Kill Switches

[Nick]

Just finished reading about another federal mandate that will impact anyone that buys a 2026 or later vehicle . Basically a kill switch will sense whether the driver is impaired and disable the vehicle . A Kentucky congressman tried to kill the mandate but as usual the opposers that did not read the fine print shot it down . There is still time to stop implementation of this infringement on our freedom . Imagine a car thief being able to shut you down with a sophisticated scanner or the govt doesn't want you to drive .The scenarios are many. Write your representative to put a stop to this !

 

[Poolmonkey]

Lmao…already decided that I won’t be buying anything newer than what I have now.

 

[jsalbre]

False:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...switch-cars-police-drunk-driving/11066287002/

 

[Nick]

Really ? It is not false it is in the bill as a mandate .

 

[Nick]

If you want to believe a USA Today fact checker have at it .

 

[Brutal_HO]

...and your post is was in the wrong forum.

 

[Nick]

Sorry about that .

 

[Grey]

I wouldn't panic just as fast as they mandate kill switches. Fear not the aftermarket providers are foaming at the mouth to build override kits. Only coat ya 199.99.

 

[JimKIII]

False:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/19/fact-check-false-claim-bill-mandates-kill-switch-cars-police-drunk-driving/110662870

As someone previously posted, I wouldn't trust USA Today even to wrap dead fish in. The bill has already passed and has been signed into law. Here's the link:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text

Check out section 24220, "Advanced Impaired Driving Technology." Below is the pertinent verbiage:

(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving
prevention technology'' means a system that--
(A) can--
(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a
motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver
may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an
impairment is detected;

Sounds like a 'kill switch' to me. Of course, I should totally trust the powers that be would NEVER abuse their powers and slyly insert code that would allow the subroutine that "limit(s) motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected" to limit vehicle operation only when impairment is detected. Yeh, right.

 

[mountainears]

The kill is to block impaired drivers. What others are talking about is the rumor that it would allow law enforcement to remotely kill a vehicle, that is not true.

How they kill it for impaired drivers has not been solved technically by US manufacturers yet, but there are some systems out there in other countries.

So are you saying you don’t want them to try and solve the problem of people driving impaired and killing people? Seems like a reasonable goal to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jak]

I wish they had a kill switch for these fools using their phones while driving.

 

[GBB]

I wish they had a kill switch for these fools using their phones while driving.

Amen brother!

 

[JimKIII]

The kill is to block impaired drivers. What others are talking about is the rumor that it would allow law enforcement to remotely kill a vehicle, that is not true.

How they kill it for impaired drivers has not been solved technically by US manufacturers yet, but there are some systems out there in other countries.

So are you saying you don’t want them to try and solve the problem of people driving impaired and killing people? Seems like a reasonable goal to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your remark is exactly the same as someone saying, "If you're not trying to hide something, why are you paranoid about the police coming into your house without a warrant." It's an idiotic statement.

BTW - just today: (a little bit more trustful than USA Today's BS.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/andy-biggs-kill-switch-auto-industry/2023/11/18/id/1142810/

"Biggs said that nobody should be fooled into thinking that the federal government will limit the use of kill switch technology to stopping drunken drivers."

 

[jsalbre]

Newsmax is a more reliable source than USA Today? Hah!

 

[arx237]

The difference is the government mandate of course but hasn't rams built in on-star been able to remotely slow and then disable vehicles with law enforcement assistance for quite some time now?

 

[Rockcrawlindude]

I think we will see a reversal on this before ‘26.

My guesses are as reliable as USA Today and newsmax reporting

 

[jsalbre]

I think we will see a reversal on this before ‘26.

My guesses are as reliable as USA Today and newsmax reporting

I’d agree, simply because the technology to reliably detect “impaired driving” without way too many false positives just isn’t there yet.

 

[JimKIII]

I'll add one last tidbit to this topic and then will stop beating the proverbial dead horse. Those of us who have lost all trust in govment will be concerned with this so-called kill switch. Others will poo poo it and brush off any concerns of the bill as the deranged fears of conspiracy freaks and tinfoil hats. Be that as it may - time will tell.

This article gives a view into some of the discussion of the amendment to try to kill the kill-switch provision of the bill.

Guess What Was Hiding in That 1000-pg Bill - LewRockwell

From the Tom Woods Letter: You may have heard that as of yesterday, it’s been decided that beginning in 2026 all cars sold in the United States will be equipped with a “kill switch,” whereby the car can be disabled remotely if it is determined that you are driving poorly. Rep. Thomas Massie...

www.lewrockwell.com