Yes, it says it’s false. Here’s the pertinent line:

identifies whether they may be impaired and prevents or limits motor vehicle operation “if an impairment is detected.”

That’s called a killswitch.

On the law itself, it’s Section 24220 - b - 1 - a - ii AND 24220 - b - 1 - b - ii

Just a reminder that fact checkers blatantly lie, and will even tell you they’re lying. It takes like two minutes to fact check laws like this.

  • TJD
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I meant in this case a kill switch implies a remote connection. I thought that was obvious.

    How so? The only people I’ve seen claiming it obviously implies a remote connection are people desperate to defend the policy by trying to dismiss that it requires a kill switch. Where does it imply that it’s remote?

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      How else could you interpret it? Why would you care about anything other than a remote kill switch?

      And the definition of kill switch doesn’t really matter in the end anyways. The point is to read the article.

      • TJD
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It not exactly rocket science. It’s a kill switch. It does what the name implies. It locks out usage (kills) the machine when a certain criteria is met.

        And if you can’t see why I don’t want the government putting a kill switch in my car that I own, you’re not trying very hard.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          When that criteria is you driving drunk, I think it’s a great idea. I don’t want to get hit by some idiot.

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, they didn’t.

              They simplified and made a headline that might be misinterpreted but that’s not malice. Again, read the article before posting stupid shit.

              • Throwaway@lemm.eeOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Theyre journalists. Presumably, they know how to write a headline. This means its not incompetence but malice.

                • lud@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  People can’t make mistakes?

                  Headlines are also often written by other people to maximise interest.

                  Why does it even fucking matter? Any reasonable person would just read the article if they cared.

                  If your entire argument is that the headline is technically wrong then you have no argument.

                  Stop complaining about nothing.

                  • spacecowboy
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re arguing with people who legitimately think the previous election was “stolen”. They don’t believe in facts and are in the habit of living in a different world than the rest of us.

    • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s quite literally the 2nd paragraph of the article:

      “Beginning 2026, a kill switch will be a mandatory feature on vehicles,” reads the tweet. “The device allows the government, the police, and car makers to disable your car from the comfort of their offices. Reminder - 18 GOP voted for this bill.”