Mandated kill switchs in trucks for 2026

[Aron]

As someone who has lost friends to drunk drivers, I'm in favor of instituting non-invasive sensors that will prevent impaired drivers (drunk, drugged, sleep deprived, etc.) from driving.

Edit: I inserted "non-invasive" in there--seems like this type of thing could be implemented using things like the bluecruise "nannycams". I'm not in favor of installing breathalyzers in all new vehicles.

Sponsored

 

[air2mag]

I respect individual freedom as much as the next guy. Maybe a little more since I spent 20 years in the military. I definitely see a plus to the kill switch during a police chase. These criminals have no regard for human life. It would be nice to shut the car and put them in jail for a long time. Sadly the judges rarely do that.

 

[Samson16]

One of the questions is how long would it take to kill the kill-switch?

Not long if I was still 16yrs old and rebellious lol. Cops drive vehicles too...

 

[JExpedition07]

As someone who has lost friends to drunk drivers, I'm in favor of instituting non-invasive sensors that will prevent impaired drivers (drunk, drugged, sleep deprived, etc.) from driving.

Edit: I inserted "non-invasive" in there--seems like this type of thing could be implemented using things like the bluecruise "nannycams". I'm not in favor of installing breathalyzers in all new vehicles.

Slippery slope there, need to be careful. I deleted my other post but per NYS state law there is no jurisdiction over impairment level for driving on private property. If you own a farm, ranch, cabin etc you have the right to drive drunk on that property. Ford really legally cannot say “no” since you own the truck and don’t plan to operate it on a public roadway. That’s what I mean by intrusive. You can’t just assume a private piece of property (vehicle) is always in the public domain 100% of the time. In that case perhaps a blow tube turns out to indeed be illegal and infringing on rights. Maybe the nanny could be programmed to only operate once in a public roadway?

 

[Aron]

Slippery slope there, need to be careful. I deleted my other post but per NYS state law there is no jurisdiction over impairment level for driving on private property. If you own a farm, ranch, cabin etc you have the right to drive drunk on that property. Ford really legally cannot say “no” since you own the truck and don’t plan to operate it on a public roadway. That’s what I mean by intrusive. You can’t just assume a private piece of property (vehicle) is always in the public domain 100% of the time. In that case perhaps a blow tube turns out to indeed be illegal and infringing on rights. Maybe the nanny could be programmed to only operate once in a public roadway?

Really? So there's a corner case where "it's clearly stupid for you to do, but maybe legal" is a reason to invalidate it for 99.99999% of all other use cases? (And still maybe not, if you're endangering somebody else while driving drunk on that private property.) I guess if you're going to go down this slope, then any possible safety equipment should be removed as standard equipment. Brake lights? The law doesn't require that I have them when driving on private property. And I should not be required to have operable brakes, since I could conceivably drive this vehicle on private property without them. Where does it end?

I'd have more sympathy and understanding if the behavior in question wasn't so potentially impactful on everybody else around the violator, and just had a risk of injury or death to the violator themselves. For example, you don't want to wear a seat belt because it infringes upon your right to use your equipment in the way you want? Sure, fine, whatever. You're not likely going to be hurting someone else when you're flung from your vehicle during a crash.

Unfortunately, impaired driving carries significant risks to everybody else on the road, and that's the part that I think trumps the argument that there might be some possible way that you could use a vehicle where impaired driving could be legal (but still stupid).

Edit: I apologize if this is coming across as personally attacking; that's not the intent. I didn't realize how quickly this wound me up, but reading it back after I posted it, clearly I have some emotion behind it. Even though it's been more than 20 years, apparently the memory of my friends' death is still pretty raw and floated to the surface pretty quickly.

I need to avoid this thread—clearly it’s still triggering for me, and I reacted fairly harshly to you, even when you had a reasonable suggestion about only activating it on public roads. I apologize for that.

 

[tony72cutlass's']

If it never makes it to Canada I will open up Tony’s f-150 export company.

free poutine coupon with every truck - put gravy and cheese on your fries people!!

 

[JExpedition07]

Really? So there's a corner case where "it's clearly stupid for you to do, but maybe legal" is a reason to invalidate it for 99.99999% of all other use cases? (And still maybe not, if you're endangering somebody else while driving drunk on that private property.) I guess if you're going to go down this slope, then any possible safety equipment should be removed as standard equipment. Brake lights? The law doesn't require that I have them when driving on private property. And I should not be required to have operable brakes, since I could conceivably drive this vehicle on private property without them. Where does it end?

I'd have more sympathy and understanding if the behavior in question wasn't so potentially impactful on everybody else around the violator, and just had a risk of injury or death to the violator themselves. For example, you don't want to wear a seat belt because it infringes upon your right to use your equipment in the way you want? Sure, fine, whatever. You're not likely going to be hurting someone else when you're flung from your vehicle during a crash.

Unfortunately, impaired driving carries significant risks to everybody else on the road, and that's the part that I think trumps the argument that there might be some possible way that you could use a vehicle where impaired driving could be legal (but still stupid).

Edit: I apologize if this is coming across as personally attacking; that's not the intent. I didn't realize how quickly this wound me up, but reading it back after I posted it, clearly I have some emotion behind it. Even though it's been more than 20 years, apparently the memory of my friends' death is still pretty raw and floated to the surface pretty quickly.

I don’t wish that on anyone, sorry to hear that. This was my Expedition after meeting a drunk driver.

 

[Aron]

I don’t wish that on anyone, sorry to hear that. This was my Expedition after meeting a drunk driver.

I’m sorry that you went through that, and I’m glad to see that you walked away.

 

[JExpedition07]

I’m sorry that you went through that, and I’m glad to see that you walked away.

Don’t be sorry! It was simply a learning curve to better read drivers at night and stay away if they show signs of impairment. I was too close and I could tell he wasn’t sober, my own stupidity. He stomped on the brakes because he thought he saw something but smelled of very strong alcahol. Not looking for sympathy at all lol, in fact I 100% blame myself for this accident. He fled the scene when I called 911, neither of us got tickets or hurt. Happy ending. He got home and started drinking to hide the driving drunk part. When the cops found him he could not be given a DUI (impossible to prove) as he said he started drinking because of the stress of the accident at home. But I do feel for all those who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers, that’s a very serious matter.

 

[My 2ND Ford]

I usually don't respond to posts like this one, but I'm going to give it the ole college try and try to not come across as Rude, obnoxious , Condescending , or whatever might trigger someones memory or experience. I was a NYS EMT with 16 years on the job. I have seen my share of drunk drivers and experienced personal loss of friends who were too drunk and too stupid to at least put on their seatbelt .Maybe if they did, they wouldn't have been launched thru the windshield or the soft top on their jeep! If a device can be developed and installed that would prevent someone from driving drunk, then I'm for it.
How about this, forget DWI, how about driving while tired. How many of us can truthfully say they have not been very tired behind the wheel and should not have been driving. Same symptoms, weaving, driving slow or fast, unable to judge speed or distance. If the vehicle has such a device installed and it determines that you should not be driving, then the fault is on you. Maybe you are drunk, tired, or you just took a hit of some drug and you think you're fine, but you are not.

The point of all this is we have to be protected from ourselves, because we sure won't police ourselves. Call a cab, pull over and take a nap, stay away from drugs while driving.
I have picked up my friends while on the ambulance and it's not pretty .In fact , it's pretty ugly and depressing when you realize it's someone you know! I do have a solution that might work to cure people of driving drunk, high, or texting while driving. As soon a child is ready to drive, make it mandatory that they volunteer for their local ambulance squad or fire dept until they turn 18. I can almost guarantee that after scraping the goo that was someone off their uniform, they may think twice before doing something stupid while behind the wheel.
Sorry for the long post, but sometimes I tend to get carried away and this post did just that. Everybody stay safe and have a wonderful evening.

 

[Snakebitten]

A smartphone in possession of the driver is killing people every day. A loved one being maimed or killed by a driver incapable or unwilling to drive responsibly is equally tragic.

If we want our laws to reflect zero risk of innocent deaths,........

I honestly don't know where the line should be drawn on the government intervention in life risks. But I do know which direction they will err almost guaranteed.

 

[fordtruckman2003]

Nothing installed is going to kill a moving vehicle because that will endanger everyone on the road. It would be sensors when you get in to push that start button and start your trip.

Honestly expected Europe to implement requirements for this type of thing first and USA to follow-up later when they did the beta testing for us. Like glare free and more advanced systems. Working great so now it's legal over here.

 

[powerboatr]

This isn't about stopping auto theft; I believe that's why thieve called it a "Kill Switch" so that people aren't alarmed about it. It's much more sinister than that, this will be a device that will stop YOU from driving YOURE car or truck if it feels for any reason that your impaired. It will monitor your eyes and attention at all times!

or....if the DC power mob feels you have driven to far or to many miles this year and emitted to much ???
i see a KILL SWITCH delete in the future

this is another reason no to own a smart appliance ....big g can take control of it ....


BUT smart phones are smart enough to know where in a vehicle its located, and simply not be used while a driver is hmm driving.
bruce that APP for our phones from Farm Bureau can tell if the phone is in passenger side or drivers side..at least that what the manufacturer claims..
i ask why is that not mandatory on all phones??
texting etc while driving imo is an easier fix so to speak.

i keep waiting for my HAL to say robert....its over dude and stop the truck

 

[wessermgm]

Nothing installed is going to kill a moving vehicle because that will endanger everyone on the road. It would be sensors when you get in to push that start button and start your trip.

Honestly expected Europe to implement requirements for this type of thing first and USA to follow-up later when they did the beta testing for us. Like glare free and more advanced systems. Working great so now it's legal over here.

Fairly certain it would work similarly to the "Stop Safely Now" issue on the Powerboost. One is a glitch, the other would be intended.

 

[JExpedition07]

Fairly certain it would work similarly to the "Stop Safely Now" issue on the Powerboost. One is a glitch, the other would be intended.

The “Stop Safely Now” can still be very hazardous if you are on a 3 or 4 lane highway with heavy moving traffic and you can’t get over. Another user suggested this technology can be in the push to start button to read the alcohol. If that’s possible, that’s minimally intrusive and likely the best way to go about it. That avoids a breathalyzer or any eye sensing technology that is prone to mishaps.

Sponsored