A good IDEA or a bit overkill?

[kenny J]

Hand-held device detects impaired drivers

A hand-held device designed to identify drivers impaired by drugs, alcohol or excessive tiredness, is being evaluated by the British police.

The device is intended to deliver a quick yes or no verdict on whether a person is in a fit state to drive and works by assessing the driver's behaviour, rather than testing for particular substances. It is the first of its kind to be tested by police anywhere in the world.

The "impairment detector" is still in the early stages of development, but the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) in St Albans, Hertfordshire, is studying results from a prototype to decide whether to take the project further. If it gets the go-ahead, at least two years of testing will be needed before the detector is ready for the streets.

"Early results are very promising," says Julia Boyle of the University of Surrey in Guildford, UK, who is leading the research on behalf of the PSDB and who revealed the results last week at a conference at Cranfield University.


Twin test


Boyle's prototype runs on a PDA. It provides two tests, which take about 10 minutes to complete, and assess whether a person is too impaired to drive.

Her team tested the prototype at two music festivals this summer, where people who will admit to being impaired are relatively easy to find. With 170 volunteers, the researchers found a significant difference in performance between people who said they had not taken drugs and those who admitted to being under the influence.

The main purpose of the device is to detect people who are unfit to drive because they have taken illicit drugs, Boyle says. This is a growing problem in the UK, where 18 per cent of road casualties in 2002 were found to have traces of drugs in their bodies, compared with just 3 per cent 10 years ago.

The detector would deliver a verdict similar to the way a breathalyser indicates how much alcohol is in the blood, with positive, negative and a grey area between the two. Thresholds for these levels have yet to be set, says Boyle.

continues
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...?id=ns99994394

Related LINK:
Police Scientific Development Branch(UK)

[acreature]

Why wouldn't be a good idea? Anything that keeps drunks and druggies from killing other poeple gets the thumbs up from me.

[kenny J]

Why wouldn't be a good idea? Anything that keeps drunks and druggies from killing other poeple gets the thumbs up from me.

Aren't there other road side methods that work already?

Ken

[acreature]

Yes there are SFSTs, but they are time consuming. Coupled with the actual breath or blood testing; it really is a long process, which takes an Officer off of the street. Anything that keeps Officers on the road longer and still gets the loosers off, is a great thing.

[mcsap]

The training to do roadside SFST's for drugs is not near as widespread as those for alcohol. It is a newer technique.

As acreature said ,ANYTHING that helps keep an intoxicated ( drugs or alcohol) driver off of the road is good.

[Strijder]

Crazy question... Assuming this works, and measures actual impairment, do you think blood alcohol limits will become irrelevant?

[acreature]

Anything is possible. It's all up to our Judges to give the item, whatever instrument it may be, "Judicial Notice".

[Orleander]

I think its a good idea. I wonder about its validity in court, kinda like the lie detector.
And kenny, thanks for posting an LEO thread.

[Oldbillplod]

How can this possibly be a bad idea.

[kenny J]

I would have THOUGHT this was a good IDEA but I'm not LEO . Sometimes people prefer non technological solutions. I'm a bit of a tech head so I lean toward these stuff as a rule. That's why this Police Scientific Development Branch was of interest to me. They are quite a serious unit!

Does the US have something like this?

Ken

[CTDL92]

Just from the quick scan that I gave your link, the tests don't seem to be anything that is much different than what is accomplished by the standard field sobriety tests. You still need some probable cause to have intiated the stop in the first place and assuming that you have stopped for more than a tail light being out you have some evidence already of them being incapable of safe driving. If this is for narcotics you will still have to have chemical testing done to show what is in their system regardless of what this roadside device shows. As for Pennsylvania we would still need the BAC % for court because of the way are statute is written BAC matters for sentencing. As far as field sobriety tests taking a long time the article said this device takes ten minutes to complete the tests it never took me more than ten minutes to complete them. Neat idea but in my opinion it doesn't take the place of sobriety tests, PBT's and experience.

[Shagnwrx]

I kinda like the idea of a device that can assist in determing impairment of ANY type including impairment by fatigue. If tired, I would imagine you could still pass a field sobriety test. When tired you're attention span, concentration, and vision become impaired, not so much your motor skills.

[CTDL92]

The problem with impariment as a result of exhaustion is that one there is no law against being tired only the possibility of a careless driving citation. two put your self in the shoes of the tired driver, you've just been pulled over and you're now being tested by an officer, how alert are you now? I would guess you would have to be real tired to not be able to function with this adreniline burst.

[fatboyjim154]

They did test some sort of paper wipes over here once.

An MP undertook the test at a Press release thingy and tested + for cocaine :D

It was apparently codeine he was taking 'cos he had a bad back :rolleyes:

[Orleander]

I kinda like the idea of a device that can assist in determing impairment of ANY type including impairment by fatigue. If tired, I would imagine you could still pass a field sobriety test. When tired you're attention span, concentration, and vision become impaired, not so much your motor skills.

How would it be admissable in court? Its not REAL evidence.