you should never drive drunk in general, i think that normal common sense should be sufficient for that, all those who do it anyway are not reasonably informed about the consequences. and teenagers should not be forbidden to drink alcohol in general but should be taught how to deal with it sensibly at home and under the control of their parents.
but for parents who love chastity belts and total control, this is certainly something to consider 
Angelina but for parents who love chastity belts and total control, this is certainly something to consider
Similar topic. https://unwedchastity.org/d/488-chastity-belt-with-gps-tracker
audioguy58 My understanding is that SCRAM bracelet is invasive (how else would that work?) so quite obviously it is only available for LEAs (It is medical device that does not exactly have a medical use).
Also the issue with both this and any other kind of something-tracking on body locked devices is power usage. Reading SpO2 by reflecting green and NIR LED off a skin into some kind of photodiode is trivial and processing the resulting data into something meaningful is SMoP. ECG can be done, but there are obvious limitations of the electrode placement. Always active GPS? You just completely blow your power budget. Microfluidics magic? You'd blown both your power and consumables budget.
6373e6b2 the reason why both of these things are possible as court ordered limitation/punishment is that in these cases nobody cares that much about how bulky the device is and there are frequent opportunities to recharge the battery and frequent checks that also allow the authorities to replace the reactants.
Angelina you should never drive drunk in general, i think that normal common sense should be sufficient for that, all those who do it anyway are not reasonably informed about the consequences
unfortunately thats not true - people who drink and drive are very well aware of the consequences, they just dont think they need to be bothered as nothing will ever happen to them. In other words, they are simply selfish idiots.
kat_anders they just dont think they need to be bothered as nothing will ever happen to them
Or they think they have the amount they drink under control, staying under the legal limit (most countries do not have a 0.00% limit).
For that reason I am very much in favour of 0.01% rules (not 0.00% because even most fruit juices contain a very tiny amount of ethanol and you don't want people to be in trouble legally for drinking fruit juice.
But 0.01% is low enough, that you cannot even drink half a glass of beer. So no way to try to intentionally drink alcohol yet stay under the limit.
curious it could be that, yes, but I think it’s more likely the kind of people who think rules don’t apply to them.
hanna_anders There are definitely both kinds around. How common one or the other is, I cannot say.
curious just watch the idiots falling out of bars and getting into cars, so drunk they can barely walk but then they drive home...
kat_anders unfortunately thats not true - people who drink and drive are very well aware of the consequences, they just dont think they need to be bothered as nothing will ever happen to them. In other words, they are simply selfish idiots.
i am usually against government intervention, but something has to be done here, the risk is simply too high. there are cars that don't start if someone is not wearing a seatbelt, this technology could be combined with a breathalyser, i.e. everyone has to blow before the car starts, of course difficult to control when there are several people in the car, but a possibility.
Angelina Those things exist, and some jurisdictions require repeat DUI offenders to put it in their car once they get their license back.
The state of
arizona USA requires that a peron convicted of DUI have an ignition breathalyzer installed in order to get their license back (after the 1 yearar suspension), The cases I know about the breathalyser was required for a year,.
then simply install it in all cars and the problem is solved, then the police don't have to constantly stop people who might just be tired
Angelina We would still pay for it via taxes, and I doubt that it would pay for itself with a reduction in police stops.
Angelina then the police don't have to constantly stop people who might just be tired
If your driving shows signs of impairment, you should get stopped. Whether it is alcohol or tiredness is secondary, you should at least be told to watch your driving because your senses might not be at peak performance, and if it is worse you should be expected to end your travel right there until you get better.
youdontknowme We would still pay for it via taxes, and I doubt that it would pay for itself with a reduction in police stops.
well, you could also invest some money from what you invest elsewhere in the system instead, then it wouldn't cost us any more, it would just be distributed differently
youdontknowme Whether it is alcohol or tiredness is secondary,
That's right, the example wasn't well chosen. i just think tiredness can't always be avoided and i have enough friends who were stopped even though the police had no accusation at all
Angelina
Do you know what hours for example doctors on duty work? The system that is trying to save money on the back of junior doctors is kind of forcing them to work these excessive hours, so no, it cannot easily avoided.
It is really all about money. A breathalizer in every car is pretty useless as long as you do not prevent another person to "unlock" the car. Imagine a father having a few beer during a bbq in the garden with friends. Come early evening, the son has to go for football practice and so the father would order him to unlock the car for him, so he can drive the son to his training.
You cannot solve a problem that is founded in the society (general availability and acceptance of alcohol) with technical means, I am afraid.
