• 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 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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...

You don't honestly think that someone that drinks and drives is going to "Opt in" to having a device installed in their car that will keep them from drinking and driving do you? Sounds kind of like the same thinking (or lack there of) that went into the "Gun Free Zones" because yea, criminals care that they are carrying a gun in a Gun Free Zone.
 
IceBergSLiM said:
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?
Click to expand...
Isopropyl wipes wouldn't trigger the sensor and so wouldn't be useful. Ethanol wipes don't exist at a relevant concentration (they are made at 65-70% for biological reasons), which would saturate or possibly even destroy the sensor. Developing wipes with concentrations in the infinitesimal levels relevant to these devices is infeasible for technical reasons you're obviously not equipped to handle (or, maybe you can estimate how long a wipe with 0.1 volume % alcohol would stay wet after packaging or opening? Didn't think so). A simple bypass circuit like I have described here would easily pass any safety inspection or emissions test - neither of those checks any system even remotely related to the ignition system. Even if a safety check did include a look at the sensor, it wouldn't detect a bypass.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, I mistakenly said speedometer instead of odometer.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. It's just another instance of you shooting your mouth when you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

As bamacre said a while back, I think we need to put a mini-guillotine in Craig's pants just in case he gets a hard-on while near children. Can't let this potential pervert out in public without some of kind public safety device in place, right?

If it saves only one child, it will be worth it.
 
CycloWizard said:
Isopropyl wipes wouldn't trigger the sensor and so wouldn't be useful. Ethanol wipes don't exist at a relevant concentration (they are made at 65-70% for biological reasons), which would saturate or possibly even destroy the sensor. Developing wipes with concentrations in the infinitesimal levels relevant to these devices is infeasible for technical reasons you're obviously not equipped to handle (or, maybe you can estimate how long a wipe with 0.1 volume % alcohol would stay wet after packaging or opening? Didn't think so). A simple bypass circuit like I have described here would easily pass any safety inspection or emissions test - neither of those checks any system even remotely related to the ignition system. Even if a safety check did include a look at the sensor, it wouldn't detect a bypass.
Click to expand...

ok if you say so. you are after all the master engineer. We will continue to protect your 'right' to drink and drive at a huge expense to society.
 
xj0hnx said:
You don't honestly think that someone that drinks and drives is going to "Opt in" to having a device installed in their car that will keep them from drinking and driving do you? Sounds kind of like the same thinking (or lack there of) that went into the "Gun Free Zones" because yea, criminals care that they are carrying a gun in a Gun Free Zone.
Click to expand...

don't jump in mid convo here, if you are going to respond to my compromise respond to the entire thing above which addresses your question.
 
zsdersw said:
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.
Click to expand...

if you haven't rejected it then does that mean you would agree with my proposed opt-in compromise?
 
Craig234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha.
 
IceBergSLiM said:
ok if you say so. you are after all the master engineer. We will continue to protect your 'right' to drink and drive at a huge expense to society.
Click to expand...

It takes a master engineer to bypass a device? If that was the case, then there should be no such thing as auto theft, right? Because surely if an alcohol detector can only be thwarted by the world's most skilled electrical engineer, then by now ignition switches are equally hardened right?

Whoops, no, your average thug can learn how to hotwire a car and have it gone in a matter of a minutes.

Learn to think things all the way through before spouting nonsense.
 
BoberFett said:
It takes a master engineer to bypass a device? If that was the case, then there should be no such thing as auto theft, right? Because surely if an alcohol detector can only be thwarted by the world's most skilled electrical engineer, then by now ignition switches are equally hardened right?

Whoops, no, your average thug can learn how to hotwire a car and have it gone in a matter of a minutes.

Learn to think things all the way through before spouting nonsense.
Click to expand...

are you saying all cars are equally easy to steal?
 
IceBergSLiM said:
are you saying all cars are equally easy to steal?
Click to expand...

Are you saying all cars should be as expensive as top end luxury cars with extremely expensive ignition systems?

And weren't you just saying that these detection systems wouldn't raise automobile prices?

Cheap parts gets you cheap results.

Either you can't think consistently or you're a liar.
 
BoberFett said:
Are you saying all cars should be as expensive as top end luxury cars with extremely expensive ignition systems?

And weren't you just saying that these detection systems wouldn't raise automobile prices?

Cheap parts gets you cheap results.

Either you can't think consistently or you're a liar.
Click to expand...

false. All new tech starts in luxury cars before making its way to being standard in all cars. Economies of scale makes it cheap to do this.

Secondly the master engineer said it was a law of physics that all systems can be bypassed with a single wire.
 
IceBergSLiM said:
why should you get a second chance if you opt out and still drive drunk? that just sounds ridiculous. Its a blatant condoning of drinking and driving. Why do you are you fighting for this "right" to drink an ddrive so badly?
Click to expand...

Lifetime ban on driving? No.. not if you just get caught for DUI. If you kill or harm someone else while DUI, then yes.. a lifetime ban on driving is more warranted.
 
zsdersw said:
Lifetime ban on driving? No.. not if you just get caught for DUI. If you kill or harm someone else while DUI, then yes.. a lifetime ban on driving is more warranted.
Click to expand...

If you get second chances then everyone will opt-out and it would keep the status quo we have today would it not?
 
IceBergSLiM said:
ok if you say so. you are after all the master engineer. We will continue to protect your 'right' to drink and drive at a huge expense to society.
Click to expand...
I am a doctor of engineering. What are your qualifications to lecture me on the subject of sensors and electronics? Pro tip: being an idiot is not a qualification.
 
IceBergSLiM said:
why should you get a second chance if you opt out and still drive drunk? that just sounds ridiculous. Its a blatant condoning of drinking and driving. Why do you are you fighting for this "right" to drink an ddrive so badly?
Click to expand...

Frankly, the opt out is a terrible idea.

It's you looking for a compromise with irrational people.

Remember who we're talking about here: while some drivers might pick opt out for the right reasons, some drivers who have serious drinking problems such that they're already making the choice to drive drunk repeatedly DESPITE the threat of killing others, DESPITE severe penalties, can hardly be expected to make a good pick about the opt out option.

It's a common fallacy to think people who do crimes weigh the penalty - if it's 1 year in jail, it's worth it, but 5 years, they won't do it. It doesn't much work that way.

So, when these alcoholics pick the bad option and opt out to keep driving drunk, who wins?

It adds drunk drivers to the road; and when caught it's just punitive, not helping society nearly as much as requiring the devices would have.

If you just want to put drunk drivers in jail for years to keep them off the roads, then pass that, but the devices are much better.

It goes to show how bad laws are sometimes made from bad compromises.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top