Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://reddit.science/flair?location=sticky).
---
User: u/giuliomagnifico
Permalink: https://breadheads.ca/news-update/bLS4T39259GmOf6H15.ca
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My husband actually got refused drinks at a bar while completely sober because of a vision issue! He had to pull out his Canadian National Institute for the Blind card to prove that no, he's not drunk, his eyes just do that. Server was super apologetic, but he would 100% fail some of the roadside sobriety tests (and probably that automated camera) if he ever had to take them.
in NC, you have the right to refuse a field sobriety test, but if the officer believes you to be impaired and wants to to a breathalyser you can't refuse that. it's an automatic suspension of your license for 12 months if you do.
Typically field breathalyzers cannot actually be used in court and are only used to make a determination of arrest, where evidence from the FST or chemical testing is used.
It’s the refusal of blood draw or breath tests *after* you’ve been arrested that revoke your license under an implied consent law
> Imagine being ugly with lazy eyes
I have strabismus. This is where both eyes don't track at the same time. And I can pick which eye I want to look out of. Bummer is no depth-perception.
My Ford MachE has Blue Cruise (lane keeping that does not require you to hold the steering wheel) which has a driver facing camera to make sure you're watching the road. So far, my eye condition hasn't fooled it. And I've tried switching which eye I look out of to see if I can mess it up.
I've always been a bit self conscious about my eyes. Until I had a stroke and ended up in the ED with a bunch of docs looking me over. I could see in their faces they were worried about me until I told them my eyes normally do that.
And then they were all up in my face asking me to switch eyes saying how super cool that was.
My car starts suggesting I take a coffee break about three minutes into every trip. This technology would probably love me!
And no…I maybe have one drink a month.
I turned off the lane keep assist beeping in my new car. And then it decided to have a light turn on to tell me that it was disabled. Yay.
I put a piece of electrical tape over the stupid light.
I use so much electrical tape over lights it's not even funny anymore. My car has a VERY bright light that flashes to tell me it's charging, and solid green when it's charged. I'm on the second floor, and it literally lights up my bedroom.
But also seemingly every other device has it too.
It's love/hate for me. I adore some features and lament others. For instance, my backup camera is worse in my current car than my previous car, which was the same model but older.
Backup camera is the only good feature to come out the last 15 years along with fuel efficiency imo
Remote powering of diesel heater is also nice, but it cancels out considering the amount of complex software and electronics you need to put in places where it doesn't belong (cars)
Yep. My wife almost had an accident in her new car on the way home when it stopped automatically. She immediately turned all autocorrect features off when she got home. A beep is nice but autobraking seems like it is for people who drive distracted already.
Buddy of mine decided to commit suicide by hitting a tree. His SUV auto braked and saved his life. Thankfully, many surgeries and much therapy later he’s in a much better place.
There’s a steep hill near my house with a bend at the top and a guy who parks at the top. About half the time I drive up it, my car sounds the collision alarm. I swear he parks there deliberately.
Can speak to California highways where there are seams running parallel to the lane lines because they keep shifting the lanes around so much. The car is useless.
I know a guy that constantly looks like he's drunk but he's not, he just has that empty-head look and he moves his head around like a newborn baby with no neck muscles. He would get flagged constantly by this.
Even if it doesn't have some sort of bias to your face, could you imagine getting flagged by a system that has a 1/16 chance of two false positives in a row?
Exactly this. It particularly is worrisome for neurodivergent people as we often get accused of our facial expressions not fitting typical neurotypical facial expressions.
Yep. Knowing how models are often trained based on white people, I'd not be at all surprised if the false positives wound up being non-white. The false negatives might even be white.
Haha...I've had people come up and ask me if I suffer from migraines....I've never had one. I just look tired all the time.
I bet this would show me as drunk....
There are [4 results](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Sensitivity_and_specificity_1.01.svg/495px-Sensitivity_and_specificity_1.01.svg.png) from any test.
1. True Positive - Test is Positive, and it's correct.
2. False Positive - Test is Positive, and it's incorrect.
3. True Negative - Test is Negative, and it's correct.
4. False Negative - Test is Negative, and it's incorrect.
"75%" accurate is saying, "I have a 75% chance of providing a true result" - it doesn't say a damn thing about the other side of it.
The #1 outcome is fine - you caught a drunk driver
The #3 outcome is great - you let a sober person go
The #4 outcome is sucky - you let go a drunk person.
But the #2 outcome is a goddamn nightmare. It's the "I was stone cold sober, but now I'm in jail, I was fired from my job, and I have to pay for a lawyer" side.
*THAT* is the percentage that matters.
With 75% accuracy and assuming 1 in every 1000 drivers is drunk at any given moment, if this camera looked at 10k drivers it would on average find 7.5 true drunk drivers and 2500 false positives. 2.5 drunk drivers would be flagged as not drunk
On a saturday night where maybe 1 in 100 drivers is drunk, the same context would result on average in ~~0.75~~ *edit: 75* drunk drivers caught and 250 sober drivers flagged as drunk.
Edit: don't do math in your head past 1am folks
I can't imagine that this would replace all other measures, it would only be a preliminary thing to then move on to more conventional testing like breathalyzers
There is really no time when this is useful. If you didn't have a history of DUI then 25% of the time it's going to make you take a test. If u have a history and are required to test before driving then it will let you drive when it shouldn't. For this to be useful it needs somewhere in the nines range of accuracy imho.
If that were true then they would just breathalyze people. This is an additional way for police to charge you, and there’s not a chance a negative would ever be used to your benefit. Same way Miranda says anything you say can be held against you in court, but doesn’t say you can use it for your benefit.
Yep. Just another Cop Lie to add to their arsenal - "license plate light out, tail light out, swerved", etc, now, "a drunk camera said you were intoxicated. Also now I smell marijuana. We're gonna search your car now so we can plant evidence, or we'll get a dog out here then lie and say it 'indicated' and search your car then."
75% accuracy can excuse a lot of lawsuits. Now excuse me while I pull over these coincidentally drunk Latinos because this is really an add for-
Cervesa Criatal!
Had a buddy in college we joked about having "resting drunk face". He would often get turned away by bouncers and security at the door while he was 100% sober.
Article won't load for some reason so I'll have to try at home later.
In any case, it wouldn't be good enough to get a DUI, buy it's likely enough for probable cause to detain and breathalyze someone/blood test.
Basically a new, quicker form of field sobriety tests, which serve a similar purpose. You cannot get a DUI just of failing a field sobriety test but they can detain you.
Yes, it's my concern that it will be used as probable cause to pull you over. Say I genetically have bags under my eyes, or Bell's palsy, or I tend to be a mouth breather, or droopy eyes, etc., I could get pulled over every day.
Ai tends to not work well around black people (mainly because of biased data, and low N) I see this as a great way to give probable cause to stop every black driver and shoot them in the process
Scientists: We've created a new AI and this one's definitely not racist.
The AI: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
This kind of tech is most likely going to be used with a passive intoxication identification system.
https://madd.org/press-release/10-things-to-know-about-the-drunk-driving-prevention-technology-provision-in-the-infrastructure-bill/
Yeah my f150 will ping a message "driver needs rest" based on facial reading.
It pinged it this morning like 10 minutes into my drive and I was wide awake. Then the other day when I was nodding off it didn't say anything.
What are you talking about? Drug dogs have a 50% accuracy and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that's fine.
The colloquial 50%, not a statistically adjusted one. As in drug dogs are useless. As in they provide the same service as a coin flip (but more expensive).
Field breathalyzers are only between 64-80% accurate, the better end being if they were recently calibrated, which is why they usually have people blow into a better one once they're at the police station. A camera wouldn't need to be calibrated as often and would deviate less, so it'd hold much closer to that 75% accuracy, and would provide a comparable basis to bring a person to a police station to have them blow the more accurate breathalyzer there.
The handheld, portable ones can fluctuate due to a variety of conditions (battery, temperature, bad blow, etc). It's why they're not admissable in criminal court.
The Datamaster DMT (the machine used at the police stations) that most law enforcement uses IS admissable because it's usually in a temperature controlled room and plugged into a wall. Those units are usually checked and calibrated on a regular basis.
This is a big human rights red flag IMO. The biggest issue law enforcement has, is establishing grounds for suspicious behaviour. Most of our traffic laws state, detaining and or searching a person or vehicle is illegal unless the officer has grounds for suspicious behaviour.
A device like this with poor accuracy and many false positives, will allow the officer to search/seize/detain with grounds that are likely false.
Who’s to say that they won’t put in a back door to these cameras either, letting people watch and listen in too?
I agree, 100% a human rights violation.
Yep, they use those in my country to [abuse thousands of people a year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_Police_Force_strip_search_scandal). The dogs have a 25% success rate and are used as sole justification for invasive fully-nude strip and cavity searches, thousands of them a year.
You Americans are lucky with your Bill of Rights. I can just see my nanny state government salivating at the chance to use these cameras to harass people even more than we already do. We have no problem with a 25% success rate so that 75% success rate is going to be just fine. Plus we already give false tickets to people based on cameras falsely reporting them for mobile phone use whilst driving, so this isn't a stretch for us at all.
To take the absurdism further, if every car had an automatic shutoff for a positive hit, 25% of cars would randomly not start. This would definitely cut down on driving fatalities AND fuel consumption. Brilliant all around.
It's not clear whether the 25% error (100-75%) refers to false positives or false negatives. I suspect is it's false negative, in which case 25% of drunks would be allowed to drive.
It would be a combination of them, right?
If you sample 50 drunk and 50 sober people, and it calls out 38 drunk people and calls 13 sober people as drunk, that's a 75% accuracy.
> It would be a combination of them, right?
Hard to say. Sometimes it's a combination, but sometimes it's not. For example, pregnancy tests are very accurate (99%) if they say you're pregnant, but not so accurate (98-95%) if they say you aren't. They usually advertise the positive accuracy, not the combined.
What is the sensitivity and specificity of the system? 75% accuracy says nothing about if it is useful or not.
Sensitivity is a true positive rate, so a percentage of drivers that are drunk it detects.
Specificity is the true negative. The percentage of drunk people is identified as not drunk.
If the specificity is 75% then 25% of all drivers who are no drunk are identified as drunk. Even if the sensitivity is 100% and all drunk drivers are identified as drunk the system is useless because the vast majority of drivers are not drunk.
If the sensitivity is 75% and the specificity is 100% it is a system that can be used. Then everyone who is identified as drunk is drunk.
In practice, the specificity need to be very close to 100% for it to be useful.
From the paper that is linked, DOI: 10.1109/WACV57701.2024.00448 it looks from the abstract that 75% accuracy means sensitivity but is says nothing about the specificity. The rest of the paper is behind a paywall.
I would guess the specificity has not been tested enough to know the result or it was bad and it was not included. It if was good why would it not be in the abstract?
It’s open access. Recall is 0.85 for sober, 0.70 for low, 0.71 for severe. Precision is 0.79 sober, 0.71 low, 0.73 severe.
https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/WACV2024/papers/Keshtkaran_Estimating_Blood_Alcohol_Level_Through_Facial_Features_for_Driver_Impairment_WACV_2024_paper.pdf
I know three people, just off the top of my head, that have droopy eyelids (or one droopy eyelid) all the time. It's just how their face looks. This invention will never be implemented.
Not even close. Bite mark analysis was known to be trash (and most of the pattern matching disciplines of forensics) but it was used for years. Even after it was shown to be trash, people were still kept in jail and had to individually fight to be exonerated. There is no "oh this was bad, let's free all these people".
75% is not nearly good enough, and these facial recognition systems have notoriously been bad and identifying POC faces. I can only imagine this one will have similar difficulties.
I don't believe any "research" that only comes from a company trying to sell something. It's all marketing, and since when did 75% accuracy count as science.
If I've learned anything in the past 5-10 years involving anything where tech and the criminal justice system cross paths, it is this: 75% accuracy is way, WAY too low of an accuracy rate for any level of implementation.
So another piece of faulty technology to harass people and steal their property.
Most like going to be used by law enforcement to go after POC, Women, and no doubt teenagers.
According to the paper (https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/WACV2024/papers/Keshtkaran_Estimating_Blood_Alcohol_Level_Through_Facial_Features_for_Driver_Impairment_WACV_2024_paper.pdf)
>Our model has a significant true positive
(TP) rate of 84.52% for correctly identifying instances of
the “sober” driving state. Similarly, the model achieves TP
rates of 70.94% and 71.98% for the “low AII” and “severe
AII” states, respectively
Which I think implies a >15% false-negative rate for sober drivers (better than 25% but worse than lower numbers, obviously).
And it has a 30% failure rate to capture drunk drivers.
So 25% isn't even the worst part. It will miss 30% of drunk people and falsely classify 15% of sober people.
>falsely classify 15% of sober people.
This is the part that makes it useless. The false positives need to be at 0% for the technology to have any value in the real world. If it got to that though, then letting 30% of drunks slip by with a false negative isn't actually a dealbreak as it's still better to catch 70% than 0%.
75% accuracy isn't good enough. If I am using this to determine the guilt or innocence of a person, it better be at the least 98% effective. There is a reason they don't allow lie detector tests in court. They simply aren't reliable enough.
98% effective? We have a population of 333.3 million and people (in 2022) took an average of 2.44 drives a day - that is 813 million drives annually. 2% of that is 16 million and that is just an annual figure.
You would need to get the margin of error down to a fraction of a fraction of a percent for it to be acceptable in any fashion.
I would argue that even if it’s 100% accurate I wouldn’t want this put into any car.
It’s a violation of the fourth amendment, and who’s to say the camera won’t be hacked to give false readings, or be used to watch/listen in on your conversations
When I clicked on the link, it went to s sketchy web sitre and tried to install a suspicious app on my computer. I think that the web site is compromised.
Then the cops slam their head into the pavement for being non-compliant, so you can add a concussion to the list of medical problems you'll need to have checked out. Oh, and hire a defense lawyer too.
From a U.S. point of view, I could see this implementation as part of DUI/DWI sentencing but I doubt you’ll see mandatory implementation on all vehicles.
As a crime, DUI/DWI are fairly unique in that many people who commit these crimes have the means to pay the fines, fees, and lawyers.
Software engineers and dentists getting DUI’s are paying for local DAs in a matter that people breaking and entering a house for $200 worth of drug money can’t.
The courthouse in Baton Rouge has basically an entire floor dedicated to processing DWI cases.
They’ll never be able to say it, but I doubt politicians will really want to turn off that spicket, and the “invasion of privacy” card will play well with the majority of the population.
>I doubt you’ll see mandatory implementation on all vehicles.
The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law required the NHTSA to come up with mandates that would reduce DUI by preventing an intoxicated person from driving. So it's already in the works, and when the system starts to malfunction it's going to cost you many thousands of dollars to get the system recalibrated just so the car will switch out of park. And of course they'll mandate that there's no manual override because that would just defeat the system.
I doubt that 75% accuracy is going to be high enough to require implementation. By the same token, though, it likely IS high enough for a cop to request a breathalyzer even if they stopped you for something else.
So what i am seeing in these comments is that (if it wasn't inaccurate) everyone is okay with having their cars and smartphones surveil them for intoxication? That is wild to me. It's scary how much people are so willing to give up their privacy.
This is dangerous in that if it exists, regardless of how accurate, it WILL be used unethically to sway judges and juries. National Geographic a few years ago had a feature about "science in the courtroom" and how it has been inaccurately weaponized. The take away was essentially that Judges are very easily swayed when science jargan is thrown around because almost none of them have a basic understanding of science. They gave examples, and even debunked some myths such as unique fingerprints, etc. Specifically they talked about how computers still aren't as accurate at analyzing fingerprints as the human eye. I'll see if I can find the article. It was awesome.
Considering how Police dogs have been proven to have accuracy rates as low as 20% and yet that constitutes probable cause.
Don't be shocked if your pulled over and searched because you look funny.
Assuming that fewer than 10% of people on the road are drunk, I can make an algorithm that can detect drunkenness with > 90% accuracy.
if(driving) {
return SOBER;
}
You would use this to slow down traffic to one lane, keep people moving on and take out those flagged for real alcohol test. This way one could make a lot more tests without affecting traffic too much.
It's not hard to make that 99%. The eye tracking people that are making stuff for the cars in EU that require that (now?) can easily branch into this, but there hasn't been a demand since EU is more concerned about SMS sending than drunk people.
So I'm a bit surprised about the low accuracy.
One notable advantage of this technology is its ability to detect impairment right at the beginning of a journey, thereby possibly preventing intoxicated individuals from driving in the first place. This distinguishes it from traditional methods reliant on observing driving behavior, which typically require active vehicle operation over a period to detect impairment.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://reddit.science/flair?location=sticky). --- User: u/giuliomagnifico Permalink: https://breadheads.ca/news-update/bLS4T39259GmOf6H15.ca --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So in other words it is completely useless. 75% accuracy is not even close to enough.
Exactly. That’s just high enough to be useless.
I'd also imagine this would be impacting the same false positive people repeatedly.
Imagine being ugly with lazy eyes or something and the car is just like “yea this fool is hammered - self dialing the police”
My husband actually got refused drinks at a bar while completely sober because of a vision issue! He had to pull out his Canadian National Institute for the Blind card to prove that no, he's not drunk, his eyes just do that. Server was super apologetic, but he would 100% fail some of the roadside sobriety tests (and probably that automated camera) if he ever had to take them.
That is genius. I’m gonna print one of these cards and bring it to the pub next time.
Should he be driving off he has a vision impairment? In the US you should never take the tests whether you are drunk or not
in NC, you have the right to refuse a field sobriety test, but if the officer believes you to be impaired and wants to to a breathalyser you can't refuse that. it's an automatic suspension of your license for 12 months if you do.
Typically field breathalyzers cannot actually be used in court and are only used to make a determination of arrest, where evidence from the FST or chemical testing is used. It’s the refusal of blood draw or breath tests *after* you’ve been arrested that revoke your license under an implied consent law
> Imagine being ugly with lazy eyes I have strabismus. This is where both eyes don't track at the same time. And I can pick which eye I want to look out of. Bummer is no depth-perception. My Ford MachE has Blue Cruise (lane keeping that does not require you to hold the steering wheel) which has a driver facing camera to make sure you're watching the road. So far, my eye condition hasn't fooled it. And I've tried switching which eye I look out of to see if I can mess it up. I've always been a bit self conscious about my eyes. Until I had a stroke and ended up in the ED with a bunch of docs looking me over. I could see in their faces they were worried about me until I told them my eyes normally do that. And then they were all up in my face asking me to switch eyes saying how super cool that was.
I couldn't read this article but my understanding is this technology needs to be trained to your face for more accuracy.
My car starts suggesting I take a coffee break about three minutes into every trip. This technology would probably love me! And no…I maybe have one drink a month.
Well that's based on you going over the line. Are you sure...are you sure you can drive?
It is not me. New England doesn’t really have lines because the winter salting dissolves them.
My car likes to follow the different colored pavement instead of the lines. And then beeps at me when I correct. I hate our roads
I hate new cars
I turned off the lane keep assist beeping in my new car. And then it decided to have a light turn on to tell me that it was disabled. Yay. I put a piece of electrical tape over the stupid light.
I use so much electrical tape over lights it's not even funny anymore. My car has a VERY bright light that flashes to tell me it's charging, and solid green when it's charged. I'm on the second floor, and it literally lights up my bedroom. But also seemingly every other device has it too.
It's love/hate for me. I adore some features and lament others. For instance, my backup camera is worse in my current car than my previous car, which was the same model but older.
Backup camera is the only good feature to come out the last 15 years along with fuel efficiency imo Remote powering of diesel heater is also nice, but it cancels out considering the amount of complex software and electronics you need to put in places where it doesn't belong (cars)
Yep. My wife almost had an accident in her new car on the way home when it stopped automatically. She immediately turned all autocorrect features off when she got home. A beep is nice but autobraking seems like it is for people who drive distracted already.
Buddy of mine decided to commit suicide by hitting a tree. His SUV auto braked and saved his life. Thankfully, many surgeries and much therapy later he’s in a much better place.
Oof, I feel this. I just had a rental car in Vermont where the lane assist kept trying to steer me into the shoulder because of the terrible lines.
There’s a steep hill near my house with a bend at the top and a guy who parks at the top. About half the time I drive up it, my car sounds the collision alarm. I swear he parks there deliberately.
Can speak to California highways where there are seams running parallel to the lane lines because they keep shifting the lanes around so much. The car is useless.
When there's construction everywhere my Subaru lane keep assist system thinks it's a great idea to nudge me to fake lanes
I know a guy that constantly looks like he's drunk but he's not, he just has that empty-head look and he moves his head around like a newborn baby with no neck muscles. He would get flagged constantly by this.
Even if it doesn't have some sort of bias to your face, could you imagine getting flagged by a system that has a 1/16 chance of two false positives in a row?
Let’s be honest, a good chunk of them would probably be people with some sort of disability.
Exactly this. It particularly is worrisome for neurodivergent people as we often get accused of our facial expressions not fitting typical neurotypical facial expressions.
I was accused of being a stoner before I had ever so much as seen weed. In 6th grade. It had a lasting impact on my life.
Yep. Knowing how models are often trained based on white people, I'd not be at all surprised if the false positives wound up being non-white. The false negatives might even be white.
Yeah, that's the biggest potential problem I see. They would really need a large sample size of all races for it to work properly.
It’s not my fault, officer! I have resting drunk face!
Me with my droopy looking eyes from all the astigmatism
Haha...I've had people come up and ask me if I suffer from migraines....I've never had one. I just look tired all the time. I bet this would show me as drunk....
Invasion of privacy
Even if it was 99.99% if would still be useless, that would be millions of false positives
> That’s just high enough to be useless. So just like me right now.
It’s not too late to get help ^to ^get ^more ^high
Hey just like me
It's high enough to give the pigs an excuse, let's be real.
There are [4 results](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Sensitivity_and_specificity_1.01.svg/495px-Sensitivity_and_specificity_1.01.svg.png) from any test. 1. True Positive - Test is Positive, and it's correct. 2. False Positive - Test is Positive, and it's incorrect. 3. True Negative - Test is Negative, and it's correct. 4. False Negative - Test is Negative, and it's incorrect. "75%" accurate is saying, "I have a 75% chance of providing a true result" - it doesn't say a damn thing about the other side of it. The #1 outcome is fine - you caught a drunk driver The #3 outcome is great - you let a sober person go The #4 outcome is sucky - you let go a drunk person. But the #2 outcome is a goddamn nightmare. It's the "I was stone cold sober, but now I'm in jail, I was fired from my job, and I have to pay for a lawyer" side. *THAT* is the percentage that matters.
With 75% accuracy and assuming 1 in every 1000 drivers is drunk at any given moment, if this camera looked at 10k drivers it would on average find 7.5 true drunk drivers and 2500 false positives. 2.5 drunk drivers would be flagged as not drunk On a saturday night where maybe 1 in 100 drivers is drunk, the same context would result on average in ~~0.75~~ *edit: 75* drunk drivers caught and 250 sober drivers flagged as drunk. Edit: don't do math in your head past 1am folks
You inverted the math in the 2nd part, 1:100 drunk drivers means 100 drivers so 75 caught drunk not 0.75
Why are you assuming the false negative and false positive rates are the same?
Because the only info we have is that it's 75% accurate, meaning it gives a correct reading in 75% of cases.
I can't imagine that this would replace all other measures, it would only be a preliminary thing to then move on to more conventional testing like breathalyzers
There is really no time when this is useful. If you didn't have a history of DUI then 25% of the time it's going to make you take a test. If u have a history and are required to test before driving then it will let you drive when it shouldn't. For this to be useful it needs somewhere in the nines range of accuracy imho.
If that were true then they would just breathalyze people. This is an additional way for police to charge you, and there’s not a chance a negative would ever be used to your benefit. Same way Miranda says anything you say can be held against you in court, but doesn’t say you can use it for your benefit.
Yeah came here to say 75% seems like inaccurate model to me.
All models are wrong, some models are useful Not this one though
Seems like this one is good enough for probable cause to pull you over and harass you. Like the drug dog that knows the signal.
Just enough accuracy to get you pulled over and into an altercation
Yep. Just another Cop Lie to add to their arsenal - "license plate light out, tail light out, swerved", etc, now, "a drunk camera said you were intoxicated. Also now I smell marijuana. We're gonna search your car now so we can plant evidence, or we'll get a dog out here then lie and say it 'indicated' and search your car then."
Always film them. Always watch for the quick double-tug on the leash to tell them to sit (fake indication).
75% accuracy can excuse a lot of lawsuits. Now excuse me while I pull over these coincidentally drunk Latinos because this is really an add for- Cervesa Criatal!
Imagine just existing with a 25% chance of going to prison just because of your facial features when you’re not intoxicated.
Had a buddy in college we joked about having "resting drunk face". He would often get turned away by bouncers and security at the door while he was 100% sober.
Article won't load for some reason so I'll have to try at home later. In any case, it wouldn't be good enough to get a DUI, buy it's likely enough for probable cause to detain and breathalyze someone/blood test. Basically a new, quicker form of field sobriety tests, which serve a similar purpose. You cannot get a DUI just of failing a field sobriety test but they can detain you.
Article loads for me but then immediately redirects to a spam fake virus warning site. Be careful.
Yes, it's my concern that it will be used as probable cause to pull you over. Say I genetically have bags under my eyes, or Bell's palsy, or I tend to be a mouth breather, or droopy eyes, etc., I could get pulled over every day.
Ai tends to not work well around black people (mainly because of biased data, and low N) I see this as a great way to give probable cause to stop every black driver and shoot them in the process
Scientists: We've created a new AI and this one's definitely not racist. The AI: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
This kind of tech is most likely going to be used with a passive intoxication identification system. https://madd.org/press-release/10-things-to-know-about-the-drunk-driving-prevention-technology-provision-in-the-infrastructure-bill/
Yeah my f150 will ping a message "driver needs rest" based on facial reading. It pinged it this morning like 10 minutes into my drive and I was wide awake. Then the other day when I was nodding off it didn't say anything.
Imagine if you are that guy that doesn't drink, but has resting drunk face. His life is hell.
Sucks for all the future sober people who will be arrested because of this.
What are you talking about? Drug dogs have a 50% accuracy and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that's fine. The colloquial 50%, not a statistically adjusted one. As in drug dogs are useless. As in they provide the same service as a coin flip (but more expensive).
It’s about as accurate about a breathalyzer.
Think a lot of these are proof of concepts. I assume there are many interested parties who would help fund this tech to get it more accurate
Field breathalyzers are only between 64-80% accurate, the better end being if they were recently calibrated, which is why they usually have people blow into a better one once they're at the police station. A camera wouldn't need to be calibrated as often and would deviate less, so it'd hold much closer to that 75% accuracy, and would provide a comparable basis to bring a person to a police station to have them blow the more accurate breathalyzer there.
Wow I didn't know breathalyzers were so terrible. What a joke.
The handheld, portable ones can fluctuate due to a variety of conditions (battery, temperature, bad blow, etc). It's why they're not admissable in criminal court. The Datamaster DMT (the machine used at the police stations) that most law enforcement uses IS admissable because it's usually in a temperature controlled room and plugged into a wall. Those units are usually checked and calibrated on a regular basis.
Good lord. 75% is trash.
My face just looks like that, officer.
Those of us with Resting Drunk Face are screwed
"I'm sorry officer, I'm just ugly."
75% better than a drug dog tho.
This is a big human rights red flag IMO. The biggest issue law enforcement has, is establishing grounds for suspicious behaviour. Most of our traffic laws state, detaining and or searching a person or vehicle is illegal unless the officer has grounds for suspicious behaviour. A device like this with poor accuracy and many false positives, will allow the officer to search/seize/detain with grounds that are likely false.
Who’s to say that they won’t put in a back door to these cameras either, letting people watch and listen in too? I agree, 100% a human rights violation.
Facial recognition collection device.
They already employ such a device, it's called a dog.
Yep, they use those in my country to [abuse thousands of people a year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_Police_Force_strip_search_scandal). The dogs have a 25% success rate and are used as sole justification for invasive fully-nude strip and cavity searches, thousands of them a year. You Americans are lucky with your Bill of Rights. I can just see my nanny state government salivating at the chance to use these cameras to harass people even more than we already do. We have no problem with a 25% success rate so that 75% success rate is going to be just fine. Plus we already give false tickets to people based on cameras falsely reporting them for mobile phone use whilst driving, so this isn't a stretch for us at all.
And amazingly dogs are racist, alerting on Hispanic people at a much higher rate than white people.
Even if it weren't faulty tech I'm not okay with using surveillance to keep the population in line.
Assuming less than 25% of drivers on the road are drunk, literally classifying everybody as not drunk would beat 75% accuracy.
This damn thing would label me intoxicated for having a lazy eyelid. No thanks.
Got some facial drooping after recovering from a stroke? That’s a DUI.
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
To take the absurdism further, if every car had an automatic shutoff for a positive hit, 25% of cars would randomly not start. This would definitely cut down on driving fatalities AND fuel consumption. Brilliant all around.
It's not clear whether the 25% error (100-75%) refers to false positives or false negatives. I suspect is it's false negative, in which case 25% of drunks would be allowed to drive.
It would be a combination of them, right? If you sample 50 drunk and 50 sober people, and it calls out 38 drunk people and calls 13 sober people as drunk, that's a 75% accuracy.
> It would be a combination of them, right? Hard to say. Sometimes it's a combination, but sometimes it's not. For example, pregnancy tests are very accurate (99%) if they say you're pregnant, but not so accurate (98-95%) if they say you aren't. They usually advertise the positive accuracy, not the combined.
It's a bad idea to take vague reporting and assume it means something not actually stated
:D that puts it into perspective
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What is the sensitivity and specificity of the system? 75% accuracy says nothing about if it is useful or not. Sensitivity is a true positive rate, so a percentage of drivers that are drunk it detects. Specificity is the true negative. The percentage of drunk people is identified as not drunk. If the specificity is 75% then 25% of all drivers who are no drunk are identified as drunk. Even if the sensitivity is 100% and all drunk drivers are identified as drunk the system is useless because the vast majority of drivers are not drunk. If the sensitivity is 75% and the specificity is 100% it is a system that can be used. Then everyone who is identified as drunk is drunk. In practice, the specificity need to be very close to 100% for it to be useful. From the paper that is linked, DOI: 10.1109/WACV57701.2024.00448 it looks from the abstract that 75% accuracy means sensitivity but is says nothing about the specificity. The rest of the paper is behind a paywall. I would guess the specificity has not been tested enough to know the result or it was bad and it was not included. It if was good why would it not be in the abstract?
It’s open access. Recall is 0.85 for sober, 0.70 for low, 0.71 for severe. Precision is 0.79 sober, 0.71 low, 0.73 severe. https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/WACV2024/papers/Keshtkaran_Estimating_Blood_Alcohol_Level_Through_Facial_Features_for_Driver_Impairment_WACV_2024_paper.pdf
On white people. Yeah this is going to go well...
It would suck if you never drank or did drugs and the system just deemed you as looking drunk
I know three people, just off the top of my head, that have droopy eyelids (or one droopy eyelid) all the time. It's just how their face looks. This invention will never be implemented.
So it’s wrong 1 out of 4 times
As someone who is neurodivergent, I worry about how such an apparatus would interpret autistic facial expressions.
It's bad enough to have to worry about this with 8 billion other people. I don't need the machines judging me now too.
I was thinking what if someone just has an ill proportioned face, or has scarring/other disfigurement that would set it off. It would be a huge issue.
Hey it's enough to land you in prison Don't worry it's just for us poors the rich won't suffer.
I mean except for Justin Timberlake, you know, really messed up the tour with that DUI
It's literally not. All a lawyer would have to prove is that it can fail while someone is sober and all cases of using it could be thrown out.
Not even close. Bite mark analysis was known to be trash (and most of the pattern matching disciplines of forensics) but it was used for years. Even after it was shown to be trash, people were still kept in jail and had to individually fight to be exonerated. There is no "oh this was bad, let's free all these people".
75% is not nearly good enough, and these facial recognition systems have notoriously been bad and identifying POC faces. I can only imagine this one will have similar difficulties.
"The officer observed the defendant arguing with his vehicle's breathalyzer"
This is some BS to pull people over without cause
The other 25% is me pretending I'm Chappell Roan performing my world tour on my way to work
I don't believe any "research" that only comes from a company trying to sell something. It's all marketing, and since when did 75% accuracy count as science.
Something tells me that it will have a 100% conviction rate
Probably via the mail, even.
If I've learned anything in the past 5-10 years involving anything where tech and the criminal justice system cross paths, it is this: 75% accuracy is way, WAY too low of an accuracy rate for any level of implementation.
even 99% isn't good enough.
So another piece of faulty technology to harass people and steal their property. Most like going to be used by law enforcement to go after POC, Women, and no doubt teenagers.
God we are in dystopia
According to the paper (https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/WACV2024/papers/Keshtkaran_Estimating_Blood_Alcohol_Level_Through_Facial_Features_for_Driver_Impairment_WACV_2024_paper.pdf) >Our model has a significant true positive (TP) rate of 84.52% for correctly identifying instances of the “sober” driving state. Similarly, the model achieves TP rates of 70.94% and 71.98% for the “low AII” and “severe AII” states, respectively Which I think implies a >15% false-negative rate for sober drivers (better than 25% but worse than lower numbers, obviously). And it has a 30% failure rate to capture drunk drivers. So 25% isn't even the worst part. It will miss 30% of drunk people and falsely classify 15% of sober people.
>falsely classify 15% of sober people. This is the part that makes it useless. The false positives need to be at 0% for the technology to have any value in the real world. If it got to that though, then letting 30% of drunks slip by with a false negative isn't actually a dealbreak as it's still better to catch 70% than 0%.
Those poor 25% that look drunk all the time.... I've seen them.
75% accuracy isn't good enough. If I am using this to determine the guilt or innocence of a person, it better be at the least 98% effective. There is a reason they don't allow lie detector tests in court. They simply aren't reliable enough.
98% effective? We have a population of 333.3 million and people (in 2022) took an average of 2.44 drives a day - that is 813 million drives annually. 2% of that is 16 million and that is just an annual figure. You would need to get the margin of error down to a fraction of a fraction of a percent for it to be acceptable in any fashion.
I would argue that even if it’s 100% accurate I wouldn’t want this put into any car. It’s a violation of the fourth amendment, and who’s to say the camera won’t be hacked to give false readings, or be used to watch/listen in on your conversations
I want to call attention to the ads next to the article. They are extremely pornographic. Not in a hyperbolic way either. It’s literally porn.
Sure…. And polygraphs detect when people are lying.
F that scammy website.
The other 25%'s experience: *I can't let you drive to work this morning Dave, you look drunk.*
When I clicked on the link, it went to s sketchy web sitre and tried to install a suspicious app on my computer. I think that the web site is compromised.
75% is useless, wonder if this is only against white people and the accuracy would drop with other races too
That website gave me cancer
Completely spammy link
Just wait until someone's driving and having a stroke and gets pulled over for a DUI.
Then the cops slam their head into the pavement for being non-compliant, so you can add a concussion to the list of medical problems you'll need to have checked out. Oh, and hire a defense lawyer too.
>with 75% accuracy Oh okay, so nowhere near good enough to ever see widespread use? Definitely worth writing an article about.
From a U.S. point of view, I could see this implementation as part of DUI/DWI sentencing but I doubt you’ll see mandatory implementation on all vehicles. As a crime, DUI/DWI are fairly unique in that many people who commit these crimes have the means to pay the fines, fees, and lawyers. Software engineers and dentists getting DUI’s are paying for local DAs in a matter that people breaking and entering a house for $200 worth of drug money can’t. The courthouse in Baton Rouge has basically an entire floor dedicated to processing DWI cases. They’ll never be able to say it, but I doubt politicians will really want to turn off that spicket, and the “invasion of privacy” card will play well with the majority of the population.
>I doubt you’ll see mandatory implementation on all vehicles. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law required the NHTSA to come up with mandates that would reduce DUI by preventing an intoxicated person from driving. So it's already in the works, and when the system starts to malfunction it's going to cost you many thousands of dollars to get the system recalibrated just so the car will switch out of park. And of course they'll mandate that there's no manual override because that would just defeat the system.
I doubt that 75% accuracy is going to be high enough to require implementation. By the same token, though, it likely IS high enough for a cop to request a breathalyzer even if they stopped you for something else.
Just so you know, I think you were thinking of “spigot”
I'm not having my rights violated for 3/4 accuracy. Brother, that's just a guess!
75% accuracy is completely useless.
Correct headline - "New big brother surveillance ruins 25% of all drivers lives..."
= it is **wrong** 1 time out of 4 That's nowhere near acceptable for actual use
That’s a terrible accuracy rating.
So what i am seeing in these comments is that (if it wasn't inaccurate) everyone is okay with having their cars and smartphones surveil them for intoxication? That is wild to me. It's scary how much people are so willing to give up their privacy.
How the hell will you be able to contest that sounds like cash cow to me.
This is dangerous in that if it exists, regardless of how accurate, it WILL be used unethically to sway judges and juries. National Geographic a few years ago had a feature about "science in the courtroom" and how it has been inaccurately weaponized. The take away was essentially that Judges are very easily swayed when science jargan is thrown around because almost none of them have a basic understanding of science. They gave examples, and even debunked some myths such as unique fingerprints, etc. Specifically they talked about how computers still aren't as accurate at analyzing fingerprints as the human eye. I'll see if I can find the article. It was awesome.
Considering how Police dogs have been proven to have accuracy rates as low as 20% and yet that constitutes probable cause. Don't be shocked if your pulled over and searched because you look funny.
Alternate title : new tech wrongly accuses 1 driver in 4 to be drunk at the wheel.
What the hell is this site? On mobile and presumably desktop it’s a malware infested disaster. Does this sub have standards?
Sweet, another reason for the police to bother me.
Assuming that fewer than 10% of people on the road are drunk, I can make an algorithm that can detect drunkenness with > 90% accuracy. if(driving) { return SOBER; }
Never get in the car sober. What now, Mr. Car face reading camera
So 1 in 4 go to jail wrongly accused.
The accuracy makes me think some sober drivers just look drunk.
You would use this to slow down traffic to one lane, keep people moving on and take out those flagged for real alcohol test. This way one could make a lot more tests without affecting traffic too much.
7 out of 10 times it works 100% of the time
It's not hard to make that 99%. The eye tracking people that are making stuff for the cars in EU that require that (now?) can easily branch into this, but there hasn't been a demand since EU is more concerned about SMS sending than drunk people. So I'm a bit surprised about the low accuracy.
Thank God I'm sober before this gets improved
One notable advantage of this technology is its ability to detect impairment right at the beginning of a journey, thereby possibly preventing intoxicated individuals from driving in the first place. This distinguishes it from traditional methods reliant on observing driving behavior, which typically require active vehicle operation over a period to detect impairment.
It better support lazy eyes. People in the past have assumed I was drunk just based on my eye floating off while talkin to them!