By Eric Peters, NMA Member and Syndicated Columnist
You may have heard that about two years from now — less than that, actually — new cars will be required to be outfitted with “technology” to thwart “impaired” driving. What you ought to read is the language of the edicts, which states that the “technology” will “passively monitor the performance of a driver.”
Italics added.
In other words, what the edict will do is change the operational definition of “impaired” — which most people equate with being drunk (or high) with performance; i.e., how you drive.
Not necessarily whether you’re driving drunk or high. Irrespective of whether you’re entirely sober.
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 BAC though some states are lowering this to 0.05 BAC, a point that can be reached after having had not much more than a beer or a single mixed drink, depending on body weight. The in-car breathalyzers, which courts often mandate a person have installed in their vehicle after they have been convicted of “drunk” driving, require the person to “blow” into the device, which is tied into the vehicle’s ignition. If any alcohol is detected the ignition won’t work, so the car won’t start.
What the government has 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 — crucially — it 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 be 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”) to have fallen outside the allowable. 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 being that everything you do behind the wheel will be the measure of your performance — the parameters defined by the government — and none of it will have anything to do with whether you are “impaired” (let alone drunk).
It has everything to do with the exercise of total supervisory control over your driving — by hanging over your head the omnipresent threat of more than merely correction but prevention. This being precisely what the decreed “technology” will prevent you from doing, if your performance falls outside parameters.
The car will pull itself over — no need for an armed government worker — and there you’ll sit until an armed government worker (or someone else, who is still allowed to drive) arrives.
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.” Italicized to emphasis the fact that they are not on offer as optional “technology.” They are being standardized, in other words. Just the same as air bags have been, want them or not.
The pending elaboration of this “technology” come 2026 (which is actually sooner than that as the ’26 models will be available in 2025, or a little more than a year from now) is merely its fulfillment. More finely, it is the fulfillment of the long-term plan to make driving as such a passive activity, by completely controlling how you’re allowed to drive. No more latitude to exercise your own judgment or make use your own skill. In the future — which is only about a year ahead of us now — driving will be not much different than riding an escalator.
The government wants this because escalators are under its control. It hates your driving — and intends 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?
And that’s what performance — as opposed to impairment (or being “drunk”) really means.
Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky understands — and is trying to put the kibosh on this “technology” but it is probably already too late as the car manufacturers are already designing the ’26 models — most of which are already designed and already have the “technology” embedded, regardless.
Massie may succeed in disabling the “technology,” for a time. But you ought to know it could be turned on whenever the powers that be so decide.
The only way to really put the kibosh on this “technology” is to refuse to buy it. That is something the car manufacturers will understand. That is something we have the power to make them understand — if only enough of us would exercise that power.
Now comes another opportunity to say No.
Will enough of us say it?
Update: It appears Massie wasn’t able to put the kibosh on this; news reports indicate that enough Republicans have voted with Democrats to assure new cars will be equipped with this “technology” come the ’26 model year, which is only about one calendar year away.
Eric Peters lives in Virginia and enjoys driving cars and motorcycles. In the past, Eric worked as a car journalist for many prominent mainstream media outlets. Currently, he focuses his time writing auto history books, reviewing cars, and blogging about cars+ for his website EricPetersAutos.com.
Editor’s Note: The thoughts and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the National Motorists Association.
