Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[Craig234]

No, if that became law, people would and will find a way around them and some would definitely profit from circumventing them, to believe otherwise is foolish.

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.

 

[bfdd]

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.

I and everyone I know would certainly circumvent it. An entire industry would spring up because of it.

 

[bfdd]

Craig you have no legs to stand on. I know for a fucking fact people who get these things installed on their vehicles by the state by pass them. I have seen it done and I know people who have done it. Please stop being a fucking moron and think this would change ANYTHING. Did forcing seat belts lower the death rate? Nope not one bit.

 

[zsdersw]

Actually, I spent zero time responding to your opinion of my posts. I only said I don't care about it You are bringing it up over and over, not hearing very well.

Actually, you've spent quite a bit of time responding to my opinion. The number of times you've typed "idiot" or "idiocy" would make me wealthy if there was a monetary amount given to me for each.

Then clearly getting rid of all speeding laws and enforcement would not cause any increase in speeding, you say?

Getting rid of all speeding laws and enforcement was not advocated.

Then clearly all tax laws and enforcement of them can be removed and people will not pay any less tax, right?

Getting rid of all tax laws and enforcement was not advocated.

Yes, because pirating is NO EASIER than defeating a sobriety device. Which is why there are SO MANY STUDIES - in fact, as many as zero - showing they don't help.

Defeating a sobriety device is no more difficult than pirating media and software. Nobody said sobriety devices don't help, but putting them in everyone's vehicle has never been done.. so it's at best unknown if it will help in that scenario.

While your determination to be an idiot is indisputable, you are struggling to really make the whole idiocy argument, so let me help you by laying it out for you.

Responding to my opinion again, huh?

You need to embrace the idiocy, and say that the general public will be filled with millions of people who are SO OUTRAGED by this government tyranny, that in protest they will START TO DRIVE DRUNK, evading the machines, in protest and civil disobedience. So, the machines will GREATLY INCREASE DRUNK DRIVING.

Responding to my opinion again, huh?

This fits the idiotic right-wing ideology to a tee, including the whole 'the governemnt tries to improve the problem and screws it up' angle.

Well, they've done a bang-up job with healthcare, drug use (which ebbs and flows with the economy and is barely at all affected by government regulation), education (NCLB), energy, financial and stock markets, and illegal immigration.. to name a few. Government "screws it up" far more often than they get it right.

Come on, stop pussyfooting with half-ass idiocy, and go for it. CRAIG234 ADVOCATES INCREASE IN DRUNK DRIVING AND SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS, you can shout.

Responding to my opinion again, huh?

No, they're not. The serious, repeat drunk driver, facing huge penalties for repeat offenses and wants to offend constantly, is the more likely to search for evading it.

The casual people are far more likely to be prevented from driving, far moire likely for the machine's hand in their face saying 'you can't drive, you're drunk' getting compliance, overriding their impaired judgement to 'take the chance', to have people who might not confront them about driving refuse to knowingly help them evade the machine preventing it. It's one thing for them to not demand keys, and quite another for them to hand their own keys over. You have presented ZERO evidence.

Since these devices are not in "casual people"'s vehicles their efficacy toward the target audience is at best unknown. There is plenty of evidence regarding what happens when an unpopular law is forced on the people, though. Lots of circumvention.

 

[waggy]

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.

I don't drink much anymore and hell if i have more then 2 drinks no matter the time limit i DON'T DRIVE.

now saying that i am 100% against this in every persons car. why? hell i don't need it and everyone i know wouldn't need it. why increase the cost of my car for something that has no effect on driving, REAL safety or MPG?

i am for installing this on anyone who gets a diu for life. get one diu you get this on every car at your cost.

but my main point is if you don't think if this becomes manditory on EVERY car that there will be business's that make money on ways to get around it you are nuts or just stupid. it is going to happen. wouldn't surprise me if getting around it will be cheap and easy too.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I and everyone I know would certainly circumvent it. An entire industry would spring up because of it.

what if circumvention 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.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Craig you have no legs to stand on. I know for a fucking fact people who get these things installed on their vehicles by the state by pass them. I have seen it done and I know people who have done it. Please stop being a fucking moron and think this would change ANYTHING. Did forcing seat belts lower the death rate? Nope not one bit.

Seat belts aren't forced. What technology forces a seat belt?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

zsdersw and Cyclo,


1)How can you be stating as fact that circumventing a device would be cheap and easy, when you have not a single idea how the device works.

2)Also why would circumventing the device be cheap and easy but implementing the device would be massively expensive and difficult?

3) what if circumvention 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.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I see your point now.

The thing is, the ongoing lower costs as technology iimproves do not change the fact that making a car without a device like this is still cheaper than one with the device.

The car price might not go up because of other reasons, but the car is still cheaper without the device than with it.

The device might not raise the price of cars over what they are, but it raises the prices of the cars over what the price would be without the device.

The thing is, the device is worth the cost.

Whatever the negligible cost of the device, don't you think you would recoup that in insurance discount? If not would you take a 500 tax write off similar to the credits the feds give people who put solar panels on their homes or buy electric cars etc...

Would incentivizing it in this way satisfy the protest of added cost?

 

[zsdersw]

How can you be stating as fact that circumventing a device would be cheap and easy, when you have not a single idea how the device works.

Also why would circumventing the device be cheap and easy but implementing the device would be massively expensive and difficult?

It is always easier to destroy (circumvent) than to create (implement).

 

[IceBergSLiM]

It is always easier to destroy (circumvent) than to create (implement).

I gotta quote this.++

To prove your theory please retrieve a truckload of gold bars from Fort Knox. Should be easy to do.

 

[zsdersw]

I gotta quote this.

Please do. It is more difficult for the government to implement this device on all vehicles than it is for one person to disable it in their vehicle.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

there is no way possible to justify this price.

What price? Did you put a price on this somewhere that I'm missing?


you're trying to justify legislation that is being written because you assume everyone is guilty.

No. not at all. Its a safety feature, not a tool for the prosecutors.

you're a fucking douche bag.

is this your token ad hominen?

a very very small percentage of the population gets busted for DUIs

1 million arrests per year is small? ok. How many are getting away with it? 5? 10? 20? times that number?

and the problems from DUIs are mostly caused by REPEAT OFFENDERS.

What problems are you referring to, there are many.

I can't find the stats, but I remember reading that somewhere around half of DUI offenders are repeat offenders.

Is the stat your looking for, the average person arrest for DUI has gotten away with it 80-100 times before getting caught?

Crack down on those assholes, don't cause the rest of us some discomfort because you're irrational. I guess you guys feel all the new TSA screening shit is fine and dandy as well right?

I don't think radiation and sexual assault are the equivalent to putting your hand on a sensor on the steering wheel(where your hands are suppose to be anyways) is the same thing. So no I don't agree with the TSA abuses at all.

qq

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Please do. It is more difficult for the government to implement this device on all vehicles than it is for one person to disable it in their vehicle.

what if circumvention 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.

 

[bfdd]

lol @ iceberg telling people QQ. you're the biggest fucking cry baby pussy here. you're bitching and moaning about other people so much you want to change the way they live their life. you and craig are nothing but blubbering vaginas, please fuck off and die before you get any more bright ideas on how you can force people to live the life you want them to.

 

[zsdersw]

what if circumvention 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.

Punishment is always weighed against the risk of getting caught. How would someone get caught for having circumvented their vehicle's device? More importantly, what form of checking the status of these devices is most immune to circumvention?

 

[Craig234]

i don't need it and everyone i know wouldn't need it.

Tell me that after the drunk driver who wasn't prevented by this device crashed into you.

I'm getting sick of the ideology here.

Making speedometers mandatory and passing a law against rolling them back when everyone WANTS to roll them back when they sell their car OBVIOUSLY means that they're totally useless because all speedometers are rolled back illegally, so people can make more money. Any device people don't want is always circumvented you say.

 

[Craig234]

Whatever the negligible cost of the device, don't you think you would recoup that in insurance discount? If not would you take a 500 tax write off similar to the credits the feds give people who put solar panels on their homes or buy electric cars etc...

Would incentivizing it in this way satisfy the protest of added cost?

I understand - I'm just saying, be accurate, so instead of saying 'it won't cost anything to add this device', say 'the net costwill be zero (or less)' if that's your conclusion.

Point out the added cost of the device versus the savings - in fewer crashes, lower insurance.

If you just say it won't cost anything, opponents will claims you are saying something you're not.

I'm convinced the cost/benefit is well within the range for me to support it. It'd be nice to have an estimate for the discussion.

 

[CycloWizard]

zsdersw and Cyclo,


1)How can you be stating as fact that circumventing a device would be cheap and easy, when you have not a single idea how the device works.

2)Also why would circumventing the device be cheap and easy but implementing the device would be massively expensive and difficult?

3) what if circumvention 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.

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.

 

[BoberFett]

I gotta quote this.++

To prove your theory please retrieve a truckload of gold bars from Fort Knox. Should be easy to do.

Are you on drugs?

 

[BoberFett]

Tell me that after the drunk driver who wasn't prevented by this device crashed into you.

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

I'm getting sick of the ideology here.

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

Making speedometers mandatory and passing a law against rolling them back when everyone WANTS to roll them back when they sell their car OBVIOUSLY means that they're totally useless because all speedometers are rolled back illegally, so people can make more money. Any device people don't want is always circumvented you say.

How the fuck do you roll back a speedometer?

 

[CycloWizard]

Tell me that after the drunk driver who wasn't prevented by this device crashed into you.

I'm getting sick of the ideology here.

Making speedometers mandatory and passing a law against rolling them back when everyone WANTS to roll them back when they sell their car OBVIOUSLY means that they're totally useless because all speedometers are rolled back illegally, so people can make more money. Any device people don't want is always circumvented you say.

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.

 

[bfdd]

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.

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.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Punishment is always weighed against the risk of getting caught. How would someone get caught for having circumvented their vehicle's device? More importantly, what form of checking the status of these devices is most immune to circumvention?

nice dodge.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

lol @ iceberg telling people QQ. you're the biggest fucking cry baby pussy here. you're bitching and moaning about other people so much you want to change the way they live their life. you and craig are nothing but blubbering vaginas, please fuck off and die before you get any more bright ideas on how you can force people to live the life you want them to.

nobody is dictating how to live your life. nobody is telling you can't drink and drive. You just cant drink in drive in a car designated and authorized for use on public roadways.

qq were the letters i chose to tap on my keyboard when the forums popped up with a warning saying i didn't meet the minimum requirement. I don't know what else it means to you but to me it was random characters. But you already exposed yourself as a an emotional cry baby as you cannot sustain a dialog free of ad hominen attacks.