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.

  • No1RivenFucker
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    By definition, fucking yes. Why are you people so caught up on finding some way of wiggling out of calling it a kill switch on some petty technicality of definitions? At least fucking own up to it and honestly proclaim your support if you agree with the policy.

    • Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I am not trying to wiggle out of anything, I am trying to understand what seems not very straightforward. And I’m not sure I like being lumped in with “you people”. What is " you people" supposed to mean anyway? Christians? Americans?

      I can tell you honestly that I am 100% against some government bureaucrat turning off my car whenever they take a notion, and I am certain that a large majority of reasonable people would agree with me on that.