no foul. Though I found out the next day he had deflated my tires, just to make sure I didn't come back with another set of keys...lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
Maybe because this one is far and away one of the most preventable causes of accidents?
Driver distraction is obviously also preventable, but its also something that goes away instantly when focus comes back, you can't sober up to react to things. Vehicle maintenance issues don't come close to causing the number of accidents drunk driving causes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
A person talking on the cell phone, texting, eating, etc... has the ability to be 100% attentive at any moment.
A drunk can't sober up.
*Initial* reaction times are similar to drunks, but after that they respond much much better.
Not a complete defense of distracted driving mind you, but there are factors that mitigate *some* of the dangers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
Actually yes they are suspended/revoked. They are granted 'restricted' privileges to get to work or get basic necessities. And going for 'ice cream' in this case would not be allowed. Any use other than to the approved destinations is illegal and they will be charged with driving while suspended/revoked if caught.
Once the sentence is up and their full license is restored the devices are removed from the vehicles. Repeated offenders can have them permanently placed in the vehicles due their obvious ignoring of the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
Driving is not a right. If you think it is, please point me to it in the constitution or other legal definition of it. Seriously, if it's a 'right', it's in there.
As for being 'compelled' to pay for roads, puhlease. If you don't like the laws, you are more than free to present your case to your State and US Representatives/Senators to have the laws changed. The general consensus is that we need roads, and someone has to pay for them, why not people who use them? Much of the funding comes from gas taxes, but some does come from general tax funds. Guess what, even people who don't drive use the roads; i.e. buses, taxis, trucks making deliveries.
The overall community makes decisions for everybody...get over it. Checks and balances exist to prevent 'mob rule' but a democracy/republic means that everyone falls under the basic set of rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
> places where driving is required.
The distinction between freedoms/rights and privileges is not dependent on necessity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
> free to present your case to your State and US
> Representatives/Senators to have the laws changed.
I never said I didn't like the laws. I merely said that if the government compels the citizenry to pay for public infrastructure, it gives rise to a right among the citizenry to use that for which they have paid.
> The overall community makes decisions for
> everybody...get over it.
You're not even being coherent. You seem to be arguing against a point that no one-- certainly not me-- has made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Which ice creams?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
> a small distance away from being a big problem.
That's some lovely logic you've got there.
Let's examine it and extrapolate it out to its ultimate conclusion. Why not charge people with drunk driving for even being close to a vehicle? That way you can get them while they're still in the bar. Or even in their home.
Police respond to a loud noise complaint at a residence, find some intoxicated people in the house and a car in the garage less than 20 feet away. Keys are on the kitchen counter. According to you, those drunks are a small distance away from being a big problem. So they should all be arrested and charged with DUIs, even though they are sitting on the sofa playing XBox. Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
alcohol testers
Mouthwash
Chocolate Truffles
Any chocolate with liquor on it
Some bubble gums
Cough Syrup
Be sure if you ingest these substance to brush your teeth thoughrouly before driving or you are in for a nasty surprise.
The best thing is to have a breathlizer wth and check yourself.
Leave it in plain view with the last reading , this usualy scare cops away
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bubble O Bills
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DWI
Thank you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
breathalyzer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
breathilizer thingy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
False Positive BAC
Also, DWI friend... find a Lawyer and get test done to see is you can beat the case before it is to late. There are many chemical components that will alter the BAC and give a false positive!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: DWI
[ link to this | view in thread ]
False Positives
Diabetes
Gum disease
Acid reflux
Mints
Mouthwash
Body temperature (if you have a fever)
Dentures
And yes, I've heard that the officer is supposedly required to observe you for at least 15-20 prior to breathalyzer since belching or vomiting can cause a false positive, since it DOES take the readings from the mouth, not the blood.
Um. Why would you lock your keys in the trunk? How do you get them out when you wake up? Hmmmmm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FALSE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lucretious & tobacco
Karen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lucretious & tobacco
there are many places on the internet you can find that support the false reading defense. Just Google "tabacco and false breathalyzer readings".
I hope you have an attorney to help you.
My friend received what we believe to be a false reading and although her attorney thought she could fight it and win in court, she did not have the 5000. to pay her to do so. She took a plea in Sept and they installed an interlock device on her car and it has now given her a false reading of .03 (she is ordered NO alcohol) and her probation officer is making a huge fuss over the .03 and threatening to take her back to court and have her probation revoked and her put in jail for 120 days for probation violation. She has not had a drink of alcohol since Sept of 09. Its crazy how much they rely on this machine knowing how inaccurate it can be.
As much as I hate blood test if ever stopped for suspicion of DWI, knowing I have not consumed alcohol I would refuse breath test and demand a blood test instead. Good luck with your situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: John Duncan Yoyo on Jan 22nd, 2009 @ 11:56am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blood Alcohol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
False Positive
As someone who broke the law, I accept my punishment. However, forcing me to put a breathalyzer in my car that gives me "false positive" tests, is just wrong. People who make the poor decision to drive after a few drinks, deserve to be punished. It's the law and everyone knows its the law. But, putting breathalyzers in cars that get you in MORE trouble, even when you quit drinking, is not cool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LOL-never heard similar story
Anyway, it's interesting and may alarm me not to drive after I eat an icecream . hahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:Keytones
http://www.lifesafer.com/blog/will-being-a-diabetic-affect-my-ignition-interlock-test/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]