Scott Perry Proposes to Eliminate Vehicle Kill Switches
Representative Scott Perry from Pennsylvania is advocating for the removal of kill switches from vehicles.
His proposed legislation aims to reverse a rule set in place by President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This rule would require new cars to include technology meant to monitor drivers for excessive blood-alcohol levels and potentially shut down the vehicle remotely.
Perry explained during an interview that, “If you don’t know what a kill switch is, it simply shuts down your vehicle. The car evaluates your driving and makes a decision based on algorithms it deems appropriate. If it disagrees with your driving, it turns off the car.”
His legislation, which is shorter than the original, would also abolish a provision that mandates new vehicles to be equipped with systems that assess driver performance and detect impairment, stopping the vehicle if necessary.
Perry argues that this law infringes on civil liberties, violates Fourth Amendment rights, and contributes to the rising costs of cars.
He remarked, “Cars are getting more and more expensive, and part of that is due to the numerous systems they come with. Take rearview cameras, for instance. I personally have never had an accident while parking, yet I don’t get a choice about installing these additional features.”
While acknowledging the issue of impaired driving, Perry insisted that the current provisions are excessive. He mentioned that his own family has been touched by drunk driving incidents, but he still believes there are better ways to address the problem without punishing all drivers for the actions of a few.
“We all know the severe consequences of impaired driving. But we shouldn’t penalize the majority for the mistakes of a few,” he stated, adding that he doesn’t consume alcohol himself and questions why he should have to deal with invasive monitoring.
Perry highlighted potential problematic situations where a kill switch might improperly prevent sober individuals from driving. For instance, he illustrated a scenario of a pregnant woman needing urgent medical care being obstructed by a malfunctioning system.
“Imagine if you’re driving to the hospital during an emergency and the car just stops. Or, what if someone is following you? The car might think you’re driving erratically and just cut off,” he expressed with a hint of frustration.
“Of course, we want to prevent drunk driving, but we should not infringe on the rights of responsible drivers in the process. Just because someone misuses their privileges, we shouldn’t theme a broad punishment over all drivers,” he said.
For Perry, the push against kill switches is more about broader issues related to surveillance and privacy, connecting it to other forms of government oversight that could affect everyday Americans.
As the Department of Transportation works on this surveillance monitoring technology, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) gave an update citing logistical challenges. They noted that most technologies explored are still in early development phases, and current detection methods have significant error rates.
Although Perry’s initiative has attracted support from multiple Republicans, advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) disagree with his framing of the kill switch, asserting they don’t endorse government surveillance or vehicle shutdowns.
MADD maintained that the law should advocate for developing vehicle safety standards transparently, ensuring public input and strong privacy regulations, which could save thousands of lives each year.
