You may have noticed a lot of talk lately about this idea that, starting in late 2026 or early 2027, all new cars sold in America will come with a “kill switch.” That’s sort of an alarmist way to describe what’s actually going on, but only sort of. There is truth to the statement, and while the initial goals of the legislation that led to this have ostensibly reasonable goals, technological and logistical and ethical issues make all of this a colossal cauldron of burbling ethical and political issues. Let’s dig into what is going on so you can decide on the most precise and appropriate level of freaking out you’d like to employ.
This all comes from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was signed into law on November 15, 2021. Section 24220 of that law instructs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish regulations for “Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology” which is, as the name suggests, technology designed to prevent people from driving while impaired. A 2023 report to Congress describes this mandate as follows:
“Section 24220, “ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY,” of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), directed that “not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) under section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, that requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.” Further, the issuance of the final rule is subject to subsection (e) “Timing,” which provides for an extension of the deadline if the FMVSS cannot meet the requirements of 49 USC 30111.”
So, the act was enacted in 2021, and even accommodating for the deadline extensions, we’re about at that deadline, which is why everyone is talking about this now, since, according to the law, these standards will have to be enforced starting late this year or early next year.
What are we talking about here, specifically? According to the Federal Register’s report, these are what the driver impairment prevention systems are supposed to do:
Section 24220 defines “Advanced Drunk and Impaired Driving Technology” as a system that
(A) can—
(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; or
(B) can—
(i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or
(C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).[97]
So, basically, they are systems that will be watching you, how you drive, how you behave, attempt to determine your blood alcohol content, if any, and based on these results, the system can “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.” There’s your kill switch.
So, how will your car determine all of this? Some of this technology is already in cars for sale today, like driver monitoring cameras and software that attempts to detect when you’re drowsy or driving erratically, according to the computers in the car. For detecting blood alcohol content (BAC), Section 24220 requires that detection methods be “passive,” so no blowing into tubes. The system would use the commonly accepted BAC limit of ≥0.08% to determine if you should be driving or not.
Is the technology there to passively detect BAC? There are commercially-available devices that can detect alcohol in the ambient air around the driver, though it’s not clear just how accurate these would be if, say, you were sober but had a drunk friend in the passenger seat. There are also infrared spectroscopy touch-type sensors that are being developed, as described here by a man named Skip Church, which sounds a bit like a new youth-targeted atheist outreach initiative:
How well do these actually work in practice? I’m not sure yet. A 2023 report to Congress predicted these devices would be viable, but so far, I’ve not found any confirmation of that. Would I want my ability to drive my own car to be at the mercy of these devices? Hell no.
These systems aren’t free, of course, and some estimates suggest their implementation into cars would increase prices by $200-250 for passive breath-based systems or $100-$500 or so for more advanced infrared systems. And then there’s the huge question of how well they’ll actually work in practice. I’ve been in plenty of vehicles that felt far too quick to give me the little coffee cup icon and suggest I take a rest whenever I decide to steer a little bit more than it likes; what if the car could choose to just turn off if it doesn’t like my driving?
And that’s another huge issue – what is the behavior plan for a car that decides the driver is too distracted or impaired when driving? Will it shut off immediately? Navigate to the side of the road and park? Because that is a significant technical hurdle that, so far, no production car with any level of autonomy has solved. Not starting for a drunk driver is one thing, but dealing with an impaired driver while already driving is a massive separate issue.
Personally, I hate this idea. I absolutely understand not wanting people to drive drunk – nobody should be doing that, ever – but I don’t want to cede control of whether or not I can drive the personal car I own to some sensors and software or AI. There are far too many opportunities for misinterpretations and false positives, and where does that leave you? Stranded somewhere? Unable to leave a bad situation, or get to somewhere important, like a hospital?
There have been attempts to introduce a bill to repeal this aspect of the law, but it didn’t seem to get any traction. And it’s not clear at all that automakers are ready or willing to implement these systems by the end of this year or early next year. Also, for those of us uncomfortable with relinquishing so much control of our cars, there is this ray of hope:
The Safety Act also contains a “make inoperative” provision, which prohibits certain entities from knowingly modifying or deactivating any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.[91]
Those entities include vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, rental companies, and repair businesses. Notably, the make inoperative prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners.[92]
While NHTSA encourages individual vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment by removing, modifying, or deactivating a safety system, the Safety Act does not prohibit them from doing so. This creates a potential source of issues for solutions that lack consumer acceptance, since individual owners would not be prohibited by Federal law from removing or modifying those systems (i.e., using defeat mechanisms).
Based on this, it doesn’t look like the owner disabling these features will be illegal? That seems like a nice big hole; perhaps this is a sort of hedge, in case these systems do, in fact, turn out to be doing more harm than good? Is this even going to happen at all? I’m really not sure.
There’s very little about any sort of kill switch for a person’s car that I’m comfortable with, really. I get that stopping drunk driving is incredibly important, no question, but I’m not sure this is the way to do it. Personally, I accomplish this goal by driving a car that I simply couldn’t drive while drunk. I mean, that manual choke is finicky enough when I’m sober; there’s no way I’m getting that thing going while drunk.
No way this turns out well. The coffee cup malfunctions enough. Some Chinese market cars have a similar system minus the alcohol sniffers. Lots of reports of it shutting down for people with smaller eyes. Because it couldn’t see their eyes. Coding these things out will be common place.
It might be time to make my dream of daily driving an antique a reality. And by antique, I mean 50’s or earlier.
And the system faults out and kills the car because it does not know if the driver is drunk or not so better not let a person drive especially in an emergency. Hell since it says it is monitoring you and how the vehicle is behaving I am assuming it will think any sort of distracted driving is drunk driving and will shut down the car. Kids fighting in the back seat and you turn around for a split second to tell them to stop? Nah your drunk shut down the car. You look down at the giant tablet every vehicle has now just to turn on your wipers? Sorry drunk shut er down.
Like the telemetry antennae, it will be ripped out day 2. And if any bedwetting Big Brother apologists want to come in with dumb assumptions, I don’t drink or do drugs. I’d rather they execute OUI drivers than force this crap on all of us. More infantilization and assumed guilt and there’s no way the incompetent morons who program everything nowadays would even be able to make this work correctly. Even worse than drunks, though, is the damn people on their phones and the degenerates high on weed. I actually miss when drunks were the big problem because they were largely predictable in their time and place, but weaving junkies thanks to legalization and phone addicts who desperately need to send that thumbs up emoji in some vapid text convo while they drive are far worse menaces, they’re everywhere at all times, and seem to face no consequences for driving impaired.
I also highly doubt the real reason for this. Populace control is often framed as safety or “for the good of…” because it puts anyone arguing against it on the back foot and more easily screamed at as paranoid or a baby-hater or whatever other garbage to dismiss critics and distract from their true purpose.
I don’t see an issue w/ cars which won’t operate when the driver is intoxicated.
Can we have cars which won’t operate when they’re texting, gabbing on the phone, eating a sandwich or doing their makeup too?
This has come up a few times recently, and the concensus has been that it’s unlikely to happen until closer to 2030. Lots can happen in 4 years, as we know.
My car beeps at me when the guard rail is in the blind spot on an exit ramp and my turn signal is on. My car beeps at me when there’s a dark shadow and it thinks I’m going to have a forward collisions. A prior car would beep excitedly to tell you the traction control was kicking in on an icy patch, diverting your attention from the task at hand. Do I think they would design and implement this better than those functions? No. No, I don’t.
Better solution: Don’t drink and drive kids. Nothing good comes of it.
Uh-uh, nope, no-way. Now excuse me while I head over to Craigslist to peruse vehicles with a three-on-the-tree.
It’d be nice if vehicles would automatically slow down and pull over whenever the driver pulled out their phone to look at the screen.
https://risk.lexisnexis.com/insights-resources/blog-post/is-distracted-driving-the-new-dui#
Fines are huge for DWI, yet fines for looking at your phone while driving can be as low as $25.
Can they do this, also, when emergency vehicles turn on lights & sirens too?
A few months ago, I was in bed recovering from a surgery and decided to watch some police chases on YouTube, which is a guilty pleasure of mine. There was one where after seven or eight minutes, I had to turn it off because the behavior of the traffic on the road when emergency vehicles was approaching was so infuriating. Instead of pulling over for lights and sirens, many drivers froze like deer, and the perp was able to get ahead of the cops for a good while. Having my blood pressure elevated like that from anger couldn’t be good for healing, so I turned it off.
Absolutely not. Never. If I owned a car with this kind of surveillance tech, my only goal in life would be permanently disabling the feature or disposing of the entire vehicle. No.
Hard no. Like you I understand and agree with the motivation but not the implementation.
I’m just psyched that the new Renault 4 is coming to America.
Not interested, guess I’ll just keep my current cars. Sucks that I won’t have a choice with rentals.
Easily solved. Never buy a car that has this sort of technology. Car makers will complain to the recipients of their “donations”, and this law will go away.
I already do that — I don’t buy cars with unwanted tech. It hasn’t slowed them down even a smidgen.
So what? My cars have been doing that for years. Decades, even.
The kill switch industry salivates at the the prospect of the upcoming proliferation of kill switches and countermeasures for same, starting with kill switches for the factory kill switchs, etc….