If you think you still “own” your car, you might want to reconsider. What I actually possess is a four-wheeler permit—a vehicle that tracks and evaluates my actions, deciding in real time whether I’m fit to drive.
It’s not the police or even common sense that does this; it’s algorithms at work.
All technologies, sooner or later, experience failures. Just imagine explaining to a machine why you’re qualified to drive.
It may sound a bit like a plot from a dystopian novel. But, in reality, this dystopia has seamlessly transitioned into what’s being branded as public safety. And our elected representatives have endorsed it.
Monitoring Lifelines
Automakers are already advancing in areas like biometrics and behavior-based safety systems. The intended goal? To cut down on drunk driving. However, its real implications stretch much further, with cars increasingly keeping tabs on drivers and acting on that information. This movement gained momentum thanks to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which mandates that all new vehicles in the U.S. include “advanced impaired driving technology.” That term feels deliberately innocuous.
Had lawmakers named it something more direct, like a federally mandated driver monitoring system that could control vehicle operation, public debate might have arisen. Instead, it quietly became law.
Focusing on You
So, what’s on the horizon? Imagine a camera fixed on your face, sensors tracking your eyes, and software analyzing your attention and emotional condition. This setup goes beyond merely looking for signs of alcohol use; it gauges anything that could be seen as risky.
Are you fatigued? Distracted? Stressed? That could be sufficient for the system to deem you unfit to drive.
And once that determination is made, your car could become immobile. Even if you have the keys and the paperwork, you might find yourself stuck.
This represents a shift that seems to have bypassed any democratic process. And it’s increasingly becoming a reality.
Millions of vehicles worldwide already feature driver monitoring systems. Europe mandates them, and U.S. manufacturers are adopting them as well. This isn’t speculative; it’s rolling out in new cars, with a requirement to install these systems starting in 2027. There are no exceptions.
Surveillance on Wheels
Meanwhile, automakers are expanding their efforts. For instance, Ford has patents indicating a move towards more surveillance-like features rather than purely safety-focused ones. We’re talking about behavioral tracking and potential links to external databases.
Your car is evolving into a data collection device on wheels. Once that information is generated, it tends to escape the bounds of privacy.
In-vehicle monitoring systems are already operational in some cars, featuring live feeds and driver behavior tracking—data that can be sold to interested parties.
This brings together government mandates and corporate capabilities seamlessly. It’s not pure coincidence, but rather a calculated alignment.
Funding and Control
Congress is funneling a significant amount of money into this initiative. Around $45 million has already been set aside for research, with over $100 million backing research for a driver alcohol detection system.
Who’s footing the bill for installation? As taxpayers, we are. Automakers will likely pass those costs onto consumers, leading to pricier vehicles with more complex systems and, let’s not forget, increased chances for failure. Plus, profit margins will be tucked into features that consumers never asked for.
But the bigger issue is about control.
When some entity makes the call on whether a car is operational or not, something fundamental is lost—your autonomy. And don’t expect relief from politicians; many have stood by this mandate.
Even attempts from lawmakers like Thomas Massie and others to roll back these measures were met with substantial bipartisan support—a clear indication that this machinery is moving forward.
Endless Roads
This isn’t about division; it’s become a consensus. And in Washington, a consensus often signifies that decisions are made without considering public sentiment, implementing changes that most people may not recognize until they’ve arrived on their doorstep.
We’ve seen warnings before. Back in 2017, WikiLeaks exposed inquiries by the CIA into similar vehicle controls, causing a public uproar. Now, we’ve built a system that seems more benign by comparison, all framed as progress.
Advocates claim this will save lives, and while impaired driving is indeed a grave concern, we are already aiming solutions, such as ignition interlocks for offenders. There are already over 30 devices available to deter drunk driving.
This is more than monitoring; it assumes guilt from the start.
What Ifs
Questions abound that no one in Washington seems eager to answer. What if the system misjudges? Because it happens.
Errors and malfunctions can occur, putting drivers in perilous scenarios. All technologies encounter issues, and then you’ll be explaining to a machine why you’re a responsible driver.
I genuinely hope for the best.
Once this door swings open, expect it to remain ajar.
If your car were to halt you due to a “failure,” what would be your next step?
Is speeding enforcement built into the vehicle? Are geofences being implemented that restrict certain locations? Is your insurance collating your driving data in real time? Will law enforcement access live feeds?
There’s no need for wild speculation—these are the logical next steps.
And the groundwork has already been laid, ready to change without any prior notice.
No Escape
Meanwhile, avenues for retreat are vanishing. Regulations concerning older vehicles, coupled with parts shortages and policy pressures, are nudging them off the roads. The marketplace is being crafted in such a way that opting out will become more challenging each year.
There won’t be an abrupt mandate. Instead, you’ll wake up one day and find that every new car follows the same restrictions. That’s how control advances—slowly and steadily, nearly invisibly until it’s too late.
To clarify, while Section 24220 doesn’t explicitly flip a literal switch, it paves the way legally and technically for systems capable of preventing vehicle operation based on algorithms. This is not just a concept; it’s law and will soon be implemented in all new vehicles.
Call it whatever terminology you prefer.
Even if your car believes you shouldn’t drive, the outcome is unchanged.
This transcends political boundaries. It’s fundamentally about power—who wields it, who gains it, and who quietly loses it.
Currently, drivers are at a disadvantage, a state likely to persist.
Once this system is fully integrated, reversing it won’t be easy, cheap, or fast. It will be seen as essential infrastructure, so entrenched that questioning its necessity seems futile.
This, ultimately, is the true objective.
This isn’t safety. It isn’t innovation.
It’s control integrated into the machines Americans rely on daily.
As of now, only a few officials are truly advocating for our side.
So, who decides if you’re allowed to drive? If it’s anyone other than you, then you don’t genuinely own your car. Perhaps you never did.
