Well, he tried.
It’s just too bad other Republicans didn’t help.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) wanted to put the kibosh on what is arguably the single worst element of the so-called “infrastructure” bill — a provision that requires all new cars (beginning with 2026 models) to be fitted with “technology” that will ostensibly prevent “impaired” drivers from driving. (READ MORE from Eric Peters: ‘Gas Guzzlers’: The Government Lied About Car Markets)
This week the House will vote on my amendment to defund the federal mandate that requires all new vehicles be equipped with a kill switch to monitor driver performance and prevent vehicle operation. pic.twitter.com/FVWDpGsyUI
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 6, 2023
If the car registers “impairment,” it will pull itself over.
Massie’s effort failed on a roll call vote, 201–229, with 19 Republicans-in-name-only siding with Democrats to affirm the pending requirement.
You may think it’s a fine idea to use “technology” to prevent “impaired” driving. Probably because you assume it means drunk (or high) driving. But what if “impairment” doesn’t mean what you think it means?
Let’s read the fine print.
The law says that the “technology” in question will “passively monitor the performance of a driver.”
In other words, what the Biden Thing’s flying monkeys (who wrote the edict, the Thing not being capable of much more than erratically reading a teleprompter) did was change the operational definition of “impaired” — which most people equate with being drunk (or high) — with performance, or how you drive.
The significance of this distinction cannot be overstated.
The breathalyzers most people are familiar with measure an individual’s blood alcohol content (BAC) and a person is regarded by the law as “drunk” if his BAC is above a certain threshold. In most states, this is 0.08 percent, though some states are lowering this to 0.05, a point that can be reached after having had not much more than a beer or a single mixed drink, depending on body weight. Courts often mandate that individuals have in-car breathalyzers installed in their vehicle after they have been convicted of “drunk” driving. These devices require the person to blow into the device, which is tied to the vehicle’s ignition.
If any alcohol is detected the ignition won’t work, so the car won’t start.
What the Things have in store for us come the 2026 model year, when the edict goes into effect, is “technology” that is, in the first place, “passive” — which means the driver doesn’t “blow” into a device — and that evaluates fitness to drive based on performance.
This does not mean you are drunk or high.
It does not require that you first be convicted of having driven drunk.
It means you are performing contrary to the programming the car says is allowable.
It does not take much imagination to envision what will not be allowed. Make a lane change that’s not glacially slow after having first signaled and waited for several long moments, and your performance will be judged (by the “technology”) as poor. The same for any overly “aggressive” acceleration or braking performance. Failure to stop completely at a stop sign and then wait for a long moment, as required by the programming, will constitute poor performance.
The point is that everything you do behind the wheel will be the measure of your performance — the parameters defined by the government — and none of it necessarily has anything to do with whether you are “impaired” (let alone drunk).
But it has everything to do with the exercise of total supervisory control over your driving, by hanging over your head the omnipresent threat of prevention, not merely correction. This is precisely what the “technology” decreed by the Thing and his monkeys will prevent you from doing if your performance falls outside acceptable parameters. (READ MORE: Let’s Hold Congress Accountable for the Government’s Regulations)
This is no joke. Most of the necessary “technology” is already embedded in practically all new cars. What do you suppose such “advanced driver assistance technologies” as speed limit assist, brake assist, and lane change assist are ultimately for?
Hint: They are not about “assisting” you.
What they are about is habituating you. Getting you used to having your driving second-guessed by “technology” — and (ultimately) controlled by it. Note that most new cars come standard with these “technologies.” They are not on offer as optional “technology.” They are being standardized. Just the same as airbags have been — want them or not.
Because the Things insist — like it or not.
The pending elaboration of this “technology” come 2026 (which is sooner than that since the ’26 models will be available in 2025, or a little more than a year from now) is merely its fulfillment. It is the fulfillment of the long-term plan to make driving a passive activity by completely controlling how you’re allowed to drive. No more latitude to exercise your judgment or make use of your skills. In the future — which is only about a year ahead of us now — driving will be not much different than riding an escalator. (READ MORE: Ignoring Reality: The Zero-Emissions Crusade)
The Things want this because escalators are under their control. They hate your driving — and they intend to use “technology” to make you hate it, too. Why bother with driving when you can’t really? Why not just take the bus or the train — or the escalator — instead?
Exactly.
And that’s what performance — as opposed to impairment (or being “drunk”) — means.
It’s a shame those 19 Republicans-in-name-only didn’t understand it. Worse, if they did.
The post The Car That Pulls Itself Over appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
