The nanny state is at it again:
🚨 The federal government has mandated that all vehicles sold after 2026 must have a kill switch that can disable your vehicle based on your driving performance.
My amendment to defund that unconstitutional mandate failed tonight.
Here is the roll call:https://t.co/YWufj9BuMv
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 8, 2023
This tweet generated a ton of responses from conservative followers who were outraged at the idea that the government is going to monitor your driving and activate a "kill switch" if it doesn't approve. But that isn't what's really happening. Here's the skinny:
- This is solely about reducing drunk driving. It was part of the 2021 infrastructure bill.
- Cars will be fitted with devices that (a) detect alcohol in the air via sensors in the door and (b) measure blood alcohol levels via infrared lights in the ignition button.
- If you are over the legal limit, your car will start but it won't move.
- This is entirely in-car tech. Neither the police nor anyone else has access to it.
- The IIHS estimates it will save 9,000 lives per year.
You can decide for yourself what you think of this. But you should at least know what's really going on.
Alcohol in the air, --like the open can of beer your numbskull boyfriend left in the cup holder, --and now the twins are in the back seat and the car won't work and here comes the flash flood.
Thanks, Obama!
But that combination of priors NEVER occurs, not once in a billion years. Right?
If the car won’t start, the driver must solve a Rubik cube to get the key inside that kills the kill switch. You have to be sober or have one of those brainy 10-year olds in the back seat who can solve the cube in 5 secs.
Of course it's unconstitutional. The Founders thought nothing of getting on a horse and riding home after a long session drinking grog, port and rum. Originalist interpretation of the constitution compels the invalidation of this oppressive regulation.
So one may not start the car while wearing gloves? Will the car somehow know the age of the driver to know which BAC to enforce? https://www.findlaw.com/dui/laws-resources/comparing-state-dui-laws.html
Obviously, the system will have to be calibrated to go off only when the adult BAC of the least punitive state is violated, at least in the 1.0 release. That's not nothing.
It's not a burden to require someone to take off a glove for long enough to push the "Start" button.
Why does someone so obviously intelligent and well-informed as yourself willfully paint himself with a "Damn, this dude is dense!" brush?
It may seem like a minor thing to you. But I certainly don't want the government dictating what I can can't wear to start my own car. I'm all for reducing drunk driving but this is government overreach. My guess is it will not come to fruition.
It's not a burden for a drunk to keep his glove on.
There is a fair point to made here, however. As you might recognize, Waymo vehicles always stick to the exact posted speed limit. It wouldn't cost that much more, given that new vehicles have GPS built-in, to enforce posted road/highway speed limits by preprogrammed geofencing. Shouldn't that also be required of all vehicles? NHTSA data suggests that if fully implemented, an equal number of lives would also be saved as an alcohol sensor.
THANK YOU! But man would this KILL the market for new cars or what?
I'm hanging on to my 2007 HHR. It's a dinosaur, but it follows my commands without an argument. And it has a huge amount of trunk space behind the front seats.
You'll get my 6000 SUX when you pry my cold dead finger off the start button!
There are scenarios where you sometimes need to speed briefly, for example to more safely pass a slow driver on a 2 lane road, or possibly to avoid a collusion. But it would be pretty easy to calibrate something of this sort to allow those kinds of bursts of speed.
That time may already be here. I recently watched a video where a car reviewer commented his new Mustang would not cruise faster than 80 mph. It would go faster than 80 mph under hard acceleration, presumably to address the passing situation you describe.
Because there isn't a posted speed limit for every road, and the car can't know if you're overtaking or dodging, and waymo vehicles costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit.
Even then, every state and local jurisdiction has on its books laws that dictate the basic speed for different zones.
What if you're a designated driver, but all your passengers have been drinking?
Or, what if your wife is wearing a lot of Chanel!? Isn't that made with alcohol? Or what if you've just sanitized your hands!? Why, it sounds as if Big Brother is about to foist a technology on us that will make it impossible to get from point A to point B in one's car.
The challenges of making an efficient effective passive interlock would seem to be great. Present systems require the driver to blow into a tube. A system that monitors the cabin air would be vulnerable to the simple expedient of leaving the windows down and turning up the fan, while a system based on skin contact could be defeated by the use of gloves or other type of barrier. I suspect if the interlock does come to pass, it will work by monitoring the drivers reactions and detecting if he is acting like he is drunk.
Something about pupil tracking?
So a woman can't escape an abusive partner if she's had drinks?
I can accept that the algorithm will make the right call most of the time. The margin of error might prove fatal in exceptional cases.
No one has a right to drive drunk, regardless of circumstances. If the technology is insufficiently precise or accurate, there will obviously be problems.
I wonder if it will wreck the restaurant / bar business. Will people stop buying alcohol with a meal?
When a sensor goes off, your insurance company will be notified and you’ll lose coverage. It will become part of your credit rating and affect your job prospects. Maybe it should, but the logical response is to never drink away from your own home. Every business which relies on that revenue will go under.
It’s silly to think this info won’t get out.
Will people stop buying alcohol with a meal?
I doubt it. Are you expecting Uber to go out of business? And the concept of "designated driver" has long been with us.
Maybe it should, but the logical response is to never drink away from your own home.
The "logical" response is the one that's always been available: don't mix alcohol and driving.
Every business which relies on that revenue will go under.
That's a risible exaggeration. It may be that restaurants will sell less alcohol, though, sure. I think somehow society will survive this blow, especially given the accompanying boost to road safety.
If you run a restaurant that serves some sort of alcohol – beer, wine, martinis, scotch – you're in an industry where booze typically generates 20 to 25 percent of a business's income.
I don't live in an area with a lot of uber drivers. But the restaurants are quite busy based on the number of cars I see in the parking lot. There are enough uber / taxi drivers to support maybe one olive garden and that's about it.
There are enough uber / taxi drivers to support maybe one olive garden and that's about it.
Based on what, your eye test? And in any event if it becomes more difficult to both drink and drive, the demand for rides home will increase.
Could be very tough on the ambulance and funeral business too.
People die at a pretty reliable rate regardless.
So you're saying the drunk driving -- and drunk driving accidents and death -- is caused by restaurants serving too much alcohol? Sounds like a good argument for a pretty high alcohol tax on restaurants, right?
Since the cost of the accidents and deaths are being spread out to society, but the benefits (alcohol sales, that is) are being enjoyed by the restaurants. Classic externality situation, right?
I'm saying people die every day and the business of funeral directors will not be affected by much of anything except overall population and it's relative age.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195920/number-of-deaths-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
Looks like business is booming anyway.
Your insurance company already monitors your driving habits and adjusts its rates accordingly.
Only if you file a claim. It's not monitoring you in real time.
Cars are getting an "F" in data privacy. Most major manufacturers admit they may be selling your personal information, a new study finds, with half also saying they'd share it with the government or law enforcement without a court order.
The proliferation of sensors in automobiles - from telematics to fully digitized control consoles - has made them prodigious data-collection hubs.
But drivers are given little or no control over the personal data their vehicles collect, researchers for the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation said Wednesday in their latest "Privacy Not Included" survey. Security standards are also vague, a big concern given automakers' track record of susceptibility to hacking.
No, with State Farm, you can get a break on rates (at least initially, ha ha) by letting them install and monitor a GPS thing that keeps track of your speed and location. IRT.
Yes, by letting them install it. It's not mandated.
Can we put these sensors in riggers?!? This is where we need them...Mothers Against Drunk Drivers faced seemingly impossible odds and yet...they have entirely won this debate.
The same must be done against the murderous Heller Decision.
I have noted that Australia has, unbelievable but true, mandatory voting; people in hospitals, people in prison...everyone votes. A little real democracy would be useful in the United States...and, I note, Australia had a mass shooting in the 90's and confiscated most guns...again, a very successful policy.
We just need to do it.
I'm full of ideas...lol...Best Wishes, Traveller
Yeah, well those are Australians. Americans "forced" to vote would write in something stupid, or get dogs on the ballot, or demand a "None of the Above" option. Things would continue to get worse.
"Yeah, well those are Australians"
Australia is the America of the southern hemisphere--Australians are every bit as racist and pigheaded as Americans are, and are more sunburned/drunk/likely to glass you in a carpark on top of that.
America is not composed of uniquely (or even particularly) bad people. We have uniquely and particularly defective aspects of our _system_, but the nice thing is that unlike human nature, systems are malleable and improveable. Extending suffrage (even universalizing it with mandates!) would help here. We know this, because it helps in other countries.
Why in the world would you want to mandate that people vote? If they don't have an opinion or are ignorant of the candidates and issues, it's best they not vote.
That's just one step away from making sure they don't vote.
Which has happened to me on more than one occasion. Which isn't alot, but it's weird that it's happened at all.
OMG, chef's kiss to the Democratic party! We can't have red light cameras in my city because they are "racist" - but we can have booze sensors that will shut your car off if you use some hand disinfectant or wear perfume.
How are red light cameras racist? (Not sure if you were joking or not.)
Because they're placed in neighborhoods that can't afford to block them.
But the horse knows the way to carry the sleigh.
I'd welcome a kill switch for really bad driving. We've had some pretty horrific deaths caused by people who have stolen cars or people who were severely impaired.
I gotta say, I think this is overreach. What if I am a completely sober designated driver with three friends who are plowed? What if I don't drink, but someone spilled a drink on me?
"(b) measure blood alcohol levels via infrared lights in the ignition button". All the alcohol in the air does is activate the infrared lights. The vehicle will not be disabled as long as your finger doesn't read over the legal limit (I have doubts about the technology; I would hope that it's thoroughly tested and proved before being put into use.)
What if I am a completely sober designated driver with three friends who are plowed? What if I don't drink, but someone spilled a drink on me?
Again, if the technology is crude or ineffective or insufficiently precise, it will be problematic. Zero argument here! But a lot of people on this thread are assuming the worst. Are they all part of the engineering team working on this shit?
But obviously if it works well, it could make our roads a lot safer.
Of course the problem will be if a drunk person does find a way to start the car--will the car company be liable for the accident?
"detect alcohol in the air via sensors in the door" doesn't sound great, thb. what about passengers? and it's an edge case, but what about extreme emergencies? we're having drinks in a secluded area (rural home, camping etc) and someone needs to be rished to the hospital etc? guess i'll need to read up on the details of the tech.
ETA: as of januarary USATODAY
Automobile experts told USA TODAY the bill does not direct a kill switch to be implemented in cars, nor does it give any third parties, including law enforcement or government officials, access to the in-vehicle technology. Rather, the bill in question directs a federal agency to require technology that would detect driver impairment and disable the vehicle in that scenario.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/19/fact-check-false-claim-bill-mandates-kill-switch-cars-police-drunk-driving/11066287002/
.... isn't that a kill switch?
Point 4 is clearly wrong. That data is going to be stored and with OTA updates or something like OnStar, that data is not staying in the car.
It may be in car tech today, which I doubt, but it absolutely will be tracked eventually. If you haven’t figured it out everything monitored gets used.
“Welcome onboard Mr. Drum. You have five points left on your license”
You can always buy an old car, or old pickup truck. You can take public transportation. You can ride a bike, or Shank's Mare.
Your freedumbs are not being infringed.
Heh. How many drivers today know how to use a stick?
The car doesn't have to be THAT old...
Always? No. Until there are no more spare parts, perhaps.
" detect alcohol in the air " my brother in law is in the wine business: I guess he will need to wear a mask, even when in the passenger seat.
Also, unfortunately, I don't believe they have the technology to check for pot or harder drugs....
How I wish car manufacturers would reject the technocrats and their complicated, expensive, and failure-prone systems. I don't want a computerized nag-mobile. These things are already lecturing me about the volume at which I choose to listen to music, trying to steer me into pedestrians so I can "stay in my lane" and so on.
Driving is supposed to be fun, not a killjoy.
+1
It's all fun and games until the head-on collision.
Driving is supposed to be fun, not a killjoy
It's even funner when you the odds of being hit by a drunk driver have been reduced by 99.99%!
So. N95 mask on before entering car got it.
That really calls for a /s. I'm sure you're aware that a N95 mask screens particles and doesn't have any effect on alcohol vapor.
It would catch droplets and slow their dispersal into the cabin.
Alcohol in the air? So taxis, Uber, and similar service vehicles will no longer pick up people at bars?
I'm all for measurws to reduce drunk driving, but these measures are about the dumbest, least practical ways of doing it I've seen in a very long time.
I see we've finally heard from someone on the engineering team working on this technology.
I see many posts complaining about government over reach
True enough I guess
But........
Seat belts were government over reach.
As were dietary recommendations
And flood insurance for people living in flood prone areas
The rub here is that we all claim government over reach but who to we turn to for relief? Yup, the government.
Look at Florida. Multiple insurers pulling out wanting government subsidies.
Because of flooding along the coast lines
We want to privatize the profits, and socialize the risk
Lets make up our minds. But make no mistake this is about money. Insurers want to limit claims and damages - period.
I cannot speak to flood insurance, but for seat belts, there isn't a presumption of guilt which precludes one starting and operating the vehicle without a seat belt being worn. (Yes, there will almost certainly be an annoying buzzer or chime, but you can still operate the vehicle.) And dietary recommendations are not precluding one's ability to buy whatever food one wishes at the store.
I was put into the hospital by a drunk driver.
My first love/crush was killed by a different drunk driver.
In my darker moments, I would support summary execution of anyone caught drunk driving.
Still, this interlock smacks of guilty until proven innocent.
It is also illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a public road without a driver's license. Will we also require someone to insert a current, valid driver's license before the vehicle will move?
Or maybe sign an affirmation that you support LBGTQ rights (or whatever the cause du jour happens to be) before the car stars.
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
That last is a quite practical idea, although driving without a licence is a relatively small problem and probably not worth the effort. Drivers' licences could be made with chips like credit cards, and cars could be equipped with card readers and fingerprint scanners; you have to insert the licence and give the scanner a matching fingerprint before the car will go.
As I said, feasible but probably not worth the trouble.
Putting aside the legality of things, the issue here is that the proposed fix is plainly just stupid and wouldn't work as intended at the technical level.
It doesn't matter how a person feels about car seat belts, when used they do what they were designed to do. That's not the case here were the proposed solution could both, easily fail at stopping drunk people from driving, or preventing people who are not impared from driving when they need to or want to.
Hunh, it's like we have a right to get away with shit if we can. Wonder which amendment that is.
OT but there’s an interesting piece in yesterday’s NY Times about research observatories (Palomar, Lick, etc.), a topic Kevin has explored frequently. The piece talks about light pollution diminishing the usefulness of these formerly cutting edge telescopes. The comments reveal quite a few astronomy enthusiasts among us, all sober drivers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/travel/historic-observatories.html
13,000 people die in drunk driving accidents every year. The inconveniences listed here hardly seem worth those deaths.
Most of the issues are easily mitigated. Worried about alcohol getting spilled on your clothes? Put an old pair of sweatpants and a t-shirt in your trunk. Worried about hand sanitizer? Don't use it right before starting your car, or carry a non-alcohol wet wipe to clear your car-starting finger of residue.
It seems highly unlikely that a bit of perfume or a person in the backseat will set off sensors. I cant imagine anything that sensitive will be installed. The reality is that people like to drive after drinking, and they don't want any technology to question their belief that they're "sober enough."
“13,000 people die in drunk driving accidents every year.”
“In 2021, 13,384 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths — a 14% increase from 2020.”
Do you see the difference? “Alcohol-impaired” is not drunk driving.
“In 2021, there were 2,266 people killed in alcohol-related crashes where a driver had a BAC of .01 to .07 g/dL”
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving#:~:text=Overview,These%20deaths%20were%20all%20preventable.
So the people killed in “drunk driving“ incidents is really 11,118. However, many of those people that are drunk or have a BAC of .01 to .07 are not the person at fault. It was the sober driver that caused the accident. A drunk person could be sitting at a red light not doing anything wrong and get slammed from behind by a sober driver going 80 mph at an intersection. Or the person that imbibed alcohol is a pedestrian or a cyclist that gets killed by a sober driver. Those are all counted, not just car on car crashes.
Those statistics are disingenuous at best.
Those statistics are disingenuous at best
Oh FFS, you're ok with it if it's "only" 11K people and not 14K people dying because of drunk driving?
It's a conspiracy to make driving your car more difficult so the population will surrender their autonomy to robot cars.
Conspiracy.
Alcohol in the air in your cabin compartment?
What if you open your windows?
I can’t see this working. A breathalyzer attached to the ignition, maybe.
One of Steve Carell's bad dates in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" was a woman with a breathalyzer attached to the ignition. He had to blow into it for her. Comedy ensued.
That was 2005, so it isn't that new.
Interesting that even Massie -- who obviously (look at the replies to that tweet) has a Trump-like following who believe he can do no wrong, feels the need to disinformation-ify his statement by suggesting the idea is the government will nix you for your "driving performance". (Have to assume that he knows the word "performance" is a soft spot for his older white male fans and they will react with outrage to the government, supposedly, monitoring their "performance"). Would get a very different reaction, I think, if his tweet said, "After 2026, US cars have to have a system to prevent you from driving drunk". All too typical.