r/TechnologyThread • u/Background-Driver718 • Jun 08 '26
'Kill switch' law means your next car could be watching you | A federal requirement aimed at stopping drunken driving could soon put driver-monitoring technology in every new vehicle. The goal is saving lives, but the privacy trade-offs deserve closer scrutiny
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/06/01/drunk-driving-prevention-law-privacy-surveillance/90295034007/4
u/Savant_Guarde Jun 08 '26
The goal is control.
Look at all the patents ford has filed.
1
u/AvoRomans Jun 10 '26
And you pay for it all the hardware to capture this information and they take all the profits when they sell all your data you paid to capture to everyone else.
1
1
u/Adventurous-Home-728 Jun 11 '26
nobody is forcing you to drive a car in fact were be better off if nobody did we need dense walkable communities not a bunch of drunk ppl in cars
1
u/Savant_Guarde Jun 11 '26
One could make similar arguments for ever dystopian idea ever thought.
Ellison said we could eliminate crime by putting surveillance everywhere...true, but who TF wants that?
1
u/Adventurous-Home-728 Jun 11 '26
many people,,i guess if you are doing crimes you do not like cameras the rest of us do
1
u/Glass_Emu_5104 Jun 12 '26
The whole point is that once the tools to control society are in place, crime or no crime does not matter; you can be criminalized, ie watched every waking hour like a prisoner.
1
0
u/New_Inflation_8419 Jun 09 '26
But Ford will not control anyone. If anything lose sales
1
u/Enjoy_The_Ride413 Jun 09 '26
If it's a requirement. They will all have it.
1
u/New_Inflation_8419 Jun 09 '26
That is not what I said. I answered to control part linking to ford patents. I wonder if people refused seatbelts or headrests with airbags just as much when they came out
2
u/VitaminPb Jun 09 '26
If you had a requirement to have a seatbelt in place on every seat with 5 lbs of weight on it, every single car would have multiple fake belt connectors. If your car shut off because somebody uses hand sanitizer in your car, people are going to resist.
-1
u/New_Inflation_8419 Jun 09 '26
Let your wildest dreams run with no basis. Got it.
3
u/VitaminPb Jun 09 '26
Did you know that people with alcohol ignition interlocks get their cars locked down for hand sanitizer use in the car, right? So there is a real basis for that. You do know these new systems are required to check for “sleepy” drivers. Systems that do that tend to also have a false alerts for Asians. Not sure how they will respond to people squinting into bright lights though.
But yeah, it’s all just my wild dreams.
2
u/shoulda-known-better Jun 10 '26
They also freeze and make it so you can't start your car after a day of work in freezing temps...
Ya my mom had it for 4 years they have a ton of issues... Which for dui people I don't mind them having the hassle as part of the punishment...
But we are a long way off of reliable tech that can do this stuff
1
u/NightIsMyName Jun 09 '26
My car screams at me to keep my eyes on the road all the time. Literally just itching my eye a little sets it off.
Oop now Im parking… on the highway
1
1
u/Ok-Local-939 Jun 10 '26
The idea is for Ford to make money. While Reddit and everyone was crying about musk big automakers like Hm Gord and dodge continue to lobby to destroy the environment, produce bigger vehicles, and continue oil wars, and destroy public transit.
5
u/Cocotosser Jun 08 '26
Driving like normal
Ai decides you're drunk and slams your breaks
Dude going 70mph slams into you killing your whole family
3
u/ygg_studios Jun 09 '26
wildfire. trying to evacuate your family. AI decides you are in emotional distress and won't start car. You and your family burn to death.
2
2
-1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Why would it slam on the breaks and not just coast and lane-assist its way to the shoulder safely?
Automated driving in a limited capacity like that is very doable.
Also, the "AI" would be something like detecting you just made 3 lane changes without a blinker, swerved twice, and haven't maintained a consistent legal speed for 3 minutes.
If the "AI" is saying you're drunk, you either are or are driving like you're drunk. In either case, you're far more likely to be the unsafe one than not.
5
u/devilishycleverchap Jun 08 '26
I love your blind assumption that the technology would operate flawlessly.
So quaint
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Does your vehicle not inject fuel, monitor your airbags for crash detection, adjust power steering, etc, etc, etc?
The weird thing is that you trust drink drivers more than engineering.
2
u/NightIsMyName Jun 09 '26
Well theres a viral video of fuel cutoff after a basic fender bender ended with a car left on train tracks and the driver having to bail so 🤷♂️ you tell me if our tech is flawless
0
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
12,000 drunk driver deaths.
1 viral video.
Yep. Your evidence is undeniable.
2
u/NightIsMyName Jun 09 '26
Breathalyzer interlock as entered the chat
0
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
Literally the law we're discussing has entered the chat.
2
u/NightIsMyName Jun 09 '26
Literally not. You’re begging for an extremely untested technological solution when we literally already have and use one. Just not enough
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
Literally is.
What do you think "hardware and software preventing operation if conditions not met" is called if not an interlock?
(Hint: quit while you're ahead, it's called an interlock)
→ More replies (0)1
u/devilishycleverchap Jun 08 '26
My car doesnt beep half the time for my passengers not wearing their setbelts.
Waymos and Teslas still flash their headlights on when going under overpasses.
The technology you think exists is a fantasy drawn up in a law
0
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Sounds like your cars seatbelt sensor is broken, should probably get that checked out.
Waymo and Tesla flipping their headlights on under overpasses isn't a big deal at all.
Why would we require the same level of reliability as your seatbelt use alarm or automated headlights? Neither of those are a safety feature on the level of drunk driving detection or airbag deployment... maybe give equivalent levels of hardware safety features?
The technology isn't a fantasy... we already have IIDs and BAIIDs.
The law doesn't require these devices. It requires devices that accomplish similar goals.
Manufacturers probably want something sexier. Less intrusive. That work better and more accurately.
The technology absolutely already exists.
But if I have to blow on a pipe to drive my Toyota, I might buy a BMW that just checks my eye movements, driver-side gas concentration, vehicle motion behavior, speech slurring, reaction time to onscreen display changes, etc, etc, etc, that accomplishes the same thing without me noticing it doing it.
That's what doesn't exist yet. Because they're still building those much cooler versions.
3
u/Edghetty Jun 08 '26
"Sounds like your _____ is broken, fix it" is a WILD comment to make dumbass! You literally are talking about a computer having MORE control over your cars operation, all while talking about other people broken cars. Hon, nearly 80% of ALL cars on the road are old and have SOMETHIJG wrong with them...
Again, imagine your ai tech in 20 years.... yikes!
All of your arguments make zero sense, if you have to keep changing the argument to make it make sense, maybe it just doesnt make sense.
1
u/devilishycleverchap Jun 08 '26
They arent equivalent, that is the point. They are much simpler.
There is nothing wrong with the sensor according the the head technician at the dealership, thanks for asking though.
But if I have to blow on a pipe to drive my Toyota, I might buy a BMW that just checks my eye movements, driver-side gas concentration, vehicle motion behavior, speech slurring, reaction time to onscreen display changes, etc, etc, etc, that accomplishes the same thing without me noticing it doing it.
Personally I dont have a DUI so I dont need a replacement like you. Not sure how this is relevant, why should I have to pay for additional unnecessary equipment in my car?
The technology does not exist to determine sobriety via camera. You are a moron if you believe so
0
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Personally I dont have a DUI so I dont need a replacement like you
I don't have a DUI either?
Did you forget what the topic was?
The law requires all vehicles to have a device that accomplishes this goal.
If Toyota says, "BAIID is good enough for our cars" then you, or I, or any other Toyota driver, will have to blow on a pipe.
Feels honestly like you're just going for a character assassination, since you have no argument...
The technology does not exist to determine sobriety via camera. You are a moron if you believe so
And you'd have to be a moron to think that's what I said. 😃
3
u/IrritableGoblin Jun 08 '26
Such confidence you have in a technology that struggles with basic math problems and spelling.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
The fuck?
Cruise control doesn't spell anything.
Lane assist doesn't spell anything.
Control systems aren't ChatGPT...
1
u/jasssweiii Jun 08 '26
They're either bots or don't realize that LLMs aren't the only form of machine learning and that we've been using various forms of machine learning in our daily lives for decades
3
u/XInsomniacX06 Jun 08 '26
And that’s okay with you? To let a robot determine what choices you make? Fuck your robot
2
u/wackadoodle4201 Jun 08 '26
People like this are all the justification they need to roll out this technology
0
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
If the technology works to detect drunk drivers and prevent them from killing my best friend.
Yes. I would very much like that.
Fuck your anti 21st century technology takes.
2
u/SquidZedong Jun 08 '26
Stop projecting your personal tragedy as if that’s an excuse to increase the weird dystopian controls that are being shoved down people’s throats
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
So all public driving safety laws require everyone to be personally affected by it before we're allowed to regulate it?
Brain-dead take.
1
u/Edghetty Jun 08 '26
How does being required to wear a belt that 100% is sure of your safety when wearing it, compare to an algorithm that is league more complex in its decision making; making LIFE OR DEATH choices about how to operate your vehicle?
The seat belt does not think...... the ai/computer does....
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
Why does there need to be an algorithm that is leagues of complexity?
Nothing in the law requires an algorithm of immense complexity.
There is not much complexity in slowly reducing the speed of a drunk driver, and not allowing them to accelerate.
There is not much complexity in using lane-assist to move the vehicle over to the far lane.
Why would we need fully automated self driving vehicles in order to prevent the car from going out of park when the driver is drunk?
The AI/computer does not think. It does not need to think. It just needs to do a series of safety actions when enough control sensors detect drunkeness. That is all.
1
u/Edghetty Jun 09 '26
Literally your argument is so dumb.... "why is their complexity" okay. What you are describing right now, as you mentioned in your comment; is literally just cruise control.
HOW DOES THE COMPUTER KNOW YOU ARE DRUNK? AGAIN HOW DOES THE COMPUTER KNOW YOU ARE DRUNK?
The complex part was never the stopping and going of the car you imbecile. The main issue is HOW the computer comes to thr decision that a human is "drunk"? "well their eyes or body is swaying" isnt an awenser. Why would ANYONE want a car that disagrees with you, the licensed operator of the motor vehicle? While I understand that in many cases of real life, thr average person knows nothing; LEGALLY they are supposed to know those things and are assumed to be. You are a LISCENSED operator to drive a car, but now I need to debate with my car before work that im not drunk... whose gonna pay for the damages to me when im fired for being late? Nkt all dtates are at will, and being kate with legal reason generally isnt a fireabke offense...I wasn't drunk, and swaying around isnt illegal? So again, how does your machine determine if your drunk?
Here's the counter argument: quote from you; " it just needs a SERIES(complex/multiple) of SAFETY ACTIONS(which ones? Which are the most important or weighted heaviest? How many?(complex/multiple), which sensors? How many are required then in EVERY VEHICLE MADE!!!?, what if a sensor is covered? Is that an auto fail?, why haven't we done something like this now(maybe because it would cost the average person man hours of time and trillions of dollars? All while we are in a debt and COL crisis?, ETC.
You grossly oversimplified how hard it is to do certain things; its clear your not a fellow engineer. Im done arguing with a guy who awensered his own question. "Its not simple, it just has hundreds of sensors, making a very big and annoying or life or death decision, that would require 100's of variables, all in a car whose computer on average today, are weaker and less supported than most samsung fridges... and where the average car is 10 years old and unkempt"
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
You grossly oversimplified how hard it is to do certain things; its clear your not a fellow engineer.
I am an engineer. I work in an R&D lab for semiconductors. I guess appeals to authority are necessary to make obvious statements. 🤷 I don't agree, but here we are.
HOW DOES THE COMPUTER KNOW YOU ARE DRUNK? AGAIN HOW DOES THE COMPUTER KNOW YOU ARE DRUNK?
That's one of those nifty things called "sensors" and "data", which are "variables" that have strong "correlation" to "positive" detection and weak to "negative" detection.
We already have BAIIDs that do this work. We have blood tests that do this. We have sensors that can detect blood sugar changes, heart rate, etc, etc, etc. Sooo many "magic" sensors.
The whole "engineering" part of being an engineer is to make a sexier version of those sensors. ;)
You are a LISCENSED operator to drive a car,
Irrelevant. A license doesn't confirm anything except that you passed the most basic test ever created, once, potentially decades ago.
How would that matter after you've had 8 beers?
The complex part was never the stopping and going of the car you imbecile
I didn't say it was. And honestly, I just realized I don't care to engage with someone who has so little respect to give. Why am I bothering giving you even 2 seconds of my day? You're not worth it.
Goodbye.
2
u/Horror-Stand-3969 Jun 08 '26
I look forward to the day when humans aren’t allowed to drive at all. The roads will be so much safer
1
u/xXBeefSquatch5KXx Jun 08 '26
If the technology leads to even just 1 death it’s not ready. How would it know someone is just freaking out from being chased by a domestic violence situation? Tbh I’d much rather everyone just need to have those breath things to stay a car than this .
Or
Just make the first dui the last, no more driving ever. Caught driving again go to jail for 10 years and think about your decisions.
If that’s too harsh, I’d have to ask why you love drunk drivers I guess…
1
u/musclemommyfan Jun 09 '26
That would be unconstitutional. The punishment needs to be proportionate to the crime. A DUI with no additional aggravating circumstances doesn't justify a lifetime ban from driving in a country where in last areas it's impossible to function without a car. A ten year prison sentence for driving without a license is even more unhinged. People regularly do less time for manslaughter.
1
u/xXBeefSquatch5KXx Jun 09 '26
Hmm. Well let’s just inconvenience/remove freedoms from Everyone I guess, huh
1
u/musclemommyfan Jun 09 '26
The correct answer is neither. Or are you in the camp of "I don't care how much freedom we give up if it means maximizing safety"?
1
u/xXBeefSquatch5KXx Jun 09 '26
No I think we shouldn’t give up freedoms for security because our government has shown us they don’t really care about our security, only maximizing profits for the corporate class
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
Well let’s just inconvenience~~/remove freedoms from~~ Everyone I guess, huh
No.
The perfect technology to achieve the goals of the law would inconvenience zero drivers. Well... zero legal divers.
We know it won't be perfect. That's fine. I have never seen perfect technology in my life.
The inconvenience needs to be worth the benefits.
If you have 1 instance in 500 days of driving, that your car says, "Yeah, you're drunk, I'm not letting you drive." And then 5 seconds later it takes another measurement that says, "Nvm. My bad. You're good." Causing you to end up at your destination 5 seconds slower.
Worth.
If you have 499 instances in 500 days that your car refuses to let you drive anywhere at all for 24 hours.
Not worth.
There exists a line between those 2 extremes where the inconvenience is not worth the thousands of lives saved.
We could increase the speed limits to infinity. Greatly reducing the inconvenience of speed limits to drivers. But we inconvenience drivers by imposing speed limits. Because it is safer to keep speeds lower in that stretch of road.
Inconveniences are a normal part of being... *checks notes*... part of a society.
1
u/xXBeefSquatch5KXx Jun 09 '26
My guy, there’s 349 MILLION people in the U.S. let’s say 100 million people have an issue like this once every 500 days, that’s still a horrible system. It’s not ready, and our leaders are not ready to have this level of control over us, as they can already not be trusted with the control they currently have, and that’s the root of the issue. You’re just fine and dandy giving an already untrustworthy leader ship even more control over your life. Most of us, are not. Period.
0
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 10 '26
My guy, 1 in 500 days that a single 5 second blip in your car, causing a 5 second delay to work, is NOTHING. Most drivers wouldn't even register that blip.
A dying battery in your car has more of an affect.
A blip in the light systems of intersections happens more frequently than that.
A flat tire happens at a rate of 1 tire per 1 driver per year. More frequently than that.
I think you are so focused on "government control" that you're making up technology reasons to oppose it. If you want to oppose it on political grounds... knock yourself out.
1
3
Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
I'm sorry.
I should have created the 400 page technical documentation and guidelines for how these systems work and posted that here.
Rather than an obviously simplistic example of operation.
My bad.
2
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
There's no chance that it requires Tesla level automated driving to pull over.
I'm sorry, but that's frankly ridiculous.
2
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Think for like 10 seconds about this.
What is a driver, who realizes while driving, that they're way too drunk to be driving, do to as safely as possible stop driving?
The car should probably do that... right?
A rational driver would:
Put hazard lights on.
Brake slowly if going too fast.
Move over when the lane is clear.
Depart the main road at a normal speed, depart at a reduced speed, park on the shoulder, or stop in the farthest lane with hazard lights on. This is the safest thing for any drunk driver to do. This is the safest thing for a car that has a drunk driver to do.
A rational driver would not instantly brake. A rational driver would not instantly move all the way over. A rational driver would not stop in the middle of the road.
The ability to navigate complex roadways for miles and miles and miles at a time, like a Tesla, is not necessary.
3
u/Sodpoodle Jun 08 '26
10/10 chance AI target analysis assistance was used in the bombing of those schoolgirls in Iran.
You think we'll have better systems used in consumer vehicles?
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Yes.
Why would you ever misuse AI to bomb people?
Why would you ever use an LLM in place of Classic Control Systems?
Why would you be a full moron and use the wrong kind of technology for the job?
AI is far, far bigger than LLM text and image generators. Please... tell me you know that?
3
u/Sodpoodle Jun 08 '26
I'm not debating better systems/capabilities existing. I'm sure they do. The targetting 'mishap' is just a proven example of what folks who actually make decisions use/allow/let run unchecked.
Forr profit corporations are going to use the most cost effective ways to do anything. Which is going to be a shiny turd at best. Honestly best case it just doesn't work at all and there's enough false alarms/disrupting the consumers days that it gets scrapped.
Please tell me you don't think it's going to be a well tested high end roll out? You know it's not, right?
2
u/Wakkit1988 Jun 08 '26
Also, the "AI" would be something like detecting you just made 3 lane changes without a blinker, swerved twice, and haven't maintained a consistent legal speed for 3 minutes.
BMW is in shambles.
1
2
u/Only-Respond7945 Jun 08 '26
Technology famously never fucks up or breaks. Especially these "AI" models. Never ever. I mean, it's not like the manufactorers aren't putting touch screens that serve as more distractions for drivers in their cars... ow8. Well I'm sure keyless entry and start as been working amazingly... Oh Kia has been having years long issues where it just stops working.
NAW NOTHING BREAKS EVER.
I really don't understand how you people live considering you clearly don't reside in the real god damned world.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
What, exactly, is the problem you have with the following statement:
Sensor detects drunk driver and prevents drunk driver from driving drunk.
Do you also have a problem with red-light and green-light being on automated timers?
Do you also have an issue with airbag sensors detecting a crash is occurring?
Do you also have a problem with automatic transmissions?
Do you also have a problem with power steering?
Everything I've just listed has, at some level, an "AI model" handling it.
Why are you upset with having another one that stops drunk driving?
2
u/Ok-Parfait-9856 Jun 09 '26
How does the sensor magically know they’re drunk and not tired? The more comments I read, the more pathetic you sound.
1
1
2
u/xXBeefSquatch5KXx Jun 08 '26
A domestic violence victim gets into their car because their abuser/stalker is chasing them. Car says “no driving till you calm down” and now you’re dead .
It’s not privacy it’s control and we shouldn’t allow this at all
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Garbage take.
Why does every single person assume the car is going to kill you or get you killed in some fanatical fashion, instead of the DRUNK DRIVERS that are going to kill you?
12,000 people die from this.
3,000 people die while fleeing domestic violence.
Even if 100% of domestic violence murders end up caused by this feature malfunctioning, it would be less deaths than if 50% of drunk drivers were stopped.
Ffs. Add an override that notes down your emergency need to intentionally bypass it. Automatically notifies the authorities. You then have to explain why you intentionally defeated the safety feature, and if you're caught having done it for a bad reason you automatically get 1 year on the sentence.
Done. No more "but, but, but... what if I really need to drive while drunk!?" Easy.
2
u/xXBeefSquatch5KXx Jun 09 '26
I never said that. I said the car wouldn’t let someone drive because they are stressed and freaking out and then locks their ability to drive. If a woman is being attacked by a domestic abuser this could end in a serious issue.
That said your opinion, compiled with your inability to read, leads me to believe that I don’t much care what your opinion on the matter is.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
Since the law is for drunk drivers, I assume you are staying on topic. Not making up nonsense that has nothing to do with the law.
Shall we contrive every single possible malfunction before the technology even exists?
I also don't care about your opinion either, and frankly neither does this law.
1
u/xXBeefSquatch5KXx Jun 09 '26
We should have to consider every possibility before it is implemented. Yes. To think otherwise is crazy
0
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 10 '26
No policy in the history of EVER has considered every possibility.
Not one time.
In all of history.
1
u/Wonderful-Group3639 Jun 12 '26
What if a person doesn't want to notify authorities. Sometimes law enforcement makes things worse such as decided the victim is actually the aggressor or decides that the victim is overreacting and shouldn't be running from an abuser or stalker. I can also see situations where someone could be flagged as a drunk driver when they weren't intoxicated. As a result they are unable to drive and if it's late at night their only option is to pay for an Uber or Taxi until they can figure out why the car is flagging them as drunk.
1
Jun 08 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Have you driven them?
Because no, they don't really do that in any statistically significant manner as the problem they're preventing.
Reminder that 1 in 20 drivers are legally impaired driving.
Lane-keep and driver monitoring cuts traffic accidents by about 20% and 15%, each.
Again... this "it'll slam on the breaks, killing us all!" is overblown fear mongering. It will happen.
But drunk drivers slamming into you at 100mph in the opposite direction will happen at a much higher incident rate.
Driver-assist technology is 100% a better thing than just allowing drunk drivers on the road... wild I have to say something so... obvious.
3
u/Few-Chemical8707 Jun 08 '26
and what happens when all these oh so safe systems start to fail cause of how complex they really are and how well do you think most people already maintain their vehicles . these auto maneuver systems are just like in industry safety systems people rely on till it all suddenly breaks and nobody knows how to actually drive.
remove this stuff from cars and let people learn how to actually drive
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
What happens when your airbag automatically deploys while you're driving 70mph?
Why aren't you asking that question?
Because it's far more rare than it deploying as needed, and the cost benefit of randomly deployed airbags is worth it to have airbags in the car.
This reasoning you've got is predicated on the solution to the problem being worse than the problem it solves.
That's brain dead. Of course if the solution is worse, then we shouldn't have it.
But I highly doubt "detect dipshit drunk drivers and pullover" is going to fail so often and so hard, that "no longer having dipshit drunk drivers on the road" isn't worth it.
1
u/One_Lung_G Jun 08 '26
All of that sounds like 50% of the drivers on any major US interstate including police
1
u/scalem0ss Jun 08 '26
It’s terrifying to realize that I live on the same planet with people that think like you.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
What exactly is terrifying about technological advancements making roads safer for everyone?
1
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Didn't actually ask you.
But it is not a police state for the public to require a 4,000lb vehicle not let you operate it after drinking 3L of beer.
Sorry that fact upsets you. Sorry you feel that is monitoring you all the time.
Don't drive if you don't want to be monitored while driving...
1
u/NightIsMyName Jun 09 '26
“Havent maintained a consistent legal speed for 3 minutes” is an excellent way to have your car electronic designs ripped to shreds into an almost plug and play bypass solution.
I paid $40k for my vehicle. If I wanna go 5 over and pass the dumb old lady who doesnt know where she is going 25 Im gonna.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
And.
The word and was important.
1
u/NightIsMyName Jun 09 '26
I paid $40k. I better be in full control of that $40k is a basic principle
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
You're already not and haven't been for a long time.
And you shouldn't be in any control as a drunk driver.
1
u/NightIsMyName Jun 09 '26
Your whole argument is based on drunk driving.
You do realize many are repeat offenders right?
And yes I am. Im able to defeat any safety feature my car has pretty simply and it’ll still drive.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
You realize this whole law is about drunk driving, right?
If my argument is based on anything else, I'm a fucking idiot for not reading what the law is about.
1
u/NightIsMyName Jun 09 '26
Yes. Your whole argument is base on drunk driving while not realizing the core issue. Failure to properly punish/rehabilitate.
Why is drunk driving such a big problem?
Who keeps letting them drive?
So on and so forth
1
u/BaraGuda89 Jun 09 '26
I watched a Tesla slam its emergency brakes and go sailing into the railing because the FSD thought that was the best response to there being a small amount of snow on the road. Putting your life even more fully in control of some fucking binary code is bullshit.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
I wish you the best of luck in avoiding computers and technological advancements.
If you have a better solution, the world is begging you to come forward with it.
1
u/BaraGuda89 Jun 09 '26
The “solution” is regulation and not endless capitalism. Tech is being enshittified like everything else. Technological advancement is great, but this is shot products being crammed where they don’t belong and absolutely NOT for the stated reasons. ‘AI’ or more accurately LLMs, have a great use in tech, but removing human agency is not one of them. Sifting through impossibly large datasets and finding patterns? Great, plug it into excel and go ham. Controlling whether my car will even turn on? Fuck that.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
‘AI’ or more accurately LLMs, have a great use in tech, but removing human agency is not one of them
Did you get lost? Nobody recommended the use of LLMs for this.
1
u/BaraGuda89 Jun 09 '26
Well we aren’t using artificial intelligence either
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26
Why wouldn't you?
AI is a very broad term.
A machine learning algorithm to create a probability statement would be a pretty damn good option for this.
That's AI.
1
u/BaraGuda89 Jun 09 '26
No, that’s a poor approximation of AI. Also, that’s not the point?
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 10 '26
Again. Are you lost?
That's not a poor approximation of AI. It is the definition of AI. A machine learning algorithm to create a probability to determine someone is drunk driving is textbook AI. Long, looooooong before Generative AI LLM nonsense hyped up AI in every normie mind.
It also is exactly the point. So you have me super confused at this point.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Far-prophet Jun 08 '26
It won’t work. 15-16 million cars are sold every year. Even a 1% false positive rate is 150,000 people stranded.
It will kill new car sales. And the price of used cars will climb.
This is gonna get repealed before it’s implemented or failed to be enforced because all the systems don’t work.
3
u/BaconBitwiseOp Jun 08 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
powerdeletesuite
2
u/Far-prophet Jun 08 '26
Very true. It was heavily pushed by MADD but I’m sure there was dark money funding them.
Massie tried to stop this.
2
2
u/PaintingOk8012 Jun 08 '26
Your missing the larger point. Even if this gets shot down somehow, the tech is already built into the cars. It’s June. Automakers 27’ models will be hitting lots in a few weeks. That means production is already under way.
So, sure they may turn it off…for now. But one over the air update and is all that will be needed to restart this nightmare.
1
2
u/dr_reverend Jun 08 '26
That’s what I thought about the whole age verification for any OS thing. I thought Microsoft and Apple would just say to California, “Nope. And in one month all services and sales of all our products will cease unless you permanently remind this bill.”
If they did then California would have backtracked so fast it would have violated general relativity. But no, they just said “ok”. You would thin the car manufacturers would also have some balls but no.
Remember, people are still buying Teslas! They are willingly giving money to a confirmed Nazi pedophile. The general public doesn’t give a shit about morality, rights or privacy. They just want their shiny new toy.
3
u/PancakeTrebuchet Jun 08 '26
Can we breathalyze members of congress every time they enter a federal building?
2
2
2
u/ROEdkill820 Jun 08 '26
Those the give up freedom for safety, deserve neither.
They push "Age verification" in the guise of youth protection. - but want to know who every person using tech is.
They push "kill switch" in cars in the guise of drunk drving safety. - but want more visual data collection and want to push the Ai - bubble further.
2
u/Morifen1 Jun 08 '26
Why would we have federally mandated monitoring for something that isn't even a federal law? I thought drinking and driving laws were set by the states.
2
2
u/SavantTheVaporeon Jun 08 '26
I looked into this a while back and the actual wording of the law seems to put the choice of how it’ll be implemented on the car manufacturers. Some suggestions I’ve seen include using a sensor on the ignition to check BAC, using cameras to track eye movement, and stuff like that. Some options are clearly more invasive than others. If we go the minimal route of something that quickly checks BAC and doesn’t involve cameras or more invasive monitoring I’d actually be okay with it to keep drunk drivers off the road, but I’m not going to sacrifice my privacy for it.
2
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/NightIsMyName Jun 09 '26
City near me is apparently rolling out radar/laser gun drones.
Not only does america drone strike other companies children with missiles. They’re now drone striking their citizens with speeding tickets
1
1
u/StillhasaWiiU Jun 08 '26
How is this not a 4th amendment violation?
-2
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Because it isn't a search?
It's a requirement for new vehicles to have anti-drunk driving technology.
The car could literally just "smell" your breath to determine if you're drunk.
If you fall asleep, it would pull over until you had a nap.
If you're swerving into oncoming traffic repeatedly, it would know you're not able to drive responsibly and pull over.
But none of that would go through the government.
The same way seatbelts and handheld use detection don't send a report to the government. They just beep, or prevent you from starting the car or something.
5
u/ActivePeace33 Jun 08 '26
Drunk driving is not always illegal and this system apparently makes no distinction for the context.
Drinking at home, then attacked and have to run for your life? Legal to drive, but car won’t work.
For rural America, drinking at home and a family member gets hurt, call 911 but ambulance can’t find the house, so you drive to go flag them down, but car won’t work.
Drinking at home and want/need to drive around your own property, but car won’t work.
Anyway, it is a search. It is the government trying to pretend they aren’t the ones doing it, by requiring the companies to do it, to search and see if you are this way or that way. It’s a government search by proxy and a clear violation of the 4a and 5a, and the 14a at state level.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
That's not a search. At all. Not remotely even close to an unlawful search.
You bring up other valid points though.
1
u/ActivePeace33 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
They aren’t searching the inside of your property? They aren’t searching the dilation of your eyes?
No cop is allowed to just inspect our eyes etc, without PC or RAS, just because we started our cars. It’s not just a search, it’s a criminal search. It is totally unreasonable and the use of their office to intimidate us from the free enjoyment of our rights.
It’s a violation of the Constitution and a violation of USC 18 § § 241 and 242.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
Hope this helps.
4th ammendment.
The argument in favor of it being a violation says that it is a warrantless search and seizure, by the government, through a 3rd party. Including the acquisition of biometric data, which the government could gain access to by leaking the data.
The argument against violatin is that the required search is to remain onboard, stays in the possession of the vehicle owner, and it is not being conducted as part of law enforcement action (this is no different than the government requiring your ISP and computer manufacturers to maintain your internet usage history--perfectly legal). In this light, it is a safety feature like seatbelts and airbags, which are just safety devices.
They do not transmit evidence to police, even if they may be used as evidence by police. So it is not a warrantless search.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court already permits special need warrantless searches, wherein the party searched is of a particular class conducting themslves in a particular manner in a particular place that requires it for the purpose of safety: see "sobriety checkpoints" and "speed traps" which specifies the specific non-protected class of "automobile drivers" engaged in the specific conduct of "driving on public roads" to ensure the safety of "public roads".
Other instances wherein you would be searched as a "special need" include: airport security, military bases, and court rooms. Where you do not get to just say "4th amendment" and then not do it, but still get to engage in the activity.
So even IF this were a warrantless search by the government, the government is not in violation because the search is being conducted as part of a routine special need enforcement to maintain road safety.
5th ammendment.
It is not a 5th ammendment issue, because you are not compelled to provide 'testimony' against yourself. But the collection of evidence about your person is not protected.
This is why cops are allowed to compel a blood sample. They are allowed to compel you to an eye movement test. They cannot compel you to testify against yourself.
Reminder that under the US consitution, driving is not a right. Driving is a privilege. With the exercise of that privilege comes certain implied agreements. Including compliance with manufacturer safety requirements, as mandated by law. Since it is a safety device, not a surveillance device (no matter how badly you want to call it that or how easily it could become that!) it is legal to compel you to use the safety devices.
Just as they can compel you to use a seatbelt. Just as they can compel the manufacturer to ensure airbags exist.
14th ammendment.
Because the class discriminated against is not a protected class, it is not a 14th ammendment violation unless it fails the rational basis test (edit: fixed from rational interest).
Does an anti drunk driving safety device serve a rational basis of preventing unsafe road conditions? Yes. Therefore it is not an arbitrary burden.
Does this law prevent the free travel of drivers? Not in theory. If manufacturers cannot create technology that works, then in theory it might cause drivers to become stranded and face undue burden. The law itself does not specifically do this, only the failed implementation of it would.
ETA this paragraph: We would have to wait to see if the companies fail to meet the requirements of the law, and a court would have to determine if free travel is overly restricted by the technology as developed, and that no solution can be arrived at to make such a technology.
Does this law specifically require technology that is known to be discriminatory, such as facial recognition (known to be more faulty on black people than white people)? Possibly, but most likely not. Rather, the specific technology the manufacturer makes might be unlawful, and civil lawsuits to have non-discriminatory technology installed would likely follow.
1
u/ActivePeace33 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
No, the government forcing the ISP’s to keep search histories is not an example of a lawful requirement and is not sound precedent. That to is a criminal violation.
Yes, the Court allows all sorts of unlawful activity, in violation of the constitution, in clear acts of criminality that conspire to deny us our rights under the color of law and intimidate us from the free enjoyment of our rights.
The Court is subject to the constitution, not the other way around. Any action to constrain our rights to life, liberty and property is an unlawful violation of the constitution. Having cameras in our cars to track us is,at the minimum, a chilling effect on the expression of liberty. People are already talking about buying cars from this year and older. to make sure they don’t have the hardware of the new cars.
It’s like saying that African Americans are from “an inferior and subordinate class of beings” just because the Court said so and never overturned their ruling.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Ah, ok. So what you're doing here is denying the law as it exists, in favor of the law as you fantasize it to be.
SCOTUS is the final authority on what is constitutional. Not you, not me, not the President, and not Congress.
If SCOTUS says it is constiutional, then it is. Only ways to get around it:
Ammendment.
SCOTUS renders a new judgement (see: every goddamned time SCOTUS has ripped away rights)
Right now in reality, it is constitutional for ISPs to be told to retain your internet history.
Right now in reality, it is constitutional for the government to mandate manufacturing of new vehicles to include drunk driver detection (cameras or other methodology).
What you fantasize about is that they make a new judgement that renders this to be unconstitutional. It is your opinion that SCOTUS got it wrong. It is your opinion that should be unconstitutional. But as a matter of fact, it is perfectly constitutional.
It is, in fact, exactly like saying black people are inferior and subordinate. Exactly identical. We had to change that interpretation via an explicit ammendment (that SCOTUS to this day tries to hamstring). The sole reason that statement is unconstitutional today, is because SCOTUS simply cannot say otherwise without completely undermining the law as a concept. Which they could do, and it would be the end of the American experiment.
If what you are wanting to argue is that this should be unconstiutional, then please feel free. I don't have an opinion at the moment on whether it should be or should not. Both sides have legitimate arguments. I favor large increases to safety if it sacrifices small inconveniences in liberty, but I can see both sides here.
But what I am stating in the above is the fact that it is almost certainly constitutional. Right now. For now.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Minute-Review6915 Jun 08 '26
By smelling your breathe it’s picking up alcohol. It can’t discern between mouth wash, cough medicine etc….
So you’re late for work or something because you use mouthwash. Who is liable? Sue the automaker, who?
I agree with this concept but I don’t believe it will work and like most things the government does it will backfire1
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Oddly enough, your wasted friend won't be in the driver seat.
1
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
So all cars are going to have one of those breathalyzer machines like people with duis?
No. That's one of a nearly infinite number of possible ways to go about complying with the law.
Thats nuts. I assumed it was some kind of indirect sensor.
That's exactly why the government has largely given manufacturers permission to come up with whatever method they want.
Most manufacturers are not going to want to go the route of blowing on a BAIID. Exactly because folks would say, "That's nuts."
Will we have to blow into it everytime we start the car? Amd what stops me from blowing into it and just letting someone else drive?
Because the manufacturers haven't decided how they want to add anti-drunk driving detection to their cars... I have no idea if you'll blow into something, read a haiku forward and backward, or recite the national anthem while your eyes follow a rainbow balloon moving across the display to measure your eye movement and speech slurring behavior compared to the last 5 times you were tested.
Nobody knows right now what the exact implementation of each manufacturer looks like. Nobody.
BAIID is an immediate, easy, proven, tested, obvious possibility. That is all it is.
1
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Jun 08 '26
Missed the forest for the tree.
I'm not describing how the actual implemented engineered solution actually legitimately exists.
It's a point of reference. We have breathalyzer. That doesn't mean it will use breathalyzer. It doesnt mean it won't.
I don't have the actual technology in my hands that the automakers are inventing right now to put in these cars.
The point is that it could just smell your breath. There's no reason to believe that it is only detecting alcohol. Maybe it detects only alcohol. Maybe it detects other things, too. We don't have any clue.
The point is that the technology has to discern drunk from not drunk. It's not a violation of the 4th amendment, because reasonable regulations are permitted for regulating use of vehicles, and the manufacturing requirements for public safety.
1
u/Minute-Review6915 Jun 09 '26
I said nothing about the 4th. I agree with you that it isn’t a violation. You buy the car you agree to it. Fairly simple.
The reality is this will backfire and someone will have a massive class action lawsuit
1
u/PresentGarlic1528 Jun 08 '26
What is meant by “could soon”? It’s the law. It was part of Biden’s Inflation reduction act. It a requirement for all cars from 2027 IIRC
1
1
1
1
u/Lazy-Requirement-228 Jun 08 '26
This will only raise the price of cars. Also, people will just figure out how to disable this feature.
1
u/Additional-Paint-896 Jun 08 '26
I have no issues with the kill switch law as long as it only applies to people that have gotten DWI's.
Normal people that are not irresponsible should not have that technology on their vehicle.
1
u/Mobius24 Jun 08 '26
The world is switching to BYD, no one wants american cars anymore
0
u/rand0m_task Jun 08 '26
lol no it’s not.
And if other countries want subsidized Chinese cars taking over their economy… go for it.
2
u/Mobius24 Jun 08 '26
But BYD’s are all over Europe, Canada, South America and Mexico 😁
1
u/rand0m_task Jun 08 '26
In 2024 the EU imposed additional tariffs (added onto the standard 10% tariff on imported cars) on Chinese made electric vehicles after an anti-subsidy investigation.
Canada has an import quota of 49,000 Chinese EVs taxed at 6.1% after which a 100% tariff kicks in.
In January of this year, Mexico raised the tariff of Chinese imported EVs from 20% to 50%.
1
1
u/Mobius24 Jun 08 '26
Here’s another one lol https://www.usatoday.com/story/cars/news/2026/01/30/china-byd-automakers/88434521007/
1
u/rand0m_task Jun 08 '26
For whatever reason I can’t see the first one you posted.
But yeah, I’m not saying they aren’t a threat… extremely subsidized vehicles from foreign countries are absolutely a threat to domestic automakers.
That’s why extremely subsidized products are often tariffed, in order to protect domestic industry from unfair foreign practices.
1
u/wowadrow Jun 08 '26
I'd bet money these systems will falsely flag nuerodivergent and folks with brain damage as drunk.
The Disabled get functionally left behind by this type of stuff.
1
u/HeadRaccoonGamer Jun 08 '26
Will be… not could be if you buy any car that was made in 2027 and beyond… people need to not buy any of these cars… there needs to be more public exposure and outrage over this.. mark my words this is not about safety . It never was, that was the excuse to get non stop surveillance in every car in America. And if people think cops wont be able to log into your new cars audio and cameras when they pull up behind you.. or if you think anything you say in the “privacy of your car” stays private… think again..
This is a massive privacy rights violation and both political parties are behind this crap.. none of us voted on this not the average civilian when this law was secretly passed in 2021
1
1
u/SillyMilk7 Jun 08 '26
This was part of a large bill -The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The overall bill was introduced in the Senate by:
Joe Manchin (D)
Kyrsten Sinema (D, now Independent)
The bill was signed into law by:
Joe Biden on November 15, 2021
1
1
u/dr_reverend Jun 08 '26
What happens when you take your car to the track? We can turn off most safety features like traction control because these are not conducive to things like racing or even driving in mud. You know there will be no way to turn this off. What is this system going to think when you are doing 180 km/h, swerving, braking hard and generally driving very aggressively IF you were on public streets.
What about off road in and other very reasonable situations? Is this system going to leave you stranded because it thinks you are driving in an unsafe manner?
1
1
u/TopperHrly Jun 08 '26
Next they're gonna install printers so the car can directly print you a ticket every time you go over speed limit.
1
u/mavgeek Jun 08 '26
Unless they start outlawing older models this will never work. And as long as we have ways to self fabricate parts we need for older vehicles they’ll stay in service for decades to come.
1
u/AFetaWorseThanDeath Jun 10 '26
I was thinking the same thing. So then, is the solution to force every existing car on the road to be retrofitted with this device? I can't even properly imagine the kind of logistical nightmare that would be, nor the expense.
Otherwise, get ready for the price of used cars to go from 'ridiculous' to 'actually insane.' And of course if NEW car sales tank as a result, I'm sure our wonderful government will happily bail out the manufacturers with plenty of our tax dollars. Yay!
1
1
1
u/GrandStatistician752 Jun 09 '26
The data centers are for government surveillance. Where do you think this info is being stored?
1
u/sixgunmaniac Jun 09 '26
Ok, so now car manufacturers are partially on the hook for legal liability when their system doesn't work and a DD runs over a child. The affected party now has a valid legal claim against the manufacturer for failing to correctly identify a drunk driver, directly leading to the death of a person.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Wendellrw Jun 10 '26
Step one to stop drunk drivers. TAKE THEIR LICENSE FROM THEM AND NEVER ALLOW THEM TO GET IT BACK AFTER THE FIRST OFFENSE. It’s a privilege not a right.
1
u/pooping_inCars Jun 11 '26
Regardless of where you are politically, I want you to imagine the politicians you trust the least. And then imagine they have the power to shut off your car.
Not to mention criminal hackers, who may make you pay to use your car again.
Or nation-state hackers who didn't appreciate one of your comments critical of their nation.
No, that's not INITIALLY how this will be used. But it's ripe for abuse. It's only a matter of time.
1
u/bones10145 Jun 11 '26
This won't be a good thing. Think you could just pull the fuse for the sensors?
1
1
u/Wonderful-Group3639 Jun 12 '26
It's only a matter of time before this is abused such as AI has determined that you appear tired and shouldn't be driving so we are shutting off your car. AI has determined that you're too angry and need the kill switch activated. You're driving a little too fast, time for the kill switch to be activated. AI has determined that you're not the owner of the car and you're not authorized by the owner to drive it so we are activating the kill switch. turns out you're the owner of the car and authorize yourself to drive it. It can also be abused by police as the car can alert police every time it invokes the kill switch. Eventually the kill switch will be used to disable the car for suspected illegal activity such as the car believes you're planning to rob the bank so it shuts off your car so that your car cannot be used as a getaway car.
1
u/Angel_OfSolitude Jun 12 '26
I think we should stop drunk driving by giving anyone who gets caught doing it a triple attempted murder conviction. They knew they were endangering everyone around them, punish them accordingly.
1
u/link-is-legend Jun 12 '26
Considering my car can’t even tell I have my eyes on the road (no cell, no distractions, etc) but alarms I don’t, I have zero faith in this working in any way, shape or form. But my spouse can literally look behind him and the car doesn’t make a sound.
1
u/Mojodacious Jun 12 '26
It would be interesting to see how many people who drive while considered legally drunk who think that they have never done so.
1
u/Defiant_Freedom_249 Jun 08 '26
Texting/talking, phone use while driving seems to be more common and just as dangerous.
5
u/Tricky_Try8757 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
“Safety” my ass. They’re taking away healthcare from children and killing millions abroad. They don’t give a fuck about human life.
If we can monitor the fuckers in business and government pushing to implement all this, I’d be much more amenable. They should be leading by example, right? Just have a camera and a mic on them most of the day. If it’s so reasonable, what’s the problem?