Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., has introduced legislation aimed at repealing a federal mandate requiring passive driver impairment monitoring technology in all new vehicles. The bill, titled the No Kill Switches in Cars Act, seeks to overturn a provision within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that mandates technology to detect and potentially limit vehicle operation if a driver is impaired.
Perry explained that the technology, which he refers to as a "kill switch," would allow a vehicle to determine a driver's compliance with driving algorithms and shut off if it deems the driver's behavior unacceptable. He expressed concerns that this mandate represents an overreach into the civil liberties of Americans, potentially violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and would contribute to the increasing cost of vehicles.
"If you don't know what a kill switch is, it's exactly what it sounds like. It kills your vehicle," Perry stated in an interview with Fox News Digital. "The vehicle itself decides whether it appreciates and approves of your driving based on a series of algorithms, computer metrics, etcetera, about how it thinks you should be driving. And if you're not comporting with that, it shuts the vehicle off."
Perry's bill, which is notably shorter than the provision it aims to repeal, would remove the requirement for technology that "monitors a driver's performance to identify driver impairment" and "must also prevent or limit vehicle operation if the system determines the driver may be intoxicated or impaired."
Beyond privacy concerns, Perry highlighted the potential for unintended consequences. He posited scenarios where a vehicle might shut off unexpectedly, such as during an emergency, a medical situation like a pregnant person en route to the hospital, or when a driver is attempting to reach a police station due to fear. He also raised concerns about being stranded in extreme weather conditions if the car were to malfunction.
While Perry acknowledged the importance of combating impaired driving, citing personal family experiences with its consequences, he argued that the mandate punishes all drivers for the actions of a few. He suggested that enforcement of existing laws and support for law enforcement are more appropriate measures.
"We've had impaired driving incidents within my own family. So we're well aware of the consequences, the pain, and the potential bad, catastrophic results of driving impaired," Perry said. "But you don't punish everybody else for the sake of the few that violate the law."
Perry views the mandate as part of a broader trend of increasing corporate and biometric surveillance, alongside developments in artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and central bank digital currencies. He cited a major car company's patent applications to monitor pupil dilation, respiration, and heart rate while driving as an example of this encroaching surveillance.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) missed a 2024 deadline to finalize regulations for this technology, citing logistical challenges and the early stages of development for most relevant technologies. According to an NHTSA spokesperson, the agency is currently evaluating public comments on its research into impairment monitoring systems. A 2024 report to Congress indicated that commercially available technology for accurately and passively detecting driver alcohol impairment is not yet widespread, and existing detection technology near the legal limit has an unacceptably high error rate.
Despite these developmental hurdles, advocacy group Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) stated that it does not support government surveillance, remote vehicle control, or data collection and sharing. MADD emphasized that the law mandates a federal vehicle safety standard developed through a transparent rulemaking process, including public input and rigorous testing with strong privacy safeguards. The organization projects that the implemented law, once fully realized, could save over 10,000 lives annually, stating that Americans should not have to choose between privacy and preventing drunk driving.
Perry's bill has gained support from a growing number of Republican lawmakers, with 14 original co-sponsors and an additional 21 joining as co-sponsors. The NHTSA has not yet set a new deadline for finalizing the rule.