new-law-will-install-kill-switches-in-all-new-cars

[BHWINCVAP]

 

Interesting reading..

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/new-law-will-install-kill-switches-in-all-new-cars/ar-AASt1Th?li=BBnbfcL

 

 

https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/29/barr-bidens-infrastructure-bill-contains-backdoor-kill-switch-for-cars/

[TerryB]

You may not be old enough to remember we had seatbelt interlocks that would not allow the car to start if the seatbelt was not fastened.  Discouraging drunk driving does have its merits, I don’t think there is any constitutional right that gives you permission to drive intoxicated.  Once again it’s sensational headlines with lots of “could”, “might happen” verbiage that gets converted to “will happen” by the reader.

[TerryB]

Should have added that GM OnStar has had the ability to shut down your car for years.

[joe_padavano]

5 hours ago, TerryB said:

You may not be old enough to remember we had seatbelt interlocks that would not allow the car to start if the seatbelt was not fastened.  Discouraging drunk driving does have its merits, I don’t think there is any constitutional right that gives you permission to drive intoxicated.  Once again it’s sensational headlines with lots of “could”, “might happen” verbiage that gets converted to “will happen” by the reader.

And those lasted two whole years until the public outcry convinced Congress to repeal the law.

[joe_padavano]

OK, I am unable to find any corroboration of this claim or proof that the provision actually exists. Every single story about it comes from one source - an unsubstantiated claim by former Rep. Robert Barr. No other source has found this provision - and that original claim was from a month ago. I even searched the text of the law itself (you can find it here). I got zero hits on "kill switch" or "shutoff". Search for "disable" and you get four hits. The only one that applies to motor vehicles involves a provision "to increase the visibility of stopped and disabled vehicles." Search it yourself. The fact that one former politician claims something doesn't make it true.

Edited January 6, 2022 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[TerryB]

11 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

And those lasted two whole years until the public outcry convinced Congress to repeal the law.

Exactly Joe!  The public and the auto manufacturers both didn’t like it so it got fixed.  This conspiracy spreading nonsense as you pointed out is out of control.  

[BHWINCVAP]

Wow! Didn't realize the people on here were such experts on everything. I'm Humbled

[joe_padavano]

17 minutes ago, BHWINCVAP said:

Wow! Didn't realize the people on here were such experts on everything. I'm Humbled

 

Well, experts in verifying whether or not something is BS, as opposed to believing everything we read on the  interwebs and reposting it without verifying first.

Edited January 6, 2022 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

43 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

 

Well, experts in verifying whether or not something is BS, as opposed to believing everything we read on the  interwebs and reposting it without verifying first.

 

 Thank you, Joe.

  Verify!  Verify!

 

  Ben

[BHWINCVAP]

1 hour ago, joe_padavano said:

 

Well, experts in verifying whether or not something is BS, as opposed to believing everything we read on the  interwebs and reposting it without verifying first.

So you are telling me you read all 2700 pages of the bill to verify? I call B.S. More like you didn't stumble across any more info on a 10 minute google search.. So you know more than the rest ? or just another desk chair know it all?

 Good day! 

Edited January 6, 2022 by BHWINCVAP (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

13 minutes ago, BHWINCVAP said:

So you are telling me you read all 2700 pages of the bill to verify? I call B.S. More like you didn't stumble across any more info on a 10 minute google search.. So you know more than the rest ? or just another desk chair know it all?

 Good day! 

You do realize that you can search for specific terms in a document, right? Again, please show me the exact place in the document where it refers to this kill switch provision. I find it amazing that no real automotive source has carried this story. That should tell you something .

[Matt Harwood]

13 minutes ago, BHWINCVAP said:

So you are telling me you read all 2700 pages of the bill to verify? I call B.S. More like you didn't stumble across any more info on a 10 minute google search.. So you know more than the rest ? or just another desk chair know it all?

 Good day! 

 

It's a PDF, which makes it easy to search. CTRL+F "kill switch" or CTRL+F "shutoff" will scan the entire document in seconds. Go ahead and try it yourself with whatever terms you think they might have used.

[joe_padavano]

The thing that makes this claim even more ludicrous is that EMP guns that will disable automotive electronics already exist. No "kill switch" required. Fortunately not a problem for my points and carb.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[ply33]

2 hours ago, BHWINCVAP said:

So you are telling me you read all 2700 pages of the bill to verify? I call B.S. More like you didn't stumble across any more info on a 10 minute google search.. So you know more than the rest ? or just another desk chair know it all?

 Good day! 

Maybe I am looking at the wrong bill. The one I downloaded has only 1039 pages instead of 2700.

 

Based on the other posts I was not expecting to find sections on automatic shutoff, kill switches, etc. But it turns out there are some.

 

 

Quote

SEC. 24205. AUTOMATIC SHUTOFF.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) KEY.—The term ‘‘key’’ has the meaning given the term

in section 571.114 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).

(2) MANUFACTURER.—The term ‘‘manufacturer’’ has the meaning given the term in section 30102(a) of title 49, United States Code.

(3) MOTOR VEHICLE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘motor vehicle’’ has the

meaning given the term in section 30102(a) of title 49, United States Code.

(B) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘motor vehicle’’ does not include—

(i) a motorcycle or trailer (as those terms are defined in section 571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation));

(ii) any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds;

(iii) a battery electric vehicle; or

(iv) a motor vehicle that requires extended periods with the engine in idle to operate in service mode or to operate equipment, such as an emergency vehicle (including a police vehicle, an ambulance, or a tow vehicle) and a commercial-use vehicle (including a refrigeration vehicle).

(b) AUTOMATIC SHUTOFF SYSTEMS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES.— (1) FINAL RULE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending section 571.114 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require manufacturers to install in each motor vehicle that is equipped with a keyless ignition device and an internal combustion engine a device or system to automatically shutoff the motor vehicle after the motor vehicle has idled for the period described in subparagraph (B).

(B) DESCRIPTION OF PERIOD.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The period referred to in subparagraph (A) is the period designated by the Secretary as necessary to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, carbon monoxide poisoning.

(ii) DIFFERENT PERIODS.—The Secretary may des- ignate different periods under clause (i) for different types of motor vehicles, depending on the rate at which the motor vehicle emits carbon monoxide, if—

(I) the Secretary determines a different period is necessary for a type of motor vehicle for purposes of section 30111 of title 49, United States Code; and

(II) requiring a different period for a type of motor vehicle is consistent with the prevention of carbon monoxide poisoning.

(2) DEADLINE.—Unless the Secretary finds good cause to phase-in or delay implementation, the rule issued pursuant to paragraph (1) shall take effect on September 1 of the first calendar year beginning after the date on which the Secretary issues the rule.
(c) PREVENTING MOTOR VEHICLES FROM ROLLING AWAY.—

(1) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of the regulations contained in part 571 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to evaluate the potential consequences

and benefits of the installation by manufacturers of technology to prevent movement of motor vehicles equipped with keyless ignition devices and automatic transmissions when—

(A) the transmission of the motor vehicle is not in the park setting;

(B) the motor vehicle does not exceed the speed determined by the Secretary under paragraph (2);

(C) the seat belt of the operator of the motor vehicle is unbuckled;

(D) the service brake of the motor vehicle is not engaged; and

(E) the door for the operator of the motor vehicle is open.

(2) REVIEW AND REPORT.—The Secretary shall—
(A) provide a recommended maximum speed at which a motor vehicle may be safely locked in place under the conditions described in subparagraphs (A), (C), (D), and

(E) of paragraph (1) to prevent vehicle rollaways; and
(B) not later than 1 year after the date of completion of the study under paragraph (1), submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

of the House of Representatives a report—
(i) describing the findings of the study; and
(ii) providing additional recommendations, if any.

 

If I read that correctly, the two worries are about cars rolling away and carbon monoxide poisoning. Neither seem to require a remote shutoff, only logic internal to the car.

 

“Disable” turns up a bunch of stuff regarding disabled people and funding for a program “to pilot and incentivize measures, including optical visibility measures, to increase the visibility of stopped and disabled vehicles”. There is mention defining assault on a transit worker including actions that disable them. Some mention of affordable housing for disabled. But nothing about disabling a vehicle either locally or remotely.

 

“Kill” only turns up in one person’s name and in lots of instances of “skill”, “skills”, etc.

 

Clicking through the links on the original post (thank goodness I have ad and tracking blockers) I see there is mention that this new feature is mentioned in relation to drunk drivers. So I searched for drunk and this is what I found:

 

Quote

 SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(1) alcohol-impaired driving fatalities represent approxi-

mately 1⁄3 of all highway fatalities in the United States each year;

(2) in 2019, there were 10,142 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in the United States involving drivers with a blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher, and 68 percent of the crashes that resulted in those fatalities involved a driver with a blood alcohol concentration level of .15 or higher;

(3) the estimated economic cost for alcohol-impaired driving in 2010 was $44,000,000,000;

(4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually; and

(5) to ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles.

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) ADVANCED DRUNK AND IMPAIRED DRIVING PREVENTION

TECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology’’ means a system that—

(A) can—
(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver

of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and

(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected;
(B) can—

(i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and

(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or
(C) is a combination of systems described in subpara-

graphs (A) and (B).

(2) NEW.—The term ‘‘new’’, with respect to a passenger motor vehicle, means that the passenger motor vehicle—

(A) is a new vehicle (as defined in section 37.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regula- tion)); and

(B) has not been purchased for purposes other than resale.

(3) PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE.—The term ‘‘passenger motor vehicle’’ has the meaning given the term in section 32101 of title 49, United States Code.

(4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
(c) ADVANCED DRUNK AND IMPAIRED DRIVING PREVENTION

TECHNOLOGY SAFETY STANDARD.—Subject to subsection (e) and not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, that requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.

(d) REQUIREMENT.—To allow sufficient time for manufacturer compliance, the compliance date of the rule issued under subsection (c) shall be not earlier than 2 years and not more than 3 years after the date on which that rule is issued.

(e) TIMING.—If the Secretary determines that the Federal motor vehicle safety standard required under subsection (c) cannot meet the requirements and considerations described in subsections (a) and (b) of section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, by the applicable date, the Secretary—

(1) may extend the time period to such date as the Secretary determines to be necessary, but not later than the date that is 3 years after the date described in subsection (c);

(2) shall, not later than the date described in subsection (c) and not less frequently than annually thereafter until the date on which the rule under that subsection is issued, submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report describing, as of the date of submission of the report—

(A) the reasons for not prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, that requires advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology in all new pas- senger motor vehicles;

(B) the deployment of advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology in vehicles;

(C) any information relating to the ability of vehicle manufacturers to include advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology in new passenger motor vehicles; and

(D) an anticipated timeline for prescribing the Federal motor vehicle safety standard described in subsection (c); and
(3) if the Federal motor vehicle safety standard required

by subsection (c) has not been finalized by the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act, shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representative a report describing—

(A) the reasons why the Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not been finalized;

(B) the barriers to finalizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standard; and

(C) recommendations to Congress to facilitate the Fed- eral motor vehicle safety standard.

So there is a provision for requiring the vehicle to detect and limit or disable the ability of a drunk to drive. Sounds like the time limit is for how long it will take to create the rules so it is not clear to me when this will become required for new cars.

 

Nothing I find indicates a remote kill capability. You may believe this reeks of nanny state thinking but on the face of it I see nothing that will affect how a non-impaired driver will be able to operate a car. And maybe some idiots will be saved from carbon monoxide poisoning or being rolled over by their car when the get out without setting the parking brake or putting it in park.

[joe_padavano]

31 minutes ago, ply33 said:

If I read that correctly, the two worries are about cars rolling away and carbon monoxide poisoning. Neither seem to require a remote shutoff, only logic internal to the car.

 

“Disable” turns up a bunch of stuff regarding disabled people and funding for a program “to pilot and incentivize measures, including optical visibility measures, to increase the visibility of stopped and disabled vehicles”. There is mention defining assault on a transit worker including actions that disable them. Some mention of affordable housing for disabled. But nothing about disabling a vehicle either locally or remotely.

 

“Kill” only turns up in one person’s name and in lots of instances of “skill”, “skills”, etc.

 

Clicking through the links on the original post (thank goodness I have ad and tracking blockers) I see there is mention that this new feature is mentioned in relation to drunk drivers. So I searched for drunk and this is what I found:

 

So there is a provision for requiring the vehicle to detect and limit or disable the ability of a drunk to drive. Sounds like the time limit is for how long it will take to create the rules so it is not clear to me when this will become required for new cars.

 

Nothing I find indicates a remote kill capability. You may believe this reeks of nanny state thinking but on the face of it I see nothing that will affect how a non-impaired driver will be able to operate a car. And maybe some idiots will be saved from carbon monoxide poisoning or being rolled over by their car when the get out without setting the parking brake or putting it in park.

 

Nice work! Thanks for finding all that. The impaired driving detector has been talked about for a while. The time-out circuit is yet another example of Congress feeling the need to APPEAR to be doing something. TPMS is the classic example of that. The well-publicized death of actor Anton Yelchin is surely a driving force for it this time. Frankly, the idiotic gear selectors on some newer cars should be outlawed (rotary knobs, seriously???).

Edited January 6, 2022 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[carbking]

Joe - (opinion) many new cars are unsafe to drive without a "navigator" to control the control panel(s) so the driver can drive the vehicle!

 

And yes, my new one has a rotary knob for a gear selector?????

 

Jon.

[joe_padavano]

2 minutes ago, carbking said:

Joe - (opinion) many new cars are unsafe to drive without a "navigator" to control the control panel(s) so the driver can drive the vehicle!

 

And yes, my new one has a rotary knob for a gear selector?????

 

Jon.

I had a Chrysler rental with the knob.

Worst.

Design.

Ever.

 

Unlike a normal mechanical gear selector, you couldn't tell what gear you were in without staring at the knob.

[carbking]

That is EXACTLY the issue!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You cannot change heater settings by feel.

You cannot change defroster settings by feel.

You cannot even change a radio station by feel.

 

You simply cannot control MOST of the controls without removing your eyes from the road. So you either pull off to the side of the road to adjust the electronics, or have someone riding with you to control the control panels.

 

I wonder how many individuals were impaled in accidents by plastic radio buttons?

 

EDIT: if I were a "conspiracy theorist" I would believe the government is making the cars so *&^%$#@ difficult to drive, we will give up cars more easily!

 

Jon.

Edited January 6, 2022 by carbking (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

19 minutes ago, carbking said:

EDIT: if I were a "conspiracy theorist" I would believe the government is making the cars so *&^%$#@ difficult to drive, we will give up cars more easily!

 

Jon.

 

Unfortunately, Jon, we have the automakers to blame for this. The 1980s GM dashboards with millions of tiny identical buttons were the start of the end. And just wait until the labels start to wear off... 😲

 

[hidden_hunter]

We've had alchol interlocks for years for drunks, blow into it to start your car and can be randomly challenged at any time to supply a sample. Attempting to start the vehicle while intoxicated also is an offense if you have an interlock on your car

[ted sweet]

topic has nothing to do with antique cars

[edinmass]

On 1/6/2022 at 4:16 PM, carbking said:

Joe - (opinion) many new cars are unsafe to drive without a "navigator" to control the control panel(s) so the driver can drive the vehicle!

 

And yes, my new one has a rotary knob for a gear selector?????

 

Jon.

 

Jon......your a renascence man.............my newest car is 19 years old(The last five years.). My latest everyday driver........is 39 years old, purchased from a very active member here. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by edinmass (see edit history)

[8E45E]

On 1/5/2022 at 7:12 PM, joe_padavano said:

And those lasted two whole years until the public outcry convinced Congress to repeal the law.

I thought it was only for 6 months into the 1973 model year, not two years.

 

Craig

[8E45E]

On 1/6/2022 at 3:11 PM, joe_padavano said:

The 1980s GM dashboards with millions of tiny identical buttons were the start of the end. And just wait until the labels start to wear off... 😲

 

They still do!

 

[maok]

What? You can't talk to your car yet?

Edited January 18, 2022 by maok (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

11 hours ago, 8E45E said:

I thought it was only for 6 months into the 1973 model year, not two years.

 

Craig

My dad bought a 1975 Impala brand new that still had the system. Eventually he had the dealer disconnect it.

[carbking]

22 hours ago, maok said:

What? You can't talk to your car yet?

I've been talking to this one ever since I bought it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

Jon

[Marty Roth]

On 1/10/2022 at 3:50 AM, hidden_hunter said:

We've had alchol interlocks for years for drunks, blow into it to start your car and can be randomly challenged at any time to supply a sample. Attempting to start the vehicle while intoxicated also is an offense if you have an interlock on your car

True, but that is only "After the Fact", and generally only After Multiple Convictions,

and even then, in some states, just registering for a treatment program, like a a New Orleans City Councilman - drunk and wrecking a city-owned vehicle, gets you off the hook until the next time - finally forced to drop his re-election bid !

 

[hidden_hunter]

2 hours ago, Marty Roth said:

True, but that is only "After the Fact", and generally only After Multiple Convictions,

and even then, in some states, just registering for a treatment program, like a a New Orleans City Councilman - drunk and wrecking a city-owned vehicle, gets you off the hook until the next time - finally forced to drop his re-election bid !

Mandatory here for any amount of alcohol over 0.05 BAC and as far as I’m aware there is no discretion any more either. Cost works out to be a couple of thousand bucks by the time your all said and done

 

Theres been enough high profile accidents over the years and ad campaigns that it’s nowhere near as prevalent as it once was and it’s certainly not seen as “no big deal” like it used to be 

[Bhigdog]

On a related note: I have a 2018 Grand Cherokee. Two days ago my car flashed a tire pressures low warning. OK. I added air and all was well. Later that day I got an EMail saying "Safety Warning, tire pressure indication."

Thinking it was perhaps a recall I opened the message.

It showed my VIN#, then the tire pressures, mileage (32,299), dealer info, and percent of oil life remaining until change.

So, I'm thinking this is sort of a generic averages type of deal and some kind of sales pitch for service and don't give it much thought.

Later on I went out and checked my mileage. It was dead nuts on (32,299).......W. T. F........???

I called the dealer service rep and he said, "Oh yeah, your cat is monitored by satellite"..........W.T.F.....???

I asked if I could opt out of being monitored. He said "you can't".......W.T.F..........???

I asked what all was monitored and what was done with the data. He said he really didn't know.

Now I don't have anything, or much, I want to keep secret but just what is being monitored/recorded? Car location via GPS, speed, braking force, acceleration/deceleration, etc etc etc. Who gets to access this info? Law enforcement, insurance company, lawyers, private investigators, ad infinitum?

BOY! I don't like this AT ALL.............Bob

 

 

 

[jdome]

I get those unsolicited monthly vehicle status reports on my car too. I don't like the manufacturers having remote "management" of my vehicle. Related to this is the fact that MicroSoft recently settled a class action suit for remotely turning down the battery level indicator on older phones to make owners think they needed a new battery. But they didn't sell replacement batteries so you had to buy a new phone which was the intent of the ruse.  The auto manufacturers can easily flip on the "check engine" lite to drum up more business for their service departments and showrooms.

[8E45E]

On 1/18/2022 at 7:49 AM, joe_padavano said:

My dad bought a 1975 Impala brand new that still had the system. Eventually he had the dealer disconnect it.

I know in Canada, it was for approximately 6 months, or half the model year.  It must have been longer in the US.

 

Craig

[8E45E]

On 1/19/2022 at 7:07 AM, Bhigdog said:

On a related note: I have a 2018 Grand Cherokee. Two days ago my car flashed a tire pressures low warning. OK. I added air and all was well. Later that day I got an EMail saying "Safety Warning, tire pressure indication."

Thinking it was perhaps a recall I opened the message.

It showed my VIN#, then the tire pressures, mileage (32,299), dealer info, and percent of oil life remaining until change.

So, I'm thinking this is sort of a generic averages type of deal and some kind of sales pitch for service and don't give it much thought.

Later on I went out and checked my mileage. It was dead nuts on (32,299).......W. T. F........???

I called the dealer service rep and he said, "Oh yeah, your cat is monitored by satellite"..........W.T.F.....???

I asked if I could opt out of being monitored. He said "you can't".......W.T.F..........???

I asked what all was monitored and what was done with the data. He said he really didn't know.

Now I don't have anything, or much, I want to keep secret but just what is being monitored/recorded? Car location via GPS, speed, braking force, acceleration/deceleration, etc etc etc. Who gets to access this info? Law enforcement, insurance company, lawyers, private investigators, ad infinitum?

BOY! I don't like this AT ALL.............Bob

 

 

 

The government, too!

 

See post #29 here:  https://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/forum/your-studebaker-forum/general-studebaker-specific-discussion/1866550-factory-undercoating-after-61-1-2-years/page2

 

Craig

[hook]

On 1/18/2022 at 10:31 PM, carbking said:

I've been talking to this one ever since I bought it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

Jon

I used to talk to my old Model A Ford. However, if I were to tell you what I said, the moderator would kick me off of this sight!!!!!!

[Larry Schramm]

Here is some information on the interlock system that was talked about earlier.

 

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2021/01/07/dingell-renews-push-to-change-drunk-driving-law-2-years-after-abbas-family-tragedy/

 

https://patch.com/michigan/dearborn/how-congresswoman-debbie-dingell-fighting-drunk-driving