3 ms·

The article is lying to you. Do not trust it. The law does not require a kill switch of any sort, much less one that can be activated remotely. The phrase is

The article is lying to you. Do not trust it. The law does not require a kill switch of any sort, much less one that can be activated remotely. The phrase is "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". Limit can mean a lot of things besides preventing the car from driving. Consider that if you fail the test then a warning lamp appears. If you continue to fail the test for another 5 minutes, and are driving over 20 mph, then your car starts flashing its lights and honking its horn until the test passes again or you stop the car. Or, a governor engages, ramping down to 10mph over a period of 10 minutes. Those result in limited operation, but are not kill switches. Yes, the law could allow interlocks which prohibit use completely, just like those convicted of DUI may already required to have interlocks installed. But it certainly does not mandate it.

cbeach 3y ago
To summarise, you're suggesting we shouldn't worry about a worst-case interpretation of the law, because you're confident that we'll have a best-case interpretation of the law. The path to hell is paved with generous assumptions that government won't take full advantage of the powers it granted itself
- eesmith 3y ago
  That is a wrong summary. The claim is that the feds mandated a kill switch. The law does not mandate a kill switch. You have a several-stage process where the worst-case scenarios has to play out. 1) the technology needs to be more fully developed; 2) the policies need to be put into place (this could take years); 3) there is at least two years after #2 before it's required, and 4) the majority of Congress have to not want to change it. The materials I linked to earlier pointed out that in the 1970s Congress mandated driver seat belt interlocks, only to repeat it when there was enough outrage. So it's not like #4 can't happen. The government could raise taxes to 100%. That's not a worst-case event that I'm going to spend time talking about. Don't buy the fear-mongering this link is trying to sell you. And even if I'm wrong, you have years to advocate for change once the worst-case becomes public.

cbeach 3y ago

To summarise, you're suggesting we shouldn't worry about a worst-case interpretation of the law, because you're confident that we'll have a best-case interpretation of the law. The path to hell is paved with generous assumptions that government won't take full advantage of the powers it granted itself

eesmith 3y ago
That is a wrong summary. The claim is that the feds mandated a kill switch. The law does not mandate a kill switch. You have a several-stage process where the worst-case scenarios has to play out. 1) the technology needs to be more fully developed; 2) the policies need to be put into place (this could take years); 3) there is at least two years after #2 before it's required, and 4) the majority of Congress have to not want to change it. The materials I linked to earlier pointed out that in the 1970s Congress mandated driver seat belt interlocks, only to repeat it when there was enough outrage. So it's not like #4 can't happen. The government could raise taxes to 100%. That's not a worst-case event that I'm going to spend time talking about. Don't buy the fear-mongering this link is trying to sell you. And even if I'm wrong, you have years to advocate for change once the worst-case becomes public.