Backdoor kill-switches in every car by 2026

[John105]

Most people only think what the tv tells them to think.

Tv saves me a lot of time so I can do other things with my family. Which pillow is softest, what bed is the best for one’s spine, where in Arkansas to get a timeshare. If I didn’t watch tv that would be hours online and taking to forums just to get the information that is readily available on tv

 

[John105]

If employers could use this system to stop employees from driving to Costco when they’re supposed to be working from home, I’m all for it

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

NO ! The police can't shut your car down. At least not yet... that's only another law away, but that's not the topic of this thread.

Actually, if you review the thread title and the first post, that is exactly the topic of this thread. Your post and others have indicated most of the thread is based upon a misconception, for which we thank you.

 

[dnewton3]

Actually, if you review the thread title and the first post, that is exactly the topic of this thread. Your post and others have indicated most of the thread is based upon a misconception, for which we thank you.

You are right; I stand corrected.

However, I'd prefer we talk about the reality of the law as it exists, not conflate the issue with hyperbole and conspiracy.

Though, I do believe it would only take one more law to make the "intervention by 3rd party" a quick reality.

 

[tnt_motorsports]

So according to the bill on page 403 drunk driving fatalities cost the US $44B per year. Does this mean once they put these on cars your insurance will drop substantially? I doubt it. I’d also like to kn how many accidents involve other forms of impairment including cell phones and tiredness.

Again this feels like big brother overreach.

Just my $0.02

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

So according to the bill on page 403 drunk driving fatalities cost the US $44B per year. Does this mean once they put these on cars your insurance will drop substantially? I doubt it. I’d also like to kn how many accidents involve other forms of impairment including cell phones and tiredness.

Again this feels like big brother overreach.

Just my $0.02

Drunk driving accidents are easy to quantify via BAC test. Other accidents less so, but it's already possible to obtain this confirmation via OBD and say looking at the most recent activity on a cell phone. It's just not convenient because pulling OBD info, as I understand it, requires a warrant.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Does this mean once they put these on cars your insurance will drop substantially?

Have car insurance rates ever gone down? It'll probably be just the opposite. Adding extra equipment to the car will make it more expensive to make, and more expensive to repair and replace, so if anything, your insurance rates will go up.

 

[Owen Lucas]

Bottom line is that passenger vehicles (cars, trucks) will be able to either not start, or shut themselves down, if they detect impairment, starting in 2026, assuming implementation goes forward on schedule.

I've been reading about steering wheel integrated breathalyzers, good to see this will become a reality.

 

[2009Caraman]

This is wild. So you're gonna have a camera tracking your eye movement and pupil dilation, your steering wheel monitering your blood pressure and maybe alcohol ppm sensors above you all driven by AI? What a future we have in store.

 

[64bawagon]

Another case of Kindergarten logic. Make the entire class lay their heads down on their desks because one child has misbehaved.
Drunk/high drivers are easy pickings for enforcement. No need for unconstitutional check points or guilty until proven innocent equipment on your vehicle. If the Government was serious and believed their owns numbers the problem could be solved with patrols.

 

[zzyzzx]

I would have no problem with it, as long as I can disable these features as soon as I take delivery.

Buy vehicles just out of warranty and disable this feature. Either through something like Forscan, or removal of the sim card, or shorting out the antenna, or faraday cage.

 

[Fordiesel69]

All I can say is our future is not going to be very pleasant. Mechanics and dealerships cannot even fix current technology.

 

[The_Eric]

Makes me wonder how accurate it will be as rolled out.. various illnesses, sad, angry or other forms of emotional distress could conceivably mimick impairment. Wonder how many will marooned at home, unable to get to work because their car is nannying them? What about emergencies where a car is needed? What about inclement weather where the handling can be adversely affected?

I cannot see something that will have to deal with such a broad and varied array of people in even more varied circumstances working correctly right out of the gate.

 

[CKN]

All I can say is our future is not going to be very pleasant. Mechanics and dealerships cannot even fix current technology.

Most on here don't even buy new vehicles. Going to be a long time before "it's unpleasant".

 

[Bladecutter]

Another case of Kindergarten logic. Make the entire class lay their heads down on their desks because one child has misbehaved.
Drunk/high drivers are easy pickings for enforcement. No need for unconstitutional check points or guilty until proven innocent equipment on your vehicle. If the Government was serious and believed their owns numbers the problem could be solved with patrols.

Just to be sure what I'm getting from your post...

You want people to be able to drive a car while drunk?
The cops aren't everywhere, you know.
Most drunk driving arrests happen AFTER there has been an accident.
That's a but too late, don't you think?

Do you drive after drinking on an occasional or regular basis?

I, personally, would sleep perfectly fine at night if every single drunk person is never able to start their car, EVER.

Laws are created because Stupid people can't help ruining things for everyone else.
Drunk Drivers fit well within the category of Stupid.

Someone please try and argue that drunk people should be allowed to drive.

 

[64bawagon]

Just to be sure what I'm getting from your post...

You want people to be able to drive a car while drunk?
The cops aren't everywhere, you know.
Most drunk driving arrests happen AFTER there has been an accident.
That's a but too late, don't you think?

Do you drive after drinking on an occasional or regular basis?

I, personally, would sleep perfectly fine at night if every single drunk person is never able to start their car, EVER.

Laws are created because Stupid people can't help ruining things for everyone else.
Drunk Drivers fit well within the category of Stupid.

Someone please try and argue that drunk people should be allowed to drive.

I cant control what you are "getting" from my post but you have severely misconstrued the meaning of my post. There are ways to stop drunk driving that dont assume everyone is guilty or infringe on others rights.
Implying that I drink and drive is rude and insulting since I dont even drink.
No one is advocating for the drunk driver, your ignorant response is indicative of someone who cant or wont discuss an issue without insulting the other person.

 

[pbm]

The recent UAW strike settlement is said to add $800 to $900 to the cost of a new vehicle.
This new 'technology' will add even more. I guess Americans will eventually be taking 15 year car mortgages.

 

[brianl703]

Another case of Kindergarten logic. Make the entire class lay their heads down on their desks because one child has misbehaved.

That was training for your entire adult life, apparently. Our politicians seem to think their constituents are kindergarteners.

 

[brianl703]

How many folks drive after taking a prescription drug with this warning on it?

Do they know that is the same as DUI?

 

[dnewton3]

Just to be sure what I'm getting from your post...

You want people to be able to drive a car while drunk?

I don't think that any sane person wants that; you're inferring something he didn't imply.

The cops aren't everywhere, you know.

That's true. And drunk drivers aren't everywhere either.

Most drunk driving arrests happen AFTER there has been an accident.

That's speculation on your part. Lots of impaired driving arrests happen before accidents occur. For you to say that "most" happen after an accident is yet to be proven; cite your sources of data as proof please.

Do you drive after drinking on an occasional or regular basis?

Some folks do. But that doesn't equate to "impaired". That's where there's often a two-tier test; one for BAC and one for physical impairment. You can be at .04% BAC and drive acceptably well. Or, you could be at 0.0% BAC, but horribly impaired by sleep deprivation, or medicine interactions, etc. Again, you're applying a singular sense of logic where the issue is more complex.

I, personally, would sleep perfectly fine at night if every single drunk person is never able to start their car, EVER.

Yes - that'd be great. But is that reality? No.

Laws are created because Stupid people can't help ruining things for everyone else.

True. And laws punish/restrict people who can control themselves in a civil manner in an overreach to keep "X" from happening (or mandating that "X" happen).

Someone please try and argue that drunk people should be allowed to drive.

No one here is trying to argue that. You're just wanting to make an argument out of something. The underlying question you're dancing around is one of liberty versus implied safety. As if making more laws equates to everyone being safer.
- Murder is illegal; that doesn't stop people who intend to kill.
- Rape is illegal; that doesn't stop those events from happening.
- Theft is illegal .....
You get the picture; very few laws prevent crimes. They have two thrusts of effect:
* we hope that a law will deter a person from doing something
* we hope that if the deterrence didn't work, we can catch the wrong-do'er and (hopefully) "reform" (rehabilitate) the person via a time-out (incarceration).
Laws can be a deterrent for a person who otherwise is a generally decent person, but the typical criminal pays no mind to laws.

'The topic here in this thread can be boiled down to the Law of Unintended Consequences. There is one way this ADIDP law goes right, and a dozen ways it goes sideways. I have serious doubts how all this tech is going to be integrated into a vehicle and satisfy the necessary criteria:
- the vehicle must detect and prevent impaired driving, AND ...
- not otherwise inhibit/prevent the legal operation of the vehicle

How is a BAC monitor going to accurately detect the driver's breath and be able to discern it from others in the car? If the driver is sober and all his passengers are intoxicated (he's the designated driver), how accurate will the breath analyzer be to select the driver over the others? For that matter, if the driver was intoxicated and the only person in the car, how well do you think the tech will work when he rolls down all the windows and causes a large vortex in the cabin?

How will the behavior tech (the tracing of drivers actions) be interpreted? How does the system interpret spirited driving versus drunk driving? Are you in favor of shutting down vehicles just because someone crossed over the lane marker without using a turn signal first? Or perhaps the driver is swerving over the line repeatedly to avoid puddles of mud on a desolate road? Or maybe the driver is looking out the window frequently to view spectacular scenery? Or he/she is wearing sunglasses so dark the eye-tracking system can't be accurate? Maybe the driver is a young female trying to escape her boyfriend from battering her and her driving behavior is very erratic in an attempt to flee, yet the car is going to shut down so she can't escape?

I could go on for dozens of examples of how this ADIDP tech is prone to failure of intent. There's one way this tech goes right and literally dozens of ways it goes wrong. I, for one, do NOT advocate for fixing one problem by implementing dozens of other problems, which is often the result of these "good intent" laws.