Never mind the pet conspiracy theories about hackers or other malicious forces being able to seize control of your vehicle and drive it off a cliff, what about the simple logistical aspects of this system. However, the worst part of the legislation is the open nature of the system which will feature at least one backdoor for third-party access to the system’s data at any time. The system will receive data inputs from critical operational controls, it will also be capable of overriding those controls so as to disable the vehicle either before or during driving once impairment is detected. In software terms, “passively” suggests the “impaired driving prevention” kill switch technology will always be running in the background and constantly monitoring the vehicle for deviation from normal driving habits, which will also mean the vehicle will need to learn your specific idiosyncrasies behind the wheel in order to better profile your behavior. For the sake of simplicity, we’re using a colloquial term here. Why are we calling it a “kill switch?” Because “driving prevention surveillance technology for drunk/impaired/other purposes” just doesn’t roll off the tongue. Whatever the technology ends up being, it would be used towards “driving prevention.” Vehicles under subsection (a) that measures blood alcoholĬoncentration shall use the adult legal limit for blood alcoholĬoncentration of the jurisdiction in which the passenger motorĭoes that mean breathalyzers for every new car? facial scanning tech? Something else? It’s hard to really know at this time. Technical capability.–Any advanced drunk and impairedĭriving prevention technology required for new passenger motor “For other purposes” is the squishy, catch-all language that’s likely to raise the eyebrows of anybody who enjoys the liberty of operating an automobile, while the framework of how NHTSA would implement such surveillance technology into new vehicles is a giant question in and of itself. Prescribe a Federal motor vehicle safety standard for advanced drunkĪnd impaired driving prevention technology, and for other purposes. To require the Secretary of Transportation, acting through theĪdministrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to The language of the RIDE Act bill states the following: Per the bill, the proposed safety device will “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.” Much of it appears redundant, but seems to broaden the reach of the infrastructure law’s intentions. Compounding on the infrastructure Act is the bipartisan RIDE Act of 2021, introduced by Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and co-sponsored by senators Rick Scott (R-FL), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Gary peters (D-MI), seeks to take things into deeper water. However, that doesn’t seem to be enough for congress. That standard seeks to equip vehicles with “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.” That said, the bill, now law, seeks a Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology Safety Standard. The legislation – if you want to read it – is short on details, and does focus mainly on drunk driving and the desire to reduce fatalities. Then there’s the broader reaching RIDE Act, which we’ll touch on in a moment. The measure has been positioned as a safety tool to help prevent drunk driving, and by 2026 (three years after the enactment of the Act, per the text) the kill switch could be mandated on every new car sold in the United States. Deep within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was signed into law by President Joe Biden is a passage that will require automakers to begin including what can be best summarized as a “vehicle kill switch” within the operating software of new cars, which is described in the bill as “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |