Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer • Hacker News Board

Re: Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer

#11

Post by bdcravens » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 9:36 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #7

RobLach wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very difficult to prove that the simulation is an accurate and easy to grasp representation that holds up in a court.

You could put the judge and/or jury in VR headsets for the playback. They would see just what the defendant saw, in four dimensions. That's amazingly high fidelity, and the chain of evidence can be demonstrated with a checksum. Compared to judging the inner workings of a breathalyzer, that pretty good.

All that proves is they failed a simulation, not that they were under the influence. Burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

Re: Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer

#12

Post by mavhc » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

pmichaud wrote: post #6

hirundo wrote: post #2

Why use less reliable proxies like breathalizers to gauge impairment when we now have the technology to measure it far more directly: convert traffic cop cars into mobile virtual reality driving simulators. Put a gaming laptop in the trunk, and the DWI suspect behind the wheel with a VR headset on and let them drive through a couple of minutes of reasonably challenging simulated traffic. Let software come up with an…

It's an interesting idea, but the critical issue with it is that it's not illegal to be bad at driving. That could change, but that's how it is now.

It'll illegal to drive dangerously though, surely. It's a test that removes the license to drive from those who can't drive properly, whether due to old age, eyesight, drugs, tiredness. Only self driving cars for you.

Re: Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer

#13

Post by mjfl » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

pmichaud wrote: post #6

hirundo wrote: post #2

Why use less reliable proxies like breathalizers to gauge impairment when we now have the technology to measure it far more directly: convert traffic cop cars into mobile virtual reality driving simulators. Put a gaming laptop in the trunk, and the DWI suspect behind the wheel with a VR headset on and let them drive through a couple of minutes of reasonably challenging simulated traffic. Let software come up with an…

It's an interesting idea, but the critical issue with it is that it's not illegal to be bad at driving. That could change, but that's how it is now.

If someone drives as if they are drunk, all the time, then I don't think they should have a license as they are clearly a danger to public health. On a similar note, the driving test for a license could include a run in the simulator to both test driving skills and establish a baseline for the test. Then the impairment could be measured as relative to that baseline.

I think it's a good idea.

Re: Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer

#14

Post by bdcravens » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 9:40 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #10

pmichaud wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting idea, but the critical issue with it is that it's not illegal to be bad at driving. That could change, but that's how it is now.

Ah, but it's illegal to drive without a license and the test is a de facto driving test so you could make it so that if you fail it you won't get arrested but you get your license suspended on the spot.

Currently simulations aren't valid driving tests, so that entire section of law would have to change. Moreover, does any state do on-demand driving tests? Typically you set the appointment, not the state. Additionally Texas (I'm sure other states are similar) doesn't even "suspend on the spot" for DWIs (you have 40 days or more from the incident before the suspension is effective).

Re: Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer

#15

Post by hirundo » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #11

hirundo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could put the judge and/or jury in VR headsets for the playback. They would see just what the defendant saw, in four dimensions. That's amazingly high fidelity, and the chain of evidence can be demonstrated with a checksum. Compared to judging the inner workings of a breathalyzer, that pretty good.

All that proves is they failed a simulation, not that they were under the influence. Burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

Seems like we should care more about driving impaired than about driving under the influence. The former is what we're trying to prevent by policing the later. You can be impaired without being under the influence, and under the influence without being significantly impaired.

Re: Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer

#16

Post by bdcravens » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

mjfl wrote: post #13

pmichaud wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting idea, but the critical issue with it is that it's not illegal to be bad at driving. That could change, but that's how it is now.

If someone drives as if they are drunk, all the time, then I don't think they should have a license as they are clearly a danger to public health. On a similar note, the driving test for a license could include a run in the simulator to both test driving skills and establish a baseline for the test. Then the impairment could be measured as relative to that baseline. I think it's a good idea.

> If someone drives as if they are drunk, all the time

This doesn't test "all the time". It only tests at one point in time.

States have entire sets of due process for removing someone's license due to medical reasons, etc. It's not on the spot based on a video game running from a laptop in an officer's trunk.

Re: Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer

#17

Post by bequanna » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #2

Why use less reliable proxies like breathalizers to gauge impairment when we now have the technology to measure it far more directly: convert traffic cop cars into mobile virtual reality driving simulators. Put a gaming laptop in the trunk, and the DWI suspect behind the wheel with a VR headset on and let them drive through a couple of minutes of reasonably challenging simulated traffic. Let software come up with an…

I have no idea legally how this would work, but is 'proving' impairment using your proposed method enough?

I would think the missing piece would still be linking impairment to a substance or condition that the driver knew about, but drove anyway. ...which is why a simple sobriety test is typically given before a Breathalyzer.

Re: Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer

#18

Post by bdcravens » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 9:46 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #15

bdcravens wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that proves is they failed a simulation, not that they were under the influence. Burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

Seems like we should care more about driving impaired than about driving under the influence. The former is what we're trying to prevent by policing the later. You can be impaired without being under the influence, and under the influence without being significantly impaired.

I don't disagree, but I've had moments when I was a terrible driver: I was tired, I was pissed off, I was stressed, I had just received bad news, I was quitting nicotine, etc.

Re: Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer

#19

Post by jotm » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #2

Why use less reliable proxies like breathalizers to gauge impairment when we now have the technology to measure it far more directly: convert traffic cop cars into mobile virtual reality driving simulators. Put a gaming laptop in the trunk, and the DWI suspect behind the wheel with a VR headset on and let them drive through a couple of minutes of reasonably challenging simulated traffic. Let software come up with an…

Aside from the other issues, how do you expect your average police officer to handle that thing? You know they're not exactly the brightest people, right?

Re: Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer

#20

Post by NikolaNovak » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 9:53 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #8

It couldn’t be any worse than “specially trained officers” who are able to detect whether someone is high by thier mannerisms and arrest people who aren’t using anything. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/investigations/the-drug...

That article is completely terrifying.

* I am much too much of a control freak to ever ever try drugs; no moral issue, just not for me.

* I have a drink of something on social occasion maybe once or twice a year, maybe not. Never got behind the wheel with even a sip of alcohol that day, let alone a glass, let alone anything approaching legal limit.

But I'm a klutz and I'm an introvert and I get nervous easily and I have NO idea what kind of "signs" my body would display in stressful situation with a police officer at night (my body an my brain have an uneasy working relationship - we mostly put up with each other:).

It is very literally my nightmare scenario to be accused by a police officer of intoxication where none exists. As much as I 100% support them, I'm probably more afraid of roadside checks than an actually inebriated person.