Separate the three fights
| System | What it is | Campaign demand |
|---|---|---|
| Federal impaired-driving technology | Unfinished rulemaking on passive monitoring or passive alcohol detection that can prevent or limit operation. | No mandate without independent accuracy proof, privacy limits, cybersecurity audits, appeal rights, and local-first processing. |
| Stolen-vehicle assistance | Service-assisted locating, slowing, or restart blocking after police workflow and specific conditions. | Owner consent, clear statutory limits, logs, audits, and no expansion into general police stopping power. |
| Lender starter-interrupt devices | Finance or repossession devices that can locate a vehicle or prevent restart. | Ban unsafe and coercive use. No disablement while occupied, in motion, in dangerous conditions, or needed for work, medical care, caregiving, or child transport. |
Model remote-disable limits
- No remote immobilization by any non-owner except under a court order, owner-authorized stolen-vehicle recovery, or immediate emergency standard.
- No creditor or repossession disablement while a person is in the vehicle, while the vehicle is moving, or where the driver is likely to be stranded.
- No remote disablement that blocks access to medical care, employment, caregiving, child transport, or disability-related mobility.
- Every remote-control event must be logged, auditable, and available to the owner on request.
- Any automated impairment-blocking system must have immediate human override, error reporting, and compensation for wrongful blocks.
The strongest argument
This is not about defending drunk driving or stolen vehicles. It is about stopping systems that can wrongly block sober people, strand workers and families, or become a general control layer over private movement.