EricL

California bill mandates remote-control kill switch on new cars


(YOU WILL LOVE THIS ONE FOLKS....)

Government Miscellaneous Keywords: CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILES KILL SWITCH
Source: California Bill
Author: Senator Speier
Posted on 09/13/2000 10:06:34 PDT by bokonon

BILL NUMBER: SB 2004 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 4, 2000
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 12, 2000

INTRODUCED BY Senator Speier

FEBRUARY 25, 2000

An act to amend Section 3053 of, and to add Sections 417.10,
1203.1p, and 13519.10 to, the Penal Code, and to amend Section
40000.15 of, and to add Sections 493, 2419.5, 4000.5, 4000.6, and
27010 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 2004, as amended, Speier. Safety track
Pursuit intervention termination management system.
(1) Existing law provides for the duties and responsibilities of
the Department of the California Highway Patrol.
This bill would require the department to certify that a
manufacturer or the manufacturer's designee of any safety
track pursuit intervention termination management
system, as defined, offered for sale in the state complies with
performance standards, as prescribed.
(2) Existing law does not require that vehicles offered for sale
in this state have a safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system installed.
This bill would impose that requirement on new motor vehicles on
and after January 1, 2005, and on all vehicles required to be
registered in the state on and after January 1, 2008. The bill would
authorize the department to grant waivers from the installation
requirement, as specified.
(3) Existing law provides for certain equipment requirements for
motor vehicles and provides penalties for violations of those
requirements.
This bill would make it a misdemeanor, thereby imposing a
state-mandated local program, for any owner of a motor vehicle that
is required to install a functioning safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system to fail
to maintain that system in accordance with the manufacturer's
specification.
This bill would prohibit any person from removing, bypassing, or
tampering with a safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system. The bill would
make a violation of this prohibitions a crime, thereby imposing a
state-mandated local program.
(4) Existing law provides for various crimes in the Penal Code.
This bill would make it a crime for a person who is not certified
as described in (7) or is not an employee of a certified manufacturer
or manufacturer's designee to render a motor vehicle inoperable by
activating a safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system or a component of
that system. The bill would also make it a crime for every person to
render a motor vehicle inoperable by activating a safety
track pursuit intervention termination management
system or a component of that system in the course of the
commission of a separate public offense. The bill would make it a
crime for every person who is not certified to activate a
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system or a component of that system.
(5) Existing law allows courts to grant probation to persons
convicted of public offenses, except as specified.
This bill would specifically allow a court in granting probation
to a defendant to require that defendant to have any motor vehicle
operated by that defendant to have a functioning safety
track pursuit intervention termination management
system and would authorize inspection of the system.
(6) Under existing law, the Board of Prison Terms, upon granting
any parole to any prisoner, is allowed to impose on the parole any
conditions that the court deems proper.
This bill would specifically allow the board to impose as a
condition of parole that a prisoner granted parole operate only motor
vehicles that have a functioning safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system and
would authorize inspection of the system and activation in specified
situations.
(7) Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training to develop certain courses and training
programs and, in connection with those programs, to issue
certificates upon completion of a program.
This would require each member of the Department of the California
Highway Patrol and each peace officer of a city police department or
sheriff's department to complete a described course and receive
certification from the commission regarding PITMS
pursuit intervention termination management system . The
bill would require the training to include relevant laws, potential
liability, and techniques. The bill would require the training
course to consist of a minimum of 4 hours and to include instruction
in accordance with the system's manufacturer's specifications. The
bill would require the commission to consult with the department and
a manufacturer in the development of the instruction, and to include
specific areas of concentration.
Because this bill would impose additional duties on local law
enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
(8) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund
to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide
and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed
$1,000,000.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that,
if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains
costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall
be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 417.10 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
417.10. (a) (1) Every person who renders a motor vehicle
inoperable by activating a safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system or a
component of that system is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by
confinement in the county jail for up to 60 days.
(2) This subdivision does not apply to a peace officer who is
certified under Section 13519.10 or is not an employee of a
manufacturer or manufacturer's designee certified under subdivision
(b) of Section 2419.5 of the Vehicle Code and is acting within the
course of his or her employment.
(b) (1) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), every person
who renders a motor vehicle inoperable by activating a
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system or a component of that system in the course
of the commission of a separate public offense is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(B) Every person committing an offense as set forth in
subparagraph (A), which that results in
great bodily injury or death of any person is guilty of a felony.
(2) The offense described in paragraph (1) shall be in addition to
the underlying public offense described in paragraph (1).
(c) Every person who is not certified pursuant to Section
13519.10 or is not an employee of a manufacturer or manufacturer's
designee certified under subdivision (b) of Section 2419.5 of the
Vehicle Code and who activates a safety track system or a component
of that Section 13519.10 and who activates a pursuit
intervention management system or a component of that system is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in the county jail
for up to 30 days.
(d) As used in this section, " safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system" has
the same meaning as that term is defined in Section 493 of the
Vehicle Code.
SEC. 2. Section 1203.1p is added to the Penal Code, to read:
1203.1p. (a) If a defendant is convicted of an offense and the
defendant is granted probation, the court may order that any motor
vehicle operated by that person have a functioning safety
track pursuit intervention termination management
system as defined in Section 493 of the Vehicle Code.
(b) A court may order that a safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system required to
be installed under subdivision (a) be regularly inspected and
maintained.
SEC. 3. Section 3053 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
3053. (a) The Board of Prison Terms upon granting any parole to
any prisoner may also impose on the parole any conditions that it may
deem proper.
(b) (1) The Board of Prison Terms may impose as a condition of
parole that any prisoner granted parole undergo an examination or
test for tuberculosis when the board reasonably suspects that the
parolee has, has had, or has been exposed to, tuberculosis in an
infectious stage.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, an "examination or test for
tuberculosis" means testing and followup examinations or treatment
according to the Centers for Disease Control and American Thoracic
Society recommendations in effect at the time of the initial
examination.
(c) The Board of Prison Terms may impose as a condition of parole
that a prisoner granted parole operate only motor vehicles that have
functioning safety track system pursuit
intervention termination management systems , as defined in
Section 493 of the Vehicle Code.
(d) The Board of Prison Terms may order that a safety
track system required to be install under subdivision (c)
pursuit intervention termination management system required to
be installed under subdivision (c) be regularly inspected and
maintained.
(e) A device installed under subdivision (c) may be activated to
prevent or terminate the pursuit of a parolee in violation of any
condition of his or her parole.
SEC. 4. Section 13519.10 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
13519.10. (a) (1) Each member of the Department of the California
Highway Patrol and peace officer of a city police department or
sheriff's department using equipment designed to activate a
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system shall complete a course, as described in this
subdivision, which is certified by the commission.
(2) The training shall include, but is not limited to, relevant
laws, potential liability, and techniques regarding the use of the
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system, as defined in Section 493 of the Vehicle
Code. The training course shall consist of a minimum of four hours
of instruction, and shall include instruction in accordance with the
specifications of all manufacturers certified pursuant to Section
2419.5 of the Vehicle Code. The commission shall consult with the
Department of the California Highway Patrol and a manufacturer
certified pursuant to Section 2419.5 of the Vehicle Code in the
development of the instruction, and shall include all of the
following practical areas of concentration:
(A) High-speed avoidance laser technology capabilities and
limitations.
(B) Terminating the pursuit with lasers.
(C) Practical safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system demonstration and
use, including, but not limited to, the user's demonstration of
proficiency with the hand held activation device and experience
operating a vehicle in which a safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system has been
activated.
(D) Laser or electronic technology utilization and agency policy.
(E) Laser or electronic technology and air support.
(b) For the initial group of peace officers certified under this
section, the training and certification described in subdivision (a)
shall be completed on or before July 1, 2004.
SEC. 5. Section 493 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
493. (a) A safety track system "pursuit
intervention termination management system" is a system that
meets the performance standards set forth in subdivision (b), and
consists of both of the following components:
(1) An electronic or electromechanical device, including, but not
limited to, one or more computer chips that are installed either in,
or functions in conjunction with, an automobile's onboard electronics
system or fuel system, or both the electronics system and fuel
systems.
(2) One or more devices that may remotely activate the
device only be remotely activated by a peace officer
and is installed in the vehicle, and that uses an encrypted
electronic or laser signal to activate the device installed in the
vehicle.
(b) Any device described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision
(a) shall meet or exceed all of the following performance standards:

(1) The device installed in the vehicle shall, at a minimum,
respond to both an encrypted electronic or laser signal from a remote
activation device made by any company.
(2) The device installed in the vehicle shall be capable of
providing the location of the vehicle in which it is installed, but
only with the permission of the owner, and only through the use of a
personal identification number or similar secure identifying
technology.
(3)
(2) A remote activation device shall be equipped with at
least one fail-safe and anti-theft technology that renders the device
inoperable in the hands of a person who is not qualified to use the
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system pursuant to Section 13519.10 of the Penal
Code , or who is not qualified, through a contract with the
vehicle owner, to activate the safety track system with the
permission of the owner under the terms of the contract.
(4) .
(3) The two devices described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subdivision (a), when operated together, shall be able to reduce the
speed of a vehicle by controlling the flow of fuel or the ignition of
an engine, or both the flow of fuel and the ignition of the engine.

(5)
(4) Any vehicle rendered inoperable by the activation of the
system shall be equipped to automatically become operable within 20
minutes from the activation.
(6)
(5) A remote activation device may be portable or
stationary.
(7)
(6) A remote activation device shall be sufficiently
accurate so as to activate the device installed in the targeted
vehicle, and leave unaffected any vehicle within a one-half mile
radius of the target vehicle.
(8) A safety track system shall be tamper resistant.
(9) Any safety track system shall not be disruptive to

(7) A pursuit intervention termination management system shall be
tamper resistant.
(8) Any pursuit intervention termination management system shall
not be disruptive to medical devices, aircraft systems, radio
communications, or television signals and shall comply with
any applicable standards all applicable manufacturing
standards for motor vehicles as prescribed by the United States
government.
SEC. 6. Section 2419.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
2419.5. A manufacturer or manufacturer's designee shall obtain
certification from the department prior to offering a safety
track pursuit intervention termination management
system for sale in the state. The department shall certify
each manufacturer or manufacturer's designee that produces a
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system that is in compliance with the standards set
forth in Section 493.
SEC. 7. Section 4000.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
4000.5. (a) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (b), on and
after January 1, 2005, every manufacturer or importer of new motor
vehicles for sale or lease in this state shall equip the vehicle with
a safety track system or offer a safety track system
pursuit intervention termination management system or
offer a pursuit intervention termination management system as
an option for purchase.
(2) On and after January 1, 2008, all vehicles that are required
to be registered for operation in this state shall have a
functioning, certified safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system installed in the
vehicle.
(b) (1) The Department of the California Highway Patrol may waive
the requirements set forth in subdivision (a) for any vehicle or
class of vehicle identified by the Department of the California
Highway Patrol for any of the following reasons:
(A) The vehicle or class of vehicles consists of authorized
emergency vehicles.
(B) Mechanical limitations of the vehicle or class of vehicles.
(C) Health or safety concerns related to the use of the
safety track equipment. pursuit intervention
termination management system equipment.
(D) Lack of multiple manufacturers of safety track
pursuit intervention termination management
systems for the vehicle or class of vehicles.
(E) To comply with any federal law or regulation that is
inconsistent with the installation of a safety track
pursuit intervention termination management
system.
(2) Any waiver granted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be
consistent with the objectives of reducing vehicle theft and the need
for high-speed vehicle pursuits by law enforcement.
(3) For any waiver granted pursuant to paragraph (1), the vehicle
or class of vehicle shall be defined by regulation by the Department
of the California Highway Patrol and shall be consistent with the
objectives of reducing vehicle theft and the need for high-speed
vehicle pursuits by law enforcement.
SEC. 8. Section 4000.6 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
4000.6. Upon demand of a peace officer, every person who drives a
motor vehicle that is subject to a safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system
requirement under any provision of law shall allow an inspection of
the safety track pursuit intervention
termination management system to determine that it is installed
and functioning properly.
SEC. 9. Section 27010 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
27010. (a) No owner or other person shall remove, bypass, or
tamper with a safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system installed in a
vehicle with the intent to interfere with the proper functioning of
the system.
(b) Any person who violates this section is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by confinement in the county jail for six
months or a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine
and confinement.
SEC. 10. Section 40000.15 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

40000.15. A violation of any of the following provisions shall
constitute a misdemeanor, and not an infraction:
Sections 23103 and 23104, relating to reckless driving.
Section 23109, relating to speed contests or exhibitions.
Subdivision (a) of Section 23110, relating to throwing at
vehicles.
Section 23152, relating to driving under the influence.
Subdivision (b) of Section 23222, relating to possession of
marijuana.
Subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 23224, relating to persons under
21 years of age knowingly driving, or being a passenger in, a motor
vehicle carrying any alcoholic beverage.
Section 23253, relating to officers on vehicular crossings.
Section 23332, relating to trespassing.
Section 24011.3, relating to vehicle bumper strength notices.
Section 27010, relating to safety track systems.
pursuit intervention termination management systems.

Section 27150.1, relating to sale of exhaust systems.
Section 27362, relating to child passenger seat restraints.
Section 28050, relating to true mileage driven.
Section 28050.5, relating to nonfunctional odometers.
Section 28051, relating to resetting odometers.
Section 28051.5, relating to devices to reset odometers.
Subdivision (d) of Section 28150, relating to possessing four or
more jamming devices.
SEC. 11. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for certain
costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district
because in that regard this act creates a new crime or infraction,
eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime
or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government
Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of
Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
However, notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains
other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies
and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for
reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000),
reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI

• Mud guards
• Wheel locks
• Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (50 lbs less than stock)
• Comptech headers & sways
• Silver AEM CAI
• 12 coats of Zaino magic
• Stainless Brake lines coming (Brembos?)
• V1 planned

EricL

BTW -- here is the link (safety NAZIs)

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bfb41a7211.htm


Pretty soon they are going to make us wear bubble suits so we can't hurt ourselves if we fall

And maybe, they will try to get us to wear electro-shock chase collars, in case they want to chase us on foot. Just the fashion (fascist)item for the new millennium!

The term "to die for" will convey a whole new meaning!



------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI

• Mud guards
• Wheel locks
• Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (50 lbs less than stock)
• Comptech headers & sways
• Silver AEM CAI
• 12 coats of Zaino magic
• Stainless Brake lines coming (Brembos?)
• V1 planned

NOVAwhiteTypeS

Don't feel like reading all that , and I'm not that good at reading long documents, I usually get lost.

Can someone sum it up in 3 sentences.

Thanx

------------------
CL-S
White/Ebony/Navi/Spoiler/Visor/Full Bra/Mud Guards/Acura Car Cover/Tint 20%,35%,5% on Sun Roof, Rockford 250a2 Amp w/JL10w6 / K&N Drop in Filter.Polarg m-6.
Comptech Headers,Springs,Sways, Eurolite Xenon Crystal high beams.Polarg m6


gtech 0-60 6.03 w/ 438 pound load. preheader.

amir was here

yes please, 2 sentences would be even better.

------------------
2001 CL-S
Black/Black
Moonroof Visor
35% Tint All Around
Black Wood Dash Kit
Sportswing spoiler
My Bitch
aka Deadly-CLs

"I come for the Car Talk, but stay for the Ramblings"
MOD @ WWW.POSTWHORES.COM

Sypher

It looks like California is going to force people to have remote cut-off switches on their cars. All new cars sold after 1/1/2005 in CA will need them, and then ALL cars in CA will be required to have them by 1/1/2008. Only cops will be allowed to use them. Anyone else who turns off a car with the remote switch will face misdemeanor charges, and if they do it and kill or greatly injure someone, felony charges.

Heh. Maybe we can get our enemies to put these in their tanks and other military vehicles. Then, we can just turn them off in the middle of battle.

Man, if this isn't a new technology waiting to be abused, I don't know what is.



------------------
Sypher (www.sypher.com)
'01 Black CL Type-S
Valentine-1

saabman4ever

People's Republic of Californina at it again.

What next, cut-off switches in your house? The utility company will be able to turn off your lights if they think you're using too much electricity.

------------------
2001 SAAB 9-3SE HOT

Saabman: Unreasonably biased against voices of reason.

shockboltthrower

shouldn't californians be worrying about more important things, like how the hell they are going to keep from falling into the ocean when the big one strikes?

------------------
Silver CL-S

[This message has been edited by shockboltthrower (edited 06-15-2001).]

Type S Smokes All

i hate this bs

------------------
Nick
01' Cl-S Silver/ Black W/ Navi and Spoiler
V-1 Radar Hard Wired, Limo Tint all around
Comptech Headers, Sways, Springs, and AEM CAI
I've got one of the CLS's from the fast batch.
Lead Foot!

Scorpius

You Calffornia people elected those morons... you deal with it.
If the cops have such a kill device so can anyone... I would disable it as soon as the car came off the showroom floor. Whats to stop a car theif from disabling the car and towing it away with my in the goddamn trunk?
CA gets what it deserves. Next time vote Republican.

------------------
Red 3.2 CL-S.
"Life is too short not to be Italian." -Paul Sorvino
"How do you expect your date to turn over if your engine doesn't?" -Original
Proud member of "I didn't hit the curb like a dope and scratch my rims" club.

nootch

Tell us how you really feel...



------------------
Looks like I am going to have to carjack my CL-S

Scorpius

Call this bitch! Tell her you think the bill sucks more ass than Elton John!
http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/speier/

------------------
Red 3.2 CL-S.
"Life is too short not to be Italian." -Paul Sorvino
"How do you expect your date to turn over if your engine doesn't?" -Original
Proud member of "I didn't hit the curb like a dope and scratch my rims" club.

Mike

I did vote republican...

'sides if they is put into law your state will be in line to adopt it so it so you should be concerned as well.

Scorpius

I am concerned... More so than you, because PA is a more liberal state than CA. But I don't live in CA. you have to call that moron up, and tell them this bill sucks. I'm emailing Bill O-reilley right now... I might even send in a snail mail or two.

------------------
Red 3.2 CL-S.
"Life is too short not to be Italian." -Paul Sorvino
"How do you expect your date to turn over if your engine doesn't?" -Original
Proud member of "I didn't hit the curb like a dope and scratch my rims" club.

Tom2

Here's why this is a stupid bill:

If the main purpose of a "kill" switch is to enable the police to stop a car during a chase, then why wouldn't people disable the kill switch?

Yes, it may be against the law to disable it, but how the hell would anyone know that you disabled it, unless you were involved in a high speed chase with the police and they COULDN'T stop your car? (In which case you would ALREADY be in big trouble with the law anyway?)

In my opinion, you'd have NOTHING to lose by disabling you "kill switch"

Pretty stupid bill, huh?

------------------
99 M3
dead CL-S

Tom2: The Voice Of Reason and Captain of the Bullshit Police.

Mike

They'd check it during the smog inspection for sure. But you could disable it again after that...
who the heck thinks up these stupid things??

GoldTypeS_RENAMED

Glad to see partisan politics is still alive.

You know, maybe this has SOMETHING to do with the fact that there's a freakin' chase about every other day in CA. But it's much easier to blame a political party. Don't get me wrong, I think this bill is as stupid as it can be, but one of these days we're gonna learn to stop all the Republican vs Democrat BULLSHIT!

Scorpius

Or... thay could have two signals. Both emitted from a police cruiser. One that checks the status of the device, the other to disable it. Not very difficult with today's technology. How many miles can one of those Ghz phones go? We're not talking about a complex signal either... Just a simple one or zero.
But... fi the officer doesn't get a response fromt he device he might think he missed...
Who knows. The bill sucks. You California people better start paying attention to this stuff!

------------------
Red 3.2 CL-S.
"Life is too short not to be Italian." -Paul Sorvino
"How do you expect your date to turn over if your engine doesn't?" -Original
Proud member of "I didn't hit the curb like a dope and scratch my rims" club.

Tom2

No matter what they might decide to do, there will still ALWAYS be an easy way around it.

Besides, could you imagine the public uproar if people started getting fined for having a disabled kill switch? If it was legitimately disabled, then how would anyone know that it wasn't working?

This is kinda like the big handgun controversy-

Ban handguns and only criminals will have guns. Duh!



------------------
99 M3
dead CL-S

Tom2: The Voice Of Reason and Captain of the Bullshit Police.

EricL

Yes, as if criminals wont have boxes to turn off the cars and kill people as they sit helplessly in their cars.

The wrong stuff ALWAYS will find its way into the wrong hands.

The expression, "The Road to Legislative Hell is Paved with Lame Intentions"

As usual, they can claim that they will be saving lives, by ending police chases.

However, I see our liberties being encroached on. So, the next step, is a "On board speeding monitor". Then, they put it a transponder to report and auto disable the car if it goes over a certain speed.

At one points this numb-nuts wanted to hook up monitoring software on driving habits into the new OBDII systems. Hmmm... "You're in for your tune up... By the Way, we issued an arrest summons, since the computer had you doing 105 MPH at LAT xx,xx,xx, LON xx,xx,xx which is a public highway.

Yes, it does remind me of the gun stuff...




------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI

• Mud guards
• Wheel locks
• Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (50 lbs less than stock)
• Comptech headers & sways
• Silver AEM CAI
• 12 coats of Zaino magic
• Stainless Brake lines coming (Brembos?)
• V1 planned

kensteele

Hehe, not even. We don't need those here in Kansas.


------------------
* 2001 Acura CL Type S * Blk/Blk * Navigator * Spoiler * Moonroof Visor * V1 *
* Since 3/31/2000 *
* Road Warrior *

EricL

Scorpius, I sent her a quote of your statement (just kidding).

However, I did send her a letter about the items discussed here. It may just get the usual auto-response mailer, but it is better than nothing.

If this thing goes through, I'm contributing money to her opponent!




------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI

• Mud guards
• Wheel locks
• Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (50 lbs less than stock)
• Comptech headers & sways
• Silver AEM CAI
• 12 coats of Zaino magic
• Stainless Brake lines coming (Brembos?)
• V1 planned

DtEW

Some of you are missing the true intent of the bill.

The primary intent isn't to stop a traffic offender, since few traffic offenders flee from police; the risk to his future and his vehicle greatly outweighs the potential gain from flight.

Understand that the majority of police vehicular pursuits happen when a policeman IDs a car that has been reported as stolen. The intent is to stop a GTA suspect, who otherwise has little incentive to stop, being that his potential gains from flight outweighs the risks to his future (what future?), your car and your family members on the road.

Of course, some of you have correctly noted this this bill is broadly (read: badly) phrased and quite ripe for police abuse beyond the scope of truly dangerous police pursuits.

------------------
051/LP/SR/LD/HH
Potenza S-02 Pole Position

The Reasonable Voice of Bias

vince

Here's a thought: Let's all register our cars in Nevada.

Here's an even better thought: Let's get the hell out of this state.

This will never be successful, people would never stand for it.

EricL

AS you said, it is where the bill can take us, and the bill is written so badly, that the abuses are endless.

I am almost tempted to post the letter contents I sent, but I'll spare you guys. However, there is an auto-response that does indicate that if the bill is from Constituents or it the e-mail is regarding an initiative by the Senator, then she will respond to the e-mail.

Here is the response, it has info so potential constituents that are on this forum (or lurk here) can send her an e-mail:


"Thank you very much for taking the time to express your views to me. I hope you continue to keep me informed of your positions on issues. If your e-mail necessitates a response you will be hearing from me. However, due to the large quantity of email I receive daily, I can only
guarantee a response to people living in my district or those with questions or comments on my legislation. Regardless, I do read my
email and appreciate your comments. Please include your mailing address so I may respond to you by mail. If you would like to keep track of my legislation, you may visit my web page at www.sen.ca.gov/speier.
If, for any reason, you require immediate assistance, please contact
either my San Mateo District Office at (650) 340-8840 or my San Francisco District Office at (415) 557-7857.
Thank you again for your email.

All the best,
Jackie Speier
State Senator
8th District"

Does anyone live in her district on the forum?

How long do you think it will take some miscreant to figure out the codes to stop the car and use it to endanger your family? If people can get cards for cracking the Digital TV stuff, how hard will it be to get or hack into the system to "wack" your vehicle. Can you say easy armed robbery and hijack? Or terrorist field day? These comments only cover the sociopaths...

What about government abuses -- Every governmental system that has gotten started, gets going and keeps going. This is an open door that needs to be shut.

Finally, for all of you out there that are having a laugh at us poor Californian's -- do think about the following. CARB was started by California, and now a number of states look to CARB to determine their own smog regulations and exemptions. In the past, a number of states have used California as a example for their own legislation. Let this one get on the books, and other states will follow.

Please contact your state senate representative and make some noise -- they do love to get e-mails from people who promise to contribute to someone else next time!




------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI

• Mud guards
• Wheel locks
• Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (50 lbs less than stock)
• Comptech headers & sways
• Silver AEM CAI
• 12 coats of Zaino magic
• Stainless Brake lines coming (Brembos?)
• V1 planned

z28typeSWRXkid

I cant see how in hell putting kill switches in cars will stop GTA. Im sure if they have the brains to steal a car then they will know how to stop the kill switch. The californian government pisses me off to no end...damn tree huggers.

Dyno_CL-S

i dont like the bill and i think it will not pass

whats scares me is other states starting to jump on the band wagon and pass their own bills. look @ vehicle inspection, it didnt start here in FLA but we eventually ended up with that crap. the stone thrown lands in one spot in the lake, but the ripples are felt elsewhere.

------------------
Future "bucket": 96-99 GST/GSX or 93-99 Prelude w/ bolt on turbo
Previous ride: '01 CL-S, Black, dropped 2 in....couldn't make da payments

Tom2

Yeah, buy the inspection of vehicles is definitely NEEDED. There are too many morons on the road with no idea about tires/brakes/vehicle safety.



------------------
99 M3
dead CL-S

Tom2: The Voice Of Reason and Captain of the Bullshit Police.

Scorpius

I'm not even worried abotu government/police abuses. I saw on some show a year or two back, some CA police deprtment upgraded the computers in the cruisers. They ripped out the old ones and threw them in a dumpster. Well, some people crawled in there took those computers hooked them up and actually had access to police information. You knwo when they run a plate and do all that crap. The cruiser has a link to the DOT database... etc. For whatever reason the system had no security and didn't keep track to the number of terminals connected to the system. So what would happen of those guys sold those old terminals to organized crime, or even drug dealers?
If the police have it, so do criminals. That scares me. I won't stand for it.
Send senator bitch this:
I'm not in her district so there isn't anythign I can do. I did send an email to Bill Oreilly on Foxnews, but he gets a billion messages each day. He won't even see mine.

------------------
Red 3.2 CL-S.
"Life is too short not to be Italian." -Paul Sorvino
"How do you expect your date to turn over if your engine doesn't?" -Original
Proud member of "I didn't hit the curb like a dope and scratch my rims" club.

Dyno_CL-S

they didn't check for that here. all they would check is the exhust pollution. but everybody would pass becuz you would be able to pay off the guy @ the station, $15-20...thats all it toke and you'll pass. we dont have that anymore.



------------------
Future "bucket": 96-99 GST/GSX or 93-99 Prelude w/ bolt on turbo
Previous ride: '01 CL-S, Black, dropped 2 in....couldn't make da payments

KRT-1

I would like to see what would happen if the tried to introduce that bill in TEXAS.

Someone would certainly be without a job next term.

chizad1980

I don't know if I'm right or not, but isn't that infringing(sp?) on our rights. I could fill a whole page with cuss words, and it still wouldn't explain how upset this makes me! Please vote against this bill, because pretty soon, all of the other states will enforce this too. Just another way of "Big Brother" trying to control our lives. Thanks.

------------------
White/Parchment CLS Spoiler,35% Tint, Gold emblems,Mudflaps,Moonroof Visor, Polarg M6

EricL

I am actually circulating this info to car enthusiasts (I know in CA). I hope enough letters and e-mails get sent and/or posted to Senator Speier and other Senators to let them know there are a lot of unhappy voters!


If anyone who sees this, doesn't mind circulating the "basics" of this bill to other forums, that would be great.

TIA


------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI

• Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (50 lbs less than stock)
• Comptech headers & sways
• Silver AEM CAI
• 12 coats of Zaino magic
• Stainless Brake lines coming (Brembos?)
• V1 planned

[This message has been edited by EricL (edited 06-18-2001).]

DtEW

Not really. We have every right to drive whatever and however we want on our own private property, but we have no right to drive on public roads. We are only granted the priviledge if we meet certain requirements, agree to follow certain rules, and use vehicles meeting certain specifications. The government has been vested with power to set such requirements/rules/specifications to achieve a level of public safety that the voters are comfortable with. If restrictions imposed in the name of public safety are too intrusive, the voters will communicate that sentiment. If the voters are comfortable with limiting maximum engine displacement to 0.5 liter and requiring every vehicle be equipped with remote-control-a-tron, that will occur, and it will be no infringement of anyone's rights.

A little twist to this absolute-rule-of-majority is when a requirement/rule/specification has insufficient justification in carrying out the public safety role that has been invested in the gov't. Supposing the gov't (through the mandate of a majority of voters) started requiring Supra-style wings and Altezza-style tailights to be on every street vehicle, it can be argued in a challenge that requirement of such equipment is beyond the scope of what gov't has been vested to do.

------------------
051/LP/SR/LD/HH
Potenza S-02 Pole Position

The Reasonable Voice of Bias

[This message has been edited by DtEW (edited 06-18-2001).]

silverESS

AHHHHHHHH!! now THAT is reely scarey!!!!

------------------
you are not your fukking signature.

Jayru

Hell yeah man, that smog inspection shit sucked ass! I had to run a full tank of gas one day in my bonneville with some additive solution crap JUST TO GET PASSING RESULTS! Thank god they did away with the inspections.



------------------
NightHawk Black 2001 CL-S (AEM Intake, Yellow ION PIAA,35%Tint)

The Debadged Sleeper

oreo

This fuckin sucks. I mean really. first they tell us we can't smoke weed, Then they tell us we can't speed. You can't take away peoples rights to be assholes. see this is how they get you: they slowly introduce the issue. then they take it serious and it comes as a big slap to the face when an issue that has been a joke for the past god knows how long is now getting passed by beaurocrats who only want to brag on shit that they've "fixed". I can't vote so i'm in a bind either way but i hope that whoever thought up/passed this bill gets shot in a drive by shooting in the near future.

------------------
97 Black on Black 2.2CL
limo tint all around
1 alpine 12 in the trunk powered by an mtx amp

pics soon to come.

Dyno_CL-S

the only thing i dont agree with is speeding. yes i do speed but it's not our right to speed, speeding endangers the rights of other people. lets see 65 vs 105 on I-95 + that minivan that didnt see you coming with a family inside on their way to see micky or six flags.....its not fair to them. its the same with drinking and driving.



------------------
Future "bucket": 96-99 GST/GSX or 93-99 Prelude w/ bolt on turbo
Previous ride: '01 CL-S, Black, dropped 2 in....couldn't make da payments

EricL

I need to more looking, but one version of the bill that got sent to me, had a provision to equip ALL OLDER VEHICLES ON transfer of ownership!

I hope that part has gone away, here is the excerpt that a friend sent me back (it may be the original), but you will love this...



"The attached draft legislation is provided to you as an example of legislation currently being proposed in the State of California. It is inevitable that this version will change through the legislative process. If you wish to be kept updated to these changes please E-MAIL US

PURSUIT INTERVENTION TERMINATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

This chapter shall be known as the Pursuit Intervention Termination Management System (PITMS) Act.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This Act establishes a Pursuit Intervention Termination Management System (PITMS).

PITMS is intended to require all new motor vehicles sold in California after July 1, 2001, to be equipped with a high-speed avoidance system capable of disabling and shutting down a vehicle's electrical and fuel delivery system through a remote-generated, law enforcement controlled laser activation device.

PITMS will be required by January 1, 2003, on all used vehicles upon transfer of ownership whomever sold, donated, or given as a gift, and/or when registration is due, or when insurance is due. PITMS will be required on all motorcycles, passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles and watercraft. Emergency response vehicles are not subject to this Act unless departmental policy requires the vehicles to be so.

All California Law enforcement agencies using a PITMS activation device shall train all emergency response field personnel in the use of these devices through the state-approved course.

TRAINING
The Commission of Peace Officers Standards and Training shall develop a training course on the use of Pursuit Intervention Termination Management Systems. The course shall be a minimum of four hours in length. Said training course shall be in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications and approval. The course shall include training in the following areas:

High speed avoidance laser technology capabilities and limitations
Terminating the pursuit with lasers
Liability factors with laser use
Practical Pursuit Intervention Termination System demonstration and use. Users shall demonstrate proficiency with the hand held activation device. Users shall also experience operating a target vehicle during a pursuit intervention episode.
Laser technology utilization and agency policy
Laser technology utilization and air support

This bill would require the course of basic training for law enforcement officers no later than January 1, 2002.

PENALTIES


Any person who causes the activation of a PITMS system and is not certified as defined by this act is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Any person who causes any vehicle to be rendered inoperable by means of a PITMS system or component and who is not a peace officer as defined in Penal Code Section 830 et seq. is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Any person who causes any vehicle to be rendered inoperable using the PITMS technology in the commission of a crime is guilty of a felony. This felony shall be in addition to the crime in which the PITMS technology was used.
Any person who tampers with or causes a PITMS technology system or component to become disabled by any means shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.


CALIBRATION
All PITMS devices used by law enforcement shall be calibrated and certified by the manufacturer once every three years. This certification shall be recorded by the manufacturer and archived for a period of time not to exceed four years. A copy of certification shall be provided to the law enforcement agency within ten working days of calibration.
All vehicles using the PITMS technology shall be tested every three years to insure that the system is operating in the manner prescribed by the manufacturer.

COURT ORDERED USAGE
Any court after a plea, finding or verdict or after a finding or verdict against the defendant may require the defendant to install an approved PITMS device onto any and all vehicles owned or operated by such defendant as a condition of probation.

PAROLEES
The Board of Prison Terms shall have the power to impose on any State parolee the duty and condition of parole to install in any motor vehicle he/she shall own or operate, an approved PITMS device. Said device shall be maintained by the parolee in working order as specified by the manufacturer.

TECHNICAL ISSUES
Each remote activation device shall be equipped with at least one fail safe/anti theft technology that renders the device inoperable in the hands of an unauthorized person.

Any vehicle rendered inoperable by law enforcement under this section shall be equipped to automatically become operable within 20 minutes from the most recent stop. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent law enforcement from re-activating the system during a lawful detention.

Each law enforcement termination device shall be accurate enough to be target specific to one singular vehicle at a time at any distance up to 1/2 mile.

Any approved PITMS system must be tamper resistant to the level of rendering the vehicle and/or device inoperable.

Any PITMS technology used to inactivate any motor vehicle, motorcycle, or watercraft shall not be disruptive to medical devices, aircraft systems, radio communications, or television.


------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI

• Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (50 lbs less than stock)
• Comptech headers & sways
• Silver AEM CAI
• 12 coats of Zaino magic
• Stainless Brake lines coming (Brembos?)
• V1 planned

[This message has been edited by EricL (edited 06-19-2001).]

EricL

Well, let us just limit cars to 55 mph. This is about responsibility, and if someone in your neighborhood kills someone, do you blow up that neighborhood. (I'm bringing the idea of "scope")

The thing that is scariest of about this bill is the common theme that goes will all of the "do gooder" legislation. They think that by creating a bill, the problem (of GTA, pursuits, and/or speeding will go away).

This feature WILL allow the WRONG people to stop your car, and hurt you. Hackers have already broken most of the "unbreakable" systems out there -- how long do you think it will take to have some "gang" to get a set of units to stop helpless people in some isolated area of the country side or town. Can you say -- "take all you want and the car, just please don't rape me or hurt us... please, please -- take what you want."

This is the stuff of bad movies, but the producer is one of legislators.

How many privileges and liberties must we give up because of the stupidity of others?




------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI

• Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (50 lbs less than stock)
• Comptech headers & sways
• Silver AEM CAI
• 12 coats of Zaino magic
• Stainless Brake lines coming (Brembos?)
• V1 planned

eclipse23

I can see the abuse now, get pulled over for speeding, and while you wait, your car is disabled. I can see the abuse now.

Did you know that while an officer is questioning you for ANYTHING he has the right to handcuff you? Don't believe me? Go look it up.

------------------
01' Acura CL Type-S
Piaa 19169 Bulbs
Valentine1 Pig Detector
Comptech Springs
CompTech Exhaust
Park Ave Acura CAI
SilverKnight Mesh Grill
Custom BASS by <A HREF="http://www.Streeteffectz.com

01'Acura" TARGET=_blank>www.Streeteffectz.com

01'Acura</A> Integra GSR
No Mods yet but just wait......