this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
-22 points (23.8% liked)

Conservative

286 readers
92 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

A couple details this article fails to consider:

  • The law does not directly require a “kill switch”. Just the tech to add and talk to devices that monitor blood alcohol content. Calling it that is just fearmongering, and this capability has been modified into cars for literal decades now. This law simply requires a standard be built around the installation of a device.
  • The law gives no access or control capabilities to law enforcement or government officials
  • There is to date still no mechanism for this device to measure blood alcohol content, which would have to be standardized by EOY for this to make the 2026 date where the earliest vehicles with this requirement can enter the market, because automakers need at least 2-3 years to implement the tech.
  • 18 Republicans voted for this, which was required to pass this bill in the first place. If you have a beef, I suggest taking it up with them.

This is a shitty law, but it’s not as doom and gloomy as the source makes it out to be.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The law lliterally includes the phrase "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation" Thats called a killswitch. Do you need me to grab the entire section?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Right but that’s not the “kill switch”. The kill switch would be what detects BAC and responds by preventing or limiting motor vehicle operation.

In other words, the tech added to cars won’t be the kill switch itself, it’ll enable the installation of one.

Do you need me to grab the entire section?

No thanks. Let me know if you need anything else cleared up.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oooo he got you sassin....

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah I think I hit a nerve.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ok see now you're instigating lol 😆

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not even, that’s just what it seems like to me.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago

🤣 omg lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Nice to see even on lemmy conservatives are a bunch of paranoid doomers who misconstrue the truth to push their crap agenda.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How is the car going to know if I'm drunk or not? Anyway, I'm not concerned, because if I can be confident of anything it is that someone will quickly figure out how to disable, trick or overcome any government mandated safety equipment installed.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago

Cameras in the car. Most cars have something similar for the assisted driving.