Imagine that you've had a couple of beers the night before, and need to go to work at 6am.
You get pulled over by the police and are unsure if you are still over the limit or not...........
Pop the faker pod into your mouth and squeeze between your teeth to release a mixture of CO2 and Oxygen prior to taking the breathaliser test.
The faker pod is simply a plastic cartridge filled with gas that releases the gas when squeezed between your teeth.
This gives enough gas / pressure to fool the breathalyzer into thinking you have given a negative sample.
Voila.-- meggabrain, Jan 08 2009 Slashdot | Breathalyzer Source Code Revealed http://yro.slashdot...04/2032218&from=rss [Spacecoyote, Jan 11 2009] Heh. You don't need to replace all the air, just enough to keep the resulting mix below the limit.
But never mind faking out the police. Something like this is inevitable for those new ignition interlock breathalyzers that prevent people who've been convicted of D.U.I. from starting the car unless they pass the test. Building a better idiot and all that...-- jutta, Jan 08 2009 sounds a bit less disgusting than faking a urine sample.-- FlyingToaster, Jan 08 2009 Just buy a didgeridoo. After a couple of years, you'll have mastered circular breathing, and will be able to blow air which has spent only a brief moment in your upper respiratory tract and would (I think) not have picked up too much alcohol. Then come and see me so I can call you a selfish git.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 08 2009 Or you could make yourself out to be 100x the legal limit, simply by dipping a cotton swab into a bottle of 99% everclear and then tucking it in behind your lips as you exhale....oh wait, that's for determining who won/lost the beer pong competition though.-- quantum_flux, Jan 09 2009 Actually, if you registered an impossibly high alcohol level, you might be able to argue that the equipment was faulty.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 09 2009 Don't know what country you people reside in but majority of the time "breathalyzers" are merely a precursor to blood analysis, which happens to be admissable in a court of law. Apart from the "breathalyzer", the officer may deem it necessary, of his/her own cognisance, to send you for a blood test. The drager test, as pertains to "breathalyzers", has been deemed permissible in a court of law without blood analysis only in a few states and a few countries worldwide.
If your only worry is that you are going to be caught driving after a drink or five, then you shouldn't even be driving when you are sober. Drunk driving is not about the drunk driver. It is about the other peoples' lives that are destroyed.
Wanna get drunk? Get drunk at home, or someone elses' home, you even have more chance of getting laid.-- 4whom, Jan 09 2009 If you drive after (or while) drinking, you're an idiot.-- superjohn, Jan 10 2009 //Voila.//
You've hit the nail on the head there then.-- skinflaps, Jan 10 2009 There was a man recently who was arrested for DUI. The policeman used a breathalyzer to test BAC. The guy went to court and won. His defense was, if they won't describe to him, in detail (source code and everything) how that particular breathalyzer works (trade secret), the result can't be used as evidence.-- Spacecoyote, Jan 10 2009 I thought it had happened locally but I guess I'm misremembering. This has happened in Minnesota and Nebraska (two separate but very similar cases). In the end, they did turn over the source code to the guys' attorneys (who hired people to audit the code and didn't find anything weird or even worthy of being a trade secret) and they were convicted. So I got that wrong, he won the code, but not the case.-- Spacecoyote, Jan 11 2009 Fancy yourself a computer scientist, [bigsleep]?-- Spacecoyote, Jan 11 2009 I always thought that the breath test was simply a stalling tactic to give the officer enough time to determine if the driver is intoxicated by observing his body language and responses in the verbal exchange.
Field sobriety tests can be evaluated pretty much the same way. A perfectly sober person can fail the test and be determined as such whereas an intoxicated person can perfectly walk the line and touch their nose only to get arrested because of the hillarious giggling, violent shouting, and slurred speech that takes place during the test.-- Jscotty, Jan 11 2009 It is the same idiots that drive reckless when sober that end up driving reckless when under the influence too, but nonetheless, drunk driving impairs one's ability to think and react quickly when behind the wheel. But if, from an insurance standpoint, impairment alone is something that necessitates revoking of the liscence, then then there are many people who shouldn't be driving at all due to impaired physical ability (eg. eyesight, hearing, motor skills) or mental alertness (spatial cognition, reaction time, predictive judgement).-- quantum_flux, Jan 11 2009 //if, from an insurance standpoint, impairment alone is something that necessitates revoking of the liscence, then then there are many people who shouldn't be driving at all due to impaired physical ability //
Many would agree that there are other things that affect your ability to drive in a safe manner. I pray this is not offered in defence of driving under the influence of alcohol.-- superjohn, Jan 18 2009 random, halfbakery