• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
CycloWizard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CycloWizard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bfdd said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
IceBergSLiM said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
IceBergSLiM said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
CycloWizard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
IceBergSLiM said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
IceBergSLiM said:
so your stating as a fact engineers must make this super easy to bypass
Click to expand...
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.
 
CycloWizard said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ahhh so you are defending drinking and driving. Another one exposed.
 
CycloWizard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
CycloWizard said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
IceBergSLiM said:
Ahhh so you are defending drinking and driving. Another one exposed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
zsdersw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
IceBergSLiM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
zsdersw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
IceBergSLiM said:
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 .
Click to expand...

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.
 
Craig234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top