The problem with a vehicle kill switch is the same problem as an encryption backdoor for law enforcement. It will leak, quickly (inside a year) and so not only will law enforcement misuse this power (history shows they've misused all powers they've been given) but nefarious interests will use it to cause havoc.
From what I read, the mandated system cannot be activated remotely. The bill describes a local subsystem that somehow determines if the driver is incompetent and disabled the car. The only real danger here, imo, is the extreme vagueness of the “somehow” (not to discredit the seriousness of this danger).
Slippery slope. What if an update is pushed to the car that can determine if the driver is incompetent?
Might be more difficult than that. I'm in the hunt for a new work truck, a ram 2500. I'm specifically targeting a 2019-2020, because the 4G cellular module is easily removed, whereas in newer models it is soldered directly to a main telematics board and is pretty tricky to remove.
These companies don't want you removing these systems in their current state, as they're harvesting your data and selling it off as another revenue stream. I suspect these future monitoring systems, if removed, will brick the vehicle in one way or another.
Just disconnect the antenna and/or cover the module with something that will block any wireless signals. It's easier upfront and simple to undo when you want to sell the vehicle.
It was my go-to solution whenever I bought a vehicle with OnStar.
I suspect that like John Deere there will be a Ukrainian style hack that undermines this bullshit.
A vehicle that doesn't work without internet? That should turn out well.
Look at fleet trucks. Usually you can get them without any bs. Like even no ac, just a frame, body, and powertrain.
Also fancy electronics like that are pretty easy to disable hardware wise. Break a cap in the voltage regulation, break a few pins of a IC, anything really that functional kills it but still let's everything else think it's there or there a problem it has to ignore. Like microphone modules, I shove a pin it and scramble it then fill it with CA glue. Hardware thinks it's there but it ain't doing anything.
Someone linked a nice explainer on the topic in this thread, but my takeaway was that this is unlikely to ever exist
TLDR of the TLDR (which I recommend reading)
the regulatory body is super slow, and won't approve a change unless all the ducks are in a row
there's no safe way to stop or disable a car while it's moving, so the regulatory body won't approve it anytime soon
That second part isn't really true. Many cars now have cellular modems in them to provide WiFi and infotainment features. That means there is already a remote access capability in those vehicles. Disabling a modern vehicle with software is easy enough as the spark is controlled by the cars computer. So having a built-in feature to allow a remote actor to limit or disable the vehicle's spark isn't a big leap.
Safely stopping a car. Safely. Unless you're already stopped at an intersection or something you've got a really big chance of getting hit.
Even just remaining stopped significantly longer than expected at an intersection can easily get you into an accident in lots of places.
That's not really how it works even when a new car goes into limp mode. Usually what happens isn't that they limit the spark. It's that the PCM (Power train Control Module) provides a ground to various systems (which are always powered via the battery/alternator charging system). When the PCM or ECM (Electronics Control Module that monitors network traffic in the vehicle) detects missing voltage from a monitored network sensor, or too much voltage from a monitored network sensor) it will put your vehicle into limp mode to prevent more damage that would occur if you keep driving. For instance if your camshaft sensor is providing a reading that would suggest it's not spinning or is "stuck". That could do internal damage to the engine if the vehicle continues to be driven.
But even so what they meant was that disabling a vehicle in motion is actually dangerous to the driver, any passengers and any other people driving or riding on the road.
Additionally, if the government can do it, that tech could be used by a bad actor for the same purpose and that's just not going to fly.
If I'm trying to pass on a dotted yellow (legal) and my car thinks I'm drunk and kills the engine or governs me to 10 mph, I'm fucked. Remotely stopping a car without situational review is super dangerous (for humans in them).
You'll get no argument from me on that front.
It will go in the scrap bin right next to the OnStar module.
...but wait you don't love accidently talking to someone in Texas every time you go to turn your dome light off/on ?
They can be a source of egregious right wing propaganda undermining our democracy at every turn (which they are), and also occasionally still have legitimate grievances with our legislators sneaking bullshit like this into otherwise critical legislation.
They cited their sources and included direct quotations from the bill. Are you saying any of their claims about what the bill says are untrue? It's good to have a healthy amount of skepticism, especially for groups with known biases, but what's your point in calling this out here?
Over the last century, the Land of the Free has slowly transformed into a land governed by endless laws, largely by cracking down on vices instead of actual crimes, creating a society that would render us all criminals if our behavior were constantly observed.
Just the framing of the first line is like something out of an Ayn Rand hallucination. When I see something that heavily tilted the first thing I look for is WHO is writing it and WHY would they.
I mean, even if I think libertarians are overall not very smart, I do think their stance on vice laws is the right one.
The part that got me is when they quoted the text of the bill and then linked to the bill.
But yes, the constant "slamming" of democrats is pretty biased. I can't say I wholly disagree with that first paragraph, but anything that uses "land of the free" unironically usually has an angle.
Especially anyone who believes that individuals are less free now than they were historically in the United States. Only the ignorant or biased make that claim.
Ayn Rand Institute is way nuttier.
Yes one of their quotes is the opinion section of the bill at the beginning that has no effect on the law.
And "kill switch" is trying to get you to think that the police get a button to turn off the car, which is the one thing it doesn't do. It wants the thing most current luxury cars have where the car detects the driver falling asleep, but tune it to also detect drunk driving.
That's also bad if you just want a manual car that isn't full of DRM, but FEE is trying to tell idiots that BRANDON is giving the BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT a SWITCH to KILL YOUR FAMILY just like in your favorite CAMERON DIAZ movie THE BOX (2009).
They cited their sources and included direct quotations from the bill.
And the direct quotations from the bill were less-than-damning without several paragraphs of editorial leading the reader down the garden path. This is on the same level as the 'death panel' hysteria from about 10 years ago.
At some point in the future cars will have to incl. some form of assistance technology as a standard feature, big whoop. It doesn't say it has to be enabled by default, or always turned on, and with all the assists and autonomous driving features already being added to cars, it's very likely most manufacturers will end up meeting the requirements of the bill without even trying.
...
If
driver behaving erratic and interfering with safe function of car
Then
pull safely to the side of the road and temporarily disable ignition
...
BuT mUh FrEeDoMs. Something something 'right to travel' = right to operate a car whilst intoxicated (sounds like some SovCit bullshit), as opposed to right to a functional public transport system or something...
I sure hope I never get injured using my chainsaw out in the forest with no cell service. It's going to be so awesome bleeding out in a truck that cuts to 5mph max because I'm too busy holding the tourniquet on my leg while I drive. That's certainly NEVER happened. NEVER happens, to nobody, including my mother.
Wild that’s exactly what happened to one of my professors. He like to log for a side gig (dunno why) and nearly chopped his leg off with his chainsaw and had to hold his leg together while he hauled ass to the hospital.
Yup. Quick slip is all it takes. My mom and plenty of other people have had it happen.
Holy shit, I just realized the true problem! We need to make chainsaws illegal to own, operate, and manufacture. Just look at the statistics. Oh my God, I am the human that figured it out! Make chainsaws illegal!
I'm just waiting for the moment that this kill switch is hacked, and whole cities come to a complete standstill.
Please stop....I can only get so erect
So this isn't an external kill switch. It's far more likely to be a lane and driver monitoring system integral to the car itself.
The big problem is what do you do with a car that's stopped itself? Obviously you need emergency services, and obviously you can't depend on the passengers to call them. So the real effect here is to mandate the integration of vehicles into the emergency service networks so the car can call up dispatch.
I would say this is another brick in the argument for an open source car operating system that keeps the car offline and gives you the tools you want.
I would say this is another brick in the argument for an open source car operating system
...Go analog with a carb, maybe? Only thing that can stop a carb from working is it being out of gas. Or changing altitude. Or bad fuel. Or it's too cold and/or hot. ... OK lots of things can stop carbs, but the government sure can't, at least.
clogged jets... lol
Sticky float, bad gasket, clogged line, etc, etc.
That’s what the Seagram is for, probably.
OK lots of things can stop carbs, but the government sure can't, at least.
Nixon thought he could, hence the war on drugs.
Jailbreaking cars will be the new software development in piracy. Just wait for someone to figure out a way to permanently disable this entire system.
I would jailbreak my vehicle's head unit SOFAST!!!
Do you think that last sentence will ever happen though? I'd be stoked if it did, but the cynical side of me says we're already doomed...
Not outside of a niche group with the skills to do it themselves.
Yeah, that's kind of what I think too. Maybe someone will figure out how to jailbreak, like another commenter suggested.
I see where they're coming from, but like every good idea the government has had its going to be abused and mutated into Satan's Christmas tree of a bill, and either be draconian or useless.
Also, this idea is shit for brains stupid lol
American solution to a problem of deadly car chases.
I guess „don’t chase cars” would be too simple.
So any crime committed while in a car is free-game? No need for license plates, just buy a generic looking car and never stop.
You just said license plates dude.
All around the world when the police sees you speeding in a school zone and you don’t stop they won’t go and speed in a school zone as well. But we also don’t sell guns in supermarkets and later have a problem with gun violence.
What I said was why would someone that plans to commit a crime have a license plate? Since they just have to not stop and the police can't do anything if they can't chase.
Chasing sucks, I 100% agree it's a terrible solution. But what other solution is there that can be implemented? Please come up with one so that we can actually do away with chasing. Somebody work on this problem.
You're saying, cops shouldn't chase cars. What would happen next if they can't chase cars? They already have all kinds of rules for breaking it off for safety. And they keep making more. If there was a better solution, they would be all for it. In alot of cases, backing off can decrease safety for a bit too, so they have to be careful when they stop chasing too. The lights and sirens help keep people safer around the speeding car.
It's not an easy problem, there is no easy solution. It'll keep evolving as small solutions for parts of what sucks about it are thought of.
You say 'what would happen if they didn't chase cars?' as if it's hypothetical, but many places already do this.
So, what happens? They will turn on lights and sirens speed up a bit and make it clear the car should pull over. If it doesn't, they continue to follow it with lights and sirens. If the bad guy starts driving in a manner dangerous to the public specifically in an attempt to flee, they back off. And then radio the vehicle description to a unit further ahead. Sometimes the unit ahead is unmarked, finds it, and is able to follow at safe speed. Later try to arrest occupants when they get out or can be pinned with confidence. There are also other tools available like traffic cameras and aircraft.
Yes, this sometimes causes people to get away. But it also sometimes saves lives of random bystanders...so some places decide it as a worthwhile trade off. And no these countries aren't wastelands with Mad Max roads of death.
You are right about some situations being more dangerous not to pursue. Which is why if someone is intentionally running over people, or shooting at everyone, or some other very intense situation... the police don't back off. But for a speeding ticket, for sure backing off.
But the US has all that too, and uses all that. The chases really only happen with non-descript stolen vehicles. Or when the occupants of the vehicle would be in more danger if the pursuit was called off than if it continued. And there is a constant analysis as to when the threat to the public outweighs the threat to the occupant.
It's not like the police are idiots or don't have access to the same or better intelligence tools. They have to call in high-speed pursuits and there is constant oversight.
I think pursuits are overall much safer than it makes it seem when you see them on TV or YouTube, because the boring ones don't make it there, but the vast, vast majority are indeed boring.
Result of communism.
There's no possible way this ever makes it to regulation. And most of you haven't read the law, so don't understand you're being lied to. Read analysis here:
Looking at the other articles on the site, I count one antivaxx and another that claims the newly elected fascist in Argentina is a "Libertarian".
Thanks for linking to a sane review.
I literally downvoted before reading anything besides the title. An unknown publication making an outlandish claim. Obvious rage bait. It's sad to see so many of these nothing stories gain traction here. It's so fucking obvious.
The FEE has been around for a very long time.
I think the analysis is correct in that the implementation will die in committee before ever making it to effect, not to mention the practical considerations of implementing this in the lighting-fast timeframe of 3 years. However, I cannot help but point out this part:
So far, not a kill switch, but some kind of technology to detect if you’re driving like a drunk person and disable the vehicle.
"Disable the vehicle" is literally what people mean when they talk about a "kill switch". At best that's an argument over semantics. The law mandates a thing that deliberately stop your car from functioning. That's a kill switch.
It's not a lie. There's no malicious intent. It's just not even wrong. It so fundamentally lacks understanding of the underlying bureaucracy, technology, product lifecycle, and surrounding politics politics that it amounts to nothing.
And the overall point still stands. We should be skeptical of these kinds of intrusions into our devices from the state. We should resist them as a default posture.
This is already a concerning power to hand to a government, which could cause issues regarding the right of freedom of movement. But even if we assume an ideal and responsible government that never misuses their powers, can we be sure such a backdoor would be secure enough not to be exploited by other parties?
No such thing as a secure backdoor
Just look at the Matrix
Or lawnmower man
Or my ex-wife.
Lots of people using her insecure backdoor?
I'm sure we'll never find out that the kill switch was disproportionately used on people of color.
Can’t wait to patch that out, should be as fun as that dumbshit auto-shutoff they have now.
?
Cars are computers. All those fancy features run on software. Software can be patched to get rid of unpleasant functionality.
It’s not always easy, but it’s doable, and the more of these stupid features they add, the more people spend time working on undoing them.
I was wondering more about the auto shutoff.
Oh, sorry. American cars are require to ship with a feature that shuts the engine off at stop lights, and restarts it when you take your foot off the brake. It’s done to supposedly help the environment, which it doesn’t do in the least and is also incredibly irritating.
So car hackers reconfigure their cars to disable that feature.
Got some studies for that? Cause everything I've seen suggested that FAS, forced auto-stop, does help.
It only helps when people leave it on.
It's a small sample size, but literally everyone I know that owns a car with that feature turns it off immediately after starting the car every time they get in it.
It adds wear and tear to a car. The hot engine no longer has coolant running through it, hot oil drains off, etc. This is especially bad for turbos. So now the engine wears out sooner, which means the car is replaced sooner. Pulling a car out of service adds a huge amount of production resources, energy, and waste to an individual's footprint.
There are also calculations that can be done to determine how much fuel is saved. More fuel is burned at startup. You have to be stopped and off for a minimum period of time to reduce fuel consumption. That time is heavily dependent on many factors. But it's been found that generally you're not saving fuel unless you're at a light just as it turns red.
The wear and tear is the biggest issue. The worst thing you can do to an otherwise normal working engine is take it from 0 to 5000+ rpm in such short time.
Can you show me the law that states auto start stop is a requirement?
It’s not explicitly required by law, but that doesn’t make it any less mandatory. It’s one of those “we’re not saying you have to, we’re just saying we’ll beat you up if you don't” rules federal agencies (EPA, in this case) love so much.
Car and Driver explains some of the reasoning here, though they forget to mention efficiency standards that are explicitly mandated.
Not all American cars have this. We literally just bought a Honda Civic and it doesn't have auto stop start. That's not to mention hybrids and electric cars. It's implemented by car manufacturers as far as I can tell in order to meet gas efficiency requirements of the NHTSA and it's mostly for larger consumer vehicles. SUV's, and trucks, not your average sedan. I don't think you represented this very well in your first comment.
According to the rental company I use for work travel, I’ve driven 33 different brand new cars this year, primarily sedans and small SUVs, all ICE (not a lot of EV on rental lots). Every single one had the auto start/stop feature.
Vehicles without it exist, especially as you mention full and partial electrics. But I’m perfectly comfortable with how I represented the situation based on my own experiences.
Autostart stop. It's a "feature" of newer gasoline vehicles that allows them to save gas by shutting the engine off when you're idling (at a stop light or similar) until you touch the throttle/gas pedal and the computer reactivates the engine. This assumes there isn't significant load on the battery like there would be if you were using your heat/AC or even the radio.
Next step will be to have it drive you to the police station and alert them of your arrival.
I remember when a remote kill switch was the unlikely yet dystopian “next step”
Don't have time right now the deep dive into that absolute wall of text. Did get a few paragraphs in to find that your champion is Thomas Massie (R) (Nut Job), that's clarity enough for now...
I don't see any problem with a system to detect drunk driving and bring the car to a stop. There is no right to drive a car while drunk or otherwise impaired. Inventing one by calling upon privacy also ignores that the cops can pull you over and give you a sobriety test if they have reason to anyway. In 2021, over 13,000 people in the US died from drunk drivers. They deserve protection.
While no one should be allowed to drunk-drive, I find it fundamentally fucked up for the government to have a device have to greenlight the use of your own vehicle. Even if they initially word it to be reactive, it would immediately implement the possibility. While it makes some sense for drunk driving, if it were available by default, it'd only be a matter of semmantics and suddenly your car is a large paper weight simply because you didn't renew the registration before-hand.
Doesn't the government already greenlight vehicle usage with the drivers license?
You can drive without one. If there is an emergency you can escape a fucking forest fire for example.
“Man dies after forest fire engulfs home; couldn’t outrun flames and car was remotely disabled due to overdue registration; ‘Hand were tied’ says DMV”
Or simply just driving on private property... You can drive all you want on private property with the owners permission.
"State disables car that was never driven on public road" is pretty bad from a personal freedom perspective.
Fair enough, didn't want to appear pro stupid car lock mechanism. I think it would be beneficial to to limit drunk driving as much as possible, but but not in a way that overcomplicates driving and makes it more dangerous.
Had to laugh at 'Hands were tied' though lol, sounds too realistic
And the use of breathalyzers in some states mandates after an offense.
If you're only using your car on public roads it technically doesn't matter anyway(s). Public roads and the jurisdiction of public traffic laws are absolute and you can be stopped or dealt with pretty easily since thats the language of everything ("public roads")
Oh, I fully agree the government should have full control of public roads.
They just shouldn't control my vehicle unless I've already demonstrated I cannot. It should never be a default-available thing for them to outright disable a large life investment that can quickly become a life saving device in any number of situations.
What if I am drunk camping and I'm the only adult driving a bunch of kids away from a sudden forest fire? Is the vehicle going to turn off? What if my panicked driving comes across as drunk and I'm actually sober? This entire concept is nothing but a bad idea.
I'm saying its literally set up such that they dont care what you want or prefer with reference to YOUR car, you feel me?
A.You have to go on public roads,
B. public roads and everything in them are controlled by traffic laws/the government
A+B =
C. you+your car will be controlled by same
Edit: the points i made are ok but a little salty, please disregard tone :(
You need to think about unintended consequences.
Like the used car market going ape shit and poor people having no chance of picking one up? We've done that before recently.
Driver entitlement episode 456: "what do you mean my death machine needs to have a remote kill switch???"
Insane.
Listen I get that there are disadvantages but you “fuckcars” people need to chill
"Disadvantages"
43 000 deaths a year and you cry at the slightest inconvenience
Drivers need a reality check
Car accidents cause about double the number of deaths in America as homicide, but no one ever says "you need to chill about violent crime." Cars cause another 1.5 million injuries on top of that. Cars contribute around 30% of the CO2 pollution in America, but only the truly insane would say people need to "chill" about global warming.
Our entire public infrastructure was gutted, such that we went from a pioneer in public transportation to basically only being able to use cars because oil companies and car manufacturers wanted it that way. We have the least efficient, most expensive, most polluting, most stressful form of travel but it's totally okay you guys because some people really like having a big truck that they can put truck nuts on and drive to the office in and it would be an infringement on their rights if we used taxes to build a fucking monorail or something.
You start with good points but then you fight a strawman of irrational reductivity. This is why no one likes you, it sounds like you need to stretch the truth and exaggerate to make a convincing argument. We all too used to being sold lies, and you make yourself sound like a liar, even though you’re really not.
Get some better PR.
This is the best take I've ever heard. "Reality sounds too much like hyperbole, so no one believes it."
You know, I'm not the biggest fan of personal vehicles, but if you want to talk about "death machines", you might also spare some thoughts towards police brutality and whether cops can really be trusted to hijack people's vehicles at will.
...nevermind that such a backdoor could be exploited by other parties also.
You can get rid of all those uncertainties by just rolling out a pilot and seeing how it goes. There's no way cops being able to stop cars remotely causes any more trouble than them actually flipping cars over if they take .3 seconds too long to park for a traffic stop, like they did to that pregnant woman who died in 2022.
The police has also demonstrated many, many times that they can't be trusted to rationally judge whether to indulge in hugely dangerous car chases or not, and they routinely end up making perps crash into random people/objects for traffic stop evasions that turn out to just be a guy fleeing because they have felony quantity of coke or a revoked license. You give it a pilot and see how it goes, if it does more good than harm, then you keep it.
For security, there are many remote-access-control security dances out there, and it's a solved problem. Tons of them are just a certificate to authenticate, and do a little challenge to solve to be protected from repeat attacks. If one certificate gets leaked or abused you can revoke it and that's that. If that somehow still has flaws - that's why you're doing a pilot.
Oh, stop being sensationalist. A car is a car, that's all it ever will be. It's clear you didn't even read the article because its not talking about remote kill switches.
Cars kill 43 000 people a year in the U.S.
I'm talking about people's reactions in this thread when they haven't read the article. All of those people opposing a hypothetical "cop presses a button" remote kill switch are insane.
Private citizens do not have a right to operating a motor vehicle any way they see fit. You license it, you license your skills, you get it looked at periodically and you use it on public roads with the state's blessing only if you can manage to get along with other people using that same road. There is no sense opposing a kill switch for "freedom".
We can't trust cops with their stupid car chases that result in crashes, and their maneuvers for flipping cars over on the freeway.
You give them a killswitch
I absolutely oppose universal kill switches and I'm not insane. Something about that pesky "innocent 'till proven guilty" thing. If you lose that privilege, you get a breathalyzer lock. That's fair. But I haven't used "smart" tech in a car that hasn't bugged out in unpredictable ways and this won't be an exception. Technology that overrides driver input is a risk to those the vehicle belongs and that's unacceptable to me.
"Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with it. When a cop stops you he's not indicting you. Switching your gas off remotely replaces chasing calling in reinforcements and chasing you over several blocks when you start speeding up, or flipping your car over. Both of those already impair or override the driver's input quite a bit.
Having the opinion that your driver input should override the cop's order to stop, and that society should trust you to stop instead of putting a kill switch in your engine is an insane opinion, and prime driver entitlement.
And I would love the same for drivers without insurance, license removals and cars that didn't pass the tech inspection
The problem with a vehicle kill switch is the same problem as an encryption backdoor for law enforcement. It will leak, quickly (inside a year) and so not only will law enforcement misuse this power (history shows they've misused all powers they've been given) but nefarious interests will use it to cause havoc.
From what I read, the mandated system cannot be activated remotely. The bill describes a local subsystem that somehow determines if the driver is incompetent and disabled the car. The only real danger here, imo, is the extreme vagueness of the “somehow” (not to discredit the seriousness of this danger).
Slippery slope. What if an update is pushed to the car that can determine if the driver is incompetent?
They probably will, and your incompetence would be one of the least personal pieces of information modern vehicles collect about you. Actually, I would guess that all car manufacturers already have this data; the car just doesn’t act on it.
First part to get ripped out of new cars
Might be more difficult than that. I'm in the hunt for a new work truck, a ram 2500. I'm specifically targeting a 2019-2020, because the 4G cellular module is easily removed, whereas in newer models it is soldered directly to a main telematics board and is pretty tricky to remove.
These companies don't want you removing these systems in their current state, as they're harvesting your data and selling it off as another revenue stream. I suspect these future monitoring systems, if removed, will brick the vehicle in one way or another.
Just disconnect the antenna and/or cover the module with something that will block any wireless signals. It's easier upfront and simple to undo when you want to sell the vehicle.
It was my go-to solution whenever I bought a vehicle with OnStar.
I suspect that like John Deere there will be a Ukrainian style hack that undermines this bullshit.
A vehicle that doesn't work without internet? That should turn out well.
Look at fleet trucks. Usually you can get them without any bs. Like even no ac, just a frame, body, and powertrain.
Also fancy electronics like that are pretty easy to disable hardware wise. Break a cap in the voltage regulation, break a few pins of a IC, anything really that functional kills it but still let's everything else think it's there or there a problem it has to ignore. Like microphone modules, I shove a pin it and scramble it then fill it with CA glue. Hardware thinks it's there but it ain't doing anything.
Someone linked a nice explainer on the topic in this thread, but my takeaway was that this is unlikely to ever exist
TLDR of the TLDR (which I recommend reading)
the regulatory body is super slow, and won't approve a change unless all the ducks are in a row
there's no safe way to stop or disable a car while it's moving, so the regulatory body won't approve it anytime soon
That second part isn't really true. Many cars now have cellular modems in them to provide WiFi and infotainment features. That means there is already a remote access capability in those vehicles. Disabling a modern vehicle with software is easy enough as the spark is controlled by the cars computer. So having a built-in feature to allow a remote actor to limit or disable the vehicle's spark isn't a big leap.
Safely stopping a car. Safely. Unless you're already stopped at an intersection or something you've got a really big chance of getting hit.
Even just remaining stopped significantly longer than expected at an intersection can easily get you into an accident in lots of places.
That's not really how it works even when a new car goes into limp mode. Usually what happens isn't that they limit the spark. It's that the PCM (Power train Control Module) provides a ground to various systems (which are always powered via the battery/alternator charging system). When the PCM or ECM (Electronics Control Module that monitors network traffic in the vehicle) detects missing voltage from a monitored network sensor, or too much voltage from a monitored network sensor) it will put your vehicle into limp mode to prevent more damage that would occur if you keep driving. For instance if your camshaft sensor is providing a reading that would suggest it's not spinning or is "stuck". That could do internal damage to the engine if the vehicle continues to be driven.
But even so what they meant was that disabling a vehicle in motion is actually dangerous to the driver, any passengers and any other people driving or riding on the road.
Additionally, if the government can do it, that tech could be used by a bad actor for the same purpose and that's just not going to fly.
If I'm trying to pass on a dotted yellow (legal) and my car thinks I'm drunk and kills the engine or governs me to 10 mph, I'm fucked. Remotely stopping a car without situational review is super dangerous (for humans in them).
You'll get no argument from me on that front.
It will go in the scrap bin right next to the OnStar module.
...but wait you don't love accidently talking to someone in Texas every time you go to turn your dome light off/on ?
Always check your sources…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Education
They literally gave an award to Charles Koch.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
They can be a source of egregious right wing propaganda undermining our democracy at every turn (which they are), and also occasionally still have legitimate grievances with our legislators sneaking bullshit like this into otherwise critical legislation.
They cited their sources and included direct quotations from the bill. Are you saying any of their claims about what the bill says are untrue? It's good to have a healthy amount of skepticism, especially for groups with known biases, but what's your point in calling this out here?
Just the framing of the first line is like something out of an Ayn Rand hallucination. When I see something that heavily tilted the first thing I look for is WHO is writing it and WHY would they.
I mean, even if I think libertarians are overall not very smart, I do think their stance on vice laws is the right one.
The part that got me is when they quoted the text of the bill and then linked to the bill.
But yes, the constant "slamming" of democrats is pretty biased. I can't say I wholly disagree with that first paragraph, but anything that uses "land of the free" unironically usually has an angle.
Especially anyone who believes that individuals are less free now than they were historically in the United States. Only the ignorant or biased make that claim.
Ayn Rand Institute is way nuttier.
Yes one of their quotes is the opinion section of the bill at the beginning that has no effect on the law.
And "kill switch" is trying to get you to think that the police get a button to turn off the car, which is the one thing it doesn't do. It wants the thing most current luxury cars have where the car detects the driver falling asleep, but tune it to also detect drunk driving.
That's also bad if you just want a manual car that isn't full of DRM, but FEE is trying to tell idiots that BRANDON is giving the BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT a SWITCH to KILL YOUR FAMILY just like in your favorite CAMERON DIAZ movie THE BOX (2009).
And the direct quotations from the bill were less-than-damning without several paragraphs of editorial leading the reader down the garden path. This is on the same level as the 'death panel' hysteria from about 10 years ago.
At some point in the future cars will have to incl. some form of assistance technology as a standard feature, big whoop. It doesn't say it has to be enabled by default, or always turned on, and with all the assists and autonomous driving features already being added to cars, it's very likely most manufacturers will end up meeting the requirements of the bill without even trying.
...
If
driver behaving erratic and interfering with safe function of car
Then
pull safely to the side of the road and temporarily disable ignition
...
BuT mUh FrEeDoMs. Something something 'right to travel' = right to operate a car whilst intoxicated (sounds like some SovCit bullshit), as opposed to right to a functional public transport system or something...
I sure hope I never get injured using my chainsaw out in the forest with no cell service. It's going to be so awesome bleeding out in a truck that cuts to 5mph max because I'm too busy holding the tourniquet on my leg while I drive. That's certainly NEVER happened. NEVER happens, to nobody, including my mother.
Wild that’s exactly what happened to one of my professors. He like to log for a side gig (dunno why) and nearly chopped his leg off with his chainsaw and had to hold his leg together while he hauled ass to the hospital.
Yup. Quick slip is all it takes. My mom and plenty of other people have had it happen.
Holy shit, I just realized the true problem! We need to make chainsaws illegal to own, operate, and manufacture. Just look at the statistics. Oh my God, I am the human that figured it out! Make chainsaws illegal!
I'm just waiting for the moment that this kill switch is hacked, and whole cities come to a complete standstill.
Please stop....I can only get so erect
So this isn't an external kill switch. It's far more likely to be a lane and driver monitoring system integral to the car itself.
The big problem is what do you do with a car that's stopped itself? Obviously you need emergency services, and obviously you can't depend on the passengers to call them. So the real effect here is to mandate the integration of vehicles into the emergency service networks so the car can call up dispatch.
I would say this is another brick in the argument for an open source car operating system that keeps the car offline and gives you the tools you want.
...Go analog with a carb, maybe? Only thing that can stop a carb from working is it being out of gas. Or changing altitude. Or bad fuel. Or it's too cold and/or hot. ... OK lots of things can stop carbs, but the government sure can't, at least.
clogged jets... lol
Sticky float, bad gasket, clogged line, etc, etc.
That’s what the Seagram is for, probably.
Nixon thought he could, hence the war on drugs.
Jailbreaking cars will be the new software development in piracy. Just wait for someone to figure out a way to permanently disable this entire system.
I would jailbreak my vehicle's head unit SOFAST!!!
Do you think that last sentence will ever happen though? I'd be stoked if it did, but the cynical side of me says we're already doomed...
Not outside of a niche group with the skills to do it themselves.
Yeah, that's kind of what I think too. Maybe someone will figure out how to jailbreak, like another commenter suggested.
I see where they're coming from, but like every good idea the government has had its going to be abused and mutated into Satan's Christmas tree of a bill, and either be draconian or useless.
Also, this idea is shit for brains stupid lol
American solution to a problem of deadly car chases.
I guess „don’t chase cars” would be too simple.
So any crime committed while in a car is free-game? No need for license plates, just buy a generic looking car and never stop.
You just said license plates dude.
All around the world when the police sees you speeding in a school zone and you don’t stop they won’t go and speed in a school zone as well. But we also don’t sell guns in supermarkets and later have a problem with gun violence.
What I said was why would someone that plans to commit a crime have a license plate? Since they just have to not stop and the police can't do anything if they can't chase.
Chasing sucks, I 100% agree it's a terrible solution. But what other solution is there that can be implemented? Please come up with one so that we can actually do away with chasing. Somebody work on this problem.
You're saying, cops shouldn't chase cars. What would happen next if they can't chase cars? They already have all kinds of rules for breaking it off for safety. And they keep making more. If there was a better solution, they would be all for it. In alot of cases, backing off can decrease safety for a bit too, so they have to be careful when they stop chasing too. The lights and sirens help keep people safer around the speeding car.
It's not an easy problem, there is no easy solution. It'll keep evolving as small solutions for parts of what sucks about it are thought of.
You say 'what would happen if they didn't chase cars?' as if it's hypothetical, but many places already do this.
So, what happens? They will turn on lights and sirens speed up a bit and make it clear the car should pull over. If it doesn't, they continue to follow it with lights and sirens. If the bad guy starts driving in a manner dangerous to the public specifically in an attempt to flee, they back off. And then radio the vehicle description to a unit further ahead. Sometimes the unit ahead is unmarked, finds it, and is able to follow at safe speed. Later try to arrest occupants when they get out or can be pinned with confidence. There are also other tools available like traffic cameras and aircraft.
Yes, this sometimes causes people to get away. But it also sometimes saves lives of random bystanders...so some places decide it as a worthwhile trade off. And no these countries aren't wastelands with Mad Max roads of death.
You are right about some situations being more dangerous not to pursue. Which is why if someone is intentionally running over people, or shooting at everyone, or some other very intense situation... the police don't back off. But for a speeding ticket, for sure backing off.
But the US has all that too, and uses all that. The chases really only happen with non-descript stolen vehicles. Or when the occupants of the vehicle would be in more danger if the pursuit was called off than if it continued. And there is a constant analysis as to when the threat to the public outweighs the threat to the occupant.
It's not like the police are idiots or don't have access to the same or better intelligence tools. They have to call in high-speed pursuits and there is constant oversight.
I think pursuits are overall much safer than it makes it seem when you see them on TV or YouTube, because the boring ones don't make it there, but the vast, vast majority are indeed boring.
Result of communism.
There's no possible way this ever makes it to regulation. And most of you haven't read the law, so don't understand you're being lied to. Read analysis here:
https://midwest.social/comment/4975539
Looking at the other articles on the site, I count one antivaxx and another that claims the newly elected fascist in Argentina is a "Libertarian".
Thanks for linking to a sane review.
I literally downvoted before reading anything besides the title. An unknown publication making an outlandish claim. Obvious rage bait. It's sad to see so many of these nothing stories gain traction here. It's so fucking obvious.
The FEE has been around for a very long time.
I think the analysis is correct in that the implementation will die in committee before ever making it to effect, not to mention the practical considerations of implementing this in the lighting-fast timeframe of 3 years. However, I cannot help but point out this part:
"Disable the vehicle" is literally what people mean when they talk about a "kill switch". At best that's an argument over semantics. The law mandates a thing that deliberately stop your car from functioning. That's a kill switch.
It's not a lie. There's no malicious intent. It's just not even wrong. It so fundamentally lacks understanding of the underlying bureaucracy, technology, product lifecycle, and surrounding politics politics that it amounts to nothing.
And the overall point still stands. We should be skeptical of these kinds of intrusions into our devices from the state. We should resist them as a default posture.
This is already a concerning power to hand to a government, which could cause issues regarding the right of freedom of movement. But even if we assume an ideal and responsible government that never misuses their powers, can we be sure such a backdoor would be secure enough not to be exploited by other parties?
No such thing as a secure backdoor
Just look at the Matrix
Or lawnmower man
Or my ex-wife.
Lots of people using her insecure backdoor?
I'm sure we'll never find out that the kill switch was disproportionately used on people of color.
Can’t wait to patch that out, should be as fun as that dumbshit auto-shutoff they have now.
?
Cars are computers. All those fancy features run on software. Software can be patched to get rid of unpleasant functionality.
It’s not always easy, but it’s doable, and the more of these stupid features they add, the more people spend time working on undoing them.
I was wondering more about the auto shutoff.
Oh, sorry. American cars are require to ship with a feature that shuts the engine off at stop lights, and restarts it when you take your foot off the brake. It’s done to supposedly help the environment, which it doesn’t do in the least and is also incredibly irritating.
So car hackers reconfigure their cars to disable that feature.
Got some studies for that? Cause everything I've seen suggested that FAS, forced auto-stop, does help.
It only helps when people leave it on.
It's a small sample size, but literally everyone I know that owns a car with that feature turns it off immediately after starting the car every time they get in it.
It adds wear and tear to a car. The hot engine no longer has coolant running through it, hot oil drains off, etc. This is especially bad for turbos. So now the engine wears out sooner, which means the car is replaced sooner. Pulling a car out of service adds a huge amount of production resources, energy, and waste to an individual's footprint.
There are also calculations that can be done to determine how much fuel is saved. More fuel is burned at startup. You have to be stopped and off for a minimum period of time to reduce fuel consumption. That time is heavily dependent on many factors. But it's been found that generally you're not saving fuel unless you're at a light just as it turns red.
The wear and tear is the biggest issue. The worst thing you can do to an otherwise normal working engine is take it from 0 to 5000+ rpm in such short time.
Can you show me the law that states auto start stop is a requirement?
It’s not explicitly required by law, but that doesn’t make it any less mandatory. It’s one of those “we’re not saying you have to, we’re just saying we’ll beat you up if you don't” rules federal agencies (EPA, in this case) love so much.
Car and Driver explains some of the reasoning here, though they forget to mention efficiency standards that are explicitly mandated.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a19561461/automakers-increasingly-offer-ways-to-deactivate-stopstart-systems-temporarily/
Not all American cars have this. We literally just bought a Honda Civic and it doesn't have auto stop start. That's not to mention hybrids and electric cars. It's implemented by car manufacturers as far as I can tell in order to meet gas efficiency requirements of the NHTSA and it's mostly for larger consumer vehicles. SUV's, and trucks, not your average sedan. I don't think you represented this very well in your first comment.
According to the rental company I use for work travel, I’ve driven 33 different brand new cars this year, primarily sedans and small SUVs, all ICE (not a lot of EV on rental lots). Every single one had the auto start/stop feature.
Vehicles without it exist, especially as you mention full and partial electrics. But I’m perfectly comfortable with how I represented the situation based on my own experiences.
Autostart stop. It's a "feature" of newer gasoline vehicles that allows them to save gas by shutting the engine off when you're idling (at a stop light or similar) until you touch the throttle/gas pedal and the computer reactivates the engine. This assumes there isn't significant load on the battery like there would be if you were using your heat/AC or even the radio.
Next step will be to have it drive you to the police station and alert them of your arrival.
I remember when a remote kill switch was the unlikely yet dystopian “next step”
Don't have time right now the deep dive into that absolute wall of text. Did get a few paragraphs in to find that your champion is Thomas Massie (R) (Nut Job), that's clarity enough for now...
I don't see any problem with a system to detect drunk driving and bring the car to a stop. There is no right to drive a car while drunk or otherwise impaired. Inventing one by calling upon privacy also ignores that the cops can pull you over and give you a sobriety test if they have reason to anyway. In 2021, over 13,000 people in the US died from drunk drivers. They deserve protection.
While no one should be allowed to drunk-drive, I find it fundamentally fucked up for the government to have a device have to greenlight the use of your own vehicle. Even if they initially word it to be reactive, it would immediately implement the possibility. While it makes some sense for drunk driving, if it were available by default, it'd only be a matter of semmantics and suddenly your car is a large paper weight simply because you didn't renew the registration before-hand.
Doesn't the government already greenlight vehicle usage with the drivers license?
You can drive without one. If there is an emergency you can escape a fucking forest fire for example.
“Man dies after forest fire engulfs home; couldn’t outrun flames and car was remotely disabled due to overdue registration; ‘Hand were tied’ says DMV”
Or simply just driving on private property... You can drive all you want on private property with the owners permission.
"State disables car that was never driven on public road" is pretty bad from a personal freedom perspective.
Fair enough, didn't want to appear pro stupid car lock mechanism. I think it would be beneficial to to limit drunk driving as much as possible, but but not in a way that overcomplicates driving and makes it more dangerous.
Had to laugh at 'Hands were tied' though lol, sounds too realistic
And the use of breathalyzers in some states mandates after an offense.
If you're only using your car on public roads it technically doesn't matter anyway(s). Public roads and the jurisdiction of public traffic laws are absolute and you can be stopped or dealt with pretty easily since thats the language of everything ("public roads")
Oh, I fully agree the government should have full control of public roads.
They just shouldn't control my vehicle unless I've already demonstrated I cannot. It should never be a default-available thing for them to outright disable a large life investment that can quickly become a life saving device in any number of situations.
What if I am drunk camping and I'm the only adult driving a bunch of kids away from a sudden forest fire? Is the vehicle going to turn off? What if my panicked driving comes across as drunk and I'm actually sober? This entire concept is nothing but a bad idea.
I'm saying its literally set up such that they dont care what you want or prefer with reference to YOUR car, you feel me?
A.You have to go on public roads, B. public roads and everything in them are controlled by traffic laws/the government
C. you+your car will be controlled by same
Edit: the points i made are ok but a little salty, please disregard tone :(
You need to think about unintended consequences.
Like the used car market going ape shit and poor people having no chance of picking one up? We've done that before recently.
Driver entitlement episode 456: "what do you mean my death machine needs to have a remote kill switch???"
Insane.
Listen I get that there are disadvantages but you “fuckcars” people need to chill
"Disadvantages"
43 000 deaths a year and you cry at the slightest inconvenience
Drivers need a reality check
Car accidents cause about double the number of deaths in America as homicide, but no one ever says "you need to chill about violent crime." Cars cause another 1.5 million injuries on top of that. Cars contribute around 30% of the CO2 pollution in America, but only the truly insane would say people need to "chill" about global warming.
Our entire public infrastructure was gutted, such that we went from a pioneer in public transportation to basically only being able to use cars because oil companies and car manufacturers wanted it that way. We have the least efficient, most expensive, most polluting, most stressful form of travel but it's totally okay you guys because some people really like having a big truck that they can put truck nuts on and drive to the office in and it would be an infringement on their rights if we used taxes to build a fucking monorail or something.
You start with good points but then you fight a strawman of irrational reductivity. This is why no one likes you, it sounds like you need to stretch the truth and exaggerate to make a convincing argument. We all too used to being sold lies, and you make yourself sound like a liar, even though you’re really not.
Get some better PR.
This is the best take I've ever heard. "Reality sounds too much like hyperbole, so no one believes it."
You know, I'm not the biggest fan of personal vehicles, but if you want to talk about "death machines", you might also spare some thoughts towards police brutality and whether cops can really be trusted to hijack people's vehicles at will.
...nevermind that such a backdoor could be exploited by other parties also.
You can get rid of all those uncertainties by just rolling out a pilot and seeing how it goes. There's no way cops being able to stop cars remotely causes any more trouble than them actually flipping cars over if they take .3 seconds too long to park for a traffic stop, like they did to that pregnant woman who died in 2022.
The police has also demonstrated many, many times that they can't be trusted to rationally judge whether to indulge in hugely dangerous car chases or not, and they routinely end up making perps crash into random people/objects for traffic stop evasions that turn out to just be a guy fleeing because they have felony quantity of coke or a revoked license. You give it a pilot and see how it goes, if it does more good than harm, then you keep it.
For security, there are many remote-access-control security dances out there, and it's a solved problem. Tons of them are just a certificate to authenticate, and do a little challenge to solve to be protected from repeat attacks. If one certificate gets leaked or abused you can revoke it and that's that. If that somehow still has flaws - that's why you're doing a pilot.
Oh, stop being sensationalist. A car is a car, that's all it ever will be. It's clear you didn't even read the article because its not talking about remote kill switches.
Cars kill 43 000 people a year in the U.S.
I'm talking about people's reactions in this thread when they haven't read the article. All of those people opposing a hypothetical "cop presses a button" remote kill switch are insane.
Private citizens do not have a right to operating a motor vehicle any way they see fit. You license it, you license your skills, you get it looked at periodically and you use it on public roads with the state's blessing only if you can manage to get along with other people using that same road. There is no sense opposing a kill switch for "freedom".
We can't trust cops with their stupid car chases that result in crashes, and their maneuvers for flipping cars over on the freeway.
You give them a killswitch
I absolutely oppose universal kill switches and I'm not insane. Something about that pesky "innocent 'till proven guilty" thing. If you lose that privilege, you get a breathalyzer lock. That's fair. But I haven't used "smart" tech in a car that hasn't bugged out in unpredictable ways and this won't be an exception. Technology that overrides driver input is a risk to those the vehicle belongs and that's unacceptable to me.
"Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with it. When a cop stops you he's not indicting you. Switching your gas off remotely replaces chasing calling in reinforcements and chasing you over several blocks when you start speeding up, or flipping your car over. Both of those already impair or override the driver's input quite a bit.
Having the opinion that your driver input should override the cop's order to stop, and that society should trust you to stop instead of putting a kill switch in your engine is an insane opinion, and prime driver entitlement.
And I would love the same for drivers without insurance, license removals and cars that didn't pass the tech inspection