U.S. Infrastructure Bill will require car manufacturers to implement Drunk and Driving Impaired technology within the decade

[Morrison71]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text

(Examples A, B, and C are the listed options manufacturers are expected to use

Given timetable: (2024 earliest theoretical, 2028 latest without delays)

SPOILER

The Washington Post article on the legislation dives into some further possibilities these options present, with new upcoming tech that's being researched:

Many states already require breathalyzer interlocks for drunken-driving offenders, but experts expect the approach implemented under the mandate in the bill would be different. "It's entirely passive," Otte said. "For those being safe, it won't change the relationship with their car in any way."

NHTSA has been working with the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS), an industry group, since 2008 on systems to discretely detect alcohol on drivers' breaths or in their blood. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety project has been testing sensors in recent years, including with a Virginia transportation company, and hopes to have a road-ready approach by 2024.
Click to shrink...

To already established technology, and the downsides involved:

Another option would be to rely on cameras that monitor drivers for signs they are impaired, building on systems that automakers are using to ensure people relying on driver assistance technologies don't lose concentration.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, another industry group, has said it favors the blood or breath sensors, raising concerns in a January letter to NHTSA that a camera-based system would not be reliable enough and could provoke a backlash among car owners.

"New technologies, especially those intended to provide a safety benefit, are subject to much scrutiny," wrote Scott Schmidt, the organization's vice president for safety policy. "When such technologies impact the autonomy of the driver, they require broad public acceptance."
Click to shrink...

John Bozzella, the chief executive of the alliance, said in a statement Tuesday he appreciated that the bill gave regulators the flexibility to assess the best technological solution.

Schmidt pointed to the 1970s, when safety regulators required that cars not start if drivers weren't wearing seat belts. It was so unpopular that Congress quickly outlawed the approach.

Rob Strassburger, chief executive of ACTS, said that experience serves as a cautionary one for his team, which has been seeking to ensure consumers will accept anti-drunk driving technology. The group says its research indicates about three-quarters of drivers are on board.
Click to shrink...

 

[NoleATL]

Good luck getting any of that into my 2007 FX35 that I'm gonna drive until it dies... not that I drive drunk. Uber is the way.

 

[HawkeyeShawn]

I’m actually surprised this hasn’t happened already.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

What is the false positive rate on this passive technology though? In order for me to be ok with it, it would have to be basically zero. I mean even 99.9% accurate is not good enough. Everyone takes hundreds of trips big and small (mostly small) per year and statistically it's likely to happen to you once every 1 thousand trips.

Would suck if you are trying to get to someplace important to have your vehicle suddenly decide you are drunk (when you arn't).

I hate drunk driving with a passion and I think drunk drivers who don't even hurt anyone should be sentenced to similar prison stays as a rapist. But I'm not too keen on putting this into cars unless the false positive rate is at least down to 1 in 30 million. (I am basing that on the likely-hood of a person dying on a commercial flight due to a crash or accident.)

 

[BioHawk]

This will become an afterthought if autonomous cars ever actually become a thing.

 

[seminole97]

This is why GM isn’t going to sell their $9,000 Zhengtu truck in the U.S.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

This will become an afterthought if autonomous cars ever actually become a thing.

Might be, but I go back and forth.

I think a big deal will be how it plays out legally speaking. What I mean is statistically speaking accidents are just going to happen, no getting around that. It could be way safer than even the safest human drivers and it's still likely to happen.

When they do happen is the company that does the software that drives these cars going to be held liable for every single accident that happens?

 

[BioHawk]

Might be, but I go back and forth.

I think a big deal will be how it plays out legally speaking. What I mean is statistically speaking accidents are just going to happen, no getting around that. It could be way safer than even the safest human drivers and it's still likely to happen.

When they do happen is the company that does the software that drives these cars going to be held liable for every single accident that happens?

That's what's keeping it from happening right now. The technology is there to do it, at least at the commercial level but I can't imagine that it would take much to make it cheap enough to put in every car. But until those legal issues are worked out, it won't happen. There's just too many liability questions that need to be answered.

 

[win4jj]

Their is no way it would work. The technical glitches alone would be a nightmare.

 

[Joes Place]

What is the false positive rate on this passive technology though? In order for me to be ok with it, it would have to be basically zero. I mean even 99.9% accurate is not good enough. Everyone takes hundreds of trips big and small (mostly small) per year and statistically it's likely to happen to you once every 1 thousand trips.

Would suck if you are trying to get to someplace important to have your vehicle suddenly decide you are drunk (when you arn't).

I hate drunk driving with a passion and I think drunk drivers who don't even hurt anyone should be sentenced to similar prison stays as a rapist. But I'm not too keen on putting this into cars unless the false positive rate is at least down to 1 in 30 million. (I am basing that on the likely-hood of a person dying on a commercial flight due to a crash or accident.)

"I'm Sorry Dave....I Can't Do That. You Seem A Little Tipsy Right Now."

 

[The Tradition]

Guess I'll be buying used.

 

[onlyTheObvious]

I would be fine with some kind of device that would alert you. Be a great feature to an Apple Watch it it’s possible to get accuracy in that format.

I kind of assume I am fine with two beers at a meal but I have no idea.

 

[Joes Place]

I would be fine with some kind of device that would alert you. Be a great feature to an Apple Watch it it’s possible to get accuracy in that format.

I kind of assume I am fine with two beers at a meal but I have no idea.

The thing with most of these "sensor" technologies, is you need to establish a solid "baseline" for a person to get reasonably accurate readings (for most all stuff).

So, "train" your car only after you've had a couple beers, and you can build in some "buffer" for those after-work happy hour stints....

 

[LuciousBDragon]

Why don’t they just make the lanes a little wider and the roads a little more curvy and everything would be fine.