Gov Mandated Vehicle Kill Switches for 2026

[Ben]

I was unaware of this law taking effect in 2026. Massie tried to stop it and failed. Two dems voted for it, and 19 commie Rs voted against it.

https://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2023/11/08/maddie-kill-switch-amendmenr-n2389552

[WLJ]

Mandated remote kill switches for cars, what could possibly go wrong? 

30 seconds after they start this kill switches will be for sale on the internet.

[Jim147]

I'll still be driving my 1999.

[230RN]

D'ja ever have the engine conk out during a left turn with oncoming traffic?

I did, scarier than hell, barely coasted out of the way.  Computer on my new car crapped out.  That was the crux of a long sad story getting the computer replaced.  Approximately mid-1970s.  Trust not the fingers on the kill switch.

[Northwoods]

Guess I won't be buying any new cars ca 2030 afterall.

[Angel Eyes]

Expect the prices for used pre-2026 cars to increase.

[charby]

Expect the prices for used pre-2026 cars to increase.

What I was thinking, I better get on the ball to get my next vehicle soon.

[230RN]

What I was thinking, I better get on the ball to get my next vehicle soon.

Reminds me that I had to laugh when an insurance adjuster for a fender bender asked me for the key to my car so he could get the mileage.

He didn't realize that it was a mechanical odometer and he didn't need to "boot up" any computer.

[WLJ]

Okay, according to this it is not a remote kill switch but what it is actually something that is suppose to detect a impaired driver and then "prevents or limits motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected"

In other words an internal auto kill switch. Doesn't make me feel any better about it though and not something I want in my car.

The claim, however, misrepresents the bill’s directive on the technology.

Specifically, Section 24220 of the bill directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop rules that would require new cars to be equipped with technology that "passively monitors the performance of a driver," identifies whether they may be impaired and prevents or limits motor vehicle operation "if an impairment is detected."

But the legislation does not direct the agency to require a kill switch –  a device that allows someone to shut off a vehicle remotely – that law enforcement or government officials can access, Jeffrey Michael, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Injury Research and Policy, told USA TODAY in an email.

Through that partnership, the federal government has also funded the development of passive technologies that measure blood alcohol content by sampling air in the vehicle and using a transdermal sensor device – a light directed at the skin, Michael said.

Still sounds 1984 like and I highly question they could ever get it to be reliable

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/19/fact-check-false-claim-bill-mandates-kill-switch-cars-police-drunk-driving/11066287002/

[dogmush]

 Not that I want one either, or think this is in any way a good idea, but I did laugh a little at the mental image of millions of Americans stuck on the side of the road waiting on their Impaired Driving detector to time out and let the car start again, because any technology that can detect drunk driving is going to detect driving while looking at your phone, driving while doing makeup, driving while yelling at kids in the back seat, etc.

I think they are probably closer to true self driving than an algorithm that can separate impaired driving from just bad driving.

[Ben]

Note that in the OP I didn't say it was a remote kill switch, but that it was a kill switch. Still, paranoid or not, if the cops are already using Onstar to remotely kill vehicles, why wouldn't they be able to get in one of these remotely?

Look at it as the analog of "All we want to do is have you register your guns - we're never going to ask you to wait ten days to get one, that's ridiculous!"

[WLJ]

Note that in the OP I didn't say it was a remote kill switch, but that it was a kill switch. Still, paranoid or not, if the cops are already using Onstar to remotely kill vehicles, why wouldn't they be able to get in one of these remotely?

Look at it as the analog of "All we want to do is have you register your guns - we're never going to ask you to wait ten days to get one, that's ridiculous!"

The term "kill switch" in this context strongly implies it IMHO since cars already have an internal one, the ignition switch. I blame the wording.

[RocketMan]

Anyone with functioning brain cells can see where this is going.  Mandated kill switches that prevent impaired driving will eventually morph into mandated kill switches that can remotely shut off a vehicle.  Of course these remote switches will only be used for law enforcement purposes.  That's until they are used to shut down travel to limit emissions in local areas when CO₂ levels are too high.
And other perfectly sensible reasons for their use will be dreamed up over time by our betters in government.  Can't let a marvelous tool like this go unused.

[charby]

If the vehicle randomly turns off, may we call it the Mitch McConnell switch?

[cordex]

If the vehicle randomly turns off, may we call it the Mitch McConnell switch?

[Brad Johnson]

... kill switches that can remotely shut off a vehicle.  Of course these remote switches will only be used for law enforcement purposes. 

Welcome to 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar

Brad

[charby]

On a more serious note, who exactly is pushing for it? Is it the auto insurance companies, MADD mothers (or similar), Karens/Chads, who?

[RocketMan]

Welcome to 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar

Brad

Those were not mandated by government.

[230RN]

Had one of those nanny boxes that plugged in and sent data to a central place for analysis.  Figured I'd get a discount on my insurance.

Ran  errands on that Saturday.

First report came back excessive starting and stopping, excessive turns.  Ding!  Checked time.  I was maneuvering around the supermarket lot looking for a decent place since all the handicapped spots were occupied.

Came back excessive horn blowing.  Ding! Yeah, I usually toot my horn twice before backing up.

Came back hard stops.  Ding!  Yeah, a traffic light changed where judgement whether to run it or stop was required, and my judgement was to stop.

Sent the nanny box back with detailed comments.

Hey, I've been driving since 1956, with no tickets or my-fault accidents for at least 25 years, going on 30.  I finally learned how to drive, as opposed to merely operate a vehicle, about then.

Up thine, nanny box.

So WRT the --or any --proposed monitoring system... pardon me while I distrust anything you can come up with.

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

Not that I want one either, or think this is in any way a good idea, but I did laugh a little at the mental image of millions of Americans stuck on the side of the road waiting on their Impaired Driving detector to time out and let the car start again, because any technology that can detect drunk driving is going to detect driving while looking at your phone, driving while doing makeup, driving while yelling at kids in the back seat, etc.

I think they are probably closer to true self driving than an algorithm that can separate impaired driving from just bad driving.

That is what I was thinking about.  One of my previous vehicles would suggest stopping for coffee if you drifted around the lane too much.  I figure it would be something like that and probably set entirely too sensitive. 

The amusing thing to me is that I generally could stay in my lane just fine back when I was younger and stupider and drove when I was likely over the limit.  The sleep apnea I didn't realize I had was much more of a risk than that.