Sweden’s Saab Holds Key to Stemming Drunk
Driving Fatalities

28 Jun 2004, 16:13 UTC

John Birchard

One of the most stubborn highway safety issues around the world is
fatalities caused by drunk drivers. Here in the United States, 40 percent
of traffic deaths last year involved alcohol-impaired drivers.

Growing concern about drunk-driving in Sweden and many other countries
has prompted Saab to develop a device called Alco-key. It’s a miniature
alcohol-sensing device that would be built into the car’s key fob, and it
works off already-existing anti-theft technology.

“After you unlock your car, you then blow into the breath-sensing
device in the end of the key and it reads the blood-alcohol content of
your breath and determines whether or not you’re fit to drive, based upon
a pre-programmed threshold that is set into the system,” said Saab’s
Kevin Smith, describing the procedure for using it.

The breath sample passes down a small internal tube containing a
semi-conductor sensor the size of a pin-head. The sample is analyzed and
a small green or red light on the fob lights up. The green light signals
you’re good to go. A red light means the anti-theft engine immobilizer is
active and your Saab is not, and won’t be until the time limit is past
and you get another chance. Or another, non-drinking driver takes
over.

Saab spokesman Kevin Smith says there are several groups who might be
interested in the pocket-sized Alco-key.

“A company might want to have this device on their company car fleet
of vehicles because it puts a good corporate face forward to the public,”
he said. “They are concerned about public safety. It’s also protective of
their own employees.”

A second group that could be customers, says Kevin Smith, is parents
of young drivers.

“Another potential might be parents that are perhaps putting their
child into their first car or sending their child away to college,” said
Mr. Smith. “Most parents like to send their children to college in a
good, safe car to drive and this would raise the level of safety even
further.”

Saab is currently conducting tests on the prototype to verify its
reliability and accuracy. The software controlling the engine immobilizer
can be adjusted to the blood-alcohol limits where the car is registered.
In commercial production, the Alco-key would cost about $300, which is a
fraction of the cost of a fixed system installed inside the car.

Kevin Smith says it’s too early to say when the Alco-key may be ready
for sale.

“They’ve brought it far enough along in its development at this point
that they intend to show this new Saab Alco-key technology to the world
and demonstrate how it functions for the first time in August at a safety
seminar in Sweden,” he explained.

If all goes well, it’s intended that the Alco-key will be available as
an accessory through Saab dealers.

Automakers Look to Install System to Prevent
Drunk-Driving

Major car manufacturers such as Nissan Motor Co. and Toyota Motor
Corp. are looking to equip their vehicles with a system to prevent
drunk-driving, sources said.

Nissan reportedly is looking to implement a system to prevent an
engine from starting when a certain amount of alcohol is detected on the
driver’s breath. Toyota also has begun discussing an anti-drunk driving
system.

However, manufacturers face a variety of problems in implementing the
system such as the cost and legal regulations.

Car manufacturers believe measures against drunk driving are necessary
at a time when many drunk drivers are causing traffic accidents.
(Mainichi)

Source: http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp

TOKYO — Nissan is developing a new system to stop drunk drivers
from starting their vehicles, according to a report in Japanese newspaper
Nihon Keizai Shimbun. The system is said to be similar to the
immobilizers used in the United States as part of some drunk-driving
sentences.

Additionally, the system may be combined with a camera that monitors
the driver for drowsiness. The automaker did not spell out a timetable
for putting the anti-DUI technology on the market.

Saab and Volvo have been leading similar research efforts — in
part because Sweden has tough drunk-driving laws.

Source: http://www.edmunds.com

Breath Test Company Refuses to Disclose Code, to Defense Lawyers’
Delight
March 12, 2006

MIAMI – Timothy Muldowny’s lawyers decided on an unconventional
approach to fight his drunken driving case: They sought computer
programming information for the Intoxilyzer alcohol breath analysis
machine to see whether his test was accurate.

Their strategy paid off.

The company that makes the Intoxilyzer refused to reveal the computer
source code for its machine because it was a trade secret. A county judge
tossed out Muldowny’s alcohol breath test – a crucial piece of evidence
in a DUI case – and the ruling was upheld by an appeals court in
2004.

Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/

Adrian, MI-A woman with a blood alcohol content three times that of the legal limit
pleaded guilty to drunk driving and admitted that she had drunk three
glasses of Listerine.

Carol Ries, 50, was immediately pulled over by police after she
crashed into the back of a car at a stoplight. Ries admitted that she had
consumed Listerine that afternoon, and police in fact found a bottle of
the Pfizer-manufactured mouthwash in the woman’s car.

While her BAC from a Breathalyzer test was lower than the
0.08 legal limit, a second-and less forgiving-test was administered to
her with a different device. It measured her BAC at 0.30.

Listerine contains between 26.9% and 21.6% alcohol, depending on the
variety.

Prosecutors have discarded a charge for having an open bottle of
alcohol in the car, but Ries may still have to serve up to 93 days in
Jail and a $500 fine for drunk driving.

January 21, 2005

Criticism of Ignition Interlock Devices from the California DMV

Santa Fe, NM-The California Department of Motor Vehicles‘ (CA DMV) has sparked a controversy with their latest report, which states “there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders.” Ignition interlock devices (IID) are attached to the car’s ignition and require
the driver to perform a Breathalyzer test before the ignition can be turned on.

The report found that IIDs increase chance of crash by up to 130%, and concluded that the use of IIDs should not be condoned.

The controversy centers around the usage of the findings in a March press release from the American Beverage
Institute (ABI), an association of restaurants committed to responsibly serving alcoholic beverages. The New Mexico legislature and governor will soon decide on the state’s proposed law to implement IIDs in DUI cases. They have been presented with the ABI press release.

The California DMV and anti-alcohol lobbyists focused on findings in the report that counterbalance the critique of IIDs, despite
that such findings were not applicable to the new law. ABI has accused the DMV of glossing over the pertinent issue that interlocks can bring undesirable consequences on the roads-particularly accidents.

The report’s primary writer, David DeYoung, clarified the DMV’s stance on the matter in a subsequent press release, saying, “It’s true that we found court orders to install an ignition interlock device have no
significant effect in preventing repeat DUIs among first-time DUI offenders.”

March 21, 2005

Also See:

• The California DMV’s Response

You may view a complete copy of the CA DMV Ignition Interlock report (PDF download).

• 
  An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California
  (September, 2004)
• An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California (May, 2002)

DMV REPORTS ON IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE LAW

The state Department of Motor Vehicles recently released Part I of a
two-part study of the scope of implementation and effectiveness of
California’s Ignition Interlock Device (IID) law. The
IID law, as amended in 1998, requires a person who is convicted of
driving on a DUI-suspended driver’s license to install
an IID on any vehicle that the person owns or operates. (AB 762, Stats.
1998, ch. 756.) In addition, the law authorizes, but does not require,
the court to order installation of an IID upon conviction of a DUI.
Repeat DUI offenders can apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
for a restricted driver’s license after serving half
of their license suspension period if they install an IID.

An IID is a device connected to the ignition of a motor vehicle
consisting of a unit that tests an individual’s
alcohol breath level. A driver with this device on his or her car is
unable to start the vehicle before providing a breath sample. If the
sample exceeds permissible levels of alcohol, the IID locks the motor
vehicle’s ignition and prevents operation of the
vehicle.

The 1998 legislation required the DMV to evaluate the degree to which
the IID law has been implemented in California, and whether IIDs are
effective in reducing DUI recidivism. The DMV’s study
shows that, while court-ordered IIDs have increased, implementation of
the law is “still weak.†Three concerns
have been identified as a barrier to implementation: (1) many offenders
are unable to pay for an IID; (2) many offenders have no vehicle; (3)
monitoring offenders who are ordered to install an IID is time-consuming
and difficult.

The study concluded that IIDs have not been successfully implemented
in California. It indicates, however, that a modified program might be
successful if there was a way to fund the devices for indigent offenders,
deal with offenders who have no vehicle, and restructure the monitoring
of offenders who are ordered to install IIDs.

The study strongly recommends that California’s IID
program not be further modified until the second part of the two-part
study is completed. Implementation of the current law continues to
improve and valuable information will be forthcoming with the second part
of the study, which will evaluate the effectiveness of the IID in
California.

In addition to the official DMV report, the California Association of
Ignition Interlock Service Professionals (IID vendors) also produced a
report in December 2002 of an informal survey conducted by their
association. That report was distributed to, among others, members of the
Legislature, the Judicial Council, and the Commission on Judicial
Performance. In this report and in recent news articles, IID vendors have
criticized the courts for not ordering IIDs more often.

For a copy and further updates on this story see:
DUI.com
update 3/26/05

Hair Analysis as a Drug Detector

By Tom Mieczkowski, Ph.D.

Series: NIJ Research in Brief Published: October 1995 Tom Mieczkowski,
Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of
Criminology, University of South Florida.

Copies of the unpublished full report prepared for NIJ grant
#92-IJ-CX-K010, “Hair Assays for Drugs of Abuse in a Probation
Population: Implementation of a Pilot Study in a Correctional Field
Setting,” by Tom Mieczkowski, Ph.D., Richard A. Newel, Gail Allison, and
Shirley Coletti, are available on interlibrary loan or as photocopies for
a minimal fee. Call NCJRS, 800-851-3420; ask for NCJ 152420.

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: An NIJ-sponsored study of the viability and
effectiveness of testing hair samples for drug use among probationers,
which was conducted with the assistance of correctional officers from
divisions of the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Field
Services.

Key issues: Because urine testing of drug offenders is known to be
particularly burdensome, a pilot study was developed to determine whether
hair assays, which are noninvasive and have a larger window of detection,
could be more effective. Over a 6-month period, volunteer probationers
were tested for a variety of substances. Researchers also questioned the
field officers about their opinions as to the usefulness of the
testing.

Key findings: Researchers used both methods to test for cocaine,
opiates, marijuana, and other drugs. Among their findings:

• Hair analysis is a better indicator of cocaine use over an extended
  timeframe and can more accurately identify a chronic drug user. Urine
  analysis, on the other hand, is better able to measure short-term
  exposure to cocaine.
• Urine analysis seems to be a better way to detect opiates,
  particularly the presence of codeine. Hair assays are designed to
  detect morphine-based compounds.
• Both hair and urine tests appear to have equal effect in detecting
  the presence of marijuana.
• Hair and urine testing can complement one another because of their
  capacity to expose different patterns of drug use.
• The field officers agreed that hair testing for drugs can be
  beneficial in their efforts to manage their cases and to track drug use
  over a longer time period. Most of the officers agreed that gathering
  hair for tests was less difficult than collecting urine samples.

Target audience: Probation/parole officers, law enforcement officials,
policymakers, and researchers.

Testing hair samples for drugs of abuse may offer certain advantages
over urine testing methodologies. Drugs and drug metabolites remain
sequestered in the hair shaft indefinitely, thus providing detection
during a much larger “window” (approximately 60 days of use can be seen
in one inch of hair) than drug levels in urine, which decrease rapidly,
through excretion, over a short period of time (generally within 48 to 72
hours). From an operational standpoint, the collection, transportation,
preservation, and storage of nonseptic and inert hair samples are simple
processes and relatively noninvasive when compared to those associated
with collecting observed urine specimens.

An NIJ-sponsored pilot study assessed the feasibility and
effectiveness of doing hair assays in a probationary field setting and
the attitude of probation officers regarding hair testing.

Recruitment and retention of probationers

Twenty-two correctional officers from divisions of the Florida
Department of Corrections Probation Field Services voluntarily
participated in this study. Officer-volunteers were asked to solicit from
each of their caseloads 8-10 volunteers who were currently undergoing at
least monthly urine testing. A simple hair collection procedure was
incorporated into the officers’ appointment routine, but no information
on the outcome of the hair assays was used in any aspect of case
management. At each appointment the officers collected a urine specimen
and a hair specimen from the probationer.

Of the 152 volunteer probationers initially recruited for the project,
91 participated for the entire 6-month collection period, and complete
specimens were collected for 89. The study cohort was predominantly male
(72 men versus 19 women) and white (87 Caucasians, 3 African Americans,
and 1 Hispanic were represented). Researchers attributed the low number
of African- American participants to demographics of Pinellas and Pasco
county regions (only about 7 percent of the population in these counties
is African-American), as well as to the fact that young African-American
males were likely to have extremely short head hair; the project did not
attempt to retrieve body hair samples.

Hair and urine specimens were conjointly analyzed for cocaine,
opiates, cannabinoids, PCP, and methadone. Cutoff values for hair
analysis (2 ng/10 mg for cocaine and heroin, and .05 ng/10 mg for
cannabinoids) were recommended by the testing laboratory, and
NIDA-established cutoffs (300 ml/150 for cocaine, 300 ml/300 for heroin,
and 100 ml/15 for marijuana) were used for urinalysis.

Outcomes of hair and urine assays

Complete sets of hair and urine specimens were obtained from 89
probationers. Of these, 36 were negative on both hair and urine assays,
and 33 were positive on both hair and urine assays. In 12 cases,
probationers tested negative on the urine assays and positive on the hair
assays; in 8 cases, probationers tested positive on the urine assays and
negative on the hair assays. Of the 89 complete cases, 53 had a positive
assay on at least one hair or urine sample. A slightly higher number of
drug-positive cases was detected in the hair assays (45) than in the
urine assays (41).

Cocaine. The main criteria for measuring effectiveness of cocaine
detection in this study were the ability of hair analysis to identify
periodic or chronic exposure to the drug and the ability of urinalysis to
measure acute or short-term exposure. Of the 89 completed cases, there
were none in which a probationer’s urine specimen tested cocaine-positive
and hair specimen tested cocaine-negative. This pattern, according to the
study, suggests that hair analysis is effective in identifying periodic
cocaine exposure.

Opiates. The research team was interested in evaluating the detection
of chronic opiate use by analysis of hair and comparing those findings to
the outcomes of urinalysis and any self-reports for opiates. Two problems
arose, however. The major limitation was that there were very few
opiate-positive cases within the sample. Secondly, the hair assay for
opiates is somewhat more limited than urinalysis; the hair assay was not
designed to detect codeine while the urine assay did detect codeine.
Thus, the two assays were not comparable.

Opiates were much less prevalent than cocaine or marijuana. Of all
subjects in the study, only 11 had one or more opiate-positive hair
samples, and 14 had opiate-positive urine samples. These findings include
five cases in which urine samples were positive for opiates but the
corresponding hair assays were opiate-negative. In one of these five
cases, three opiates were detected in urine samples, but none were
detected in hair. In the four remaining cases, the urine-positive,
hair-negative outcomes appeared at either the first or the fifth or sixth
urine samples. Several interpretations of these data are possible. The
hair assay may be less effective for opiates than for other drugs.
Alternatively, the urine assay may be detecting the presence of codeine
from abused medicinals, while the hair assays (which detect
morphine-based compounds) show a negative because the person has not
consumed heroin or morphine.

Possibly the opiates were near or under the limit of detection in the
hair assays; or, in the cases where the urine-positive result occurred at
the end of the study (i.e., in the fifth or sixth sample), the hair may
not have had sufficient time to emerge above the scalp (i.e., the sample
was taken too early relative to the time the drug was consumed).

Marijuana. Marijuana was the most prevalent drug detected within the
sample group by either type of assay. When considering all cases
(completed or not), 53 marijuana cases accounted for a total of 149
marijuana-positive hair samples (out of a total of 503 hair assays and
690 urine assays. The most likely outcome for any completed case, over
the full 6-month period, was that the hair and urine assays for marijuana
would be concordant, though not necessarily for the same timeframe. For
example, of the 89 completed cases, in 33 at least 1 positive assay for a
drug occurred in at least 1 specimen (either hair, urine, or both). Of
those 33 cases, 24 had a marijuana-positive assay. Of those 24, 16 had a
marijuana-positive assay in hair only; 3 had a marijuana-positive assay
in urine only. This suggests that, generally speaking, the hair assay for
marijuana is about equal in effect to the urine assay. It does not show
the enhanced detection capability that appears to be true for cocaine
assays, but the researchers believe that this result is to be expected.
Marijuana may be detected in urine for a relatively long period of time
(compared to cocaine), and one would not expect as dramatic a departure
in detection rates for a drug with long urine retention times.

Other drugs. There were no detections of PCP or methadone in the
sample group.

Participant opinions and experiences

Field officers. Participating officers varied widely in their
estimates of the degree of probationer drug involvement among their
cases; the mean value of estimated drug-user cases was 38.8 percent (s.d.
= 18.6 percent). This was quite accurate since 40.4 percent of the
participating probationers had one or more positive assays (either hair,
urine, or both). If urinalysis alone were used, only 9.8 percent of these
probationers would have been detected as positive. Nearly all officers
supported the concept and practice of probationary drug testing, when
properly conducted. Most officers said that collecting hair samples was
less burdensome than collecting urine specimens. The researchers observed
that officers were readily able to collect, package, and transport hair
samples and to obtain probationers’ cooperation.

Many officers perceived hair testing as a way to manage their cases
more effectively. For example, their ability to sort a series of
drug-positive clients into rank order categories such as “heavily,”
“moderately,” or “casually” exposed would be enhanced, as would their
capability to track drug use retrospectively (especially cocaine) over a
longer timeframe.

Probationers. Probationers ranged in age from 17 to 53 years, with a
mean age of 29.63 years (s.d. = 7.81) and a median age of 29 years. Drug
possession was the single most frequent offense charged against this
group, with drug sales, assault, and larceny following closely
behind.

Probationers were asked about their lifetime drug habits. When asked
about cocaine, 45.5 percent admitted some lifetime use; 35.5 percent
admitted monthly use; and 28.8 percent admitted weekly or greater use.
Regarding marijuana, 71.1 percent admitted some lifetime use.

Implications

The researchers suggest that hair assay technology could usefully be
combined with urine testing in probation population management. For
example, hair testing could be used as an initial screen for the
identification of long patterns of drug use, especially cocaine.
Individuals with indications of severe drug involvement could be placed
on appropriate treatment and monitoring, utilizing both urine and hair
testing, for example. Those who indicate a low level of exposure and
whose claims are consistent with assay results might be assigned to a
less intensive protocol involving, for example, hair testing every 60
days supplemented by a random urine testing requirement. Under such a
system, the data of this project indicate that the detection of users
will be enhanced and will conform more closely to the self-reported
levels of use and the probation officers’ expectations of use.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of
Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Endogenous Ethanol (EE) Production

Where does EE come from? While there’s some
evidence that small amounts are formed inside cells as metabolic
intermediaries or products, mostly it’s manufactured
in the mobile fermentation vat known as your gut. Some of the tiny things
that live in there, especially yeasts, are constantly munching ingested
carbs and churning out booze. The body absorbs this normally modest
volume of EE and it goes straight to the liver, where
it’s metabolized. Barring unusual circumstances, very
little EE makes it to the rest of the body.

To get a significant BAC from EE alone would require increased
fermentation, diminished ability to metabolize alcohol, or (probably)
both. In Japan since the 1950s there have been dozens of published case
reports of people feeling drunk after eating carbohydrates such as rice,
a condition called meitei-sho or, in English, auto-brewery syndrome.
You’re thinking: great—free sake. Not quite. It
comes with a price.

In almost every case in one review, intestinal overgrowth of candida
or other yeasts was identified as the cause. Most patients had undergone
some sort of gastrointestinal surgery—such procedures sometimes
result in increased fermentation thanks to blind loops left in the
intestine, where microbes can eat and multiply undisturbed. In most cases
not involving prior surgery, some other abnormality was noted, such as
low stomach acidity.

Auto-brewery syndrome has never been convincingly reported outside
Japan. Why? It’s all about enzymes. When the liver
processes ethanol, the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase first converts it to
acetaldehyde. In most people a second enzyme, aldehyde dehydrogenase
(ALDH), quickly converts the acetaldehyde to harmless acetate. But
roughly 50 percent of Japanese and other east Asians and some American
Indians (but practically no Europeans or Africans) have a mutated gene
that impairs ALDH activity. In these people, even a modest dose of
alcohol, imbibed or endogenous, leads to acetaldehyde buildup and
unpleasant symptoms: facial flushing, palpitations, dizziness, nausea,
headache and confusion. As acetaldehyde builds up, some is converted back
to ethanol, retarding BAC decline. Eventually various enzymes slowly
clear the acetaldehyde and the symptoms dissipate. People on drugs such
as Antabuse that inhibit ALDH activity might also be subject to
meitei-sho, but so far that hasn’t been
documented.

What’s likely happening in the Japanese cases is a
combination of high carb intake (which the Japanese diet is famous for),
yeast infection and a limited ability to metabolize the alcohol
produced—any of these alone probably won’t do the
trick. My guess is that even without considering their BAC, auto-brewery
sufferers might be in no condition to drive, since
they’d be under the influence of acetaldehyde.

The legal implications of all this vary. Generally, driving while
impaired for any reason (including tiredness or taking legal medications)
is against the law. Ignorance that you’re impaired,
which arguably might apply in the case of auto-brewery syndrome,
isn’t necessarily a defense—impaired-driving laws
in many states don’t require the element of intent. As
a practical matter, the potential consequences of EE are of greatest
concern to those subject to so-called zero-tolerance laws—mainly
drivers under 21, who may face sanctions for driving with a BAC greater
than zero, .01, or .02 percent, depending on the state. Those with
candidiasis and low ALDH activity (for genetic or pharmaceutical reasons)
can exceed those levels. If that describes you, maybe you should think
seriously about that skateboard. If not, disregard the wacky factlets and
remember that only knuckleheads drink and drive.

Comments, questions? Take it up with Cecil on the Straight Dope
Message Board, StraightDope.com, or write him at the Chicago Reader, 11
E. Illinois, Chicago 60611.

Source: http://www.slweekly.com/

Potty Mouth: Urinals Warn Against Drunk Driving

“Hey you! Yeah, you – having a few drinks? Then
listen up! Think you had one to many? Then it’s time to call a cab or
call a sober friend for a ride home. It sure is safer and a hell of a lot
cheaper than a DWI. Make the smart choice tonight: don’t drink and
drive”.

This is what men drinking at bars in Nassau County are going to be
hearing soon. Is this a concerned friend or responsible bartender
talking? No. It’s the urinal in the
men’s room.

“There is no more of a captive audience than a man at a urinal” says
Dr. Richard Deutsch, the bioengineer who invented and patented the
Wizmark Urinal Communicator, a plastic deodorizing recording device that
will play the recording when censors reveal that the urinal has a
visitor. “PSA messages have historically been bland with documented
marginal impact. This will get people talking about the contents of a PSA
message like never before,†he said.

The Nassau County Police Traffic Safety Division has initiated a pilot
program to distribute the devices for free throughout the County. The
program is to be funded by fines collected from DWI offenders.

A major proponent of the program has been Marge Lee, a DWI-crash
survivor and director of DEDICATEDD, a grass roots DWI
victims’ advocacy organization.

Venues eligible for the devices will include rest rooms in bars,
restaurants, concerts, sports stadiums, highway road stops and
schools.

Source: