Archive for April, 2009

DUI on a lawnmower? Twice?!

While I know not to believe everything I see and/or read online, these videos actually look legitimate. Police encounter the same man on two separate occasions, riding his lawnmower while under the influence.

Google Labs Invents E-Mail Breathalyzer

While not a true breathalyzer, still quite amusing…

Here’s the scenario.  It’s been a long night of partying on Chippewa or in Allentown.  You’re not quite sure how you got home, but there you sit, all alone.  Suddenly, that proverbial light bulb illuminates above your head.  (Ok, more like flickers dimly.)  Now is a great time to get in touch with your ex and reconcile old differences!

Not so fast says Google Labs.  They’ve introduced a new optional feature for GMail called “Mail Goggles” to keep you from e-mailing while intoxicated.  Yes, really.

It’s functionality is simple.  First, you configure a schedule when you’re likely to be enjoying a few (too many) libations.  During these hours, you’re presented with a few math problems and a sixty second timer to come up with the answers before GMail will allow your mail to send.  The idea is if you’re in a right enough state of mind to answer their arithmetic quiz, then you can take responsibility for whatever happens after you’ve hit “Send.”  The question difficulty level is adjustable, depending on your math ability to start with, or just how well you want to protect yourself.

Of course, if you’re sober, you can probably remember how to turn the thing off anyway.  Note that it’s configured by default for 10PM-4AM.  Buffalonians might want to move that up to 6AM – to adjust for our locality’s service laws, and a trip to Jim’s Steakout.

Full story

Lawyers defend ‘two-beer’ defence

New federal legislation that virtually abolishes a “two-beer” defence to an impaired driving charge is being pulled into court for a legal spot check.

Before the new legislation took effect last July 2, people accused of driving with more than .08 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood – particularly if they were only marginally over the limit – would often argue they had consumed just two beers. They might also say they drank the last one not long before the breath test, which could have resulted in more alcohol in their breath than in their blood.

Under the new changes, part of the federal government’s Tackling Violent Crime Act, accused people who want to challenge a breathalyzer result are now required to provide the court with technical evidence proving the equipment was malfunctioning or wasn’t operated properly.

Some lawyers say the new legislation is unconstitutional.

The first step in the legal challenge begins today when defence lawyers and the Crown appear in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto for arguments over which level of court should hear the challenge.

Full story