- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
From my previous comment, it looks like NHTSA is moving faster than I predicted. We’re now at step 1, with this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
(edit: I jumped the gun, we’re still at step ‘0’ on my original list)
Most of this notice seems to be a report on why ‘impaired driving’ is bad. I see alcohol, cannabis, mobile phone use, drowsiness…etc.
Due to technology immaturity and a lack of testing protocols, drugged driving is not being considered in this advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
Makes sense.
There is no clear and consistent engineering or industry definition of ‘‘impairment.’’
Yep, another unclear request by Congress.
NHTSA believes that Congress did not intend to limit NHTSA’s efforts under BIL to alcohol impairment.
Okay, that’s fair.
Camera-based-systems, however, are increasingly feasible and common in vehicles.
Uh-oh…
The Safety Act also contains a ‘‘make inoperative’’ provision, which prohibits certain entities from knowingly modifying or deactivating any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Those entities include vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, rental companies, and repair businesses. Notably, the make inoperative prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. While NHTSA encourages individual vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment by removing, modifying, or deactivating a safety system, the Safety Act does not prohibit them from doing so. This creates a potential source of issues for solutions that lack consumer acceptance, since individual owners would not be prohibited by Federal law from removing or modifying those systems (i.e., using defeat mechanisms).
Note that “make inoperative” does not apply to a “kill switch” in this case. NHTSA uses the term to mean “disabling required safety devices”. For example, as an individual vehicle owner, it’s perfectly legal for you to remove the seatbelts from your car, despite Federal requirements. But it’s illegal for the entities listed above to do it. (This example doesn’t extend to state regulations. It’s legal for you to remove your seatbelts, but may still be illegal to drive a car without them.)
There’s a short ‘discussion’ here regarding how to passively detect impaired driving, noting the difficulties of creating such a system. Followed by a note that basically says if they can’t do it within 10 years, NHTSA can give up and not do it, as stated in the Infrastructure law.
There’s a long section on how to detect various types of impairment, current methods of preventing impaired driving, etc. An interesting section about detecting blood-alcohol level using infrared sensors embedded in the steering wheel. Body posture sensors can be used to detect driver distraction.
This is followed by a brief overview of the technologies NHTSA is considering:
Camera-Based Driver Monitoring Sensors
Hands-On-Wheel Sensors
Lane Departure and Steering Sensors
Speed/Braking Sensors
Time-Based Sensors
Physiological Sensors
On page 850 (21 of the PDF), NHTSA asks for feedback to several questions. There are a few pages of relevant issues, so I won’t cover them here. If you wish, you can go here to leave a comment. Please don’t leave irrelevant garbage like “I oppose this on the grounds of my Constitutional rights…” While applicable in this situation, it’s irrelevant to NHTSA, and commenting like that will just waste everybody’s time. There’s a section on page 855 (26 of the PDF) about Privacy and Security.
That’s that. Let me know I can answer any of your questions. I’ll try to come back to this post throughout the day and see what’s happening. But, I do not work for NHTSA, so can’t remark on agency thought process.
You must log in or register to comment.
You know what would eliminate a ton of drunk driving?
Functional Public Transit
But that isn’t something we can pass off onto the consumer and break their cars, so we’re not gonna do it.
Also walkable towns and cities. Also public and community spaces. Also strong interconnected communities. All these things are bad for capitalism and the ruling class and their enforcers though so don’t expect to see any change in the policy of dismantling communities
I spent a week in Pontevedra Spain a few years ago and it was amazing for the walkable city alone. Revitalizing downtown areas by turning them into walkable parks with shops is a great idea.
The point is that anyone who is drunk as a skunk might not have the necessary mental capacity to leave the car at the party place and take the bus.
Heck, even if they already arrived by PT, they will either a) vomit into the PT, B) fall asleep and end up somewhere, c) get into the wrong PT and end up somewhere, and/or d) get fleeced on the way.
This is not an excuse for drunk driving, it’s just explaining that PT is not really a solution to this particular problem.
I really doubt that’s a significant portion of drunk drivers. Those people would not be getting far when driving anyway.
The amount of fighting there was about lowering the BAC limit from 0.10 to 0.08 leads me to believe that’s where a large portion of them are.
I think it should be lowered even more. Half that is still too much for some people.
It would definitely be a solution for me. Two beers in and I’d be safer in a bus than behind the wheel.
Also, if you’re drunk as a skunk, all these outcomes are better for everyone than getting behind the wheel and messing up somebody else’s life.
Well, after two beers you are probably still capable of a sound decision not to drive and still end up at home when using public transport.
The problem is those people who had way more than just two beers.
More parts in my car that can:
- Break and render my car inoperative until fixed
- Harvest my data for sale or AI model training
- Take photos of me that can oopsie doopsie leak to the internet
- Produce false positives and at least temporarily delay normal operation
- Surveil me
- Be hacked and used for nefarious purposes
Lovely.
I’m pissed enough already that my Subaru takes recordings of me through my OnStar microphone to train AI or sell or whatever. (Subaru’s privacy policy says I agree to allow that basically by existing in a Subaru.) And Subaru is not the worst privacy offender.
I’m all for safer driving, but the car companies have to be creaming themselves over all the data this is would let them harvest in the name of “safety.”
I wish it were as simple as calling things like your onstar microphone a deal-breaker when looking for a new car, but it seems like every single car out there has many deal-breakers, and you just need to choose which are worst.
My solution is no new cars and nothing newer than 2005.
Cars are a series of compromises on every single metric nowadays, and they’re more expensive, making you pay for the convenience of having your data sold
That’s great until two years from now when all parts for that model year will stop being manufactured. If you’re lucky, newer models of the same car share a part number. If you’re not, the first time you need a new belt tensioner or torque strut you’re buying a new car. I drive an 05 Civic and I can usually still find parts for it only because it’s one of the most popular models to exist in America. My partner drives a similar year Suzuki and it’s now actually impossible to repair over half of that car because of parts unavailability. Old cars are great until they need to be fixed.
I’m not really arguing in favor of buying a “new” car especially because you wouldn’t catch me dead in anything more recent than a 2015. But there are some considerations to be taken into account when you’re buying a car old enough to have its own drivers license. More considerations, when it’s old enough to have its own license that would have already expired.
How do those terms of service affect passengers who aren’t given an opportunity to read and opt out?
Besides just you, the driver, these things are collecting data on third parties and minors without consent. I can’t believe we allow these things.
Well, their privacy policy has all the deets. In section 1, “Scope”, it says:
For the avoidance of doubt, for purposes of this Privacy Policy, “using” the Services includes being a Vehicle Occupant in a Connected Vehicle.
In section 2, “Information We Collect”, it says:
Identifiers - A real name, username or alias, postal address, unique personal identifier, online identifier, Internet Protocol address, email address, account name, Social Security number, driver’s license number, vehicle information (such as model and year), vehicle identification number (VIN), vehicle telemetry data, or other similar identifiers.
Other Personal Information subject to certain laws - A name, signature, Social Security number, address, telephone number, driver’s license or state identification card number. Some Personal Information included in this category may overlap with other categories.
Commercial information - Records of personal property, products or services purchased, obtained, or considered.
Internet or other similar network activity. - Browsing history, search history, information on a consumer’s interaction with a website, application, or advertisement.
Geolocation data. - Physical location and movements, including from Connected Vehicle Services or Technology Services.
Inferences drawn from other Personal Information. - Profile reflecting a person’s preferences, characteristics, predispositions, behavior, or attitudes.
Recordings - Audio recordings of Vehicle Occupants. Audio recordings when you call our call centers or a Retailer.
Payment information - Credit card information for optional Services, such as Subaru Starlink.
You can opt out of Subaru Starlink, but all that does is turn off the benefits the owner of the vehicle would get. It doesn’t disable the collection of information and recordings and such. (If you never paid for Subaru Starlink, this would probably prevent them from having your payment information, I guess.)
About your concern about kids, they have this to say:
Subaru’s Service is intended for a general audience and not directed at children under (13) years of age.
We do not knowingly gather Personal Information (as defined by the U.S. Children’s Privacy Protection Act, or “COPPA”) in a manner not permitted by COPPA. If a person under 13 submits Personal Information through any part of a Subaru Service, and we learn the person submitting the Personal Information is a child, we will attempt to delete this Personal Information as soon as possible. If you are a parent or guardian and you believe we have collected Personal Information from your child in a manner not permitted by law, contact us as set out in the “Contact Us” Section below. We will remove the data to the extent required by applicable laws.
So, basically, they’re going to collect until you call and tell them why it’s not legal. Until then, they’ll assume they’re not breaking any laws.
There’s a whole lot more in the privacy policy, of course. And if you want more summarized info about the privacy policy, Mozilla’s page about the privacy of Subaru vehicles is a good resource.
But then again, it’s entirely likely you don’t have a Subaru and don’t really care about Subaru specifically. If that’s the case, I highly recommend this page on Mozilla’s site where you can go to look more into most popular car brands’ privacy practices. Soiler alert: none of the 25 popular car brands they evaluated are much better than Subaru. And many are worse.
Whatever the case, it’s pretty clear that whether they’re “allowed to” or not, they do it.
And cars aren’t the only concern. Robot vacuum cleaners for instance are an issue. (Also, don’t believe a robot vacuum company when they say "this model doesn’t have a camera, it only has an “optical sensor.” If this interests you, see this talk.) And smart TVs. Just for instance.
Changing your child’s diaper or changing vomit soaked clothes in the vehicle can result in a nude photo of your child. Then you could be guilty of having and distributing child pornography and those photos will make it onto nasty websites.
is there any reason you can’t disconnect the mic? or do you use the onstar feature. I have been thinking of disabling mine as I don’t use it nor plan to in the immediate future due to the subscription costs being extortionary
is there any reason you can’t disconnect the mic?
Just that I haven’t done the necessary research to figure out how exactly. Another response to my first post in this thread by @evasive_chimpanzee that links to a guide on how to disable the OnStar module, which would disable the mic, GPS tracking, etc.
Now, my car also has Starlink which, you can call and cancel, but that doesn’t keep them from tracking you. So my task will involve disabling two different things.
But all that to say, there’s nothing keeping me from disabling the mic, OnStar module, and Starlink except it’s not something that’s really meant for consumers to do and I’m still early in the process of studying up on how to do it.
If it’s anything like my 2001, there will be. (It’s the damn horn. The relay. It’s wired in there with a bunch of other important shit, like cruise control. So, when i use the fob to lock the door, it doesn’t simply chirp, it wholeass honks. Any efforts and documentation to silence this feature have been a failure. So I unplugged one horn and tried again and found out there were two.) I’ve been tempted to run a separate wire from the battery to the horn but I’m still toying with a wiring diagram about it because if I’m gonna rig it, I’d prefer to do it correctly, and only once😂 Good luck with your mic, though.
You know you can disable that with some foil. Wrap the On star module in it and it can’t send any signals.That’s assuming you don’t use the OnStar.
The last GM vehicle I had, it was possible to entirely remove the OnStar module without affecting the operation of the truck. I also knew someone else that found out that if something tears the little shark-fin antenna off the roof, it won’t work either.
I’m not sure about the interoperability between GM cars and OnStar, but almost every other car it can be disabled by removing the three plugs in the OnStar box. Here’s an article on how to do it.
Can’t tell you how often I get a reminder to keep my eyes on the road, just because I repositioned my head, or tilted it down to stretch my neck. My eyes are on the road damn it. Now my car will turn off in the middle of the highway if i get a stiff neck…great.
Also, I had no idea subaru did this. I saw a recent article that mentioned a few big named car brands, and subaru wasnt included, so, i was naively hopefull. Plus, I realize im being recorded anyways, in an infinate amount of ways, but i didnt realize the car was in on it too. Wow, that sucks. I need to pay better attention, no pun intended.
Yeah the amount of shit I’ve seen about lack of privacy in new cars is disgusting. If I were you I’d get into the onstar panel and just pull some wires.
One of the things that was posited was that cars would look at the way you were driving, and if you were driving “erratically” it would shut off.
So what happens when you’re trying to get someone to a hospital because they’ve been seriously injured and are bleeding to death in your car? No, it doesn’t happen very often. But I can think of at least one case: Kentucky Ballistics, who had a rifle explode and blew shrapnel into his jugular. You will absolutely be driving erratically in those circumstances; exceeding the speed limit, weaving, honking, turning without signaling…
This is a band-aid solution to a problem caused by a larger issue.
Since in the US driving is an implied requirement for transportation, the barrier to entry for driving a car is absurdly low.
This is a bad solution to a bad problem caused by decades of bad decisions.
Me dodging around all the three foot wide potholes my city refuses to fucking fix would be tagged as “erratic driving”, despite never fully leaving my travel lane, and would get my car disabled
Fuck that lmfao
MAny many years ago I raced to the hospital doing all those things. I wouldn’t rely on today’s self-driving car to do it unless I was alone and had no choice.
On the other hand I can think of many more cases when someone was killed by erratic driver. It kind of sounds like you’re ignoring something occurring every day and focusing on fantasy scenario. It’s obvious that eliminating even 1% of accidents caused by erratic drivers would save more lives than people racing to hospitals do.
I’m not saying that shutting off cars based on some AI analyzing your driving patterns is a good idea but you really need to think about another argument than “this one guy would probably die this one time”.
Also, that’s what ambulances are for. Fixing the ambulance service would be a better idea than hoping people will manage to race to hospitals without killing anyone.
in the case the guy was talking about he never would have made it if they waited for and ambulance. and your “fantasy scenario” occurs more than you’d like to admit, especially in rural areas. it’s the old adage, “i’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it”
Do you actually know how often it occurs? Of course not. There’s no way to tell because the people that decide it’s “erratic race to hospital time” are not doctors so they have no idea if they are saving lives or just putting more people in danger.
Also, your old adage makes no sense here. Erratic driving is not something that you have stored in your basement and can take out and use in case of emergency. It’s something people do all the time for no reason and it kill thousands of people every year. You’re talking about it like racing to a hospital with a dying person was the main reason why people drive like crazy. It’s not. It’s insignificant % of all the erratic driving cases.
Again, I’m sure there are good reasons to oppose automatic driving patterns detection. This is not one of them.
Counterpoint, all it takes is one person to die in the car because the car disabled itself on them while trying to get to a hospital, and suddenly hungry lawyers are swooping in all over your entire company.
I imagine the manufacturer will have some excuse about “if it was an emergency they should have called an ambulance” and I also imagine that won’t stand up to a stiff breeze in court.
If the manufacturer is building cars according to the specs defined by the law how can he be sued? Also, what do you care if the manufacturer will be sued?
Also, that’s what ambulances are for.
Many people have died waiting for ambulances that didn’t come, or took too long. Houses in my area have burned down because the fire department couldn’t figure out where an address was because GPS gives them the wrong location.
If I slip while working with a chainsaw and cut my femoral artery, I’m not going to tell my wife to wait for an ambulance; I’m going to get a tourniquet on and have her drive me as fast as she can to the hospital, because that will save me 20 minutes–minimum, and that’s if they’re not already out on a call on the other side of the county–over waiting for an ambulance.
Putting other people in danger. Yeah not a good case
When it’s your partner or child that’s god an arterial bleed, you’ll do it too.
You will bleed to death from a severed artery in under five minutes unless you can stop the bleeding. It’s going to take at least that long for an ambulance to show up.
I don’t disagree. Would do the same thing. Bit it’s not a good reason.
Exactly why driverless cars are required. Humans are bad at driving. Emotional and self preservation
Driverless cars would be worse; programming the kind of judgement calls into an expert system is… Not easy, and likely won’t work. They will probably do well with routine driving, when everyone else is also using an expert system to drive, but in an emergency? How do you convince your car that it’s an emergency? And what keeps someone from, say, lying? Like, I’m late to work because I overslept, so I need my car to drive 100mph, versus my home is on fire and I need to get there ten minutes ago to get my cats out?
The problem is that edge cases exist, and it’s really, really hard, if not outright impossible, to plan for them with an expert system.
No they wouldn’t break the speed limit. But less people would die from car crashes. So in fact they would be better. Just not in this situation. Which again is incredibly rare.
It never ever breaks speed limit. It doesn’t have to. No situation requires you to put your life above others.
No situation requires you to put your life above others.
Demonstrably false in the case of emergency vehicles. Going faster is not necessarily a risk; the autobahn has generally lower rates of accidents than the US interstates, despite people routinely driving >140mph.
Speed limits have always been a compromise between utility and lethality. You could nearly eliminate all accidents by having speed limits be no more than 20mph in any place. But it’s recognized that this isn’t practical, so we set speed limits at 25mph in school zones, 35 in residential/city roads, 45 on rural roads, 55 on unlimited access highways, and 65/70 on most interstates. Higher utility–an emergency–necessitates taking more risk.
If someone will die if you don’t break the speed limit, versus someone might die if you do, you’re probably going to break the speed limit.
Emergency vehicles cause quite a lot of fatalities. They are also taught how to drive at speed and motorway driving should have less crashes. It’s intersection and corners that causes issues.
Not American so no. Not how all places operate.
People break the limit all the time. Speed isn’t really the problem with drivers. It’s attention. Speed is a factor as you can’t react as fast but phones and other issues.
Sources. My dad was a firefighter for 30 years.
Your link to leave a comment appears broken.
I admire the desire to reduce impaired driving, but not only are there so many edge cases where detection will create false positives or negatives, I frankly do not trust any modern auto manufacturers to implement it cleanly.
Modern cars are already an absolute travesty when it comes to consumer rights, privacy, and data safety. The only logical outcome I can possibly see for such systems is manufacturers using that data against your will for additional profit. That data WILL be abused in any way possible, it’s the universal law of business.And more risky than that, these complex electronic systems will fail. And they will fail frequently, and often, because manufacturers will cut as many corners out of them as they can until they are the bare minimum to be legally compliant without any care to longevity.
So what happens when your $1800 steering wheel alcohol sensor fucks off 500 miles out of warranty, and constantly says you have a BAC of 0.20 leaving you stranded 80 miles from home? Will they log that you tried to drive drunk, then sell that data to your insurance and mortgage companies who instantly raise your rates by double because you’re “high risk”, despite having never done anything wrong with no recourse whatsoever? You bet your fucking ass they will!Maybe I’m cynical and just acting like an angry boomer, but I consider myself a responsible citizen and will NEVER buy a vehicle that implements any of these technologies, because not only do I not need them, but I guarantee you the implementations will be absolute hot garbage.
I mean, I’d never buy a modern car anyway because their current electronics and auto transmissions are also hot garbage… but that’s a separate problemWeird. Here it is. Maybe…
That link works, thanks.
Thanks for looking through all of this. If I’m understanding right, it seems like Congress is asking NHTSA to do a task that is probably not possible, but they are required to at least go through the motions to try?
It seems like they just told nhtsa to use technology to fix drunk driving so they can wash their hands of the situation and claim they tried to do something, but nhtsa couldn’t figure it out. Why didn’t they tell the NIH to eliminate the cancer while they were at it.
I do believe the technology to detect BAC is too erroneous to inflict on innocent drivers, and technology that could detect impairment through driving characteristics, while possible for individual drivers could never work on a population level. There’s going to be a lot of overlap between impaired drivers and just naturally bad drivers.
Exactly. There’s too much possibility of false positives in most of these technologies to be safe. There’s a section where NHTSA covers how they should handle disabling a vehicle in a dangerous situation. For example, if I’m in the middle of the woods camping and drinking, should I be able to drive my car to escape a forest fire?
For example, if I’m in the middle of the woods camping and drinking, should I be able to drive my car to escape a forest fire?
The problem, of course, being that if an emergency override of any kind exists for such situations- then that override can always be used, making the restrictions null and void. which means all systems were simply added cost and maintenance headaches passed onto the consumer for zero net benefit.
Sure maybe they could make an always online system like onStar that would let you request an override to be reviewed by a person… but that’s fucking hilarious to think any manufacturer is going to take on that cost, they’d make it a mandatory subscription for some stupid AI override bot, and that is an even bigger pile of fucking nope.
I think this whole kill switch thing is a terrible idea, but if it must happen somehow then an override that logs when it is used might be a bare minimum.
Still think it’s awful, just the least awful.
Right, so then who monitors the logs? Are there punishments for excessively bypassing safety features? Because the goal of these features is to stop a crash from happening. If you can bypass them at all, a log entry isn’t going to help the crash victims. Which means the system must inherently be extremely totalitarian and strict if it is to succeed in its stated goal, which is not something you will get most drivers to sign on to.
To be clear I am agreeing that the entire kill switch idea is poorly conceived and absolute garbage (nothing new from congress there). I’m just enumerating the problems with allowing any sort of reasonable exceptions to an inherently unreasonable idea.
if that’s the stated goal, instead of justifying ever more surveillance
Narrator: “It was, in fact, used to justify more surveillance.”
Presumably it’d be monitored by law enforcement. I’m describing this as a system that would allow the totalitarian “you don’t actually own your own things any more” thing that the proponents of this law are champing eagerly at the bit to implement while avoiding the “you need to escape a wildfire immediately but the car thinks you’re a little too eager on the gas pedal” scenario. Not as a system that I would in any way like or support.
Elsewhere in the thread someone mentioned that the proposed rules wouldn’t prevent individuals from disabling this kill switch entirely, much like it’s technically legal for an individual to remove the seatbelts or airbags or whatever from their own car. I would grudgingly accept a law like that as the absolute worst thing that I would actually be willing to accept, provided the kill switch actually was disableable and not locked behind stuff that would blow up the car if you took it out.
It might work for a single driver comparing their driving to previously stored sessions. But how does it handle switching drivers? It would have to create and manage profiles on each and every person that drives the vehicle.
Yeah, you could detect a difference between drunk me and sober me, but where does sleepy me fit in? It’s wrong, but not exactly illegal to drive while very tired.
Plus, most laws about operating a vehicle only apply when the vehicle is on public roads.
If you are tired enough to impair your driving, then yes it will be illegal in most jurisdictions.
That’s a very well put together overview. Thanks for taking care of this!
At least this part is good:
“While NHTSA encourages individual vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment by removing, modifying, or deactivating a safety system, the Safety Act does not prohibit them from doing so. This creates a potential source of issues for solutions that lack consumer acceptance, since individual owners would not be prohibited by Federal law from removing or modifying those systems (i.e., using defeat mechanisms).”
Personal owners are allowed to do whatever the hell they want to their vehicles regarding Federal safety standards. Weld the doors shut, go ahead. Remove all the airbags, not a problem.
(b) PROHIBITION.—A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.
Remove seatbelts? Just curious how it is in the US
Everyone I know uses seatbelts. I’ve seen defeat devices that plug into the seatbelt receptacle but I don’t know anyone who uses one. Every vehicle I’ve been in has seatbelts except school buses and some charter buses.
I know a couple people that use them, but not for driving on the road. They use them in farm or work trucks to keep it from dinging at them all day when they’re just moving the vehicle around the site or driving fence line and hopping in and out frequently.
Totally legit purposes, in my opinion
I ended up getting a spare belt handle to plug into my last car’s passenger seat so it didn’t ding when my dog was there as the belt in an empty seat got in his way. It also dinged for a heavy backpack, groceries, and pretty much anything over 10 lbs because the sensor was really sensitive. I didn’t disable it entirely because it should go off if a person sat there, just pulled the thing out and set it aside.
Would have done the same for low speed frequent stops when not on roads like those examples too.
lol, schoolbuses are exempt from requiring seatbelts. But I think charter buses are either required to have them, or in the process of requiring them.
There are about…50?..Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The way the law is written, personal owners are allowed to disable any safety features mandated by these standards. But it’s illegal for one of those listed entities (manufacturers, dealers, rental places, and repair businesses) to do it. So, while you personally are allowed disable those items, you can’t bring your car to a repair business and have them do it for you.
But, there are also State Regulations to consider. The Federal government doesn’t force anybody to wear a seatbelt, they just require the car to have them when you buy it. The individual states regulate seatbelt use. While the Federal Regulations say you’re legally allowed to remove the seatbelts, most of (if not all) the State Regulations say you have to wear a seatbelt while driving.
That being said, there’s a mechanism for those listed entities to get an exemption, allowing them to disable safety features. Consider someone in a wheelchair. They have to get a car modified if they want to drive, and they’ll be unable to do it themselves. So they bring the car to someone that can handle the modifications (say they need to disable the airbag), and that business will send a request to NHTSA, and NHTSA will give them an exemption for one modified car to remove or disable the airbag.
America will do anything to not implement public transit and less car dependency.
Just listened to a podcast with a portion about how neighborhood convenience stores are all tied to gas stations, and how single-use zoning laws have forced everybody to travel for groceries.
more specifically for the goal of this law, to reduce impaired driving, there’s the insane zoning requirements of minimum parking for bars of all places. Other countries have less drunk driving than us because they enable transit that doesnt require you to drive, rather than just trying to forbid drunk driving with no other alternatives.
Hey now, it’s illegal to take public transit while you’re intoxicated.
How else will I be able to roll coal in my pavement princess because I have
a small dickhuge throbbing masculinity?
Oh look. More reasons I’m never buying new.
Definitely eyeing an EV conversion in the future.
deleted
Today’s used cars steal also tomorrow’s used cars.
Thanks for summarizing this up for us. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Well as far as this fact check, it makes sense. Why wouldn’t you want to stop impaired drivers. Also, the bill apparently says nothing about dring driving (although since drinking does impair you, it will probably flag).
According to that, there is no mention of giving control of your car to government/police etc. “the bill in question directs a federal agency to require technology that would detect driver impairment and disable the vehicle in that scenario”
The system “passively monitors the performance of a driver,” identifies whether they may be impaired and prevents or limits motor vehicle operation “if an impairment is detected.”
So its not phoning home or anything, it is sound self-sufficient, so it would probably be pretty easy to disable.
Not if it’s buried in the ECU. I wouldn’t know where to begin to disable lane-assist on my car (except there’s a nice big button that supposedly does that.)
You might not, but you can bet enough of your brethren will be competent enough, and make available to everyone.
