Mandated kill switchs in trucks for 2026

[fordtruckman2003]

A company in Europe was working on tech to sense the air in the cabin without you blowing into anything directly. I don't see that going well if you are a designated driver or Uber with drunk passengers.

Sponsored

 

[amschind]

This is a solution that gives the government more control while failing to address the issue. Drunk drivers are a menace, but they're a predictable menace. America is unique in its drunk driving problem because we have the weakest drunk driving laws on Earth (Ireland is close and has similar issues). The solution that works everywhere else: whenever you catch someone driving under the influence, you take away their driver's license forever. No exceptions, no big fines, no other penalties. You throw the folks who drive after their license is revoked under the jail.

That's a proven and effective solution that we won't implement. The kill switch will be a marginal improvement, but won't do anywhere near the good that simply punishing the guilty would.

 

[HammaMan]

This is a solution that gives the government more control while failing to address the issue. Drunk drivers are a menace, but they're a predictable menace. America is unique in its drunk driving problem because we have the weakest drunk driving laws on Earth (Ireland is close and has similar issues). The solution that works everywhere else: whenever you catch someone driving under the influence, you take away their driver's license forever. No exceptions, no big fines, no other penalties. You throw the folks who drive after their license is revoked under the jail.

That's a proven and effective solution that we won't implement. The kill switch will be a marginal improvement, but won't do anywhere near the good that simply punishing the guilty would.

Indeed. Habitual offenders of unlicensed / intoxication / no insurance need a few weeks in jail at an ever-increasing rate until the behavior modification sets in. This nonsense of license suspension for anything other than traffic related behavior needs to end as well. Laws and their reasons are a complete shitshow in the US and do nothing to benefit society. It's turned into a revenue collection scheme that needs drastic overhaul.

 

[JExpedition07]

This is a solution that gives the government more control while failing to address the issue. Drunk drivers are a menace, but they're a predictable menace. America is unique in its drunk driving problem because we have the weakest drunk driving laws on Earth (Ireland is close and has similar issues). The solution that works everywhere else: whenever you catch someone driving under the influence, you take away their driver's license forever. No exceptions, no big fines, no other penalties. You throw the folks who drive after their license is revoked under the jail.

That's a proven and effective solution that we won't implement. The kill switch will be a marginal improvement, but won't do anywhere near the good that simply punishing the guilty would.

I think it’s a bit harder in North America. Taking away someone’s license indefinitely is a death sentence here lol. In Europe the countries are a lot smaller and public transport is plentiful. Taking away a license there works because that person can still function in society. Here in the US it’s a lot harder to function without one. I know an older guy, friend I boat with who got a DUI some 20 years ago. He has barely ever picked up a drink since. The fines and suspension most definitely worked on him.

 

[Golf Cart Wizard]

This is a solution that gives the government more control while failing to address the issue. Drunk drivers are a menace, but they're a predictable menace. America is unique in its drunk driving problem because we have the weakest drunk driving laws on Earth (Ireland is close and has similar issues). The solution that works everywhere else: whenever you catch someone driving under the influence, you take away their driver's license forever. No exceptions, no big fines, no other penalties. You throw the folks who drive after their license is revoked under the jail.

That's a proven and effective solution that we won't implement. The kill switch will be a marginal improvement, but won't do anywhere near the good that simply punishing the guilty would.

This. I can’t count the people I’ve known or known of that got off of DUIs with no real consequence, or people that were still behind the wheel after multiple DUIs. And then those people continue the same behavior and we wonder why there is a problem. If the government is doing this because they’re so concerned about drunk driving they wouldn’t be allowing the guilty back behind the wheel to ruin more people’s lives as it is

 

[amschind]

I think it’s a bit harder in North America. Taking away someone’s license indefinitely is a death sentence here lol. In Europe the countries are a lot smaller and public transport is plentiful. Taking away a license there works because that person can still function in society. Here in the US it’s a lot harder to function without one. I know an older guy, friend I boat with who got a DUI some 20 years ago. He has barely ever picked up a drink since. The fines and suspension most definitely worked on him.

To me, this paragraph sums up why I think that permanent driver's license revocation would be an effective deterrent.

 

[CaptainAmericaRob]

There was an attempt last week in congress to defund the "kill switch" law which will go into effect as of the 2026 model year for all new vehicles sold in the United States. it failed! For those already saddled with the Blue Cruise nany, you already see the pitfalls of this type of technology. I personally do not like the idea of being monitored at all times while driving and feel as though this technology could lead us down a slippery slope of no return.
This needs to be stopped!

absoultely unbelievable, lol that has to be one of the most blatent step on ur freedoms, ever.
there are WAY, way...way too many scenarios for this to go wrong.
listening in on PRIVATE personal verbal communications with your OWN vehicle? LOL... i think NOT!
i think my current vehicle will be the LAST new vehicle of any company that i will buy!

 

[Suns_PSD]

This is a solution that gives the government more control while failing to address the issue. Drunk drivers are a menace, but they're a predictable menace. America is unique in its drunk driving problem because we have the weakest drunk driving laws on Earth (Ireland is close and has similar issues). The solution that works everywhere else: whenever you catch someone driving under the influence, you take away their driver's license forever. No exceptions, no big fines, no other penalties. You throw the folks who drive after their license is revoked under the jail.

That's a proven and effective solution that we won't implement. The kill switch will be a marginal improvement, but won't do anywhere near the good that simply punishing the guilty would.

Those places also have robust public transport systems. In the USA if you lost your ability to drive forever, you'd lose your ability to earn a living forever. Worth noting that driving in general is very hard in those countries and is highly restricted.

That's a pretty extreme response considering most everyone in their youth and beyond has drunk a bit too much and regrettably gotten behind the wheel of a car at some point.

My best 2 employees (truck driver's) had both served time for 3x drunk driving each (no accidents). They were both addicts at the time and had been sober for 10+ years when I hired them. Frankly I've had better luck hiring ex-cons in that business than any other particular group.

BTW, I have a CDL meaning my BAC legal limit in my personal vehicle is .04%. So, I bought a Breathalizer and at 192# (at that time) it took exactly 1 beer for me to blow .03%. Two beers has me way over .04 & 3 beers in under and hour has me sitting around .10%. I should note that a beer to me is a decent IPA around 6.5% alcohol so a bit higher than average.

 

[amschind]

Those places also have robust public transport systems. In the USA if you lost your ability to drive forever, you'd lose your ability to earn a living forever. Worth noting that driving in general is very hard in those countries and is highly restricted.

That's a pretty extreme response considering most everyone in their youth and beyond has drunk a bit too much and regrettably gotten behind the wheel of a car at some point.

My best 2 employees (truck driver's) had both served time for 3x drunk driving each (no accidents). They were both addicts at the time and had been sober for 10+ years when I hired them. Frankly I've had better luck hiring ex-cons in that business than any other particular group.

BTW, I have a CDL meaning my BAC legal limit in my personal vehicle is .04%. So, I bought a Breathalizer and at 192# (at that time) it took exactly 1 beer for me to blow .03%. Two beers has me way over .04 & 3 beers in under and hour has me sitting around .10%. I should note that a beer to me is a decent IPA around 6.5% alcohol so a bit higher than average.

That's one side of the coin. The other side is that the folks who are killed or maimed by drunk drivers don't get to live productive lives either. I am a huge believer in "the punishment fits the crime". In the case of driving under the influence, the crime was merely the potential to end or destroy lives; I DON'T support the massive fines or jail time for an action that could've but ultimately didn't result in harm to a third party. But folks who refuse to stay sober while driving, in my opinion, prove that they cannot be trusted to drive in a way that doesn't endanger those around them. You and others are correct to point out that there are folks who get the message and never drink and drive again. I am open to the idea that there could be a pathway back to getting a license again, but it should be YEARS and it should be onerous.

As to the legal limits, I think that's a symptom of the cottage industry that sprang up around the DUI courtesy of MADD. Small towns realized that they were sitting on a gold mine which would create very little public pushback: drop the fine hammer on a small group that no politician wants to publicly defend. The issue is that the fines don't dissuade many of the repeat customers while the small towns benefit financially from said repeat customers. The low and falling BAC limits are in many cases a function of that financially motivated operation rather than a real desire to lower traffic fatalities; the evidence being the astronomical BACs recorded for many drivers involved in fatal collisions. If you can get a huge fine from an unsympathetic defendant, then a rigid and low standard works great. The new push for a BAC of 0.05 fits in with that motive.

However, I think that these issues are closely intertwined. Much of the push to snag and fine as many "drunk" drives as possible stems for the massive and politically risk free financial reward that cities and counties enjoy for enforcing DUI statutes. One of the big reasons why I want the fines to vanish is that I also want the perverse incentive to create as many criminals as possible to go with it. I believe that the data puts repeat, high BAC offenders in an extreme risk category and that eliminating the risk posed by that group would provide a disproportionate benefit in terms of lives saved. Jailing or permanently revoking the licenses of people who drove home after drinking two beers has a far smaller effect on actual harm; many of the arguments for extreme enforcement stem from conflating the risk posed by drivers who are minimally impaired and those who are absolutely hammered. I'd rather drive home surrounded by folks who just put away two Bud Lights than folks who are all "multitasking" on their smartphone or worse, trying to Mario Andretti their commute down by 35 seconds.

So in summary I think that removing perverse incentives for overbroad enforcement, narrowing the definition to those individuals who pose the statistically greatest threat and increasing the most feared penalty (license revocation) for the high risk group of criminals would result in fewer deaths.

 

[Spiffers]

Not the government directly, but some power companies "offer" you a free thermostat BUT it gives the power company basic control of it. Sure, you can turn it up or down, but the idea of someone else controlling the temp in my house, with electricity / gas I pay for, F that !!!

But but climate change!!!

While the elites build homes right ON the coast.

 

[Bcd.1990]

We are already being watched 24/7 by the government and they have full access to your data in and out. We are already living in it. This is not the stepping stone to worse and worse surveillance. We already did that when we started using smart phones, social media, and Alexa/Siri.

 

[SumGuy]

There was an attempt last week in congress to defund the "kill switch" law which will go into effect as of the 2026 model year for all new vehicles sold in the United States. it failed! For those already saddled with the Blue Cruise nany, you already see the pitfalls of this type of technology. I personally do not like the idea of being monitored at all times while driving and feel as though this technology could lead us down a slippery slope of no return.
This needs to be stopped!

It’s much worse than that. The transportation safety board recommended the govt have the ability to limit the speed you drive your vehicle. The slippery slope argument (that some call a fallacy) is very real here. For some reason there is a large group of govt that wants to control everything you do, all the time.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a45840001/ntsb-speed-limiting-tech/

 

[Big Dog Daddy]

It’s much worse than that. The transportation safety board recommended the govt have the ability to limit the speed you drive your vehicle. The slippery slope argument (that some call a fallacy) is very real here. For some reason there is a large group of govt that wants to control everything you do, all the time.

Yes, i saw that. It's only a matter of time now until we lose all control, and simply become a passenger in our own government controlled vehicle.

 

[GIjoe]

To me, this paragraph sums up why I think that permanent driver's license revocation would be an effective deterrent.

Revoking or suspending a license does not stop that person from driving. I’ve seen this everyday for 15 years. Maybe in the land of gum drops and candy canes but here that is not a reality.

 

[notabot]

Revoking or suspending a license does not stop that person from driving. I’ve seen this everyday for 15 years. Maybe in the land of gum drops and candy canes but here that is not a reality.

This isn't about stopping impaired people from operating a motor vehicle. It's not about "saving the children" or "fixing global warming"... Try and follow the money and see where it goes but for many of us, it is time to wake up!

Sponsored