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.
As the article says, “kill switch” imply that someone could remotely turn off your car.
A local computer deciding that you’re driving dangerously or is not supposed to drive because of alcohol is different than someone shutting down a car remotely.
Honestly, fuck people that drive with alcohol in their blood
No it doesn’t. How does it being local change anything?
Because no one could shut down your car remotely.
Seems like a very important distinction to me.
That’s not the claim the headline made.
A kill switch implies a remote connection. There is already a bunch of stuff in car computers that can shut it down. Cars are computerised and have a lot of safety protocols nowadays
Next time, read the article before reposting and saying it’s false.
Or maybe, you could try reading at least the first sentence after the headline.
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.
I meant in this case a kill switch implies a remote connection. I thought that was obvious.
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?
But the claim by “Jailbait” singer Ted Nugent being refuted is:
The device allows the government, the police, and car makers to disable your car from the comfort of their offices.
That’s different than an impairment-detection system. The section you cited doesn’t allow Leslie Knope to disable your car remotely.
Its not the claim the headline makes.
K
That’s called a killswitch.
Your ignoring the original claim:
“Beginning 2026, a kill switch will be a mandatory feature on vehicles,” reads the tweet. “The device allows the government, the police, and car makers to disable your car from the comfort of their offices. Reminder - 18 GOP voted for this bill.”
And USAToday’s response:
Automobile experts told USA TODAY the bill does not direct a kill switch to be implemented in cars, nor does it give any third parties, including law enforcement or government officials, access to the in-vehicle technology. Rather, the bill in question directs a federal agency to require technology that would detect driver impairment and disable the vehicle in that scenario.
Specifically, Section 24220 of the bill directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop rules that would require new cars to be equipped with technology that “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.”
None of this requires a connection to some government office.
deleted by creator
This doesn’t really make sense. How will the people in the government office know if I am drunk?
That’s not what the claim is. The claim is that the law requires a killswitch. And the law does.
The point of the post is that “fact checkers” lie. They are not trustworthy.
Ok I read it carefully. The law is that manufacturers have three years to set the standards for what tech to use to make cars that can tell if you’re drunk and then turn off. Is that still a kill switch?
Yes, a killswitch turns off machines.
But that’s not the context of the article/why they said it was false:
“Beginning 2026, a kill switch will be a mandatory feature on vehicles,” reads the tweet. “The device allows the government, the police, and car makers to disable your car from the comfort of their offices. Reminder - 18 GOP voted for this bill.”
The headline lies. Correct me if I’m wrong, but its a motte and bailey.
By the definition of the above tweet (which is what the article is talking about) there is no kill switch.
