12/28/2023 0 Comments Car kill switch“ found no mention in the bill of a ‘kill switch,’” PolitiFact concluded. My personal favorite, however, was PolitiFact. In an odd bit of uniformity, each of the fact-checkers said spokespeople for groups who support the system, such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), told them they would never support giving law enforcement access to the system. “None of the technologies currently in development would notify law enforcement,” the Associated Press assured readers. ![]() A common tactic was to debunk social media posts that were actually false or unfounded, like the popular claim that the systems would be required to alert law enforcement if the drivers were deemed impaired. ![]() To arrive at their conclusion that this car-killing mechanism is just a fantasy, fact-checkers resorted to sleight of hand. The Associated Press conceded the law would “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation” if the system suspects the driver is impaired, even “disable a vehicle from being operated.” So did USA Today and PolitiFact. How fact-checkers determined the “kill switch” narrative to be false is odd, especially since the articles don’t deny Barr’s central claim: The legislation mandates a computer system that will monitor driving performance and be able to disable motor vehicles. “No Mention in the Bill of a ‘Kill Switch’” How the system will make this determination is unclear, as is the government’s potential role in apprehending suspected drunk drivers (more on that later).īut the law’s language could not be more clear: New motor vehicles must have a computer system to “monitor” drivers, and the system must be able to prevent vehicle operation if it detects impairment. The legislation then goes on to define the technology as a computer system that can “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle” and can “ prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected” (emphasis added). 24220 of the law explicitly states: “o ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles.” Unfortunately, my relief evaporated once I looked at the bill itself. (Snopes, a reliably left-leaning fact check group, was a little less conclusive, saying the claim was a “ mixture” of true and false.) “We rate it Mostly False,” concluded PolitiFact. “ASSESSMENT: False,” said the Associated Press. ![]() To my relief, I saw several fact-checkers at legacy institutions had determined the “kill switch” mandate was not true. The claim that the feds would mandate that every new motor vehicle include technology that could disable the vehicle seemed ludicrous. Nineteen Republicans joined all but one Democrat in opposing Massie’s amendment, which failed. “The kill-switch will monitor driver performance and disable cars based on the information gathered.” “The right to travel is fundamental, but the government has mandated a kill-switch in new vehicles sold after 2026,” said Massie. Like most Americans, I had never heard of this alleged “kill switch” until a few days ago when Representative Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican, proposed to strip the mandate’s funding. “Marketed to Congress as a benign tool to help prevent drunk driving, the measure will mandate that automobile manufacturers build into every car what amounts to a ‘vehicle kill switch,’” wrote Barr, who was the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president in 2008. In November 2021, former US Representative from Georgia Bob Barr wrote a little-noticed political column claiming that buried inside President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure legislation was a dangerous provision that would go into effect in five years.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |