Buried deep within the massive infrastructure legislation recently signed by President Joe Biden is a little-noticed “safety” measure that will take effect in five years. Marketed to Congress as a benign tool to help prevent drunk driving, the measure will mandate that automobile manufacturers build into every car what amounts to a “vehicle kill switch.”...
The lack of ultimate control over one’s vehicle presents numerous and extremely serious safety issues; issues that should have been obvious to Members of Congress before they voted on the measure...
Adding what amounts to a mandatory, backdoor government “kill switch” to cars is not only a violation of our constitutional rights, but an affront to what is — or used to be — an essential element of our national character. Unless this regulatory mandate is not quickly removed or defanged by way of an appropriations rider preventing its implementation, the freedom of the open road that individual car ownership brought to the American Dream, will be but another vague memory of an era no longer to be enjoyed by future generations.
Originally Posted by Eureka:
I don't want a newer car with TPMS or Airbags. What are my options?
Some pretty sick classics out there. And if you're in CA and buy one pre-1976 you don't have to smog it either. Airbags weren't required until '98, but most 90's cars had them.
And loading a classic up with tech is cheap and easy.
People get way too excited about new cars. At the end of the day your new car is pretty, shinny and expensive as it eats a $500 or more hole in your pocket. But the base concepts of your new car isn't much different than the shit built 20 years ago.
Unless of course you think your car shutting off at a red light is a feature you appreciate.... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Some pretty sick classics out there. And if you're in CA and buy one pre-1976 you don't have to smog it either. Airbags weren't required until '98, but most 90's cars had them.
And loading a classic up with tech is cheap and easy.
People get way too excited about new cars. At the end of the day your new car is pretty, shinny and expensive as it eats a $500 or more hole in your pocket. But the base concepts of your new car isn't much different than the shit built 20 years ago.
Unless of course you think your car shutting off at a red light is a feature you appreciate....
I'm with you on having an older car because they do the same thing as a newer car. Until recently my commute vehicle was a 2000 Integra. I put a ton of miles on that thing and it was only $36 a month for insurance. Had a child come along which forced me to get rid of the Integra Coupe. Bought a 2015 Avalon earlier this year which has a lot of room but more importantly has 4 doors.
If I found a good condition pre-76 vehicle I'm not sure I'd want to commute in it lol. I'd feel bad for using a classic up. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone turning it off via remote satellite switch. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
Should law enforcement be able to force you to pull over by turning on their emergency lights?
What if you refuse to pull over? Should they be able to physically force you to stop?
What is the difference between a physical maneuver or a spike strip and a kill switch, other than it would appear to be a safer option?
So you think every police department will have access to kill switches for every vehicle? Or is it just one giant kill switch and all the cars in the area go dead? [Reply]
I'm not buying a car that has this feature. I'm already responsible enough to not drink and drive, do not want this over reach of a feature on my car thanks.
You don't punish all for the mistakes of some. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
What is the difference between a physical maneuver or a spike strip and a kill switch, other than it would appear to be a safer option?
you want a list?
here's a start
1)this will make cars more expensive
2) it's costing taxpayer dollars to oversee and enforce this
3) they could be hacked
4) they could use these without others knowing or seeing
5)they could fail , requiring a repair
6) you could be left stranded somewhere due to failure or accidental activation
7) you could be unable to leave your house or go to an emergency if your car was not operable
8) there will be some government teet sucking losers who get jobs overseeing this garbage
those are just the few that I can think of right now while I'm drinking a beer [Reply]
1)this will make cars more expensive
2) it's costing taxpayer dollars to oversee and enforce this
3) they could be hacked
4) they could use these without others knowing or seeing
5)they could fail , requiring a repair
6) you could be left stranded somewhere due to failure or accidental activation
7) you could be unable to leave your house or go to an emergency if your car was not operable
8) there will be some government teet sucking losers who get jobs overseeing this garbage
those are just the few that I can think of right now while I'm drinking a beer
9. For it to work they would have to have the ability to track your vehicle whenever they want without a warrant. [Reply]
I was under the impression this so called "kill switch" isn't something that is initiated by the police, more like it's a detection system in your car that will prevent the car from starting or letting you drive it. The Motortrend article someone posted talks about infrared systems that monitor your driving behaviors and will slow down or even stop the car if it detects driver inattentiveness.
Which is all fine and dandy, but what happens when the tech that makes this work go faulty? Oh cool the car can't detect that im attentive so now it won't start and let me drive to work. What about maintenance on these systems, how much is that going to cost people? Not to mention this is mandating the car companies figure out this tech and how to implement it, which will only result in new cars costing more in the first place.
Discouraging and even stopping drunk driving altogether is a good thing and a goal we should be working towards(Henry Ruggs incident is a very sobering reminder of this), but implementing mandatory technology on machines so much of the country depends on for transportation isn't the answer.
Cherry on top of it all is they snuck this bit of legislation deep into some infrastructure bill that the average American citizen has no awareness of until it's too late. Wait until this actually goes into effect in the later part of the decade, if it indeed holds up(I personally hope it somehow gets tossed), it's gonna be a shitshow. [Reply]
Originally Posted by backinblack:
I was under the impression this so called "kill switch" isn't something that is initiated by the police, more like it's a detection system in your car that will prevent the car from starting or letting you drive it. The Motortrend article someone posted talks about infrared systems that monitor your driving behaviors and will slow down or even stop the car if it detects driver inattentiveness.
Which is all fine and dandy, but what happens when the tech that makes this work go faulty? Oh cool the car can't detect that im attentive so now it won't start and let me drive to work. What about maintenance on these systems, how much is that going to cost people? Not to mention this is mandating the car companies figure out this tech and how to implement it, which will only result in new cars costing more in the first place.
Discouraging and even stopping drunk driving altogether is a good thing and a goal we should be working towards(Henry Ruggs incident is a very sobering reminder of this), but implementing mandatory technology on machines so much of the country depends on for transportation isn't the answer.
exactly. or what happens when the system detects you are panicked , but you're having g a medical emergency or your passenger is, and it pulls you over. [Reply]
