Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[zsdersw]

nice dodge.

Likewise.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I'm an engineer - I understand how sensors and electronics work. It's what I do. I've also rebuilt just about every piece of a car. I've bypassed key-based starting mechanisms to start a car using a toggle switch when I was still in high school. The exact same system could start any car regardless of what you put between the driver and the engine. I can bypass any device with about $2 worth of parts and 30 minutes of time. I can make the bypass device undetectable without complete disassembly of the dash, so I don't give a rat's ass what penalty you would impose because I'd never get caught.

Doesn't sound cheap or easy to completely disassemble the dash. especially for non genius engineer. Most people don't even change their own oil.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Likewise.

like wise what? answer mine and I'll answer yours

 

[IceBergSLiM]

You sound like some kind of right wing fear machine. Look out! THE DRUNKS ARE GONNA GET YA!!!!!



People around here have been sick of you for a long time.



How the fuck do you roll back a speedometer?

Its clear he meant odometer.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Assuming you mean ODOMETER, it's actually more difficult to roll that back than bypass an IID. I would have to disconnect the cable and drive it backwards for millions of revolutions. It's still pretty straightforward, but it's more work than the case we're talking about in this thread. The law is useless because it's impossible to detect whether or not it's been done as the rollback uses the same mechanism as the normal function of the device.

Still not following how you came to this conclusion. You haven't seen the designs yet for this device. (nobody has) I'm again making a wild assumption here that teams of engineers far smarter than anyone in this thread will put this thing through due diligence and will consider circumvention.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Like I said, an entire industry would spring up for to fill the need. So I guess the goal is to just increase the crime rate by making more things illegal.

what if circumvention or tampering was punishable by 5 years in prison and a life time driving ban. Would you still be in the front of the circumvention line? NO. why not? Because like most people I wager your not a career criminal that doesn't care give a shit about life consequences.

 

[Craig234]

Its clear he meant odometer.

Yes, I mistakenly said speedometer instead of odometer.

 

[CycloWizard]

Doesn't sound cheap or easy to completely disassemble the dash. especially for non genius engineer. Most people don't even change their own oil.

Where did I say you had to disassemble the dash? I said I could make the entire thing undetectable unless government enforcement actually disassembled the entire dash. I can easily install the bypass without doing anything to the dash. People wouldn't have to do it themselves any more than they would have to change their own oil, but it would be almost as easy as (and certainly much cleaner than) changing the oil. Anyone with a soldering iron could do it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Still not following how you came to this conclusion. You haven't seen the designs yet for this device. (nobody has) I'm again making a wild assumption here that teams of engineers far smarter than anyone in this thread will put this thing through due diligence and will consider circumvention.

Yeah, it's easy to arrive at the conclusion that you're right when you don't know anything about the subject matter and simply assume that your conclusion is right - that's exactly what you've done here. If you block current from one ignition cable, I can simply add another to the same point of contact which receives a signal from any point of origin I choose. This completely bypasses any electronic block you want to put in place. The only thing supporting your position at this point is your own ignorance.

 

[zsdersw]

like wise what? answer mine and I'll answer yours

Your dodge of the question. I don't care if you answer or not.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Lets compromise:

How about this, make it an opt in device.

However if you choose not to opt in and you are caught with any liquor in your system while driving life time ban from driving and 5 years mandatory prison sentence.

If you opt-in the sensor is activate if you opt out it isn't activated. Opt-in takes place when you register the car and is noted on your dmv record so cops will know who has opted in or out by running plates.

- Opt-in drivers will have cheaper insurance. Opt-in drivers will be eligible for a government tax credit as well

- Underage(under 21 ) drivers must only operate opt-in vehicles

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Your dodge of the question. I don't care if you answer or not.

:awe:

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Yeah, it's easy to arrive at the conclusion that you're right when you don't know anything about the subject matter and simply assume that your conclusion is right - that's exactly what you've done here. If you block current from one ignition cable, I can simply add another to the same point of contact which receives a signal from any point of origin I choose. This completely bypasses any electronic block you want to put in place. The only thing supporting your position at this point is your own ignorance.

so your stating as a fact engineers must make this super easy to bypass. We can put a man on the moon and shoot missles out of the sky with laser beams but we can't figure out this. damn I had such high hopes.

 

[CycloWizard]

Lets compromise:

How about this, make it an opt in device.

However if you choose not to opt in and you are caught with any liquor in your system while driving life time ban from driving and 5 years mandatory prison sentence.

If you opt-in the sensor is activate if you opt out it isn't activated. Opt-in takes place when you register the car and is noted on your dmv record so cops will know who has opted in or out by running plates.

- Opt-in drivers will have cheaper insurance. Opt-in drivers will be eligible for a government tax credit as well

- Underage(under 21 ) drivers must only operate opt-in vehicles

So if I have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home, you would take away my license for life? Really? Why don't we skip the fascism and simply let insurance companies decide whether they want to give me an incentive to use these devices?

 

[CycloWizard]

so your stating as a fact engineers must make this super easy to bypass

No, I'm saying the laws of physics make it easy to bypass. Engineers can't bend them - that's why they're called LAWS. You can't put a switch in a car that I can't simply bypass by running another wire. Take a physics course or stop pretending to make educated arguments - we are all well aware at this point that you are completely ignorant on this subject.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

So if I have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home, you would take away my license for life? Really? Why don't we skip the fascism and simply let insurance companies decide whether they want to give me an incentive to use these devices?

Ahhh so you are defending drinking and driving. Another one exposed.

 

[CycloWizard]

Ahhh so you are defending drinking and driving. Another one exposed.

Yes, I am. There's not a damn thing wrong with my drinking a glass of wine and driving home. This has been scientifically demonstrated. You're an ignorant fascist. Any other questions?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

No, I'm saying the laws of physics make it easy to bypass. Engineers can't bend them - that's why they're called LAWS. You can't put a switch in a car that I can't simply bypass by running another wire. Take a physics course or stop pretending to make educated arguments - we are all well aware at this point that you are completely ignorant on this subject.

Fair enough, what happens at a check point or when you have to register your car again or pass safety and emissions test? Wouldn't an alcohol laden wipe on the steering wheel expose your fraud?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Yes, I am. There's not a damn thing wrong with my drinking a glass of wine and driving home. This has been scientifically demonstrated. You're an ignorant fascist. Any other questions?

why didn't you say so in the beginning we could have avoided all this nonsense. you are pro drinking and driving. How many drinks is just semantics as your judgment is impaired after a single drink.

 

[zsdersw]

Ahhh so you are defending drinking and driving. Another one exposed.

Ahhh, so you're one of those people who is on a crusade.. sacrificing anyone and everyone, innocent or guilty, to achieve your goal, no matter the cost. Another one exposed.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Ahhh, so you're one of those people who is on a crusade.. sacrificing anything to achieve your goal, no matter the cost. Another one exposed.

Your sacrificing 15k lives per year, and 10's of thousands more injured and maimed + judicial costs in prosecuting and in some cases jailing 1 million offenders per year + colossal ancillary costs to protect your "right" to drink and drive.

Your cause is really noble. Keep defending that.

 

[zsdersw]

Your sacrificing 15k lives per year, and 10's of thousands more injured and maimed + judicial costs in prosecuting and in some cases jailing 1 million offenders per year + colossal ancillary costs.

Your cause is really noble. Keep defending that.

Actually, no... I'm not. You, with your misguided notion that *this* (alcohol detectors in all vehicles) is the only way to reduce drunk driving accidents and fatalities, are the one sacrificing the freedom and choice of the vast majority to achieve very little to shrink the problem.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Actually, no... I'm not. You, with your misguided notion that *this* (alcohol detectors in all vehicles) is the only way to reduce drunk driving accidents and fatalities, are the one sacrificing the freedom and choice of the vast majority to achieve very little to shrink the problem.

I suggest an opt in compromise, you still rejected that? You failed to propose a single viable counter solution other than continue to let people drink and drive.

Yeah great job .

 

[zsdersw]

I suggest an opt in compromise, you still rejected that? You failed to propose a single viable counter solution other than continue to let people drink and drive.

Yeah great job .

No, I haven't rejected that.. but I suggested harsher punishments for first-time offenses, including repossession of the vehicle. You didn't think they were harsh enough.

 

[KMFJD]

No, your ignorant and unfounded assertion that there would be such massive circumvention as to negate any benefit - idiotic on its face - is in error, and ideological.

And where exactly did i say that there would be massive circumvention? All i said was that people would get around this device and some people would provide a service getting around these devices, as someone already mentioned earlier in this thread, it is extremely easy to do