Kill switch in 2026

[LF4472]

This is all hyperbole. The actual rule is specified to equip cars with system to cut ignition if the car detects the driver is impaired or distracted (think: interlock systems installed on cars owned by people convicted of DUI) using some currently undecided technology. There is no remote kill provision.

 

[rubberduck]

I’m not buying it.

 

[Jim2000]

This is all hyperbole. The actual rule is specified to equip cars with system to cut ignition if the car detects the driver is impaired or distracted (think: interlock systems installed on cars owned by people convicted of DUI) using some currently undecided technology. There is no remote kill provision.

What you are describing is a kill switch. Allowing others to disable our cars is unjust. In regards to distracted driving, what is defined as distracted driving? My Subaru tells me to keep my eyes on the road. Is that a definition of distracted driving in which a bean counter in the government decides to flip the switch and disable my car? Do you really want that kind of oversight? I don't.

 

[LF4472]

What you are describing is a kill switch. Allowing others to disable our cars is unjust. In regards to distracted driving, what is defined as distracted driving? My Subaru tells me to keep my eyes on the road. Is that a definition of distracted driving in which a bean counter in the government decides to flip the switch and disable my car? Do you really want that kind of oversight? I don't.

I didn't say it wasn't a kill switch and I don't want one on my car, but I also think worrying about some random person in a federal office is going to personally see you doing something and remote power off your car is fear-mongering. The hacking risk from privateers is more reasonable concern.

 

[DonD]

I didn't say it wasn't a kill switch and I don't want one on my car, but I also think worrying about some random person in a federal office is going to personally see you doing something and remote power off your car is fear-mongering. The hacking risk from privateers is more reasonable concern.

I think hacking is a risk, a PhD mathematician with IT background at NSA probably wouldn't have to work very hard to do whatever he/she wanted.

A more serious threat and one that has the wrapping of reducing traffic issues is to control when commuters go to and from work in densely populated cities. Might work at the expense of yet another government overreach that reduces yet another freedom. Hell with that. Don

 

[Jim2000]

I didn't say it wasn't a kill switch and I don't want one on my car, but I also think worrying about some random person in a federal office is going to personally see you doing something and remote power off your car is fear-mongering. The hacking risk from privateers is more reasonable concern.

Your point of this being a hacking risk is certainly valid. Being aware of a problem like this is not fear-mongering. This is a real concern and I didn't bring this topic up to purposely create anxiety which would be fear-mongering. Also, AI would be monitoring this and there are many concerns about this new technology.

 

[MatthewAMEL]

Fact check: No, there's no vehicle 'kill switch' in Biden's 2021 infrastructure bill

Automobile experts told USA TODAY that the 2021 infrastructure bill does not require a kill switch to be implemented in cars.

www.usatoday.com

 

[BimmerFan]

Fact check: No, there's no vehicle 'kill switch' in Biden's 2021 infrastructure bill

Automobile experts told USA TODAY that the 2021 infrastructure bill does not require a kill switch to be implemented in cars.

www.usatoday.com

Thank you for the link. It's much more fun to speculate about nefarious government overreach than to actually talk about real things.

There were two big hints that would tell you that the story wasn't true: 1) Facebook and 2) Ted Nugent

Unless it's been removed (I'm too lazy to research this) our cars already have a kill switch. It's called On-Star. In the past (again, I'm not sure if it's still there) you could report your car stolen and they could remotely disable the car and turn on the flashers so that the LEOs could easily identify which disabled Chevy on the side of the road is yours.

 

[shbox]

Fact check: No, there's no vehicle 'kill switch' in Biden's 2021 infrastructure bill

Automobile experts told USA TODAY that the 2021 infrastructure bill does not require a kill switch to be implemented in cars.

www.usatoday.com

The link, itself, says "Rather, the bill in question directs a federal agency to require technology that would detect driver impairment and disable the vehicle in that scenario. " This is why people refer to the technology as a "kill switch" (so, it's basically a real thing). The problem with the bill is that it is too broad and not specific enough to protect consumer rights. Data (likely including audio) will be passively collected to make the technology work and limits of its use have not been established.

Here is the actual bill wording:

• (1) ADVANCED DRUNK AND IMPAIRED DRIVING PREVENTIONTECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology’’ means a system that—
• (A) can—
• (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and
• (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected;
• (B) can—
• (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23,United States Code; and
• (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or
• (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

 

[Finally-a-V]

So, as I read the article, this whole thread is mute, because, once again, some lunatic misinterprets something, in this case Ted Nugent, and tells everybody his wrong interpretation, that everyone believes is true. And you wonder how conspiracy theories start. Sounds a lot like our political future...and recent past. There....that will piss a few of you off.

 

[rubberduck]

I wonder if the “passive” system also collects and stores data on a person’s drinking and driving habits. And if that data can be subpoenaed for court hearings.

 

[1Evil55]

If the .gov is getting involved in it I don't want to be part of it. Every time I hear the name of a .gov group named by 3 initials, I turn the other way. @DonD , you'll appreciate hearing this from me: The ATF should be a store.

 

[Jim2000]

I wonder if the “passive” system also collects and stores data on a person’s drinking and driving habits. And if that data can be subpoenaed for court hearings.

You make a very good point.

 

[BimmerFan]

I wonder if the “passive” system also collects and stores data on a person’s drinking and driving habits. And if that data can be subpoenaed for court hearings.

So when I had my SS, it was my first GM car with On-Star, and I got the first monthly report in my email. Surprise, it monitored my driving habits. It generated several instances of "aggressive acceleration" and multiple instances of panic braking, amongst other things. I had to LOL because I was still in the break-in period, so I was doing exactly zero things that would be considered aggressive or panicking. I was simply driving as I always do, albeit largely based on years of high performance training (HPDE) where we do tend to brake a bit later and harder than your typical soccer mom in the SUV.

Natch I told them to stop monitoring me.

And I know that some insurance companies will allow you to voluntarily have a performance data logging monitor in your car to "reward safe driving". I have no doubt that I would fail on the first day on my first commute to work and be labeled a high risk.

And I have heard where in some cases, the "black box" that all contemporary cars have that monitor systems and can report all of the sensor data for a few seconds before airbag deployment can be used in court to help determine fault.

All I know is that I used to have a dash cam in my cars (another long story) and I told the wife that if I am ever in an accident where I am disabled and can't do it myself, the first thing she should do is rip it out of the car before someone can get to it. You know, just in case...

 

[BimmerFan]

The ATF should be a store.

I thought it was. Isn't that where we go to buy our firearms and tobacco?

 

[jbawden]

We all know there is no one fighting for our civil liberties harder than the USA Today! I guess I need to cancel my plans for a niche recruiting service because I was confident "kill switch operator" was going to really be a hiring boon for all the Karen's and Terry's of the world.

 

[rubberduck]

I thought it was. Isn't that where we go to buy our firearms and tobacco?

It's when they come to you and take away your booze, smokes, and firearms.

 

[BimmerFan]

It's when they come to you and take away your booze, smokes, and firearms.

Don't forget, it's now ATFE. So they'll be taking away your personal-use explosives as well.

I had a neighbor who was an investigator for the ATFE, he did fire forensics mostly.

If we only knew all of the things that we didn't know!

 

[rubberduck]

Don't forget, it's now ATFE. So they'll be taking away your personal-use explosives as well.

I had a neighbor who was an investigator for the ATFE, he did fire forensics mostly.

If we only knew all of the things that we didn't know!

I was at a high school reunion last year and met a classmate that worked for the ATF for a long time. What he told me was very enlightening. He didn't bother people with "questionable" configurations since he was too busy chasing down actual criminals and thought a lot of the regs were stupid. But, if someone higher up wants your ass, like what happened with Larry Vickers recently, they will get it.

 

[BimmerFan]

But, if someone higher up wants your ass, like what happened with Larry Vickers recently, they will get it.

Are you implying that he did nothing wrong and pled guilty even though he was not?

I don't know much about it, just wondering. Don't want to get too far OT.