Swedish researchers have discovered that a low-calorie diet can register a false positive on certain in-car ignition interlock devices that disable a vehicle if alcohol is detected on one's breath. The anomaly was discovered when a non-drinking airplane pilot reported the incident. Turns out the man was on a very restrictive diet that had him losing weight rapidly, which is what may have caused the false reading. As reported in the latest issue of the International Journal of Obesity, motorists on very low-calorie diets may release certain ketones that could be converted into a secondary alcohol known as isopropanol.
Police officials point out that false positives are eliminated in the field as breathalyzer tests are used in conjunction with secondary tests that focus on the type of alcohol and other factors. No citation for drunk driving would be issued in those situations. However, if you have one of these interlock devices on your car, your low-cal diet could spell the demise of your travel plans.
[Source: drive.com.au]
Audi A3 TDI Clubsport Quattro concept
Spy Shots: Production Audi TT Clubsport Quattro
Chevy Camaro getting early unveil at Indy in September
James Garner recovering from mild stroke
VIDEO: God's ringtone is a V10-powered Audi R8
First Drive: 2009 Ford Escapes, more of almost everything
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Itchy Biscuit @ Mar 20th 2007 7:08PM
OK, it's off topic, but wouldn't you find it hard to respect a peace officer wearing knee-high white socks? He looks like a hall monitor from grade school...
-IB
Viv @ Mar 20th 2007 7:29PM
Those Euros have a funny way of dressing. OFCOURSE no offense intended to the thousands of euro autoblog readers.
DPC car videos @ Mar 20th 2007 7:48PM
So does this mean that thousands of people have been conviced on false charges in the past.
xenedar @ Mar 20th 2007 9:23PM
That's an Australian police officer. You can tell by the Holden Commodore cop car and the yellow New South Wales (state) license plate.
xenedar @ Mar 20th 2007 9:30PM
Re: "false charges"... you might want to re-read paragraph 2. Or read it for the first time. Whichever.
Howard Kerr @ Mar 20th 2007 9:33PM
As usual...READ THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
In the field, false positives are thrown out when a field sobriety test indicates the driver is not under the influence...of alcohol.
Different diets make a person's breathe and body odor change. And a low-calorie diet can make you light-headed...so maybe you won't pass that field sobriety test.
This story ONLY references those in-car ignition interlock devices that COULD eventually see their way into U.S. drivers cars.
Harry @ Mar 20th 2007 10:13PM
Embarrassingly, thats a photo from Australia. Thats a Holden Commodore police car.
I apologise on behalf of the Australian people for those socks.
Some people should really use grammar and spell checkers @ Mar 20th 2007 10:26PM
As usual...PEOPLE CAN'T SPELL WORDS CORRECTLY ON THE INTERNET OR TAKE A SECOND TO REREAD THEIR POSTS, BUT STILL THINK THEY ARE SMARTER THAN OTHERS.
Example: "Different diets make a person's breathe and body odor change. And a low-calorie diet can make you light-headed...so maybe you won't pass that field sobriety test"
dictionary.com says...
breathe-to take air, oxygen, etc., into the lungs and expel it; inhale and exhale; respire.
breath-the air inhaled and exhaled in respiration.
I believe the word that poster #6 was looking for was breath. The poster did try though, so you have to at least give them credit for that.
Maxzillian @ Mar 21st 2007 1:54AM
The local grammar Nazi, everyone!
Who doesn't do a single thing to comment about the article itself and instead whines about a simple misspelling.
Way to put that keyboard to use.
Anyway, that article points out something I never would have expected. I have to wonder if any drivers with this problem have tried to bypass the system.
Itchy Biscuit @ Mar 21st 2007 1:58AM
"7. I apologise on behalf of the Australian people for those socks."
It's OK. We here in the US have the mullet and plus-size spandex outfits. Every society has its fashion warts...
-IB
Anton Lang @ Mar 21st 2007 4:31AM
Still off topic, I realise, but this scene is indeed in Australia, and was taken in the Southern suburbs of the large city of Newcastle which is 100 miles North of Sydney
The shorts and short sleeve shirt are a Service uniform option for the summer months. The 9 Mil Glock is not optional.
As with most Service Uniforms here in Australia, be they Military, The Police Service, or other Departments that require the wearing of a uniform, and keeping in mind the heat of an Australian Summer, the wearer can elect to wear the optional shorts as long as long socks are also worn.
It's considered as looking Professional.
Tony.
xx_sw20_xx @ Mar 21st 2007 6:09PM
also u could tell its australian by the source link at the bottum. dee dee dee
FD @ Apr 1st 2007 8:58PM
One must ask; is a legally driving 95 year old possibly more impaired than a driver who blows .08?
SharMulv @ Apr 1st 2007 9:27PM
I learned the hard way about a practice called "wheeling it up" used by police officers in NJ. Since promotions are often based on the number of DWI arrests made by officers, some unscrupulous cops will say that the breathalizer results were above the legal limit, when in fact they were not. Since there is no printout that comes out of the breathalizer, it's your word against the officer's. You then have to prove to the judge, who incidently works for the same town as the officer, that he lied and you were indeed sober. Needless to say, it's a no-win case!
howard @ Apr 1st 2007 11:40PM
Is that cop a queer wearing a skirt or what?
Cliff Hunter @ Apr 1st 2007 11:51PM
SharMulv- First, almost every Intoxilyzer series (about the only one used since 1995) comes with a printout. Second, the samples are saved in a sealed container..two of them, one to be turned over upon request to a Defense Counsel. Third, The Judge may work in the same town (usually not, since most states classify DUI as a Felony, so it goes to a County Judge) but they do not work for the same chain of command, or person. So, if you (and I'm assuming it's You who go the ticket since you seem indignant) were stupid enough to not check into the law, you probably shouldn't be driving a vehicle anyway.
carfan @ Apr 2nd 2007 12:56AM
That cop car looks like a Civic to me. I f you say it's in Australia, I believe you. It just doesn't seem to me that a country that brought the world Fosters and Vegemite would be real strict on DUI. Although they were in Guam too, and that country (yes, I realize it's technicaly the US, but it looks like a third world nation to me)relies on the US military coming and getting drunk.
Joanne @ Apr 2nd 2007 1:18AM
"This story ONLY references those in-car ignition interlock devices that COULD eventually see their way into U.S. drivers cars." ... by Howard Ker
Reading this article and referencing to Mr. Ker's comment quoted here, I say if these devices are true to their word, then the lawmakers should consider having them be built into all new cars. Many who drink and drive have taken the lives of several innocent people. From infants to older adults, it's on the news everyday that a life was taken by a drunk driver.
In addition, such loss of life also shatters families -- children lose their parents, parents lose their children, friends lose friends. No one is immune from the risks DUI's cause. Daily, there are roadside memorials of people who were killed by a drunk driver, mostly teenagers who never had a chance at life because of another's ignorance. It can even happen to one's own son or daughter they kill. Even if you are not over the limit with your alcohol levels, you are still impaired to some degree.
I'm sure if one was to do a survey across the U.S. they will find thousands of deaths everyday caused by DUI drivers. People who drink and drive have absolutely no consideration of the lives of others when they "think" they are okay to drive. If one wants to drink, then call someone for a ride.
To end this, Mr. Ker is 100% right. I'm sure it may not be long before word of this study is more publicized and when it is, I hope lawmakers listen and require them in all new cars. There would definitely be much less loss of lives. It would give teens and children a better chance at life.
Did anyone read the article on AOL news last week of the friends who gathered at a roadside memorial where another friend was killed earlier in the day? They gathered to remember and memorialize their lost friend in word and song. But when they all started to go home, but one teen stayed behind to play one last song on his guitar for his 14 yr. old friend. As the others walked away to head home, the lone teen, doing what he loved, was killed at that moment by a drunk driver. His friends saw it all. Two teens, friends, both killed only hours apart at the same site. Driving after drinking is dangerous, no matter how you look at it.
Am I against drinking. I don't like it, but I also believe everyone has the right to make their own decision. But in doing so, they need to think twice before getting behind the wheel. If one feels the need to drink, I just pray they call someone else to drive or they can stand up to the consequences they will have to live with the remainder of their lives.
As far as a low calorie diet giving false positives, I do not comprehend with such little information provided in this article. No where did it state the number of calories involved. That, I believe is an important factor for one to know. Since most automobiles do not have such devices, this does not even pertain to most people. But I still would like to U.S. to look into this study and possibly impliment having them installed in all new cars. It sounds like it would save many lives and give teens who are the most targeted age group killed by DUI drivers, a chance to live life to the fullest.
Oh, a final word to our spellchecker police chief, SharMalv, get a life. With technology, instant and text messaging, chat rooms, etc. it is easy to misspell at word UNintentionally. It happens, get over it.
signed by ~JS~
Joanne @ Apr 2nd 2007 1:31AM
Oh my, I just discovered I didn't make a spellcheck error but made one much worse and since this is my first time commenting to blogs, I didn't see if there was a chance to edit before posting.
Therefore, I owe SharMulv a most sincere apology as I made an error in the name when I spoke of the spellcheck police chief.
Sharmulv, I do sincerely apologize for my mistake in mentioning your name in that comment. It was not to be. I had written your name down to comment about the NJ police and that is how the mistake happened. All I can seem to do at this point is acknowledge my error and ask your forgiveness. I am truely sorry for my error and look forward to reading more of your postings with this article and/or others, especially other dumb things that happen in NJ (I'm from this state and they do perform some real dumb moves.)
Again I am very sorry and seek your forgiveness.
Blessings,
Joanne
LMiller @ Apr 2nd 2007 1:50AM
If your ketoacidosis (the condition caused by extremely strict and protracted low-carb or low-calorie dieting) is bad enough to make a breathalyzer show positive, you are in no fit state to be driving in the first place. You most certainly would qualify as Driving While Impaired.
That offense can occur when you drive while extremely sleep-deprived, when you drive after consuming two Benadryl tablets (Diphenhydramine HCl--a popular over-the-counter antihistamine), after a killer 4-hour high-altitude workout or any number of other otherwise non-alcoholic events. DWI is STILL a crime, and if you ARE Driving While Impaired, you are very much a danger to yourself and to others.
The chemical reaction in field breathalyzer tests can't differentiate between various alcohols. So what? You would be just as much a danger (if not more) if you were driving under the influence of isopropanol (rubbing alcohol), methanol (wood alcohol) or ethylene glycol (antifreeze). The difference is that ethanol (grain alcohol) probably won't melt out your liver, leave you blind or kill you in the short term.
In most jurisdictions, you can be given or request a blood test. That test is far more accurate. Even so--if you have the crashing blood sugar levels associated with ketoacidosis, you are definitely impaired and should never have gotten behind the wheel in the first place.