________________________________________________________________________________
This is a terrible description of what the law actually does. Let's shine some light on the FUD. The law, H.R. 3684 (as enrolled), defines an "advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology" as a system which can do /one/ of the following:
1. "passively monitor the performance of a driver... to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired... and prevent or limit [car] operation if an impairment is detected."
2. "passively and accurately" detect whether someone's BAC exceeds the Federal limit, and prevent or limit car operation if it's detected.
3. Both.
This will apply only after the DOT finalizes a rule describing what all those things actually mean in terms of manufacture. The law requires that the Secretary publish this rule within the next three years, unless they think it can't be done, in which case they can push it out another three years. That rule must give car manufactures at least another two years to implement the requirement. It also gives the DOT an out to say that it can't be done, in which case in 2031, they need to write a report to Congress to say why it can't be done.
In software terms, this is a user story that was just submitted for development. It's Congress asking the executive branch to do some work, but not actually forcing them to do so.
There are many many issues with this proposal.
What, for example, if you're living in a rural area, then your wife goes into labor (or there is any kind of other emergency) and the car thinks your somewhat "erratic" driving style, due to the stress of the situation, warrants killing the engine? It only talks about detecting "impairment" which may mean a lot of things. Or maybe you had a beer and then the emergency happens, and the car detects "passively and accurately" your BAC.
Banning drunk, drugged and impaired driving is good. But every rule has exceptions, and software is generally too rigid to account for every possible exceptional case.
There won't be a "It's an emergency" button (because a lot of drunks would just press it), nor a "I am lawfully driving on my own private property" or a "I am not actually impaired, I had to drive 'erratic' a moment ago not because I am drunk or fell asleep, but because a kid ran into a street and I had to do an evasive maneuver" one.
That is assuming the software is working "correctly" in the first place. Which I am very doubtful about here, because they aren't trying to model something deterministic, but model something that will use some kind of "learning" to spit out some probabilities.
That aside, the privacy implications look pretty real to me. Once you have a system that monitors your driving proficiency, BAC or both, a lot of companies will get curious about that. Insurers may start to politely ask for the data if you want lower premiums, or a contract at all. No more car leases unless you can provide a "positive" driving score. Judges will sign warrants for such data. And so on.
> I had to drive 'erratic' a moment ago not because I am drunk or fell asleep, but because a kid ran into a street and I had to do an evasive maneuver" one.
I kept getting warnings of 'erratic' driving from my VW and I couldn't figure out what was going on. I finally figured it out. The car was seeing asphalt repair patches on the road, which are by their nature wiggly lines. It clearly figures the line is straight and the car is swerving all over the place.
It also wants to hit the brakes any time the car in front is braking and my foot is on the throttle. Ok, but this fails constantly in two situations. First is if the car in front is turning left and I'm moving around it on the right. Second is if I'm far enough back that I'm ok with light throttle even though the car in front is braking.
So, yes, I have less than full confidence that a drunk driving detection system won't fail. The question really becomes whether the net benefit outweighs the potential failures. With the VW applying the brakes, I accepted the annoyances the first time it saved me from plowing into the car in front of me when they unexpectedly hit the brakes on a highway on-ramp and I was watching the traffic on the highway instead of the car in front.
Maybe if you can make your VW think that you're testing its exhaust emissions, it will disable all those annoying safety features. ;)
Have you (are you even able to) reported these issues to VW to improve their models?
That sounds like the wrong direction to go. That normalizes that it's okay to push bad safety programming as long as the onus is on the user to search for and attempt a conveluded way to contact the manufacturer, at which point the manufacturer will most likely ignore it anyway. I doubt VW has a hotline for reporting this kind of thing, and if so, I bet it's not posted on the car anywhere.
So telling them that the thing they did is wrong is the wrong way to tell them that the thing they did is the wrong thing?
How else is a manufacturer supposed to get feedback?
The best way to give a manufacturer feedback is to not purchase their product. If the product is already purchased and non-refundable, the next best way is to advise others not to purchase the product. While this may sound harsh, sales metrics are guaranteed to shape manufacturer behavior, while anecdotal feedback may or may not result in changes.
Writing to or calling the manufacturer may be effective for small companies, or companies with a good track record in ethics. Otherwise, let the sales do the talking.
Your plan doesn't seem really effective, either. The company then has no idea why you aren't buying the product. It could be for one of any thousands of reasons.
This will only work out for you (and others) if there are other manufacturers that don't add features like this at all. And since you haven't provided feedback to anyone about what you don't like, other manufacturers won't hear about this either, and may also add these sorts of features.
I agree that one person providing feedback isn't going to do much. But that's why everyone needs to do so. It's like voting: your individual vote usually won't change anything, but the votes of everyone can. Refusing to provide feedback (or vote) because your individual action won't change anything on its own doesn't solve anything, and just gives those in charge less data to work with to figure out what people actually do want.
> The best way to give a manufacturer feedback is to not purchase their product.
And then the VW software team managers say "Look how great Tesla's are selling. It's because they have more autodrive features. Give me more money to add more features." Note, that was "add features" not "improve features".
If you say nothing you're not really giving any feedback, you're just giving statistics.
The manufacturer must carry out comprehensive safety testing of their automobiles before putting them into production - that's how other safety-critical tech is deployed.
That is: their test results should be providing them with all the feedback they need. We're not talking about a broken UI on a shopping website. Broken "smarts" in a car is like broken brakes; it's not OK to just wait for users to find out for you.
If they "did the wrong thing" with car safety, then they shoun't be allowed to sell cars until the problem is fixed.
And yet here we are. I agree with you that such things shouldn't be allowed out into the wild until they are perfect (or at least meet some reasonable standard), but it appears to that it does happen.
You can either stick your fingers in your ears and keep yelling "this can't happen!", or acknowledge that it does and try to do something about it.
Designing, testing and QA can be seen as forms of internal feedback but I was writing about external feedback in response to a suggestion that external feedback is wrong to give.
The user has to QA the product?
Move fast break things
Feedback != QA
I'm all for giving feedback, and I've made a niche suggestion to Google once, which they've implemented, so I know it does happen sometimes, but I've made many more suggestions to other companies including to Toyota and Dodge which have just been ignored.
"giving feedback probably won't work, so just give up"
"I categorize this software as 'safety' related, so it must be perfect on the first try and never need any improvements"
Existientialism is bad for your mental health, friend.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said _nor implied_ either of those things.
Making incorrect generalizations is bad for your health too.
I'm simply pointing out the extremes of the opinions that are contained in your comment. Are they not recognizable?
You're still putting words in my mouth, please stop.
I did not write that, thus they are not "contained in (my) comment."
Yah, it’s the consumers responsibility to chase around a multi billion dollar, multi national corporations QC problems…
I was driving a Citroen in rural Ireland that had an active lane correction if it thought you were drifting out of the lane. The thing is that in rural Ireland many roads are one lane and have no marking at all so the thing was constantly forcing the car into directions that were actively dangerous. Towards other cars on narrow roads in the center. Towards shoulders with steep drop offs. I have deep skepticism about this sort of technology and remember that a 0.001% failure rate is someone's kid, husband, wife, brother, sister, mom, dad, etc not just some statistic. I'll be buying older cars that don't have this for as long as possible.
I have a Toyota Camry with lane detection. If it thinks you're on the edge of the lane, it beeps at you and gives the steering wheel a gentle nudge. I think they've given it a perfect balance, because the nudge really is gentle - like a short blast of cross-wind. It doesn't force you into killing yourself like a Tesla.
There's an intersection near my house where they repaved the road this summer. The lane markings on one side of the intersection are about 2 feet offset from the other side of the intersection after they repainted them, and it trips the lane detection about 50% of the time even when I'm actively trying to compensate. I suspect that intersection will become a graveyard of bricked cars once the law comes to pass.
Yeah rural Irish roads are something else.
There's an oft-posted meme of a barely accessible country trail in a field with a 100km/h speed sign but this is actually quite common there.
But I can imagine how this is super dangerous. I don't want my car second-guessing me constantly either especially if it can do something dangerous. In rural Ireland in summer you'd often be meeting a tourist coach on a bridge with centimetres to spare. Really not the time for my car to suddenly pull at the wheel.
I think instead of mandating this stuff we should just focus on full self driving. If the car knows so much better let it handle the driving and let me do with my time what I wish as a passenger.
It also takes a whole of complexity in terms of driver/car interaction out of the equation.
There's typically a button to toggle it on/off somewhere near the steering wheel.
I got a new car a couple of months ago that has this, and was experiencing similar issues on rural Texas farm roads. I just had to look up where mine was and turn it off temporarily.
I have a VW with similar technology. Even on regular highways it's attempted to veer off onto an exit pretty consistently.
My Kia lets you set the level of correction as well. So it's can be gentle, "uh, pay attention", or "get over here!"
I have an Audi - the button to turn it off and on is at the tip of the turn signal stalk. You can toggle it with your pinky without removing your hands from the steering wheel or eyes from the road.
I also have a Subaru - turning it off or on requires three levels of menu navigation, and you have to use the center console touch screen.
I suppose they do their testing and validation in drastically different environments!
> _Once you have a system that monitors your driving proficiency ... Insurers_
It's already working like that. Some insurance companies sell you products including a physical "monitor" (GPS based, I believe) that will evaluate your driving: the price of insurance will differ.
Those obd2 port dongles have been on the way out for a few years. Too expensive. Insurers just use and app on your phone to collect data on driving for those who opt in. But that’s only for now. Ford and Tesla are leading the way with the on board data. The dongle was a Hacky work around to begin with, so now it’s being removed from the loop and maybe the car mfgs will be able to charge a fee to insurers.
Or they'll start selling insurance themselves. With that data they can undercut the rest of the market.
They may and I’ve heard they’ve tried before, but insurance is a highly different industry outside their core, and they will at least have to partner with an insurance carrier if they don’t want to write other mfgs for which they have zero data access. Otherwise Having 3 different insurance companies because one has different car brands would be an awful customer experience and pricing driver risk would get double billed
Insurance is bundled with Volvo's subscription service offered on some models.
https://www.volvocars.com/us/care-by-volvo/
CA and TX...
https://www.tesla.com/insurance
No need for a physical monitor, just install an app on your phone!
https://www.intact.ca/qc/en/personal-insurance/vehicle/car/m...
A real scenario that actually happened to someone I was in jail with (and they were jailed for this). They were (legally drunk) passenger in a car on a remote section of highway late at night. (Sober, diabetic) Driver's blood sugar too low and driver fell unconscious. Passenger grabbed wheel, pulled car to shoulder. Dialed 911. Ambulance to take too long. Moves driver over and gets behind wheel. Gets most of way to hospital. Pulled over by cops. Cops arrest him and drive unconscious person to hospital.
I introduced him to the defense of "necessity" while in jail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law)
My point is.. the driver might well have died if the car had totally refused to function because he was over the limit.
And that's the thing: these sorts of software systems don't and cannot ever understand edge cases. Short of full AI that can reason about the situation and make a decision (even then, it may make the wrong decision, just as people make wrong decisions sometimes), this is always going to be a problem.
An emergency override button can mitigate this problem, but then you have to weigh how often that override will be abused, and what to do about _that_.
Nothing you can't solve with an 'emergency override' button misuse of which will automatically result in you losing your drivers license.
License suspension or revocation is de facto not a thing in the US.
Okay, on paper, yes, it exists but then you have:
- "Hardship" exceptions for going to work/groceries, which are totally abused.
- Driving on a suspended license anyway. When you get caught, nothing happens. Perhaps the suspension is extended.
- As a shitty driver, you plead your case before a jury and the decision is reversed because most people are shitty drivers and they sympathize with other shitty drivers.
Source: I was hit in my grandmother's driveway by a driver with a suspended license. Went to court. Nothing happened other than insurance paying for the damage.
This varies by jurisdiction, your anecdote is 1 data point but driving with a suspended license is a severe punishment in some places.
In the US, it varies by state. In Ohio, for example:
> If you are convicted for driving with a suspended license, you will be charged with a first degree misdemeanor. This entails a maximum of 6 months in jail and up to $1,000 in fines
Laws (de jure) that are not enforced, do not exist (de facto). For example, Massachusetts may have similarly tough laws but 85% of Massachusetts' drunk driving cases are dismissed. And that's 85% of the ones that actually make it to court.
There is a lot of wiggle room when there are no minimums.
How is that better than "follow traffic laws, otherwise you lose your license"?
Failing to follow traffic laws usually _doesn't_ result in you losing your licence because nobody finds out about it. An emergency override button would presumably be designed to alert law enforcement to the fact someone is driving erratically and claiming its an emergency. If it actually is an emergency you might be grateful if they turn up. If you just don't want to hail a taxi after having five pints... well you probably wouldn't press that button.
So press the button and guilty until proven innocent?
No, press the button and innocent until reviewed and found to continue to be innocent. Similar to those 'in case of emergency, break glass (abuse will be prosecuted)' emergency brakes on trains and other similar constructs. This is a solved problem, I don't see why you would attach any special significance to it.
Having every previously analog device around us turn into a puppet of the police state is not a solution to a problem. It’s the basis for a series of new problems. And like all of these nanny state mandates, we end up paying the bill.
In practice what that sounds like is well to do jerks in their nice suburbs and gated communities will be free to drunkenly rearrange their driveway (for whatever benign reason, to get the lawnmower out of the garage or something) and that people in "bad" areas where there is little political power and the .gov is more or less free to abuse them at will will found guilty and be given an option to not be found guilty if they pay into the system some other way (fine and/or driving school is the usual mechanism).
Basically it will just become a side channel for revenue just like everything else about drunk driving already is.
If you refuse to give blood or breath sample you automatically lose license. Also there are presumptions of intoxication after your first impaired driving conviction in NYS ( it’s not that simple, but too complicated to outline in short form ). So, this wouldn’t really be unprecedented. Not saying I agree or disagree.
The stakes are very high with impaired driving. In many states your first impaired driving charge can be felonious even if there is no injury or accident. In about half of all states your second impaired driving is automatically a felony despite no injury or accident. Society has a right to protect its roadways. However, we also need to be very careful about wanton criminalization. The penal system in the USA is backwards and barbaric
I’m fine with all of those things. Drunk driving is a terrible thing and should be punished appropriately as a deterrent. But this isn’t a punishment of the offenders, it’s a mandate upon everybody, the vast majority of which are law abiding.
This is just like the majority of gun control laws that do little more than infringe the rights of the law abiding gun owner.
> If you refuse to give blood or breath sample you automatically lose license.
Please, add nuance when making such an assertion. It completely depends on the state you're in and which factors the state considers when refusing. For example; In Florida it _may_ result in the suspension of your license for one year, which can be appealed.
no? Press the button and innocent until proven guilty
I've thought for a while if you want to stop drunk / impaired driving, that the system could be reworked.
1. Require an electronic drivers license that stores data on your driving skills, reaction time, and some metadata about solving problems.
2. When you get into the car, you have to solve a medium complexity puzzle. Eg hit a certain color in a row on a touchpad - think simple simon. Or a math, quiz, something.
3. If you can't solve it, the car won't start. Or have an emergency button that allows you to start the car, but then it turns on the hazards and honks the horn while your driving (showing that you haven't proven that your reflexes are up to par). This allows everyone to watch out for you, and can bring the attention to LE.
Eek. This is just captcha for driving. I don't like it. But it might save lives!
Might get women raped as well. Having to solve a captcha while you're under stress and you want to get the fuck away from wherever you are is a terrible idea. Honking the horn may also be horrible if what you want to do is not alert anyone that you're getting away until you get somewhere safer.
This was immediately what I thought also. My wife was attacked in a parking lot late one night and managed to kick the guy and run to her car and drive off before he could recover. So now we have to run to the car and do a math problem before the car starts?
this captcha business is adversarial. I would refuse to drive a vehicle that treats me as a criminal by default (same reason I avoid airports).
Having a different class of license effect the cars performance is interesting tho. I guess you'd want to rely on biometrics so that high-skilled-drivers don't become a target to steal their license. Probably need a way to revoke licenses, which means the car will need to stay online at all times. Brings to mind those rental cars that won't unlock if they're in an underground garage or out in the woods.
IMO it's all too much complexity to rely on, a car should be a machine that goes when you hit the gas. If you want to save lives, more public transport and slower speeds + roundabouts is the answer.
Yep, and if there is an exception, all the people will use that to bypass it... thus no reason to even have the detecting in the first place. Happens all the time.
Right. How long before we consider as "impaired":
- Hasn't had their covid-19 vaccination/booster?
- Immigration visa expired?
Yeah, it's a slippery slope argument. But the track record of the government taking advantage of such openings is bad.
Maybe you could inestead invest in an upgrade to the ambulance service so it covers these kind of things?
If you are driving that irresponsible you shouldn't be putting your wife and unborn child's life in danger in the first place.
Total surveillance should not be making these decisions for the citizenry. You can have better ambulances without total surveillance and population control. It's hard to get more dystopian cyberpunk than a car that sometimes won't run because it doesn't like something about you.
That's basically never going to happen. Emergency services in the US are already in a precarious position. And there will never be enough funding to increase coverage such that people out in rural areas can expect life-saving response all the time. Often people will die if you have to wait for an ambulance, and the only safe option is to drive the person to the hospital yourself, even if you're impaired.
(Then again, in the case of childbirth, it certainly could be safer in some cases to allow the birth to happen at home, rather than drive dangerously to a hospital a half hour away. Hard to say, and a spouse is usually not in a great position to evaluate the risk of staying at home.)
I'm all for privacy and such, but am not sure we should allow drunk drivers because their wives are about to give birth? Isn't that even more dangerous?
I'm pretty sure that giving birth in a vehicle pulled over at the side of the road is pretty dangerous. Ambulances exist, but are expensive in the US.
The point really wasn't that we should allow drunk drivers because wives might give birth: It was pointing out that software won't be able to tell the difference between impaired driving and fairly normal reasons for driving erratically. In other words, they won't know if you are getting a police escort to the hospital (like my parents did when my sister was born) or driving impaired.
> Ambulances exist, but are expensive in the US.
Wait, you have to pay for an emergency ambulance in the US?!
My wife's grandmother while being treated for cancer last year, was literally taken by ambulance (god only knows why) from one side of the medical campus to a building on the other side (3 minute ride) for around $9K. This is Chicago, so hopefully not typical. :-D
Liability.
Same thing happened to my wife and I asked why I couldn't just put her in a wheelchair and push her across the parking lot. Since she hadn't been discharged, she was still in their care so if anything happened, they would be legally liable. However, either insurance took care of it somehow, or the hospital never charged for it because it didn't show up on the bill.
Yes, and you won't realistically know how much it will be until afterwards, like most things in the US healthcare system. Unfortunately.
Yes, and in many places you won't know what ambulance company will come when you call, and many of them intentionally aren't in-network for many/most insurance plans, because they believe that they get screwed over by the insurance companies. So even if you have insurance (good insurance!), you could get hit with a multi-thousand-dollar bill after a 10-minute ride to the hospital.
It's disgusting.
Yes, most people are extremely hesitant to do so, because of the probable high costs.
You'd be shocked at the condition in which people will drive themselves to the emergency department.
Yes, and sometimes absolutely ridiculous amounts.
Varies wildly by location and circumstantial details just like everything else in US healthcare.
In canada too unless you have private insurance
Drunk driving in an emergency situation is generally permitted. You might have to escape a flash flood, fire or head to a hospital if someone got a stroke etc.
If you are impaired by your stress level you probably should not drive. Putting other at risk to reduce your perceived risk is not a decision for you to make.
So when Jason Voorhees is hunting me down, the last camp councilor left, and I find the keys to the van... You think I shouldn't reduce that risk because of the public good?
I am saying that in that case, you are not a good position to assess public good vs. "your good". Any human being would instinctively take slightly better odds for the themselves at the risk of much worst odds for others. With this assumption, maybe the car should take that decision.
So the correct course of action in this situation (being chased by a murderer) is to make a decision that 100% ensures the denied-driver's death, in order to prevent the possible, and probably unlikely death of an bystander due to said driver's likely emotionally-impaired driving?
No, that's not ethical reasoning at all.
It's not what I said; I didn't bring up Jason the serial killer.. my point was that you can't ask people to judge balance to risk when it comes to them..
That said, the false-negatives of people really being chased by serial killers is probably worth it compare to all real victims of dangerous or drunk drivers that could be saved.
Luke, use the guns! It's the US after all.
So shoot the sensor and it'll detect a malfunction and allow you to drive!
See my comment upthread about my wife being attacked. I can assure you that having been choked almost to the point of unconsciousness had her stress levels through the roof. But alone at night in a dark parking lot in a rural town, your solution is that she should not have been allowed to run to her car and drive off?
You can "what if" anything you want. That is not a valid argument. How many times will your theoretical scenario actually take place? How much is that compared to how many times the system will prevent a person from losing their life or becoming disabled for life because of a drunk driver?
The theory that the "system will prevent a person from losing their life or becoming disabled for life because of a drunk driver" is just as much of a "what if" as anything they said. I would say it's more likely to be abused and malfunction than it is to work as advertised.
Vehicle cashes are one of the primary causes of death for certain age groups. Tens of thousands of Americans died from them each year. Countless thousands more are injured. Drunk driving isn’t a “what if”, it is a regular occurrence that causes a significant fraction of these crashes
The comment I replied to said that the various ways this technology/regulation could have harmful effects were theoretical "what if" scenarios. I pointed out that the ways it could have beneficial effects are also theoretical "what if" scenarios. I'm not saying that people dying because of drunk driving is "what if", I'm saying that this technology/regulation preventing drunk driving is just as much of a "what if" as it doing anything else. Just because something is advertised as having certain effects by its proponents doesn't mean it actually has those effects.
>I pointed out that the ways it could have beneficial effects are also theoretical "what if" scenarios.
It is not, because the technology exists, and it works. Unless you are doubting that it actually works, which you seem reluctant to commit to.
there are multiple comments in this thread attesting to the fact that these detection systems often don't work.
And how would you back up what you say?
Presumably the same way you would back up the assumption that it will work, preconceived notions on the effects of regulations in general?
You don't think that these technologies actually work? Is that what you are saying?
I think it may be theoretically possible, but I don't think it will be implemented in a way that will work when it's mandated by law. Betting against regulations fulfilling their advertised purpose is usually a good bet. I think the most likely outcome of this is that it will make no difference to any driver, but that cars will be a little more expensive and collect more data that can be used for harmful purposes. Regardless, if we shouldn't assume that it will be harmful, we also shouldn't assume that it will be helpful.
EDIT: I have now read the article and would like to retract my guess that it will make no difference. It says that this will "require that the system be 'open' to remote access by 'authorized' third parties at any time". That's absolutely catastrophic and will almost certainly kill people.
These technologies already exist, I don't know why you talk about them as a hypothetical.
Do you not think that the existing technology that is deployed in real cars is actually working?
Some technologies work and some don't, although I can't think of anything that works and was mandated before it was already in widespread use. In any case, this is much more involved and fuzzy than normal safety technologies. Additionally, see the edit to my previous comment, the state having a remote backdoor into cars is incredibly dangerous.
You original post was doubting that this would save people from drunk drivers. You still haven't explained why you think it wouldn't do that.
Making driving illegal for everybody would certainly save people from drunk drivers too. Do you think that's a good idea?
Sure, why not?
The number of instances of people violating DUI law in order to move vehicles around private property probably or other similarly benign cases outnumber real drunk driving 100:1.
Furthermore, the habitual drunks who actually pose a danger to public health are already playing the "drive a $1k car registered in someone else's name without a license" game so this won't affect them for ~20yr even if it's implemented tomorrow and based on the legislation it looks like it'll be years before anything actually gets implemented in new cars.
When did we asked for / subscribed to an automatic system to save our lives in those scenarios?
Apparently in the last election.
_prevent or limit car operation_
That is precisely what a killswitch is. The circumstances and/or requirements of the activation of the killswitch are irrelevant to whether or not it's a killswitch. Is it a good idea? Maybe. Will I, as a teetotaler, be ripping this out of my future car on sheer principle? Yes.
While I do concour in general, further discrimination is necessary: also teetotalers can get tired. (In fact, it is not clear how such system is that different from the already existing systems evaluating driving style: occasional jerks (being tired) and consistent imprecision (intoxicated) should both have been part of it.)
And about «ripping [modules] out»: are you sure that will be possible, also technically? It's not an independent bolt, but probably an integrated component.
_While I do concour in general, further discrimination is necessary: also teetotalers can get tired._
I don't understand how this is relevant to the point of something being or not being a killswitch.
> Will I, as a teetotaler, be ripping this out of my future car on sheer principle? Yes.
>> also teetotalers can get tired
>>> I don't understand how this is relevant to the point
You mentioned that you are a teetotaler. This appears relevant to your point in that it assumes that this proposed module, acting as intended, would never prevent you from driving.
mdp2021 points out that the first guideline targets impaired drivers (not drunk drivers) and would, by intention, prevent you from driving if you were tired enough to be impaired.
You wrote «Will I, as a teetotaler, be ripping this out of my future car on sheer principle», causi.
What is it that needs further discrimination?
The system could prevent a horrific accident if a health problem causes you to become disoriented or lose consciousness while driving.
And it could prevent me from driving somebody to a hospital resulting in their death.
What I continue to find shocking is just how many people commenting on this post are lining up to accept another authoritarian measure for a very small amount of additional comfort of mind.
Having just watched "No Time to Die," Rami Malek's character has a classic vilian diatribe in which he says:
_The thing that no one wants to admit is that most people want things to happen to them. We tell each other lies about the fight for free will and independence, but we don't really want that. We want to be told how to live and then die when we're not looking._
It strikes me that perhaps storywriters keep adding lines like this to movies, books, etc because it's actually true for a significant amount of people. And that's really saddening.
I'm under the impression that a lot of tech / 'rational' people are utilitarian consequentialists, and if you tell a good utilitarian story, a lot of them will sign up. Like, liberty and privacy sound nice, but _how many lives do they save?_ I also have a theory that a lot of programmers think it's natural to fix bugs in society by writing (U.S.) code.
> Like, liberty and privacy sound nice, but _how many lives do they save?_
When considering this question, one should be careful to distinguish between how many lives are saved with "the society we are currently, but without liberty or privacy", and with "the kind of society we will become if we lose liberty or privacy".
Lives "saved" are also a poor metric. How much is a life worth, spent inside a cage? Many would be willing to risk death for liberty. In fact, they have.
>_This is a terrible description of what the law actually does._
You just repeated what the title says: they want to implement a mandatory kill switch in your car.
The fact that you believe it will be used for good, and will be "accurate" is certainly up for debate. I don't want them to be able to lock down my car and prevent it from being used. That scenario is unimaginable to me.
It also sounds very heavy handed.
Here these kinds of devices already exist but you have to be a convicted drunk driver to get one mandated. It sounds pretty severe to have this for everyone.
And this* is why the principle is becoming vocal of people who shout "We do not want to ride a smartphone".
(*A critical system with modules that promote unreliability, including potential security issues.)
None of that disproves the literal title? I don't want that in my car. I don't even drive drunk and I don't want my car thinking because it can't see the fucking lines on the road that I'm drunk.
How would this work for being a designated driver? The drunkards in your car would setoff whatever sensors "monitoring" for alcohol.
This is a stupid law that has no right to be included.
I'd say the incorrect words in the title are "mandatory" and "backdoor".
Once legislated, and two years after published, it will be mandatory for manufacturers to comply.
This functionality is not requested and is working against the user (and it is pretty unlikely for such a feature to be done completely locally on the car, and even if it was, it will almost certain have Over-The-Air updates creating what is colloqially referred to as a backdoor.
Which part of this do you disagree with?
If this is a backdoor, then any functionality that can be updated by the manufacturer is a backdoor. Fine, but it's nice when words mean something.
And it's not mandatory. It may become mandatory in several-to-many years. The law is about exploring the possibility, just like OP said. This article is Facebook garbage that somehow made it's way onto HN.
That's correct. Any functionality that can be updated and change how the system works at the whim of a third party (not the user) is essentially a backdoor.
What would you propose as the definition of a backdoor that does not include the above?
automatic updates without the user's consent are the very definition of a 'backdoor.' just because a new name for it "update" has been commercially normalized doesn't mean the original name has lost its meaning.
Alright, then everything is a backdoor. Snaps are backdoors. Windows is a backdoor. MacOS is a backdoor. Watches are backdoors. Every cell phone is a backdoor. Thermostats and headphones and book readers are backdoors. Every car currently sold new is a backdoor. 90% of every device we interact with is a backdoor. So why put that in the title? It means nothing.
Very close. 90% of the computerized devices we interact with have backdoors. But then you jump to "backdoors must not be a problem" instead of "we have a severe problem all around us."
Not everything is a backdoor, but Windows absolutely is and that's part of why people dislike Windows and voluntarily use the older versions. MacOS, and some cell phone OS's, at least let the user choose if/when to update in which case they're not backdoors.
> I don't want that in my car
You are free not to buy.
> I don't want my car thinking because it can't see the fucking lines on the road
If you drive outside of "safe drive envelope" it does not matter if you're drunk or road conditions are dangerous. Safety systems should prevent accident in both cases.
The expanse of road environments where it's totally reasonable and safe to drive with which there are no lines is pretty large. Driving an unsealed country road could look to the cars metrics like I am driving drunk for example.
The "you are free to not buy" argument is not valid if it's a regulation for all new cars. Eventually all viable road legal car stock will contain the regulated device.
> could look to the cars metrics like I am driving drunk
Same as sudden acceleration or breaking. Don't buy car like this.
It's the same problem as the 737MAX MCAS, features shoehorned in, probably with bugs, poorly advertised, lack of training, misfeatures sold as default, leading to fatal pilot/driver confusion.
My elderly parent has bought a car with some of these features second hand,
it will be great fun figuring out what is working as designed when a heavy vehicle has lost control and is lurching towards us at high speed.
https://howsafeisyourcar.com.au/safety-features/vulnerable-r...
https://howsafeisyourcar.com.au/safety-features/driver-atten...
https://howsafeisyourcar.com.au/safety-features/lane-keep-as...
> Don't buy car like this
So how exactly would that work, given that there will be no options?
Don't use car at all, for example.
For some people that is not an option.
That is the root cause of why this is being introduced and why there's a fight. As a society, the US absolutely refuses to prioritize safe driving over access to driving. We accept road deaths as the cost of business for our suburban sprawl and car-only infrastructure. Cars are the only option because so many places don't even have sidewalks, forget buses and bike lanes. Hell, in red states, you'll be terrorized by drivers simply for being on a bicycle.
You can pay someone, who has no objections to implemented safety measures, to provide you with transportation services.
You are being unempathetic and dismissive to the issues it raises, that is not a solution to the problem raised, nor is "Just don't drive". This isn't about the specific safety measure in question, the issue is invasive technology mandates in personal vehicles potentially excluding people from driving due to a desire to not be tracked by technology companies and government services. Imagine if they mandated the same thing on your smartphone. The answer could be "Don't use a smartphone", but that's obviously not an inclusive option. "Be tracked or exclude yourself from the modern world" is simply not a fair way to approach issues like this.
Consider as well that the US has built a society heavily based around personal car usage, towns and cities are built around it, jobs and education expect it of you. So you are born into a car-first society, but then given the ultimatum of tracking and monitoring or reduced freedom of movement.
> potentially excluding people from driving
Apparently here we have different understanding. Everyone by default is excluded from driving. Driving a vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege, granted only to those who are willing to receive training, are able to pass test and are ready to operate vehicle that conforms to regulations.
If vehicle is not within regulations limit it may not leave private property.
I don't believe driving a vehicle is a right. I agree with you on all points in this comment. I do believe everyone should have equal opportunity to prove they can drive a road legal vehicle safely, and a they should be able to do that without the metrics of their journeys forever after being recorded by technology companies, and the safe operation of their car being decided by technology devices watching them drive. I think you just don't agree with that.
Just imagine it. Machine learning algorithms deciding whether you're drunk or not, and stopping your car from moving if it thinks you are. What could possibly go wrong?
> What could possibly go wrong?
Car would stop in the middle of the Death Valley and will refuse to start or to open the doors.
In more realistic scenario, the system would notify the driver and the police which have an option to send someone to actually check the driver condition. This allows to deal with stuck driving and to improve algorithm accuracy.
> So you are born
You can vote or you can leave.
I don't think the average person has much agency here, telling them to leave the country is callous, and a bit misunderstanding.
As a person, who twice moved countries in the last decade for political reasons I don't relate to this.
Well I admire your tenacity. Most people wouldn't do that.
> _You are free not to buy_
There do already exist pieces of legislation that cripple the acceptability not of one vehicle, but whole categories of vehicles (and practically potentially all of them). One such is the "E-call" in Europe.
> _You are free not to buy._
Hardly. It's a mandate for the car manufacturers.
The problem is the title is not what controls which situations this law will cover. The breadth with which a court of law is willing to interpret "impaired" (unless the statute itself narrowly defines "impaired" somewhere else within its words) will ultimately determine how far reaching the application of this law will be.
And "impaired" is a word that is significantly more far reaching in its meaning than "legally intoxicated":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impaired
> Definition of impaired
> : being in an imperfect or weakened state or condition: such as
> a : diminished in function or ability : lacking full functional or structural integrity
> b : unable to function normally or safely (as when operating a motor vehicle) because of intoxication by alcohol or drugs
While part (b) above does note a "because of alcohol or drugs" part (a) of the definition leaves the law open to a wide range of "impairments" that are not "drunk" or "high" such as "had a long day, and am quite tired and a little sleepy". Which would result in an "impairment" of your driving as compared to "got a good nights sleep, feel refreshed just now" when getting behind the wheel.
Go and sleep it off citizen! Your emergency can wait!
Hmm you have not yet had your 24th covid booster. Your car will no longer work. Public emergency after all.
I know your comment is cynical, but really, an emergency rarely justifies driving while intoxicated.
If someone (or yourself) needs medical attention, call an ambulance. If somebody is in danger, call the police. If you need to go somewhere, call a taxi. If none are available you can also ask someone else to drive.
I am aware that there are some situations where there is no other option than driving yourself. But trying to justify the ability to drive intoxicated, just for that once-in-a-lifetime emergency seems selfish to me.
Someone is chasing you in another (older) car? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call the cops if you need help. The nearest one is 10 minutes away.
Your wife is bleeding out and every second counts? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call an ambulance if you need help. The nearest one will take 15 minutes to arrive and another 10 to get to the hospital.
Pissed off a bear? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call the forestry service if you need help. The nearest ranger is an hour away.
Your town is flooding and you need to get out by any means possible? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call FEMA if you need help. They'll be here in a few days.
Caught in a blizzard with the wrong tires and are sliding around as you limp your car home so as not to freeze to death? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call roadside service, but don't hold your breath; there's a killer snowstorm out there!
In critical danger but your phone is dead? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. You should have planned ahead and charged your phone.
Etc, etc...
Oh the horror flicks are gonna have a field day with this trope.
My reaction on the OP was about drinking under the influence of alcohol. Not on how the car may detect false positives on erratic driving.
But therein lies the problem. Any system that tries to apply a blanket policy WILL run into these very real problems. Regardless of what the actual intent was (blocking drunk drivers in this case), the unintended consequences of this will be severe.
I completely agree with you on this.
But again, my comment wasn't about this system, but drunk driving in general.
I acknowledge that situations exist where drunk driving is the only option (like with the flood/tornado/vulcano examples mentioned in other posts). But for most scenarios there is often a better solution that doesn't involve drunk driving.
My very real problem of being trapped in a car while being attacked a bear?!?!
Picking out one particular extreme case and making fun of it is a pretty good technique in a debate, but it rather misses the point in an authentic conversation. The point is that the sum total of all exceptional use-cases for cars (including, but not limited to running from bears) is actually large enough in practice that this kind of rule may not be worth its opportunity cost.
If we eliminate drunk driving (10k deaths per year, many more injured) in exchange for every single person in those fantastical scenarios dying, lives will be saved by many orders of magnitude. And that's granting that your drunk pregnant wife trapped in a blizzard wildfire with grizzly bears scenario actually happens.
Snowstorms happen across a lot of the USA for a good 3-4 months a year. If stop/start/slow/slide driving in winter conditions kills your car, you could wind up killing way more than 10k people, either through exposure, or because a snowplow or another vehicle didn’t see the killswitched, snow-covered car and rammed right into it.
I like living in snowy places. I could see this being a real problem, just like snowy conditions mean self-driving won’t work for me for many years in my only vehicle.
I tell my car how it drives. Not a computer.
I don't want a computer making the decision as to whether I can drive the car I paid for or not.
Maybe when society finally makes its final swirl down the toilet and we're finally not allowed to use private vehicles on public infrastructure, being forced to use government/corporate sponsored vehicles - maybe then they can tell me how to use _THEIR_ vehicle.
Well this is where they want it to go in the long run indeed. "You will own nothing and you will be happy". In this case something like Car As A Service.
>_just for that once-in-a-lifetime emergency seems selfish to me._
It's going to be a once-in-a-lifetime emergency because you couldn't get away and died. Had a beer in the evening and at night heavy flooding comes in? Better run really quickly!
> I am aware that there are some situations where there is no other option than driving yourself. But trying to justify the ability to drive intoxicated, just for that once-in-a-lifetime emergency seems selfish to me.
I did try to explain that, obviously, some situations exist where you have no other option. A sudden flood after a night of drinking, and nobody else is sober to drive, then yes, I'd do the same.
My point was that whenever a topic about drunk driving comes up, many people will instantly jump to the "but what about an emergency!?" scenario. All I was trying to explain is that there often (but not always) is a better option than drunk driving.
And it should be your decision what option to take.
Aside from wanted to rely on cops/ambulance on any emergency that happens after two drinks, you are assuming that the system works well in nominal cases, and won’t have specific bugs that will prevent driving in otherwise ok circumstances.
For instance alcohol sensors used by cops need to be recalibrated every so often. Even less sophisticated systems like tire pressure on modern cars work well most of the time, but will fail and need repair at some point. These sensors used to check your intoxication status will fail and you might not be able to drive your car to the repair shop. Or worst case scenario they fail because you are in problematic situation that triggers the false alarm and you’re double stuck there.
Overall I don’t see a track record that warrants us to be optimistic about this working as well as we want to…
Or, through government legislation, you're only allowed to take your alcohol sensor to an authorized dealer to get it maintenanced, _AND_ you'll have to pay to get it calibrated!
>If someone (or yourself) needs medical attention, call an ambulance. If somebody is in danger, call the police. If you need to go somewhere, call a taxi. If none are available you can also ask someone else to drive.
I know many of us here live in California, New York and other more populated areas so it is understandable we don't know what life is like in other areas.
Some people live in rural areas where it is not practical to just wait for a cop or ambulance. You would die if you did. Some small towns don't even have taxis.
"once-in-a-lifetime" for an individual is more than 100 million (current US population divided into roughly 3 generations) times in aggregate over the course of a given generation (again, roughly speaking).
What fraction of those is an acceptable death/disability rate as compared with the rate of drunk-driver caused fatalities and disability?
In certain major urban centres in canada, the freeze thaw cycle makes so many potholes. It’s the probably more likely the drunks who drive straight right over them. The rest of us zig zag around these tire eaters. Some roads get so bad during the spring that you memorize a route.
Also in Michigan when there’s heavy snowfall you can’t really see the lines on highways and such. You might be starting and stopping frequently due to icy roads. That could be considered “erratic”.
This is a very difficult problem to solve. A breathalyzer before engine ignition is likely what will be installed in every car starting in 2026.
>2. "passively and accurately" detect whether someone's BAC exceeds the Federal limit, and prevent or limit car operation if it's detected.
How does it 'passively' monitor a user's BAC? How does it deal with false positives from things like hand sanitizer? Will I have to blow into a tube every time I start my car running errands because I'm keeping myself safe from rona or the flu? This is idiotic.
Incase anyone wants to read the fulltext of H.R. 3684:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684...
I don't mind it. So long as repair of the system is free, paid for with taxes on alcohol.
Making non-drinkers pay to install a system (that can fail, and require maintenance) to prevent drunk drivers is not fair otherwise.
It violates the entire premise that laws are legitimate if they represent the consent of the governed. People don't even know this exists, but we're already being told the administrative state in the form of the DOT will hash out the details.
I can't be the only one to see a problem with this.
I wonder if this would be useful for self-driving cars.
I find the way American law-making is done to be fascinating. As far as I can tell the US is the only country on Earth where politicians are able to "bundle" completely unrelated things into a single piece of legislation. It definitely doesn't happen here in the UK in any substantial way (laws get amendments added on but they're always at least somewhat related to the main part), and I've never heard of it anywhere else in the world.
It's a truly interesting thing to read about from a negotiation perspective, but it must make the process of actually getting things done in politics really hard.
It's not the normal way of doing things, but omnibus bills show up in Canada from time to time. Other countries aren't immune either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_bill
The bills are designed to make the politics easier, at least for the Canadian bills I've read about.
The complexity makes the bills difficult to understand and scrutinize. This makes them nearly impossible to cover in a parliamentary debate and makes it impossible to inform the public about their implications, even in broad strokes. The lack of context makes the interpretation of the ensuing laws more difficult.
At least, that's what I've absorbed from reading up on the issue when it's come up in Canada.
Yup.
What Francis Fukiyama calls the "vetocracy". The entire stack of US policy work, legislation, lawmaking has many, many veto points. For better or worse.
The functional purpose of the US Senate is to prevent legislation.
"Congress is where good bills go to die." -- legislative aide, personal friend
One consequence is strong tendancy for big bang (punctuated equilibrium) over incrementalism. A recurring scenario is that once a coalition has a veto-proof supermajority, they bum rush as much legislation as possible, before the next mid-term election dissolves the coalition.
That's why progressives and reformers have always advocated for majority rule.
Another consequence of vetocracy is empowering the executive. Explaining why the rise of executive orders.
Alas, many are happy with the status quo, gridlock, dysfunction. My brother, for instance. Who believes that any day spent legislating is a crime against humanity.
What reactionaries like my brother don't grasp is _someone_ will fill the power vacuum, continue to make decisions. Where legislators are impotent, the admins, commissions, lobbyists, executives, judges happily make their own laws and govern without any accountability.
The neoreactionaries (monarchists), like Peter Theil, explicitly prefer the Aristolian philosophy king model. Because people (the polis) are stupid, only natural leaders who are benign dictators would rule, and so forth.
>Where legislators are impotent, the admins, commissions, lobbyists, executives, judges happily make their own laws and govern without any accountability.
None of those make law. The unaccountable non-elected entity which does make actual literal law that is enforced, at the end of the day, with arrest fines and jailing is the administrative state, here the DOT. Not passing laws gives the administrative state less to feed on.
What we need is a decent user interface to government and the legislative process. One sufficient to enable the average person to generate an informed opinion on proposed legislation. That seems pretty basic.
Monarchists like Theil never say what happens after the original, "good" Monarch is gone. History tells us things go downhill fast.
It happens for sure in Italy, usually toward the end of the year there is the so called "finanziaria" (which essentially sets up - or should set up - the estimation of expenses for next year), where often completely unrelated things are added.
The "twist" is that an article there is likely to be formulated (hypothetical) more as something _like_:
on the third paragraph of article #x of Law #y of dd/mm/yyyy the sentence "the provision in the preceding art.x is intended to be ..." is replaced with the sentence "the provision in the preceding art.x, as modified by the #nth paragraph of Law #w, article #z, of dd/mm/yyyy is due to be ..."
Which makes it totally not understandable until you also have handy Law #y and Law #z and even then, there are probably another two or threee references to other Laws.
Wouldn't it be fun if voters would have the ability to ask members of parliament questions about the contents of a bill before it's voted on? Kind of like a mandatory reading test in school. If they're voting on it, they will know the contents of the bill, right?
They're already open an honest about how they don't actually read them.
And it's understandable that they don't read them - some of these bills are so enormous that it isn't possible for an individual to read all of it in time. But that's not OK. It needs to change.
> but it must make the process of actually getting things done in politics really hard
Yes and no. If what you want to get done is sneak something in under the radar, or force the other party to approve one piece of legislation they wouldn't normally approve, in order to pass some other legislation they want more, then it can make it easier to get things done. Unfortunately, those things are often driven by special interests and not what is best for the general population.
> As far as I can tell the US is the only country on Earth where politicians are able to "bundle" completely unrelated things into a single piece of legislation.
I wish it was: this is basically routine in Italy. As an example, last month the government issued a decree, informally referred to as "capienze" (capacities), that regulates the amount of people allowed into cinemas and theatres. Sounds innocuous, right? Unfortunately it also contains an article that significantly reduced the powers of the Garante della Privacy (the italian privacy watchdog).
And this is not limited to the government, the parliament also loves to sneaks unrelated and controverial stuff into ordinary laws. This usually happens early in the summer or late friday evenings, when most MP are absent.
And the European Commission tried to push software patents through at a meeting between farming ministers... It happens everywhere.
It is malice through obscurity.
On a side note there is over 2.5 billion allocated to tree equity. No one has figured out what that really means.
I can probably tell you what it doesn’t mean: no thought will be given to the high number of US communities whose tree population is being decimated by invasive species and are unable to eradicate [let alone control] said species.
So to effect the tree equity program as described, not only would you need to plant a high number of trees in areas that historically did not have them (or could not support them), you have to account for the routine inspection, community outreach programs (“if you see this insect, say something”), infection treatment, and in advanced cases, destruction of infected trees which warrants additional resources for a shade tree commission in these communities where such commission (nor budget) may not have existed.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2019/Q3/invasive-pe...
https://extension.psu.edu/spotted-lanternfly
https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/terrestrial/invertebrate...
> No one has figured out what that really means.
I didn't know either, so I googled it. It seems to basically be the idea that the distribution of tree cover in urban areas shouldn't be as correlated with income distribution as it is. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
There's a whole site about it here:
https://www.americanforests.org/our-programs/tree-equity/
eh, it's like "give money to the programs that plant trees in the poor neighborhoods" except obviously you can't say words like "poor" because that might be mean and dismissive so you start rewriting things to be more about the unfairness of the whole situation until it's the usual impenetrable jargon
There is unrest in the Forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the Maples want more sunlight
And the Oaks ignore their pleas.
Tree equality is giving all trees the same sunlight. Tree equity is giving the maples enough sunlight to grow as big as the oaks.
The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw.
Tree NFTs?
NFTrees
Since 2014 this is the norm for Indian govt to pass unrelated bills as part of "money bill" as an easy way to pass bills by bypassing the upper house because the govt didn't have majority in the upper house
And these days debates just don't happen on bills. Since they have super majority they do whatever they want.
People who cry tears of blood against the govt still don't elect opposition members in Parliament who could stop unfavorable bills and then they cry (sorry fir the reddit-esque sentence) "OmG OpPoSiTion Is UseLesS"
You seems to forget that within the EU the Committee on Fisheries decided for the EU has whole to sign the ACTA treaty.
You know copyright, IP rights, and a such is highly related to fishery. Or not?
I have a theory that America's bizarre process is a result of their "checks and balances".
The US system has the senate, congress, presidency, and a bunch of committees - all of which can impede the others' work, and all of which can be under the control of a different party.
And every person who can block your bill is someone who can extract a concession. You want your bill to pass, and for a mere extra 0.3% pork you'll have my enthusiastic support....
With the result they get thousand-page bills, and a country dotted with more dams and bridges than they can afford to maintain.
While you’re not wrong about what is typically referred to as negotiation. I won’t speak about countries I know nothing about, but favors always get called back. So maybe it’s not written in bills, but it exists.
As for checks and balances. Typically that refers to the Executive branch (Presidency and agencies), Legislative (House and Senate which have committees), and Judicial.
I’m not sure how this would be any different under a parliamentary system where you still have to work with various groups to form a coalition with enough votes?
In the US system you can have split control - one party has the house and the other the senate (or the presidency - you need a trifecta). If you don’t have all three then basically nothing gets done.
This can’t happen in a parliamentary system. There’s only one body, and elections are automatically called if no one can establish a majority coalition. Someone has to have a majority in parliament, and there isn’t any other body to contend with.
Parliamentary systems can almost always conduct business is hyperpolarized conditions; the US system almost never can.
This is just not true. In fact, this very article and thread talk about how various laws are added to a bill to garner support from people on various sides.
In fact you can actually see that the rate of legislation has been steadily increasing over the years.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
I won't make a statement about parliamentary systems, but believe it or not, the US system doesn't grind to a halt when the President's party is not in power, because the President doesn't just magically veto everything like a child might.
Your link says that the number of new laws was regularly in the 600s or 700s in the 70s and 80s; in the last decade it’s been down in the 300s (it crept above 400 once, for the 115th Congress, which was a Republican Congress under a Republican president).
Sure, the total amount of legislation in Congress has gone up (since the 80s - the 70s we’re far more prolific), but the bills don’t make it through. Bills that die in committee or get voted down don’t matter.
The president doesn’t need to veto things outright - leaders in Congress get the message and don’t bother passing bills if they can’t get enough support to override the veto.
For comparison, although the UK _sometimes_ produces a two-party coalition government (including twice very recently) it's more common for there to be a single party with a parliamentary majority.
In which case essentially the only substantial "check" on the prime minister's power is the next election. They don't need to buy the support of anyone from another party - and they can count on the support of their own party.
Of course, UK governments will still spend lots of cash in marginal constituencies in hopes of buying the locals' votes. And there's still corruption, like ministers handing out lucrative PPE contracts to their personal friends; handing out honours in exchange for donations to their party; and retiring to highly paid do-nothing jobs in industries they previously regulated.
Yeah, a big bill is just bundling all the favors into the same legislation.
This happens in Canada also. Bills are bundled with all sorts of new legislation, but the title of the bill usually refers to just one. The title is also very often given a politically favorable 'save the children ' jingo, disguising the true meaning of the functionality of the legislation.
I think it happens in France sometimes, and it’s one of the roles of the Constitutional Council to strike unrelated measures from laws.
Yes, it's called "cavalier législatif" ("law rider"?) and it's kind of forbidden by the 45th article of the current constitution, which states that an amendment is examined if it has a "link, even indirectly, with the piece of legislation being voted".
That doesn't prevent it from happening all the time, of course. The Conseil Constitutionnel sometimes strikes the "riders" if the law being voted is referred to the Council -- but referral isn't mandatory.
https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/publications/titre-vi...
[in French]
In the UK, the principle is that a law's "Long Title" must cover everything in that law - which limits the ability to shoehorn unrelated amendments in during the draft law's passage through Parliament. Long titles sometimes are made vague, deliberately, to provide for some flexibility here.
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/long-tit...
Same in Italy, though here it's a parliamentary democracy so it's the president of the republic that does this kind of oversight.
With all this filibustering and owning going on, I imagine that it might actually serve the purpose of promoting legislation that both parties agree upon but which one or both can't openly advance for fear of serving the opponent a perceived win. But maybe I'm overthinking it.
I don't think I've seen any omnibus bills in the UK but there's still a lot of nasty euphemisms.
Not sure if there's a legal system that DOESN'T use nasty euphemisms though...
Lots of EU-countrys have "Late night sessions" in parliament, were one party representatives listen to EU-Legislature being read and voted into national law.
The whole parliamentary process there is a farce, with the voting members often being asleep while the law is being read.
It seems highly likely that either a voting members staff or themselves have likely pre-read the bill in advance and as such know which way they are voting.
As a result, it seems like late night sessions are more about show that anything else?
The EU is a farce
In America we pass giant snot balls and let the courts sort it out later. Of course we are now well into the age of hyper partisan court packing so that may no longer work.
Unfortunately this is not only american (cries in hungarian)
It's one of the things that's going to change. The current lack of transparency is extremely damaging to faith in government.
Each part of a the law should require an actual author(s) the same way a patent requires an actual inventor, irrespective of who it was ultimately assigned to.
Also, aggregate omnibus laws like this one have to be expressly forbidden, for just the reasons you cited.
That's the absolute minimum level of reform necessary.
A couple quotes from the article that stood out to me:
"More pressing than the privacy concerns, though, are the safety issues. Including an automatic kill switch of this sort in a machine with internet access presents the obvious scenario that a malicious agent could disable your vehicle remotely with no warning."
and also:
"...by 2026, vehicles sold in the US will be required to automatically and silently record various metrics of driver performance, and then make a decision, absent any human oversight, whether the owner will be allowed to use their own vehicle. Even worse, the measure goes on to require that the system be "open" to remote access by "authorized" third parties at any time."
What could go wrong...
Wow.
What does that do to the existing used car stock? Good luck getting usable metrics out of my '96 Nissan.
Also, Florida, where you can drive the inside of a car without the outside of the car and that's totally fine. How could a monster truck high lifted F150 be considered safe, or a 1500hp rollcage on wheels be considered safe, in the same breath as this legislature.
States will increase the yearly license plate tag costs for older vehicles until the cost of keeping the vehicle as a daily driver will not be economical. It takes a couple decades and then one day your children are adults and believe it normal for TSA to remote monitor driving and look under everyone's clothing at airports.
There will be exceptions for those things, just as there are for current auto regulations.
I think it's become confusing to discuss because some feel this is just another safety device, like a seatbelt. But this limits a persons ability to operate their vehicle at all based on some metrics of their behavior, which I feel is a pretty big grey area and worth thinking hard about.
It's mostly worrying for me because I doubt very highly that they could do it safely, both from cyber security standpoint and just a technologically robust standpoint. There would be so many edge cases, and if they use ML, it's going to be pretty hard to be transparent about how it works.
Pfft.. just cut the antenna.
Trust me, anything can go wrong will go wrong, just a matter of time.
I have to comment on the incredible discrepancy between HN threads about self-driving cars and threads about driver-safety technologies (like this one).
Threads on self-driving are often enthusiastically supportive, with many comments about how computer control will ultimately be safer because computers don’t get tired, distracted, drunk, etc. and people do.
But then threads like this one are usually highly skeptical about how well the safety technologies will work, and over losing control over one’s machine.
Maybe these are just totally different sets of people commenting; I recognize that HN has a big and diverse audience. But even if that is so, it seems interesting to think about who chooses to comment on which topics.
Because ultimately these sort of “smart” safety technologies, and self-driving technologies, are qualitatively the same: you’re ceding manual control to a computerized system. It’s just how much: does the ML system have to reliably interpret “impaired” driving, or does it have to interpret everything about driving?
It seems like there is some sort of uncanny valley where ML-powered technologies are perceived as bad when implemented partially, but good when fully placed in control. That doesn’t make logical sense to me but I’d be interested to hear different views.
I think it's the idea of a manual override being lost that people are unhappy about. Even in a fully self driving cars, I think people would express anger at having no way to override the car and steer themselves. I'm a huge proponet of slef driving (if we can get it right) but the driver needs to be able to have ultimate control over the car if wanted. The example here is going to a hospital even if slightly intoxicated and I know Ive heard escaping domestic violence; however, I thik it can be much more mundane than that- what if your car thinks you have a flat tire because a air pressure sensor has gone bad and so simply refuses to move until it reads more than 15 psi or something, despite being full in reality? What if your car sounds like it's about to suffer sudden extreme mechanical failure, but you're a mile from home and don't want to call a tow. The driver should always be able to tell the car the driver's intent. This is a matter of keeping the car useful, secure, safe, and respectful of the basic idea of object ownership. Failure to recognize this and implimenting nanny tech like this will always have the effect of making things less safe and pissing people off. It's just particularly bad when there's not even the benefit of total self driving to accompany it.
This is certainly the bucket I fall in. I feel we are sliding into the same future TVs have arrived at: You get the 'smart' version whether you want it or not.
I like the idea of a self driving car for most of my trips, but I also love to just go for a drive sometime, and it feels like the later has its days numbered.
>... I feel we are sliding into the same future TVs have arrived at...
I imagined, that a 'smart' car would briefly show you ads on the windshield before agreeing to follow the course, and while on the go, would then time-to-time briefly shade the windows (or whatever is the primary outlet of attention) just to show you another personalized ad. Time to step out? Wait a sec, another ad, just to unlock the door... Captive is the word.
I hate you for saying these things that I now believe will come to pass. And here I was thinking the ads that autoplay at gas pumps were bad... :'(
I've thought for a while now that driving a car (and probably gas powered cars) will go the way of horses. A leisure activity that some will enjoy, but will pass from the conciseness of society with time.
I wish we were there. I hate driving. If my car could actually drive itself competently and I would be free to do what I wish eg read a book or watch a movie like any other passenger, I'd be very happy. I don't really want to ever drive again.
But a computer looking over my shoulder and second guessing me makes the process of driving even more awful and complex.
I attended a Presidential Commission on Robotics meeting at Carnegie Mellon University during the Obama administration.
UBER, Google, and a whole lot of government acronyms such as IARPA were present.
What they spent most of the day obsessing about was:
“We know, statistically, our technology WILL kill a child. How do we handle the public and political fall out of that?”
In my view they were more concerned about that than looking for technical solutions.
I brought up a personal experience:
I once almost had a accident on Interstate 80, in a construction zone.
Somehow a car that was over packed pulled from between some construction equipment, in front of me.
This driver could not see out any window but right in front of him, and he was pulling *across* the interstate traffic, not going with the flow. He could not see out the passenger window, that was facing me, it had a sleeping bag in it.
He shot out from between the construction equipment about twenty feet in front of me, while I was doing 45 MPH, remember it was a construction zone.
The correct solutions to the problem was to floor the gas, so that I could get in front of him while there was still space, and get off on the right hand berm of the road.
Any solution the applied the brakes would have caused a collision.
The experts in the room replied that Aircraft Autopilot software may have been able to avoid a collision in this example. No one was sure and few seemed to care.
You were there and I wasn’t. But from your description it just sounds like liability was the main topic of that conference. That’s not a group of people who are going to be able to workshop technical solutions for one particular driving scenario.
In general I agree with your point that human drivers can create complex risks requiring sophisticated mitigations. But I also agree that ML systems are going to kill people at some point (arguably they already have) and policy will need to be created for that.
Tesla has killed a half dozen of their customers, and it's been surprisingly not much of an issue.
But this is because their "full self driving" is anything but. They just blame it on the driver who should have been in control.
With real full self driving where the driver is not supposed to have control, the legal situation will have to be decided indeed. I wonder if this is holding back progress there.
It was a mixed group from technical to non-tech, with the tech side best represented by Industry. The Government people were non-tech and I don't know about the military brass that was there.
As far as I know there were no lawyers present.
"liability was the main topic of that conference."
More like underlying current of each session.
It was not the intent of the conference.
Thanks for clarifying
If I buy a self-driving car (or one with those capabilities and enable them), I'm willingly giving up control. I've weighed my choices and am making a specific decision.
If I buy a "regular car" and self-driving capabilities take over for me, my control is being taken. Maybe it's justified because my driving has been erratic in a "he must be tired" kind of way so there are some immediate benefits but maybe not.
It comes down to control and choice. Without me being able to decide and turn it on or off, I'm subject to the rules, interpretation, and controls of a black box system that I'm _not allowed_ to understand.
Losing autonomy to a machine concerned at fulfilling your goals is completely different from losing it to one build for judging and automatically punishing you (as reasonable the punishment part may be).
If a woman hops into a driverless car and tells it to take her to someplace safe the driverless vehicle just goes there. It doesn't mistake her levels of fear for intoxication and impairment and refuse to start, allowing someone to break the window, drag her out of the vehicle and rape and murder her.
An actual FSD vehicle won't care if you're drunk because it is the one that is driving. That's the right way to solve the problem.
And yeah there's is a middle-ground where you're having to get into an argument with an algorithm to get what you really want out of it.
For me, it's about what I want to do.
If I want to drive, then I want to drive my own car, over which I have full authority. I don't want any automation beyond ABS.
If I just want to get somewhere, then I'd rather hop in a self-driving taxi. It doesn't even need a steering wheel.
I won't be satisfied with any awkward compromise between the two.
Maybe driving becomes tiered where a person's ability to access overrides are based on tests and their driving record. Not saying it is a good idea, but with computer controlled driving systems, it becomes plausible. For example, if you had a DUI in the last year, no overrides for you.
This is unlikely to happen for the same reason that we don't apply a tiered system to larger SUVs and pickups, which are clearly more dangerous than smaller, practical cars. People will subconsciously fight any self reflection and resist even trivial self-sacrifice for the greater good of society.
I have a legal/human rights theory that I've been trying to promote, albeit with basically zero zeal.
Crime is something that happens on the fringe of society and as such should be a relatively small problem. If it happens enough even if it's technically illegal it ceases to be a real crime because so many people think it's OK.
As such if something is to rise to the level of a crime we as a society ought to be willing to spend the resources to have a real human being make the accusation of crime.
If you can't afford to put a human in the loop, it can't -- simply by definition -- be considered a crime.
I'm sure there's a hole in my logic somewhere. There are likely big loopholes you could drive a bus through. But I can't help but feel that there's a nugget of truth in there somewhere. I don't think anyone should be able to be accused of something by a mere algorithm.
There are many people who consciously or implicitly think vehicular homicide isn’t a crime. Motorists frequently avoid consequences for ending the lives of bikers and pedestrians, even when they were impaired or intentionally driving recklessly
Many laws are passed not because people think it is morally wrong to do something, but rather because they feel society would be better if no one (or at least fewer people) did it
Presumably, this will also allow law enforcement to flip the kill switch too.
Virtually end all car chases. (Within say 15 - 20 years when a majority of cars will have this feature).
Either by being virtually near the car in question to transmit the signal,
or even via the internet (if supplied with a network connection)
Now this can be hacked as all things can.
Car jackings, robbery, prevent a victim from escaping.
I would prefer a car without this feature,.
Drunk driving is a major issue that is not yet dealt with in an efficient enough manner.
I would prefer that the change is to build a BAC measurer into every car.
This is a technology that we have today, it is being used and it is efficient
enough that it continues to be used.
It has some obvious weaknesses I guess someone else could blow clean for you and off you go.
This new, high-tech, detect your BAC by inspecting your driving is prone to have issues as well and more of them until the technology matures.
> I would prefer that the change is to build a BAC measurer into every car. This is a technology that we have today, it is being used and it is efficient enough that it continues to be used.
There are problems. Having to do a breath test in the middle of your drive. Can't drive after eating or brushing teeth. No mints or chewing gum while driving. Must be very careful with medications. Regular calibration. Vehicle service might require a certified technician to verify the device isn't tampered with. False positive means you can't get to work on time. Sharing a vehicle is much more difficult. This is a very high burden to put on the average driver who has done nothing to deserve it.
No. I think we should just accept the deaths and losses from drunk driving and thefts as long as mitigation involves universal control over items I own.
Not to mention, you’ll probably just end up buying humid air blowers that get past this block.
Performance or Impairment Testing is a much better alternative to Drug Testing for alcohol or heroin or PCP or being sleepy or having just broken up with your girlfriend or anything else that might cause a crash: require the driver to play a video game that proves they have good reflexes and quick reaction time.
This is not a new idea:
Performance Tests vs. Drug Tests. Dec. 25, 1990:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-12-25-fi-7155-s...
>The Factor 1000 test is simple and takes only about 30 seconds. It consists of a software program on a personal computer equipped with a special keyboard and a control knob.
>Before starting on a job, the worker uses the knob to try to keep a swaying pointer in the center of the screen. The pointer swings faster and faster from left to right, and the test ends when the pointer swings too far, as it inevitably does. Workers pass if they can keep it relatively steady long enough to show that they are up to their own, predetermined standard.
>The computerized hand-eye coordination test indicates whether a person is too impaired to work for any reason--drugs, alcohol or even because of a sleepless night.
The Advantages of Impairment Testing over Drug Testing to Improve Workplace Safety:
https://predictivesafety.com/the-advantages-of-impairment-te...
>Since President Regan’s mandate for drug testing Federal employees in 1988, many private sector employers followed suit, and continue to follow suit, by testing their employees for drug use, especially in safety-sensitive industries like construction and manufacturing, under the impression that drug testing helps create and maintain a safe workplace (1). However, more and more employers are beginning to recognize the limitations and detriments of drug testing as a tool for enhancing workplace safety, understanding that drug testing is not a preventative safety measure if it can be considered a safety measure at all. [...]
>Cultural changes notwithstanding, some experts have been advocating in favor of impairment testing over drug testing for many years because drug testing is not a preventative measure, as described above. A 2010 report by the National Workrights Institute put it succinctly:
>Impairment testing is the practice of determining which workers in safety sensitive positions put themselves and others at risk by directly measuring workers’ current fitness for duty. Urine testing, in contrast, attempts to determine which workers have used specific substances known to cause impairment in the relatively recent past. (10)
> I would prefer a car without this feature,.
So would criminals, at least those professional enough to plan ahead. So I expect pre-kill switch vehicles to be used exclusively by such criminals.
If crossing the street when the walk signal isn’t showing but there are no cars for miles makes me a criminal, so be it.
I expect anyone who rationally believes that this opens up a whole slew of dangers on the road, from security concerns to self-incrimination to, quite simply, _bugs_ would be the ones to use pre-kill switch vehicles.
Stop assuming everyone is a criminal. Don't give government this level of control over your life or you become China with a Social Credit Score. We already have a financial credit score and we know how much that is already abused. Screw Big Brother.
> _I expect pre-kill switch vehicles to be used_
Expect them to be used by people who consider a kill-switch on their car unacceptable, on the basis of the valid reasons you will be able to find scattered in this page.
Also: the logic! : "C prefer W, so only C will..." : what was that?!
I never wanted to imply _only_ criminals would use such cars. Of course there are valid reasons to prefer them. I think I'd prefer them myself.
I was thinking about the increased demand on used pre-kill switch cars.
I would like to clarify my comment:
The obvious vulnerability of a remote kill switch would also push criminals, at least those professional enough to plan ahead, to use them.
Not implying that _only_ criminals would use them. There are many valid reasons to prefer them.
This story has been floating since the bill passed with various, less clickbait titles. There's real reason to hope nothing will ever come of this provision but some MADD fundraiser literature.
The notion of cars having "drunk check" systems, bugs me, for at least two reasons. Not only is it a step beyond "presumption of guilt," it is also an erosion of private property rights.
I might be rolling my car around my own "dirt track" i've cut into my valley. The gubmint aint got no right to ask me for a driver's license in that case. They've no concern for the road worthiness of the car. They'd also have no say in what "mandated" systems it still has in that case; I'd say.
Of course these points always get raised, "It's not right to _mandate_ insurance because some are proscribed from gambling" and so on, and at least in my lifetime the usual course of public debate seems to conclude that "principles are nice and all but we have to protect us from ourselves!"
For comparison, here’s what the EU requires in 2022 (
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive-industry/safe...
and, from there,
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/34588
):
- Drowsiness and attention detection (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
- Distraction recognition / prevention (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
Doesn’t seem to require remote intervention capability, but distraction prevention seems to require a kill switch.
Of course, required features such as “advanced emergency braking” can be seen as kill switches, as they would prevent you from driving your own car into the wall of your own house.
I am not sure how the "warning of driver drowsiness and distraction", which should be face monitoring based, will work in offroading. Probably it is a function of speed.
Is there any way to find out the motivation behind this? And who is responsible for this part of the legislation?
The latter bit was my question as well; I expected the article to share that, but no dice.
Motivation... I expect it's just another bullshit "law and order" law-enforcement power grab, thinly disguised as a "safety requirement".
General Motors, maybe?
If it is mandated that all cars should have this killswitch, then a lot of old-but-serviceable cars have to be taken off the road - and replaced with new ones.
Of course the mandate won't apply to existing vehicles, just like every other new safety requirement didn't take all the old vehicles off the road.
This sounds like this could be declared unconstitutional by being considered an unreasonable search.
Still terrible anybody supported this bill. I don't even remember this making the news or being debated before it passed.
Did you voluntarily get a driver license? You signed your name to agree to abide by their contract for the privilege and benefits of being licensed.
If you want to use the superior constitutional approach, you would need to first stop voluntarily contracting with them.
The problem as usual is they bury it deep in amongst a completely unrelated bill and make you look bad to your constituents if you don't vote for it. It's a minitature form of blackmail.
The mandatory interlock for alcohol could be used for the same purpose. Sure don't want citizens moving around the country without their permission, they might get ideas of freedom and liberty and forget about the benefits of having a big brother to check up on you.
So who added it? This bill was debated and fought over for months. Where did this come from?
Lobbied for by MADD. The push was led in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI). Original co-sponsors were David McKinley (R-WV) and Kathleen Rice (D-NY). The senate version of the bill was led by senators Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) and Rick Scott (R-FL) with co-sponsorship from Gary Peters (D-MI) and Shelley Moore (R-WV).
https://www.madd.org/press-release/madd-hails-monumental-dru...
MADD is an awful organization these days. In the early days they knew how to stay inside the lines, now they are power hungry fascistic organization. They would be happy if you weren't able to leave your home unless you got permission from a MADD member.
They're all morons.
Special interest groups (like MADD) is almost extremist in their single-mindedness, pursuing utopic ideas without any regard for existing laws concerning privacy and personal freedoms.
Here in Norway, we have had the same problem with the anti-drug lobby, where police, schools and other government agencies have gotten away with obvious injustices for decades, in the name of the utopia that is a "drug free society". Only now is people and the press waking up to the fact that so much of what has been going on in the service of "the greater good", actually has been illegal and caused a lot of harm and suffering.
It’s really unfortunate because MADD has otherwise produced good-for-the-country-and-its-citizens results, but then they go and do shit like this and make it so so hard to support them.
Are you sure about that? When I was a child I was prescribed Adderall for ADHD and I have been on the medication ever since. When I was 25 years old I was picking up my nephew from my sisters house and bringing him to my parents house. I had my prescription sitting in the cup holder. I drove through a DWI checkpoint and long story short I was charged with a felony DWAI for driving under the influence of Adderall.
There was no accusation that I was abusing the prescription. There was no accusation that I was no legally allowed to have the prescription. The simple fact that I was driving on Adderall, the state claimed, was impaired driving. It became felonious because my young nephew was in the car.
I lawyered up and spent 30k fighting the case but the DAs office had a “no plea” policy whereby they refuse to plea bargain any DWIs. So my only option was take it to trial ( and if you lose, spent 5 years in state prison ) or plea guilty to a felony and do probation.
Everything I just wrote to you is 100% true and stated exactly how it happened. Does that seem fair to you?
The MADD lobby has gone way too far to criminalize non criminal behavior. Thankfully employers have empathized with me and not rescinded any job offers due to the conviction, but it’s a hard pill to swallow. When I went to court I was seeing burglars, robbers, etc have their charges dropped to misdemeanors but that wasn’t an option for me. Additionally, the laws are written such that DWI cannot be sealed or expunged. I’m so bitter that I can’t even empathize with those mothers anymore. There have been times where I’m so upset about the situation and feel so wronged by the process that I actually am happy that they lost a child… as terrible as it is to say, but I have to be honest. I’m glad they’re hurting because I’m hurt
If more people who got wronged like you did bought bulldozers fewer people would get wronged like you did. When there is no repercussions to the system (other than positive ones where you input money) the system has no reason to stop.
That’s terrible - which state? I’ve never heard of driving while having taken adderall being considered a DWI.
What was the outcome of your trial?
Once these organizations achieve "good enough to satisfy the overwhelming majority of regular people" results regular people have no reason to care further and the interest groups become staffed by extremists and promote extremism because those are the only people with desire to push further and the only people throwing money at the organization.
The Used Car Dealer Association, would be my guess. Because the value of their older inventory is going to go to the moon.
the measure goes on to require that the system be "open" to remote access by "authorized" third parties at any time.
What could possibly go wrong? The USA had better hope that this system doesn't get hacked by any of its adversaries.
Maybe next time some people oppose an enormous omnibus they won't be called anti-progress. Maybe.
I don't mind this. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing I do, and reducing drunk driving and/or high-speed chases with a remote kill-switch is more likely to impact me than any of the possible downsides (I've had my car stolen and also have been hit by drunk drivers in the past).
Could this be used against me? sure. Would it be worse than a tire blow-out? probably not.
People worry about government overreach, but in a scenario where the government would use this against me I'd already be screwed beyond recourse.
Looking forward to the iFixIt tutorial for disabling this.
This sh*t will almost for sure be in the firmware, just like the Intel ME. Technically you can disable it yourself, practically you simply cannot.
We’re going to need OpenWrt but for cars. Ugh that sounds like a headache.
Automotive EE here. There is a big shit show with vehicle security right now.
There basically wasn’t any. Which guess what? WORKED GREAT! Until… some moron decided cars needed WiFi hot spots (3G), then OTA flashes, and etc. Wasnt hackable until you hooked it to the internet.
So of course they spend as little as possible, with the cheapest network providers. And there is a big public hack by two clowns that were fed info by a letter agency. A Wired article, bla.
Fast forward… most mfgs use approx the same firewall now. It blocks data access to between the radio/telematics and rest of car. That was their solution, not to harden the car, not to get rid of the fucking Internet, just put radio and garbage on its own network. Best part? The firewall isn’t a required part of the car. You can just unplug it and tie the bus wires together.
Next gen vehicles are using more busses, automotive ethernet, and a much more complex firewall, but still the same idea. Not sure if the new vehicles have checks to make sure the firewall is there. At least with automotive ethernet you’ll need a switch and can’t just jump wires together.
So… you aren’t far off with needing an OpenWRT. The issue is the custom hardware. IIRC, the next gen firewalls use a specific 90-pin connector (yazaki?) that only Bosch can buy, that’s the absolute minimum step / issue.
Best part though!? The immobilizer won’t be the firewall most likely, it’ll be it’s own module and by 2026 I really expect crypto secure MAC’d messages.
So… yea, good luck homie.
Any chance to ensure a car which "implemented the option" cannot ever be connected?
Or will we be stuck with buying old cars?
(Of course the idea of an internet connected car is part of the absolute dystopia.)
In EU that seemly is the case, they have a law there where all cars must have a cellphone that automatically calls emergency services when the cars crash.
https://www.motor1.com/news/238058/cars-emergency-services-m...
The E-call system is not an Internet connection (though: GPS, microphone and telephone - "no thanks", some of us will say).
And, you can remove the E-call system: it is foreseen that it cannot be disabled by a user, not by a random mechanic, but it can be disabled by the manufacturer. Of course, it will probably be a nightmare to deal with them and have them do it.
This is one reason I hope it doesn't pass. This kind of big government overreach has me against it. I'm all for the stuff in there for environmental concerns. The bill probably needs to be broken up into 4 or 5 bills so these gotchas in there get more scrutiny. It also sets up more government monitoring. Why shouldn't there be a camera and biomonitors streaming data back to Big Brother and Tesla (heartate, breathing rate, how dry your mouth is, rectal tightness) as well?
I believe this bill has already passed and been signed into law.
Actually it has. I guess I need to buy a car before 2026 :) . Hopefully someone will take it to court so that they have to have an opt-out. This is a bad move in the wrong direction. We need less government surveillance and not more.
This is why I bought a sailboat. All you can do is put computers _on_ her; There's a real limit to how much you can make her function dependent on other people's code.
To say the least, yet another attempt to solve a non-technical problem by technology. — Now you have to come up with a perfect and accurate definition of the non-technical problem (including all the edge cases) and hope the best that someone will be able to operationalise these definitions and come up with the perfect technical solution, while also addressing any possible scenarios of misuse. Also, you hope for a perfect deployment of this perfect solution. What could go wrong?
Curious how this would impact motorsports. My friends and I like to take our "daily drivers" to track days. The advantage being we can drive home with the AC and music playing. Sure there are some people who buy cars and rip out the interiors for the full on "Race car" experience, but I feel like this bill would kill us casuals
And to think people were worried that an EMP could immobilize all of the cars in the country, turns out it'll just take a group of Russian hackers.
Or American skiddies. Honestly, it isn’t going to take a nation-state to wreak havoc with this.
Can they at least add a liability provision allowing disaffected drivers to sue for malfunction? Maybe that would balance the scales.
The article is based on "reporting" in the "Daily Caller" which imho. makes all of it highly suspect.
Fortunately, laws in America are publicly accessible. The text of this law, for instance, can be found at
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684...
. Search in the page for "SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY."
That way you don't need to depend on Daily Caller or any other intermediary else to know the truth.
The article is correct actually. I know the daily caller is awful but if you go to any news search engine you will find several stories.
I’ve got an old, low tech car. I guess I’ll just try to keep it running forever.
Same. And when that fails old tractors and side-by-sides will do. I would not be the first person driving a tractor or side-by-side into town. After that, horses will have to do. No idea what to do for the people in big cities. E-Bikes / E-scooters?
Sounds like a reason to buy your car in another country and import it.
Easier said than done. About a week ago I was researching what it would take to import a Mexican or Brazilian Volkswagen Type-2 (Bus/Transporter) to California. Americans are generally restricted from importing cars that are younger than 25 years old, and in California imported cars must receive expensive emissions testing and certification that are much more involved than the normal smog check process (with some exceptions for classic cars).
Importing cars is not a viable option for most Americans.
Easily made illegal. Government will just seize your stuff, stick it in a warehouse, and bill you for it.
If the car doesn't meet USA emission and safety standards, it's already so hard that it may as well be illegal.
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/importing-car
Right, and this would make it not meet safety standards.
It's complete trash. Importing a car doesn't mean you intend to drive it, it may merely be an engineering sample. But the process for any exemption is far beyond the means of a normal person.
Everyone knows your local cops are probably worthy of contempt, but for those following along at home, please consider offing as many CBP officials as possible.
So used car prices rise once again.
Soooo, let's see, try to see what is going on. I want to start with two standard pieces of advice, (1) always look for the hidden agenda and (2) follow the money. Now let's see:
First, as in this thread already, we know who put this "kill switch" stuff in the bill. In particular it is the MADD group maybe plus maybe some more _activists_.
Second, now that the "kill switch" is in the bill, the MADD group is pleased. Soooo, some Members of Congress can expect some campaign contributions from MADD and their supporters. Since it will be some years before the bill works its way through the DoT, engineering, law suits, lobbying by car manufacturers, screaming from drivers who don't want the _complexity_, etc., the campaign contributions may continue for several years.
Uh, each new feature on a car raises the purchase price and the cost of maintenance. Some of the features added to cars can break, fail, whatever and be left broken, but not this "kill switch"!!! If that darned thing gets sick, the car may become a 4500 pound boat anchor until the owner coughs up, maybe, $2500 for repairs!!! Car owners won't like that.
Third, there can be a lot of pitfalls for that provision to pass before ALL new cars have that "kill switch". E.g., the provision was put into the bill quietly. Some years from now a provision to repeal or delay for 10 more years can be put into some bill just as quietly.
If the kill switch starts to become real and angers a lot of voters and companies, then Congress can receive a lot of pressure, more than MADD can manage, to repeal the provision.
Fourth, even if all new cars have the switch, some car manufacturer can, quietly, hint, hint, let out how to disconnect the switch and all its sensors. And there is a really big, responsive industry of small companies ready to help car owners who would want to disconnect the switch.
Fifth, what the insurance companies care about is not what some sensor or computer in a car says but what insurance claims the driver has. E.g., the car insurance industry knows well that I've been driving for a log time and have never had an insurance claim of any kind.
Sixth, if a car insurance company wants data from some log file accumulated by some computers in a car, then send them a log file -- "Get your clean log file right here, cheap, guaranteed, clean log files!!!"
Net, it could be 10+ years before anyone who hates the idea of having the kill switch actually has to put up with the darned thing.
Then 10+ years from now, MADD will have to dry their tears, have a group hug, and console themselves with the fact that they tried. Meanwhile, some Members of Congress will have gotten some campaign contributions, 10+ years worth!
All this is a special case of what I've detected is a pattern in how Congress works: In one word, there's a lot of showmanship going on. There's a lot less real than meets the eye.
>Fourth, even if all new cars have the switch, some car manufacturer can, quietly, hint, hint, let out how to disconnect the switch and all its sensors. And there is a really big, responsive industry of small companies ready to help car owners who would want to disconnect the switch.
They can make it a crime to disconnect the switch.
I'm in the US:
Who is going to enforce a law to have a working _kill switch_? Likely it will have to be only the states, not the Federal government.
How many voters would be eager to have such a law enforced? Some states don't have auto inspection, and some states do but don't enforce it very strongly. E.g., a few years ago I had a car out of inspection for several years. By chance a Cop noticed and wrote me a ticket. I ignored the ticket but finally contacted the court. The court had me pay some _administrative fee_; I did, and the case was dismissed without my being found guilty. And I was not required to get an inspection.
If a state has no auto inspection, then what state Governor would set up a group to enforce such a law?
For several years now, a Federal law requires that new cars have anti-lock brakes. But if they fail, then no law is broken.
Or: "Sorry, Sir. I bought this car used. It seems to be fine. I don't know anything about any _kill switch_. If it is disconnected or broken or some such, then some previous owner did that. Or maybe the switch failed on its own."
Lesson: There's a lot of showmanship going on. There's a lot less real than meets the eye. This whole _kill switch_ issue is now and long will be very much just an issue of politics, that is, regarded at least by the politicians, with the power, as just an issue of politics. By _politics_ I mean fool people in ways that can make them happy at least for a while and, thus, get the politician votes.
To be blunt, it appears to me that (1) Congress is perfectly willing to enact some law requiring a _kill switch_ to please the MADD group and their supporters for 10 years or so. (2) No one in Congress really believes that a _kill switch_ will be required in all new cars.
Soooo, Congress is willing to play some such games. But lots of other people play games, too: Generally they try to scream that there is some problem and a big effort should be made to implement the solution they happen to have in mind. As in my "(1) always look for the hidden agenda and (2) follow the money.", the "hidden agenda" is to sell their solution and make for themselves the "money".
E.g., my house has _low flow_ plumbing. Bummer -- at the kitchen sink I have to plan ahead just to fill a pot with water. I don't live in a desert. Where I live we are awash in rain water 12 months a year -- we have no water shortage.
To me these look like scams, and it seems that new scams arrive continually, say, like weeds. Some of the scams fail to catch on, but some do catch on, if only for a while. Then along come more scams, more claims of "Oh we got trouble, ...." Keep in mind that maybe such a scare is just a scam.
Why do they call it Biden's bill when it was written and passed by Congress?
The president signed it and pushed for it's passage. This is typically wording in the US.
There will be underworld "modders" who will rip that chip out for a fee . . .
I am seeking an older '65 mustang with a stick now since it has zero chips in it it will be one of the few cars that will be driveable after the US get's hit with an EMP bomb.
Which is why I own two old trucks and am building an electric car from junkyard parts.
Owning a car is a right, but driving it is a privilege.
This initiative is no worse than mandatory seatbelts.
Mandatory seatbelts are a simple mechanical device which can hardly compromise the functionality of the car.
Integrated electronic systems of the type in context are not.
> Mandatory seatbelts are a simple mechanical device
Welcome, traveler from the distant past. It's 2021 now and you won't believe who were last two POTUS.
Seatbelts are not simple mechanical devices for quite some time. They are part of integrated safety systems including pre-tensioner, air bags and "pink noise" sound emitters etc.
> _Welcome, traveler from the distant past_
:) I salute you, dweller!
Interesting the idea of the pink noise (
https://bgr.com/tech/mercedes-pre-safe-sound-pink-noise/
). Also since there are people with a strong phobia about air bags, given that they are reported to sometimes cause over 170dB of noise (already at 140dB there is very high chance of impairment).
This written, while I have been reliably told of extremely severe issues (mutilation post unduly explosion of airbags) after the trivial practice of bad electric cabling, I am unaware of consequences from the seat belts. So I assume the systems were developed in the years of solid engineering (as opposed to internship based development, ship-now-fix-later models etc) - though clearly there are critical vital potential areas for compromization there.
Seat belts do not constitute a kill switch feature which may trigger in a false positive of engineering related issues.
> _It's 2021 now and you won't believe who were last two POTUS_
I am really, really not sure I want to know now...
Implementation of seat belts, the seat belt patent and legislation of seat belt requirements are 3 separate things.
More importantly, your car isn’t disabled if you don’t put your seatbelt on. You’ll be ticketed heavily if caught (outside NH, anyway), but your car will still start and run, which is useful in, say, an emergency.
Hard agree. And a huge responsibility, one that people constantly fail by driving drunk, distracted, threatening, and killing pedestrians. Cars are often weapons, there’s logic to regulating them as such.