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.
Ok I read it carefully. The law is that manufacturers have three years to set the standards for what tech to use to make cars that can tell if you’re drunk and then turn off. Is that still a kill switch?
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.
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.
Yes, a killswitch turns off machines.
But that’s not the context of the article/why they said it was false:
The headline lies. Correct me if I’m wrong, but its a motte and bailey.
By the definition of the above tweet (which is what the article is talking about) there is no kill switch.