6 ms·

New Law Will Install Kill Switches in All New Cars

30 points by skarz 5y ago

kloch 5y ago
I've had several different cars flash the "Do you need a break?" (with coffee cup logo) on the dash when driving through work zones where you are redirected and over various lane lines at odd angles. It would be really bad if the car automatically shut off in those situations.
- jevoten 5y ago
  But it would be an innovative business opportunity to flash that sign when near the car manufacturer's trusted partners in the restaurant and convenience store businesses.
- dont__panic 5y ago
  Can't wait for my car to shut down when I'm trying to get home during a surprise blizzard. Once my car is covered in snow, the snowplow will clean up all the evidence of wrongdoing! Who'll be able to tell if I was drunk when I'm shattered into thousands of pieces by a speeding plow?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
velcrohacker 5y ago
The actual law says that all cars after a certain date should have a system that can: "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected" There is an OR for detecting high blood alcohol level. There are a few years to get input, come up with preliminary rules, get more input, finalize the rules and give time for manufacturers to implement them. This could save 10,000 lives per year and tens of billions of dollars per year. The law says "prevent or limit operation". That is pretty broad. If it is a breathalyzer, or a speed limiter when you are swerving over a 2 minute period, I am fine with that. If it shuts you down for going over the speed limit for 10 seconds, or make an emergency maneuver, then I am not so happy. But that is why we have a representative form of government, and input on regulations.
- jrsj 5y ago
  Why would I ever willingly buy a vehicle that I’m not fully in control of and that can force me to pull over whenever it wants? False positives are an inevitability; the best you can do is make them infrequent. Still, I would prefer to not have the system in my vehicle since I don’t drink and am at no risk of driving drunk.
  - ohazi 5y ago
    It doesn't matter, because you won't be given a choice. If you need a car, eventually these will be the only options available. Tampering with or removing these misfeatures will eventually be classified as a felony, and suspicion that you may have done so will eventually be used to justify violence against you from the police.
  - ryukoposting 5y ago
    > Why would I ever willingly buy a vehicle that I’m not fully in control of and that can force me to pull over whenever it wants? I drive a 20-year-old car because I can't stand the tiny windows, high hoods, giant A-pillars, and high seating positions on new cars. Modern safety regulations mean that I can't buy a new car with my preferred seating position and good forward visibility. The bad news is, time exists. My car is 22 years old, but in 10 years it'll be 32 years old. All the other sedans with good forward visibility will be 30+ years old, too. Old cars get rusty and dry-rotted, and eventually they get scrapped. The government doesn't need to force you into a car that takes away your privacy and agency- time will do the job for them.
- water8 5y ago
  How many lives would surrendering all our freedoms save?
  - rytcio 5y ago
    Well the covid lockdowns showed us that
  - yongjik 5y ago
prirun 5y ago
Great: carmakers keep adding more technology to distract drivers - huge in-your-face screens and phone-related junk - and now will be adding more tech to see if you're driving poorly. At least people can sit on the side of the road and check their Facebook while waiting for the car to reset. Seems better than having them on the road doing it.
dublin 5y ago
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why legislation needs to be fully read and debated in Congress instead of hidden deep inside 6000-page-long "omnibus" porkfests that pass in the middle of the night. (Seriously, look at how many of these monstrosities pass after midnight. It's really frightening what happens in DC after the witching hour...)
dublin 5y ago
And only a few weeks ago, the "starting the car" scene in this great dystopian short film seemed like a ridiculous parody - now it's scheduled to be prescient: (Bitchute link because in another validation of its prescience, it's already been removed from some video services!): https://www.bitchute.com/video/KN6Nl3pJrDTN/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/KN6Nl3pJrDTN/
- SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
  The lyrics of the old Rush song “Red Barchetta” also became a bit more like reality: https://www.rush.com/songs/red-barchetta/ https://www.rush.com/songs/red-barchetta/
thyrsus 5y ago
What part of "passively monitor" permits automated shutoff? Police intervention might be problematic, especially if you're poor or non-white, but it's better than being shot at. Edit: s/observe/monitor/

30 points by skarz 5y ago

I've had several different cars flash the "Do you need a break?" (with coffee cup logo) on the dash when driving through work zones where you are redirected and over various lane lines at odd angles. It would be really bad if the car automatically shut off in those situations.

jevoten 5y ago
But it would be an innovative business opportunity to flash that sign when near the car manufacturer's trusted partners in the restaurant and convenience store businesses.
dont__panic 5y ago
Can't wait for my car to shut down when I'm trying to get home during a surprise blizzard. Once my car is covered in snow, the snowplow will clean up all the evidence of wrongdoing! Who'll be able to tell if I was drunk when I'm shattered into thousands of pieces by a speeding plow?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

velcrohacker 5y ago

The actual law says that all cars after a certain date should have a system that can: "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected" There is an OR for detecting high blood alcohol level. There are a few years to get input, come up with preliminary rules, get more input, finalize the rules and give time for manufacturers to implement them. This could save 10,000 lives per year and tens of billions of dollars per year. The law says "prevent or limit operation". That is pretty broad. If it is a breathalyzer, or a speed limiter when you are swerving over a 2 minute period, I am fine with that. If it shuts you down for going over the speed limit for 10 seconds, or make an emergency maneuver, then I am not so happy. But that is why we have a representative form of government, and input on regulations.

jrsj 5y ago
Why would I ever willingly buy a vehicle that I’m not fully in control of and that can force me to pull over whenever it wants? False positives are an inevitability; the best you can do is make them infrequent. Still, I would prefer to not have the system in my vehicle since I don’t drink and am at no risk of driving drunk.
- ohazi 5y ago
  It doesn't matter, because you won't be given a choice. If you need a car, eventually these will be the only options available. Tampering with or removing these misfeatures will eventually be classified as a felony, and suspicion that you may have done so will eventually be used to justify violence against you from the police.
- ryukoposting 5y ago
  > Why would I ever willingly buy a vehicle that I’m not fully in control of and that can force me to pull over whenever it wants? I drive a 20-year-old car because I can't stand the tiny windows, high hoods, giant A-pillars, and high seating positions on new cars. Modern safety regulations mean that I can't buy a new car with my preferred seating position and good forward visibility. The bad news is, time exists. My car is 22 years old, but in 10 years it'll be 32 years old. All the other sedans with good forward visibility will be 30+ years old, too. Old cars get rusty and dry-rotted, and eventually they get scrapped. The government doesn't need to force you into a car that takes away your privacy and agency- time will do the job for them.
water8 5y ago
How many lives would surrendering all our freedoms save?
- rytcio 5y ago
  Well the covid lockdowns showed us that
- yongjik 5y ago

prirun 5y ago

Great: carmakers keep adding more technology to distract drivers - huge in-your-face screens and phone-related junk - and now will be adding more tech to see if you're driving poorly. At least people can sit on the side of the road and check their Facebook while waiting for the car to reset. Seems better than having them on the road doing it.

dublin 5y ago

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why legislation needs to be fully read and debated in Congress instead of hidden deep inside 6000-page-long "omnibus" porkfests that pass in the middle of the night. (Seriously, look at how many of these monstrosities pass after midnight. It's really frightening what happens in DC after the witching hour...)

dublin 5y ago

And only a few weeks ago, the "starting the car" scene in this great dystopian short film seemed like a ridiculous parody - now it's scheduled to be prescient: (Bitchute link because in another validation of its prescience, it's already been removed from some video services!): https://www.bitchute.com/video/KN6Nl3pJrDTN/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/KN6Nl3pJrDTN/

SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
The lyrics of the old Rush song “Red Barchetta” also became a bit more like reality: https://www.rush.com/songs/red-barchetta/ https://www.rush.com/songs/red-barchetta/

thyrsus 5y ago

What part of "passively monitor" permits automated shutoff? Police intervention might be problematic, especially if you're poor or non-white, but it's better than being shot at. Edit: s/observe/monitor/