Federal law requires kill switch in cars after 2026

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

I get it, you don't like the government improving safety. Some people will complain about any "regulation". Just like the fun people who complain about Helmet and Seat Belt laws and die in accidents where those would have saved them. Some people want the freedom to die. I get it.

Because the erosion of personal freedoms has worked out so well in history. I posted this because I think this is an important law that is flying under cover. Fact is this is a law to be written by unelected regulatory boards (NHTSA and DOT). What could possibly go wrong.

Here is a reasoned and well thought out editorial.

Editorial: Why Are People Worried About Automotive 'Kill Switch' Mandates?

The truth is that nobody really knows what will happen in 2026 because the relevant legislation gives an incredible amount of leeway to government regulators. Based on how the law is written, the NHTSA can basically interpret impairment any way it likes and decide how driver monitoring systems assess this and ultimately respond.

I would wager that’s a problem in itself.

It’s not like we haven’t seen mission creep in literally every government agency that’s ever existed.

The DOT just recently stated that creating a national network that permanently linked modern vehicles to government surveillance grids might reduce “potential crash scenarios” by 12 percent.

Maybe things would have gone more smoothly if this wasn’t buried in an expansive, 1,039-page piece of legislation nobody had time to read before voting. I certainly would have felt better about it if it had been part of a document focused entirely on automotive safety regulations and given time for critical assessments. But it wasn’t and that has upset people who are now trying to express concerns that are being strategically dismissed on the grounds that they’re not qualified to even discuss the topic.

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ca...dates-44503639

If you don't have a issue with this, good for you but I see this as the camel's nose under the tent.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Because the erosion of personal freedoms has worked out so well in history. I posted this because I think this is an important law that is flying under cover. Fact is this is a law to be written by unelected regulatory boards (NHTSA and DOT). What could possibly go wrong.

I mean you have to give up personal freedoms to live in a country like the United States. So, I'd say, yes, there are examples where it worked out well in history. Obviously, there are limits to it though...

That's the way regulation should work though. Congress doesn't have the skills, expertise, or time to handle comments from the public and industry on how to craft the regulation well. That's what they created the NHTSA and DOT to do.

If you think the rule is garbage then be sure to share your comments when it is up for review. They can't issue rules without public input as that's required by law.

The truth is that nobody really knows what will happen in 2026 because the relevant legislation gives an incredible amount of leeway to government regulators. Based on how the law is written, the NHTSA can basically interpret impairment any way it likes and decide how driver monitoring systems assess this and ultimately respond.

I would wager that’s a problem in itself.

No one knows simply because the rule hasn't been placed up for comment yet. So you're having a premature ejaculation problem. Getting bent out of shape and predicting scenarios that you have no idea will actually be an issue.

No, the rule will not require stopping cars in the middle of a road an bricking them. Car manufactures would push back on that aggressively as it would be a pretty poor driver experience.

The DOT just recently stated that creating a national network that permanently linked modern vehicles to government surveillance grids might reduce “potential crash scenarios” by 12 percent.

If I can assume you're talking about essentially Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication. That's something I'm hoping they can get working well. As it offers a lot of promise. Eventually, it could make things like Blind Spot Detection and crash avoidance a lot more reliable. Less on the car using sensors to "guess" what is nearby and can accurately know. Potentially, even getting accurate data on impending collisions to improve safety.

Maybe things would have gone more smoothly if this wasn’t buried in an expansive, 1,039-page piece of legislation nobody had time to read before voting. I certainly would have felt better about it if it had been part of a document focused entirely on automotive safety regulations and given time for critical assessments. But it wasn’t and that has upset people who are now trying to express concerns that are being strategically dismissed on the grounds that they’re not qualified to even discuss the topic.

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ca...dates-44503639

If you don't have a issue with this, good for you but I see this as the camel's nose under the tent.

The fact the federal government lacks a "Single Subject Rule" is one that annoys me too, being a native of PA, but that's a separate problem.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

I mean you have to give up personal freedoms to live in a country like the United States. So, I'd say, yes, there are examples where it worked out well in history. Obviously, there are limits to it though...

Your idea of being an American and my idea are miles apart. This country was founded on the quest for personal freedom and we have been giving them away ever since.

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

That's the way regulation should work though. Congress doesn't have the skills, expertise, or time to handle comments from the public and industry on how to craft the regulation well. That's what they created the NHTSA and DOT to do.

Me I take issue with having unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats craft laws that effect me.

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

If you think the rule is garbage then be sure to share your comments when it is up for review. They can't issue rules without public input as that's required by law.

Maybe you missed the part about this being burred in the 1,039-page 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that nobody had time to read before voting. If you think this is uncommon you are naive.

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

No one knows simply because the rule hasn't been placed up for comment yet. So you're having a premature ejaculation problem. Getting bent out of shape and predicting scenarios that you have no idea will actually be an issue.

You seem to have missed the fact that it IS signed law.

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

No, the rule will not require stopping cars in the middle of a road an bricking them. Car manufactures would push back on that aggressively as it would be a pretty poor driver experience.

You don't know that as the rules haven been written but if it to be effect it must make a immediate response so maybe you can expect a change in engine to limp home mode. Good luck on where and when that happens and how you get out of it if you're not impaired.

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

If I can assume you're talking about essentially Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication. That's something I'm hoping they can get working well. As it offers a lot of promise. Eventually, it could make things like Blind Spot Detection and crash avoidance a lot more reliable. Less on the car using sensors to "guess" what is nearby and can accurately know. Potentially, even getting accurate data on impending collisions to improve safety.

Of course you do. Maybe you can just take the train and have your dream today.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and then hand it to them with the well fought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don’t do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.
Ronald Reagan - 1961

[Car-Addicted]

What does MADD have to say about this law as they are the ones that pushed for this.

The legislation directs NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking process and set the final standard within three years for impaired driving safety equipment on all new vehicles. NHTSA will evaluate technologies that may include:

Driving performance monitoring systems that monitor the vehicle movement using cameras and sensors that are outside the vehicle, such as lane departure warning and attention assist;
Systems that monitor the driver’s head and eyes, typically using a camera or other sensors that are inside the vehicle;
Alcohol detection systems that use sensors to determine whether a driver is drunk and then prevent the vehicle from moving.

Automakers are then given two to three years to implement the safety standard. New cars equipped with the NHTSA-directed technology could start rolling off the assembly line in 2026-2027.

https://madd.org/press-release/auto-...quired-by-law/

This doesn't mean that people against this government over reach are in favor of drunk driving. Its just that this is another case of a solution to a problem that affects a few people will now effect everyone. The news is filled with stories of drunk drivers getting a slap on the wrist and then reoffending. We currently have technology to force drivers to pass a breathalyzers to start their car. This is the logical first step. Let the offenders suffer the inconvenience and the expense of this safety measure rather than to make an entire automotive industry bare the expense and likely hardship this technology will cause. Sorry for the out break of common sense.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Your idea of being an American and my idea are miles apart. This country was founded on the quest for personal freedom and we have been giving them away ever since.

No, the country was not founded on the idea of boundless personal freedom. The country was founded on the idea of a limited Federal government, sure. But freedoms still have to be given up to form governments. That's why the worded the preamble how they did... Duh...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

They gave up freedoms in the hope of forming a union for those purposes.

Also, one of the powers the Constitution gives the President explicitly is the power the put down rebellions. Because they also bound their heirs to their contract without their direct consent.

I'm a big fan of the Constitution and the system it sets up, but to pretend it is some document of unlimited individual freedom is not accurate.

The core "Freedom" that the US system establishes is that we're not subjects to a monarch. That we, as a collective, are agreeing to give up some of our natural rights to be stronger together.

Me I take issue with having unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats craft laws that effect me.

Then get your elected officials to change it. The US isn't a direct democracy. So you don't have direct governmental authority. You elect government officials to act on your behalf with the sole remedy for you if they don't do what you like being to vote for someone who will. If you can't get enough of your fellow countryman to agree. You have to convince them.

Maybe you missed the part about this being burred in the 1,039-page 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that nobody had time to read before voting. If you think this is uncommon you are naive.

I never said it was uncommon. As I said, the Federal Government lacks a single subject rule so they can pass massive laws with who knows what in them.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and then hand it to them with the well fought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don’t do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.
Ronald Reagan - 1961

Again, "Freedom" in the American context is that you're not subject to a monarch or a tyrant. That you have a government that you can influence as you're freely ceding some of your natural rights to it. It does NOT mean you have absolute freedom to "do whatever you like" or "laws don't matter" or "laws can't be created".

I'll never understand why our system seems so hard for people to understand. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are very short and really do a great job of explaining the system. If you're a little more in the middle or back of the class The Federalist Papers really round out the explanation fully.

That said, on topic, I'll reserve my opinion until I see what the actual regulation looks like. If it is shit then I'll complain, submit comments, and yell at my legislators to fix it.

[DocL]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

As someone still paying off their student loans. I have a better idea. Let me skip paying taxes for schools I don’t have kids to send to them. Put that money towards my student loans instead.

Makes zero sense for me to pay for schools for parents who failed to factor their child’s schooling needs into their parental obligations.

Well your NY taxes pay for much more than school. I don't want to make a political statement, but you get what I mean.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by DocL

Well your NY taxes pay for much more than school. I don't want to make a political statement, but you get what I mean.

I actually pay taxes to my local school district separately from my other NY state and county imposed taxes.

But my point was simple response to you. You wouldn't benefit from student loan forgiveness "because you paid your loans off" and I don't benefit from paying for a school district when I have no kids. The simple point being that we pay taxes for things that don't benefit us individually.

The measure isn't simply "do I benefit" the measure has to be societal benefit.

I just wanted to make plainly clear the absurdity of your point.

[DroMike]

Fantastic!

I'm generally all for trading in a bit of privacy for more safety and security. I want cameras monitoring my streets and intersections, drones in the sky, and vehicles festooned with cameras or impairment-discovering devices monitoring me and others to help with fighting crime and best ensure our safety. I'm not doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide so don't mind some LEO arbitrarily watching me drive to the store, or having data collected in my vehicle showing the only reason my breath is alarming is because I ate some garlic fries. So long as any of these minor encroachments of our liberties can catch a bank robber, hem in a car-jacker, or stop a drunk driver from taking another's life needlessly -- which is done in the thousands here each year -- absolutely count me in.

Other than that, I have, uh... no personal opinion. ;-)