Yes, it says it’s false. Here’s the pertinent line:
identifies whether they may be impaired and prevents or limits motor vehicle operation “if an impairment is detected.”
That’s called a killswitch.
On the law itself, it’s Section 24220 - b - 1 - a - ii AND 24220 - b - 1 - b - ii
Just a reminder that fact checkers blatantly lie, and will even tell you they’re lying. It takes like two minutes to fact check laws like this.
No it doesn’t. I have a kill switch on my lathe. Its local to the lathe.
The headline lies.
Well duh.
I meant in this case a kill switch implies a remote connection. I thought that was obvious.
Just read the god damn article or at least the first sentence before calling people liars and spreading missinformation.
The headline didn’t lie, it might be misinterperpeted by some though. You should know that headlines are limited in length and that they have to be interesting. I don’t think this is even remotely a problem in this case because they say what the false claim is very quickly and then quickly gives a verdict. After that they go into the subject further.
So someone that saw the headline would click on it and quickly discoverded what it’s about and if they then left, no harm done. If they just saw the headline, got angry and wanted to debate without reading anything else, that’s their problem and not the news site’s problem.
How so? The only people I’ve seen claiming it obviously implies a remote connection are people desperate to defend the policy by trying to dismiss that it requires a kill switch. Where does it imply that it’s remote?
How else could you interpret it? Why would you care about anything other than a remote kill switch?
And the definition of kill switch doesn’t really matter in the end anyways. The point is to read the article.
It not exactly rocket science. It’s a kill switch. It does what the name implies. It locks out usage (kills) the machine when a certain criteria is met.
And if you can’t see why I don’t want the government putting a kill switch in my car that I own, you’re not trying very hard.
When that criteria is you driving drunk, I think it’s a great idea. I don’t want to get hit by some idiot.
Thats not the point. The point is that the fact checkers lied.
No, they didn’t.
They simplified and made a headline that might be misinterpreted but that’s not malice. Again, read the article before posting stupid shit.
Theyre journalists. Presumably, they know how to write a headline. This means its not incompetence but malice.
It’s quite literally the 2nd paragraph of the article: