New Law Will Install Kill Switches in All New Cars | Hacker News Reader

New Law Will Install Kill Switches in All New Cars

motorious.com

30 pointsskarz28 comments

The actual law says that all cars after a certain date should have a system that can:

"passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected"

There is an OR for detecting high blood alcohol level.

There are a few years to get input, come up with preliminary rules, get more input, finalize the rules and give time for manufacturers to implement them.

This could save 10,000 lives per year and tens of billions of dollars per year.

The law says "prevent or limit operation". That is pretty broad.

If it is a breathalyzer, or a speed limiter when you are swerving over a 2 minute period, I am fine with that.

If it shuts you down for going over the speed limit for 10 seconds, or make an emergency maneuver, then I am not so happy. But that is why we have a representative form of government, and input on regulations.

In many rural parts of the country (say, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, where towns are quite scarce, roads are flat and straight, and there's nothing to hit in between), even grandmotherly drivers regularly exceed 100 MPH just to get there in a reasonable time. I don't want any cars monitoring drivers for conformance to silly laws. The fact that it took us a decade to kill the silly and counterproductive nationally-mandated 55-MPH speed limit should act as proff that the government frequently gets these things wrong. It's important that people have the ability to simply not comply, rather than having their technology force them into it.

If they actually do this, I'm predicting a run on old pre-controlled cars and trucks, and a thriving black market in circumvention technologies!

"But that is why we have a representative form of government, and input on regulations."

Unless, you know, your representative doesn't listen to you. Or you've had a felony. Or you are 17. Or you live overseas. Or you are an immigrant (Some places allow immigrants to vote in local elections).

Immigrants can vote in their home countries, so they do have input. A nation is not obligated to give you democratic power over itself, just because they let* you visit. You may as well complain you don't have democratic input if you're a US citizen and can't vote in Mexican elections.

*Or, increasingly, they did not let you visit, but your co-ethnics in border states are impeding immigration enforcement so that you can stay regardless.

Are you sure immigrants can all vote in their home countries if they don't live there?

I am American, and can vote in local elections in Norway because I've lived here, legally, at least 3 years. This isn't uncommon, and I find it fair since these are the things that impact me the most. I cannot vote in national elections. Also fair. On the other hand, the American voting forms for me make sure to ask if I ever intend on living there again. I have limited voting in the US, and I sure as heck don't expect any politician to do anything for me unless it'd look good for propaganda.

This is all besides the point: the original post was talking about folks that cannot participate in the democracy they live in.

I'm not even sure what you were trying to say with the last comment. Could you please explain it?

What is there to explain? It's common knowledge that states with large immigrant populations demand of their representatives to hinder federal immigration law. Those representatives listened, and have passed laws to that effect:

https://www.fairus.org/issue/sanctuary-policies/do-you-live-...

Do you have a source that isn't an anti-immigration organization founded by a white supremacist? [1] Preferably something fairly mainstream and not so biased? And to be fair, I've not clicked because I don't really want to support the organization with clicks.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_for_American_Immigr...

Wikipedia also has a list of sanctuary states and cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city#United_States

As for being anti-immigration, do you also dismiss all pro-immigration organizations (such as the SPLC) as biased?

They're losing out by not letting people who live there vote.

People have useful input about their communities, regardless of their citizenship

>"passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected"

The second part of this is straightforward but can be disabled by the car's owner. The first part may well be completely impossible.

We can't even instruct humans in how to definitively determine impairment except in limited circumstances, and even then it's only a diagnostic test that has to be confirmed by an invasive medical test.

I don't like this law at all or how it made its way into the bill so quietly... but in reality this isn't going to happen in practical terms for a few decades, because it's going to take that long to develop an AI that can do this.

Why would I ever willingly buy a vehicle that I’m not fully in control of and that can force me to pull over whenever it wants? False positives are an inevitability; the best you can do is make them infrequent. Still, I would prefer to not have the system in my vehicle since I don’t drink and am at no risk of driving drunk.

It doesn't matter, because you won't be given a choice.

If you need a car, eventually these will be the only options available. Tampering with or removing these misfeatures will eventually be classified as a felony, and suspicion that you may have done so will eventually be used to justify violence against you from the police.

> Why would I ever willingly buy a vehicle that I’m not fully in control of and that can force me to pull over whenever it wants?

I drive a 20-year-old car because I can't stand the tiny windows, high hoods, giant A-pillars, and high seating positions on new cars. Modern safety regulations mean that I can't buy a new car with my preferred seating position and good forward visibility.

The bad news is, time exists. My car is 22 years old, but in 10 years it'll be 32 years old. All the other sedans with good forward visibility will be 30+ years old, too. Old cars get rusty and dry-rotted, and eventually they get scrapped.

The government doesn't need to force you into a car that takes away your privacy and agency- time will do the job for them.

Read the 10th amendment to the constitution and try again. Government has no business dictating the conditions under which personal property can be used.

Except they already do. Seatbelts for starters. Driving is not a right in the US, but a privilege - it’s why you need a license to operate one.

> Except they already do.

Using that logic you support slave labor and genital mutilation. Because people already do it, right?

> Seatbelts for starters.

There are no federal seatbelt laws. Because they would likely be unconstitutional. States get to decide on their own. Only part of the discussion.

> Driving is not a right in the US, but a privilege - it’s why you need a license to operate one.

Supreme Court disagrees https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-ne...

How many lives would surrendering all our freedoms save?

As many lives as (gasp) using hyperboles would, as they slide down a slippery slope.

Well the covid lockdowns showed us that

I’m not happy with any of it. The government doesn’t need that much power. It’s insane that this is even a discussion.

I've had several different cars flash the "Do you need a break?" (with coffee cup logo) on the dash when driving through work zones where you are redirected and over various lane lines at odd angles. It would be really bad if the car automatically shut off in those situations.

But it would be an innovative business opportunity to flash that sign when near the car manufacturer's trusted partners in the restaurant and convenience store businesses.

Can't wait for my car to shut down when I'm trying to get home during a surprise blizzard. Once my car is covered in snow, the snowplow will clean up all the evidence of wrongdoing! Who'll be able to tell if I was drunk when I'm shattered into thousands of pieces by a speeding plow?

And only a few weeks ago, the "starting the car" scene in this great dystopian short film seemed like a ridiculous parody - now it's scheduled to be prescient: (Bitchute link because in another validation of its prescience, it's already been removed from some video services!): https://www.bitchute.com/video/KN6Nl3pJrDTN/

The lyrics of the old Rush song “Red Barchetta” also became a bit more like reality: https://www.rush.com/songs/red-barchetta/

Great: carmakers keep adding more technology to distract drivers - huge in-your-face screens and phone-related junk - and now will be adding more tech to see if you're driving poorly.

At least people can sit on the side of the road and check their Facebook while waiting for the car to reset. Seems better than having them on the road doing it.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why legislation needs to be fully read and debated in Congress instead of hidden deep inside 6000-page-long "omnibus" porkfests that pass in the middle of the night. (Seriously, look at how many of these monstrosities pass after midnight. It's really frightening what happens in DC after the witching hour...)

What part of "passively monitor" permits automated shutoff? Police intervention might be problematic, especially if you're poor or non-white, but it's better than being shot at.

Edit: s/observe/monitor/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com